Assault rifles for self defense

[bripat9643]

Why are you such a suck ass, ******* idiot? I've yet to see anyone here suggest that all guns should be banned.

that's real big of you, **** face, but no one is impressed with your generosity. People who respect the bill of rights don't want any guns banned, especially semi-automatics, which is exactly the kind the sleazy weasels dancing in the blood of dead children like you want to ban.

Is this the dog shit you feed yourself to pretend you have a sensible position? You're ******* disgusting.

As for the NRA, prior to the Cincinnati Revolt, the NRA was for sensible gun laws. Now they're a bunch of fringe loons, who think more guns will solve every problem. LaPierre's current lunacy to shit on the first amendment is about as disgusting as your support.

I love the way morons like you think the First Amendment is absolute but the 2nd Amendment is subject to negotiation.

 

[bripat9643]

If they ban all guns I want the Secret Service not to be able to carry any.

If they ban all guns I want the Capitol Hill Police not to be able to carry them.

Let's make it all even steven.

If joe six pack in America is denied their Second Amendment rights, then all Americans including the President and the Lawmakers have no right to their security forces carrying weapons either.

Fair is fair.

Not many people would take your lunacy seriously.

You're the numskull who thinks getting rid of guns will make people safer, but you aren't willing to take your premise to its logical conclusion. In other words, even you realize it's a stupid premise.

 

[bripat9643]

Ban all guns?

Who on USMB is the OP talking to?

You and the rest anti-gun nuts obviously want to ban semi-automatic weapons. That's the last kind of gun I would be willing to ban.

 

[bripat9643]

In the here and now, I'm more concerned about the fringe loons and their ever increasing firearms as a much greater threat than government.

That's because you're a moron. Dirt bags like you are always saying the idea of citizens using semi-automatic weapons to resist the military is insanity. If that's the case, then the military is obviously a far greater threat.

 

[bripat9643]

Never say never.

One Word.

Waco:

Yep, there are religious suicide cults out there. Nothing new.

They didn't commit suicide, turd. The FBI burned them alive.

 

[bripat9643]

who wants to "ban all guns"?

any more lies you'd like to post?

Most liberals want to ban all guns. However, they lie about it because they know the public will never go for it. Instead they go around saying "you can trust us."

No we can't. Liberals and the government have proven over and over that you can't believe a thing they say, especially the promises they make.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Do you understand WHAT pawns you are?
Every day you idiots that favor BANNING ALL GUNS... make decisions that have been shaped because of advertising.
You idiots are total creatures of classic Pavlovian behavior modification. "Behavior modification" first identified by Pavlov who won the Nobel Prize for physiology in 1904 has been around a long time and you "ban the guns" idiots don't seem to know that!
You make decisions like "ban the guns" based totally on politically driven advertising and media content!

YET you totally discount the role "violence" in movies and video games have triggered especially with totally pliable young minds of 20 years like Lanza! You laugh at the fact these games have molded behavior i.e. like Pavlov's dogs!
YET explain to me why with machine guns available in the early 20th century WHEN there was NOT the violence in Movies and NO video games at that time?

The NRA has been around since 1871... so how come TODAY they are vilified?

The NRA does NOT produce any movies/videos glorifying KILLING people like Tarantino's 'Django Unchained' excessive killings!
Yet the Tarantinos of movie world are glorified AND EVERY ONE of you "ban the gun" idiots support them!!!

Disgusting!!!

Why are you such a suck ass, ******* idiot? I've yet to see anyone here suggest that all guns should be banned. Is this the dog shit you feed yourself to pretend you have a sensible position? You're ******* disgusting.

As for the NRA, prior to the Cincinnati Revolt, the NRA was for sensible gun laws. Now they're a bunch of fringe loons, who think more guns will solve every problem. LaPierre's current lunacy to shit on the first amendment is about as disgusting as your support.

You should look around a little.

 

[bripat9643]

A "real man" would know:

- A .223 bullet, fired from most assault rifles, is just that...a .22 caliber bullet, very small, with extremely high velocity, thus leaving a hole but maybe not stopping the bad guy. **Thats why US troops have complained about it's common lack of stopping power, and many have shifted to the far less common 6.8.

Meaning, it'll go right through the guy, and then through the wall, and possibly hit you and your kid along with the bad guy.

Yep, a .223 fully jacketed NATO approved military round will probably go right through you, but civilians can buy hollow points, and those will stop you cold.

Assault rifles are for long distance, and very high numbers of enemy targets. .45's are for the shithead that breaks into the house.

That isn't the main reason you buy an AR-14. It's just a side benefit. the AR-14s they residents of WACO used did a pretty good job of putting a number of ATF thugs in the ground. That's why you buy an AR-14.

