Assault rifles for self defense

[saveliberty]

Sort of hard to imagine gun control advocates winning when they refuse to understand what gun they really want to ban.

 

[daveman]

I am a lifetime hunter and shooter and have experience with most types of small arms and other types of arms designed for use by the individual. In the Army i qualified expert with the M-16A1 and 1911A1 pistol both of which I carried in combat in Vietnam. At various times I instructed in their use, acted as armorer, and functioned as the capt. of a small rifle/pistol team. I consider myself very knowlegable about firearms and some other weapons.

The problem with "assault weapons" legislation is there just ain't no such critter except for made up definions that vary widely and none of which make much sense. Why? Because the majority of the people deciding on regulations have no clue what they are talking about. And because of that people that use firarms are scared spitless all kinds of things will end up banned by well meaning but unintentional mistakes in wording or tech. ignorence.

I have used actual assault rifles and-like any other weapon-they have strong points and weak points but they are not "inately" the most lethal type of weapon around. A hunting shotgun will do anything a M-16 will do at closer ranges and the average deer rifle is more powerful and accurate at med. to long ranges.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=9rGpykAX1fo]What is a barrel shroud? - YouTube[/ame]

 

[bigrebnc1775]

I am a lifetime hunter and shooter and have experience with most types of small arms and other types of arms designed for use by the individual. In the Army i qualified expert with the M-16A1 and 1911A1 pistol both of which I carried in combat in Vietnam. At various times I instructed in their use, acted as armorer, and functioned as the capt. of a small rifle/pistol team. I consider myself very knowlegable about firearms and some other weapons.

The problem with "assault weapons" legislation is there just ain't no such critter except for made up definions that vary widely and none of which make much sense. Why? Because the majority of the people deciding on regulations have no clue what they are talking about. And because of that people that use firarms are scared spitless all kinds of things will end up banned by well meaning but unintentional mistakes in wording or tech. ignorence.

I have used actual assault rifles and-like any other weapon-they have strong points and weak points but they are not "inately" the most lethal type of weapon around. A hunting shotgun will do anything a M-16 will do at closer ranges and the average deer rifle is more powerful and accurate at med. to long ranges.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=9rGpykAX1fo]What is a barrel shroud? - YouTube[/ame]

oh and those "large capacity clips"

 

[daveman]

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

that's real big of you, fuck 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 fucking 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.

They think the First is absolute?

Not really.

[email protected]

AttackWatch!!

 

[daveman]

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.

Obviously, then, this isn't an assault rifle:

 

[deltex1]

OOO Poo Pah Doo done Poohed hissef....

 

[Jarlaxle]

yet you still need a license to operate a car. can the same be said about a gun?

I will bet you a trillion trillion dollars a day for a trillion days that you can legally operate a car with no licence.

Shouldn't you at least learn how to spell before you make a "trillion trillion dollar a day for a trillion days" bet?

ROFLMAO at your stupidity.

Yes, I made a typo. Oh, the HORROR!

Get a life, kid.

 

[Jarlaxle]

The moment you call an AR-15 clone (which shoots a pipsqueak .223 round) "high powered", you prove that you have ABSOLUTELY NO CLUE what you are blabbering about and should be ignored.

Don't all AR-15's and the M-16 it's modeled after, shoot .223s?

But you're right, the whole point was to get away from the high-powered .30-06 that made people flinch when pulling the trigger.

Yes, any AR shoots the little .223/5.56mm NATO round. The reason was so soldiers could carry more rounds without carrying more weight. (Not a big factor in a regular rifle, but thye lesser recoil also made a SAW or a lightweight carbine a bit easier to handle.) Which does not change the fact that a .223 is still a pipsqueak round.

 

[Politico]

Stand in front of one and say that again.

 

[Olivia]

Try this one.
Son Uses Dad’s AR-15 To Defend Home
Son Uses Dad’s AR-15 To Defend Home (2010) | Guns Save Lives

You did just ask for one, right? Question answered.

The problem with your answer is that you/they didn't need an assault rifle to do that.

 

[Olivia]

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?

What the fuck is an assault rifle? I was in the Navy for years, and know quite a few people that own guns, and I have never seen one. I bet I could walk into any gun store in this country and not find a single assault rifle for sale, yet people keep complaining about them. Can you provide some type of definition? Are you aware that the Bushmaster that everyone is currently whinging about was not covered by the Public Safety and Recreational use Firearms Protection Act?

Ar 15 bushmaster is one and an ak 47, and yes you can buy one, or two.

 

[daveman]

If it won't fire fully automatic or burst fire, it's not an assault weapon.

End of story.

 

[Olivia]

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.

This is the most ridiculous reply that cannot be proved - I have ever seen. No one would have to ask the Gov. or anyone else to restrict gun ownership - if gun owners took the responsibility for their own weapons. If you are a gun owner - that should be your cause.

