Assault rifles for self defense

[Olivia]

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

Bolded - you should have a goal to achieve securing their weapons just like you do yourself - not the vast majority ALL owners. In Ct case {get it case} The owner - the mother didn't do that and today twenty children would be alive if the owner took responsibility like you do - period end of story. Make no mistake there are many, many just like her. Why because we have no law in place to this day that makes owners secure their firearms. So, simple solution - owners must be responsible for their firearms, and must prove they have a secure place for them. Would you agree to that?

No one as fore arm holder is making you pay any price? Have they/we? I don't even get that. look at it this way - we will use you as an example for all.

Man, by reading some/most of your replies here I was expecting a different reply from your tone. I am very, very happy to read your reply and see that you are aware of the weapon you own, especially with kids. Don't expect less of any firearm owner.

 

[Politico]

That is because the military switched years ago. Automatic fire is a waste of ammunition and innacurate.

 

[Jarlaxle]

Whether armed guards in schools is a good or bad idea, I'd like to know if the NRA NaziCons would pony up with gun/ammo taxes to fund it.

I wouldn't care all that much...I don't buy any significant amount of ammo and I do not plan to buy any new guns.

 

[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...

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...

You gave no rebuttal other then opinion. Prove this was written by me a gun hater soley driven by emotion. your credibility has sunk before now Ker-Plunk. Good on you for securing your weapon, though. To bad you don't expect that from all owners, otherwise lets just have a free for all. Why are you securing your firearm?

 

[GuyPinestra]

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.

Just as predicted on Page 1...

 

[daveman]

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

Bolded - you should have a goal to achieve securing their weapons just like you do yourself - not the vast majority ALL owners. In Ct case {get it case} The owner - the mother didn't do that and today twenty children would be alive if the owner took responsibility like you do - period end of story. Make no mistake there are many, many just like her. Why because we have no law in place to this day that makes owners secure their firearms.

Responsible people will be responsible. Irresponsible people won't be. People drive intoxicated, people smoke in bed and burn their houses down, people fry frozen turkeys, people run generators inside the house.

You can't legislate responsibility.

So, simple solution - owners must be responsible for their firearms, and must prove they have a secure place for them. Would you agree to that?

No. Again, why should I be punished for the actions of others?

No one as fore arm holder is making you pay any price? Have they/we? I don't even get that. look at it this way - we will use you as an example for all.

I have no idea what you mean by any of that.

Man, by reading some/most of your replies here I was expecting a different reply from your tone. I am very, very happy to read your reply and see that you are aware of the weapon you own, especially with kids. Don't expect less of any firearm owner.

I don't. I also know you can't legislate responsibility. Go visit a court where they're hearing child-support cases someday.

 

[Jarlaxle]

Taxing guns and ammo to pay for armed security in schools should be something that conservatives and the NRA would agree to. After all, tobacco is heavily taxed and helps pay for children's healthcare (CHIP).

I support that 100%. For the first time in your life, you actually said something rational. Maybe the Mayan's were right - maybe today is the day the world ends.

Even a blind jackass finds the occasional feedbag!

 

[daveman]

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...

You gave no rebuttal other then opinion. Prove this was written by me a gun hater soley driven by emotion.

Okay. Why do you classify the weapons you listed as assault weapons? What makes them different in function from a semi-automatic hunting rifle?

your credibility has sunk before now Ker-Plunk.

Well, dang.

Good on you for securing your weapon, though. To bad you don't expect that from all owners, otherwise lets just have a free for all. Why are you securing your firearm?

Why do you think I don't expect all owners to be responsible?

Oh, and your "free for all" comment shows that you're operating on emotion.

 

[GuyPinestra]

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

Bolded - you should have a goal to achieve securing their weapons just like you do yourself - not the vast majority ALL owners. In Ct case {get it case} The owner - the mother didn't do that and today twenty children would be alive if the owner took responsibility like you do - period end of story. Make no mistake there are many, many just like her. Why because we have no law in place to this day that makes owners secure their firearms. So, simple solution - owners must be responsible for their firearms, and must prove they have a secure place for them. Would you agree to that?

No one as fore arm holder is making you pay any price? Have they/we? I don't even get that. look at it this way - we will use you as an example for all.

Man, by reading some/most of your replies here I was expecting a different reply from your tone. I am very, very happy to read your reply and see that you are aware of the weapon you own, especially with kids. Don't expect less of any firearm owner.

The problem with that is that no criminal is going to let you call 'Time Out' while you unlock your gun case and run frantically to the other end of the house to load your weapon.

He's just going to kill you, then start killing your spouse and children.

 

[Jarlaxle]

There are other less lethal forms of person protection than guns - such as pepper spray, tasers and stun guns.

