New shooting. Can anyone defend owning assault weapons?

Originally Posted by david05111

Such a requirement would restrict lawful use of firearms for self defense to the privileged few with money to afford what would essentially be a tax. The second amendment extends to every citizen of the US, not just the privileged. So that doesn't work.

The poor don't need defense. The more poor people we kill, the better the country.

I'm constantly amazed at the "logic" of the anti-gun crowd

Originally Posted by Constantine

That makes sense. Follow that train of thought.

Also, if an assault weapon is virtually no worse that a hand gun, why is the military, SWAT teams etc not just using handguns?

Range and accuracy. Sorry if I'm short on words, but Glockman, Dwass, JJ and a few others have already articulated what I would say anyway.

rifle is your main weapon, handgun is back up for the above mentioned reasons. i dont shoot pigs with a pistol- i use my rifle first, and use my pistol for backup.

Originally Posted by tock172

Couldn't agree more.


Absolutely no other human being on this earth has the right to dictate what I may or may not posses. It doesn't matter if it's an assault rifle or a piece of cheesecake.

Well, go get yourself a bazooka then.
And remember, bazookas don't kill people. People kill people.

Fact is, you're already restricted in many ways. You just refuse to see it and hold on to one thing (guns), which will eventually be also restricted.
Just a matter of time.

I don't care if you're republican, democrat or libertarian...
Your individual freedom ends where mine begins.
If you live on an island all by yourself, do whatever you want. Piss against or with the wind. Piss up or down. Nobody cares.
If you want to live in a society, the more people in it, the more of your individual freedom you'll have to give up, for the sake of society.

Some of the worst atrocities in history were committed "for the greater good". Food for thought

Originally Posted by Master Po

Well, go get yourself a bazooka then.
And remember, bazookas don't kill people. People kill people.

Fact is, you're already restricted in many ways. You just refuse to see it and hold on to one thing (guns), which will eventually be also restricted.
Just a matter of time.

I don't care if you're republican, democrat or libertarian...
Your individual freedom ends where mine begins.
If you live on an island all by yourself, do whatever you want. Piss against or with the wind. Piss up or down. Nobody cares.
If you want to live in a society, the more people in it, the more of your individual freedom you'll have to give up, for the sake of society.

The definition of a lemming!

Originally Posted by M3Inline6

The definition of a lemming!

Are you seriously saying that you should have more individual freedom then me?
It surprises me that you're in law enforcement.

Originally Posted by Master Po

Are you seriously saying that you should have more individual freedom then me?
It surprises me that you're in law enforcement.

Not at all. You're a lemming because you willingly and graciously will give up freedoms without nary a fight.

Originally Posted by kaput

The problem is, that your opinion appears to be the most ignorant bucnh of catach phrases assembled into a sentence.

Really, I should not be able to own an AR-15? I can't own an AK either right? So, what is stopping me from having a 33 round mag in my glock, or is that too much as well?

Is my gun going to magically jump off the shelf and kill someone? Does the AR-15 know it is an AR-15, and think it must kill people, or does it come down to the person holding it?

When is an AR-15 more dangerous than another semi auto rifle, or pistol? Does the fact that the rifle is black and scary have to do with it, or is it because it holds a distinct advantage over other dark and scary rifles?

See, your opinion is just that, yours. My opinion is that you are a walking talking idiot, who uses catch phrases to assert his opinion. Get over it. You are a minority in this country (no this is not racial) and will forever deal with the fact that others have these weapons, and will continue to get these weapons, and any legislation you put on the table, and the total number of gun free zone signs you place, will never matter to a person looking to commit a crime with a gun, of what ever shape, size, caliber and color. You can disarm the entire population of good guys, and the bad guys will still look for their advantage, and own a gun, even if they are not allowed to. They will use those weapons while committing a crime, because they do not care.

If you are naive enough to think anything will change for the better with legislation that disarms the country, I can't help you. I just hope nothing ever happens to you, where you need a gun. Hell, if you feel so strongly about it, post your picture, so I can carry it around in my wallet, and refuse to help you or your family with my gun if I ever see you being robbed. I'll stand, point and laugh, hell I'll even call the cops for you. Sound good?

It's not about what kind of rifle it is look at the incident in China. A guy attacked with a knife. I'm personally against gun ownership period. It's my opinion, get over it.

Originally Posted by Master Po

Are you seriously saying that you should have more individual freedom then me?
It surprises me that you're in law enforcement.

You have the freedom to own the same "bazooka" and use it to defend you and yours against another nutjob with a bazooka. Thats what freedom is.

Originally Posted by aphhpa

It's not about what kind of rifle it is look at the incident in China. A guy attacked with a knife. I'm personally against gun ownership period. It's my opinion, get over it.

Hmmmm....maybe the next time you get robbed at gunpoint, you can defend yourself with your opinion.

Originally Posted by aphhpa

It's not about what kind of rifle it is look at the incident in China. A guy attacked with a knife. I'm personally against gun ownership period. It's my opinion, get over it.

