HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » THE reason for assault we...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 11:02 PM

THE reason for assault weapons ban

There is no other product sold legally in the USA, other than cigarettes, that if used properly will result in death in many cases. At least with cigarettes, it is an unintended consequence rather than the primary purpose. Assault weapons are ostensibly sold in this country specifically FOR the primary purpose of killing or injuring in the act self-defense. Otherwise, they have no legal use. I think most people would agree with this.

But with few if any exceptions, assault weapons are simply not used by private citizens for the purpose for which they are sold. They are used solely for offense, not defense. Every time. The serial misuse of assault weapons results in death, injury and clear instances of psychological terror for non-consumers and consumers alike and have the ultimate effect of compromising the rights and safety of those effected, directly and indirectly. And they do so while being sold under the premise of doing just the opposite.

In this country, any product that results in scores of injuries and deaths and far-reaching secondary damage as a result of widespread misuse where there is no documented benefit is taken off the market.

67 replies, 6493 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 67 replies Author Time Post
Reply THE reason for assault weapons ban (Original post)
joeunderdog Dec 2012 OP
Recursion Dec 2012 #1
Hoyt Dec 2012 #2
OneMoreDemocrat Dec 2012 #5
Hoyt Dec 2012 #10
ashling Dec 2012 #52
ashling Dec 2012 #48
doc03 Dec 2012 #6
Kaleva Dec 2012 #9
morningfog Dec 2012 #19
ProgressiveProfessor Dec 2012 #28
burrowowl Dec 2012 #31
NickB79 Dec 2012 #32
NickB79 Dec 2012 #34
morningfog Dec 2012 #20
Glaug-Eldare Dec 2012 #29
ashling Dec 2012 #49
uponit7771 Dec 2012 #50
RetroLounge Dec 2012 #66
RetroLounge Dec 2012 #65
Kaleva Dec 2012 #3
donnasgirl Dec 2012 #24
tblue Dec 2012 #4
doc03 Dec 2012 #7
aikoaiko Dec 2012 #8
Last Stand Dec 2012 #11
rl6214 Dec 2012 #12
Last Stand Dec 2012 #13
Lizzie Poppet Dec 2012 #16
rl6214 Dec 2012 #21
Last Stand Dec 2012 #61
Recursion Dec 2012 #57
aikoaiko Dec 2012 #25
shintao Dec 2012 #42
Hoyt Dec 2012 #14
AnotherMcIntosh Dec 2012 #18
rl6214 Dec 2012 #22
Hoyt Dec 2012 #56
bhikkhu Dec 2012 #27
Hoyt Dec 2012 #55
Hoyt Dec 2012 #54
nadinbrzezinski Dec 2012 #15
former-republican Dec 2012 #17
shintao Dec 2012 #43
former-republican Dec 2012 #45
jmg257 Dec 2012 #23
shintao Dec 2012 #37
jmg257 Dec 2012 #58
ErikJ Dec 2012 #26
Glaug-Eldare Dec 2012 #30
NickB79 Dec 2012 #36
Glaug-Eldare Dec 2012 #38
Whovian Dec 2012 #41
shintao Dec 2012 #33
NickB79 Dec 2012 #35
Last Stand Dec 2012 #53
NickB79 Dec 2012 #59
rrneck Dec 2012 #39
triplepoint Dec 2012 #40
Demo_Chris Dec 2012 #44
Captain Boomerang Dec 2012 #46
jal777 Dec 2012 #47
world wide wally Dec 2012 #51
sarisataka Dec 2012 #62
world wide wally Dec 2012 #63
sarisataka Dec 2012 #67
farminator3000 Dec 2012 #60
Coyote_Tan Dec 2012 #64

Response to joeunderdog (Original post)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 11:05 PM

1. Assault weapons are marketed for target shooting and hunting

Neither of those is offensive or defensive.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #1)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 11:08 PM

2. They are not. They are marketed as tactical weapons to appeal to gun culture's baser instincts.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hoyt (Reply #2)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 11:15 PM

5. Just wandered over to Bushmaster and from the looks of things...

 

you're right.

