Face the Nation, AWB debate

[22LRFan]

It's the Bill of Rights not a bill of needs. If I was a prominent politician I think I would be more worried about a bolt-action rifle than an AK-47.

 

[Shung]

It's the Bill of Rights not a bill of needs

this is the best answer to that question !

 

[heron]

"....why does/would anyone NEED "an assault rifle"...."

Well, obviously, we don't (most of us, anyway). Why does anyone NEED a V-8 instead of a 6-cylinder? Again, they don't, but we have the right to buy what we please, here.

 

[FullEffect1911]

Well, obviously, we don't (most of us, anyway). Why does anyone NEED a V-8 instead of a 6-cylinder? Again, they don't, but we have the right to buy what we please, here.

This is one of the most successful ways that I have found to argue my points. Use something people can relate to.

When asked, "why do you carry a gun?" I usually respond, "Because I can't carry a cop."

It puts things into perspective that the average fence sitter/anti can really get.

Still, taking someone to the range is still the best way to get them to our point of view.

 

[CoRoMo]

Harry Smith made the statement...

The majority of Americans support the AWB.

Is this true? If so, what's holding up the Dems? If they truly have the masses on their side of this issue, what's keeping them?

 

[Funderb]

kinda sad that Wayne didn't address the question of "why do they need"
with the answer of "why do we have to 'need' it? why can't we just want one?"

 

[TexasRifleman]

kinda sad that Wayne didn't address the question of "why do they need"
with the answer of "why do we have to 'need' it? why can't we just want one?"

How do you think that answer would play with the soccer mom crowd?

That answer, though completely true, doesn't play well. Comes off very smug.

 

[Funderb]

why do we think we need to apease the soccer mom crowd?
No soccer children have been killed by assault weapons that i know of.

Why do soccer moms think we are children, and we need to have our toys screened in case they are too dangerous?

I'm sorry, but screw those people.

 

[TexasRifleman]

I'm sorry, but screw those people.

You mean those people that vote?

That put the current administration in power?

Yeah, screw them.....we don't need them do we.

No, the only approach is the continued calm messaging that gun laws do not work, they do not lower the crime rate, and that armed citizens do not harm others.

It's calm, rational, 100% true and verifiable, and we don't sound angry.

Let the others gnash and wail and freak out about guns, we sit there calmly quoting the truth.

If you got a better idea I'd love to see it, but we absolutely DO need those middle ground, uncertain voting soccer moms and middle America.

 

[Yikes!]

Yikes! wisdom...

"For by arming your subjects you make their arms your own. Those among them who are suspicious become loyal, while those who are already loyal remain so, and from subjects they are transformed into partisans...

When you disarm your subjects, however, you offend them by showing that, either from cowardliness or lack of faith, you distrust them; and either conclusion will induce them to hate you."

- The Prince, Niccolo Machiavelli

 

[Funderb]

Yeah, screw them.....we don't need them do we.

You seem to think I don't devote a large portion of my free time to firearms education and helping people like that learn that guns are not some domestic enemy.

There are some that can not be helped, and think that because they can't be reasonable and safe with a firearm, that we, you, I should not have one. Those are the people that was directed at.

I will never stoop to allow people who are blindly ignorant and unwilling to learn anything but their own misguided point of view, to regulate me. And when they try, I will, as I always have, fight them. Will all of my rights. I am a citizen of this country, they will not take that away from me.

 

[Travis Bickle]

The American people and the Supreme Court have both spoken on this matter. These media liberals just can't deal with the fact that Americans aren't having any of their s*** agenda; they just can't let it drop.

 

[RP88]

the only way to argue with emotion is to detach from the debate at hand and attack their thought process. Call them out on their hypocrisy. Make them answer the questions.

"is it the bill of rights or the bill of needs?"
"why does the 1st amendment retroactively apply to things like TV and the media, but the second amendment does not retroactively apply to the modern technology used in today's firearms?"
"We shouldnt have 30-round mags in our guns because we don't need that many bullets, but it's fine to own cars that average at a max speed of 120mph when the average speed limit is half that?"
"sporting purpose? Where in the verbiage of the second amendment is hunting even mentioned? Where in Heller was it mentioned?"

then of course...

"why would the ban reduce crime this time around when it didnt last time?"

we need to simply stop worrying about marginalization and make them answer the questions for a change. We've always been on the defense. Start asking them the difficult questions.

 

[The_Shootist]

Why does anyone need an 'assault weapon'? Guess anyone asking that question wasn't around for Katrina.

 

[HuntAndFish]

Start asking them the difficult questions.

They never answer the question because it wouldn't work in their favor. They know that. They revert back to the propaganda or answer questions with questions.