And because of that you are wrong. I don't have to get over it. You need to get over the fact that you are the minority in this case.

Originally Posted by Master Po

Are you seriously saying that you should have more individual freedom then me?
It surprises me that you're in law enforcement.

You'd prefer he be one of those scumbag cops that murder citizens who don't give up their guns?

And you're equating gun ownership with overstepping liberty. Lets not forget that murder is illegal, regardless of how it's carried out. If you want to outlaw all objects that can be used to murder, well, the only option is voluntary human extinction.

Originally Posted by aphhpa

I'm personally against gun ownership period. It's my opinion, get over it.

let's all give peace a chance. when that doesnt work, I'll cover you.

Originally Posted by Black///M

When I was in Japan about 10 years ago a guy with a knife went into a school and killed 10-17 kids. An instrument or tool is not the problem, but the insane individual that is willing to cause harm to children with whatever he/she can find is. There are other means besides guns that can cause harm.

http://www.cnn.com/2012/12/14/world/...ack/index.html

FYI, the link you posted is to an article about an attack in China (not Japan) where 22 kids were wounded (none killed, never mind 10-17).

Your point may be valid, but you'll be taken more seriously if your statement matches the source you cite.

Originally Posted by M3Inline6

Not at all. You're a lemming because you willingly and graciously will give up freedoms without nary a fight.

The Po and I don't always see eye to eye, but I think you're missing the truth in his statement.

Existence in a society such as ours is the art of compromise between individuals' freedoms, and between the freedoms of an individual vs a smoothly functioning society.

You have freedom of speech, and it's almost absolute. But you cannot yell "fire" in a crowded theater, you can't threaten to kill people, you can't slander people. Well, you can, but there are legal consequences because such acts are likely to land your ass in jail.

Your freedom of speech is limited in order to allow society to function better. My freedom to not be trampled to death in a crowded movie theater overrides your freedom to say "fire".

IHMO, that's the point Po was trying to make.

Originally Posted by Xcelratr

FYI, the link you posted is to an article about an attack in China (not Japan) where 22 kids were wounded (none killed, never mind 10-17).

Your point may be valid, but you'll be taken more seriously if your statement matches the source you cite.



The Po and I don't always see eye to eye, but I think you're missing the truth in his statement.

Existence in a society such as ours is the art of compromise between individuals' freedoms, and between the freedoms of an individual vs a smoothly functioning society.

You have freedom of speech, and it's almost absolute. But you cannot yell "fire" in a crowded theater, you can't threaten to kill people, you can't slander people. Well, you can, but there are legal consequences because such acts are likely to land your ass in jail.

Your freedom of speech is limited in order to allow society to function better. My freedom to not be trampled to death in a crowded movie theater overrides your freedom to say "fire".

IHMO, that's the point Po was trying to make.

Let's be fair here, gun ownership is just as "limited". The law abiding Joe/Jill Schmoe still has to jump through government hoops to legally obtain a weapon, and even those weapons are limited. It's not really the law abiding citizens that we have to worry about. Legislation and increased restriction only hurts you & I. Lil' Tito from 100th St. doesn't care about restriction(s) because he's a felon and can't legally possess a firearm anyway. His firearm(s) will be obtained illegally and one of the anti-gun advocating lemmings (..who were quick to suggest that guns be stripped from the hands of the law abiding) will be the target of his next offense, and they'll be calling me to come "do something about it".

Serves 'em right!


...Oh wait! I'll probably be publicly persecuted for putting a bullet in Lil' Tito after he was wanted for ADW, didn't comply with commands and looked as though he were about to brandish a weapon.

If making assault riflles illegal it should take them off the steets, and we should do the same with meth, coke, crack and herois, oh wait.

Mexico all firearms are illegal, and look at the horrers they have been having down there for years.

Originally Posted by CollinsE90

I could eat a bowl of alphabet soup and sh1t out a better argument than this.

Haha that's sig-worthy

Originally Posted by M3Inline6

Let's be fair here, gun ownership is just as "limited". The law abiding Joe/Jill Schmoe still has to jump through government hoops to legally obtain a weapon, and even those weapons are limited. It's not really the law abiding citizens that we have to worry about. Legislation and increased restriction only hurts you & I. Lil' Tito from 100th St. doesn't care about restriction(s) because he's a felon and can't legally possess a firearm anyway.

I agree.

But Po (I'm sure he'll sound off if I'm misrepresenting his point) was only pointing out that tock172's assertion that "no one can tell him what he can own" just isn't reality. No society functions that way.

You called him a lemming, which I think was unfair given the fact that he's absolutely correct that a functioning society means striking a balance between your right to own big honkin' guns, and your neighbor's right to not get shot.

Don't you earn your burger by making sure people are operating within the limitations of their rights? LOL You MUST understand that rights and freedoms are a delicate balance of compromises.