I'll have to check out Field and Stream next time I go to the Doctor's office.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OneMoreDemocrat (Reply #5)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 11:23 PM

10. You'd think after Sandy Hook those callous bastards would take that marketing crap down for awhile.

I'm resigned to fact gun culture can't contain themselves for even a week.

Really is damn disgusting.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to Hoyt (Reply #2)

Thu Dec 27, 2012, 02:31 AM

48. No, No, No. They are marketed as

.223 caliber viagra

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #1)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 11:15 PM

6. And they are not necessary for either. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #1)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 11:21 PM

9. Why then does Bushmaster sell a gun called the ACR (Adaptive Combat Rifle)?

"The first of its kind, and the only rifle you need to master the infinite number of extreme scenarios you'll face in the worlds of law enforcement and personal defense"

http://www.bushmaster.com/firearms/acr.asp

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #1)

Thu Dec 27, 2012, 12:08 AM

19. How is hunting not an offensive act?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to morningfog (Reply #19)

Thu Dec 27, 2012, 01:09 AM

28. Why would it be an offensive act?

Hunting for the table or to protect the table seems a reasonable thing to most.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to morningfog (Reply #19)

Thu Dec 27, 2012, 01:25 AM

31. Using this gun the meat

would be unusable or not there. I am for hunting if you use the meat and a good hunter fells his game with 1 shot, not strafing the animal!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to burrowowl (Reply #31)

Thu Dec 27, 2012, 01:28 AM

32. The meat would be unuseable because the ammo is not powerful enough

To drop a mature deer. Thus, no meat to use since the animal would have run off wounded. The .223 Remington/5.56mm NATO round isn't legal in most states, because it's not powerful enough to humanely kill a deer or black bear.

Though that same round is very effective at pest control if you have woodchucks, jackrabbits or coyotes on your property.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to morningfog (Reply #19)

Thu Dec 27, 2012, 01:32 AM

34. By that definition, any consumption of meat is an offensive act

Having grown up on a farm, I've seen the offensiveness of how store-bought beef, pork and chicken is produced.

If you want to eat meat, a life of suffering in a factory farm followed up with a bolt through the brain or a slit throat is far more offensive to me than a bullet through a deer that's lived it's life free in the woods.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #1)

Thu Dec 27, 2012, 12:09 AM

20. How is target shooting with an assault weapon not an offensive and/or defensive act?

It is practice for one and/or the other. I can't believe the arguments you people make.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to morningfog (Reply #20)

Thu Dec 27, 2012, 01:16 AM

29. Baseball is not practice for assault.

It is a sport enjoyed for its own merits, and the skill of the players. The violent nature of the club is not necessary or relevant to the enjoyment of the game. Same with target shooting.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #1)

Thu Dec 27, 2012, 02:33 AM

49. EXACTLY! Defense is just like target shooting

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ashling (Reply #49)

Thu Dec 27, 2012, 02:43 AM

50. +1

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ashling (Reply #49)

Fri Dec 28, 2012, 12:01 AM

66. +1000

RL

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #1)

Thu Dec 27, 2012, 11:59 PM

65. Right



RL

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to joeunderdog (Original post)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 11:12 PM

3. The NY firemen's killer was armed with a .223 Bushmaster

http://news.yahoo.com/ny-firemens-killer-mapped-plan-slayings-071946537.html

Maybe he didn't see the ads marketing the weapon for target shooting and hunting. Or maybe he was confused by what was meant by target shooting and hunting.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Kaleva (Reply #3)

Thu Dec 27, 2012, 12:32 AM

24. No

He was a person who killed his 81 year old grand mother with a hammer and who never should have been released on society to kill again.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to joeunderdog (Original post)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 11:13 PM

4. Costco Peanut Butter is recalled because it's dangerous

in that its contaminated and could harm a person. But a gun you can still buy. When they police peanut butter more than firearms, makes no sense to me.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tblue (Reply #4)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 11:18 PM

7. How many toys do they take off the market every year because they could injure

a child? But a nut job can buy and murder 20 kids with an Bushmaster and it is OK.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to joeunderdog (Original post)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 11:20 PM

8. They are not soley used for offense.


Most are used for target practice, hunting, competitive shooting and recreational shooting (other legal uses by the way).

