Why we should not ban assault guns

[River]

Passion! One of the many spices of life!

...and not unlike an M-80 with a lit fuse...

 

[BillB1960]

Yeah. Tell the Sandy Hook Elementry School parents we need AR's.

 

[Shelbyblues]

...and not unlike an M-80 with a lit fuse...

 

[LtDave32]

Yeah. Tell the Sandy Hook Elementry School parents we need AR's.

I'll bet there isn't one parent, sibling or spouse of those killed at Sandy Hook that wouldn't have wanted someone competent, equipped with lethal force there at the school that day to stop that madman.

 

[LesterNtele]

That can't compete with Fred Sanford:

Yeah....thats just how im feelin.

How can i undo the wrongs that have been done.?
I would delete the thread if i could.
Im gonna go hide in the basement for a while and polish my AR.

 

[River]

I'll bet there isn't one parent, sibling or spouse of those killed at Sandy Hook that wouldn't have wanted someone competent, equipped with lethal force there at the school that day to stop that madman.

Here I am replying to a guy who signs every post with "come at me, bro'"!

Srsly, you may be right. But they're in no position to be making cold, hard decisions on much of anything right now. I'm painfully able to relate to that situation.

That's not to say I'm against armed guards at schools; in fact I'm all for them IF having them meets local community standards. I'm equally sure there are affected parents all in favor of "assault/high-capacity weapon" bans on a Federal level. They're not thinking straight either.

"'Round and 'round it goes, where it stops, nobody knows."

 

[ed1996]

 

[Comanche]

I was on a shooting team in high school. That was in 1982.
I are guns.

 

[your idol]

because RBA is still trying to find the right one to go target hunting with?

Because Bertzie needs all the help he can get?

 

[Beerdog80]

BAN GUNS! I see no need for em...

Wait...

Nevermind

 

[nicklee13]

I am trying real hard not to get sucked in.

**Post Edited** --Mod

No need to come in and insult members, new guy.

Fortunately, I am not here for politics or constitutional scholarship.

 

[Torren61]

Assault: attack, strike, onslaught, offensive, charge, push, thrust, invasion, bombardment, sortie, incursion, raid, blitz, campaign.

Defense: protection, guarding, security, fortification; resistance, deterrent.

I'm honestly not trying to incite here. I hear "assault rifle" and I immediately think of attacking and killing and war and carnage. I hear "defensive weapon" and I think of warding off someone trying to do you harm. I think of justification as in, "he was defending himself".

When I read some of you talking about using your assault rifles to thwart an evil government, honestly, it makes me chuckle a bit. I think of that movie "Red Dawn" and when the kids shoot up the commie invaders' convoy and they all stand on the hill and shout "WOLVERINES!!!".

It's not gonna go down like that. If it does go down, it ain't going down like THAT. You'll be singled out, not grouped up. And when you DO get singled out, no one is gonna come to your defense because they'll all be scared that they'll be next if they make a move. "As long as it's not me." is what they'll be thinking.

Just remember, if you DO decide to make your move, it's your kids and your wife and all your relatives that are gonna pay the price. You don't have the firepower to stay very long. You won't be able to go to your house and sleep or eat. They'll bomb it into toothpicks with a drone. You'll have to live in the woods. Any woods near you that will hide you and your entire family? How are you gonna eat?

If you last through the summer, winter will come. Can you make it in the woods in winter with your family?

Have you really thought this through?

You wanna stop the "rogue government"? Where the fvck were you when the Patriot Act was signed into law? Where were you when Homeland Security was formed?

You're a bit late boys.

Besides, which one of you is gonna be the leader? Which of you is gonna be the first to make your move?

I'm not trying to bring you down but I don't think you are living in the real world if you think you and a cadre of buddies are gonna bring down the government with your assault weapons, no matter HOW many you have in your house.

The problem, as I see it, is that a few nut cases have used assault weapons to shoot the shit out of some people and that has drawn attention. I know YOU didn't do it. I know YOU are a responsible gun owner and you'd NEVER go out and kill lots of people. But people have done it and they've done it with assault weapons because they could get their hands on them

What about liability insurance? Do you have an assault weapon and liability insurance? I have a motor vehicle and I have liability insurance. Why don't you have insurance so that if you have a meltdown and blast me or mine, I can at least get paid?

