CDZ Gun Lovers, complete this sentence

[C_Clayton_Jones]

In essence the gun ‘debate’ is subjective and rhetorical between those who own guns and enjoy the shooting sports and those do neither – devoid of facts and objective evidence.

Indeed, the ‘debate’ is in fact political, to be resolved via the political process, reflecting the will of the people as expressed through their elected representatives.

Some states and jurisdictions will continue to have more restrictive gun laws, most will not.

States with less restrictive gun laws won’t make those laws more restrictive.

And at the National level, there will be no new ‘AWB,’ and appropriately so.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

I absolutely need an assault rifle because_________.

Lay aside what you perceive as a constitutional right. Lay aside any obfuscation over the verbal semantics (don't try to define 'assault rifle').

Simply justify your need of an assault rifle.

Perhaps if we fully understand your need for one or two or thirty of them, we could understand why assault weapons are, indeed, a necessity. Show us the virtue of the assault rifle. Why are they good?

Some folks have good experiences with guns. Some folks are the sinue and bone of America's gun culture. Some folks are true sportsmen and women and enjoy the outdoors and their love of the hunt. Some folks are dedicated target shooters keen on hitting their mark be it paper or a clay pigeon. I fully support these wholesome and healthy activities.

But some folks have had tragic experiences with guns. Some are the survivors of gun violence. Some are the victims of gun violence. Some folks have sadly lost loved ones to gun violence. And some live in neighborhoods which tragically experience gun violence on an all too regular basis. Please have empathy for them. They have suffered too long under the threat of the havoc guns bring into their lives.

We have had far too many mass shootings in this nation. No other nation suffers this level of gun violence. We are not beset with a greater number cases of mental illness than other nations. There is something foul about the numbers of shooting victims here compared with other natione in the developed world.

What do you suppose is our unique American problem?

So please, as sincerely as possible, answer this simple question: 'I absolutely need an assault rifle because_____'.

Let us all understand.

define assault rifle

An assault rifle is whatever the law defines it to be.

If a given lawmaking body enacts a measure defining an assault rifle to be a semi-automatic AR 15, then in fact a semi-automatic AR 15 is an assault rifle as a matter of the law.

 

[FA_Q2]

You must not have read the OP.

I have read it ... it starts out with a leading question.

I absolutely need an assault rifle because___?

What do you find leading about that?

Is that a serious question?

Your entire OP is leading in that it is making the assertion that need has anything whatsoever to do with the ownership of weapons. You blatantly remove the core reason that justification is pointless here as you do not need to justify a right. Those that want to infringe on it must justify why.

I reject that you give a hoot about the answer to the question anyway since a few posters have clearly answered it and those have been ignored by you in favor of pretending the answers you knew you would get are 'deflecting' or did not read the OP. Lets just bypass the cover and go right to the heart of it and assume there is no justification whatsoever. The next question then is so what? Justification is irrelevant in the exercise of a right. There is simply no way around that whatsoever.

 

[FA_Q2]

You don't want to get bogged down in "Semantics" because if you define things accurately, your entire thread goes down the toilet....

He was right, though. Just about every gun nut on the thread deflected to pissing around about definitions rather than addressing the question.

It is not a deflection simply because you disagree with the reasons that the question is flawed in the first place.

 

[Nosmo King]

You must not have read the OP.

I have read it ... it starts out with a leading question.

I absolutely need an assault rifle because___?

What do you find leading about that?

Is that a serious question?

Your entire OP is leading in that it is making the assertion that need has anything whatsoever to do with the ownership of weapons. You blatantly remove the core reason that justification is pointless here as you do not need to justify a right. Those that want to infringe on it must justify why.

I reject that you give a hoot about the answer to the question anyway since a few posters have clearly answered it and those have been ignored by you in favor of pretending the answers you knew you would get are 'deflecting' or did not read the OP. Lets just bypass the cover and go right to the heart of it and assume there is no justification whatsoever. The next question then is so what? Justification is irrelevant in the exercise of a right. There is simply no way around that whatsoever.

I am not denying the right to own an assault rifle. I wonder about the necessity to own an assault rifle.

In this thread I have heard that it is necessary to defend one's self from an over reaching and corrupt system of government nad corporate power brokers. I have heard that it is necessary to defend one's self against marauding hordes of Muslims and criminals hell bent on invading your house. I have heard that it is necessary simply because it is a right.

But those answers raise more questions. Are there indeed maurading hordes of Muslims and criminals? Could an assault rifle hole off the forces of a corrupt government and their corporate overlords?

The crux of the current debate has been effectively shut down by the semantics of definitions. A convenient means of deflecting the discussion away from real informantion. Much as the debate over the former assault weapons ban was deflected by arguing over the cosmetics of guns rather than the essential questions of lethality and practicality beyond sporting use.

Today we are debating the merits and practicality of arming teachers. The majority of advocates say teachers should have concealed guns.

That drives this question: if it is necessary to have an assault rifle for personal defense, why is a concealed weapon deemed adequate to defend a school room? Shouldn't a school room have the best defensive tools available? And if an assault weapon is necessary for personal defense, shouldn't an assault rifle be slung over the shoulder of a classroom sentinel?