They are rarely used in crimes compared to handguns.

They are used for self-defense.

But when they are used to kill people illegally, the results are tragic.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to aikoaiko (Reply #8)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 11:25 PM

11. Recreational shooting vs. killing rampages?

Isn't this a clear case where the risks outweigh the benefits? Seriously, an entire country mourns the tragedy of a massacre at a grammar school. Literally, millions of people stayed awake at night thinking about it. People are pushed to the brink with fear and trauma because of this. All so that people can shoot bears or go target shooting? Seriously?

And who has successfully used assault weapons for self defense when a less dangerous weapon wouldn't do?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Last Stand (Reply #11)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 11:29 PM

12. And exactly how many shooting rampages have there been with "assault weapons"?

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rl6214 (Reply #12)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 11:33 PM

13. Several just in the last year.

And literally MILLIONS of people are suffering emotionally because of it. It's the second-hand smoke effect.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Last Stand (Reply #13)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 11:44 PM

16. About 1% of all gun-related homicide in any given year.

Yet the left should be potentially spending a VAST amount of our political capital on this...instead of pushing for gun control proposals that might actually have a measurable effect on homicide? All because a segment of the population feels bad that these weapons exist?

Oh, for fuck sake...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Last Stand (Reply #13)

Thu Dec 27, 2012, 12:20 AM

21. Exactly how many = several

 

Good job

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rl6214 (Reply #21)

Thu Dec 27, 2012, 06:12 PM

61. Apparently you missed the news.

There have been at least a dozen mass killings with Assault Weapons in the last 5 years (this does not include killings of <4 victims), over 150 deaths and even more injured, hundreds more lives of loved ones changed forever and an entire nation of tens of millions of people held hostage to fear, outrage and grief over the events. Read on: http://www.nycrimecommission.org/initiative1-shootings.php

This is the cost (in human terms only) for these heinous acts. It matters less what percentage or body count than the the fact that these events have millions of innocent people people living in fear and feeling less safe for the sake of the questionable needs of the few who own these weapons.


Keep you smiley faces for more appropriate topics.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Last Stand (Reply #13)

Thu Dec 27, 2012, 08:10 AM

57. AFAIK none of the rampages this year used an AW

The Bushmaster in Newtown wasn't an AW. I don't see why people call pointing that out a distraction when the subject is banning assault weapons

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Last Stand (Reply #11)

Thu Dec 27, 2012, 12:38 AM

25. I wasn't making that case.


I was only confronting the hyperbole of their "sole use".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Last Stand (Reply #11)

Thu Dec 27, 2012, 01:51 AM

42. 35 and save lives

 

We need to cut freeway speeds down to 35 and save lives. Stop building those sport cars that go over a 100, and cut the speeds down to 35. Those cars kill 3.5 times more adults and children than guns do. We are getting our prioritys mixed up.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to aikoaiko (Reply #8)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 11:35 PM

14. They are bought for their tactical and killing reputation. Gun culture may use them for target

practice or whatever. But they are coveted for what they are - lethal, tactical weapons. They are attractive to callous, vile people. As poster above indicated, the greedy, callous bastards couldn't even remove their tactical ads for a week or so.

I wish gun apologists could refrain from making excuses for these lethal weapons manufacturers/marketers and people that drool over these weapons.

BTW - a lot of those "target shooters" use targets that resemble people, including Obama. I guess that is good wholesome fun for some. Damn, Damn, Damn.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hoyt (Reply #14)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 11:56 PM

18. If you are not a gun nut who goes to a range, how, exactly, do you purport to know that "a lot of

 

those 'target shooters' use targets that resemble people, including Obama"?