Yes, they're pretty effective chasing away muggers but not so effective against crazed gunmen bent on murder.

Or a guy cranked out on meth or PCP! Someone dusted might not even NOTICE pepper spray!

 

[Jarlaxle]

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.

Actually, most of the F-troop injuries were blue-on-blue. They were doing "spray and pray"...watching the footage makes it crystal-clear: there was no return fire.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

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.

How do you know?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

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?

A AR 15 is not an assault rifle. it cannot fire automatically

 

[Olivia]

Not really.


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...

You gave no rebuttal other then opinion. Prove this was written by me a gun hater soley driven by emotion.

Okay. Why do you classify the weapons you listed as assault weapons? What makes them different in function from a semi-automatic hunting rifle?

your credibility has sunk before now Ker-Plunk.

Well, dang.

Good on you for securing your weapon, though. To bad you don't expect that from all owners, otherwise lets just have a free for all. Why are you securing your firearm?

Why do you think I don't expect all owners to be responsible?

Oh, and your "free for all" comment shows that you're operating on emotion.

Oh God you own a gun - there abilitly to hold a large capacity magazine of thirty or more shells. Really - this and you are the problem.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

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...

You gave no rebuttal other then opinion. Prove this was written by me a gun hater soley driven by emotion. your credibility has sunk before now Ker-Plunk. Good on you for securing your weapon, though. To bad you don't expect that from all owners, otherwise lets just have a free for all. Why are you securing your firearm?

Look at these Bushmaster one link will be for Police only
Bushmaster - Law Enforcement Firearms
The other are for civilians
Bushmaster - State Compliant Firearms
You will be able to magnify anyone of the rifles on the LEO link you'll see three positions at the selector switch
Safe Fire and Burst
on the civilian you'll see just two Safe and fire
one is an automatic and the other one is not.

 

[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.

How do you know?

Because I am older then thirty, simple. Not to mention I am aware that a shot gun would do the trick - for those of us who understand fire arms.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

You gave no rebuttal other then opinion. Prove this was written by me a gun hater soley driven by emotion.

Okay. Why do you classify the weapons you listed as assault weapons? What makes them different in function from a semi-automatic hunting rifle?

Well, dang.

Good on you for securing your weapon, though. To bad you don't expect that from all owners, otherwise lets just have a free for all. Why are you securing your firearm?

Why do you think I don't expect all owners to be responsible?

Oh, and your "free for all" comment shows that you're operating on emotion.

Oh God you own a gun - there abilitly to hold a large capacity magazine of thirty or more shells. Really - this and you are the problem.

Well congratulation at least you did not call it a clip.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

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

How do you know?

Because I am older then thirty, simple. Not to mention I am aware that a shot gun would do the trick - for those of us who understand fire arms.

I'm 51 do you have a point? Been in Law Enforcement and Air Force security police have been trained close quarters combat and tactical training. What do you have?

 

[Olivia]

Really? Do you want single-payer healthcare?

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

Bolded - you should have a goal to achieve securing their weapons just like you do yourself - not the vast majority ALL owners. In Ct case {get it case} The owner - the mother didn't do that and today twenty children would be alive if the owner took responsibility like you do - period end of story. Make no mistake there are many, many just like her. Why because we have no law in place to this day that makes owners secure their firearms. So, simple solution - owners must be responsible for their firearms, and must prove they have a secure place for them. Would you agree to that?

No one as fore arm holder is making you pay any price? Have they/we? I don't even get that. look at it this way - we will use you as an example for all.

Man, by reading some/most of your replies here I was expecting a different reply from your tone. I am very, very happy to read your reply and see that you are aware of the weapon you own, especially with kids. Don't expect less of any firearm owner.

The problem with that is that no criminal is going to let you call 'Time Out' while you unlock your gun case and run frantically to the other end of the house to load your weapon.

He's just going to kill you, then start killing your spouse and children.

You are paranoid period end of story. Do you just sit there and wait for someone to enter your property with a loaded gun. That scares me as much as a gun owner not locking up guns when they want to bond with a mental patient. Seriously READ, AND RE _ READ what you wrote. Everyone READ it.

My house I know and a stranger will not - so I know where the gun case is the stranger doesn't - get the advantage here?, I also have a cordless, and cell phone to call in between.

I'll take that risk v the last killing sprees of the decade. It's the right thing to do. Doing nothing has not worked, and made freaks having gun access. Stop giving access to gun owners who should not have them.

 

[Olivia]

How do you know?

Because I am older then thirty, simple. Not to mention I am aware that a shot gun would do the trick - for those of us who understand fire arms.

I'm 51 do you have a point? Been in Law Enforcement and Air Force security police have been trained close quarters combat and tactical training. What do you have?

I answered your question, you on the other hand just look stupid.