Why American need to own assault weapons

Discussion in 'Auto & Semi-Auto Discussion' started by 2manyhobbies, Jan 10, 2013.

  1. 2manyhobbies

    2manyhobbies New Member

    209
    0
    0
    First off let me say I am personally offended by the us of the term "assault weapon" as it implies anyone that owns one of these miss classified guns will go forth and assault someone.

    So I demand the they discontinue of the use of that terminology. Call it what it is, a semi automatic riffle that looks like a military firearm!

    Now for the video... http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=Fiu8jp4MC9A#!
     
  2. Bear304inc

    Bear304inc New Member

    1,027
    0
    0
    I concur but good luck getting the lame stream media to follow along. Their verbage is not accidental, but well orchestrated and intentionally misleading to sway the majority of sheeple who wouldn't know independent thinking if it shot them in the @$$. Kinda like that saying if you call a kid retarded all his life, he will grow up thinking he IS retarded..
    Well the mass populace is the exact opposite,, they are retarded being told have sensitive and savvy they are.


    Lemmings.
     

  3. Tackleberry1

    Tackleberry1 New Member

    6,165
    3
    0
    ...and why do we need 30 round mags?

    ...because an Infantry Platoon consists of (4) 9 man squads!

    Tack
     
  4. Bear304inc

    Bear304inc New Member

    1,027
    0
    0
    Wouldn't we need 36 round mags? :}
     
  5. Ruger22lr

    Ruger22lr New Member

    453
    0
    0
    pah 36? Why not 40 rounds?
     
  6. Bear304inc

    Bear304inc New Member

    1,027
    0
    0
    Now we're talking,, just skip the mags, let's go belt fed.
     
  7. armsmaster270

    armsmaster270 New Member

    755
    0
    0
    If you have the right firearm you can wait till they are lined up in a row & get a 2 or 3 in a row shot.;):eek:
     
  8. Tackleberry1

    Tackleberry1 New Member

    6,165
    3
    0
    Nope...you dump 20 as they advance...you'd need to shoot 10 more in the back as they fled in order to run dry.

    Any adversaries aggression is directly tied to his feeling about his mission. Having served Infantry myself, I can tell you the notion of getting killed to force a policy that violates 2A would not be a popular one with the troops.

    Tack
     
  9. scottybaccus

    scottybaccus New Member

    114
    0
    0
    Careful guys. You are starting to make jokes about shooting at other Americans.

    We are entitled to high capacity magazines because any limitations result in us being outgunned by adversaries in the role of self defense already affirmed under the 2nd Ammendment by the Supreme Court, AND it would have us outgunned by any other enemies, foreign or domestic. Whether cartels, street thugs or misguided police and soldiers executing illegal orders under bad legislation, we should not be impaired in our ability to defend our own lives.
    The best real world example of this is seen in videos of the L.A. riots where store owners stood on their rooftops defending their stores against the mobs. Enough said. limitations on capacity = infringement!
     
  10. KY1911

    KY1911 New Member

    106
    0
    0
    Really the joking about it makes us all appear in the image the media wants to portray... Gun Nuts. You make a great point, thank you! As ludicrous as it all is, we have to maintain our sense
     
  11. Bear304inc

    Bear304inc New Member

    1,027
    0
    0
    While I can appreciate the need to not joke about shooting Anyone, you go on to say how we need the capacity to defend ourselves against ,, actually more Americans.
    When fighting against a infantry,, never really crossed my mind that they were American, , in my hypothetical post, they were Canadian invaders...
    Im not sure until your post any Americans were mentioned,, or street thugs, police, cartels..
     
  12. scottybaccus

    scottybaccus New Member

    114
    0
    0
    The title of the thread inferred Americans. I merely expanded thinking on the question with my own answer, sans humor.

    Right now, there isn't much to be ammused about. While usually hillarious, the ineptitude of those that now dispute our need of anything more potent than a butter knife has become quite concerning. I'll laugh again when Pelosi, Reid, Feinstein and Obama are dethroned. Biden doesn't worry me. he goes whatever way the wind blows.
     
  13. hawkguy

    hawkguy Well-Known Member

    4,979
    59
    48
    i've always thought if all local law enforcement and national guard were willing to limit themselves to the "assault weapon ban", i could easily be swayed to as well.

    i mean after all, cops in europe don't even carry guns.
     
  14. hawkguy

    hawkguy Well-Known Member

    4,979
    59
    48
    as for a NEED to own...(i didn't watch your video)....people don't NEED to own much of anything.

    people don't NEED fast cars. people don't NEED alcohol. people don't NEED 80% of what they own, eat, or drink.

    but there are uses for AR-15's. they are popular in varmit hunting and competition shooting. but they are no more NEEDED than a beer. the thing is, nobody is going after beer...its too popular with the mainstream, thus not evil enough.
     
  15. Quentin

    Quentin New Member

    7,551
    1
    0
    Do you think criminals will limit themselves too? :rolleyes:
     
  16. Bear304inc

    Bear304inc New Member

    1,027
    0
    0
    You'll be wishing we were kidding when the Canuck invaders get here.......
     
  17. donthav1

    donthav1 Active Member

    1,050
    8
    38

    the average person on the street thinks the AR-15 you can buy at your local store & the full auto military M16 are the same gun, no one in the media has bothered to set that straight which i'm sure thats intentional too. hell i honestly didn't know till about 10 years ago that there were semi auto AK 47's out there. wasn't till i saw one in a gun shop & asked about that i was finally set straight.

    it's standard politics at work, you don't give the whole story, just filter out the opposing side so your view is the only one they can see.
     
  18. mdauben

    mdauben New Member

    441
    0
    0
    Huh?

    French police officers with handguns
    [​IMG]

    German police officers with handguns
    [​IMG]
     
  19. Popeye77

    Popeye77 New Member

    129
    0
    0
    My vote is ban the 30 rnd. Either make em 20 rnd or 40 rnd. That way you don't have to split the boxes up. You either load one box or two. Dang, tin hat fell off AGAIN
     
  20. 2manyhobbies

    2manyhobbies New Member

    209
    0
    0
    The Bobbie's also started carrying hand guns just a very few years after the British ban.
    Apparently the criminals never turned in their guns, (who would have guessed) and only went out and got even more heavily armed on in the EU black market.
    So as a result the British Bobby which they were so proud of never having been armed with guns, well that tradition died along with their citizens right to self defense.