Question of the Day: Who Needs an “Assault Rifle”?

Over at thepostsearchlight.com, Dan Ponder (no kidding) wonders Do I have the right to an assault rifle? Well yes Dan, you do. But the fact that James Holmes used a modern home defense sporting black rifle to kill 13 people in Aurora, Colorado (although we don’t know how many were murdered with his Remington 870 or .40 caliber Glock) has rattled this professed Second Amendment supporter. “When it is no longer safe to attend a movie without being mowed down by automatic weapons recently purchased by someone visiting a psychiatrist for possible mental illness, it is time to reexamine the beliefs we are holding so dear . . . I can’t figure out how assault weapons have a place in our society.” Care to enlighten him?

comments

  1. avatar Josh says:

    ‘“When it is no longer safe to attend a movie without being mowed down by automatic weapons recently purchased by someone visiting a psychiatrist for possible mental illness, it is time to reexamine the beliefs we are holding so dear . . .”‘

    Last time I checked he used a semi-auto modern sporting rifle, not an “automatic weapon” or “assault rifle”…

    1. avatar Silver says:

      You can’t argue this kind of insane logic. Given the number of movies showed and people attending compared to one(s) that involve shooting, it’s like saying that since one plane crashed, it’s no longer safe to fly.

      Perhaps he should reexamine the true intent of the 2A, and there he’ll have his answer.

      This man is a good wake up call to true 2A supporters and Americans…not every gun owner and not even every self-professed 2A supporter is an ally. I also call BS on him being a 2A supporter in the first place; anyone who knows the slightest thing about firearms knows the difference between automatic and semi-auto. Likely, he’s a gun-grabber posing as a 2A supporter to try and appear more “credible” to our side.

      1. avatar The Pit Boxer says:

        Exactly. I’ve seen too many comments on news articles

        “I’m pro 2nd amendment and even own three guns myself, but…

        …no one needs a machine gun with a 100 round clip.”
        Incorrect terminology. Also, it’s not always about need. If you’re a gun guy, you know it’s also about fun.

        …you can’t hunt with an assault rifle.

        Yes, you can, but more importantly, the second amendment isn’t about hunting. Ice-T gets it. Anyone who’s pro second amendment should.

        1. avatar otalps says:

          Nope not a 2a supporter. Maybe not even worth enlightening him, probably more productive to just ridicule.

    2. avatar Fyrewerx says:

      And apparently he didnt use the semi-auto sporting rifle for very long because of that P.O.S. 100 round mag he stuck on it.

    3. avatar Totenglocke says:

      See, this misinformation is exactly why gun grabbers created the term “assault weapon”, so that people would confuse it with “assault rifle” and think that they had something SUPER SCARY instead of a normal semi-auto weapon. My dad – former military – fell for it too and I had to explain it to him last week (he doesn’t support us peasants having access to full auto / select fire).

  2. avatar Dukester says:

    I have an AR-15 but I don’t have an assault rifle because I do not have a class III license.

    1. avatar Anon says:

      Nobody has a class 3 license because such a thing does not exist.

      1. avatar Irock350 says:

        Yes they do exist. A Class 3 FFL is someone who is a Dealer of NFA Firearms (Class 1 is an Importer and Class 2 is a Manufacturer of NFA weapons).

        1. avatar M&P 9 L says:

          They exist as a dealer or manufacturer, there is no class 3 license for a civilian to own to possess a NFA weapon

      2. avatar Alec McDowell says:

        Well there are class 3 FFL’s for NFA _dealers_.

        (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Firearms_License)

  3. avatar 2Wheels says:

    Arguably, very few people “need” an “assault” rifle (I HATE that term…). Before I get flamed… It’s pretty obvious that a lot of people buy AR15s, AKs, and other “scary” rifles simply because they’re cool and they’ve got disposable income.

    But what’s wrong with that? I have nearly a half dozen 1911s with plans to buy more. Guess what? Don’t need ’em, I think they’re cool. And there ain’t nothin’ wrong with that.

