Why do you need an assault rifle?


PDA






LkWinnipesaukee
December 20, 2006, 03:14 PM
We were talking in History class today about the Second Amendment. The subject of assualt rifles, and me wanting an AR for Christmas came up.

I was asked why I wanted/needed an assualt rifle. The only response I could really come up with was 'because I can', and 'target shooting'. Noone really thought that was a good answer...


So who do we need 'assualt rifles'?

If you enjoyed reading about "Why do you need an assault rifle?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
PILMAN
December 20, 2006, 03:16 PM
Any gun can be used as an "assault weapon". The term "Assault Rifle" is coined to mean any weapon the military uses.

Think of it the way you think of cars, you can have your average car to get from place a to place b or you can get a sports car. Why do people need fast cars? It's about choice.

Any gun can be used to kill a person, the term "assault rifle" is misleading.

Ohio Rifleman
December 20, 2006, 03:17 PM
Two things here:
1. An AR-15 is not an "assault rifle." A true assault rifle has a selector switch to go from semi-auto fire to full auto fire. Those are already heavily regulated by the government.

2. Since when should Big Brother ban everything we don't "need?" Do you need your computer? Do you need a TV? Maybe we should ban everything but food, water and shelter.

Oleg Volk
December 20, 2006, 03:19 PM
For self-protection at close to intermediate ranges.

They key is to admit that the purpose is legitimate, arguing about the best tools for it is a minor point.

Alex45ACP
December 20, 2006, 03:20 PM
Protection from our own government.

Declaration Day
December 20, 2006, 03:20 PM
The answer I usually give to non-gun owners, be they fence sitters or antis, is that while they find military style firearms to be "scary" looking, they are no more powerful and are often less accurate than their hunting counterparts.

Another good answer is that "assault" implies intent, and you don't intend to harm anybody with it. That doesn't mean you wouldn't if you had to, but you know what I mean.

Correct me if I am wrong, but the true definition of an assault rifle is a select-fire weapon. Either way, I don't use the term at all. My rifles are all "Homeland Defense" rifles.

CountGlockula
December 20, 2006, 03:21 PM
Zombies. :)

Seriously though, owning a AR is like owning any other firearm: protection, range time, etc.

Also, it's a great hobby. You're very lucky your state allows you to own one.

Ohio Rifleman
December 20, 2006, 03:21 PM
What Oleg said, too. :neener: But that likely won't change the minds of the Sheeple, might bring a fence-sitter to our side, though. Or at least make some people think. Who knows?

RNB65
December 20, 2006, 03:25 PM
An assault rifle is a rifle that's capable of burst/full-auto rapid fire and requires an NFA tax stamp to possess. Is that really what you want?

If not, then what you want isn't an assault rifle. It's a conventional rifle styled to look like an assault rifle.

harvester of sorrow
December 20, 2006, 03:25 PM
The intent of the Second Amendment was that all citizens would have access to whatever the standard issue weapon of the military was. The theory was that a citizenry armed with the same equipment would always outnumber and therefore be able to defeat a standing army. This would guarantee freedom from a tyrannical government. Sadly, this is not nearly as possible as it should be today.

As for why you need one, "they're fun," "because I can," and "because I want one," should all be sufficient answers. Freedom is not dependent on justification. Ask them why they think you shouldn't have one. If their answer is along the lines of "because they're so deadly, etc.," tell them that inanimate objects can't BE anything. Explain that in the hands of a knowledgeable gun owner, shooting and owning a rifle like that might be many things: fun, rewarding, a competitive endeavor....but not "deadly." Tell them that you are confident in your own level of self control. Ask them if they are so insecure about their own judgment that they would be afraid to own or shoot one? Get the AR-15 and invite them shooting.

High Planes Drifter
December 20, 2006, 03:32 PM
I have an assault rifle because I think it makes an excellent home defense weapon, its inexpensive to shoot, and it looks really cool.:)

Contraindicated
December 20, 2006, 03:36 PM
The old joke or saying, "why does a dog lick...." because he can! ::neener: I think the 2nd amendment is still a right and a personal choice as long as it remains so!

KC&97TA
December 20, 2006, 03:47 PM
The last person that asked why I needed my M4-Gery offered me $900 for it, I guess I don't need it... but it's helping hold the safe down, I'd rather it not be needed, than wanted. :uhoh:

What I really don't need is to turn on the furnace, so far I haven't turned on the furnace even with the temperature dipping down to only 25*F, I don't need central heating, I need more love'n ;)

Generally, the assult weapons banning type people consider a .50bmg an assult rifle too, even the single shots... so they're not too up to speed.

Speaking of the .50 BMG, what I NEED is a .700 Nitro Express, because Elephants could excape and stampeed at any minute.

I also have my AR-15 because it looks cool, and looking cool is Rule #1 !

DogBonz
December 20, 2006, 03:49 PM
Please instruct your classmates that the rifle that you want is NOT AN ASSAULT RIFLE.

The term “assault rifle” was hijacked back in the early days of the Kliton administration. An assault rifle according to Webster’s Dictionary (pre Kliton) was:
Any rifle that could be changed from semi automatic to fully automatic with the flip of a selector switch.

Notice it said nothing about pistol grip stocks, 30 round mags, or a bayonet lug.

If they don’t gut your point, say that AR15’s are being discriminated against because they look like an M16. Just say that calling a civilian rifle an assault weapon because it looks like an assault weapon, is calling your mom’s grocery getting station wagon a race car because you put a big spoiler and some rims on it.

Then you can tell them how the AR family or rifles is one of the most inherently accurate rifle designs ever made. Or tell them that you are doing your part to end discrimination, and that they should be ashamed for “judging a book by its cover”.

mkh100
December 20, 2006, 03:50 PM
Dang ! Harvester beat me to it ! And said it better as well. That "assault" rifle is your constitutional right, its also your unyielding responsibility. You have a right and a responsibility to protect yourself and your family from others who would do you harm.

Right now as unsettling as I find things politically, you do not "need" any weapon to defend yourself from your government, nor your nation from foreign aggressors. But put into a historical context, it is more than likely, even probable that Americans will at some point be called to their own defense or the defense of our Nation.

Think of these issues:

Hungarian uprising of the 1950's

The defense of England from Nazi Germany (did you know they begged old hunting rifles from the US to give to folks along the coast fearing a land invasion?)

Bolshevek Revolution

French Resistance Movement WW2

How about women and the infirmed along the changing battle lines in the War of Northern Aggression. Not so much fighting for or against, nor even taking sides, but protecting themselves from roving bands of soldiers North or South.

How about a bunch of Farmers defending their ammunition stores from the kings men at Lexington and Concord......they still teach that in Mass. right? Had the Redcoats been the only ones on the field that day with M16's would the colonist ever have dared to fight the Battle that would lead to the creation of the greatest nation to ever grace the planet?

You do not just have a "right" to that rifle......you have a sincere responsibility to own one....its been paid for in blood and declared before God.

Maybe you and I will never be called to use that Rifle in Anger or Fear...What about your kids? your grandkids? If we go quietly into the night and shirk our responsibilities now what tragic course do we set for the future?

Mike

JCF
December 20, 2006, 03:51 PM
I don't "need" one. I want one. I enjoy the comfort, convenience and recreational benefits associated with having one.

There are few things in this life that we absolutely need, and there are multitudes of things that we enjoy that are potentially very harmful to both the individual, and those around him/her.

Personal automobiles are not a necessity, and their production and use is arguably more damaging to the health of the inhabitants of this planet than any other single human invention.

Alcoholic beverages in any form are not a necessity, and are a factor in the deaths of countless persons each and every day worldwide.

Highly-processed, fat and carbohydrate laden, and low-nutrient value foods are not a necessity, and are a factor in a staggering, nearly epidemic, decline in public health over the last thirty years.

I don't NEED any kind of gun. But then again, I don't NEED a lot of things that I have.

The question here is whether or not society should be permitted to regulate individual behavior based upon tangible need and tangible harm. If true and tangible NEED relative to true and tangible HARM are the criteria by which behavior is to be regulated, then Big Macs, Toyotas, Bud Light and escalators should be much, much higher on the hit list than your gun.

The question of need, and the argument that need should dictate access, is both specious and HIGHLY hypocritical.

DoubleTapDrew
December 20, 2006, 03:52 PM
"Because the Democrats have control of the Senate and House" :p
"The great thing about this country is we don't have to show a NEED for everything we WANT"

Hemicuda
December 20, 2006, 03:59 PM
My standard reply is either:

"I don't need it, I already HAVE some, but more is better!" or

"because I want it!"

Taurus92 in KyleTX
December 20, 2006, 04:01 PM
Along the thematic lines of some previous posts...

If I need to cut a 4" hole in a piece of plywood, I could do it with a $8 handsaw and a good amount of time (relative to...)

Or, I could spend 3x or 4x that amount for a hole saw attachment for my drill (not even counting the cost of the drill).

Both would accomplish the same job. The latter just having a little more style (and speed) to it, and making it a hell of lot easier to get the hole directly in the middle of the board.

Likewise, if I wanted to put a hole, roughly .22in in diameter, in an 8 1/2" x 11" sheet of paper, I could use a $160 Taurus PT22, or a $800 AR-15.

Both would accomplish the same job. The latter just having a little more style (and speed) to it, and making it a hell of lot easier to get the hole directly in the middle of the paper. :D

migoi
December 20, 2006, 04:04 PM
questioning of this type I usually turn the situation around. I answer their "Why do you need an assault rifle?" with "Tell me exactly why I shouldn't be able to own one."

There is no angle that they can take in answering that challenge that I can't deflect.

migoi

Vern Humphrey
December 20, 2006, 04:08 PM
So who do we need 'assualt rifles'?

