Skip to comments.The Need for Semi-Automatic "Assault" Weapons
Posted on 01/10/2013 3:11:02 AM PST by Kaslin
By now, we’ve heard the argument about semi-automatic "assault" rifles: nobody needs one. we’ve heard the only reason why someone would obtain this kind of weapon is so they can kill people, which is far from the truth. We’ve also heard the argument from both the Left and the Right that a pistol is how someone protects their home.
"I really don’t know why people need assault weapons. I’m not a hunter but I understand people who want to hunt," Republican Rep. Peter King said on Morning Joe earlier this week. "I understand people who live in rough neighborhoods or have a small business and want to maintain a pistol to protect themselves as long as they’re properly vetted and licensed. But an assault weapon? "
While the use of pistols in the home are helpful, they’re not the best weapon to use when it comes to protecting property. This is why people need a semi-automatic rifle which yes, can come in the form of an AR-15.
Let’s go back in history for a moment. While everyday life in America compared to the rest of the world is pretty darn easy and relatively safe, the reality is things can change overnight, regardless of whether you live in a decent neighborhood. Take for example the Los Angeles riots in 1992, when business owners were forced to defend their property from angry mobs causing severe chaos: $1 billion in property damage, 50 dead, 4,000 injured, 3,000 fires set and 1,100 buildings damaged. In this case, a handheld pistol was in no way sufficient, but semi-automatic rifles were.
Business owners in LA’s Koreatown knew what was coming their way, so they armed themselves with shotguns and semi-automatic rifles in order to defend their property. They stood on their rooftops as they watched black smoke pour down the street. The cops weren't there to help them.
“One of our security guards was killed,” Kee Whan Ha told NPR in April 2012, 20 years after the riots took place. "I didn't see any police patrol car whatsoever. It's a wide open area. It was like the Wild West in the old days, there was nothing there, we were the only ones left."
Business owner Richard Rhee felt the same way and told the Los Angeles Times, "Burn this down after 33 years?... They don't know how hard I've worked. This is my market and I'm going to protect it."
“Assault weapons” saved Koreatown and it’s fair to say the people holding them saved the lives of many that day.
Then of course, there was the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina in 2005. New Orleans became a place of complete anarchy in a matter of hours. In addition to property owners being forced to stave off mobs of people roaming for food, water and shelter to survive as the government failed to provide emergency services, they had to protect themselves against dangerous looters. But not only were New Orleans residents forced to defend themselves against immediate threats to their person and property, residents also had to protect themselves from the government.
As the water started to recede, leaving New Orleans a chaotic wasteland, police officers began going door to door confiscating weapons. Who did they take them from? Mostly poor black residents in New Orleans' 9th Ward.
The New York Times reported in September 2005, “No civilians in New Orleans will be allowed to carry pistols, shotguns or other firearms.” The paper pointed out that rich residents and business were allowed to hire hundreds of security guards with firearms to protect them. Sadly, the poor in New Orleans didn’t have the same luxury.
Superintendent of police at the time P. Edwin Compass III said, “Only law enforcement are allowed to have weapons.”
What happened days before weapons confiscation was tyranny of the worst kind. Henry Glover, a 31-year-old black man was shot and killed by New Orlean’s police officers. They also burned his body.
A New Orleans police officer was laughing after he burned the body of a man who had been gunned down by police in Hurricane Katrina's aftermath, a fellow officer testified Thursday.
The testimony came during the trial of officer Greg McRae and Lt. Dwayne Scheuermann, who are charged with burning the body of 31-year-old Henry Glover in a car after he was shot and killed by a different officer outside a strip mall on Sept. 2, 2005. Three other current and former officers also are charged in Glover's death.
A former officer, David Warren, is charged with shooting Glover. Prosecutors say Glover wasn't armed and didn't pose a threat to Warren.
Scheuermann and McRae are accused of beating people who drove Glover to a makeshift police headquarters in search of help. The three men were handcuffed when the officers drove off with the car containing Glover's body.