And that prospect drives this question: Is that the society we want to raise our children in?

 

[jon_berzerk]

I absolutely need an assault rifle because_________.

Lay aside what you perceive as a constitutional right. Lay aside any obfuscation over the verbal semantics (don't try to define 'assault rifle').

Simply justify your need of an assault rifle.

Perhaps if we fully understand your need for one or two or thirty of them, we could understand why assault weapons are, indeed, a necessity. Show us the virtue of the assault rifle. Why are they good?

Some folks have good experiences with guns. Some folks are the sinue and bone of America's gun culture. Some folks are true sportsmen and women and enjoy the outdoors and their love of the hunt. Some folks are dedicated target shooters keen on hitting their mark be it paper or a clay pigeon. I fully support these wholesome and healthy activities.

But some folks have had tragic experiences with guns. Some are the survivors of gun violence. Some are the victims of gun violence. Some folks have sadly lost loved ones to gun violence. And some live in neighborhoods which tragically experience gun violence on an all too regular basis. Please have empathy for them. They have suffered too long under the threat of the havoc guns bring into their lives.

We have had far too many mass shootings in this nation. No other nation suffers this level of gun violence. We are not beset with a greater number cases of mental illness than other nations. There is something foul about the numbers of shooting victims here compared with other natione in the developed world.

What do you suppose is our unique American problem?

So please, as sincerely as possible, answer this simple question: 'I absolutely need an assault rifle because_____'.

Let us all understand.

define assault rifle

An assault rifle is whatever the law defines it to be.

If a given lawmaking body enacts a measure defining an assault rifle to be a semi-automatic AR 15, then in fact a semi-automatic AR 15 is an assault rifle as a matter of the law.

well that certainly is not the ar 15

 

[2aguy]

You must not have read the OP.

I have read it ... it starts out with a leading question.

I absolutely need an assault rifle because___?

What do you find leading about that?

Is that a serious question?

Your entire OP is leading in that it is making the assertion that need has anything whatsoever to do with the ownership of weapons. You blatantly remove the core reason that justification is pointless here as you do not need to justify a right. Those that want to infringe on it must justify why.

I reject that you give a hoot about the answer to the question anyway since a few posters have clearly answered it and those have been ignored by you in favor of pretending the answers you knew you would get are 'deflecting' or did not read the OP. Lets just bypass the cover and go right to the heart of it and assume there is no justification whatsoever. The next question then is so what? Justification is irrelevant in the exercise of a right. There is simply no way around that whatsoever.

I am not denying the right to own an assault rifle. I wonder about the necessity to own an assault rifle.

In this thread I have heard that it is necessary to defend one's self from an over reaching and corrupt system of government nad corporate power brokers. I have heard that it is necessary to defend one's self against marauding hordes of Muslims and criminals hell bent on invading your house. I have heard that it is necessary simply because it is a right.

But those answers raise more questions. Are there indeed maurading hordes of Muslims and criminals? Could an assault rifle hole off the forces of a corrupt government and their corporate overlords?

The crux of the current debate has been effectively shut down by the semantics of definitions. A convenient means of deflecting the discussion away from real informantion. Much as the debate over the former assault weapons ban was deflected by arguing over the cosmetics of guns rather than the essential questions of lethality and practicality beyond sporting use.

Today we are debating the merits and practicality of arming teachers. The majority of advocates say teachers should have concealed guns.

That drives this question: if it is necessary to have an assault rifle for personal defense, why is a concealed weapon deemed adequate to defend a school room? Shouldn't a school room have the best defensive tools available? And if an assault weapon is necessary for personal defense, shouldn't an assault rifle be slung over the shoulder of a classroom sentinel?

And that prospect drives this question: Is that the society we want to raise our children in?

That drives this question: if it is necessary to have an assault rifle for personal defense, why is a concealed weapon deemed adequate to defend a school room?

You have to pick the gun to fit the job....

A rifle can't easily be carried around, and it is obvious. A many hand guns are easy to carry and can be concealed.

We know that mass shooters choose gun free zones....so the mere act of having armed people on campus makes the school less likely to be a target.....since we know from living mass shooters and the notes of dead mass shooters that they are not looking for a fight, they are looking to murder unarmed people.

So, we achieve the right tool by balancing ease of carry and concealment with effectiveness....and in the case of a school, several pistol armed staff or armed security fits the needs, they deter attackers and can still effectively engage them with pistols..........where an AR-15 doesn't make a good match.

An AR-15 is better for the home, especially during a natural disaster or social disturbance like a riot. Also...for isolated locations where the police may be half hour to an hour away...farms and ranches......an AR-15 makes a better match....especially in border state ranches...where you may face drug cartel drug runners or illegal alien coyotes who have actual military rifles.....supplied by the Mexican police or military....or which they bought from China and European countries....

 

[2aguy]

You must not have read the OP.

I have read it ... it starts out with a leading question.

I absolutely need an assault rifle because___?

What do you find leading about that?

Is that a serious question?

Your entire OP is leading in that it is making the assertion that need has anything whatsoever to do with the ownership of weapons. You blatantly remove the core reason that justification is pointless here as you do not need to justify a right. Those that want to infringe on it must justify why.