Read the Debates (this is the term given to the Federalist Papers and the legislative debates over the Constitution during the period of ratification.) I recommend the Library of America two-volume set. (Why every American doesn't have a copy, I don't know.)

From that edition;

Another source of power in government is a military force. But this to be efficient must be superior to any force that exists among the people, or which they can command; or otherwise this force would be annihilated, on the first exercise of acts of oppression. Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword, because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any body of regular troops that can be , on any pretence, raised in America.

"A Citizen of America" (Noah Webster) Philadelphia, October 17th, 1787.

The American people, having just fought a successful revolution against the most powerful empire in the world, understood the dangers of a too-powerful government. Webster explains that the Constitution provides that the government can never be more powerful than the people.

That is the intent of the 2nd Amendment -- that the people be able to constitute a force superior to the Army. The Founding Fathers were not unsophisticated yokels -- they understood how governments work, how power works, and how by creating a counterforce (an armed populace) they also forestalled attempts to creat a tyranny -- the simple knowledge that the people are armed and well-armed forestalls many a power-hungry potential tyrant.

SWMAN
December 20, 2006, 04:14 PM
The simple answer is because I need to practice my unorganized militia shooting skills.:)

benelli12
December 20, 2006, 04:16 PM
because they are fun to shoot, and they make me feel powerful......
Guns are not a need, they are a hobby:) :)

Euclidean
December 20, 2006, 04:19 PM
Well here's what I would say.

"The term assault rifle is inaccurate here, the AR15 was originally marketed to the outdoorsman and today sees use as the premier competition platform in many types of competeition shooting and it also serves well for personal defense. Actually I want an AR15 rifle because they're easily customized to fit the user. They're adaptable to many uses and shooting sports due to the interchangeability of the parts. The rifle is ergonomic, light weight, and easy to work on. I can customize my own rifle much more easily with the AR15 than I ever could with other formats of rifle. It's also easy to work the controls and easy to fire."

A few basic facts go a long old way.

Nathanael_Greene
December 20, 2006, 04:19 PM
Why do I need an "assault rifle"?

Why does someone need a McMansion? An SUV? More than two pairs of pants? Imported beer? An MP3 player? Designer frames for their bifocals? Gourmet food?

"None of your damned business, that's why."

SoCalShooter
December 20, 2006, 04:20 PM
Hunting, plinking, HD, SD, competition!

OpFlash
December 20, 2006, 04:33 PM
Why does anyone need a Corvette?

Should they be banned?

There is more of a correlation between high powered automobiles and accidents than scary looking rifles and crime.

DogBonz
December 20, 2006, 04:51 PM
look'em right in the eye and say, "Because my d*ck is too big to need a Porche".

benEzra
December 20, 2006, 05:22 PM
Because you don't need something as powerful as a hunting rifle (if you don't hunt), so a small-caliber, relatively low-powered carbine is just the thing for target shooting without beating up your shoulder. And AR's are famous for their accuracy, and are one of the most popular centerfire target rifles in the United States.

FWIW, the whole "why do you need" question revolves around the misconception that the AR-15 is at the upper end of the power/lethality spectrum, rather than at the lower end. .223 Remington is the LEAST powerful of all common centerfire rifle calibers.

Ala Dan
December 20, 2006, 05:42 PM
in case the SH-T hits the fan~!:uhoh:

and

if Hillary/Billary gets back in the White House; you most likely won't be
able too obtain them.:barf: I got mine~!;) :cool: :D

michiganfan
December 20, 2006, 05:46 PM
You should mention how many millions of people have been killed by thier own governments or fellow countrty men over religious, or ethnic differences

Web
December 20, 2006, 05:50 PM
"Why do you want an assault rifle?"

"The same reason anyone wants the best of anything. In this case, I don't want to depend on the defense of my life and others on a less accurate and inferior weapon."

lionking
December 20, 2006, 05:50 PM
first of all Im glad that there is still discussions about the 2nd amendment in your school.I've become rather cynical about what schools teach these days regarding the Bill of Rights.

Agreed about the true definition between a real assault rifle and what has been deemed so regarding civilian models but to point out the definition I think would be pointless in class though for the overall discusson.Even western militarys who have full auto capability use it rarely.

I would be careful how I word myself in class,considering todays paranoia in schools some might start wondering about you just because you say you want one.I'd defend the position by saying you know adults that own.

I would try to change the debate from you defending yourself into a offensive intelectually.Point out that first and foremost the 2nd amendment is about defense,both personal and from a government gone tyranny.If they say that would not ever happen in America ask them if people are beyond wanting to impose their harsh will upon others even in America?Fact is given the right situations tyranny is always possible.

Point out that so called assault weapons are actually used in a small percentage in crime,and that the ban of 92 included types not considered military type weapons.Let them try to understand that peoples intent has more to do about crime than a weapon of choice.Let them understand that as long as there are people who will do harm then its a natural right for someone to be able to defend themself.

Let them understand that what someone "needs" is based on personal opinion,with anything in life.For every question or comeback that might be given to you from them there has already been discussions about it here at the forum such as "why not own nuclear weapons" and such.In all though I'd try to stay calm headed in the debate even when faced with overwhelming opposition.

And try to think ahead of time any comeback they might have for you and prepare your answer.

kieran
December 20, 2006, 05:55 PM
we need/want them because The Man has them.

gyp_c2
December 20, 2006, 06:11 PM
How about this...

...Why do you want a PLaystation 3? You already have an x-box, or game-cube or other platform, right?

Same thing...

BTW...the right to defend yourself is God-given...it's only affirmed by the 2nd amendment...http://users.pandora.be/eforum/emoticons4u/smoking/rauch06.gif

lionking
December 20, 2006, 06:17 PM
quote;BTW...the right to defend yourself is God-given...it's only affirmed by the 2nd amendment.

Absolutely!....unfortunately mentioning God in the classroom might lead him to detention.:confused:

Sharps-shooter
December 20, 2006, 06:19 PM
Lots of great answers on here already. here are some less-great answers that I've occasionally used when asked why i needed this or that gun.

1. I don't.
2. To shoot bullets out of.
3. Zombies.
4. To impress my brothers and cousins.
5. "Hunting deer".
6. It makes it easier to kill people.
7. Less messy than using a machete.
8. To compensate for my incredibly small penis.
9. So I can shoot it and it will go "bang" and I can yell "yee-haw".
10. Because I'm a big old redneck.

For larger caliber rounds I like to say "in case dinosaurs aren't really extinct."

HiroProX
December 20, 2006, 06:20 PM
I'd ask them "Why do you need your PC with an internet connection/books/SUV or Sports Car/designer clothes?"

My answer? "Because people like yall think I don't."

Sistema1927
December 20, 2006, 06:26 PM
First, the AR15 is not an assault rifle.

That said, every US male citizen between the ages of 17 and 45, should be in possession of a select fire M16 or M4 as the proper armament for their role as members of the militia.

SoCalShooter
December 20, 2006, 06:28 PM
1. I don't.
2. To shoot bullets out of.
3. Zombies.
4. To impress my brothers and cousins.
5. "Hunting deer".
6. It makes it easier to kill people.
7. Less messy than using a machete.
8. To compensate for my incredibly small penis.
9. So I can shoot it and it will go "bang" and I can yell "yee-haw".
10. Because I'm a big old redneck.

For larger caliber rounds I like to say "in case dinosaurs aren't really extinct."

Those are the best answers ever! Can i use a couple of them?

Sharps-shooter
December 20, 2006, 06:33 PM
use them all you want.

ericman
December 20, 2006, 06:46 PM
The next time I hear a question like that I will respond, "So I can kill black jew babies! What else?" Its what they want to here.

(If no one realizes that is a joke).

jwalk
December 20, 2006, 06:52 PM
Everytime I read one of these posts it's always the same answers, "because I want one, why can't I, or an AR-15, AK, or whatever isn't an assult rifle." I agree with all of those. However, I think we're missing the point of why anti's say we shouldn't have them, because they kill people or makes it easier to kill people. I think this is reinforced by some of the high-profile shootings, Columbine (.22's with high cap mags), DC sniper (.223 isn't a sniper rifle), and the bank robbers with AK's shooting it out in CA. All the things we like about "assult rifles" ie pistol grips, hi-cap mags, collapsable stock make the weapon eaier to shoot, carry more ammunition, or easier to hide/use. Some may scoff, but these are some legit points (not enough to ban them IMHO). Now how do you address these points besides claiming self-defense, fun, or by banning them you only hurt the good guys. When we say we need assult rifles because they're fun, or it's our responsibility, anti's and most of the general population dismiss us as gun nuts and crazies. How do you address thier points? Hopefully the answer isn't we'll never change thier minds but I have a sneaking suspicion this is probably the case.

Vern Humphrey
December 20, 2006, 07:08 PM
Everytime I read one of these posts it's always the same answers, "because I want one, why can't I, or an AR-15, AK, or whatever isn't an assult rifle." I agree with all of those. However, I think we're missing the point of why anti's say we shouldn't have them, because they kill people or makes it easier to kill people.

First of all, the antis don't care about your answer. There is no answer that will satisfy them.

I was in a debate on another forum, and the antis kept changing the rule -- the intruder in the house became "someone who has to steal your DVD player to get a fix." Then it was "A skinny, pimple-faced teenager who has to steal your DVD player" and eventually, "A skinny 13-year old who is stealing your DVD player to pay his mother's medical bills."

You cannot convince them with logic because they invent their own logic.

Freedomv
December 20, 2006, 07:19 PM
It is all about homeland security.