Former Lt. Robert Italiano and Lt. Travis McCabe are accused of falsifying a report to make it appear Glover's shooting was justified.
When politicians and gun grabbers tell us we “don’t need” semi-automatic, "assault," or "military style" weapons, they don’t know what they’re talking about.
Constitution says I don’t need a reason to own a gun.
The real question is why we keep reelecting stupid corrupt people to Congress. We don’t ‘need’ folks like that who insist on lighting the fuse.
I would dare to say that when the community militias get started across America in due time many will say the heck with the NFA ruling. Suppressors and full auto will be available well a trained and well armed militia.
Remember... anyone here or anywhere else that says otherwise... is a communist or a tyrant... or both.
Does anyone remember the Korean Grocer on the Roof being filmed from above via TV Helicopter laying down a wall of supressive fire and protecting his Store with what I believe was an AR-15?
I didn't forget it, can we find the video, that is the million dollar question...
No, where and when did that happen?
All of the top leaders and politicians along with the super wealthy Hollywood types have the best security and will maintain that top security no matter what they may face. They talk very tough, don’t they... and seem to not care about we, the people being able to protect ourselves from a tyrant or a foreign entity to a national disaster. Just be in a natural disaster for a few weeks with no power, no road way clearance, no food or no water and part of your house is missing. You try to keep warm and if any trouble starts you need a way to protect your family from an intruder man/or beast. Gun rights is not about hunting. If a person wants a gun, they have a right for protection just as if they decide not to own one. It’s that simple. This is nothing but an agenda by the media and the far leftists.
IIRC, an image of that shows up here on FR occasionally.
Aren’t you jumping the gun? You act like as if Congress has given it’s okay to that arrogant pos of 1600 Pennsylvania Ave plan to use the EO to ban guns
With the handgun - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CvaNJ0mF_JM
a collection the store owners with rifles at about 1.25 - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tgCiC6qTtjs NOT ar-15s
a personal perspective from Lubys Resturant - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V-oNMHNrS-8
Cant find one of an ar-15
—>>”I really dont know why people need assault weapons. Im not a hunter but I understand people who want to hunt,” Republican Rep. Peter King said on Morning Joe earlier this week. “I understand people who live in rough neighborhoods or have a small business and want to maintain a pistol to protect themselves as long as theyre properly vetted and licensed. But an assault weapon? “
Maybe the person is referring to Pete King’s comments..
First of all an EO cannot legally be used to ban guns. An EO can only be used to give instructions to the Executive Branch.
Having said that in the last four years our mighty Congress has shown zero will and/or ability to stop the unconstitutional overreach from the White House.
Numerous congressional reps are jumping on the bandwagon to push the White Houses agenda. The rest are not doing a thing to stop it. Heck even with F&F the few Congressmen supporting action can’t seem to fight their way out of a wet paper bag.
So no, I am not jumping the gun.
Yep - and after listening to Rush the other day, I looked at the 3rd Amendment with new eyes and see that it bolsters the 2nd by making it clear that the military is not the same as a militia. We probably need to start using it in the equation vs. leaving the 2nd by its lonesome...
It’s not the ‘Bill of Needs’.
And to anyone who knows a nickel's worth of history, the above is not the normal state throughout all of history. Mankind's history is pretty much, if you ignore the technological progress of the last 200 years, a history of cruelty, butchery and subjugation, without end, performed by men in power against the powerless. The greatest proponents of fascism in our day, the Democrat Party, will end up being those men in power if we give up our guns. That is their end game, and has been - power without restraint.
If we give up our guns, we're taking a turn back toward man's traditional history, and away from peace and prosperity.
Did he use an EO to usurp the Constitution? No
Answer to Statists who ask why I need high-cap mags, “In order to take out the team you send to take my rifle, and still have enough to come and get YOU.”