 

[EHL]

I too was disappointed that Wayne didn't go on the offensive more, but you have to remember that he's got handlers as well. They tell him what he needs to say in order to reach certain target audiences and demographics that might be undecided. He's really acting like a politician, trying to win as many people onto his side without having to offend that many of his alreadly loyal base. We (the base) wanted to hear more "red meat" but the soccer moms and other clueless sheeple might be turned off by hearing these searing nuggets of truth. Wayne did what would attract the most # of undecideds into sympathizing with gun owners.

 

[rogerjames]

Can you possibly imagine what would happen if La PIerre had responded to Rendell's question on why someone needs an "assault rifle" with

"we need the same armaments as the government in case we ever have to put the power back in the hands of the people".

I can think of a couple responses that turn the question around. Why do people need a sports car that can go 150mph when the speed limit doesn't exceed 80 almost everywhere? Why do you need an 8 bedroom 5 bathroom house? etc etc etc. I think the best way to respond to this question is to turn it around and force the questioner to answer their own question. Then to point out examples where irresponsible people may abuse their freedoms, and that this should not translate to the stripping of those freedoms from the rest of us. My 2 cents.

 

[Travis Bickle]

The majority of Americans support the AWB.

Is this true? If so, what's holding up the Dems? If they truly have the masses on their side of this issue, what's keeping them?

According to the polls I've seen, it's true. But the thing you have to realize is that support for gun control in this country is mile wide and an inch deep. People who are against gun control vote at a higher rate and we vote the issue. We also put our money where our mouths are more often by giving to pro-gun orgs. This is why stricter gun control is so difficult to pass, even though the majority of Americans have supported it.

 

[Travis Bickle]

The majority of Americans support the AWB.

Is this true? If so, what's holding up the Dems? If they truly have the masses on their side of this issue, what's keeping them?

According to the polls I've seen, it's true. But the thing you have to realize is that support for gun control in this country is mile wide and an inch deep. People who are against gun control vote at a higher rate and we vote the issue. We also put our money where our mouths are more often by giving to pro-gun orgs. This is why stricter gun control is so difficult to pass, even though the majority of Americans have supported it.

 

[JImbothefiveth]

For weak or elderly people, the "assault rifle", in particular the AR or others that are lightweight, can be good options for HD. They are easier to aim and have more stopping power than a handgun, less recoil and more capacity than a shotgun, and are sometimes more lightweight, (a mini-14 and some m4s can weigh less than 7 LB empty, compared to my 870, which is one of the lighter if not the lightest 870, and it weighs 7.5 empty. Some shotguns intended for children weigh less, though they would have a lot of recoil)and a good semi-auto is probably less likely to jam due to your error than, say, a lever action.

 

[ShadyScott999]

Wayne seems to do a decent if not fine job in many of the debates he has been in. In fact, I would be curious if you have the same command of facts, events, figures, laws, etc... pertaining to guns and the 2nd amendment that he doees, and if you do, would you be able to articulate it well on national tv while battling a biased journalist and the person representing the opposing viewpoint?

On a sidenote, as someone who debates anti's online seemingly several times a week lately, it wouldn't matter if you were both standing in the brightness of the noon day sun, they are the type that will deny the sun even exists.

There is no rationale or legitimacy to their arguments, their denials, or their positions. They know it, so they resort to trite sayings, quote false myths and numbers, or in the end fall back to calling names.

The only thing Ed was pushing was the question, "why does anyone need an "assault weapon" that has 20 or 30 round "clips" (I hate that terminology)?

He asked it 3 different times. IT DOESN'T MATTER WHAT YOU TELL ANTI'S, they don't care, they don't want the truth, they just want guns gone.

I see the this as a problem. Rainman could spew figures and facts. Wayne is a very smart guy. I think he lacks the charisma needed to convert the "feeling" types. I know I couldn't do any better but I am sure someone out there could.

 

[rogerjames]

For weak or elderly people, the "assault rifle", in particular the AR or others that are lightweight, can be good options for HD. They are easier to aim and have more stopping power than a handgun, less recoil and more capacity than a shotgun, and are sometimes more lightweight, (a mini-14 and some m4s can weigh less than 7 LB empty, compared to my 870, which is one of the lighter if not the lightest 870, and it weighs 7.5 empty. Some shotguns intended for children weigh less, though they would have a lot of recoil)and a good semi-auto is probably less likely to jam due to your error than, say, a lever action.

In addition. What if there is a home invasion by 5 individuals. They have pistols with 10 rounds ea. That's 50 rounds. If you are alone, a 30 round clip still leaves you under armed by 20 rounds!

 

[Husaberg Man]

"Why does anyone need an 'assault weapon'?"

I ride and race dirtbikes (hence my screen name...I ride a Husaberg) and am an officer in the San Antonio Dirt Bike Club.