We have had homeland security from the writing of the 2nd Amendment of the Bill of Rights untill the present day, we just didn't call it Homeland Security.

I have stated that I use my firearms (assault rifles) for the protection of my family, myself and my community. I also use them for sport such as hunting and target shooting.

I don't believe in stepping lightly and saying because I want one or I can have them or I like them etc.

These firearms are our/your first line of defense when you are under attack. Doesn't matter if it is a robber, rapist, terrorist, mad dog, rabid animal you name it. Fire arms are as much a defensive tool as an offensive tool or assault rifle. It is too bad that political correctness etc has taken over for common sense.

Vern

AJAX22
December 20, 2006, 07:20 PM
If they ask again just say:

I need one, because you won't own one, and things DO go bump in the night.

AJ Dual
December 20, 2006, 07:31 PM
It's not putting the best foot forward for RKBA, but sometimes you just have to have a little fun at their expense.

Give them the "Well, DUH!" look and say, "In case I need to assult something. ;)

Sharps-shooter
December 20, 2006, 07:42 PM
DC sniper (.223 isn't a sniper rifle),

It is if you hide somewhere and shoot people with it.

Mr Kablammo
December 20, 2006, 07:43 PM
From the JPFO book "Death by Gun Control": Hatred + Victim Disarmament + Government = Genocide.

Our society is too successful and material. Disbelief in the real existence of real hatred will lead to willing subjugation.

DMK
December 20, 2006, 08:31 PM
Correct me if I am wrong, but the true definition of an assault rifle is a select-fire weapon.

I was asked why I wanted/needed an assualt rifle.

Whenever that question comes up, I always ask the questioning person to define "assault rifle" or "Assault Weapon". Most can't, which proves they don't have a clue and are just regurgitating some propaganda the read in the mass media. If they do define it, often they refer to "machine guns" to which I explain the legal implications and severe limitations posed on those buying/owning class III weapons.

hso
December 20, 2006, 09:09 PM
The very term "Assault Weapon" is a red herring when you consider that any self loading magazine fed semiautomatic rifle does exactly the same thing.

Librarian
December 20, 2006, 09:11 PM
Xavier (http://xavierthoughts.blogspot.com/) has the quote from Jeff Cooper that applies here:"We are annoyed by the assumption on the part of certain public figures that the citizen should be able to prove the need for the citizen to acquire a means of protecting himself. The citizen's personal needs are no business of the state. Liberty, when in place, grants the right of the citizen to do what he chooses, as long as he does not stamp on the rights of others. Nobody needs caviar, or a pleasure boat or opera tickets. Whether he wants these things is no business of the state."
Jeff CooperNo business of the state, nor anybody else.

grimjaw
December 20, 2006, 09:36 PM
We were talking in History class today about the Second Amendment.

So how much time has been given over in your class to discuss the validity of the other amendments in the Bill of Rights? Were they all framed in the context of what you needed today versus what the founding fathers actually intended?

jm

Juna
December 20, 2006, 09:42 PM
Well said, everyone. Vern Humphrey, your original post was excellent.

I typically have used the sports car analogy to point out that there are very few true necessities in life. The beauty of a free country is that we have a right to have things without having to demonstrate a need to have those things. True, this response may lead them to dismiss us as "gun nuts", but I agree that there really isn't a response that will alter someone's thinking on this. The best way to alter their thinking is to take them to the range or casually discuss it with them over time. In an acute debate setting, I highly doubt you'll persuade someone as closed-minded as an anti-gunner.

That said, I would also bring up history and how this country was formed by people who won their independence with what would have been deemed "assault rifles" at that time if present day anti-gun politicians were around back then. From there you could explain the basics of firearms to them to disspell some of the myths about "assault rifles" and other firearms. The similarities between our current government and the government against whom we revolted in the 1700s are alarming. You might point some of those out. Bring up the confiscations after Katrina if they use the, "That'll never happen here" argument. Bring up the First Amendment and ask, "Why do you need the right to free speech?" or any other Amendment, for that matter.

As someone mentioned, staying calm and discussing things in general terms is good, especially in light of all the hysteria about school shootings lately. If you spout off at the mouth too much, you'll probably be visited by police, FBI, or Homeland Security! :rolleyes:

Ryder
December 20, 2006, 09:54 PM
More like anti-assault weapons. Great home defense tool and having one means there's less probability you'll need to use it. Defensless people are preferred targets for evil doers.

LkWinnipesaukee
December 20, 2006, 09:57 PM
So how much time has been given over in your class to discuss the validity of the other amendments in the Bill of Rights? Were they all framed in the context of what you needed today versus what the founding fathers actually intended?


We are discussing Article III-VII, and the BoR this week. We talked about them equally until I sidetracked the class on 2A :D So it was 1/2 hour today talking about guns. Great class if you ask me.

jwalk
December 20, 2006, 10:21 PM
I stand corrected, .223 can be used as a sniper rifle.

I guess my point is the press seemed to vilify the evil AR-15 as a perfect killing machine, where if the dude used a .308 or other high caliber "sniper rifle" he could've done more damage at farther ranges. Don't call that guy a sniper either in front of an old former Army sniper if you don't want to see contempt dripping from every word coming out of his mouth.

What frustrates me is the general public ingnorance concerning semi-auto rifles. You can use them to hunt varmits and deer, shoot, and for defense. Growing up I never saw why people "needed" an assult rifle. Not until I started buying and using guns did I start to think about it and did a 180.

Waitone
December 20, 2006, 10:25 PM
Whenever that question comes up, I always ask the questioning person to define "assault rifle" or "Assault Weapon". Most can't, which proves they don't have a clue and are just regurgitating some propaganda the read in the mass media. Ding, ding, ding, ding!!! We have a winnah. Next time you are asked the question play Yankee and answer their question with your question, "Help me understand the definition of an "assault rifle". Very quickly the discussion of go away. The question to you was rhetorical and therefore not worth your time in answering because there is no answer. Now if the questioner wants an understanding of the difference between and assault RIFLE (a technically meaningful term) and and assault WEAPON (a propaganda term invented by Josh Sugarman to describe threatening cosmetic features of common rifles) use your time wisely. :scrutiny:

Low-Sci
December 20, 2006, 10:31 PM
"Why do you need X" is a trap question and in a free society where we have rights protected by 2A, its a question we don't have to answer.

The truth is that the burden of proof is on the state to prove why a particular individual shouldn't have one. Innocent until proven guilty, not the other way 'round.

Geronimo45
December 20, 2006, 10:47 PM
Why do some people need to buy stamps from Monaco and Sweden? Because they're collectors. Why do they buy vintage cars? Collectors, again.

Why do you need an AR? You're a collector/hobbyist. Some people collect stamps or cars, you collect guns.

An AR-15 is a close cousin to the rifle the American armed forces have used for nigh on to thirty years. It's a way to remember that there are men who are willing to fight and die for others, and to honor the memory of men like that.

You can take a million rifles and study them for a million years apiece to find evil in them. You'll fail miserably. Evil is found in the heart of man, not in the chamber of a gun.

An AR's a sporting tool, like a baseball bat. You can cave someone's head in with a bat, or you can hit a ball with it. With an AR, you can shoot innocent people, or you could shoot pesky critters and paper targets.

An AR's a practical tool, as well. If you need to hunt for food, you could do it. If you need to stop someone who is coming after you to murder you, it could stop them.

Someone termed 'assault rifles' Sport Utility Rifles - a much more accurate name. They're just a regular gun with some added features - capacity, lower recoil, etc.

Juna
December 20, 2006, 10:54 PM
An AR's a sporting tool, like a baseball bat. You can cave someone's head in with a bat, or you can hit a ball with it. With an AR, you can shoot innocent people, or you could shoot pesky critters and paper targets.


I've used this exact comparison many times. One could hit a home run with my baseball bat, or one could beat someone into a bloody pulp with it. The difference between those two is the person holding the bat and his/her values & beliefs. Most people would not suddenly become a psychopath and begin beating people if you put a baseball bat in their hands. The same is true of guns. Violence is a human action. Weapons are inanimate objects that can be used as tools to commit violence. Even bare hands can be used to commit violent acts.

I also view target shooting as being analagous to billiards, bowling, basketball, etc. in that you're trying to send a projectile toward a desired target, be it the bull's eye/"X", corner pocket, 7/10 split, or basketball hoop. It involves the same discipline & control that those sports do.

Someone termed 'assault rifles' Sport Utility Rifles - a much more accurate name. They're just a regular gun with some added features - capacity, lower recoil, etc.

Wow, I've never thought of that, but it's totally accurate. Good analogy. :D

jwalk
December 20, 2006, 11:07 PM
Geronimo 45:
To play devil's advocate the difference in hobbies (collecting stamps vs collecting AR's) is the weapons enable you to kill someone where a stamp can't. I could get into bats/spears/choice of weapon vs assult rifles. Even brake it down to bolt action rifles vs semi auto or auto rifles. The assult rifle will kill more people faster. I don't know if saying I like collecting them is a route I would take.
I'm not trying to shoot people down or anything. I want to have a clear, focused response when I'm asked the question "Why do you need an assult rifle?" I don't want to pick on you specifically Geronimo, I like the tool argument. Right now I'm feeling like the most viable arguments are these:
1. Self-defense. Look at Hurricane Katrina
2. It's a useful tool. I can shoot varmits, and can hunt larger game
especially when I get into larger calibers.
3. It's a legit target rifle (aka I like shooting it). I could poke a hole in that
argument saying we don't always get to do what we like.

What do other people think? Am I way off base here? The perception out there is only criminals and militia members use assult rifles. I want to be able to change the perceptions of those people who are mildly anti or on the fence on this.

wildburp
December 20, 2006, 11:08 PM
Enough said.

