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.