There is no lack of historical examples of what statists do to an unarmed opposition. And there is absolutely no reason to believe that American statists are any different in their intent or desires than other statists before them. After all, they are they ones that reject American exceptionalism, aren't they?
Consider Roosevelt’s executive order to have the US military toss Japanese US citizens into a concentration camp. Sounds pretty unconstitutional to me.
Mini-14 in foreground, possible AR-15 third from the right.
When Odumbo give his “excutive order”, Congress needs to defund ANY efforts or attempts to take the guns from ANYONE. No re-writing of the Constitution and no going around the Constitution, it is and should remain the law of our country.
It is time for the REAL American people to stand up and take this country back from a tin-horn dictator wannabe.
Yes, and the political left has howled about that injustice ever since. The use of what the public perceives as "wartime powers" will be tough to justify, but I expect they'll try it anyway.
Again this was caught from above via media Helicopter....
What? You thought all those Fast and Furious guns went to Mexico? Some never made it, some have come back.
Nogales, AZ (NOT Nogales, Sonora)
Exactly. Nowhere in the Bill of Rights does it say these rights are protected based on a demonstrated need. Instead, it says these rights are protected. In fact if you read them they don't say what an individual may or may not do - they spell out what the government may not do.
So it is completely irrelevant whether I need my AR and 30 round magazines or not. What I absolutely need is the freedom to own them. With that freedom (and others in the BoR) we are free. Without that freedom we have tyranny. Not tyranny some day when the government does something they've promised never to do (until we were disarmed). But we will in fact have tyranny right here, right now, the moment we surrender the freedoms protected in the BoR.
We have 200+ years of patriots and good, decent Americans sacrificing, fighting, dying to protect our freedoms. Can we sit idly by and let those freedoms go based on the outright lies of the gun grabbers? Of course not. Fight now, your freedoms and liberties are being attacked.
Then there’s the mother of twins, who was hunted down in her own home, and was forced to empty her .38 revolver into the perp, before he walked out of the house and drove off.
What if there’d been more than one assailant?
She was out of ammo!
What prevents the US Military from being used against its people?
Was Waco justice? Is that the kind of “government” you want, 100% of the time?
The US Constitution is a statement in mastery of the understanding of checks-and-balances, of balancing competing powers to prevent tyranny.
The 2nd Amendment is loaded with meaning. We could live with security in a benevolent police-state, but the Founders knew there would be nothing to guarentee that benevolence.
Someone says, “You’re paranoid!” Say, “Hang signs in your neighborhood saying ‘Gun Free Neighborhood’. See what happens.”
The people without guns are dependent on the 2nd Amendment, too. Defence against tyranny is for all the marbles.
Since 1963, American citizens have woken up each morning and check the news daily to find out if their government had declared them CRIMINALS in their own homes because they exercise a right that they have had since the first pilgrims came here.
Citizens need effective weapons for the same reasons the nation needs nuclear weapons: The simple act of owning them prevents most of the agressive things that could happen if they didn’t own them.
Paul Harvey on Guns
Monday, November 06, 2000
Are you considering backing gun control laws? Do you think that because you may not own a gun, the rights guaranteed by the Second Amendment don’t matter?
In 1929 the Soviet Union established gun control. From 1929 to 1953, approximately 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
In 1911, Turkey established gun control. From 1915-1917, 1.5 million Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
Germany established gun control in 1938 and from 1939 to 1945, 13 million Jews, gypsies, homosexuals, the mentally ill, and others, who were unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
China established gun control in 1935. From 1948 to 1952, 20 million political dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
Guatemala established gun control in 1964. From 1964 to 1981, 100,000 Mayan Indians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
Uganda established gun control in 1970. From 1971 to 1979, 300,000 Christians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
Cambodia established gun control in 1956. From 1975 to 1977, one million “educated” people, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
That places total victims who lost their lives because of gun control at approximately 56 million in the last century. Since we should learn from the mistakes of history, the next time someone talks in favor of gun control, find out which group of citizens they wish to have exterminated.