RockyMtnTactical
December 20, 2006, 11:28 PM
Because the second amendment is about owning military style firearms, not neccessarily hunting or target shooting...

mkh100
December 20, 2006, 11:39 PM
Anyone that retorts "cause I can", "to hunt with", "to target shoot with", is themselves missing the point of 2A or just trying to be glib.

Dont give in to the temptation to sound smarter and snappier....and for sure don't spread misinformation. 2A is about the defense of freedom and the ability of Americans to individually and collectively resist oppression. THATS IT !!!!

Hunting, collecting, target shooting, and having cool toys are only, ONLY, secondary to the enumerated Right of defending yourself and your way of life with "arms".

The Founding Fathers had just killed and been killed for several years. They recognized two facts: 1. America could be invaded at any time and needed a way to defend the new country (probably from the British as happened in 1812) 2. That Gov. even in their best form, are but a necsessary evil. And will if not watched and checked....run amuck ! In order to combat these two things our RIGHT to self preservation was enumerated in the 2nd Ammendment to the Constitution. It was also so clear that it need not be written that a man needed a rifle to provide for and protect his family......deprivation of such means would deprive one perhaps of Life. Liberty, or the Pursuit of Happiness, But those points are not in the 2nd Ammendment.

Like it or not that is why you have a 2nd Ammendment to the Constitution.....it aint about stamps, or hobbies, or corvette's, or looking cool, or hunting (maybe hunting as a way to eat and therefore survive). Arguing anything less hurts our cause more than it helps !

10-Ring
December 20, 2006, 11:53 PM
Why do I need an assault rifle? Maybe it's alot like why do people play golf, collect stamps, fish, play music or hang out on the internet....I collect firearms because I like them & it's my hobby....plus, because I can :D

Stevie-Ray
December 21, 2006, 12:03 AM
For when the SHTF.:D

Actually the AR for close-up work. Long range is covered with the FAL.;)

evan price
December 21, 2006, 12:14 AM
Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maslow's_hierarchy_of_needs
49632


Defines the basic needs of humans into 5 subgroups. The needs at the foundation of the pyramid are required before moving up to the next hierarchy. Deficiencies here can cause problems with stability and adjustment into society.

The most basic needs at the bottom of the pyramid are physical: Food, water, sex, a warm place to sleep, etc. As we fulfill the needs of the lower Tiers we move on to seek fulfillment of the "higher" needs. As we mature and satisfy the basic needs to sustain life we evolve into more complex needs such as acceptance, self esteem, personal development, etc. Eventually we move on to having the luxury to explore such modern needs such as morality, honor, creativity, etc.

So, do we "need" assault weapons? No. But possessing them can help fulfill Tier Four needs, usually personified as esteem needs, for example confidence (learning to be a good & accurate shooter), respect (being seen as a good shooter, being seen as "powerful"), self esteem (owning a "cool" looking gun, being "powerful", being a good shot).

Generally owning a good weapon to defend yourself can be shown to directly defend your Tier Two needs (Security of body, resources, property, health, family). You are empowered to defend yourself against those who would deprive you of those needs with your posession of an EBR.

Obviously at some point in time the argument can be made that owning an EBR can help fulfill the Tier One needs as well (pure physical such as food, water, shelter, etc) because by using your EBR to defend your life, food supply, water source, etc, you are preserving your own life.

So, short answer. No, nobody "needs" an EBR. However we are given the recognized God-given right to own them should we choose to do so and by our choice to own them, we fulfill other needs that we have.

Guy B. Meredith
December 21, 2006, 12:28 AM
As stated in several ways, the real question in return should be "why should I NOT have an assault rifle?" It really makes no difference whether the others agree with your reasons for having one. They are not the arbiters of moral high ground, just self important bigots.

birdv
December 21, 2006, 12:52 AM
Why do you need an assualt rifle?
*JOKES*
1)I am not a very good shot and the extra bullets help.
2)one word "zombies"
3)Because I could not afford a PS3

I got my first "AR" many moons ago in 6th grade.
Most people do not understand the 2A I did not in 6th grade.
SO
really I don't tell people I have guns...
Second I hunt ugly hogs with them.

SniperStraz
December 21, 2006, 12:56 AM
Its just that simple IMO if these weapons are available to drug dealers and thugs they need to be available to us law abiding citizens too. The same goes for hand guns. If you knew that no one else in the US had a gun you wouldn't feel that you needed one. If drug dealers and gangs used only knives then you would buy a good knife and get training in knife fighting, and you would feel safe. Its that simple. (It'd still be nice to have a 1911 handy just in case:neener: )

Don't Tread On Me
December 21, 2006, 12:56 AM
In case no one's mentioned it already....



It's not a bill of needs, it's a bill of rights.

jwalk
December 21, 2006, 01:13 AM
Guy:
Actually it's important to try and educate these moral high ground bigots.
Reason:
These bigots will be the ones in the future who just might be your elected representation or judges who just might have a say what firearms are legal and which are not for better or worse. Also, if these anti's don't happen to find themselves in a position of passing legislation or judging whether or not it's legal, what happens when politicians look to drum up support for AWB's? "Yeah assult weapons are bad. Nobody should have them." No matter how the constitution is written it will always be debated. Why do you think lawyers have job security? Interpretatation, like it or not.

earplug
December 21, 2006, 01:14 AM
Its not my governments job to decide the correct weapon to protect me from a possible attack.
I assume that resomaibilty.
Now if only the goverment schools had taught me to spell.

Sean Dempsey
December 21, 2006, 01:24 AM
you don't need. you want.

no one can argue with want.

Baba Louie
December 21, 2006, 01:36 AM
Why do you need an AK (or any other "assault rifle")?

Because I'm a free man living in a free state I need the proper tool(s) to maintain that state... Freedom.

RockyMtnTactical
December 21, 2006, 02:51 AM
you don't need. you want.

no one can argue with want.

Sure they can.

LAK
December 21, 2006, 06:14 AM
The same reason every free man in this country needs a .50 BMG, or a submachinegun. Or both.

Tench Coxe said it best, and it is no less applicable today than it was 200 years ago...

"Their swords, and every other terrible instrument of the soldier, are the birth right of an American. The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or the state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people." - Tench Coxe - as published the Pennsylvania Gazette, February 20, 1788

--------------------------------------------------

http://ussliberty.org
http://ssunitedstates.org

Sleeping Dog
December 21, 2006, 06:53 AM
Why do I need an "assault rifle"?

Why does someone need a McMansion? An SUV? More than two pairs of pants? Imported beer? An MP3 player? ...

Wait just a dang minute ... leave the imported beer out of your argument.

They will have to pry this Molson from my cold, dead hands.

:D

FPrice
December 21, 2006, 07:28 AM
I was asked why I wanted/needed an assualt rifle. The only response I could really come up with was 'because I can', and 'target shooting'. Noone really thought that was a good answer...


So who do we need 'assualt rifles'?

It's not that you need an "assault rifle", it's that you have the right to own one if you so choose!

Need is a very subjective thing. Rights are a little more tangible.

Remember here in the People's Commonwealth the mayor of that town that had the strip club shooting is pressing to deny you the right to own such a rifle because one person violated the laws and killed other people. So the mayor thinks that you will do the same thing.

ctdonath
December 21, 2006, 08:38 AM
Read this.

You are male, able-bodied, aged 17-45.
That makes you a member of the militia, by Congressional decree.

You are signed up with the Selective Service (http://www.sss.gov). (Right?)
That makes you subject to being called up for military service.

You are not a member of the National Guard, with the pro-active training & equipping that entails.
You are, nonetheless, a member of the US militia.

If and when you are called up for military service, it will most likely be under dire circumstances where the equipment and training you receive, if any, will be minimal at best - but you will still be expected to engage in mortal combat.

Per the 2nd Amendment, you have the right - nay, the duty - to equip and train yourself appropriately, pro-actively, and promptly.

What do modern Western soldiers mostly fight with? M16s. Assault rifles.
Thus, you have a duty to get one.
Or at least the closest facsimile thereof: an AR15, the quintessential assault weapon.

The question then becomes: why do your classmates NOT have assault rifles? why do they neglect their inherent duty as citizens?

benEzra
December 21, 2006, 09:12 AM
I think this is reinforced by some of the high-profile shootings, Columbine (.22's with high cap mags), DC sniper (.223 isn't a sniper rifle), and the bank robbers with AK's shooting it out in CA. All the things we like about "assult rifles" ie pistol grips, hi-cap mags, collapsable stock make the weapon eaier to shoot, carry more ammunition, or easier to hide/use. Some may scoff, but these are some legit points (not enough to ban them IMHO). Now how do you address these points besides claiming self-defense, fun, or by banning them you only hurt the good guys. When we say we need assult rifles because they're fun, or it's our responsibility, anti's and most of the general population dismiss us as gun nuts and crazies. How do you address thier points? Hopefully the answer isn't we'll never change thier minds but I have a sneaking suspicion this is probably the case.
I've actually met a lot of people on DU who changed their minds about the "assault weapon" bait-and-switch when I explained what it's about, what it's NOT about, and how rarely rifles are misused to start with.

My approach, in a nutshell:

(1) most gun owners (4 out of 5) aren't hunters, so hunting guns are mostly irrelevant to the gun issue;
(2) the "assault weapon" meme is a bait-and-switch; actual military AK-47's and Uzi's are tightly controlled by existing law, and have nothing to do with bans on "assault weapons"; the issue is actually about NON-automatic civilian rifles with handgrips that stick out;
(3) non-automatic civilian rifles aren't a crime problem whatsoever (all rifles COMBINED account for less than 3% of homicides annually, per the FBI;
(4) modern-looking small-caliber rifles are much more popular than the Bradyites would have you believe;
(5) threatening to ban people's guns is a really, really dumb idea politically; and
(6) banning rifle handgrips that stick out is really not as important as the REAL issues facing the country.