    And yes, I believe there are perfectly valid reasons to own a semi-automatic rifle that the sight of which may or may not make liberals pee their pants. Home defense, hunting, target/competition shooting, or just because you feel like owning one (or more than one!). AR15s in particular are VERY versatile rifles, you can do practically anything with them, so they are a very natural choice for a wide variety of shooters.

  4. avatar Patrick Shockley says:

    “…mowed down by automatic weapons…”

    Did i miss something, lol.

    1. avatar Will says:

      Apparently, the way he and all the other anti-gun and gun-grabbers are talking…

      (sarcasm)
      he came in with his semi-auto rifle set for the ludicrous setting of full-auto and sprayed 26 hi-capacity magazines worth of rounds throughout that one single theater room. his M&P-15 must have been modified not only for that, but must have been able to fire at an abnormally fast rate while keeping the barrel from turning cherry-red, all in a matter of 90 seconds. What happened to the other 25 hi-capacity magazines? he ate them and that is what gave him is amnesia to his deed of paying back society for showing him as not stable and as smart as he thought he was.
      (/sarcasm)

      Either they’re making things up as usual, or they’re hiding facts just so they can attack the rest of us who either own or want to own firearms for various reasons. I vote making most of it up because if it was really modified for full-auto, we’d have heard the MSM and the anti-gunners attack this tragic massacre from a different angle.

  5. avatar timer00 says:

    Another one playing loose with the facts and concepts of the 2nd amendment in order to hint at an agenda that should be pushed I don’t believe it ! … sarcasm

  6. avatar jwm says:

    i don’t want to own an “assualt rifle”. as an adult living in a free country it”s my right not to own an “assualt rifle”. however, as said adult living in a free country, i have no right to tell you that you cannot own an “assualt rifle”. the day i get the right to deny you that weapon we will no longer be living in a free country.

  7. avatar Moonshine7102 says:

    Did I miss something? I don’t recall learning about a “Bill of Needs” in my civics classes. Admittedly, that was some time ago, but still…

  8. avatar Wade says:

    The same reason people buy fast cars, we don’t need them, we don’t use them like they are (arguably) intended, yet we still keep buying fast cars and nice guns.

  9. avatar Botswana says:

    Let’s not get pendantic about the whole “Assault Rifle” definition. It’s a losing battle.

    The logical fallacy is here –

    “When it is no longer safe to attend a movie without being mowed down by automatic weapons recently purchased by someone visiting a psychiatrist for possible mental illness, it is time to reexamine the beliefs we are holding so dear ”

    It is no more dangerous to attend a movie now then it was before. Our “security” is an illusion and always has been. American citizens are so lax in our understanding of what it means to be secure that we completely take it for granted.

    There is always potential for some nut in the crowd. There always has been that potential. It might have been a crazed gunman, a mad bomber, or an insane slasher.

    We’re so hung up on these issues about tactical rifles, bulk ammo sales, and magazine capacity that no one wants to look at the larger and more complex issue. We’re not as safe as we think we are. You’d think after 9/11 we’d have snapped to this realization, but Americans are amazing in their willingness to stay ignorant of the world around them. Not just internationally, but just walking down the street.

    1. avatar Fyrewerx says:

      That sums it up perfectly.

  10. avatar Chas says:

    I’ve never understood the thinking that says just because some wacko decided to wreak havoc with an AR-15, I shouldn’t be able to own one.

    1. avatar Josh says:

      Obviously, because you want to own one as well, you are, by association, a wacko as well. /sarcasm.

      Logic need not apply when your “thinking” is heavily influenced with emotions.

    2. avatar Henry Bowman says:

      It’s not “thinking” that says that… it’s irrational fear.

      Although most 2A supporters are guilty of it too. Since some wacko decided to carry a concealed firearm and then wreak havoc, I should have to get permission to carry concealed. Obviously, that’s just as illogical as “assault rifle” fear.

  11. avatar Silver says:

    He has his email address there at the bottom. Perhaps his thick skull can be breached with a couple hundred informative emails.