I reject that you give a hoot about the answer to the question anyway since a few posters have clearly answered it and those have been ignored by you in favor of pretending the answers you knew you would get are 'deflecting' or did not read the OP. Lets just bypass the cover and go right to the heart of it and assume there is no justification whatsoever. The next question then is so what? Justification is irrelevant in the exercise of a right. There is simply no way around that whatsoever.

I am not denying the right to own an assault rifle. I wonder about the necessity to own an assault rifle.

In this thread I have heard that it is necessary to defend one's self from an over reaching and corrupt system of government nad corporate power brokers. I have heard that it is necessary to defend one's self against marauding hordes of Muslims and criminals hell bent on invading your house. I have heard that it is necessary simply because it is a right.

But those answers raise more questions. Are there indeed maurading hordes of Muslims and criminals? Could an assault rifle hole off the forces of a corrupt government and their corporate overlords?

The crux of the current debate has been effectively shut down by the semantics of definitions. A convenient means of deflecting the discussion away from real informantion. Much as the debate over the former assault weapons ban was deflected by arguing over the cosmetics of guns rather than the essential questions of lethality and practicality beyond sporting use.

Today we are debating the merits and practicality of arming teachers. The majority of advocates say teachers should have concealed guns.

That drives this question: if it is necessary to have an assault rifle for personal defense, why is a concealed weapon deemed adequate to defend a school room? Shouldn't a school room have the best defensive tools available? And if an assault weapon is necessary for personal defense, shouldn't an assault rifle be slung over the shoulder of a classroom sentinel?

And that prospect drives this question: Is that the society we want to raise our children in?

If you claim you don't want to ban all guns, then a mass shooter will use shotguns or revolvers or lever action rifles to murder kids....the reason they target schools?

1) They are gun free zones.

2) There are fewer adults to deal with.

3) Young children can't escape as easily or organize fighting back.

 

[flacaltenn]

You must not have read the OP.

I have read it ... it starts out with a leading question.

I absolutely need an assault rifle because___?

What do you find leading about that?

I think these folks are telling you that the rifles they own that LOOK nasty to you are not assault rifles. And PROBABLY that only a lefty gun phobe would call a commercially available rifle "an assault" rifle..

I'll play along tho....

I need a big mean nasty rifle --- because when the disaster and looting comes, the police are NOT gonna save my store in the strip mall.

I need a big mean nasty rifle --- because I don't want to be fumbling with clips and reloading when my dog is tracking the coyote that was eating my new born calf in the cold and the dark..

I need a big mean nasty rifle --- because I'm taking my daughter for a couple days of trout fishing at a stream they call Bear Creek for a reason..

But the REAL REASON is

I need a big mean nasty rifle --- because it makes gun grabbers like Diane Feinstein poop their Depends.

 

[Nosmo King]

You must not have read the OP.

I have read it ... it starts out with a leading question.

I absolutely need an assault rifle because___?

What do you find leading about that?

Is that a serious question?

Your entire OP is leading in that it is making the assertion that need has anything whatsoever to do with the ownership of weapons. You blatantly remove the core reason that justification is pointless here as you do not need to justify a right. Those that want to infringe on it must justify why.

I reject that you give a hoot about the answer to the question anyway since a few posters have clearly answered it and those have been ignored by you in favor of pretending the answers you knew you would get are 'deflecting' or did not read the OP. Lets just bypass the cover and go right to the heart of it and assume there is no justification whatsoever. The next question then is so what? Justification is irrelevant in the exercise of a right. There is simply no way around that whatsoever.

I am not denying the right to own an assault rifle. I wonder about the necessity to own an assault rifle.

In this thread I have heard that it is necessary to defend one's self from an over reaching and corrupt system of government nad corporate power brokers. I have heard that it is necessary to defend one's self against marauding hordes of Muslims and criminals hell bent on invading your house. I have heard that it is necessary simply because it is a right.

But those answers raise more questions. Are there indeed maurading hordes of Muslims and criminals? Could an assault rifle hole off the forces of a corrupt government and their corporate overlords?

The crux of the current debate has been effectively shut down by the semantics of definitions. A convenient means of deflecting the discussion away from real informantion. Much as the debate over the former assault weapons ban was deflected by arguing over the cosmetics of guns rather than the essential questions of lethality and practicality beyond sporting use.

Today we are debating the merits and practicality of arming teachers. The majority of advocates say teachers should have concealed guns.

That drives this question: if it is necessary to have an assault rifle for personal defense, why is a concealed weapon deemed adequate to defend a school room? Shouldn't a school room have the best defensive tools available? And if an assault weapon is necessary for personal defense, shouldn't an assault rifle be slung over the shoulder of a classroom sentinel?

And that prospect drives this question: Is that the society we want to raise our children in?

That drives this question: if it is necessary to have an assault rifle for personal defense, why is a concealed weapon deemed adequate to defend a school room?

You have to pick the gun to fit the job....

A rifle can't easily be carried around, and it is obvious. A many hand guns are easy to carry and can be concealed.