OK, in detail. First of all, address the deliberate confusion over what the "assault weapon" bait-and-switch actually covers. Military AK-47's, actual Uzi's, and such are VERY tightly controlled by Federal law, the Title 2/Class III provisions of the National Firearms Act of 1934, and possession of one without Federal authorization (BATFE Form 4) is a 10-year Federal felony. The "assault weapon" bait-and-switch isn't about military weapons; it's about CIVILIAN rifles with handgrips that stick out, civilian rifles and pistols that hold more than 6 or 10 rounds, and civilian shotguns that hold more than 3 or 5 shells.

Visual aid:

http://www.commongroundcommonsense.org/forums/uploads/1120356158/gallery_260_23_2123.jpg
Old-fashioned straight stock; Friendly Bradyite-Approved Carbine; legal everywhere in the United States, AFAIK

http://www.commongroundcommonsense.org/forums/uploads/1120356158/gallery_260_23_4275.jpg
More modern-style stock with ergonomic handgrip; Evil Assault Weapon With No Other Purpose Than Mass Murder

Look closely, and you'll see that the rifle in both pictures is the same gun; the photos were taken a minute or so apart.




OK, about how rifles are almost never misused. The prohibitionists talk the most about the "dangers" of modern-looking rifles, but all rifles COMBINED account for less than 3% of homicides annually, per the FBI Uniform Crime Reports, 2005, Table 20 (http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/05cius/data/table_20.html), Murder, By Type of Weapon. Many states report ZERO rifle homicides in any given year. In Massachusetts (OP's state), there were 171 murders in 2005; all rifles COMBINED accounted for one of them. 46 times as many people were killed with knives, fists, and feet as with all rifles COMBINED.

The same holds true for every state. Illinois (where the prohibitionists are peddling a lot of scaremongering about modern looking rifles): 448 homicides, only 4 of them by rifle. Maryland--551 homicides, 4 of them by rifle. Civilian rifles, even modern-looking ones, are not a crime problem and never have been.

Fighting to ban rifle handgrips that stick out, when rifles are almost never misused, is a quixotic pursuit, and most intelligent people can see that if you show them the facts.




Some satire on the topic:

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=234635&highlight=honda+civic



FWIW, the primary weapons of the Columbine killers were sawed-off 12-gauge hunting shotguns (a pump and a side-by-side), not "assault weapons." One of the killers also carried a low-capacity 9mm carbine (Hi Point), and the other one had a nontraditional looking 9mm pistol (Intratec DC9, 9mm with a forward mounted magazine), but IIRC most of the victims who died were killed with the shotguns.

Sistema1927
December 21, 2006, 09:29 AM
Two points, one post.

1) Sometimes we need to turn the questions back on the questioners. One of the reasons why the questions get asked is due to the fact that the nature of the question tends to stop discussion. For example, I believe that it is Clint Smith who responds to the question "Doesn't violence beget more violence?" in this way: "I CERTAINLY HOPE SO! I hope that when violent men attack the innocent that other men give them more violence than they can handle." (My apologies to Clint if I have not quoted this properly, or to the real author if it is not Clint.)

2) Re. the comments about Maslow's heirarchy of needs: Even though an EBR might be seen by many of us as the fulfillment of "Self-Actualization" or "Esteem", it might very well prove essential in protecting "Love/Belonging", "Safety", and the "Physiological". As a result, Maslow actually argues that we "need" them.

BobTheTomato
December 21, 2006, 10:48 AM
Hmmmm.....I think its a good way to keep your house from being looted or burned down in a riot. What else are you suppoed to use, harsh language?

up_onus
December 21, 2006, 11:59 AM
My main reasons - SHTF - Governmental Protection, deterent.
Although people seem to think "That can never happen here!", why take the chance? I would rather be prepared in that case than regret not being prepared....

Essex County
December 21, 2006, 12:51 PM
So I can leave my AR leaning next to the backdoor when some of my wife's liberal, politicaly correct co-workers stop by. BTW I'm a Charles Bronson Wannabe........Essex

ramis
December 21, 2006, 01:15 PM
For example, I believe that it is Clint Smith who responds to the question "Doesn't violence beget more violence?" in this way: "I CERTAINLY HOPE SO! I hope that when violent men attack the innocent that other men give them more violence than they can handle." (My apologies to Clint if I have not quoted this properly, or to the real author if it is not Clint.)


I believe it was Col. Jeff Cooper who said,


"One bleeding-heart type asked me in a recent interview if I did not agree that 'violence begets violence.' I told him that it is my earnest endeavor to see that it does. I would like very much to ensure--and in some cases I have--that any man who offers violence to his fellow citizen begets a whole lot more in return than he can enjoy."

ramis

Frog48
December 21, 2006, 01:38 PM
So who do we need 'assault rifles'?

My response would be, "Why the hell not?" :neener:

The 2nd Amendment isnt conditional, despite what politicians would like you to believe. Why should someone have to pass a background check to own a firearm? Why should certain types of firearms be off limits? It just doesnt make any sense.

Imagine if the other guarantees of the Bill of Rights were conditional: You can only exercise freedom of speech or religion, or legal counsel, or protection from unreasonable search/seizure, etc if you submit to a background check, obtain the appropriate permits, are are deemed worthy by the government... Scary thought, huh?

SSN Vet
December 21, 2006, 01:45 PM
that they need an x-box, nintendo, gamestation, whatever.....

because you think their cool and you like to go to the range and play with them, and your a law obiding citizen who knows how to handle firearms responsibly and safely.

shield20
December 21, 2006, 01:57 PM
Generally,
1) I need legal-to-own military-style rifles for the same reason I need all the other guns I own - in case I need to shoot something. Luckily so far that has been limited to things I wanted to shoot - like targets, clay birds and a few old cans.

2) I want legal to own military-style rifles for the same reasons I want all the guns I own (and a few others I don't...yet) - because they typically are among the best designed, they typically have alot of history associated with them, or mostly because they typically have specific features I prefer, so they typically fill a specific NEED the best.
[For what "need" that might be, see #1.]


RIGHT NOW though, I NEED legal-to-own miliatry style rifles because there is a real good chance in the near future my newly elected state and federal governments will tell me I can't have them.

crunker
December 21, 2006, 03:05 PM
To protect myself from paranoid ****ers who don't trust me with complex machinery.

Dirk Pitt
December 21, 2006, 03:10 PM
Becasue I want one.......... need has got nothing to do with it.

Texas9
December 21, 2006, 03:35 PM
Because I can't find a cheap Howitzer anymore:evil:

I can't for the life of me find it, but one of the brilliant minds here at THR said it best: It's NOT a matter of need. You don't tell them whether you need it or not. That's mainly because the anti's, as a general rule, believe in the power to regulate need, as if it should be up to the gov't what you can/can't have based on need. You tell them whatever you feel in your heart (I like it; I want it; that's what's comfortable for me to shoot; Oleg's answer; etc.) and that's that. You no more have to justify yourself wanting an AR than any of these silver-spoon fed 19-year-old college freshmen wanting a Porsche. You start getting into a discussion of need, and you will nearly always lose. I can hear it now: "You don't NEED an assault rifle. You don't NEED 17-rd mags for your pistol. You don't NEED anything larger than .22 Short. You don't NEED....." The list is eternal, and they will whittle you down from a tree to a toothpick.

Personally, I've actually used the (insert favorite sports car here) retort before with surprising results. It's particularly effective on someone who actually owns said car:evil:

Oh, and the whole thing about semi/full auto thing is important. Perhaps most important, actually. They need to know that an AR does not fit the definition of "assault rifle."

Lonestar.45
December 21, 2006, 03:50 PM
Because shooting one on the Play Station is pretty lame after you've shot the real thing. :)

marcodelat
December 21, 2006, 03:51 PM
because...

http://i101.photobucket.com/albums/m68/marcodelat/20years2_s.jpg

ArfinGreebly
December 21, 2006, 03:55 PM
I've made a conscious effort to NOT post in this thread. The "assault" rifle/weapon threads can get all emotional and stuff.

Must . . . not . . . respond . . . must . . . not . . .

And then I read #81 (ctdonath) and #82 (benEzra). Suffering from actual rationality here.

Curse the lot of you!

Okay, fine, be that way; you can HAVE my post.

I don't have this conversation often, as I tend to avoid the whole conflict/confrontation thing, but it does happen.

