Why does anyone NEED to own an assault weapon anyway?

People tend to believe that you don't need an assault rifle with a 25-30 round magazine. One wild hog hunt would change their minds!
 
December 29, 2012 marked the 122nd Anniversary of the murder of 297 Sioux Indians at Wounded Knee Creek on the Pine Ridge Indian Reservation in South Dakota. These 297 people, in their winter camp, were murdered by federal agents and members of the 7th Cavalry who had come to confiscate their firearms "for their own safety and protection". The slaughter began AFTER the majority of the Sioux had peacefully turned in their firearms. When the final round had flown, of the 297 dead or dying, two thirds (200) were women and children.

Around 40 members of the 7th Cavalry were killed, over half cut down by friendly fire from the Hotchkiss guns of their overzealous comrades-in-arms. Twenty members of the 7th Cavalry were deemed "National Heros" and awarded the Medal of Honor for their acts of cowardice.

We do not hear of Wounded Knee today. It is not mentioned in our history classes or books. What little does exist about Wounded Knee is normally the sanitized "Official Government Explanation" or the historically and factually inaccurate depictions of the events leading up to the massacre on the movie screen.

Wounded Knee was among the first federally backed gun confiscation attempts in United States history. It ended in the senseless murder of 297 people.

Before you jump on the emotionally charged bandwagon for gun-control, take a moment to reflect on the real purpose of the Second Amendment- The right of the people to take up arms in defense of themselves, their families, and property in the face of invading armies or an oppressive government. The argument that the Second Amendment only applies to hunting and target shooting is asinine. When the United States Constitution was drafted "hunting" was an everyday chore carried out by men and women to put meat on the table each night, and "target shooting" was an unheard of concept, musket balls were a precious commodity in the wilds of early America, and were certainly not wasted "target shooting". The Second Amendment was written by people who fled oppressive and tyrannical regimes in Europe, and refers to the right of American citizens to be armed for defense purposes should such tyranny rise in the United States.
Click to expand...

I hope you don't mind but I just sent this to my rep in my name .
.
 
Why I have an AR15

The other day at the gun range I frequent, I was asked by a black powder shooter why I needed an assault rifle. I calmly asked him why the police needed assault rifles. He looked shocked, and just stared at me. So I asked him again why the police needed assault rifles. He mumbled something about the police needed to be able to protect the citizenry. I asked him, "who is going to protect me if the police aren't present at the exact moment that criminals are breaking into my house." I asked him, "Who protected the unarmed people after hurricane Katrina from the gangs of thugs when the police or National Guard weren't around." I told him that if the police need AR15's for protection, then I might need one as well some day.

A few minutes later, another man, also shooting black powder, approached me, looked at my AR15 and asked if I was getting ready to go into a school and shoot children. I looked at his face to see if maybe he was smiling and joking, but he looked absolutely serious. I simply told him, No, I have this for protection----same as the police."

President Lincoln said it best, "United we stand---divided we fall."

Lynn from Olympia
 
I'm really troubled by each of those instances from Holy Smokers. I have to admit that 95% of my shooting is with single shot rifles or rifles shot in single shot fashion (not using the magazine).

HOWEVER, I own a goodly number of magazine fed semi-auto rifles, some on the AR and AK platforms and I would NEVER think to speak as those other shooters did.

HOW IGNORANT!

PS ... I also shoot things like Sniders, Martini-Henrys ... so I know the Holy Smoke routine!
 
>The correct term is "modern sporting rifle".

The AR-15 platform was introduced in 1962. That's 51 years ago. Granted last month's AR is improved from 1962's AR, but the basic platform is reasonably similar.

The progressives would go berserk if you tried to sell cars based on 1982 technology, much less 1962. But they act like these things were dropped off by superior alien technologies from outer space.

The AK design is from, WOO-HOO, 1947!!! Want to drive a car from 1947 to work every day?

So why do they all claim these are so advanced.

Jeez, my Mosins were designed in 1891.
 
Keep it simple. Why does anyone need to tell me what I need?

I think most of us on this forum find the very question offensive, as we should.

-What kind of country subscribes to ; From each according to their abilities, to each according to their needs (?)

-When anyone can tell you what your needs are, you are not free.

More like a slave or a communist, there is little difference. And that is why it is offensive. Any patriot should be offended.
 
Freepeople.jpg



highlight.jpg


weaponofwar2.jpg
 
The fundamental difference between most of the "anti-individualists" and the "individualists" - I hesitate to use the division liberal/conservative because that's skewed on this issue - revolves around concepts of the State described in a very old book named Leviathan.

