malorn and desync on why America needs Assault Rifles

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(burritos @ Feb 22 2007, 12:35 PM) [snapback]394656[/snapback]</div>

Not an individual, but...

If Hussein Obama gets elected and declares martial law in DC and Virginia as he converts the country to Sharia law, the other states would have time to raise up to defend themselves against the spread of the martial law. Eventually as the other states were to organize, Hussein could be overtaken and our constitution restored.

If you collect all the guns from the people, there's no way to stop the spread.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(livelychick @ Feb 22 2007, 12:59 PM) [snapback]394611[/snapback]</div>

Why do we need assault rifles? Easy, to protect ourselves from the terrorists who are surely headed our way once you and your people pull our troops out of Iraq and the bad guys follow us home. You can use your taser - I settle for my Series 19 Glock and with a little luck, an AK.

And by the way, in the same way they could not have forseen the future back then, does that make all their [the Founding Father's] other Rights and Laws null and void - or just the one(s) you do not agree with?

 

I own an "assault" rifle myself. It's a Colt AR-15 for those that are wondering. Frankly, it's a POS. I should have bought from a different mfg but I didn't know at the time. The simple fact is that there are weapons all over the place and banning them will just give organized crime an event bigger demand to fill. Ordinary folks will have nothing. I don't have any hand guns because I don't think that they're very useful, but people should have the right to own them, legally of course. Concealed weapons are already regulated. When I lived in Tucson it was like the old west. I once saw a guy inspecting cantalopes in the produce section at Albertson's with a .40 on his hip. Many people carried unconcealed pistols. I didn't feel unsafe at all.

Most of the legislation against assault rifles is really pretty absurd. For example, I have what's called a post-ban AR. As such, the bayonet lug is missing because after the ban you couldn't have a pistol grip, bayonet lug, and flash surpressor/compensator. You can only have 2/3. So naturally the bayonet lug was dropped. Since that day the number of drive by bayonetings has held steady. There were 0 before the ban and, thankfully, there have been none since. There have been very few instances of assault rifles used in violent crime. There are far more stabbings each year.

Gun control isn't likely to accomplish anything. Instead, we should spend more time with our kids, and raise them to be caring, thoughtful, good people.

For what it's worth, the best home defense weapon is a pump action shotgun. You don't even need to load it. If someone comes in you merely need to "pump" it. The sound it makes will have whoever came in headed out in a hurry!

 

I grew up w/ guns in the house as my dad was a police officer. They still scare me. Although, one is more likely to drown than get shot accidentally with a gun in the house.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(livelychick @ Feb 22 2007, 02:38 PM) [snapback]394658[/snapback]</div>

States that allow registered citizens to carry concealed weapons have lower crime rates than those that don't.
The 31 states that have "shall issue" laws allowing private citizens to carry concealed weapons have, on average, a 24 percent lower violent crime rate, a 19 percent lower murder rate and a 39 percent lower robbery rate than states that forbid concealed weapons. In fact, the nine states with the lowest violent crime rates are all right-to-carry states. Remarkably, guns are used for self-defense more than 2 million times a year, three to five times the estimated number of violent crimes committed with guns.

Washington D.C. enacted a virtual ban on handguns in 1976. Between 1976 and 1991, Washington D.C.'s homicide rate rose 200%, while the U.S. rate rose 12%.

221,443 concealed carry licenses were issued in Florida between October of 1987 and April of 1994. During that time, Florida recorded 18 crimes committed by licensees with firearms.

The "Assault Weapons Ban" was enacted on September 14, 1994. The majority of Democrats voted for it, and the majority of Republicans voted against it. Bill Clinton signed it into law.

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.

.. You're living in a misinformed fantasy world if you think you can fend off a grown man, or men, with a taser. Perhaps if you hit your target you shall succeed, but I am almost positive you have never tried to fire a firearm or taser under duress. Even so, if there is more than 1 man intruding into your home, a taser will simply not be effective. You'll get one shot, at the most, before you've been tackled.

I used to work for a mid-sized city Police Department... Most of the terrible things I've seen and heard could have been prevented had the victim been a legal gun carrying citizen. You are living in a fantasy world, and I truly hope you never have to truly defend yourself. I really do.

If you would like more evidence of how banning of guns leads to substantially higher murder, rape, and robbery rates, all you have to do is search. The reports, statistics, and evidence is everywhere. A simple Google search will yield hundreds of examples. I've given you a few.