The following is a synthesis, cobbled together from memory, of a few such conversations. The form is essntially the same, the details vary, but this is the essence:

(By the time we get this far, we're past the "evil" and "kill people" stuff, and usually the definition of "assault RIFLE" stuff. If that hasn't resolved, this part of the conversation never happens.)
Him: Why does anyone need "one of those?"
Me: Why do you ask? Is the question rhetorical, or are you wanting an actual answer?
Him: Well, I'd like to know why people think they need one. I mean, aren't they just asking for trouble?
Me: There are plenty of reasons, how about we work on just one?
Him: Fine.
Me: Would an analogy be acceptable?
Him: Try me.
Me: Fire extinguisher. Spare Tire. Seat belts. First Aid kit. You have any of those?
Him: Yeah, all of them.
Me: Planning on having a fire? Flat tire? Accident?
Him: No, but those are commonplace, and you just never know.
Me: Do you need your seat belt every day? You've been driving for years. How often do you need it?
Him: Well, you never know. Anything can happen on the roads.
Me: You're old enough, remember the LA riots in '92? After the Rodney King verdict?
Him: Yeah, there was looting and burning and stuff.
Me: Ever notice which stores were left alone?
Him: No, which ones?
Me: The ones who had rifles in their storerooms and offices. The ones who got up on their roofs and kept the looters away with those rifles.
Him: Yeah, but that was a riot. We don't have riots here.
Me: Don't have, or can't have?
Him: Well, it's not likely.
Me: So, if you had a store, you would bet your whole livelihood and fortune and the welfare of your family on that?
Him: We have police.
Me: So does LA, and they have more than we do. They followed orders, and stayed back away from the rioters and looters. The shopkeepers in Koreatown were on their own.
Him: Well, okay, why would you need one at home?
Me: You're not serious. Home invasions happen WAY more than riots.
Him: Not where I live.
Me: I'll bet car accidents don't happen on your street, either. Do you wait until you're on the highway to put on your seat belt?
Him: No, but that's not the point. Home invasions aren't like accidents.
Me: That's true, and if you believe that it can't happen to you, you're free to remain unarmed. That's a risk I wouldn't take with my home and family, though.
Him: Well, I'm not gonna keep something like that around.
Me: Your choice. Me, I think I'd rather be prepared and never need it. Needing it and not having it would suck.
Him: I depend on the police to keep the neighborhood safe.
Me: The courts have made it clear it's not their job to protect an individual, so I would have to believe that's my job.
Him: Yeah, but an assault rifle?
Me: We covered that. It's just a rifle. We went over the ergonomics thing.
Him: Yeah, but why would you need that many bullets.
Me: For the same reason your fire extinguisher will put out a fire the size of your whole kitchen. If you know in advance that only one person will break into your house, then just load the magazine with two or three rounds. Simple!
Him: But you can't know that in advance!
Me: True. Guess I'll just have to load the mag to capacity then.
Him: I think you're over-prepared.
Me: And that would be my choice. My fire extinguisher is probably bigger than yours, too. I can live with that.
Him: What about criminals? Don't they use them?
Me: FBI stats say rifles of any kind are not a significant factor in crime. I'll take their word for it.
Him: Well, it's like, y'know, you're getting ready for war.
Me: Well, look, we were just doing a single reason, right? The fact that the population of able-bodied men is the militia and is supposed to be armed in case they're needed by the government, that's a different issue. Let's try to stay with the reason we're discussing.
Him: Militia? That's the National Guard.
Me: Dude, you need to read more. The Guard was created more than a hundred years after the Constitution. Look, I understand that you're not comfortable with rifles that look just like the military stuff, even though they don't work the same. I know that you've been told over and over that the cops will keep you safe, and you sort of believe that, even though you know it's not true.
There are things that bother me, too. I'm not good with power tools. Chain saws scare me, and I've never used one. If I got the chance, and someone would teach me, I'd probably be okay with them. I was that way with guns, too. I got lucky and someone took the time to help me with that.
When you're ready, I'll be happy to spend some time with you at the range. You can get your hands dirty and get some experience with rifles. Pistols, too, if you want.
Him: Well, I don't know.
Me: There is one thing, though. Safety is a big thing with shooters, and you're gonna have to learn safe gun handling before anyone puts a rifle or pistol in your hands. If you can deal with that, I'd be happy to teach you.
Him: Well, if you teach safety, I guess that might be okay.
Me: Let me know when you're ready.


These conversations almost never result in the guy going "Okay! I'm sold! Sign me up!" Sometimes the conversation doesn't get past "the police will keep us safe."

In two cases, however, we got to the range. In one case, the guy bought a revolver.

I'll take the win wherever I can get it.

Srigs
December 21, 2006, 04:11 PM
Easy one... Because it is my right too! :neener:

dtalley
December 21, 2006, 04:22 PM
I like; because I am a member of Homeland Security.

Sharps-shooter
December 21, 2006, 04:47 PM
Earlier in this thread I gave a list of funny responses. But the real reason is civic duty. I believe that an adult in a society ought to do certain things in order to be a good citizen, in order to contribute to the society as a whole being better. This is why I keep abreast of current events. This is why i hold the door for someone. This is why I work a job, when I could just live off of other people. And this is why I stand ready to defend myself, my family, and my community. Because a successful society depends on people behaving responsibly, rather than hoping that someone, somewhere, will take up the slack for them.

Sistema1927
December 21, 2006, 05:32 PM
ramis:
I believe it was Col. Jeff Cooper...

You are correct sir. My apologies to the memory of Colonel Cooper.

What is funny is the fact that while I was double checking your quote I ran across a site that quoted Clint Smith as saying "A handgun is what you use to fight back to your rifle". Now, I would have sworn that it was Jeff Cooper who had said that. I wonder if I am starting to show the symptoms of "old timers" disease.

gazpacho
December 21, 2006, 05:59 PM
Some of my favorite replies:

1) Because my wife won't let me collect porn.
2) Because I like good grades.
3) Because wolves still go after the lambs.
4) Because Hitler said it was a good idea to take the guns away from the Jews.
5) Because my ____ is smaller than your ____.
6) Because the second amendment protects the first amendment.
7) Because I own too many pistols.
8) Because I'd never finish off all of my ammo if I had to load it into a bolt action rifle one cartridge at a time.
9) Because the voice in my head wouldn't shut up until I did.
10) Because you don't want me to have one.

wooderson
December 21, 2006, 08:05 PM
"Cause I want it" is a perfectly acceptable answer - to be honest, I think that is the strongest argument to influence your casual person who hears "assault weapon" and gets scared. Explain how the term is mostly meaningless, and how your 'assault weapon' poses no greater danger than any other type of gun.

I guarantee that 95% of the lay populace, when they hear 'assault weapon' thinks "FULLY AUTOMATIC BIG BULLETS KILL KILL."

I am, as some may have noticed, rather well to the left. So my interactions with the durned gun-grabbin' liberals aren't one-tenth as confrontational as some people's. When I talk to someone who's anti-gun, I don't talk about the need to patrol the border or shoot robbers or the potential for a Second American Revolution when the UN takes away my right to blah blah blah.

'Gun control' is best battled on pragmatic grounds. Why is there so much crime in the 'inner city'? Poverty (from a liberal/left viewpoint), lack of life-chances, the drug war. So how do you combat gun crime? By an ineffective confiscation strategy, or by attacking root causes? Argue that gun control is a meaningless band-aid rather than a real solution to what people want solved. Take the power away from gangs, from drug lords, give people a better chance at life, and you've done more than anyone ever could by taking away firearms.

possum
December 21, 2006, 08:06 PM
becuase i can. :)
also for the simple fact that i don't get nearly enough trigger time in the army and my ar allows me to train up on my own terms and get better at my job. plus i can do it in the comfort of civilian clothes and don't have to wear all that gear! plus alot of the shooting that goes on in the army isn't very real world like, and i like to do things that are more condusive to what i might really face one day on patrol in the streets, buildings, and market places of iraq, or wherever i might be.

karlsgunbunker
December 21, 2006, 08:34 PM
I don't "need" one. I want one.

AMEN, Brother, AMEN

atblis
December 21, 2006, 08:45 PM
I don't.

and

A handgun is what you use to fight back to your rifle
What? I carry a handgun because my Daewoo won't fit down my pants.

Sharps-shooter
December 21, 2006, 09:39 PM
is that a daewoo gun or a daewoo automobile?

Speer
December 21, 2006, 09:57 PM
Need. There's that word again. I need an assualt rifle for the same reason I need any gun.

When defending myself, my family, or my country, I want the best tool for the job.

Not that the gun haters really care.

chipp
December 21, 2006, 09:58 PM
Intimacy

Matthew Temkin
December 21, 2006, 10:07 PM
I do not need one.
But I have several because I want them.
And a free nation is a nation not of needs, but of wants.

DoubleTapDrew
December 22, 2006, 12:25 AM
"Folks I'm having a hard enough time keeping up with this one gun a month policy. I only have so much income. Now you want to make me justify myself based on needs?" :p

MD_Willington
December 22, 2006, 02:18 AM
'cause bolt guns are so "good'ol boy".. I want whizz bang buck rogers EBR's..:neener:

mr.trooper
December 22, 2006, 02:57 AM
The SIMPLE answer is to ASSAULT things.

RockRifle
December 22, 2006, 04:14 AM
We take inanimate objects and assign them feeling, purpose, and intent. I know there are no self-reliant machines (outside of Hollywood) that are anywhere trying to kill people. All my firearms are tools with a purpose; whether it is target shooting, hunting, plinking, or defending my home and family, they give me comfort. (If I have 30 guns in my safe, I can take pride in the fact that they're not out behaving badly shooting up the world! )

Seriously, I think that the media and the entertainment industry have had it in for responsible gun ownership for 40yrs. The AR has gotten a bad rap for the way it looks. I admit, part of its looks makes it easier handling, faster and more fun; but I also welcome the opportunity to keep my marksmanship skills sharp with a gun that is almost the one that I was issued. Annual qualification will not keep you sharp! You need to shoot more than that.

Hey, give that gun a break, it's only doing what it was designed to do; Its the jerk that is pointing it with the sadistic grin on his face that we have to watch out for. He would be just as evil behind the wheel of an 18 wheeler or in an airplane. Guns are tools, cars are tools,and airplanes are tools; tools are cool, but only when used in the manner they were meant. 9/11 showed us what a..holes with planes can do. . . maybe it would have been better if they'de only had guns!

iapetus
December 22, 2006, 06:53 PM
I don't need an assault rifle.




However, various people, in various parts of the world and at various times in history have needed one.

Some of those may also have had one

Others didn't. (The est. 100M+ victims of state-sponsored murder in the 20th Century probably fall into the latter catagory).