    This concept of “need” is one that gun-grabbers like to play with because it’s a non-argument. Aside from food, water, and shelter, humans do not “need” anything else. We don’t need cars, or electricity, or iPods, or restaurants, or politicians. Everything beyond the absolute, caveman basics is luxury and convenience.

    Now, let’s take a different facet of “need.” I would say that a free society does indeed need an armed, self-reliant, and free populace. A free society needs free people who have weapons roughly comparable to the kind that would potentially be used to oppress them. So, until the police, military, and gangs go back to flintlocks, yes, we need access to “assault rifles.”

    To put it simply: Subjects don’t need assault rifles. Citizens do.

  12. avatar Rokurota says:

    No one needs to see “The Dark Knight Rises,” either. Ban, anyone?

    1. avatar Totenglocke says:

      No, no, the villains name was Bane. 😉

  13. avatar Mike says:

    Can we quit calling things “assault rifles” that aren’t true assault rifles?

    1. avatar Chas says:

      No.

      Signed,

      Carolyn Brady

      1. avatar Moonshine7102 says:

        Co-signed,
        Sarah McCarthy

    2. avatar Winston Smith says:

      “can we stop calling them assault rifles?”

      Why? Even if they were “assault rifles” we still have the right to own and use them.

      I’m not bothered by that phrase and refer to my evil black (many of which are other non-black colors these days) semi-auto rifles as “assault rifles”. Who cares?

  14. avatar Sammy says:

    The lack of logic in the anti’s arguments is staggering. The fabrication of “facts” is becoming a new art form. Talking to grabbers about the 2nd is kind of like trying to teach a pig to sing. I just annoys the pig and frustrates you.

    1. avatar bontai Joe says:

      I like the annalogy!!!!!

  15. avatar Josh says:

    RF you missed the best part of the article, Ill quote him here:
    “Would it have been possible to kill 12 people and injure 59 others if James Holmes had not been armed with an AK type assault rifle? This weapon is capable of firing 100 rounds of ammunition in 30 seconds.” AK? FullAuto?

    Also, “Our leaders of today must summon the same courage our leaders did in drafting the 2nd Amendment. They must find compromise that allows for a realistic solution to a dangerous and emotion filled argument.”
    The only emotion driven thinking is coming from their side of the fence here.

    1. avatar Winston Smith says:

      “AK type assault rifle? This weapon is capable of firing 100 rounds of ammunition in 30 seconds.”

      Wow. So, 3 and 1/3 magazines. 4 mag changes. All in 30 seconds.

      I’m pretty good with my semiauto kalashnikovs, better than many maybe, but not that good.

  16. avatar Blake says:

    Arguably, (providing, of course, the rifle caused most of the deaths) there possibly would have been fewer deaths if the Aurora shooter had a fully automatic weapon. Why? Well, ever practiced a double tap with a large caliber semi auto pistol? Muzzle rise is a bitch. And therein lies the point: Double tapping requires practice and lots of it.

    I suspect a fully automatic rifle would be shooting at the ceiling within a few rounds, unless the shooter has practiced a lot.

    1. avatar Anon in CT says:

      Hard to say – barrel rise isn’t that bad with 3 or 4 round bursts, and his targets were, unfortunately, stacked vertically in the theater seating.

      The author of this piece is a concern troll – not a 2A supporter at all. He’s like those folks who call in to NPR, CSPAN, etc. and begin by saying “as a life long Republican, I say that this Romney fellow is just too extreme . . . “. Except that the last Republican they voted for was Rockefeller (in the primary against Goldwater).

      1. avatar Blake says:

        Ever ride a motorcycle and have it start to get away from you? Rather than letting go, you tend to hang on tighter, which rolls the throttle back even further, making the problem worse.

        I suspect the same thing would happen with a fully automatic weapon, if one didn’t have any real training.

        1. avatar Anon in CT says:

          I suppose – I did spend 10 years toting a C7 (like an M16A2, but with full auto) on and off, so I’ve fired plenty of auto, but I was trained. On the rare occasion when I threw bursts to the wind and just dumped a mag (i.e. a Mad Minute), there certainly was enough climb and shake that I couldn’t accurately service a target, but if the target were a whole theater? Pretty hard to miss.