We know that mass shooters choose gun free zones....so the mere act of having armed people on campus makes the school less likely to be a target.....since we know from living mass shooters and the notes of dead mass shooters that they are not looking for a fight, they are looking to murder unarmed people.

So, we achieve the right tool by balancing ease of carry and concealment with effectiveness....and in the case of a school, several pistol armed staff or armed security fits the needs, they deter attackers and can still effectively engage them with pistols..........where an AR-15 doesn't make a good match.

An AR-15 is better for the home, especially during a natural disaster or social disturbance like a riot. Also...for isolated locations where the police may be half hour to an hour away...farms and ranches......an AR-15 makes a better match....especially in border state ranches...where you may face drug cartel drug runners or illegal alien coyotes who have actual military rifles.....supplied by the Mexican police or military....or which they bought from China and European countries....

Why do mass shooters pick the weapons they do?

 

[Nosmo King]

You must not have read the OP.

I have read it ... it starts out with a leading question.

I absolutely need an assault rifle because___?

What do you find leading about that?

I think these folks are telling you that the rifles they own that LOOK nasty to you are not assault rifles. And PROBABLY that only a lefty gun phobe would call a commercially available rifle "an assault" rifle..

I'll play along tho....

I need a big mean nasty rifle --- because when the disaster and looting comes, the police are NOT gonna save my store in the strip mall.

I need a big mean nasty rifle --- because I don't want to be fumbling with clips and reloading when my dog is tracking the coyote that was eating my new born calf in the cold and the dark..

I need a big mean nasty rifle --- because I'm taking my daughter for a couple days of trout fishing at a stream they call Bear Creek for a reason..

But the REAL REASON is

I need a big mean nasty rifle --- because it makes gun grabbers like Diane Feinstein poop their Depends.

The big and nasty are cosmetics. The rate of fire and the overwhelming lethalitynof the rounds they shoot in such numbers and with such rapidity is the real question and the real issue.

 

[jon_berzerk]

You must not have read the OP.

I have read it ... it starts out with a leading question.

I absolutely need an assault rifle because___?

What do you find leading about that?

I think these folks are telling you that the rifles they own that LOOK nasty to you are not assault rifles. And PROBABLY that only a lefty gun phobe would call a commercially available rifle "an assault" rifle..

I'll play along tho....

I need a big mean nasty rifle --- because when the disaster and looting comes, the police are NOT gonna save my store in the strip mall.

I need a big mean nasty rifle --- because I don't want to be fumbling with clips and reloading when my dog is tracking the coyote that was eating my new born calf in the cold and the dark..

I need a big mean nasty rifle --- because I'm taking my daughter for a couple days of trout fishing at a stream they call Bear Creek for a reason..

But the REAL REASON is

I need a big mean nasty rifle --- because it makes gun grabbers like Diane Feinstein poop their Depends.

The big and nasty are cosmetics. The rate of fire and the overwhelming lethalitynof the rounds they shoot in such numbers and with such rapidity is the real question and the real issue.

well if that is the case the ar 15 is not a very powerful rifle at all

in fact it is nothing more then a supped up 22

the ar is the first one on the left

compare that to the 308 or 30-06

far more lethal

 

[2aguy]

I have read it ... it starts out with a leading question.

I absolutely need an assault rifle because___?

What do you find leading about that?

Is that a serious question?

Your entire OP is leading in that it is making the assertion that need has anything whatsoever to do with the ownership of weapons. You blatantly remove the core reason that justification is pointless here as you do not need to justify a right. Those that want to infringe on it must justify why.

I reject that you give a hoot about the answer to the question anyway since a few posters have clearly answered it and those have been ignored by you in favor of pretending the answers you knew you would get are 'deflecting' or did not read the OP. Lets just bypass the cover and go right to the heart of it and assume there is no justification whatsoever. The next question then is so what? Justification is irrelevant in the exercise of a right. There is simply no way around that whatsoever.

I am not denying the right to own an assault rifle. I wonder about the necessity to own an assault rifle.

In this thread I have heard that it is necessary to defend one's self from an over reaching and corrupt system of government nad corporate power brokers. I have heard that it is necessary to defend one's self against marauding hordes of Muslims and criminals hell bent on invading your house. I have heard that it is necessary simply because it is a right.

But those answers raise more questions. Are there indeed maurading hordes of Muslims and criminals? Could an assault rifle hole off the forces of a corrupt government and their corporate overlords?

The crux of the current debate has been effectively shut down by the semantics of definitions. A convenient means of deflecting the discussion away from real informantion. Much as the debate over the former assault weapons ban was deflected by arguing over the cosmetics of guns rather than the essential questions of lethality and practicality beyond sporting use.

Today we are debating the merits and practicality of arming teachers. The majority of advocates say teachers should have concealed guns.

That drives this question: if it is necessary to have an assault rifle for personal defense, why is a concealed weapon deemed adequate to defend a school room? Shouldn't a school room have the best defensive tools available? And if an assault weapon is necessary for personal defense, shouldn't an assault rifle be slung over the shoulder of a classroom sentinel?

And that prospect drives this question: Is that the society we want to raise our children in?

That drives this question: if it is necessary to have an assault rifle for personal defense, why is a concealed weapon deemed adequate to defend a school room?