I don't recall what prompted the comment, but in a side conversation two other guys at a meeting questioned why people need assault rifles. One said "afterall, they have only one purpose."

Now, I don't own an assault rifle. I don't own a rifle that looks 'assaulty.' Heck, I don't own a black rifle or handgun.

My response? "Geez guys, we ride dirtbikes. People want to kick us off of land all the time because of all sorts of things, most of which is untrue. One thing that IS true though, is that none of us NEED a dirtbike. All they do is burn gasoline and make noise."

I bristle with anger whenever someone suggests modifying my life based on their view of needs.

 

[rogerjames]

"Why does anyone need an 'assault weapon'?"

I ride and race dirtbikes (hence my screen name...I ride a Husaberg) and am an officer in the San Antonio Dirt Bike Club.

I don't recall what prompted the comment, but in a side conversation two other guys at a meeting questioned why people need assault rifles. One said "afterall, they have only one purpose."

Now, I don't own an assault rifle. I don't own a rifle that looks 'assaulty.' Heck, I don't own a black rifle or handgun.

My response? "Geez guys, we ride dirtbikes. People want to kick us off of land all the time because of all sorts of things, most of which is untrue. One thing that IS true though, is that none of us NEED a dirtbike. All they do is burn gasoline and make noise."

I bristle with anger whenever someone suggests modifying my life based on their view of needs.

+1 Maybe someone can forward this thread to Wayne

 

[camslam]

Quote:
"Why does anyone need an 'assault weapon'?"

I ride and race dirtbikes (hence my screen name...I ride a Husaberg) and am an officer in the San Antonio Dirt Bike Club.

I don't recall what prompted the comment, but in a side conversation two other guys at a meeting questioned why people need assault rifles. One said "afterall, they have only one purpose."

Now, I don't own an assault rifle. I don't own a rifle that looks 'assaulty.' Heck, I don't own a black rifle or handgun.

My response? "Geez guys, we ride dirtbikes. People want to kick us off of land all the time because of all sorts of things, most of which is untrue. One thing that IS true though, is that none of us NEED a dirtbike. All they do is burn gasoline and make noise."

I bristle with anger whenever someone suggests modifying my life based on their view of needs.

+1 Maybe someone can forward this thread to Wayne

I like the explanation, but as much as we would like to be able to say we DON'T NEED "assault type" weapons, we JUST WANT to have them, that isn't really true.

That may be true for some of us, but it bothers me that we have to temper the realities of life, to suit those that are are either too stupid, too weak, or too misguided to accept the realities of this subject. I always explain it this way, I have 6 shovels in my shed out back, I have a snow shovel, a square head shovel, a spade shovel, a trench shovel, a small garden hand shovel, and large loading shovel for bark, etc... Each shovel is different, each does a particular job and it does that job much more efficiently and effectively than the other shovels I have. I don't use every shovel every day, nor do I use them all at the same time, but when the situation arises where I do need that particular shovel, I'm glad I have it.

I know it is unpopular, even here on THR, to speak of any situations where a person might need to have a semi-automatic rifle, that holds 20 to 40 round magazines, and fires a healthy .308, 7.62, or .223 caliber bullet. But that doesn't change the fact, that should the situation arise, having a powerful weapon that will fire very fast, and be effective at medium to long distances is very desirable.

I joke with my dad when we go shooting that his "assault rifle" is a Henry .44 Golden Boy. It is a beautiful weapon, is very accurate, very simple, and very powerful. But while I'm shooting my AK, the noticeable difference are made evident. He is out of bullets after 10+1 rounds, he has to load every single round back into the cylinder, and he has to chamber a round each time he shoots. We always joke that my brother and I will be providing cover fire while pops is reloading.

I know it is paranoia, and the conspiracy theorists love to have fun with this, but this country with its ridiculous and complete dependence on fresh everything, is in a perfect position to get screwed. All it would take is for food, gas, utilities, transportation, or shipping to be halted, interrupted, or shut down completely for a time, and watch how this society breaks down and eats itself.

I have friends that were involved in the prep for Hurricane Rita, after Katrina, and to quote him, "Gas could not be found, ATM's were out of money, and I experienced something I have never felt, chaos." He said that the community feeling was just overwhelmingly uptight, something he couldn't really explain, but it scared him and he went and bought his first gun. A shotgun.

I guess my point is this, it may be unpopular, but it is no less true, that we need to have these types of guns in the hands of people other than the government, and if and when society experiences a break down or a hiccup, people that are only armed with handguns, or shotguns, or hunting rifles, they will be better off than those that are unarmed, but still not as protected or effective as those with high power, semi-automatic rifles.

If the Brady's and anti's can't deal with it, we need to work on helping the more reasonable people understand, but I get tired of seeing gun owners downplay the "NEED" for these types of weapons.