      2. avatar Blake says:

        Thank you for your thoughts and experience.

        I appreciate the conversation/feedback.

  17. avatar Greg Camp says:

    It’s funny, but somehow, I’ve gone to movies for years, and the only things that have disturbed me have been bad sound systems, poor film-making, obnoxious members of the audience, and spilled food (see the previous entry).

    I do like the comments above about how the first ten amendments aren’t called the Bill of Needs. Tyrants ask what do the people need–at a bare minimum–and then often fail to provide. A free society asks what rights do the people have and what limited need do we have for government.

    1. avatar Chad says:

      Here, Here Greg! Your statement about Tyrants and contrast with a free society, is spot on!

  18. avatar styrgwillidar says:

    Well you don’t need them, anymore than you need life insurance, auto insurance, motorcycle safety gear (if you ride), fire extinguishers, escape ladder or any other just in case pre-cautionary equipment until something bad happens. But when something bad happens, you need them badly.

    Again, we are considering the loss of 10s of people while overlooking the fact that governments in the last 120 years have killed millions of their own citizens. Victims of crime are round off error compared to those numbers. Germany, USSR, China etc. etc. all after first ensuring their victim.., sorry citizens, were unarmed.

  19. avatar Don says:

    I contend that the euphemism “home defense” rifle is as silly as the euphemism “assault” rifle. They’re just rifles, contemporary designs if anything. People use them for all kinds of purposes. Using such a qualifier is accepting the opposition’s chosen framing that such qualifiers once bestowed change something about the rifle, which they don’t.

    1. avatar MikeM says:

      Perhaps we should settle on ‘contemporary rifle’ then. I like the sound of that. Rather civilized, don’t you think? 😉

      Seriously though. I often wonder how this stupid debate about the term ‘assault ____’ would play out if ARs were made with blued steel, Turkish walnut stocks, gold inlay, and patterns etched in the receiver. If we just make ’em prettier, would these finally people shut-up about their utility?

      1. avatar Silver says:

        Then we’d be called racists for doing away with the black color.

      2. avatar Fyrewerx says:

        Hmmm… maybe its time for me to pick up a nice M-14. Nice wood stocks (can even be re-stained and varnished), 3 times the power of an AK (good for shooting thru a few BGs). And all the while, the gungrabbers will think its a hunting rifle. I’ll have to do something about that menacing flash suppressor though.

    2. avatar Totenglocke says:

      As long as the moronic media and the gun grabbers refer to AR’s and AK’s as “assault rifles”, I will continue to use the term “scary looking rifle” – and yes, I have emailed many gun grabbing journalists and used the term “Scary Looking Weapons Ban” when referring to the dark decade.

  20. avatar Aharon says:

    That AR pictured needs a bath.

    1. avatar Henry Bowman says:

      That’s just a sign it’s been well loved.

  21. avatar Henry Bowman says:

    Until the focus can be drawn away from the inanimate object and placed on the actions of an individual, this arguement will never be resolved.

    A firearm is merely a piece of machinery. It should be treated as any other inanimate tool. It matters not who owns it (felons), how it’s carried (CC v. OC), what it looks like (black and scary), or how it functions (full auto)… all that matters are the actions of the individual who wields that tool, be it for good or evil.

  22. avatar Accur81 says:

    Four excellent reasons to own an AR-15:

    1. It pisses off liberals.
    2. If you are within 200 miles (or so) of the cartel – controlled US-Mexico border, one of the most violent places in the world. (Look how well gun control worked for Mexico!)
    3. To support the US economy.
    4. It is arguably the most versatile and ergonomic rifle ever made. DI and piston uppers are available in 5.45, .22, 5.56, 6.5, 6.8, 7.62, .300, .458, and .50. Plus pistol calibers. Crossbows, even.

    I don’t want my highly tuned sports sedan to be limited to 65 mph, just like I don’t want my AR-15 to be bastardized by regulations created by a lawyer who has never shot one. Neither would it make sense to ban knives because I just nicked my finger.