If you don't have one, and find you need one, you probably won't have time to get one.




(Of course, seeing that I live in the UK, I can't legally get an assault rifle, or even an "assault weapon", but that's irrelevent to the reasons why someone might want one).

Maximum1
December 22, 2006, 06:58 PM
Same reason I want a Corvette..... For FUN!!!

Fudgie Ghost
December 22, 2006, 07:13 PM
. . . .because the veneer of civilization is very thin.

Look at the events in NO after Katrina.

Or in LA during the Rodney King riots.

Or in the aftermath of Hurricane Andrew in south Florida.

What would happen in a large scale terrorist attack? Such as EMP, bio-chemical or nuclear? Hell, the soccer moms around here line up in the Stop and Shop in panic mode when they forecast 3" of snow. .

In any of the above sceanarios it would get very ugly, very quickly in a population-dense area.

I own my AR's the same as I do my life insurance policy, the fire extingusher in my house, etc. Just in case. I hope to be able to protect myself and my family without having to rely on the government.

In our "just in time" society, it doesn't take much to be reduced to lawlessness and mob rule, even if that takes place only on a local scale. And trying to hold off a mob with a pistol or hunting rifle is bound to fail. Hence the AR.

Delta608
December 22, 2006, 07:31 PM
One word...

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Zombies.



Now that is the best one I had really heard yet !!!!!!:D :D

Tokugawa
December 22, 2006, 09:03 PM
You do not have to justify a "right" with a "need". I.E.-Why do you "need" a typrwriter, word processer, or computer. Can't you just use a pencil?

The purpose of a military arm is to kill the enemy. This is exactly the use the founding fathers had in mind.They had the very recent experience (to them) of killing the officers of thier former Government. And they accepted the fact tht when all other recourse fails, that it is acceptable to gain liberty with the force of arms. This is the reason for the second amendment, to provide the ability to the people of removing by force ,thier own government.

BigRobT
December 22, 2006, 10:56 PM
This merely mimics BenEzra's reply. A 10 minute video on the truth about so called "assault weapons".

http://youtube.com/watch?v=X9cDbA8O9-c

ArfinGreebly
December 22, 2006, 11:25 PM
Thanks for that link.

It's a breath of fresh air.

The only part where I winced was where he said (in effect, speaking of semi-autos): If you ban that technology, you ban nearly 20 million weapons.
Somewhere, at the back of the room, a hoplophobe's eyes widen as he realises how much damage he can do just by outlawing self-loaders . . .

Beyond that, I've added it to my list of resources.

alan
December 22, 2006, 11:34 PM
The following is addressed to those who insist on asking silly questions, as well as quite possibly deliberately mischaracterizing what is simply a semi-automatic rifle.

If and when you can PROPERLY, that is technically speaking, define the genre, I might be able to answer your question. Meanwhile, re questions that simply ooze emotionalism and cheap theatrics, I have neither the time nor the inclination to try.

Just TRIED to view the link mentioned by BigRobT. It might be interesting but given that the voice over stopped about every 3 seconds, according to timer shown, I lack the patience or stamina to sit through it.

MikeWSC
December 23, 2006, 12:26 AM
SharpsShooter's quote:

1. I don't.
2. To shoot bullets out of.
3. Zombies.
4. To impress my brothers and cousins.
5. "Hunting deer".
6. It makes it easier to kill people.
7. Less messy than using a machete.
8. To compensate for my incredibly small penis.
9. So I can shoot it and it will go "bang" and I can yell "yee-haw".
10. Because I'm a big old redneck.

For larger caliber rounds I like to say "in case dinosaurs aren't really extinct."

Oh my goodness, read this and laughed my fanny off!!

I just got home a bit ago from picking up my new six-shooter. Since I already
have a bunch the guys asked why I was getting this one?

1) Because I didn't have one.
2) I absolutly need firearms, without them my heart shrivels and ceases to
beat.
3) Because I want them all.
4) I like things that go boom (for large guns).
5) I like things that go bang (for smaller guns).
6) I need a gun for every year of my life.
7) Because I don't hang jewlery all over myself.
8) AR's look great, and if you can't shoot well, at least look good doing it.
9) AR's look great, and if you can shoot well, you'll have even more fun!

Have mine & love it. Save for yours, get the best you can. Then you can buy
different uppers/different calibers (.22 to .50 Bewolf) for a more versitle gun.

Limeyfellow
December 23, 2006, 01:32 AM
To stick it to the government. With Bush and Cheney being vehemently against any types of firearms not used for what they consider a "sporting" reason they have gone on record many time saying they should be all banned.

That and you can hardly argue about the coolness factor of FALs and the like.

wildburp
December 23, 2006, 09:18 PM
Turn it around and ask, "Why not?"

Alexfubar
December 23, 2006, 09:40 PM
To uphold and protect the US Constitution from all enemies foreign and domestic ?

To make those little holes in the target closer together than they were last weekend.

And , obviously , to shoot bad things until they aren't bad anymore.

1911HOP
December 23, 2006, 10:08 PM
maybe im am just stupid but what is a assualt rifle i believe it would have to be a rifle that someone used in an assualt but only that rifle maybe ! you could not call a rifle that looks like it an assualt rifle if so if we saw someone that looks kinda like someone that commited a murder we would be justifide in sentencing him to death just my redneck views anyway so i guess the reason you would buy this rifle the guy needed to sell it fast and you bought it real cheap :uhoh: !!!

ripcurlksm
December 23, 2006, 11:12 PM
I dont think assault rifles are necessary for civilians to own, however I WOULD NOT vote to ban them. Shoot em if you got em.

akodo
December 24, 2006, 12:35 AM
tell them a hunting rifle like a 30-06 or 300 mag is too powerful, your shoulder gets sore after shooting it more than a few dozen times, and the ammo is too expensive, and youare not some bloodthirsty barbarian planning on killing bambi, so why do you need a deer hunter's gun? you want a target rifle that shoots cheap ammo, and the ar-15 fits the bill perfectly

saspic
December 24, 2006, 12:51 AM
I'll take a pass.
"I don't need an assault rifle, I need a homeland defense rifle.
And I need the right to own a homeland defense rifle even more than I need the rifle itself.
Why? To defend my homeland from both physical threats and political threats to our liberties, as well as to train, share, learn, teach, compete, experiment, amuse myself and anything else I can think of."

akodo
December 24, 2006, 01:10 AM
a few other things to throw into the mix

Define terms. When I was on the high school speech team I competed for a few years in the 'discussion' catagory. One of the facets brought up there is that for proper communication, everyone needs to be using the same definition of a word.

So, have them define assault rifle. Then laugh and say what you are getting is nothing at all like what they describe.

A few things like 'the average deer rifle is nearly twice as powerful, shoots farther, and is better and penetrating bullet proof vests, some, like rifles designed to shoot elk, will go through the ceramic plates we issue soldiers to beef up their vests, this is so much less powerful, in many places it is illegal to use to shoot deer with because of fear you will just wound the animal rather than kill it.

No sir, this was not designed as a weapon of war. Eugene Stoner first thought it up as a light handy 'carry about the camp and the farm/ranch' and designed it to shoot the 222, a very accurate target and varmint round. The military one shoots 223, which is nearly identical...except it is much easier to find and cheaper to purchase


also, someone mentioned the veneer of civilization is very thin.

I once heard the phrase 'The skin of civilization is only 7 meals deep' Think about it. After you and your loved ones skip that many means, and some guy has got a can of creamed corn, what would you offer or do to get that can? Well, some folk would go a lot farther to get that can, or even just to make sure you are telling the truth about having no food.

How much slower would FEMA have to act or how much worse woudl the storm have to be to have had that exact same situations in New Orleans? (answer, not much)

ReadyontheRight
December 24, 2006, 01:59 AM
I'd ask "Why do YOU need a college degree?"

You're just going to make more money than a bunch of poor high-school graduates. And you will probably produce LESS.

Society can produce the basic food, clothing and shelter without graduate and post-graduate degrees. An honest man or woman shouldn't need more than a high school education -- Right?

Post-graduate degrees are NOT mentioned in the Constitution. Maybe we need to control them.

And I am POSITIVE the Founding Fathers did not envision Assault-Law-Degrees or High-Capacity Law Firms.

David904
December 24, 2006, 02:07 AM
Because I'm not nearly as effective with my assault rock.

Deavis
December 24, 2006, 06:23 AM
Because sometimes my VPC disapproved assault pistol just doesn't compensate for my other stereotypical shortcomings.

Dr. Dickie
December 24, 2006, 07:14 AM
Need? Do I NEED one?
No, but then you do not NEED the house you live in. You COULD live in a tent, so why don't I take your house.
Need. You don't NEED all the money you make, so why don't you give me a couple of thousand!
Need? You don't NEED all the stuff you own, so why shouldn't I have what I NEED from amounst your things (Karl Marx says that is the way we should do things)?
NEED an assult weapon? No, but if you really want to only own the things you NEED, be prepared to lose a whole lot of what you hold dear. And you had better hope that I am never put in charge of deciding what YOU need.

wildburp
December 24, 2006, 08:51 AM
Why not? On a proper range, they would be tremendously fun. I like things that go fast and make noise, be they farts, GTOs, .44 Magnums, or Lear Jets. I'll gladly fight anyone who says I can't enjoy these simple pleasures. I'd love to get my hands on one of those .50 caliber sniper rifles just for the joy of blowing up a cement block from a mile away, or whatever. After compensating for wind, elevation, and government bull****, it seems like a lot of fun to me. What ever happened to those neat red two inch firecrackers with the green fuses?