You have to pick the gun to fit the job....

A rifle can't easily be carried around, and it is obvious. A many hand guns are easy to carry and can be concealed.

We know that mass shooters choose gun free zones....so the mere act of having armed people on campus makes the school less likely to be a target.....since we know from living mass shooters and the notes of dead mass shooters that they are not looking for a fight, they are looking to murder unarmed people.

So, we achieve the right tool by balancing ease of carry and concealment with effectiveness....and in the case of a school, several pistol armed staff or armed security fits the needs, they deter attackers and can still effectively engage them with pistols..........where an AR-15 doesn't make a good match.

An AR-15 is better for the home, especially during a natural disaster or social disturbance like a riot. Also...for isolated locations where the police may be half hour to an hour away...farms and ranches......an AR-15 makes a better match....especially in border state ranches...where you may face drug cartel drug runners or illegal alien coyotes who have actual military rifles.....supplied by the Mexican police or military....or which they bought from China and European countries....

Why do mass shooters pick the weapons they do?

They have been picking the AR-15 because it is popular in video games.....and because gun grabbers are giving it a reputation it doesn't deserve......8 million in private hands.....and they kill fewer people than knives, clubs or empty hands, yet the left wing media is demanding it be banned.....hand guns are used to murder about 10,000 people a year.....yet the media wants that rifle banned....

The Virginia Tech shooter murdered 32 people.....more than Sandy hook, more than texas and more than this last shooting....he used 2 pistols.....semi auto pistols.

Luby's cafe shooting....murdered 23 people......used two semi auto pistols.....

And of all the mass public shootings since 1982.....35 years......none of them murdered more people than a rental truck in France did in 5 minutes.....86 people.....

The main reason the anti gunners want to ban the AR-15 even though it kills the least amount of people every single year?
They know that if they can get the AR-15 banned......it operates the same way as every other semi auto weapon in the country, and if they get uninformed people to agree to ban it, they can come back and then say....but, but....all those other semi auto weapons are the same as the AR-15, so if we banned that rifle, we have to ban all the others...no matter what they look like.

And then they will come for the semi auto pistols.

 

[Nosmo King]

You must not have read the OP.

I have read it ... it starts out with a leading question.

I absolutely need an assault rifle because___?

What do you find leading about that?

I think these folks are telling you that the rifles they own that LOOK nasty to you are not assault rifles. And PROBABLY that only a lefty gun phobe would call a commercially available rifle "an assault" rifle..

I'll play along tho....

I need a big mean nasty rifle --- because when the disaster and looting comes, the police are NOT gonna save my store in the strip mall.

I need a big mean nasty rifle --- because I don't want to be fumbling with clips and reloading when my dog is tracking the coyote that was eating my new born calf in the cold and the dark..

I need a big mean nasty rifle --- because I'm taking my daughter for a couple days of trout fishing at a stream they call Bear Creek for a reason..

But the REAL REASON is

I need a big mean nasty rifle --- because it makes gun grabbers like Diane Feinstein poop their Depends.

The big and nasty are cosmetics. The rate of fire and the overwhelming lethalitynof the rounds they shoot in such numbers and with such rapidity is the real question and the real issue.

well if that is the case the ar 15 is not a very powerful rifle at all

in fact it is nothing more then a supped up 22

the ar is the first one on the left

compare that to the 308 or 30-06

far more lethal

How many foot pounds per second are delivered by the round from the AR15?

 

[2aguy]

I have read it ... it starts out with a leading question.

I absolutely need an assault rifle because___?

What do you find leading about that?

I think these folks are telling you that the rifles they own that LOOK nasty to you are not assault rifles. And PROBABLY that only a lefty gun phobe would call a commercially available rifle "an assault" rifle..

I'll play along tho....

I need a big mean nasty rifle --- because when the disaster and looting comes, the police are NOT gonna save my store in the strip mall.

I need a big mean nasty rifle --- because I don't want to be fumbling with clips and reloading when my dog is tracking the coyote that was eating my new born calf in the cold and the dark..

I need a big mean nasty rifle --- because I'm taking my daughter for a couple days of trout fishing at a stream they call Bear Creek for a reason..

But the REAL REASON is

I need a big mean nasty rifle --- because it makes gun grabbers like Diane Feinstein poop their Depends.

The big and nasty are cosmetics. The rate of fire and the overwhelming lethalitynof the rounds they shoot in such numbers and with such rapidity is the real question and the real issue.

well if that is the case the ar 15 is not a very powerful rifle at all

in fact it is nothing more then a supped up 22

the ar is the first one on the left

compare that to the 308 or 30-06

far more lethal

How many foot pounds per second are delivered by the round from the AR15?

Why does that matter? There are 8 million AR-15s......and they kill fewer people than handguns, knives, clubs and empty hands....but you guys want to ban it...

 

[Nosmo King]

I absolutely need an assault rifle because___?

What do you find leading about that?

Is that a serious question?

Your entire OP is leading in that it is making the assertion that need has anything whatsoever to do with the ownership of weapons. You blatantly remove the core reason that justification is pointless here as you do not need to justify a right. Those that want to infringe on it must justify why.