    I’ll send the same email to this douchebag. Just FYI…

    1. avatar crosswiredmind says:

      It doesn’t piss off liberals. I know liberal gun owners. I hold many liberal views as well.

      Guns ownership is not partisan.

      1. avatar JFP says:

        Of course it is partisan. Which group consistently pushes for gun control? If there was ever a single issue to vote on, self defense with the most effective weapon of the day is it.

        1. avatar Greg Camp says:

          Insisting on this being a partisan issue will only guarantee losses in the end. The best approach is to build a coalition across the spectrum of people who support gun rights. I’m a gun owner, carry license holder, and gun rights blogger, but I’m not in lock step with the right. In some ways, I’m Libertarian, but in others, I’m Green. Alienating people like me and like the many Democrats who are part of our gun culture is shooting yourself in the foot.

        2. avatar Totenglocke says:

          Greg, he’s not insisting that it should be a partisan issue, he’s simply pointing out the reality that we only have one party that doesn’t actively try to eliminate the second amendment.

        3. avatar crosswiredmind says:

          The group that pushes for gun control is a small slice of one party.

          I will quote this again because it is currently my favorite statistic:

          44% of Democrats and 55% of Republicans own guns.

          Mix that amount of blue and red, and you get a slightly rosy purple.

        4. avatar Moonshine7102 says:

          @crosswiredmind:

          Simply owning a gun does not make a politician pro-gun. See: Diane Feinstein.

      2. avatar shawmutt says:

        Yep, I’m one of them. Godless liberal who loves his guns. I left a comment on that page, the guy is full of it. I’ll note that many dems in my home state of PA are fully supportive of the second amendment.

        In any case, I can think of another excellent reason:

        http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uRc_FlmW2Jc

        The zombie invasion may be fiction, but this stuff does happen.

        1. avatar Totenglocke says:

          I’m curious (I’m mostly libertarian, fyi), how does a liberal reconcile the contradiction between the right to bear arms (including using them to resist government oppression) and supporting government policies that require forcing people to do things against their will?

      3. avatar Accur81 says:

        My apologies, crosswire. Mr. Ponder strikes me as being on the left, and I responded in kind.

        I tried to send earlier, but my iPhone 4 is having trouble with the site.

        1. avatar crosswiredmind says:

          No worries. No harm no foul.

  23. avatar crosswiredmind says:

    If we only bought what we needed, our economy would collapse.

  24. avatar Phil Pistol says:

    I hate to say it but there may be a time when friends and neighbors may need to stand up to a rouge government that is going to totally strip our rights away from us. Confiscate our money and our land and kill all those who say no. Millions of people have died this way not that long ago. It can’t happen here though.?!?

  25. avatar Daniel says:

    My semi-auto rifle with 60-round magazine will not need to be reloaded if my home is invaded in the middle of the night. When I get knocked out of my REM sleep by the sound of breaking glass, I’m not going to have the time nor the wherewithal to throw on a shoulder rig loaded with two or three extra magazines. If I expend my 10-round magazine in my pistol in fighting off intruders, I would then have to worry about reloading. In a nightmare scenario (worst case), I might just expend all of that ammunition without ending the threat. A 60-round magazine is capacious enough that the likelihood of being able to ward off any threat is nearly 100% so long as I am not wounded or otherwise incapacitated in the process. The end result? My family is safe, and we continue to live our lives to the fullest. The worst-case alternative? A dead and raped family.

    Some of us take the defense of our families very, very seriously. To that end, we want to leave very little to chance. A semi-automatic rifle with a high-capacity magazine is security against home invasions.

    Please also understand that this is not paranoia: This is insurance. Sure, the odds of such a scenario happening in a sleepy community are very slim. But such things are far from unprecedented. Such scenarios have unfolded in small towns with low crime. If I am unfortunate enough to be someone for whom such a scenario befalls, I will be more prepared to meet that threat.