Or the 4th of July? These things fade as I grow older. Are you teaching your children their constitutional rights, and the importance of civic responcibility? If you don't, we loose these freedoms, because your children won't know we had them, and our progeny won't miss these rights.

War? Simple. Put it up for a vote, but only those who have to fight can vote. Simple. No more war.

Of course, you have to fire all the politicains first ... but wait - I am running on, so you probably should get a Moderator to move this elsewhere ..

wb

kludge
December 24, 2006, 09:41 AM
Same reason the cops do... to defend myself from bad guys and protect my family.

Cops have backup, I have none, so technically I need more firepower than the cops.

Cops have NO DUTY to protect me or my family. They can sit outside and wait for the S to HTF -- they lose nothing; thier main interest is to go home alive to their families. I think they call that a "standoff."

This is why infringment on 2A is sooooo morally wrong.





Now a little lesson -- I give you a copy of my car keys and say you're free to use my car any time. By doing this I have in no way given up my ability to drive my own car any time I need it. Rather if you and I both need it at the same time, I win... it's my car after all.

Our constitution grants power to elected officials. That power is held and retained by the people. The people to not forfiet their power when they elect someone. They can un-elect them and elect other people. Our representatives only have the power that we or the constitution grants to them. Anything more is usurpation and tyranny. The government can have no power that the people themselves to not posess, else how could the power be granted?

This is why gun bans are unconstitutional. How can cops/military have the RKBA when the citizens don't? Answer: When only the police have guns you live in a police state.

GPWEAPON
December 24, 2006, 02:57 PM
1. because osama reportedly lives and his followers are among us

2. I like to piss of brain sucking liberals in mass a scrues us

telomerase
December 24, 2006, 07:12 PM
Because I'm not nearly as effective with my assault rock.

How can ANYONE argue with that?

ProguninTN
December 28, 2006, 02:24 AM
The answer is because "Assault Rifle" is vaguely defined so as to ban as many guns as possible. I have said it once, and I'll say it again. The are for hunting...hunting street criminals and high criminals.

Javelin Man
December 28, 2006, 09:03 AM
Why do I need an assault weapon?

Simple: The Second Amendment; the Original Homeland Defense.

You could also ask the yuppies why anybody needs a Dodge Viper with its V10 engine. Nobody needs anything more than a 1.3 L 4 cylinder in their Honda Civic, right? And nobody needs anything bigger than that.

But wait, we are America and have the freedom and opportunity to make choices and acquire luxuries that most other people in the world can't purchase. Isn't that what we are all about? Making America the greatest country in the world?

Throw patriotism right in their face.

Missashot
December 28, 2006, 10:19 AM
I need all the guns I can get my grubby little hands on. I try to give them all a loving, good stable home. :what:
Assault rifles are really cool.:D That is why you should get one.:p
Seriously, if you want an AR, by all means buy one. They are very fun to shoot. I love mine. I bought everything and put it together myself, so I think it is really cool in that aspect. I also got to customize it the exact way that I wanted it by going that route.:p
And besides, there are a lot of things that we have that we don't need. However, we get them because we want them.:uhoh:

Caimlas
December 28, 2006, 11:47 AM
The subject of assualt rifles, and me wanting an AR for Christmas came up.

I was asked why I wanted/needed an assualt rifle. The only response I could really come up with was 'because I can', and 'target shooting'. Noone really thought that was a good answer...

whoa whoa whoa! An ar15 isn't an assault rifle any more than a long-barreled, heavily choked, double barrel bird shotgun is a tactical shotgun. An AR15 is just a semi-automatic rifle (or carbine), which just happens to share aesthetics with the M16 and M4 assault rifles.

An assault rifle is not semi-automatic. So, you could've said, "I don't particularly want an assault rifle; I have no need for full-automatic, personally." If they could get through the confusion of terms, I'd follow with:

There is little fundamental difference between an AR15 and any other hunting rifle. What, exactly, makes it an 'assault rifle' in your (misguided) mind?

What you're failing to grasp is that they don't really have an issue with it being an 'assault rifle'. What they've got an issue with is you possessing a firearm at all, and a fear of inanimate objects (ie firearms).

Caimlas
December 28, 2006, 12:04 PM
The answer I usually give to non-gun owners, be they fence sitters or antis, is that while they find military style firearms to be "scary" looking, they are no more powerful and are often less accurate than their hunting counterparts.

I saw mythbusters the other night for the first time, and I've been trying to figure out how to phrase a question on this matter so that it'd be both concise and easily answered by a simple demonstration. Something like, "I've heard that assault weapons are inherently more deadly than other firearms. Is this true?" but I can see how they may fudge it up through lack of marksmanship.

ctdonath
December 28, 2006, 12:09 PM
Quite.

"When arguing with a fool, you're playing on his home turf and are at a disadvantage."
- anon

Unless you know they know what they're talking about, it's safe to assume most people who use the terms "assault rifle" or "assault weapon" in conjunction with "why do you need one" don't know what they're talking about - . As such, you can't explain it to them because they don't even understand the question.

"If you put the wrong figures in, will you get the right figures out?"
- multiple ignorant politicians asking Charles Babbage about his Differential Engine

First make them aware of their own ignorance. Ask what an "assault rifle" is, correct the definition, then ask them why they would deny you - under penalty of imprisonment - a tool for defending home & country, why they hate you so much, and why they want to ensure their enemies prevail.

hmp32
December 31, 2006, 09:50 PM
What is an assult rifle? I don't think they exisisted before the 1990s.

spooney
December 31, 2006, 10:52 PM
In case I need to assault something? Like the rogue water filled milk jugs that invade my backyard from time to time.

wildburp
January 1, 2007, 01:11 AM
Yeah, repell assualting people, or revolting assualters, or any other enemies.

wb

xd9fan
January 1, 2007, 02:19 AM
Same reason the cops do... to defend myself from bad guys and protect my family.

Cops have backup, I have none, so technically I need more firepower than the cops.

Cops have NO DUTY to protect me or my family. They can sit outside and wait for the S to HTF -- they lose nothing; thier main interest is to go home alive to their families. I think they call that a "standoff."

This is why infringment on 2A is sooooo morally wrong.



God I wish more americans would understand this.......

Zen21Tao
January 1, 2007, 02:50 AM
My Top 5 Reasons for owning "Assault weapons":

1. Because we can
Yes this is a very valid arguement regardless of how well it is received by others. Just ask them why they "need" a fast sports car, expensive jewelry, name brand clothing, etc.

2. Excercise righst to avoid losing them
The more people that excersize a specific right then more that will stand up in defiance of removing that right. Strength in numbers.

3. Enjoyment
This can range from weekend prinking to target shooting to orginized competition. Tell people that you get the same joy out of shooting other get out of golf, bowling, sailing or any other number or sports/hobbies.

4. Defense
This can include defense for all perceiveable threats including a tyranical government. Antis are always saying that "Assault Weapons" are deadlier than other guns. If this is true then wouldn't they be better suited for defense when it matters most? (Win-Win Argument: If they deny that AWs are deadlier than other guns they take away antis most cherished argument against AWs)

5. TO PISS OFF LIBERALS
This is perhaps my favorite reason for owning military style weapons. Anything that gets treehuggers to soil themselves is a gift from God himself.

ArfinGreebly
January 1, 2007, 03:08 AM
What is an assult rifle? I don't think they exisisted before the 1990s.

Assault rifle is the English version of the name given by the Germans to a class of fully automatic weapons produced sometime in the '40s.

One of our High Road historians can nail it down better.

The point is, ASSAULT rifles have certain attributes, like FULLY AUTOMATIC fire, and if any of those attributes is missing IT'S NOT AN ASSAULT RIFLE.

The AR15 is not fully automatic. It's very ergonomically similar to the military's M16 series of assault rifles.

There are many kinds of assault rifle. There are many rifles that have a similar outward appearance, and yet are missing one or more of the critical elements required to qualify as an assault rifle.

There are people -- educated people -- ambitious educated people -- politically motivated ambitious educated people -- who, realizing that most people can't be bothered to learn the difference, are quite willing to lie to their electorate, telling them that two rifles that LOOK similar are "the same" and therefore anything that LOOKS like that must be outlawed.

I can make you a car that looks very like a Corvette. I might make it in Germany, at the Opel plant there, and I might tell you that since we're banning Corvettes (too fast and dangerous, you know) we must also ban the Opel GT since THEY ARE THE SAME.

Please also see the Race Car Ban thread from a few weeks ago.
http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=234635

crebralfix
January 1, 2007, 12:47 PM
It is a weapon. Its primary purpose is to deal deadly damage at a distance. Since so-called "assault weapons" use cartridges optimized (or intended to be used on) humans, it is a weapon for causing damage to people.

The reason we have them is to fight our own kind--they are for war. There are many rationalized and PC-ized reasons, such as "self-defense", "sporting purposes" and other such nonsense.

This is the non-PC reality.

Vern Humphrey
January 1, 2007, 01:17 PM
The first examples of assault rifles were the German MP43, 43/1, MP 44 and Sturmgewher 44. The latter gives its name to the class "Assault Rifle." The Russians were impressed by these weapons and the cartridge, a shortened 8mm, more powerful than a conventional submachine gun (or pistol) cartridge. They developed first a rifle (the Simonev Carbine, or SKS) and then a true Assault Rifle (the Avtomat Kalishnikov or AK 47.)

Assault rifles are generally shorter (although not necessarily lighter) weapons, chambered for an intermediate cartridge (such as the Russian 7.62X37 or the American 5.56X45) and capable of selective fire (either full or semi-auto at the shooter's volition.)

If you enjoyed reading about "Why do you need an assault rifle?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!