"Why do we need assault weapons?"

[BBReezen]

Tobacco kills more people then guns so, why not ban tobacco. Just another example.

Banning tobacco would just cause a mass nicotine rage and we would have a nationwide royal rumble on our hands.

[Lungbustr]

For the exact same reason the govt. And law enforcement "needs them". They could do their jobs with single shot weapons couldnt they? We need to protect ourselves from crazies like the colorado shooter, we need to protect our country from foreign invaders, and we need to protect ourselves from our govt. ,and just common criminals. That and its our right and duty as american citizens to own them. Dont forget this shooting along with pretty much all mass shootings happened in a gun free zone.

[Shane]

I respectfully agree with what everyone is saying and it seems like we are all on the same side. Let's stick to the question though. Why do we need assault rifles??? ..... And I must say this, if a drug cartel rolls up to your deer lease, you are probably in big trouble no matter how many AR's you have.

With all due respect, that's the WRONG question.

The right question is "Why should we be unable to own any firearm we want?". 99.99% of gun owners are good, law-abiding citizens. Why should our rights be infringed in any way?

[DawgOnIt]

Need is not the point. The premise of the question your friend posted is wrong from the start.

People in large cities don't necessarily need a car. Cars kill far more people than guns annually. Do people really need cars?

Exactly right here!

Your facebook friend even states, "To me, guns serve only two civilian purposes: self-defense and hunting."

He has a narrow view based off his opinions which probably came about by being shielded or never exposed to all types of weapons. You could probably take this guy out and let him run a few clips down shooting at targets and he
may see there is more to it then just self-defense and hunting.

[JSF]

With all due respect, that's the WRONG question.

The right question is "Why should we be unable to own any firearm we want?". 99.99% of gun owners are good, law-abiding citizens. Why should our rights be infringed in any way?

This ^^^

[8pointer]

With all due respect, that's the WRONG question.

The right question is "Why should we be unable to own any firearm we want?". 99.99% of gun owners are good, law-abiding citizens. Why should our rights be infringed in any way?

I can agree with that 100%

[native_texan]

The stroke of a pen. The pen is the most dangerous "assault weapon" in the hands of a politician determined to take away our second Amendment Rights. With small arms nearly as good as the government's, e.g. AR-15s, AK-47, AK-74s and the like, armed citizens would be a formidable force to fight against troops ordered to take away our Constitutional rights. This may be illustrated: At the start of WWII, the Japanese chose not to invade the U.S. Consider the words of a Japanese Naval Marshal General - Commander-in-Chief of the Japanese Combined Naval fleet: "Japan would never invade the United States. We would find a rifle behind every blade of grass." -Isoroku Yamamoto.

Firearms which may be classified as "assault weapons" generally bring to mind the AR's and the AKs. The truth is, two semi-automatic pistols, each with high capacity magazines can and have been converted to full auto. These can do as much damage on the shorter ranges as the assault rifle. The person who handles whatever weapon and the manner in which he/she uses it becomes the assault. The person is the killer and not the weapon.

I have firearms I use to hunt with. Some magazines hold five and some hold thirty. Some have no magazines. None are assault rifles. They are hunting and recreational firearms, period.

[simsknives]

i could write and write and write but on here it would be to the wrong audience that needs persuading. A lot of people dont understand the perspective that we have as gun owning americans so we have to try to put it into a context that they would understand. For example you wouldnt try to put a speed governer on a car because a drunk driver went to fast and killed some people. You wouldnt try to limit cell phone usasge because a sex offender used one to sexually assult someone. One of the main things that people dont understand is the stuff happens, people go crazy and there is nothing anything but instilling good home moral values is going to fix and moral values have gone way way down in the last decade.

[Encinal]

Please keep this civil as I would like this thread to last. A politically neutral friend of mine is posting on facebook asking why American civilians need assault rifles, and suggesting that they be banned. Here is an excerpt.

"To me, guns serve only two civilian purposes: self-defense and hunting. Why would you need an assault rifle for either of these purposes? And it's not the firepower of the gun that's so important; it's the capacity of the magazine, of which assault rifles generally are larger. This allows for a wider range of damage across targets, say, in shooting sprees. There is a problem, however, in that if someone wants to kill people, they'll find a way to do it. We shouldn't outlaw civilian possession of firearms in general, only those styles which can injure many people at one time."

The last sentence concerns me. What would you say?

That's exactly the point of the second amendment. The voice of the the declaration of Independence is the voice of the people... WE THE PEOPLE. The second amendment is the last line of defense for our voice. It's peace time. It seems absurd to have an armed populace to protect itself large scale against this government at this time. It doesn't seem like a reason at all. That's why your friend didn't mention it. That's the reason it is there.

When I go abroad and have to declare guns going through the Netherlands... you know what I put on my declaration when it says "Position allowing you to carry firearm:"? I put US CITIZEN, and I'm ****ed proud to be able to do it.

[8pointer]

i could write and write and write but on here it would be to the wrong audience that needs persuading. A lot of people dont understand the perspective that we have as gun owning americans so we have to try to put it into a context that they would understand. For example you wouldnt try to put a speed governer on a car because a drunk driver went to fast and killed some people. You wouldnt try to limit cell phone usasge because a sex offender used one to sexually assult someone. One of the main things that people dont understand is the stuff happens, people go crazy and there is nothing anything but instilling good home moral values is going to fix and moral values have gone way way down in the last decade.

amen

[Dallascowboys]

im with everyone that said i dont own an assualt rifle all i own is a hunting rifle it just so happens to be an ak-47 but i just shoot hogs not people so if it was a hog asking why i would say to kill him but as far as a human i dont plan on assualting one unless he trys to hurt my family and i quess then i would use my glock 21 assualt pistol or my assualt baseball bat. the guy was a ****** bag for shooting inocent people but he could have done the same thing with a pistol just carry more clips. and while we are at it we need to ban all plumbing pipe so these guys can quit making pipe bombs also

[txtimetravler]

Guns are not weapons! I hate when people say that, even us hunters!
They are firearms.
I look at them like a tool. Any tool can be used for things they were not designed for.

[Dallascowboys]

what he said ^^^^^

[RickH78]

They were talking about "assault weapons" on the news and I just rolled my eyes. So if this guy only killed say 5-10 people that would of been better? He is a nut job that's all there is to it. I like the post about 9/11. Not a single round was fired in that mess and look what happened. Bad people are going to do bad things.

[Tuffbroadhead]

While you are discussing this..

The Brady Campaign posted this..

"Brian Dzyak - It's high-time to declare the NRA a Terrorist Organization. We can offer a 24 hour amnesty for members to quit. After that, everyone on the membership roles will be considered a potential threat to national security and dealt with appropriately.
about an hour ago ·