 

[Olivia]

If it won't fire fully automatic or burst fire, it's not an assault weapon.

End of story.

LOL A matter of opinion of coarse the both are an assault weapon. What about a colt ar 15? hand gun to you?

 

[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.

This is the most ridiculous reply that cannot be proved - I have ever seen.

Really? Do you want single-payer healthcare?

No one would have to ask the Gov. or anyone else to restrict gun ownership - if gun owners took the responsibility for their own weapons. If you are a gun owner - that should be your cause.

I own one rifle. It's in its case in a closet on one end of the house, unloaded. The ammunition is on a shelf on the other end of the house. My wife and I are both veterans, so we're quite familiar with gun safety. My children, 11 and 14, have been well instructed in gun safety. The two primary rules we hammered home:

1. Treat every weapon as if it's loaded.

2. Never point it at anything you don't intend to kill.

I'd say that makes me a pretty responsible gun owner -- just like the vast majority of legal gun owners.

So why should my freedoms be restricted because others (who are mostly criminals anyway) can't or won't be responsible?

Speaking of which, I've got a couple of threads on that subject. Perhaps you can offer some insight:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/268676-attention-gun-control-supporters.html

http://www.usmessageboard.com/clean-debate-zone/268680-attention-gun-control-supporters.html

 

[Jarlaxle]

The ultimate use of an assault weapon is to even the odds when the 2nd amendment is banished by executive decree or any other anti-american, communist bullshit.

A bolt action rifle is of little use against SWAT teams or other jackboots running toward your door in a reluctant attempt to take away your God given right to bear arms.

I don't know. A bolt action .30-06 may be the best weapon to slice through body armor clad thugs. Kevlar will stop a .223, but not the aught.

I'd rather use the sledgehammer approach (something like a .460 Weatherby) or the punch-through approach (a super-high-velocity round like a .22-250 or a .220 Swift). I suspect either will go through a typical vest like paper. Even if a vest STOPPED the Weatherby, I would not want to be the dude wearing it!

Or the "sledgehammer swung by a professional powerlifter on a mix of anabolics, Red Bull, and PCP" approach: my uncle's Holland & Holland double elephant rifle in .577 Nitro Express. (It fires a 750 grain round at ~2000fps.)

 

[daveman]

If it won't fire fully automatic or burst fire, it's not an assault weapon.

End of story.

LOL A matter of opinion...

Not really.

...of coarse the both are an assault weapon. What about a colt ar 15? hand gun to you?

No. Semi-automatic rifle. Not a scary black bullet hose.

If you irrational gun-haters weren't driven solely by emotion, you'd see the difference.

However...

 

[Jarlaxle]

The firepower of the average law-abiding citizen bearing his own arms should be equal to the basic firepower of the US infantryman. Semi-automatic assault rifle...semi-automatic pistol.

There is no need to allow explosives, bazookas, howitzers, mortars, rockets, grenades etc.

so you have officially advocated for public ownership of automatic weapons as the basic M-4 and M-16 as issued by the military are fully automatic.

great argument.

No, they are not. Directly from my brother (active-duty Marine NCO), his issue weapon does NOT have full-auto capability. It has single-shot or 3-round bursts only. (Note: F-troop still classes it as a "machine gun" due to the burst ability.)

 

[MikeK]

These people can come up with any number of wet dreams where they defend their homes Rambo style but in the end they are just awesome pieces of machinery and super cool.

I believe what you've said is true in the broad sense. But I think you'll agree that, with some exceptions, the affinity for weapons resides at the primal level of the male brain.

I further believe only a relatively small number of those who own or wish to own so-called "assault weapons" harbor aggressive impulses, while the vast majority are motivated by a natural and entirely normal defensive instinct and unless they are oppressed are and will remain peaceful.

 

[Jarlaxle]

yet you claim your right to have assault rifles and automatic weapons is absolute under the 2nd amendment.

SEMI-automatic rifles, which is a common, and established technology for placing a round in the chamber of a firearm.

Assault rifle is a made up word by gun grabbers, and automatic weapons are not being considered for bans, as they are already tightly regulated.

automatic weapons are actually banned from being manufactured in the US for sale to the public.


the term assault rifle was not coined by "gun grabbers," . The translation assault rifle gradually became the common term for firearms sharing the same technical definition as the StG 44. In a strict definition, a firearm must have at least the following characteristics to be considered an assault rifle:
It must be an individual weapon with provision to fire from the shoulder (i.e. a buttstock);
It must be capable of selective fire;
It must have an intermediate-power cartridge: more power than a pistol but less than a standard rifle or battle rifle;
Its ammunition must be supplied from a detachable magazine rather than a feed-belt.
And it should at least have a firing range of 300 meters (1000 feet)

Note: that definition actually excludes the FIRST fully-automatic rifle (the designer called it a "machine rifle") from the category! It uses a full-power .30-06 round.