Who needs an assault rifle?

We are a free state, still. No UK, Canadian nor Costa Rican rule. But as of late, militias do not seem up to the threat level. So we have a military with some badass shit, while militias are kinda moot and none too up-to-speed on drones, RGPs, etc. So as some Supremes suggest, maybe the intent was and should be now to protect hunting (maybe; not really critical to feeding the family, but cool) and self protection.

And I agree. Go fuck up a deer and then bug the shit out of every friend you know to have some fucking deer meat in support of your delusion that it's not about the killing. Have a fucking ball. And indeed, protect yourself from badguys, if luck has it you can see them coming and have time to get the gun. I'm pulling for you. Really I am.

But assault / survival weapons seem like too much. They were created for military and oughta stay that way, in my and most Americans' opinions.

Just a hypothetical for the gun grabbers.

A bad guy broke into my house and, since he didn't obey the law, he had a 30 round magazine in his AR-15. Since I am the good guy and I do obey the law, I only had two ten round magazines, taped together that I can switch in 2 seconds when the first one is empty.

After we exchanged 20 shots each, and missed, I was out of ammo and the bad guy still had 10 rounds. Who won this fight and why?

Oh man, a pop quiz...uh..uh..umm...shit!

The questions were a little difficult for some.
 
Just a hypothetical for the gun grabbers.

A bad guy broke into my house and, since he didn't obey the law, he had a 30 round magazine in his AR-15. Since I am the good guy and I do obey the law, I only had two ten round magazines, taped together that I can switch in 2 seconds when the first one is empty.

After we exchanged 20 shots each, and missed, I was out of ammo and the bad guy still had 10 rounds. Who won this fight and why?

Oh man, a pop quiz...uh..uh..umm...shit!

The questions were a little difficult for some.

Nah; we all picked up on them. None too challenging.

The real bitch was the many answers, which ya'll have ignored and then want to pretend were not answered because, oooh; such a tough question, if you're a fucking vegetable.
 
What difference- or more appropriately what business is it of anyone as to how many, or what kind of firearm I, or any legal law-abiding US citizen may own? Why penalize the law abiding firearms owners who never cause problems over a handful of law-breaking people? Those who use firearms to violate the law are an exceedingly small number of people who unfortunately are typically using weapons illegally obtained. Some high-powered firearms were even provided by currently serving US government officials. Far more people are killed- 30,000 according to government supplied figures- in drunk driving motor vehicle accidents annually yet there is no outcry to ban alcohol consumption, or the manufacturing of automobiles. Far more people are killed in the US and the world via other means than firearms, yet screw drivers, pocket knives, ink pens etc. are not banned. And far more are killed in disarmed England annually than the armed US.

Last time I checked this is still the USA, land of the free. If I want to buy a Ford, nobody has the right to require I buy something else or nothing at all, or how many. But I know of 15 people killed in a Ford branded motor vehicle in Kentucky, May 1987. Further, as long as I do not harm someone else it is none of anyone's business what I do.

Just one point: the bus in the Carrolton County disaster was on a Ford B700 chassis, but was actually built by Superior. Sadly, that was a case of several highly-unlikely factors combining for a tragedy. :(
 

Forum List

Back
Top