Posted on 07/29/2012 8:40:38 PM PDT by redreno
CNN) -- To all of you gun lovers, feel free to go buy your Glock, shotgun, hunting rifle, .22 pistol, .357 Magnum or any of the other guns at your disposal.
But you do not need an AK-47.
For some, it's too soon to discuss gun reform, a little more than one week after the mass killings in Aurora, Colorado. I disagree. Too many Americans are being killed by guns every day; this most recent heinous tragedy should not keep us from having a rational debate.
(Excerpt) Read more at cnn.com ...
Grandma has a T-shirt that says "Go ahead and run. You'll just die tired.", and she can shoot well enough to back it up.
I taught the granddaughters to shoot, and they're pretty good with a rifle, too.
For this pantywaist writer:
When the police put up their .38 specials in favor of Glock .40s and decided they were 'so outgunned' by the criminal class that they needed select fire Stoner variant rifles (M-16s) to keep up with the thugs, In order for me to adequately defend my family it became necessary for me to possess the most capable firearm I could afford.
After a great deal of research, there were two firearms which shone in terms of reliability: The M1A and the AK-47. Pity I had trouble affording the former, and the latter we could afford to obtain were watered down semiautomatic versions of the most widely used battle rifle in the world.
Why a 'battle rifle'? Well, because criminals can arm themselves with anything, they have nothing to lose, and do not operate within the law like those of us who try to color within the lines do. Literally anything they can find and afford is fair game--after all, that's why the police forces around the country told us they were upgrading their arsenals.
Now, at the time, a reliable, East Bloc firearm was selling for between $250 and $350, magazines (they aren't clips, BTW) were fairly cheap, and the ammo was, too. The SKS, another reliable but slightly less capable rifle was only about $100.00, and it used the same ammo as the semiautomatic AK clone, just generally 10 rounds before reloading, instead of 27 (only load your magazines to 90% to prevent malfunctions).
For about $500.00, a couple could have enough arms and ammo to defend their home against all sorts of miscreants--cheaper than the average decent pistol--and with enough ammo to become reasonably proficient.
Now, alarms only make noise and call the folks who will figure out what happened before they arrived. All that's fine if you live somewhere response times are down in the single digits, but most places just aren't like that, and out here in the boonies, the best advice I ever got came from a County Sheriff who learned I had been threatened by one of the criminal class and only had three deputies to cover a huge area: "Just be sure you are the one around to fill out the paperwork."
Yes, I need an AK. Any further questions?
We don’t “need” CNN, either...
Roland Martin:
Flaming racist leftard, Obama apologist and CNN talking head.
Not worth the time of day.
If 0bummer gets re-elected, everything changes on Nov 7th. He has nothing left to worry about. I’d bet the legal paperwork for the most draconian gun ban laws is already drawn-up and waiting for his signature. He’s bypass USA Congress & SCOTUS, EO-ing everything he wants.
He is right really... you don’t need an AK-47 when an SKS will do the job just fine.... 7.62x39
do not forget tanks, aircraft and warships ( if you can afford them ) most libs would be stunned to learn that during and after the revolutionary war, the fledgling United States LEASED warships from private owners ... same with cannon...
hell, in some ways the colonists pre-revolution had more freedom than we do now...
I agree with the headline. Average Americans DO NOT need assault weapons. I don’t have one, nor do I want one.
But it’s sure great that my neighbor on one side has one, and so do two people up the street. And it’s great that I can still buy one, when I do think it will be necessary, and when I think that I can safely handle and store it.
And I’ll vote AGAINST anyone that wants to change any of the above.
When I had HS shop back in the day we had a guy make a 1911 frame. Some ninnyhammer got wind of it and there was a stink.
Obviously, the soloution is to ban metal shops and lock up all the machinists.
And yet another classic example of how stupid the gun grabbers really are. So ‘assault’ rifles are bad, but handguns are ok? I wonder if this idiot is aware than about 80% of all gun-related crime involves the use of a handgun, compared to around 5% with any kind of rifle?
We’re dealing with morons, folks.
The mag will set you back $40. I know a source of new ones in the wrapper. I can FReepmail it if you want it.
“But you do not need an AK-47.”
Hell, I don’t *need* a car. I could walk, or bike.
However, life is not all about “need”. In this country, if we “want” something, and it’s legal, we may get it.
There’s absolutely nothing wrong with Americans owning AR rifles, or AKs if they prefer to slum a little bit. There is a proud tradition of Americans owning and shooting the same rifles used by the military. AR rifles make great hunting and target rifles, with the added benefit that if necessary they are also fine defensive weapons, especially with hi-cap magazines.
What I really don’t need is some joker from CNN telling me what to do. I hope he ends up in a SHTF situation with nothing but his bare hands...
“And a one MEEEELLION bullet clip to go with it.”
“Bullet clip”?
A picture REALLY is worth a thousand words. Thanks.
Sure they do! With all of the gun grabbing commies trying to infringe on the 2nd amendment and other rights Americans need them more than ever.
What Scalia said on FOX this last weekend was his interpretation of "bear arms" meant what a single citizen could carry. Which would be the same as what a foot soldier would be able to carry. As for ships and artillery (18th century or today) acquisition of those would require a FAIR FIGHT between the now rogue tyrant militia of the federal government and the new revolutionary civilian militia. No one wants massive destructive weapons in the hands of the Chicago SEIU or ACORN, or the TEA party. Those will have to be fought for and won. It will be mess, costly and very bloody but revolutions are just that. But it it the common citizen that must have an EQUAL fighting chance against federal foot soldiers. They knew back then that urban sniper and terror tactics can defeat even the largest and best equipped armies.
No I don’t, sorry.
Guns are required to stand up to a repressive government.
If I was the NRA I would get ICE-T’s written permission to rerun that quote every time a liberal-progressive-socalists-dimocrat claim that there is no need for the average Joe to have “assault” weapons. I would then also replay the final assault at Waco and then end with “Questions?”
The VAST majority of gun crimes are pistols. An AR, AK or any type of rifle is seldom used.
That said, for defending your home, I have pistols in case I run out of rifle ammo. Rifles are much more lethal in skilled hands.
I’m not looking for an AK-47. I’m waiting for this maxim to unfold: Your enemy will bring to you the weapons you need to defeat him - Mao Tsetung.
I’m sure the untrained 400-pound morons in homelend security will drop off something much better than an AK.
In my best Archie Bunker voice: “Would it make you feel any better, little liberal, if they was pushed out of windows?”
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.