Skip to comments.Assault weapon owners cite diverse reasons for owning the guns
Posted on 12/22/2012 11:32:10 AM PST by rellimpank
In the wake of the deadly Connecticut school shooting last week, one question has repeatedly surfaced in the Black Hills and across much of the country: Why would anyone want to own an assault weapon?
One thing is clear the high-powered rifles capable of shooting multiple rounds in a hurry are in high demand. After President Barack Obama said this week he would push to renew a ban on purchasing the rifles, local gun-shop owners said the weapons have been flying off their shelves.
Meanwhile, gun owners in Rapid City cite diverse reasons for purchasing the weapons. Some say they are durable and accurate; a few see them as a financial investment or a way to exercise their constitutional rights; while others point to their value in self-protection or in the fun of target shooting.
Whatever the reason, assault-rifle owners are committed to the weapon.
"There is something kind of zen-like in setting up a bench and trying to put
(Excerpt) Read more at rapidcityjournal.com ...
Then screw anybody who wants to take away my most effect tyrant-repellant.
I will keep my semi-auto weapons because I will never be marched to a wall as a "criminal," forced to kneel, and shot in the back of the head by a soldier or other govt agent.
Even if that is Obama's wet dream.
So just what is an “assault” weapon? Anything that looks scary? This is a good (long) article:
.223 is an excellent varmint rifle round.
And an AR-10 based rifle in .308 makes a nice deer rifle if done right.
According to some definitions they have bandied about in recent years my Ruger 10/22 .22lr would be classified as an ‘assault weapon’.
Pretty much anything that makes libs pee themselves is liable to be classed as an assault weapon.
Heck, I can't promise it won't turn tyrannical in the next four! The little pipsqueak dipsh!t at the wheel is certainly in the process of turning it in that direction as we speak.
If I had an AR-10 carbine, it would probably be just about the optimum weapon for feral hogs down here in Louisiana and east Texas.
Hypothetically speaking of course.
Exactly. For example, gun registratin passed in Weimar Germany, nobody was killed.
Hitler gets in charge, and things changed.
I need an assault rifle to prevent anyone from confiscating my other guns.
Who cares what reasons owner’s give! It’s our Constitutional right and I DO NOT have to explain myself to the left-wing fascists!
Personal choice, personal freedom, and an unalienable Right to do so.
Why is nobody else's business.
Why would any couple want more than one child?
Why would anyone want to own a house larger than 2000sq. ft.?
Why would anyone want to own more than one car?
Why would anyone want a trial by jury?
Why would anyone want freedom of speech, press, or religion?
Why would any woman want to work outside the home, or vote?
Why would any black person want to be free?
Why would any gay person want to get married?
THEY all have "Rights" (actual or imagined) but not gun owners.
One thing is clear the high-powered rifles capable of shooting multiple rounds in a hurry are in high demand.
Anyone who says the rifle used in he Connecticut school shooting last week is high powered or an assault weapon is functionally illiterate in respect to firearms.
One of the major criticisms in military circles in regard to the 5.56 mm NATO round used in the many variants of the M16 (M4 civilian model used by the shooter is a M15 variant) is that it is under powered and has limited range in comparison to other military issue weapon in service in the world.
An assault weapon is a full auto or burst capable rifle which the civilian model M4 is not.
Reporters worthy of the title should make some effort to get their facts and their terminology straight when attempting to write a story.
Every American should have at least one Min 14 & 30 in their house.
Thanks for the post. I am still trying to figure out what an “assault” weapon is suppose to be. Funny, I find journalists to be an “assault” on decency and freedom.
Gun Grabber: "Why do you need an assault weapon?"
Me: "In case those fascist Republicans get control of the government again."
While such weapons get all the press, the weapon that gun controllers are truly determined to ban are .50 caliber rifles.
The high ranking elected or appointed gun controllers like Bloomberg are paranoid about assassination, and calculate that this would be the weapon of choice for an assassin.
I heard there was a plot in NYC to take out Bloomberg by slipping him a few 24 oz. sodas.
Mini-30 is a great weapon...new ones are far more accurate than the old ones.....not a .308 or 30-06, but in that direction.......love mine....
Have a 40 year old Remington 742 semi-auto 30-06, and I guess they’d call that an assault weapon too, even tho the mag only holds 4 rounds....
We have to ban them to find out what they are.
From what I've heard on the media, the .223 is one of the largest rifle rounds available and is only useful to take down elephants and tanks. It must be true, the media said so.
Philosophically, I decided long ago to never purchase/own a Warsaw pact caliber. I've probably missed out on owning some pretty fine weapons, and as unlikely as it seemed at the time I made that decision, some pretty cheap bulk ammo, too.
As I would say to anybody in regards to their choice of weapon, if you like it, and it suits you, go for it :-)
Bingo. ‘Assault weapons’ (high-powered rifles) are the weapons the government fears MOST because those weapons would be THE MOST EFFECTIVE AGAINST THEM.
Forgive me for not reading the article, but isn’t one of the reasons people buy an assault rifle is to lose it in a terrible boating accident?
An assault weapon is anything the government fears could be effectively used against THEM.
Countries with gun control have much higher violent crime rates than those without.
WOULD BANNING FIREARMS REDUCE MURDER AND SUICIDE?, A Review of International and Some Domestic Evidence by Don B. Kates and Gary Mauser, Volume 30, Number 2 of the Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy (pp. 649-694)
But Lefties don't care about facts.
The Founders and the leadership of the Confederacy weren't shy about threatening to take up arms against what they saw as their oppressors and they didn't wait until it was too late to do so. They gave plenty of warning. But it's crickets from our "leaders," while the Constitution and the flag are being trampled before their eyes. Some of them have even practically come out and said the 2nd Amendment is obsolete. They ought to be ashamed.