It has now been 12 months since gun owners in Australia were forced to surrender 640,381 personal firearms to be destroyed, a program costing the government more than $500 million dollars. The results Australia-wide; Homicides are up 3.2%; Assaults are up 8%; Armed robberies are up 44%; In that country’s state of Victoria, homicides with firearms are up 300%.
Over the previous 25 years, figures show a steady decrease in armed robberies and Australian politicians are on the spot and at a loss to explain how no improvement in “safety” has been observed after such monumental effort and expense was successfully expended in “ridding society of guns.”
It’s time to state it plainly; Guns in the hands of honest citizens save lives and property and, yes, gun-control laws only affect the law-abiding citizens.
Take action before it’s too late, write or call your representatives.
I submit this question for consideration, “How many enemies,foreign or domestic, criminal sand/or tyrants may I shoot before I must reload and how rapidly can I shoot them?” I submit to you that there should be no limit other than that of the military pattern firearm technology that I now possess.
Obama’s good friend Bill Ayers advocated the extermination of 25 million Americans because they couldn't be reeducated.
There's 25 million reasons to have an assault weapon, and that's just a start.
When has Congress stood up to BHO?
In addition, no citizen should submit to registration of arms they currently own. Being forced to be on such a list is no different an infringement of one's constitutional rights than would be a requirement to register with the government because you belonged to a particular religion.
The gun grabbers are at their peak of self-righteous, using armor piercing juvenile mockery against their statistics armed gun owner fellow Dems.
But...my favorite hypothetical question thread was...
Wouldn't banning smoking save more lives than banning guns?
Even though more people die every year from 2nd hand smoke (49,000) than die from all gun deaths including suicide. And 400,000 die from direct smoking. Only 30,000 die from guns and most of those are from killing themselves which is basically what smokers do.
Only 11,500 murders by guns a year but 49,000 people dead from second hand smoke. 49,000 innocent people killed by smoking each year.
Wouldn't we be better focusing on banning smoking than guns? So ban smoking first and then lets work on guns.
Here's what I find so intriguing about reading their comments.
The most obvious is their unwillingness to acknowledge the very unique status gun ownership has protected by the Constitution.
But the really uncomfortable part of the question has to do with a huge hypocritical Dem stance between smoking and guns.
If Dems are really interested in saving lives...ban smoking. But they can't because of the tax revenue. The truth is, Dems need more smokers. They are comfortable with the level of smoking deaths as long as there is substantial tax revenue from it.
Getting kids hooked on smoking creates another lifelong host for the government tax parasite.
But most of the Dems want to compare cars and guns, and which has a greater "need" in society, rather than questioning the wisdom of "Gun-Free Zones", and funding health care with tobacco tax revenue...need more smokers...and now they want to tax bullets...
(PS - I have no idea of the validity of the stats provided, and no one seemed to question them on the thread. For me...they weren't the point.)
I have this car that goes 130MPH. It is so cool!
However, it is illegal to go 130 MPH. But I can do it if I need to...
Are you following this?
That is basically the same argument....
No one needs a car that goes that fast-"You should have that car taken away from you, or only drive it on a track where you can be monitored and licensed and make sure you don't hurt anyone"....
But I LIKE my car that goes really fast, and there are no laws against owning one-yet.
"Yes but you don't really NEED it to get from point A to point B"..
"Why do YOU care what I like or don't like?? I LIKE my darn fast car... you shouldn't be able to tell ME what to drive....."
And so on and so on.....
Good analogy, yes??
In 2004 when the hurricanes went through florida the only place you saw cops was at the major gathering points. NOT patrolling neighborhoods.
The cooperative media campaign against George Zimmerman is a real good reason for “needing” an assault weapon.....
Not quite. You only can got 130 MPH (or faster) if you are a race car driver and you are on a race track participating in a car race.