I don't expect to change your mind, as you've clearly convinced yourself that you're right. I've experienced 1st hand what happens when unarmed civilians go up against armed criminals. Guess who loses? I've had people call me, begging for help because a man is breaking into their home. I had to listen to a woman get raped while our Officers were own the way to her home. When our boys got there, the suspect was walking out the front door zipping his pants up. He was taken into custody, but we had gotten there too late. The woman was found in her bedroom, with the door broken down, she was just laying there, crying. Screaming for help.. asking herself "Why me.. Why me". If only she had a gun.

Old women have successfuly defended themselves with firearms from drug-addicts. We've had multiple accounts when a suspect attempts to break into the home of an elder and is fended off with a firearm.

People, everyday, are able to defend themselves due to our GOD GIVEN Constitutional rights. These rights are not negotiable. The Constitution is more than just an amendable piece of paper.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(livelychick @ Feb 22 2007, 12:47 PM) [snapback]394668[/snapback]</div>

The founding fathers did not forsee so many people dieing in car crashes either.

Ban all cars!!


They didn't forsee modern medicine, so let's close all the hospitals.
Ban the production and use of electricity, people get shocked every day from that nuiscence.

That pretty much takes care of all the other things we should ban such as the internet, personal computers, telephones and everything else that has been improved or invented in the last 200 years.


Your a genius of a woman, very rational and logical too. hahahaha..

 

Citizen militias were essentially useless even in the Revolutionary War. As Henry Spencer wrote, "One of the rare clear-cut US victories, at Cowpens, happened because Dan Morgan knew how worthless the militia was, and told them to give the British two volleys and then turn and run -- knowing that they would anyway -- to sucker the British into a trap."

 

Assault rifles were designed to kill large numbers of people more efficiently. Unless you feel you're going to threatened at home by a mob, assault rifles as home protection is overkill (pun intended) and a fairly empty argument. However, I do feel Frankenstien would have fared better had he had an assault rifle against all those pitchforks and torches...

If the federal, state or local police/military forces come to your house to arrest you, I don't care how many assault rifles you have; you're either going quietly or you're going in a body bag. Don't for a minute think that guys who have trained extensively (think SWAT) and are probably itching to put the training into play (I think it's safe to assume that one who volunteers for special squads has no moral compunctions to putting one through you) will hesitate if you use brandish that rifle or worse, fire one off. I'm sure your "right to bear arms" rhetoric will flash once just before the lights go out.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(livelychick @ Feb 22 2007, 02:47 PM) [snapback]394668[/snapback]</div>

I must be a loser.. I've spent countless days protecting morons like you.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(desynch @ Feb 22 2007, 03:00 PM) [snapback]394685[/snapback]</div>

You mean, as a member of the armed forces or the police? In that case, thanks.

If you mean as a free-lance gun nut, then no, you weren't. Stop flattering yourself.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(desynch @ Feb 22 2007, 02:00 PM) [snapback]394685[/snapback]</div>

They have no idea that if it were not for those who have made the sacrifice, those who are sacrificing currently, and those who will serve in the future they would have no ability to spew their BS at all. How many liberals do you see in Cuba, Noko, etc? We are the lucky ones - the modern western world - we have to suffer fools errands.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(ZenCruiser @ Feb 22 2007, 01:00 PM) [snapback]394684[/snapback]</div>

Is this what you think was intended when they wrote the amendment?

Even in their day, this doesn't make any sense. One guy trying to keep the national army at bay from his home? Where's your logic, that's idiotic.

If everyone west of the mississippi sees a martial law heading west, there is time to assemble. There is not enough military in the country now (or then) to have a president dispose the constitution and take control of the country as long as we all have guns in the basement.

If you get rid of the guns in control of the voters, we could have a power grab.

 

Richard Schumacher, my experience at the PD was something I'd never want to give up. It really opened my eyes as that what goes on behind closed doors. People NEED self protection.. a tazer just wont make due. I was on the dispatch team. I was the guy that people called, begging for help, because they had no means of protecting themselves. After seeing what I've seen, and hearing what I've heard.. I practice my Constitutional rights, especially the 2nd one.

It is humorous how some liberal mother is trying to school me on laws and gun-rights.. crime rates, and self protection..

dbermanmd, you are so correct.

daronspicher, you are also correct.

See, ladies and gentlemen... I have provided statistics, facts, records, quotes from our founding fathers, the ones that WROTE the Constitution, and first hand experience.. People like livelychick, they provide nothing but emotion based reactions and liberal garbage. People like livelychick believe that their insight is more objective and thought-out than our founding fathers. They believe that your rights end where their beliefs begin. They think they somehow know what is best for the USA, contrary to what the Founding Fathers decided.

It is laughable, at best, to assume a single female is going to have a fighting chance and surving an attack from a male or group of males, whom may or may not be armed, with a tazer.. or "fists of fury" .. or a a "knee to the balls". This isn't the movies. This is real life.