Why Would You Own An Assault Rifle?

[Gondor]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OFAFacSSWh4

Interesting and current topic since we're already talking about gun bans. Actually is there a need for this question? What is your position on this?

 

[Barney]

Damn right! It's none of your business! Why would I explain myself to anybody. I don't own an assault rifle but I'm all about defending right of those who do and want to own!

 

[wvbreamfisherman]

Actually an assault rifle is capable of fully automatic fire, while the term "assualt weapon" one created by gun controllers is any rifle we don't like...or maybe a shotgun or pistol, depending on how we feel.

The SMLE MkIII was the "assault weapon" of it's day- in skilled hands, it was capable of such rapid fire that Germans facing British soldiers using them thought that they were facing machine guns (WWI).

The SMLE, for those who don't know, is a bolt action rifle.

This is the first step in a total firearms ban with confiscation, and if you catch the gun controllers in an honest moment, they will admit it.

 

[Pathfinder1]

Hi...


As to "why" we need 'assault' (big mag, semi-auto) weapons...we don't NEED them...we just want them...!! They're out there, so we want to include them in our gun collections. Pride in ownership, machismo, have lots of money to spend, fun on the target range, whatever.

However, I'm 6'-2" tall...weigh close to 300-pounds...and wear a size sixteen boot. Were I ever inclined to 'assault' anyone...I probably wouldn't even need a weapon...!! (Hope that size sixteen boots don't get banned, though)...!!

 

[ChadTower]

Size 16 boots might be banned because their capacity for anal damage is too high for reasonable purposes.

 

[dinosaur]

Many years ago I purchased a Rossi .38, .357Magnum lever action rifle. I showed it to my Dad and asked him: "Do you know why I bought that rifle?". He said without hesitation: "Yeah, because you wanted it.".

 

[ChadTower]

I don't own any guns but I have no desire to take them away from good people who do.

 

[oldsarge]

Why do we produce cars and motor cycles that can push 200 MPH when the legal speed limit is between 55 and 85 depending on where you live? Because we want them, that's why. Same with Assault styled rifles. I like them, I would like to own one again, even though I have no place to really shoot it. I'd have to travel to do so. Do I need this hassle in my life? No, but I still would like to own one. I respect those who chose not to own a firearm. If you're not comfortable owning one, nobody should question that.

 

[ppine]

No.
What if I wanted a bazooka, anti-aircraft missiles, and a Barrett .50 cal in full auto?

Barney,
Where does all that angst come from? What are you afraid of?

 

[Grandpa]

If I assault you with a baseball bat, the bat is the weapon of the assault. And baseball bats are the number one weapon of violence. If a "black" rifle is an assault rifle, remember all the discussion we had about pink guns? Does color matter? Is an assault rifle one with a large capacity magazine? In my day we had the M-14. It had a 20 rd magazine. We would tape two magazines together, overlapped end for end and could change from one to the other in less than two seconds. Does a pistol grip on a rifle make it an assault rifle? No, it makes it easier to steady and gives the shooter better control over recoil. It is also much more awkward and inconvenient for carry so you don't see it on hunting rifles. Is it the semi-automatic feature that makes a rifle an assault rifle? My hunting rifle of choice is a semi-auto, my shotgun of choice is a semi-auto, my rimfire of choice is a semi-auto and my pistol of choice is a semi-auto. None of these were designed for warfare. They were all designed for hunting. So a ban on semi-automatic weapons would literally remove all of these firearms.

Our good friends in Australia recently removed all firearms from the public sector. The result; a 600% increase in violent crime the first year.

Ppine, you wonder what I worry about? Why am I paranoid. Let's start with this quote;

This year will go down in History.
For the first time, a Civilized Nation has full gun registration.
Our streets will be safer, Our police more efficient, and
the World will follow Our lead into the Future.

Quote: ~ADOLF HITLER - 1935~

Why is it that our leaders keep trying to override our Constitutional Bill of Rights by removing the second ammendment? Is it for public safety or is it for total control of the populace such as that implemented by Adolph Hitler? Answer me that so my fears will be alleviated.

The recent episode in Connecticut was a tragedy of utmost proportions. The news has kept us updated on every little detail, right down to the funeral for every one of those innocent children and their teachers. But has the news given us any information about another school shooting in Tennessee? When an armed gunman burst into a school in Tennessee, hero Carolyn Grudger immediately put a stop to that by killing the shooter. No students dead, no fancy rifle, no news.

How about Aurora, Colorado. We all can have the picture of Holmes and his orange hair in our minds, but how about the other shooting in Aurora.

Two Aurora Shootings: One Widely Known; the Other Ignored

Why is the media so preoccupied with one story but ignores the other completely? Is it just that horror stories sell more copy that good ending stories or do they and our governement officials have a bigger agenda they are trying to sell? Is our nation really that violent? Do we really need to disarm the populace? Well just how violent are me compared to other nations?