If you have a Kindle or a Kindle reader you can get it free. It's old enough it's public domain.

The basic premies is that in exchange for loyalty of the subjects the central authority is obligated to provided safety and security.

This model is obviously at odds with the social contract that the USA was founded with, but clearly the pathway we seem to headed.

Under the Leviathan model, we don't need a modern rifle. The caretakers need the rifle for us, but rejecting the Leviathan model, we also reject centralized care taking.

Here's a link to the text on the web, but I encourage you to get an annotated hard copy from a bookstore so you have professional notes as well as places to write your own notes as you get "Ah-ha" moments about answering arguments.

Note, this isn't the rebuttals of the anti's arguments, nor is it the distillation of the antis arguments. It's the foundational principals of centralized control instead of personal control.

http://oregonstate.edu/instruct/phl302/texts/hobbes/leviathan-contents.html


There are other links. Google is your friend.
 
The "nobody needs more then X bullets to hunt" or an ASSAULT RIFLE OF MASS DESTRUCTION arguments drive me crazy. Yes I NEED one. There. I said it. It's my right and I need to exercise my rights or they get flabby and soft. So what. Your never going to win over the vocal activist lunitrons on the left. They must be intellectually defeated and denied the choice of battleground and weapons used (no pun intended).
The pro-big-brother-government-tyranny-over-your-freedoms types often control the debate by controlling the vocabulary used. A women's right to choose! OR is it really ...A women's right to kill her fetus? We personally favor retroactive abortion rights of a child up to the age of 18 but we can compromise at 48 hours after birth if you insist. We're very socially progressive and willing to have a dialectic dialogue so we can compromise and arrive at a synthesis....blah blah blah.
I refuse to use the words "assault weapon" with the anti-gun crowd and do not allow them to use it either. I find those people mostly shallow drones ignorant of what liberty and freedom really means. They are all emotion. I ask them to please use the term "very-scary-scary gun" (say it like Elmer Fud if you can). I tell them if they don't use that term I won't waste my time dealing with their paranoid self loathing or their dictatorial desires to force me to do what they demand. I tell them straight up that I reject their terminology and insist they use mine if they want to discuss the issue(s). (I do think there are a very few reasonable limits on firearms rights and that's where a debate gets real with me.) But....If I can get them to calmly talk I might ask them if they would trust themselves to own a "very scary scary gun"? You'd be amazed how people answer that one. They often are confused. They often blurt out "no" or spaz in place trying to think of an answer. I say, "That's what I thought and that's why I'm keeping my very scary scary gun." I don't trust them either. In any case follow up on whatever they answer and keep them on the defense. He who asks the questions controls the conversation. Take the argument to them.
ALL hard core Commies I believe and some of their trained-seal liberal lefties use the Hegelian Dialectic to drive the debate towards a synthesis of their own choosing. They take the long view and seek to win incrementally over time, not all at once. That's why we have a Constitution and we need to stand firmly on principals.... like liberty and property rights. John Locke, Edmund Burke, and William F. Buckley are good inspiration.
The Hegelian synthesis....You know...10 round mags are a "compromise" between 30 and ZERO. "We are not taking away your rights." Someday the thesis/antitheses dialectic will be 10 rounds vs 1. Then 2...you know...double barrel "Joe Biden" shotguns only need two rounds and its protecting your right to hunt birds and yes deer too 'cause that's why its called Buck Shot. Have a nice hunt but why not use a camera next time to shoot them? Shoot pictures !!! Not Bambi !!! And so they chip away at the Constitution. Repel the 2nd or leave it be, damn it.
They usually only know a few talking points they parrot from TV or each other or their Holly-wierd idols or from some godless politician.... or sadly they repeat what they have "learned" from a lot of "teachers" they had in public school. They don't comprehend the true "self evident" essence of life, liberty and the pursuit of property. They think their rights come FROM the Bill of Rights and not from God/Nature...The CREATOR. They don't understand the concept that the Bill of Rights are restrictions on the Federal government to keep it's tyrannical hands off our rights.
I believe I have the right to own military grade firearms to defend my life, liberty and property from anyone or any group that attempts to infringe on those rights without due process of law made by the consent of the governed. No executive order will ever take my Second Amendment rights away. At some point I might have to man up and take a Lexington-Concord stand with others.... but for now I choose to resist with the ballot and phone calls to the politicians who claim to represent me.
Sorry for the long rant.....I seldom write anything here.
 
Because the govt does. And also when I defend my family from violent attack I NEED every advantage possible to the fact the attackers have the element of surprise and initiative and possibly superior numbers. Oh yeah and they do not play by the rules.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top