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.
Exactly
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.
LLS
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 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? “
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
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.