I reject that you give a hoot about the answer to the question anyway since a few posters have clearly answered it and those have been ignored by you in favor of pretending the answers you knew you would get are 'deflecting' or did not read the OP. Lets just bypass the cover and go right to the heart of it and assume there is no justification whatsoever. The next question then is so what? Justification is irrelevant in the exercise of a right. There is simply no way around that whatsoever.

I am not denying the right to own an assault rifle. I wonder about the necessity to own an assault rifle.

In this thread I have heard that it is necessary to defend one's self from an over reaching and corrupt system of government nad corporate power brokers. I have heard that it is necessary to defend one's self against marauding hordes of Muslims and criminals hell bent on invading your house. I have heard that it is necessary simply because it is a right.

But those answers raise more questions. Are there indeed maurading hordes of Muslims and criminals? Could an assault rifle hole off the forces of a corrupt government and their corporate overlords?

The crux of the current debate has been effectively shut down by the semantics of definitions. A convenient means of deflecting the discussion away from real informantion. Much as the debate over the former assault weapons ban was deflected by arguing over the cosmetics of guns rather than the essential questions of lethality and practicality beyond sporting use.

Today we are debating the merits and practicality of arming teachers. The majority of advocates say teachers should have concealed guns.

That drives this question: if it is necessary to have an assault rifle for personal defense, why is a concealed weapon deemed adequate to defend a school room? Shouldn't a school room have the best defensive tools available? And if an assault weapon is necessary for personal defense, shouldn't an assault rifle be slung over the shoulder of a classroom sentinel?

And that prospect drives this question: Is that the society we want to raise our children in?

That drives this question: if it is necessary to have an assault rifle for personal defense, why is a concealed weapon deemed adequate to defend a school room?

You have to pick the gun to fit the job....

A rifle can't easily be carried around, and it is obvious. A many hand guns are easy to carry and can be concealed.

We know that mass shooters choose gun free zones....so the mere act of having armed people on campus makes the school less likely to be a target.....since we know from living mass shooters and the notes of dead mass shooters that they are not looking for a fight, they are looking to murder unarmed people.

So, we achieve the right tool by balancing ease of carry and concealment with effectiveness....and in the case of a school, several pistol armed staff or armed security fits the needs, they deter attackers and can still effectively engage them with pistols..........where an AR-15 doesn't make a good match.

An AR-15 is better for the home, especially during a natural disaster or social disturbance like a riot. Also...for isolated locations where the police may be half hour to an hour away...farms and ranches......an AR-15 makes a better match....especially in border state ranches...where you may face drug cartel drug runners or illegal alien coyotes who have actual military rifles.....supplied by the Mexican police or military....or which they bought from China and European countries....

Why do mass shooters pick the weapons they do?

They have been picking the AR-15 because it is popular in video games.....and because gun grabbers are giving it a reputation it doesn't deserve......8 million in private hands.....and they kill fewer people than knives, clubs or empty hands, yet the left wing media is demanding it be banned.....hand guns are used to murder about 10,000 people a year.....yet the media wants that rifle banned....

The Virginia Tech shooter murdered 32 people.....more than Sandy hook, more than texas and more than this last shooting....

And of all the mass public shootings since 1982.....35 years......none of them murdered more people than a rental truck in France did in 5 minutes.....86 people.....

The main reason the anti gunners want to ban the AR-15 even though it kills the least amount of people every single year?
They know that if they can get the AR-15 banned......it operates the same way as every other semi auto weapon in the country, and if they get uninformed people to agree to ban it, they can come back and then say....but, but....all those other semi auto weapons are the same as the AR-15, so if we banned that rifle, we have to ban all the others...no matter what they look like.

Can you please cite an incident in which 58 people were killed at once by an individual wielding any of those weapons? Perhaps an incident in which 26 people were killed. Or 49 or 17.

These are not random numbers, but numbers from Las Vegas, Newtown, Sutherland Springs and Parkland.

 

[Nosmo King]

I absolutely need an assault rifle because___?

What do you find leading about that?

I think these folks are telling you that the rifles they own that LOOK nasty to you are not assault rifles. And PROBABLY that only a lefty gun phobe would call a commercially available rifle "an assault" rifle..

I'll play along tho....

I need a big mean nasty rifle --- because when the disaster and looting comes, the police are NOT gonna save my store in the strip mall.

I need a big mean nasty rifle --- because I don't want to be fumbling with clips and reloading when my dog is tracking the coyote that was eating my new born calf in the cold and the dark..

I need a big mean nasty rifle --- because I'm taking my daughter for a couple days of trout fishing at a stream they call Bear Creek for a reason..

But the REAL REASON is

I need a big mean nasty rifle --- because it makes gun grabbers like Diane Feinstein poop their Depends.

The big and nasty are cosmetics. The rate of fire and the overwhelming lethalitynof the rounds they shoot in such numbers and with such rapidity is the real question and the real issue.

well if that is the case the ar 15 is not a very powerful rifle at all

in fact it is nothing more then a supped up 22

the ar is the first one on the left

compare that to the 308 or 30-06

far more lethal

How many foot pounds per second are delivered by the round from the AR15?

Why does that matter? There are 8 million AR-15s......and they kill fewer people than handguns, knives, clubs and empty hands....but you guys want to ban it...

The question is the lethality of the rounds, not drawing an equivalence between AR15s and clubs.

 

[2aguy]

Is that a serious question?

Your entire OP is leading in that it is making the assertion that need has anything whatsoever to do with the ownership of weapons. You blatantly remove the core reason that justification is pointless here as you do not need to justify a right. Those that want to infringe on it must justify why.

I reject that you give a hoot about the answer to the question anyway since a few posters have clearly answered it and those have been ignored by you in favor of pretending the answers you knew you would get are 'deflecting' or did not read the OP. Lets just bypass the cover and go right to the heart of it and assume there is no justification whatsoever. The next question then is so what? Justification is irrelevant in the exercise of a right. There is simply no way around that whatsoever.

I am not denying the right to own an assault rifle. I wonder about the necessity to own an assault rifle.

In this thread I have heard that it is necessary to defend one's self from an over reaching and corrupt system of government nad corporate power brokers. I have heard that it is necessary to defend one's self against marauding hordes of Muslims and criminals hell bent on invading your house. I have heard that it is necessary simply because it is a right.

But those answers raise more questions. Are there indeed maurading hordes of Muslims and criminals? Could an assault rifle hole off the forces of a corrupt government and their corporate overlords?

The crux of the current debate has been effectively shut down by the semantics of definitions. A convenient means of deflecting the discussion away from real informantion. Much as the debate over the former assault weapons ban was deflected by arguing over the cosmetics of guns rather than the essential questions of lethality and practicality beyond sporting use.

Today we are debating the merits and practicality of arming teachers. The majority of advocates say teachers should have concealed guns.

That drives this question: if it is necessary to have an assault rifle for personal defense, why is a concealed weapon deemed adequate to defend a school room? Shouldn't a school room have the best defensive tools available? And if an assault weapon is necessary for personal defense, shouldn't an assault rifle be slung over the shoulder of a classroom sentinel?

And that prospect drives this question: Is that the society we want to raise our children in?

That drives this question: if it is necessary to have an assault rifle for personal defense, why is a concealed weapon deemed adequate to defend a school room?

You have to pick the gun to fit the job....

A rifle can't easily be carried around, and it is obvious. A many hand guns are easy to carry and can be concealed.

We know that mass shooters choose gun free zones....so the mere act of having armed people on campus makes the school less likely to be a target.....since we know from living mass shooters and the notes of dead mass shooters that they are not looking for a fight, they are looking to murder unarmed people.

So, we achieve the right tool by balancing ease of carry and concealment with effectiveness....and in the case of a school, several pistol armed staff or armed security fits the needs, they deter attackers and can still effectively engage them with pistols..........where an AR-15 doesn't make a good match.

An AR-15 is better for the home, especially during a natural disaster or social disturbance like a riot. Also...for isolated locations where the police may be half hour to an hour away...farms and ranches......an AR-15 makes a better match....especially in border state ranches...where you may face drug cartel drug runners or illegal alien coyotes who have actual military rifles.....supplied by the Mexican police or military....or which they bought from China and European countries....

Why do mass shooters pick the weapons they do?

They have been picking the AR-15 because it is popular in video games.....and because gun grabbers are giving it a reputation it doesn't deserve......8 million in private hands.....and they kill fewer people than knives, clubs or empty hands, yet the left wing media is demanding it be banned.....hand guns are used to murder about 10,000 people a year.....yet the media wants that rifle banned....

The Virginia Tech shooter murdered 32 people.....more than Sandy hook, more than texas and more than this last shooting....

And of all the mass public shootings since 1982.....35 years......none of them murdered more people than a rental truck in France did in 5 minutes.....86 people.....

The main reason the anti gunners want to ban the AR-15 even though it kills the least amount of people every single year?
They know that if they can get the AR-15 banned......it operates the same way as every other semi auto weapon in the country, and if they get uninformed people to agree to ban it, they can come back and then say....but, but....all those other semi auto weapons are the same as the AR-15, so if we banned that rifle, we have to ban all the others...no matter what they look like.

Can you please cite an incident in which 58 people were killed at once by an individual wielding any of those weapons? Perhaps an incident in which 26 people were killed. Or 49 or 17.

These are not random numbers, but numbers from Las Vegas, Newtown, Sutherland Springs and Parkland.

32 people killed with 2 pistols at Virginia tech.....

24 people killed at Luby's cafe with 2 pistols.

86 people murdered with a rental truck in Nice, France.

58 people is a reachable number with pistols......the guy in Vegas only achieved that because he was firing from a distance into a tightly packed crowd of 22,000 people....with the guns he had, he could have done the same damage with several bolt action rifles.......

 

[2aguy]

I think these folks are telling you that the rifles they own that LOOK nasty to you are not assault rifles. And PROBABLY that only a lefty gun phobe would call a commercially available rifle "an assault" rifle..

I'll play along tho....

I need a big mean nasty rifle --- because when the disaster and looting comes, the police are NOT gonna save my store in the strip mall.

I need a big mean nasty rifle --- because I don't want to be fumbling with clips and reloading when my dog is tracking the coyote that was eating my new born calf in the cold and the dark..

I need a big mean nasty rifle --- because I'm taking my daughter for a couple days of trout fishing at a stream they call Bear Creek for a reason..

But the REAL REASON is

I need a big mean nasty rifle --- because it makes gun grabbers like Diane Feinstein poop their Depends.

The big and nasty are cosmetics. The rate of fire and the overwhelming lethalitynof the rounds they shoot in such numbers and with such rapidity is the real question and the real issue.

well if that is the case the ar 15 is not a very powerful rifle at all

in fact it is nothing more then a supped up 22

the ar is the first one on the left

compare that to the 308 or 30-06

far more lethal

How many foot pounds per second are delivered by the round from the AR15?

Why does that matter? There are 8 million AR-15s......and they kill fewer people than handguns, knives, clubs and empty hands....but you guys want to ban it...

The question is the lethality of the rounds, not drawing an equivalence between AR15s and clubs.

No....the point is that clubs murder more people every single year than AR-15s.......clubs are more lethal every single year than the 8 million AR-15 rifles.....

 

[jon_berzerk]

I am not denying the right to own an assault rifle. I wonder about the necessity to own an assault rifle.

In this thread I have heard that it is necessary to defend one's self from an over reaching and corrupt system of government nad corporate power brokers. I have heard that it is necessary to defend one's self against marauding hordes of Muslims and criminals hell bent on invading your house. I have heard that it is necessary simply because it is a right.

But those answers raise more questions. Are there indeed maurading hordes of Muslims and criminals? Could an assault rifle hole off the forces of a corrupt government and their corporate overlords?

The crux of the current debate has been effectively shut down by the semantics of definitions. A convenient means of deflecting the discussion away from real informantion. Much as the debate over the former assault weapons ban was deflected by arguing over the cosmetics of guns rather than the essential questions of lethality and practicality beyond sporting use.

Today we are debating the merits and practicality of arming teachers. The majority of advocates say teachers should have concealed guns.

That drives this question: if it is necessary to have an assault rifle for personal defense, why is a concealed weapon deemed adequate to defend a school room? Shouldn't a school room have the best defensive tools available? And if an assault weapon is necessary for personal defense, shouldn't an assault rifle be slung over the shoulder of a classroom sentinel?

And that prospect drives this question: Is that the society we want to raise our children in?

That drives this question: if it is necessary to have an assault rifle for personal defense, why is a concealed weapon deemed adequate to defend a school room?

You have to pick the gun to fit the job....

A rifle can't easily be carried around, and it is obvious. A many hand guns are easy to carry and can be concealed.

We know that mass shooters choose gun free zones....so the mere act of having armed people on campus makes the school less likely to be a target.....since we know from living mass shooters and the notes of dead mass shooters that they are not looking for a fight, they are looking to murder unarmed people.

So, we achieve the right tool by balancing ease of carry and concealment with effectiveness....and in the case of a school, several pistol armed staff or armed security fits the needs, they deter attackers and can still effectively engage them with pistols..........where an AR-15 doesn't make a good match.

An AR-15 is better for the home, especially during a natural disaster or social disturbance like a riot. Also...for isolated locations where the police may be half hour to an hour away...farms and ranches......an AR-15 makes a better match....especially in border state ranches...where you may face drug cartel drug runners or illegal alien coyotes who have actual military rifles.....supplied by the Mexican police or military....or which they bought from China and European countries....

Why do mass shooters pick the weapons they do?

They have been picking the AR-15 because it is popular in video games.....and because gun grabbers are giving it a reputation it doesn't deserve......8 million in private hands.....and they kill fewer people than knives, clubs or empty hands, yet the left wing media is demanding it be banned.....hand guns are used to murder about 10,000 people a year.....yet the media wants that rifle banned....

The Virginia Tech shooter murdered 32 people.....more than Sandy hook, more than texas and more than this last shooting....

And of all the mass public shootings since 1982.....35 years......none of them murdered more people than a rental truck in France did in 5 minutes.....86 people.....

The main reason the anti gunners want to ban the AR-15 even though it kills the least amount of people every single year?
They know that if they can get the AR-15 banned......it operates the same way as every other semi auto weapon in the country, and if they get uninformed people to agree to ban it, they can come back and then say....but, but....all those other semi auto weapons are the same as the AR-15, so if we banned that rifle, we have to ban all the others...no matter what they look like.

Can you please cite an incident in which 58 people were killed at once by an individual wielding any of those weapons? Perhaps an incident in which 26 people were killed. Or 49 or 17.

These are not random numbers, but numbers from Las Vegas, Newtown, Sutherland Springs and Parkland.

32 people killed with 2 pistols at Virginia tech.....

24 people killed at Luby's cafe with 2 pistols.

86 people murdered with a rental truck in Nice, France.

58 people is a reachable number with pistols......the guy in Vegas only achieved that because he was firing from a distance into a tightly packed crowd of 22,000 people....with the guns he had, he could have done the same damage with several bolt action rifles.......

had he knew arms instead of buying into the hype about the ar

he could have chosen much more lethal firearms considering the distance and all

but this is the wrong format to discuss such things (far too many weirdos lurking around )