Okay, this is going to be one of these rare post that I make about social issues. Let me preface: I believe in the 2nd amendment to an extent. I believe hunting rifles & shotguns, as well as handguns should remain legal. I’m for the ban of assault rifles and other automatic weapons. My dad has a CCW license here in Tennessee. My family has lived off hunting and fishing for a long time. I believe hunting and fishing in legal manners should be preserved for generations to come. What I cannot stand is: some prick telling me I’m Anti-American for saying assault weapons should be banned. I’m going to get this off of my chest.
I want the NRA, gun advocates, insensitive assault rifle owners, etc., to all give me legit stories of how an assault rifle, that fires ungodly amount of ammo in less than a minute, was the perfect defense gun. You need a gun that can unload 100 rounds in less than a minute to defend your home from a burglar? Wow, you must be a better shot than the LAPD. There are law enforcement agents and security guards that has giving 30 years of services without firing a single round. And you tell me you need an assault rife that you cannot take out in public to defend your house? You see, here in Tennessee, my dad isn’t allow to carry his conceal handgun at the mall, school property, or even the movie theater. If you don’t understand this point, it’s because there has been shooting sprees in schools, mall, movie theater, and other places you cannot even carry a gun. So, let put assault rifles in the hand of an insane man with a clean record and wonder where the next public shooting will take place. And a law abiding citizen with guns will be powerless to help because he will respect the laws of where he can and cannot carry. You don’t NEED an assault rifle, you WANT an assault rifle. You were conned into a marketing scheme to sell more guns.
So, now, do you understand?!?
mtmusings 
can i “like” this post 100 more times, please??
although, i think one reason people continue to support such nonsense is because the news too often focuses on the mental health of the shooter. by calling them crazy, we give the impression that it is a surprise it happened. that it’s just the severe whackos and yahoos that would ever do something like that. but thats not necessarily true. using violence to solve problems is becomming very normalized. add incredibly cheap and easy access to assault rifles to the mix…it’s really not a surprise anymore.
Most people uses the whole 2nd amendment crap as an excuse. I love our constitution as much as the next guy, but the time period in which it was written is vastly different than it is today. In that time, they need gun for survival (hunting small games) and I doubt our forefathers had a crystal ball that assault rifles would be killing children.. It funny how they uses the constitution as an argument, but yet they violate the Freedom of Religion provision, and didn’t seem to be attempting to repeal the income tax, Federal Reserve, etc. The original constitution said no income tax and only Congress may print money. We have income tax today and the Federal Reserve prints money!! One of my former classmate said I’m just picking and choosing… Uh, we’re already doing that….I understand you cannot make a law every time a crisis come up, but come on do we really need assault rifles flooding our society? As I said, I’m for hunting rifles, shotguns, and pistols.. I like duck hunting and I respect the animals I kill for food I eat like the Indians did, but I just don’t see why people get their panties up in a wad over assault rifles… It was banned at one time and didn’t we get along fine without? Actually I was a kid during that ban, so I didn’t really noticed… Ha!
exactly!! people must look at the historical context of which the constitution was written. based on the times, they were radical liberals!
and the 2nd amendment was really about being able to form a small army, if needed. not about being able to walk around with it to “feel safe” from “criminals” or whatever people say. we have also already interpreted it in a way that broadens it to more than that though. so yes, lots of interpretations and picking and choosing. there is absolutely no reason to have an assault rifle. none whatsoever.
womencyclists wrote:
“the 2nd amendment was really about being able to form a small army…”
That was part of it. But the idea of being able to be armed to defend ones self, family, and town was so incredibly obvious and ingrained in the thought of the Founders they hardly thought that worth mentioning – they wanted government to understand that the people were dangerous if it became tyrannical.
You’re correct about the potential tyranny. I’m not here to argue this point; the problem now is, the government got much bigger and powerful. The only way citizens would have a fighting chance against our government, is if key military personnel also turn against their boss.. You think a band of country boys can win a fight against drones? Anyhoo, the time period has change, I approved your other comment about gun usage because you’re correct about that as well. Your problem is: it a perfect scenario. We don’t live in a perfect world full of perfect scenarios. I hear more news about assault rifles being used for assaults rather than defense. (Hence the name I suppose?) I’ve heard plenty of news about handguns and shotguns used as defense as well as assault. As a matter of fact, in my neck of the wood some guy shot an unarmed robber with a 9mm in his own home. He got charged with reckless use of a gun, or whatever it was. The robber was unarmed and didn’t pose a threat except to his belongings. I felt bad for the homeowner. You drummed up a perfect world, people that wants to defend their home is fine, but not everyone will be using rounds like you described.. Your head is your greatest tool, not your weapon. The assault rifle law has done more harms in assault manner than defense manner, simple truth.