Did you just make that up?

Or are you a gun nut?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AnotherMcIntosh (Reply #18)

Thu Dec 27, 2012, 12:22 AM

22. Hoyt, make something up?

 

That could never happen

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rl6214 (Reply #22)

Thu Dec 27, 2012, 07:36 AM

56. RL, face facts about fellow gun cultist "hobbyists," and cut off access to guns? Not likely.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AnotherMcIntosh (Reply #18)

Thu Dec 27, 2012, 12:52 AM

27. Google "rifle range targets", click images,

and then try to argue that these aren't some sick sociopathic bastards who really shouldn't be allowed near deadly weapons.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bhikkhu (Reply #27)

Thu Dec 27, 2012, 07:34 AM

55. Our friends from the gungeon are trying to portray their "hobby" as clean wholesome fun.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AnotherMcIntosh (Reply #18)

Thu Dec 27, 2012, 07:31 AM

54. Grew up around the losers who do such stuff. I suppose these fine gun aficionados

are OK with you.






Or here's one inspired by gun cultist poster boy, Georgie Zimmerman.

?w=360&h=240&crop=1


Christ, the gun cultists will do anything to have a little fun and preserve their "hobby."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to joeunderdog (Original post)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 11:43 PM

15. Lordy

While I agree with you these should be banned, realize they are sold for hunting and target shooting. Most of these weapons are used for that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to joeunderdog (Original post)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 11:54 PM

17. Plus they are very scary looking

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to former-republican (Reply #17)

Thu Dec 27, 2012, 01:53 AM

43. If we painted them pink with a bow?

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to shintao (Reply #43)

Thu Dec 27, 2012, 02:06 AM

45. maybe...' I'm not sure

 

If that will make them less scary then yes.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to joeunderdog (Original post)

Thu Dec 27, 2012, 12:27 AM

23. Most people will NOT agree with this. Numerous legal uses exist for assault style weapons.

What you do want people to agree with is that those reasons, and perceived needs, just are not worth it.


Then we can remove them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jmg257 (Reply #23)

Thu Dec 27, 2012, 01:42 AM

37. You could ask China for some help spreading propaganda

 

China might want to help you out with funds and propaganda materials. Help can come from some of the strangest places.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to shintao (Reply #37)

Thu Dec 27, 2012, 10:30 AM

58. We get enough crap from China...no need for their assistance with propaganda too!

Besides, they sell plenty of crap arms to the people of the US...negative PR is certainly not in their best interest.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to joeunderdog (Original post)

Thu Dec 27, 2012, 12:44 AM

26. Correct. I've yet to hear news of an AR used in self-defense in the US.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ErikJ (Reply #26)

Thu Dec 27, 2012, 01:17 AM

30. Defensive uses rarely make the headlines. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ErikJ (Reply #26)

Thu Dec 27, 2012, 01:41 AM

36. Jose Guernena comes to mind

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/05/25/jose-guerena-arizona-_n_867020.html

On May 5 at around 9:30 a.m., several teams of Pima County, Ariz., police officers from at least four different police agencies armed with SWAT gear and an armored personnel carrier raided at least four homes as part of what at the time was described as an investigation into alleged marijuana trafficking. One of those homes belonged to 26-year-old Jose Guerena and his wife, Vanessa Guerena. The couple's 4-year-old son was also in the house at the time. Their 6-year-old son was at school.

As the SWAT team forced its way into his home, Guerena, a former Marine who served two tours of duty in Iraq, armed himself with his AR-15 rifle and told his wife and son to hide in a closet. As the officers entered, Guerena confronted them from the far end of a long, dark hallway. The police opened fire, releasing more than 70 rounds in about 7 seconds, at least 60 of which struck Guerena. He was pronounced dead a little over an hour later.

UPDATE: An autopsy that was conducted later determined that Guerena was hit 23 times.

