No?
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:
http://larrycorreia.wordpress.com/2012/12/20/an-opinion-on-gun-control/
.223 is an excellent varmint rifle round.
And an AR-10 based rifle in .308 makes a nice deer rifle if done right.
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.
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.
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?
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 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.
I object to the term assault weapons, these are defense weapons.
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.
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.
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?
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.