The real numbers

I leave it to you to decide. Just what is the agenda of our current politcians and mainstream media? As for me, yes, I am worried the land of the free will not be very free for my grandkids.

 

[ChadTower]

I leave it to you to decide. Just what is the agenda of our current politcians and mainstream media?

Reelection. That's all it is. That's all it will ever be. They want gun control because they think it will get them reelected. If there was a public outcry against having two testicles Congress would form a "One Nut Fact Finding Committee" and bring in Lance Armstrong to testify in a public hearing. All they ever care about is their own base of power and how to either increase or maintain it depending on how far they are from the next election cycle.

 

[oldsarge]

No.
What if I wanted a bazooka, anti-aircraft missiles, and a Barrett .50 cal in full auto?

Those weapons are military grade and have no place in civilian hands, besides Barrett doesn't make a full auto .50 cal.

 

[ChadTower]

"Military grade" means about as much as "assault weapon". It has no real definition.

 

[wvbreamfisherman]

No.
What if I wanted a bazooka, anti-aircraft missiles, and a Barrett .50 cal in full auto?

Barney,
Where does all that angst come from? What are you afraid of?

Well, if you have the money today, you can buy a full auto 50 cal M-2. Not too sure about a bazooka, and possibly not AA missiles. I'm sure the M-2 and possibly the bazooka are legal under the NFA of 1934. All you need is LOT asnd LOTs of $$ and plenty of time to jump thru the legal hoops.

I personally have no problem with you owning such things.

 

[ChadTower]

If you have enough money you can get anything. Immediately if you have more than enough. Money opens all doors.

 

[wvbreamfisherman]

If you have enough money you can get anything. Immediately if you have more than enough. Money opens all doors.

Why heck, if you're a celebrity host on Meet the Press, you don't even have to worry about complying with the in DC regarding high capacity magazines! You only have to worry about going to jail, being fined and having a criminal weapon if you're a commoner.

 

[oldsarge]

"Military grade" means about as much as "assault weapon". It has no real definition.

I guess we are all putting way too much on terminology. But to be quite honest, There is a difference in the terminology we're using here. When I speak of military grade, I'm talking about full auto or burst capabilities, weapons that will project an explosive, types of weapons designed for full out combat. Yes, you can own some of these weapons by becoming a collector and paying outrageous high prices each year to maintain your license as a collector. When you get right down to it, an AR15 or any military styled weapon with semi auto capabilities can be considered an assault weapon. When you are able to maintain a high rate of fire as you "assault" your objective, then use the bayonet as you progress to close in fighting. That's what the design of the weapon is for. Not just looking cool. High capacity magazines are designed for one thing only, to give you an edge over the guy shooting at you. That's why I feel we should be allowed to own them.

 

[ChadTower]

...and yet when the layman says "military grade" they mean "anything that looks scarier than what I see the Police carry". They consider the AR-15 heavy military grade because of how it looks.

Don't even try pointing out that "carried by military" could mean any gun at all because any given handgun is carried by someone in some level of some branch.

 

[Grandpa]

I knew a veteran from Nam who was a sniper. His weapon of choice at the time was a Remington 742 chambered in 6mm with a Leopold 3X9 scope. That was before the military started getting serious with sniper equipment. That is a typical hunting setup for mule deer.

The big configuration difference between our 742's and the AR style puts the action and barrel of the AR lower down to the center of the rear stock. Hence, recoil tends to be straight back with the AR enabling the shooter to stay on target easier for the next shot. With what you think is a typical rifle, the barrel is above the rear stock on eye level causing the barrel to rise with recoil. Hence, for rapid fire competition, the AR is much more accurate. The straight back recoil also makes it easier for the body to absorb many more recoils per day.

I don't participate in those kinds of competition and have no need for an AR platform but I fully understand why others would choose that system.

 

[ponderosa]

+1 to everything Grandpa said in his first post. In addition, the fact is the guns are already here. They exist in large numbers, and no new law will change that fact. They won't just disappear. New laws will restrict only the law abiding citizens from having them. Bad guys will figure out how to get them. The dirtbags who perpetrate mass shootings plan for months. They will figure out how to get the weapon they want. I have no problem with trying to restrict access for those with proven mental illness, but I'd also point out that the majority of people who decide to shoot up a room full of innocent people are never proven to have had mental illness, including the idiot in CT. So far, there have been statements that he was socially awkward and speculation that he perhaps had Aspergers. That ain't mental illness, folks, and Aspergers is generally NOT associated with violence. Furthermore, mental illness is a very broad category, and the vast majority of people suffering from the wide spectrum of mental disorders are not violent. Passing more laws against guns won't be anymore effective than laws against heroine. They will create a lovely black market, but that's about it. In my view, if the bad guys have them, the good guys ought to have the option to have them as well.