    In short: To take away semi-automatic rifles and/or high capacity magazines is to leave the average, law-abiding, armed family less ready and able to defend their lives in a terrible scenario. One could argue that the odds are so low that such a thing will ever happen and thus the average person does not need high-cap mags. How, then, would you go about determining who WOULD need high-cap mags? You can’t. Thus bans will hurt the good guys (the law-abiding citizens), while the outlaws (whom by their very nature and definition have no respect for the law) will ignore such laws and will obtain high-cap magazines and rifles to go with them in order to victimize families.

    So there you are: Semi-automatic rifles and high-capacity magazines’ legitimate place in this world: The defense of one’s family against evil.

  26. avatar the last Marine out says:

    The View and thinking of our WISE founders know that governments and anyone that would be a king rule the people with ease if they are unarmed, there is a DVD called the GANG , it’s a history about how unarmed peoples have been killed in the 20 and 21 century by many millions, sample in Russia alone the reds killed 28 million white Russians,than Lenin killed 5 million more by his famine, next Stalin killed 40 more million, and after Stalin about 20 million have been killed to date … that is only one country and in Russia the WW1 only killed 1 1/2 million… so the biggest killer of all mankind is not wars///and because the people had not ARMS equal to the governments..

  27. avatar Tarrou (Joshua Grabow) says:

    There’s a million reasons why it’s silly to single out “assault weapons” from other guns. But really, the simplest argument is this: even if I could be convinced that it’s a good idea to remove them, there’s no one I trust to be able to do that. And there’s not a law written that some clever inventor won’t find a way around.

  28. avatar Hinshelworld says:

    Modern home defense sporting black rifle is incredulously stupid sounding and just as made up of a term as “assault” rifle… It’s just a civilian version of a combat weapon. It was designed with the intention of killing people with efficiency.

    That said I don’t need mine… but I’m not giving it up.

  29. avatar Ross says:

    Who Needs an “Assault Rifle”?

    Me, I do, damit

  30. avatar Ralph says:

    It seems like Ponder has consumed the Kool-Aid. And once someone has done that, there’s no going back. So here’s one argument that the Ponderer might understand — we are not backing down on this or any other issue relating to guns because gungrabbers will never stop screwing with us until there isn’t a single firearm or bullet left in America. So now, Mr. Ponder, please go kcuf yourself backwards.

  31. avatar Robert says:

    I use “assault rifles” simply because they are more comfortable for my body type. I am on the shorter side of the male spectrum with freakishly small hands. I have trouble reaching the trigger on traditional hunting stocks. Pistol grips can be easily customised to have a short reach. This is the reason why I think the assault weapon ban is an abomination. Gun grabbers show their anti rights setiments when they try to ban guns that women, children, the disabled, and physically different people find easier to use.

  32. avatar Dex says:

    This is a similar logic to a certain group of people in our country jeering wealthy people for flying in helicopters, owning large homes, or driving luxury cars.

    “Why do they need that!?” they cry.

    “Because thats freedom”, I say, “Not everybody is content with owning the same thing as everybody else. If Im not harming you with it, then why are you so concerned?”

    The idea of freedom eludes statist control freaks. They cry when somebody has better things then they do, so they throw a hissy fit and complain about complex socioeconomic problems to blame other people for their mediocrity.

  33. avatar napoleon says:

    I totally agree, we don’t need assault rifles. Too dangerous in the clutches of a donut hook. Let’s take all the M16s out of the hands of civilian police forces and turn them into art. They don’t have good reason to need full auto anyway. The few pre-1986 assault rifles owned by civilians can be grandfathered in. I have no doubt this will reduce the number of innocent people shot by police and we don’t have to worry about criminals stealing them when left unmanned by irresponsible popo.

  34. avatar Bob says:

    The founders created the 2nd amendment for us to protect ourselves from a tyrannical government.

  35. avatar Greg in Allston says:

    “Who needs an Assault Rifle”? Hmmm…, well…, we all do. What’s the next question?