The Pima County Sheriff's Department initially claimed (PDF) Guerena fired his weapon at the SWAT team. They now acknowledge that not only did he not fire, the safety on his gun was still activated when he was killed. Guerena had no prior criminal record, and the police found nothing illegal in his home. After ushering out his wife and son, the police refused to allow paramedics to access Guerena for more than hour, leaving the young father to bleed to death, alone, in his own home.


Not a successful case, mind you, but then again he was dramatically outnumbered.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NickB79 (Reply #36)

Thu Dec 27, 2012, 01:44 AM

38. Another resounding victory in the War on Drugs. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NickB79 (Reply #36)

Thu Dec 27, 2012, 01:48 AM

41. Sickening. Sad what this country has become.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to joeunderdog (Original post)

Thu Dec 27, 2012, 01:31 AM

33. Hmm, need the list

 

Cars used properly can kill 32,310 in 2011, and they did. No one intentually uses a car improperly, right? Of course not, that is why we call it an accident, like an accidental shooting, right? Some 9,146 gun deaths in 2011. Same thing, same idea.

Now do you want to ban cars that are 3 1/2 times more deadly? 2,793 children died in 2009 from guns fired, but traffic accidents are the leading cause of death for children ages 3 to 14.

I really think we need to do something about cars and stopping highway deaths. Public transportation or computerized road beds are the answer. We need to stop building Sport looking cars with so much horsepower and drop speeds down to 35 on the freeways.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to joeunderdog (Original post)

Thu Dec 27, 2012, 01:38 AM

35. Is it somehow wrong to injure or kill an assailant in self-defense?

Assault weapons are ostensibly sold in this country specifically FOR the primary purpose of killing or injuring in the act self-defense.


Which has been a perfectly legal and acceptable reason to own weapons since the dawn of time. Does this strike you as unacceptable in some way?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NickB79 (Reply #35)

Thu Dec 27, 2012, 07:26 AM

53. The point is

there is absolutely no evidence that they are used in this way. Within the act of a crime, they are used only to commit offenses, not stop them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Last Stand (Reply #53)

Thu Dec 27, 2012, 02:09 PM

59. There is very little data on self-defense, period

Since most cases of self-defense with guns typically end without bullets being fired in the first place, there are few police reports filed to begin with. With the millions of assault rifles in the US, I would find it very, very hard to believe that they have ONLY been used to commit offenses in all the years they've been on the market.

Hell, I used a deer rifle to defend my family when I was 17. My mom actually did call 911. When I tried to tell the police what happened, they ignored me because I was "just a kid."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to joeunderdog (Original post)

Thu Dec 27, 2012, 01:45 AM

39. I kinda wish they would give up on the whole 'Assault Weapons' yada yada

and just say they want to ban semi automatic rifles and limit magazine capacity for all guns to ten rounds. Just plain old language that we can attach to actual real world stuff.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to joeunderdog (Original post)

Thu Dec 27, 2012, 01:48 AM

40. The "NEW" Supreme Court May Help Ban This Weapon Altogether

 

-if its sale/use can be shown to violate any part of the U.S. Constitution. By "NEW" I mean the newly configured Supreme Court --after the President and Congress get through the long drawn-out process that is required in order to place a new member of the U.S. Supreme Court. I state this as a non-lawyer, but with a simple understanding of the role of the U.S. Supreme Court. I doubt that Congress will do anything for meaningful and effective assault weapon/rifle ban legislation. The banning of ownership of assault rifles/weapons appears to have succeeded at the state level...somewhat:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Assault_Weapons_Ban#Assault_weapons_bans_in_other_states

That indicates to me that an amended Second Amendment may be possible.
.
.
Until we get to a comprehensive/national ban on sale and ownership of assault weapons/rifles, we'll continue to live and experience Koyaanisqatsi
.
.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Koyaanisqatsi
.
.

.
.

.
.

.
.
.

.
.
.

.
.
Reference Link:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bushmaster_M4_Type_Carbine
.
.

.
.
.

.
.
.

