Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I tried very hard, but I can't think of any reason why a law abiding citizen would want to own an assault weapon. If your true motive for owning a gun is to protect yourself, why isn't a normal gun good enough? What's next, your own miniature nuclear bomb under the guise of "Second Amendment rights"? Where does it stop?
We really need to amend the First amendment to ban offensive posts like this. Your right to speak freely should not trump my right to bear arms.
Well explain otherwise. Tell me, why would a law abiding citizen want to own an assault weapon?
First of all, the person would have to like the gun to want one. They obvious think they are fun to shoot. Also people might like them for collection purposes and they feel safer with them when it comes to protection. I own a lot of WW2 weapons such as the M1 Garand, the M1 Carbine, and the Korean War era M14. They are awesome to shoot. I killed a deer last year with my old M1 Garand which amazed my hunting club buddies.
My deer rifle and 12 gauge shot gun are extremely good at hunting and would probably kill quite a few kids if someone was unstable enough to try. Does my Hunting Guns qualify as "Assault Weapons" and as a law abiding citizen, why can I not own as many as I would like.
Assault Weapon is a very vague term and is purely cosmetic in appearance.
Most people who own assault weapons are not hunters therefore your point is moot.
Most people who own assault weapons are not hunters therefore your point is moot.
So if I stopped hunting maybe I should turn in my weapons since they are no longer used ? How about if I only enjoy target shooting or skeet shooting ? Are my weapons OK for that purpose.
Most people who own assault weapons are not hunters therefore your point is moot.
What gives you that idea?
Any fool KNOWS he doesn't stand a snowballs chance in hell with his "hunting rifle" against mulitiple attackers (threats).
Suppose I saw a squad parked outside my rural home. The perps have a rolling meth lab inside their Chevy 2500 van. They are armed to the teeth (NOT LEGALLY I MIGHT ADD). They won't be taken alive...they are going away for decades...three strikes and you are out.
I hear gunfire break out. I run to Law Enforcements AID...to render any assistance I might be able to...also LOAN them some of mine.
We really need to amend the First amendment to ban offense posts like this. Your right to speak freely should not trump my right to bear arms.
There is a difference between the right to bear arms as enshrined in the Constitution and people who believe they have a right to own weapons of mass destruction. What's the limit to "arms" in your definition?
No one needs an assault weapon. An assault weapon's sole purpose is the maximum number of casualties. An assault weapon is what allowed Lanza to riddle those children with as many as 11 bullets in their little bodies. He stopped shooting when the police arrived, but with an assault rifle, he was able to do so much damage in an extremely short period of time. There is no justification for an assault weapon.
My deer rifle is more deadly than an assault rifle.. Will fire just as quickly and can be made to have the same or greater capacity, is a lot more accurate and more powerful. Was the assault rifle used in the attack? Last I read, it was found locked in the trunk... He used two handguns... An assault weapon is typically a recreational range piece...
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.