Yes, compare to the military we had then and now, people definitely needed guns in their home in event the British had the courage to invade us, again. Or some other nation. The time period is complete different landscape and our forefathers wrote it to despise England. Have you noticed if you look at England laws during that time and compared it to ours, it’s the complete opposite? lol. I love the 1st amendment, the 4th, and all, but some amendments has/had to adjust to new time period. Just my opinion for whatever it’s worth.
No, you don’t believe in the 2nd Amendment. It is not about hunting. It is about defense of self, family, town, etc. on up the line, and against government that goes bad.
An AR-15 carbine with a collapsible buttstock is possibly the best weapon you can own for home defense. Much better than a handgun – more powerful than most handguns, but less felt recoil in the heavier carbine. Can buy frangible ammo that will destroy a criminal at close range but not penetrate walls and accidentally hit a family member. Most shotgun loads will penetrate plasterboard walls.
With a 30 round magazine don’t have to worry about reloading in the dark when a gang of tow or three guys on drugs breaks into your house. May take 4-5 shots to stop each one. Maybe that won’t happen to you, but you have a right to protect yourself against a scenario that for many is very possible.
Due to long sight radius (distance between front and rear sights) is inherently more accurate and easier to shoot than a handgun (which requires a higher degree of skill, and that is very important under stress – trained police frequently miss at close range when the adrenalin is flowing.
I wrote a long article on this on my blog – “Who Needs An Assault Rifle”.
In short you don’t know what you are talking about. An AR-15 is a super home defense weapon and no one has to apologize to you for wanting 30 round magazines.
lwk
kwchannell89 wrote:
“The only way citizens would have a fighting chance against our government, is if key military personnel also turn against their boss.”
My youngest son is in the Marines and somehow I doubt a lot of those guys would blindly go along. A lot local and state police wouldn’t go along either.
And:
“You think a band of country boys can win a fight against drones?”
Drones haven’t stopped the bad guys in Afghanistan. So, who is going to protect all the Federal employees and their families when they become the “enemy of the people”? Just curious. That by the way is the real reason they want all the guns.
Have you ever read this by Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, a survivor of the Russian gulags:
“And how we burned in the camps later, thinking: What would things have been like if every Security operative, when he went out at night to make an arrest, had been uncertain whether he would return alive and had to say good-bye to his family? Or if, during periods of mass arrests, as for example in Leningrad, when they arrested a quarter of the entire city, people had not simply sat there in their lairs, paling with terror at every bang of the downstairs door and at every step on the staircase, but had understood they had nothing left to lose and had boldly set up in the downstairs hall an ambush of half a dozen people with axes, hammers, pokers, or whatever else was at hand?… The Organs would very quickly have suffered a shortage of officers and transport and, notwithstanding all of Stalin’s thirst, the cursed machine would have ground to a halt!”
And:
“I hear more news about assault rifles being used for assaults rather than defense.”
Of course you do. Which do you think the media is more interested in telling you about? Dr. Gary Kleck did research showing that possibly over 2 million times a year guns (all guns, not just “assault” rifles) are used by Americans in self defense. In the vast majority of cases no shots are fires. The criminal leaves when he finds out the intended victim is dangerous to him.
And:
“I’ve heard plenty of news about handguns and shotguns used as defense as well as assault.”
There are a lot more handguns and shotguns out there right now, although a whole lot of guns have been sold in recent years. My point was not that an AR-15 is the most often used weapon for home defense. My point is that it is one of the best.
And:
“As a matter of fact, in my neck of the wood some guy shot an unarmed robber with a 9mm in his own home. He got charged with reckless use of a gun, or whatever it was.”
Your “neck of the woods” in a blue state? In Texas that wouldn’t happen.
And:
“Your head is your greatest tool, not your weapon.”
Then if your head has high quality brains then you can figure out that the time to get a weapon for self defense is before you need it, and learn how to use it.
And finally:
“The assault rifle law has done more harms in assault manner than defense manner, simple truth.”
Not true, nor simple. The majority of gun homicides are done with handguns. Period. Rifles of any type are used in a small number of crimes or homicides. 5-6% of homicides in 2012 involved rifles of all types. No good number on how many were “assault” rifles, but probably a tiny percent.
lwk
If you think an AR-15 is the best choice for home defense you must be living in one shitty neighborhood. I would recommend moving. The 2nd amendment doesn’t even apply to today’s society. Throw your guns in the trash before we all destroy ourselves.
Mark wrote:
“If you think an AR-15 is the best choice for home defense you must be living in one shitty neighborhood.”
The DHS bough 1.6 _billion_ rounds of 40SW recently. That’s enough to shoot everybody in the U.S. a whle lot of times. Maybe they think everywhere is going to be a “shitty neighborhood” soon?
You may never need an AR-15 for home defense, but if you do, it will be one of the best choices. That opinion is based on knowledge, not ignorance from watching movies.