The neat thing about the Second Amendment is that as soon as you begin arguing about changing or defeating it, you’ve established the reason for having it...
I would challenge Senator Barackforbrains stop a gang of Crypts from storming her house with 3 rounds in a deer rifle.
Personally, I find 30 round or more mags detrimental to good function, but, I can see a need for them.
Well.... if we are going to judge the ‘danger’ of something by looks, then CORVETTES should be outlawed.
Then , we should outlaw any movies that use scary guns or scary cars. And anyone who dresses up scary to be in a movie.... and
I object to the term assault weapons, these are defense weapons.
Yes. But not until after we've agreed to ban them. Until we do it will be about "the children".
On a related note, there is not a .22 LR round available in this whole county right now. A truck arrives at the big hardware store Monday, and the salesman recommends being here a couple hours early.
To the MSM and liberals, any weapon that “looks” like a military weapon is an “assault” weapon....
An assault weapon is a weapon that can fire on semi-auto and be switched to fully auto...
Fully automatic weapons are already banned without an FFL....
Saiga has a very simple work-around. They simply “sporterized” the AK by going with a plain rifle stock...no pistol grip, no fore-grip, no folding stock and a base model 10 rd magazine. Meets all the non-assault weapon requirements but...and here’s the really cool secret part...it’s a friggin AK.
If an unknown intruder is coming up the stairs at oh-dark-thirty, pretty much all relevant questions have been answered enough to stop him. I want something which is pretty much assured to one-shot-stop, something which can penetrate pretty much any body armor a perp might have, something which will likely fail to exit a second layer of Sheetrock (avoid over penetration of interior walls), something which I can carry in one magazine enough to end pretty much any fight (running out is very bad), something which can be suppressed to at least tolerable noise levels, something which can do all this in a fairly short package for indoor maneuvering.
The solution is a suppressed AR15 SBR loaded with carefully chosen ammo.
Don’t tell me nobody needs an “assault weapon”. I do.
Thats not true!
Lefties love facts that support their argument; whether those facts are fictitious or not.
The burst or automatic mode in military rifles is pretty much irrelevant as to the deadliness of these rifles. Auto fire modes are intended to be used for suppression of enemy troops - basically scaring them into keeping their heads down and not shooting.
If the government were to permit these to be sold in full-auto versions I doubt there would be any increase at all in casualties from these weapons. The few additional bystanders hit would be counterbalanced by fewer intended targets hit.
The killing/wounding mode is semi-automatic. These rifles are efficient killers because they are capable of very rapid aimed fire, a use which is easy to teach because of low and well-handled recoil. The large ammunition capacity and the magazine system is the second critical factor. Accurate fire can be sustained over many targets without requiring a magazine change. Magazines are also rapidly changed.
For the purpose of killing people these give a great increase in effective short-range firepower over most semi-automatic civilian rifles, that generally use over-powered ammunition and small magazines.
This great firepower also makes these rifles constitutionally relevant precisely because they are militarily effective. They make excellent guerrilla weapons for a “well regulated militia”, at least under modern urban conditions. They are less effective for the purpose of offensive combat against regular soldiers as they are less capable of suppressive fire, but are excellent for ambush or hit-and-run tactics.
I love the weapon, and have no philosophical issues with the round. Have an old Mini-14 too, love both because as a kid my two fav rifles were the Winchester 30-30 lever action, and WWII M1 Carbine. Owned both, but sold the M1 Carbine as it was so inaccurate. Weak round too. 7.62 x 39 ballistics are a bit better. So as you said, the Mini-30 is a close imitation.
My son saw it at a gun show and wanted it but didn’t have the money. Price was great, so I said, “Hey, I like it! I’ll get it.” Loved it ever since.
It and the Mini-14 make a good pair.
Would high cap mags really make a substantial difference in these mass-shooting scenarios? Unless the people you’re shooting at are able to shoot back, taking an extra few seconds to change mags doesn’t seem like it’s going to change the outcome much.
2-legged or 4-legged feral hogs?
Let me give you all some food The FBI defines mass murder as being an event where there are 4 or more fatal victims. Out of a population of 313 million, some of which committed a little over 9,000 murders with firearms in 2012. 6-8 of those incidents were mass murders.
What this means is that if you exclude 6-8 mass murders, almost all of the 9,000+ other murders killed less than 3 people per event. No doubt the majority of events produce one victim.
My point is that neither so-called assault weapons or hi-cap mags played any role in our crime rate.
We could magically snap our fingers and remove all the assault weapons with hi-cap mags and that 9,000+ number would remain the same. I don’t know how many were used, but they gave no advatage to their shooters who were only killing 1,2 or 3 people at a time. This could be done with a 5 shot revolver.
I have an old jeep and it has a 500 hp engine. I clearly don’t need this, but I don’t want to give it up just because I don’t need it.
I own all of my guns simply because I can - any more questions?
You got that right. Even a clenched fist is scary to libs.
Except the New BP types wielding billy clubs (or worse) and gubmint/union thugs. ‘Cause they are there to ‘help us’.
We are no longer a free society. Pretty soon even thinking un-pure thoughts will be outed.
If you describe it as a "22 rifle", you get a completely different response.
I use a .223 to hunt aircraft carriers.
I mean .. a pencil is an assault weapon .. a bobby pin .. a friggin' fist, fer cryin' out load.
America is SO done.
What I want to know is why anyone would call my nice, peaceful firearms “Assault Weapons”? They haven’t assaulted anyone under my watch.
I bet the Tutsi population of Rwanda wished they had had some assault weapons. A lot of them were hacked to death with machetes because soldiers did not want to waste their bullets on them.
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.