 

[bripat9643]

If this thread was in a history forum about European wars, you'd have a point.

Its not. It was a question about, with our incredibly powerful and noble military, who in my opinion would NEVER turn on it's own people who love them so much.....why would one need a weapon of war? We have no threat of invasion, and no threat of our own military turning on us.

ROFL! The "it can't happen hear" school of thought has been proven wrong time and time again. I once thought socialized medicine would never happen here.

You responded by asking if the German people felt they had nothing to fear from the rising Nazi party.

You implied that current day Americans were similar to 1930's Germans, before their military turned on them and they couldnt fight back.

YOU...just compared our modern day situation to that of the Nazi led German military turning on it's own people.

Yeah. So?

SO......you believe our Marines and soldiers could one day act like the Nazis did? You implied just that, you sick ****.

The soldiers in the German military weren't Nazis. Nevertheless, they occupied Czechoslovakia when ordered to, and they invaded Poland when ordered to. I have no doubt that when some future Obama decides he can run for a third term that the military will do exactly as it is told, including the shooting of american citizens. Hell, they already fired a Hellfire missile at a known American citizen and killed him.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

As I said, from working before as a cop in a very dangerous city in ATL, and just raw crime stats, stuff like what you mentioned is VERY rare. The only times there are 3 or more intruders is almost 99% of the time involving drug dealers robbing each other. I dont deal drugs, so Im not worried about a large group of intruders.

But...lets play. Lets say it did happen. And 4-6 people invaded. And I have a wife and 2 kids in the house.

An AK47 or M4/AR15 bullet will GO THROUGH the person, and the walls. It will penetrate very deeply and, especially on non-hits, will go right through walls. Thus, endangering my wife and kids from MY OWN ROUNDS.

A .45 hollow point wont do that. It expands on impact, by design, and thus making it a far better (and safer) home defense weapon.

I'd love to see some links of families murdered by 4 or more intruders in which the motive was NOT drug dealers being robbed.

It's no skin off my nose if you choose to just sit there and do nothing. I'm glad I married a real man.

A "real man" would know:

- A .223 bullet, fired from most assault rifles, is just that...a .22 caliber bullet, very small, with extremely high velocity, thus leaving a hole but maybe not stopping the bad guy. **Thats why US troops have complained about it's common lack of stopping power, and many have shifted to the far less common 6.8.

Meaning, it'll go right through the guy, and then through the wall, and possibly hit you and your kid along with the bad guy.

- A .45 hollow point is designed to expand and fragment internally after impact, expand internally, and release ALL its power inside the body, rather than penetrate and go through a wall. Its why cops carry those on their belts for close quarter encounters.

So, if your real man fires at intruders with an AR15, and bullet go through the wall and towards you, or your neighbor, or hits the bad guy but doesnt actually stop the guy because of the small bullet/high penetration performance of the .223........well, now you know why.

Assault rifles are for long distance, and very high numbers of enemy targets. .45's are for the shithead that breaks into the house.

The truth is that .223s are less likely to penetrate a wall than a 9mm, not to mention that they are rated between a handgun and a carbine. One would think that someone who has owned guns all his life would know that.

By the way, very few civilians own assault rifles.

 

[bripat9643]

Your theory that people are clueless is incorrect, you were in the military, what did they tell you about the auto/semi setting on your M16? They told you that except for a situation where squad suppressing fire was needed you kept it and used it on semi. In this sense there is no difference between military models and semi only civilian models. Not in favor of banning them but this distinction is much the same as people calling everything left of Limbaugh "communism" a disingenuous redefinition that has nothing to do with accuracy and everything to do with politics. As far as I am concerned any compact rifle with a pistol grip and high capacity magazines delivering rifle ammunition is an assault rifle. Don't like my definition? Don't bother trying to explain why I am wrong because I don't like your definition either.

No one gives a shit about your definition except other scumbag demagogues intent on obfuscating the issue.

 

[boedicca]

The NRA is losing on this one. No one needs 100 round clips to defend their home, nor does a hunter need 100 round clips to bag game.

The assualt rifle is named appropriately. It is used for "Assault." If the NRA wins again with their well paid lobbiest, the school shootings will continue. More kids will die, because the NRA will defend assualt rifles. Their mantra is, "Blame anyone or anything but us."

How Red is your Herring?

Please - provide a comparison between an Assault Rifle and a Non-Assault Rifle?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Assault rifles for self defense -

Real world examples of this happening in the U.S. when the person using the weapon for self defense is -

1. Not acting as a government agent nor using a weapon issued to him/her by the government
2. Not acting as a trained private security guard.
3. Not defending a criminal enterprise.

Any?