  36. avatar Goldenboy says:

    What does “need” have to do with anything? No one needs a flat screen tv. No one needs an iPhone. But isn’t that what defines America? Filling our homes with a bunch of stuff we don’t need?
    I want my evil, black, assault rifle! As long as I can afford it, no one has the right to tell me that I can’t buy it.
    And as for people saying these guns are only designed to kill? With 270 million guns in the US and a homicide rate of 10,000/year. That means 99.99% of guns must be defective since they did not kill anyone. What shoddy craftsmanship.

    1. avatar Hinshelworld says:

      The AR pattern rifle was designed for the military… To kill.

      1. avatar Dex says:

        so was my M1 Garand. In the Rocky Mountains, I would pity the poor soul trampling on US soil while carrying a assault rifle.

      2. avatar crosswiredmind says:

        No sir. If it were designed to kill, it would have been 7.62 instead of 5.56. All kidding aside, it was designed to be easy to carry and easy to operate. The soldiers are then trained to kill.

        I have an AR, I use it to shoot CMP matches. It is a 16 pound match rifle designed for static position shooting, not killing.

  37. avatar Mike Magnet says:

    I just stumbled upon this website and for the most part have enjoyed reading the articles/comments here. However, the comments on this article seem to crystallize a trend that appears in bits over the entirety of the site; somehow gun owners/supporters are touted as conservatives against the “liberals” who don’t want to advocate for firearm ownership. This sort of childish, illogical rhetoric is a turn off to me- as one person commented, gun ownership is not bi-partisan and really has nothing to do with partisan politics at all. From a philosophical perspective, viewing the world through any lens which simplifies people such that they squarely fit into one paradigm or another (like democrat or republican, for example) is absolutely absurd– it says nothing about the reality of the person involved and the complex, “gray” nature of their actual views. I happen to be a hard working, well-educated, highly paid medical professional, which pushes me to be very fiscally conservative. I happen to be an atheist. I happen to be socially liberal and could care less about issues like gay marriage and abortion. I also happen to think that gun ownership is essential for freedom and a right that every human being in a civilized nation deserves. I also own an expensive “assault” rifle.

    Anyway, if people would just focus on the real issue at hand- that is advocating responsible ownership of firearms- the whole group of “pro gun” people would be better off. Creating imaginary divides based on false notions about people’s worldviews is inane and way off point.

    1. avatar Totenglocke says:

      This sort of childish, illogical rhetoric is a turn off to me- as one person commented, gun ownership is not bi-partisan and really has nothing to do with partisan politics at all.

      Please, feel free to inform the many anti-gun Democrats in the government (both local governments and the Federal government). Apparently they never got the memo.

      Creating imaginary divides based on false notions about people’s worldviews is inane and way off point.

      No one is creating any divides. The divides exist. Just because YOU vote Democrat (I’m making a guess here) and like guns doesn’t mean that the Democrat party likes guns – and the many anti-gun Democrats in the government show that. There is a reason why the Democrat party is known as the anti-gun party, and it wasn’t because gun enthusiasts wanted to cause problems, it was because Holier Than Thou Democrats in the government decided to start eliminating the second amendment because armed peasants are so much harder to control.

      1. avatar Mike Magnet says:

        Another baseless assumption about my voting habits (I do not vote Democrat for the record, and it’s mainly for financial reasons)… just reinforcing the point that party lines mean nothing and are just a simple cop out. Bipartisanism is a joke; it assumes that there are 2 sides to every issue and one needs to be firmly in support of one and vehemently opposed to the other. It’s an uninformed way to view any topic, really, and I suppose the reality of that fact is what really irks me. My point was simple and easily elucidated: posters on here say things like “own an assault rifle because it pisses off liberals”– when what they really MEAN to say, is “own an assault rifle because it pisses off gun-control advocates”. Blanket statements that generalize people with no merit are plain stupid; can you not at least concede that point?

        1. avatar Totenglocke says:

          Another baseless assumption about my voting habits

          I didn’t assume, I made a guess – which I clearly stated was a guess, and I only did so because you foamed at the mouth about people pointing out that the Democrat party is anti-gun. Seeing how the majority of people complaining about that are the minority of Democrats who own guns, it’s a reasonable guess. There’s no reason for you to be getting an attitude about it.