Sorry but you have to find a different example
Not quite. You only can got 130 MPH (or faster) if you are a race car driver and you are on a race track participating in a car race.
Sorry but you have to find a different example
I usually have great admiration for King, but on this issue I have nothing but utter contempt for him. First of all, the last I recall the first 10 Amendments to the Constitution are called the "Bill of RIGHTS" not the "Bill of Needs." I feel pretty confident about that, having graduated from law school and having passed 4 bar exams...but I could be wrong. Maybe Rep. King can point out where I missed something. King has clearly forgotten that he is in Washington to represent his constituents as a public SERVANT, not to lord it over all of us as one of our masters who determines what he believes our needs may be.
By the way, having a requirement to be licensed to own a handgun removes owning it from being a right, and changes it to a privilege. Again, my memory may be faulty, but I don't remember hearing about any "Bill of Privileges" while in law school or since.
Taking a slight detour (which King, based on his remarks, probably would like to take), there are many proposals for "reasonable" regulation of firearms, including a national database. I'm in favor of that - right after we produce a national database of all prayer books across the country...after all, the 1st Amendment needs to be taken care of before the 2nd. YES, I'm being sarcastic.
I had this conversation with someone about a week ago. What King and others like him either don't know due to ignorance, or wilfully ignore (I suspect the latter among any educated person) because they can't face the truth, is that the Founders didn't propose and ratify the 2nd Amendment so that Elmer Fudd could shoot Bambi in the 21st century with a Brown Bess musket or its equivalent (although I have no problems with that, even though black powder guns are not my thing). Let's look a bit at the times and the men involved:
The vast majority of those who voted to ratify the 2nd Amendment, both in Congress and the state legislatures, had served in some capacity in the Revolutionary War (it had, after all, ended only 10 years earlier). Many of the leaders had prices on their heads, and they had all lost family and/or friends in the struggle. That struggle was nothing less than an insurrection against the then-most powerful empire in the world, a revolt against a tyranny imposed on the colonists by what was considered by most to be the legitimate government. We lost about 25,000 dead due to combat and related disease during the war, roughly 1% of the population - equivalent to about 3,100,000 dead today, in 6 years of combat operations. That is about 55 Vietnams. In other words, the price was very high. Then these revolutionaries went about creating a government that would embody the ideals of the Revolution. That necessarily meant that there would be a weak central government, one incapable of imposing tyranny like the British did. Well, that experiment (the Articles of Confederation) failed because it was too decentralized and the states had a perpetual series of trade wars with each other. OK, back to the drawing board. In 1787 they created the Constitution. They purposely gave the government limited powers, and then split those powers between 3 branches of government that they presumed would jealously guard their power from each other. A good start, but still several states refused to ratify it unless there were further safeguards against government power...which is where the Bill of Rights comes into the equation. These rights were deemed to be so critical to the existence of a free society that they were specifically carved out as being beyond government power (or within certain very strict parameters, like the takings clause of the 5th Amendment). The 2nd was modeled on the Swiss militia system, wherein each male of appropriate age (generally between about 18 and 45) was part of the militia. Note that in Switzerland to this day hundreds of thousands of men in the militia have their FULL AUTO rifles at home. The 2nd Amendment was deemed to be the final backstop to prevent tyranny - and Madison's essay in The Federalist Papers #46 is proof of that. Here is the operative paragraph:
The only refuge left for those who prophesy the downfall of the State governments is the visionary supposition that the federal government may previously accumulate a military force for the projects of ambition. The reasonings contained in these papers must have been employed to little purpose indeed, if it could be necessary now to disprove the reality of this danger. That the people and the States should, for a sufficient period of time, elect an uninterupted succession of men ready to betray both; that the traitors should, throughout this period, uniformly and systematically pursue some fixed plan for the extension of the military establishment; that the governments and the people of the States should silently and patiently behold the gathering storm, and continue to supply the materials, until it should be prepared to burst on their own heads, must appear to every one more like the incoherent dreams of a