And:
“The 2nd amendment doesn’t even apply to today’s society.”
Your opinion doesn’t count on that. It is in the Constitution whether you like it or not.
And:
“Throw your guns in the trash before we all destroy ourselves.”
Nope. As they said at Goliad, “Come and take it.”
lwk
” It is in the Constitution whether you like it or not”
That right, we still follow the Constitution as it was originally written in 1776. You win!
Mark wrote:
“If you think an AR-15 is the best choice for home defense you must be living in one shitty neighborhood. I would recommend moving.”
The more I thought about the above comment, the more I realized it is downright bigoted and racist too.Ok, so the solution for violence in minority inner city neighborhoods is just to move out of the “hood”!
lwk
Just throwing this out there: I live in Tennessee thus it a Republican state………..
kwchannell89
“…we still follow the Constitution as it was originally written in 1776.”
Actually we do not follow the Constitution as it was written. It has been amended since then and in many ways our views about what it ultimately means has changed. That is not totally inappropriate.
Change is good if it reflects reality and if sufficient consensus can be reached. That is one of the basic principles of the Constitution – that change is possible, but difficult without sufficient consensue (not just a bare majority). If you have the time you might study the Federalist Papers to really understand what was intended.
Someone once described conservatives and liberals in the following way. A conservative strives to keep what is perceived as good in the past. Often that leads to stubborn resistance to change, even good change. A liberal (or whatever term you prefer) on the other hand largely sees the past as evil and ignorant and will embrace any change that looks plausibly good. Often the liberal will embrace untested change that leads to disastrous unintended consequences.
What is really needed is a mindset that follows a middle way. A mindset that uses logic and reason to see what is truly good in the past – and there is much of that – but which can identify its shortcomings. That mindset also evaluates options for change, but does not leap blindly without seriously considering the consequences.
Neither conservatism or liberalism is the answer. The true answer is always asking the question, “What leads to the greatest amount of _freedom_.” The “freedom” I am talking about is not “freedom from want or need,” but freedom from arbitrary and authoritative control of one over another.
Here is another thought for you. If we followed the 2nd Amendment _exactly_ as written with the _exact_ original intent, then I would be able to own a .50 caliber crew served/belt fed machine gun like the “Ma Deuce” my younger son fires in the Marine Corps. I would be able to own shoulder fired missles and fragmentation grenades.
But in fact the interpretation of the 2nd Amendment has changed drastically since the Constitution was adopted and went in effect in 1789 (not 1776). In 1934 the National Firearms Act required fully automatic firearms to be registered and today the aquiring of a newly manufactured machine gn is almost completely prohibited. That act also covered silencers and explosive devices among other things.
So your argument that we somehow follow the 2nd Amendment or the Constitution as written in the 18th century is simply not true, and bad rhetoric to boot.
lwk
LWK, you’re proven my point all along……. I want to keep semi-auto rifles, handguns, shotguns in citizens’ hand and ban AR only. I think that the middle ground….
The true conservative view, that is following the Founders exactly, would be to let citizens own fully automatic machines guns, rocket propelled grenades, etc – all the weapons of war useful for overthrowing tyrannical government. You wouldn’t recognize the middle way because you are a true liberal in mindset.
lwk
This be my last comment: I don’t have a “liberal” mindset, I don’t have a conservative mindset. I think issue by issue. Some of my thoughts may fall to the left while others fall to the right. I don’t pick issues base on what team I’m rooting for like the majority of America. This is just stupid and shows majority of Americans are sheep with no own individual thoughts. It’s too late to police assault rifles because they’re already widespread in citizens’ hand. It still doesn’t stop me from saying legally owning assault rifles is pointless.
You wrote:
“It still doesn’t stop me from saying legally owning assault rifles is pointless.”
This is America and because of the First Amendment your right to say things is protected. The First Amendment does not require that what you say be objectively true.
Just saw a great youtube video.
Sheriff Explains The Absurdity Of The Proposed Magazine Bans
That may seem unrelated to our discussion. It is not, in principle. The principle being that those who are less than knowledgable may think they are using their minds and reasoning on a subject, but in fact the facts they think have some bearing are totally fictitious in reality.
lwk
Obviously the banning of anything in a ‘free country’ is going to be an emotionally charged debate. That includes so-called ‘assault weapons’. If we want to look at this debate rationally, please remember that the AR-15’s military variant, the M-16 has the weapon of the U.S. military and many government organizations over the past 50 years. As such, more loyal Americans have trained and become proficient at this weapon than any other.
Literally millions of Americans have spent billions of taxpayer dollars to learn to use this weapon safely to defend the freedom and lives of other Americans. When one wing nut uses a weapon to harm innocent Americans, think of the millions of Americans who use these same weapons to protect us. Personally, I want this weapon to be available. It is safe, accurate, and familiar to all those who serve and continue to do so as civilians.