There are too many holes in the system that allow idiots to get their hands on firearms. It's not MY fault. It may not be YOUR fault but it's a problem.

Look, you want to own an assault rifle? I don't have the slightest problem with that but you are gonna have to assure me that I'm safe. I don't wanna get shot by you or anyone to whom you sell your rifle. What about MY rights?

I believe in the 2nd Amendment. You DO have the right to keep and bear arms. I don't read anything in the 2nd Amendment that allows you to keep and bear an assault rifle. However, as long as you're not a dick and can be a responsible gun owner, go ahead. Have your gun.

 

[BillB1960]

I am trying real hard not to get sucked in.

I haven't been around here very long but it's pretty obvious a lot of folks are red state, don't believe in evolution types.

Fortunately, I am not here for politics or constitutional scholarship.

Can we get that brush just a little broader there chief? Maybe throw in the odd "redneck" here 'n there? Oh just go for broke and throw out the ol' tried 'n true "gun nut" label. That'll put 'em in their place now won't it?

 

[Skintaster]

I am trying real hard not to get sucked in.

I haven't been around here very long but it's pretty obvious a lot of folks are red state, don't believe in evolution types.

Fortunately, I am not here for politics or constitutional scholarship.

I think that's a pretty judgmental, and broad brush you're painting with.

And you're in Houston? Last time I checked Texas is considered a "Red state", and has a pretty unfortunate track record in regards to school boards and evoluti... Well, never mind. Just saying maybe the judgmental bit is not particularly cool.

It comes off as baiting.

 

[Beerdog80]

I am trying real hard not to get sucked in.

I haven't been around here very long but it's pretty obvious a lot of folks are red state, don't believe in evolution types.

Fortunately, I am not here for politics or constitutional scholarship.

What does red state and evolution types have to do with this discussion?

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

I haven't been around here very long but it's pretty obvious a lot of folks are red state, don't believe in evolution types.

I think you'll be in for a surprise.

 

[b-squared]

I don't see anything in the 2nd amendment that says ANYTHING about what type of firearms I can or cannot have. Torren, maybe you can show me.

BB

 

[AngryHatter]

Machine Gun Kelly opposed the outlawing of machine guns in the hands of civilians.
What is different?

According to an article written by Thom Hartmann, “The Second Amendment was ratified to preserve slavery” (Thom Hartmann: The Second Amendment Was Ratified to Preserve Slavery | Alternet), the original intent of the Second Amendment was to legally institutionalize slavery militia.


Based on the well-documented history of the Second Amendment and the use of “state militias” in Southern states to enforce slavery, it stands to reason that a black man using his gun rights to protect his life, family and property against the Ku Klux Klan would have a different stake in protecting his rights than the white guy ranting ad nauseam about the tyrannical federal government.


The true purpose for the final wording of the Second Amendment “as necessary to the security of a free State” was to protect against federal tyranny that would end slavery in the Southern states. State militias were used to preserve and enforce it. The wording, as it stands today, was also necessary to ensure that Southern states would agree to ratify the Constitution and its first 10 amendments.

 

[LtDave32]

Here I am replying to a guy who signs every post with "come at me, bro'"!

Srsly, you may be right. But they're in no position to be making cold, hard decisions on much of anything right now. I'm painfully able to relate to that situation.

That's not to say I'm against armed guards at schools; in fact I'm all for them IF having them meets local community standards. I'm equally sure there are affected parents all in favor of "assault/high-capacity weapon" bans on a Federal level. They're not thinking straight either.

"'Round and 'round it goes, where it stops, nobody knows."

Riv, you know I have that cat in my sig because its little dance is funny. I doesn't imply that I'm spoiling for a fight..

And as to the your response, I couldn't agree with you more. Your post is the very voice of common sense.

 

[bertzie]

I don't see anything in the 2nd amendment that says ANYTHING about what type of firearms I can or cannot have. Torren, maybe you can show me.

BB

So you support the repeal of the machine gun ban?