Why do people want to buy assault weapons?
Or own them? I hear you about your right to bear arms, but do you really think you are going to need a machine gun to kill a deer? There wouldn't be any meat left on it. These weapons are more likely to be used by some nut case to shoot a whole lot of innocent people, than anything else.
 8 PRECISION GOLF RIFLE PROJECT X IRON SHAFTS 60  US $100.00
|
 Mizuno MX 25 Irons 5 SW Rifle 50 Steel Shafts US $275.00
|
 CLEVELAND TA 1 FORM FORGED 3 PW RIFLE 50 VGC RH US $142.50
|
 Winchester Model 70 Pre 64 Bastogne Rifle Stock US $250.00
|
 Sharps M1859 Rifle Sword Bayonet Collins 1861 US $274.00
|
 SAKO RIFLE STOCK US $229.50
|
Tagged with: deer • machine gun • nut case • right to bear arms • weapons • whole lot
Filed under: buy weapons
It’s not about hunting - the 2nd Amendment was to protect the average citizen from a tyrannical government.
"Assault weapons were involved in less than 1% of homicides before the assault weapons ban took effect in 1994. The same is true as of 1998."
See the link; lots of good info there.
To assault, unfortunately.
The point of the second amendment was not to protect hunting and sport shooting.
"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."
to keep from being assaulted
If the gun owner is responsible and uses all safety precautions, then the weapon itself is not at issue. My father had over 50 guns in his collection, and no one was ever hurt by his actions.
Because when someone’s in your home, a large round in semi auto is really useful. And you’re mistaking "assault" with "machine". You can’t own an automatic weapon.
Why do you want us to not be able to go round for round with criminals? Ever hear of a cop being outgunned by a criminal?
Here’s a hint. It happens. Alot.
The definitions between "machine gun" and "assault weapon" are greatly blurred. Many very legal rifles meet the standard definition of "assault weapon" are not considered to be assault weapons (technically) so should those be banned as well? If the law were true-to-form, then all of those "types" of weapons would be illegal. But because they are still legal, it is only demonstrates political motive, nothing more.
In my opinion, people who need the semi-automatic sniper rifle have it as a trophy of manliness. I could compare this to clothing. Why do we have more than one set of clothes? Any more than one suit for three seasons is silly.
But guns are WEAPONS. There are definitely people who are taking advantage of the system just to go and kill things, then leave the corpse untouched in the wilderness.
The 2nd Amendment came at a time before Manifest Destiny, where the U.S. wanted to own all land from West to East for security. A well armed homeland would be difficult to occupy. At the time, the social cost was of minimal concern. Now, it does matter. It is an incredibly large freedom to have, and will never be fully taken away.
It was partly to protect hunting. Even today, European countries have class separation for hunting. The same goes for foraging wood (thus the rise of the Nazi, who promised everyone could be Ubermensch, with little class distinction. Now every man and woman can hunt in the woods, and even forage the wood! England STILL doesn’t allow just everyone to go on hunts (like fox hunts I guess)
First it would take several thousand rounds of ammo to destroy the meat on a deer. (rounds = bullets)
Second, most assault weapons are very high power and make good hunting weapons, caliber wise. (you don’t have to fire on full auto all the time)
Semi and full autos are fun to use and look cool. It is neat to go out and kill beer cans and pop bottles. It is fun to shoot paper targets. It is exciting like sky diving or bull riding.
I’ve killed two people with my hand gun. None with my full auto.
People are killed with steak knives, screwdrivers, box cutters, frozen steaks, large icicles, automobiles, rat poison, prescription drugs, lengths of rope, and bare hands. I think you see my point.
What happened in India would have happened even without Aks, look at 9/11, the U.S.S. Cole, the Marine Barracks in Beirut.
Nut jobs should not be allowed to have guns of any kind, but I can’t control that. What I can control are my actions in every aspect of my life. I am responsible for my actions. The government shouldn’t presumptively control my actions.
people who own guns do not really think they should sell assault rifles but this is the problem if the democrats pass a law banning them it will eventually end up banning guns altogether
Well, for one, if I were to be "assaulted" by a criminal with a weapon altered to fire a 40 round mag automatically, my preference would be to fight back with a belt-fed weapon, with a very long belt.
http://www.truveo.com/Me-and-HK21-BeltFed/id/2923517909
That’s not really me.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pekpo0aPybg&feature=related
Enough fun, time for business.
This link says it all !!
Watch the video of congressional testimony.
http://www.armedcitizenslivefree.com/
Politicians fear them. That’s all that really matters.
You have the right to bear arms. It isn’t the right to go hunting. So-called "assault weapons" are protected by the second amendment of the constitution and used for defensive purposes. They can also be used for hunting. There is a difference between a full auto machine gun that sprays bullet and a "assault weapon" like Obama wants to ban. The "assault weapons" that Obama wants to ban can only fire one round at a time and are common sporting and self-defense SEMI-auto rifles, shotguns and handguns. Real full auto assault rifles and machine guns can spray bullets with a single pull of a trigger. These are already heavily regulated.