.
.

.
.

.
.

.
.

.
.

.
.

.
.
"...We have to save each other because all victims are equal and none is more equal than others. It's everyone's duty to start the avalanche."

--Bartholomew "Barley" Scott Blair, "The Russia House"

A Moment of Introspecting a "Kid"
So, what could a "kid" be thinking nowadays....Let's say for a moment that I'm a kid, and I want to go to the movies....but it's not safe there anymore. Well, there's always the Mall...but it's not safe there anymore...Well, I can play with my friends in the schoolyard...but it's not safe there anymore. I could be shot in any of those three places. I've read and seen it on the TV and the Internet.

See what kind of world we've made for them? Do you see it now? How can children "be the future" if they're slain beforehand?
.
.
.

.
.
.

.
.
.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to joeunderdog (Original post)

Thu Dec 27, 2012, 01:55 AM

44. Why is this relevant?

 

Weapons are designed to make it easier for us to force compliance from others. Sometimes just the threat of violence is enough, other times it becomes necessary to go beyond this, the weapons must be used, and the end result in the worst case is that someone dies.

That's why we call them weapons.

I am going to go out on a limb and assume that this makes you uncomfortable. You might perhaps argue that in a civilized society men and women will never have the need to arm themselves with anything more dangerous than a disapproving glance or harsh word. If not, then the fact that firearms were designed as weapons is completely irrelevant.






Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to joeunderdog (Original post)

Thu Dec 27, 2012, 02:07 AM

46. The Reasons NOT to Ban Assault Weapons are;

1. I may have to defend my home from Christian Conservative Righties who keep talking about civil War II, secession, and forcing their pro-life views on me.

2. I may have to defend myself from more than one person including cops, TSA agents, FBI, ATF, CIA, NSA, LMNOP, and 12 other alphabet organizations that have assault rifles for "legitimate" reasons.

3. Because the 2nd Amendment says; A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. (It's about being ready to defend your homeland from a-holes both foreign and domestic.)

4. It sure would be nice to be able to buy one legally than to support a criminal enterprise.

I am sure there are other reasons,but those are the ones I would argue.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to joeunderdog (Original post)

Thu Dec 27, 2012, 02:20 AM

47. I challange you to find and post a link that contains the legal definition of an "assult weapon"

it has to be from an official .gov site such as batf or doj.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to joeunderdog (Original post)

Thu Dec 27, 2012, 03:35 AM

51. I still haven't seen a documented story about how someone whipped out their assault weapon and

saved innocent people.

Has anyone heard a story like that?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to world wide wally (Reply #51)

Thu Dec 27, 2012, 06:32 PM

62. "Assault Rifle" in self defense

HOUSTON The teenage son of a Harris County Precinct 1 deputy shot a home intruder Tuesday afternoon in the 2600 block of Royal Place in northwest Harris County, deputies said.

The 15-year-old boy and his 12-year-old sister had been home alone in the Mount Royal Village subdivision when around 2:30 p.m. a pair of burglars tried the front and back doors, then broke a back window.

The teenager grabbed his father's assault rifle and knew what to do with it.
http://www.khou.com/news/crime/Burglary-suspect-shot-by-15-year-old-son-of-deputy-97430719.html

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sarisataka (Reply #62)

Thu Dec 27, 2012, 11:48 PM

63. Wow!.. That's one

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to world wide wally (Reply #63)

Fri Dec 28, 2012, 12:06 AM

67. You asked...

so it has happened. I doubt anyone would say it is common. OTH the media gives the impression that they are commonly used in crime, not so much.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to joeunderdog (Original post)

Thu Dec 27, 2012, 03:43 PM

60. exactly

i like the sound of Offensive Weapons Privilege Act, if you take the word assault out, it removes the 'it didn't work before' argument

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to joeunderdog (Original post)

Thu Dec 27, 2012, 11:56 PM

64. Widespread misuse is relative...

 

Millions of guns out there ever day and only s small small small percentage are used inappropriately.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread