What The Hell Does A Normal American Need An Army Assault Weapon For.....Target Practice?

[Divine Wind]

..hat is explained in the Bill of Rights.

"Being necessary for the security of a free state the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed".

Our Founding Fathers knew that the only way to protect liberty was to make sure that the people had strength.

The only thing that separates a "peace officer" from a government thug are the orders of some corrupt politician or stupid bureaucrat.

Agreed 100%. Hence why it's "We, the People" and the Founders were against "big government". I'm certain those who spilled their blood fighting for independence from King George's tyranny are rolling in their graves at what our nation has become.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Argumentum ad absurdum. The real question is why shouldn't a lawful american citizen be able to own a semi automatic rifle, which is the proper name for an "Assault weapon".

It seems reasonable to me that citizens should have access to the same arms as are used by our civilian peace officers.

Frankly, since the U.S. Constitution and our founders both intended for us to have the same weapons as our military, it seems reasonable to me that we should have the same access to arms as every branch of the military.

Well, the government is us, right? Isn't that what the liberals say? So since the government is us, we all should be permitted to use the same weapons.

And if the government is NOT "us", then we need them even more.

 

[Divine Wind]

In the US v Miller case the Supreme Court said that the Second Amendment protected civilians having military weapons.

Somehow the Libtards always seem to forget that.

Let's not forget that a Springfield M1903 bolt-action and a Colt 1851 Navy revolver are "military weapons". The Left has consistently voiced an opinion to ban "military weapons". Translation? Ban even muskets like the Continental Army used.

 

[Kondor3]

This idea of the NRA governing the types of weapons available in gun shops is rank bull shit! Why is it that we're the only industrialized nation in the world which feels the necessity of a ordinary citizen to go armed with a military style killing machine?

White Suburbia has to defend itself against the potential for hordes of feral inner-city Blacks and Hispanics come swarming out of their shit-holes...

 

[P@triot]

This idea of the NRA governing the types of weapons available in gun shops is rank bull shit! Why is it that we're the only industrialized nation in the world which feels the necessity of a ordinary citizen to go armed with a military style killing machine?

White Suburbia has to defend itself against the potential for hordes of feral inner-city Blacks and Hispanics come swarming out of their shit-holes...

Frankly, I'm far more concerned with the radicals that have been in the White House during the past 8 years (like Barack Obama, Rham Emanuel, and Van Jones) than I am about rioting. Barack Obama's radical views and abuse of powers pose far more risk to me than anything Ferguson, Missouri has to offer.

 

[Jarlaxle]

That is 100% conjecture and therefore meaningless

It is physics.

The entire article is prefaced on might haves therefore it is conjecture

You want 10 round limits fine? I can carry 10 handguns all loaded with a 10 round mag and one in the chamber

That's 110 shots before a reload

Yes and you only have 2 hands, one that will accurately shoot. That means you are fumbling around for the next gun.

I am ambidextrous

I am strongly left-handed, and my right hand is completely stupid about most things. Nevertheless, I can shoot with it well enough to kill and wound panicked, unarmed people in a crowded building, should I ever wish to do so. I am also by no means a firearm expert, and I nevertheless can't see any reason I would be "fumbling", as Brainless put it, in switching from an empty gun to a loaded one.

My wife is a southpaw, and when shooting my Model 29 right-handed (it has grips molded for a righty), she was pretty good. Not as good as she was left-handed, but probably better than 90% of thugs.

 

[Cecilie1200]

It is physics.

The entire article is prefaced on might haves therefore it is conjecture

You want 10 round limits fine? I can carry 10 handguns all loaded with a 10 round mag and one in the chamber

That's 110 shots before a reload

Yes and you only have 2 hands, one that will accurately shoot. That means you are fumbling around for the next gun.

I am ambidextrous

I am strongly left-handed, and my right hand is completely stupid about most things. Nevertheless, I can shoot with it well enough to kill and wound panicked, unarmed people in a crowded building, should I ever wish to do so. I am also by no means a firearm expert, and I nevertheless can't see any reason I would be "fumbling", as Brainless put it, in switching from an empty gun to a loaded one.

My wife is a southpaw, and when shooting my Model 29 right-handed (it has grips molded for a righty), she was pretty good. Not as good as she was left-handed, but probably better than 90% of thugs.

I've been blessed with natural aim, and I honestly have trouble understanding why other people have so damned much trouble hitting the target.

I honestly use a bow more accurately than I do a handgun, but have you ever tried concealed-carry with a recurve bow and a quiver of arrows? Damned difficult.

 

[Jarlaxle]

Now that I think of it, she shoots a bow right-handed, too.

 

[Flash]

[Qded (it has grips molded for a righty), she was pretty good. Not as good as she was left-handed, but probably better than 90% of thugs.

My son is a right handed but left eye dominate.

I recently built him a left handed AR with a Stag Arms upper. Now he can line the sights up on his left shoulder with his left eye.

 

[FA_Q2]

Still ineffective. The real function of the police is not to protect from active criminals - they are the cleanup crew.

The protection comes form the fear that a criminal has to face after committing the crime in the form of being jailed and from those criminals that are caught and cannot re-offend.

Not sure if you're being truthful or facetious.

We have over 11 million illegals in this country who have no fear of the crime they are committing. We have gang-bangers murdering each other daily with handguns (not "assault weapons") who are not intimidated by the death penalty.

So what is the solution? Not banning sections of the Constitution since only law-biding citizens will comply....and they are the only ones harmed by such bans.

?

Did you even read the comment I was responding to? They were originally making the assertion that the police are there so weapons are not needed. It was mentioned by the person I quoted that the police are never that close unless you live in the inner city.

I was pointing out that is irrelevant - cops are not effective there either in protecting you from crime. They do prevent some crimes in the manner that I mentioned but in the end, if you are being victimized by a criminal I can virtually guarantee that the police are NOT going to be there to help you until AFTER the criminal is done with you be that mean you are robbed, raped or dead.

The argument (and I think you agree here) that the police are there so we do not need to protect ourselves is naive in the extreme.

 

[FA_Q2]

That doesnt jive with your insistence that high capacity magazines are dangerous.

Brain knows that magazine capacity has nothing to do with mass shootings.....and Australia...if you look up their mass shootings...they didn't have a problem with mass shootings before their gun confiscation after Port Arthur........they don't like to tell you that either......

They want magazine bans because they can ban various types of guns based on the standard magazines that are designed for the tgun.........including pistiols....

Changing magazines slows the shooter and saves lives. Many shooters have been stopped at reload and certainly many have escaped during reload. It is physics moron.

You know that is a lie brain.....in the actual research into all mass shootings one, just one, might have been during a magazine change.....and I showed you from witness testimony why that one wasn't......

No...it isn't physics.......you are lying......

magazine capacity has nothing to with deaths in a mass shooting.....

Yes it is physics moron. Reloading slows the shooter, physics. Slowing shooter allows more to escape. It is very simple.

Yes, except it's 100% conjecture, and inaccurate, inasmuch as studies show that it didn't happen that way the LAST time you had the ban you so desperately want.

So what you're telling us is, "It's the truth, not because I can prove it works that way, but because it just sounds so logical to me that it SHOULD work that way." Would it surprise you to know that rejecting the evidence and believing you instead is not an option anyone's rushing to take?

This is the gun control argument in a nutshell. Ignore the evidence (and the fact those idea have already been tried) because they think it will work this time.

 

[FA_Q2]

I have no problem with the 2nd amendment.......I have no problem with hand guns, shotguns, hunting rifles, etc. Anybody who thinks a normal U S citizen has any need for an automatic rifle capable of military combat has their right wing head so far up their ass that they'll never smell fresh air again. The folks who wrote the 2nd amendment had no knowledge of any weapon more advanced than a single shot musket with a 10-15 second reload time. GET REAL!!!!

Speaking of people with their heads up their asses, have you ever considered the bad precedent being set by using "need" as a requirement for an enumerated right? Any right?

Do you really need a faster computer? Internet access? A printer? Do you need to have freedom of or from religion? Do you need any of those rights...or do the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few or the one? Have you really considered how dark that path you are suggesting could become?

Trey Gowdy grilled one of the left wing idiots on just this topic.....Dan and Amy, the local radio show played clips of him questioning and idiot from Homeland or the Justice department on the No fly list.....he asked her if we can deprive a person of their 2nd Amendment rights simply by putting them on the list...how about their 5th Amendment rights...or their 8th Amendment rights.......what rights can we strip from people without due process simply by putting them on a list?

Her reply?

Here it is....it's great....

That was rather hilarious. She had no idea how to respond.

Those advocating for gun control really do not see the second as a right and cannot fathom how the comparison follows. The answer has always been the same - if they really feel that way then they need to change the constitution. Never try that though because it is obvious that such has no chance of ever happening so they, instead, simply try and subvert the constitution itself.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Now that I think of it, she shoots a bow right-handed, too.

Well, the bow is less about your dominant hand and more about your dominant eye, which isn't always on the same side. Basically, your eyes working together "center" your vision between them, but they will base that centering more on one eye than the other. If you point at a distant object with both eyes open, and then close one eye without moving your finger, your finger should appear to move away from the object. If it doesn't, then the eye that's still open is your dominant eye, and is the side you should be using to aim.

My husband is the only person I've ever met who can aim equally well with either eye.

 

[jon_berzerk]

I have no problem with the 2nd amendment.......I have no problem with hand guns, shotguns, hunting rifles, etc. Anybody who thinks a normal U S citizen has any need for an automatic rifle capable of military combat has their right wing head so far up their ass that they'll never smell fresh air again. The folks who wrote the 2nd amendment had no knowledge of any weapon more advanced than a single shot musket with a 10-15 second reload time. GET REAL!!!!

Speaking of people with their heads up their asses, have you ever considered the bad precedent being set by using "need" as a requirement for an enumerated right? Any right?

Do you really need a faster computer? Internet access? A printer? Do you need to have freedom of or from religion? Do you need any of those rights...or do the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few or the one? Have you really considered how dark that path you are suggesting could become?

Trey Gowdy grilled one of the left wing idiots on just this topic.....Dan and Amy, the local radio show played clips of him questioning and idiot from Homeland or the Justice department on the No fly list.....he asked her if we can deprive a person of their 2nd Amendment rights simply by putting them on the list...how about their 5th Amendment rights...or their 8th Amendment rights.......what rights can we strip from people without due process simply by putting them on a list?

Her reply?

Here it is....it's great....

That was rather hilarious. She had no idea how to respond.

Those advocating for gun control really do not see the second as a right and cannot fathom how the comparison follows. The answer has always been the same - if they really feel that way then they need to change the constitution. Never try that though because it is obvious that such has no chance of ever happening so they, instead, simply try and subvert the constitution itself.

yes the leftist had/has no idea

not a clue as to what DUE PROCESS is

 

[Cecilie1200]

Brain knows that magazine capacity has nothing to do with mass shootings.....and Australia...if you look up their mass shootings...they didn't have a problem with mass shootings before their gun confiscation after Port Arthur........they don't like to tell you that either......

They want magazine bans because they can ban various types of guns based on the standard magazines that are designed for the tgun.........including pistiols....

Changing magazines slows the shooter and saves lives. Many shooters have been stopped at reload and certainly many have escaped during reload. It is physics moron.

You know that is a lie brain.....in the actual research into all mass shootings one, just one, might have been during a magazine change.....and I showed you from witness testimony why that one wasn't......

No...it isn't physics.......you are lying......

magazine capacity has nothing to with deaths in a mass shooting.....

Yes it is physics moron. Reloading slows the shooter, physics. Slowing shooter allows more to escape. It is very simple.

Yes, except it's 100% conjecture, and inaccurate, inasmuch as studies show that it didn't happen that way the LAST time you had the ban you so desperately want.

So what you're telling us is, "It's the truth, not because I can prove it works that way, but because it just sounds so logical to me that it SHOULD work that way." Would it surprise you to know that rejecting the evidence and believing you instead is not an option anyone's rushing to take?

This is the gun control argument in a nutshell. Ignore the evidence (and the fact those idea have already been tried) because they think it will work this time.

it's their argument for everything. "It just didn't work before because brilliant people like US weren't doing it!"

 

[jon_berzerk]

Now that I think of it, she shoots a bow right-handed, too.

Well, the bow is less about your dominant hand and more about your dominant eye, which isn't always on the same side. Basically, your eyes working together "center" your vision between them, but they will base that centering more on one eye than the other. If you point at a distant object with both eyes open, and then close one eye without moving your finger, your finger should appear to move away from the object. If it doesn't, then the eye that's still open is your dominant eye, and is the side you should be using to aim.

My husband is the only person I've ever met who can aim equally well with either eye.

with my recurve i shoot instinctively

whereas with my compound bows i shoot through a peep sight

and regular iron sight with the cross bow

 

[OKTexas]

the real question is

why are libtards so ignorant about firearms

These people think the cops are there to "take care" of them. And with this belief, think that no one should have the right to use a weapon to defend their life liberty or property.

Learned better than that when I was a teenager. When we were attacked, my sister and I called the cops from a movie theater lobby that was three blocks from the police station, and it STILL took them almost ten minutes to get officers there.

I mean, I'm sure if they had happened to be driving by when the attack happened, they'd have stopped and helped us, but I'm not even remotely inclined to count on a friendly neighborhood patrol car wandering by at the right moment.

Yep, police are only minutes away when seconds count, in my case most likely about 65-70 minutes, hell it took 45 just to get an ambulance.

 

[jon_berzerk]

Now that I think of it, she shoots a bow right-handed, too.

Well, the bow is less about your dominant hand and more about your dominant eye, which isn't always on the same side. Basically, your eyes working together "center" your vision between them, but they will base that centering more on one eye than the other. If you point at a distant object with both eyes open, and then close one eye without moving your finger, your finger should appear to move away from the object. If it doesn't, then the eye that's still open is your dominant eye, and is the side you should be using to aim.

My husband is the only person I've ever met who can aim equally well with either eye.

i shoot both right or left handed

 

[Divine Wind]

yes the leftist had/has no idea

not a clue as to what DUE PROCESS is

A slight disagreement. They do know what due process is, but like the Second Amendment, they want to rewrite the Constitution in their own image and eliminate any inconvenient parts.

Due process, the right of self defense and anything else contrary to giving the State absolute power to make decisions for our "best interests" are part of their agenda to be written out or nullified.

 

[OKTexas]

Gun Control And Mass Shootings: Would Lives Be Saved?

Blogs = "I have no proof, but someone on the Internet says I'm right!"

You should preface that with "LIBERAL blogs= I have no proof, but someone on the internet says I'm right!"

Because I've seen endless blogs well sourced and filled with facts. It's just that none of them are done by the ignorant and ideological liberal.

I still prefer links to the actual sources, rather than to a blog citing sources.

These days, you get people ostensibly on the right citing blogs as proof of things, too, and it's a very bad habit evidencing incredibly sloppy debate skills.

Most all of them provide a link to the source.