          My point was simple and easily elucidated: posters on here say things like “own an assault rifle because it pisses off liberals”– when what they really MEAN to say, is “own an assault rifle because it pisses off gun-control advocates”.

          And despite all of the anti-gun laws currently being proposed in the last few weeks by Democrats, you STILL refuse to admit that there’s a connection between being a Democrat and being anti-gun. No, no one is saying ALL Democrats are anti-gun, but a significant number of them are or so many anti-gun Democrats wouldn’t get elected and so many of their constituents wouldn’t foam at the mouth online about how guns are evil.

          Blanket statements that generalize people with no merit are plain stupid; can you not at least concede that point?

          The people making the statements you quoted above weren’t making blanket statements, they were talking about a political party that hates guns. I’m really curious why, since you claim to not be a Democrat, you get so upset about people pointing out the fact that the Democrat party is anti-gun and has been for decades.

      2. avatar Gyufygy says:

        By changing minds, you can change party platforms. The more liberals/Democrats/damned dirty rotten hippies you get not being terrified of guns, the better. Don’t need to start huge debates with people you meet on the street, just invite a friend or two to go plinking with a .22 or whatever. Republicans keep their politicians in line, the ever-increasing number of Democratic gun owners start slapping their politicians, and eventually things move on and they can go back to arguing about everything else while punching paper, knocking over steel, and shattering clay pigeons.

        Also, I want a pretty pink pony with pigs flying out of its ass.

  38. avatar philthegardner says:

    I agree with a lot of people posting here: just because we may not have a need for it, and it has the potential to be dangerous to others doesn’t mean we should pass laws outlawing it. Not when a significant portion of the population already own it and/or have no issue with it. Heck, nobody ever banned Hummers or Fencing (the sport, not the crime).

  39. avatar Eric says:

    Can I point out that when the second amendment was written, the civilian population of the US was armed with much more modern weapons (rifles) compared to the Military (smoothbore muskets)

  40. avatar bontai Joe says:

    I don’t NEED a black scary semi-auto rifle, but I could sure use one and if they were passing free ones out of a truck, I’d be sure to get my wife and daughter in line so we could each have one. I’m reminded of the Katrina disaster where shop owners were shown in photos defending their stores with “black scary looking” rifles from looters. The “scary looking” part is an advantage in such a situation! Folks KNOW that this type of weapon generally has a 20 round or 30 round magazine, and so they don’t mess around with people that are armed with these.

  41. avatar William says:

    I am a twenty year old aspiring gun advocate who was raised around a very “gun shy” family. my mother doesn’t believe in them but my father was raise hunting. I now am the owner of a very “tacticool 870” and my ease of mind over our increasing number of gang violent actions is well, put to ease. if we need these assorted types of ARs and AKs the people using/purchasing them LEGALLY are not the people we need to worry about! these guns are tracable, registered, and paid for in full by hard earned money. if we all spent more time educating, training and arming the sensible Americans in our cities, our government wouldn’t have AS much to complain about! ARs are the most versitile weapon of our time, if it’s hunting/protection/law enforcement or just recreational; these modern weapons are useful. whether or not I own a shotgun or a “assault rifle”(I still laugh at this term since my brothers AR 15 with it’s bullet button/mag compacity makes it a very slow gun to shoot) the person uses the gun to kill, not the other way around. as long as law abiding citizens are using these weapons, we shouldn’t have anything to fear.

  42. avatar BPeterson says:

    Assult weapons (misnamed) are needed when the SHTF in this country. Try and protect your family against a gang of attackers with a pistol. Good luck. Lead flying at the bad guys ay 4 rounds a second (that is how fats I can shoot mine) will convince them to go somewhere else. Hopefully they will go to the home of a gun hating liberal. When food and water shortages hit try and stop the mobs with your pistol. There will be a time when you will need this type of weapon to protect your family. I will give mine up when the police, secret service. private security (many used by rich anti gunners, politicians, hollywood types, lawyers, CEO’s, and so on), military and the bad guys give up theirs.

Write a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email