delirious jealousy, or the misjudged exaggerations of a counterfeit zeal, than like the sober apprehensions of genuine patriotism. Extravagant as the supposition is, let it however be made. Let a regular army, fully equal to the resources of the country, be formed; and let it be entirely at the devotion of the federal government; still it would not be going too far to say, that the State governments, with the people on their side, would be able to repel the danger. The highest number to which, according to the best computation, a standing army can be carried in any country, does not exceed one hundredth part of the whole number of souls; or one twenty-fifth part of the number able to bear arms. This proportion would not yield, in the United States, an army of more than twenty-five or thirty thousand men. To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties, and united and conducted by governments possessing their affections and confidence. It may well be doubted, whether a militia thus circumstanced could ever be conquered by such a proportion of regular troops. Those who are best acquainted with the last successful resistance of this country against the British arms, will be most inclined to deny the possibility of it. Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of. Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms. And it is not certain, that with this aid alone they would not be able to shake off their yokes. But were the people to possess the additional advantages of local governments chosen by themselves, who could collect the national will and direct the national force, and of officers appointed out of the militia, by these governments, and attached both to them and to the militia, it may be affirmed with the greatest assurance, that the throne of every tyranny in Europe would be speedily overturned in spite of the legions which surround it. Let us not insult the free and gallant citizens of America with the suspicion, that they would be less able to defend the rights of which they would be in actual possession, than the debased subjects of arbitrary power would be to rescue theirs from the hands of their oppressors. Let us rather no longer insult them with the supposition that they can ever reduce themselves to the necessity of making the experiment, by a blind and tame submission to the long train of insidious measures which must precede and produce it.
Additionally, what most people don't know, mainly because they've never actually read the document, is that the Declaration of Independence is the manifesto for revolution - and these men, who had lost loved ones, lost fortunes and blood, knew the nature of government well. They knew that future generations of leaders might not share their ideals, so they had the wisdom to preserve in the law the instruments of revolution among the population - first, as a deterrent to abuses of power and second, as a means to resist and overthrow tyranny.
As to the argument that the 2nd only protects muskets, that is easily disposed of: first of all, many of the colonists had rifles (which, by the way, were technologically SUPERIOR to the muskets carried by the British Army - so much for the proposition that the Founders never intended for the people to possess weapons as advanced as the armed forces use), and lived in a time of rapid technological change. There was even an automatic weapon, the Puckle Gun, designed in 1718, and one later developed that the Continental Congress knew about:
"In 1777, Philadelphia gunsmith Joseph Belton offered the Continental Congress a "new improved gun", which was capable of firing up to twenty shots in five seconds, automatically, and was capable of being loaded by a cartridge. Congress requested that Belton modify 100 flintlock muskets to fire eight shots in this manner, but rescinded the order when Belton's price proved too high." (See the Wikipedia article on the "Machine Gun").
In addition to the knowledge of automatic weapons, there is the common sense of knowing that material items change with technological progress, and that the law must be flexible enough to accomodate that progress. Just as the 1st Amendment protects the Internet from government censorship, and the 4th against wiretaps of cellphone communications (both in theory, of course), so does the 2nd protect our right to modern weapons. It can be no other way - how could the nation's militia possibly fight off a modern invader or tyrant with 18th Century weapons? When the gun-grabbers want to limit the 1st Amendment just as they propose to limit the 2nd, maybe then we can have a serious conversation (and, btw, I'm in favor of limiting NEITHER).
Rep. King needs to take his head out of his statist arse, read the Declaration of Independence, Constitution and the Federalist Papers, and then reassess his views. Either that, or resign.
You understand I hope that Congress consist of the House of Representatives, and the Senate, and since we only the majority in the House, there is not much the republicans can do. Next time there is an election for the House and or the Senate, make sure our party wins.
Good Point. . . . .
I heard today that 11 Kids a day are killed from driving and texting. . . . .