I call shenanigans.

I bet you cannot coherently describe what an Assault Rifle is and how it is differentiated from a Non-Assault Rifle.

I can, which is why I know he can't.

 

[bripat9643]

The NRA is losing on this one. No one needs 100 round clips to defend their home, nor does a hunter need 100 round clips to bag game.

The Branch Davidians sure needed 100 round clips to defend their home from the FBI and the ATF, so your claim is wrong on its face.

The assualt rifle is named appropriately. It is used for "Assault." If the NRA wins again with their well paid lobbiest, the school shootings will continue. More kids will die, because the NRA will defend assualt rifles. Their mantra is, "Blame anyone or anything but us."

What the gun haters like you are calling an "assault rifle" is a normal semi-automatic weapon no different in function from a typical hunting rifle, and it has a lot less firepower.

 

[Trajan]

The NRA is losing on this one. No one needs 100 round clips to defend their home, nor does a hunter need 100 round clips to bag game.

The assualt rifle is named appropriately. It is used for "Assault." If the NRA wins again with their well paid lobbiest, the school shootings will continue. More kids will die, because the NRA will defend assualt rifles. Their mantra is, "Blame anyone or anything but us."

I agree, Cali has a 20 rd. mag limit PLUS a bullet button rule for semi auto "assualt" rifles, you have to stop and hit a very small indent , a button with a tool to drop the mag precluding quick Mag. changes, I don't have a problem with either, so, what now?

 

[boedicca]

The NRA is losing on this one. No one needs 100 round clips to defend their home, nor does a hunter need 100 round clips to bag game.

The Branch Davidians sure needed 100 round clips to defend their home from the FBI and the ATF, so your claim is wrong on its face.

The assualt rifle is named appropriately. It is used for "Assault." If the NRA wins again with their well paid lobbiest, the school shootings will continue. More kids will die, because the NRA will defend assualt rifles. Their mantra is, "Blame anyone or anything but us."

What the gun haters like you are calling an "assault rifle" is a normal semi-automatic weapon no different in function from a typical hunting rifle, and it has a lot less firepower.

Don't you know? Assault Rifles have the "thing that flips up on the shoulder" and "high magazine clips"...plus they look really scaaawwwwyyyy.

 

[bayoubill]

here's a tune for Dick Tuck... and anybody else who refuses to see past the ends of their noses...

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=whKFg_TiJ64]Bob Dylan Idiot Wind 1976 Acervo: Cláudio Cruz (Santana de Parnaíba-SP) - YouTube[/ame]

 

[skookerasbil]

The favorite of my collection ( which is small)..............

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s2BvJzqeLp0]Shooting The Mossberg 930 SPX 12ga Shotgun - YouTube[/ame]


Tough to beat it as a zombie killer.

 

[daveman]

If I were to guess... it's fear.
Not that it's a bad thing. But fear or paranoia or the belief of required, increased security, is a relevant topic. It's the knowledge that law enforcement and the military can't be everywhere - we're too big, and those branches are too small to cover everyone in the country. Should, say, China go apeshit and invade, at some point, men and women who aren't military can and will take up their assault rifles and defend themselves.

On the border states, it might be fear that the Mexican drug cartels will push harder into the country. It's a very real and very relevant possibility to those people. I don't blame them for wanting to stock up on guns and ammo.

But for people like me, I don't have such an issue. I have 3 guns, none of which are even semi auto (pump-action, bolt-action, single action), but I personally feel that if it takes me more than 3 shots to kill a home invader, I probably deserve to die.

I have no need for an assault rifle. IMO, you're doing something very wrong if it takes you 30 shots to down a few people, unless you're in the military.

What if four people invade your home and kill your wife and children! Don't let the libtards tell you that doesn't happen cause it does.

That's morally superior than defending yourself and your family with a firearm.

 

[daveman]

I can easily understand why alotta folks think it's inconceivable that our government would ever become so out-of-control repressive that we, as a people, would be driven to the point where we seriously considered taking up arms in rebellion...

but who knows what the political landscape will be, say, 50 years from now...?


I 'spect that the colonial folks in 1726 wouldn't, in their wildest dreams, have been able to imagine that, 50 years hence, their children and grandchildren would rise up in armed insurrection against the Crown...


In the current ongoing debate regarding the 2nd Amendment, it is important to remember it's original purpose...

to remember why the framers thought the right to arms was important enough to insert it in the Bill of Rights, just after the right to speak your mind...

and it is up to us to insure that future generations... our progeny, yours and mine... will still have the protections against the prospect of a tyrannical government afforded by the 2nd Amendment...

Not coincidentally, the same people wanting to restrict gun ownership are the same people that want the government to run their lives.