Skip to comments.Average Americans don't need assault weapons
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...
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.”
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?”
But my counter-point to my buddy is that someday we will need to encounter at least some part of our own military head-to-head... and having a few matching personal arms would be very important at that time.
I’m of two minds where it comes to explosives, personally. There are a LOT of people I wouldn’t trust to have tanks, mines, bombs, etc. But I haven’t reasoned out yet whether it makes sense to restrict them, constitutionally.
As far as firearms, I believe that ownership and safe use should be free - but unsafe use (including criminal use) should carry restriction. If I were to have an automatic weapon, and don’t put any other person in danger when I use it (excluding self defense use), then it should be legal, IMO. (And FUN!)
ESAD, Roland Martin. And everyone else who thinks like you.
Cite a source to the AR jamming please.
It's The Bill of RIGHTS, not the bill of needs.
Guess I shoulda used my sarcasm tag ;)
“Cite a source to the AR jamming please.”
Me. One year of Vietnam service using the M-16 which is just the full-automatic version of the AR. That ought to count for something.
Maybe the the jamming problems are fixed now, I can’t say. On the other hand, you could drag an AK through mud and cow dung, bake it in the oven, and chances are it’ll still fire. /s
“...And its great that I can still buy one, when I do think it will be necessary...”
Certainly it is your personal choice. But remember, by the time you think it’s necessary, it may be too late. When they’re kicking in your front door, it’s not the time to be reaching for the yellow pages.
Bingo. Odd how few notice this.
The scenario is in-home defense. If a stranger is coming up the stairs at oh-dark-thirty, all questions are answered about why he’s there and what should be done.
I’ve decided on an AR15 SBR.
Why wouldn’t I want more rounds in-mag than I’d need? Running out in a firefight is a Bad Thing(TM).
Why wouldn’t I want powerful rounds? The goal is assured incapacitation, not annoyance.
Why wouldn’t I want a compact platform? Not a lot of room to move indoors; the longer the harder & slower.
Why wouldn’t I want a suppressor? Can’t put muffs on everyone before proceeding.
Why wouldn’t I want fragmenting rounds? Punching thru something is vital; punching thru the next layer of sheetrock must be minimized.
Why wouldn’t I want rapid fire? Think about what the target is trying to do.
I realize “AK47” is a generic, albeit improper, term.
His declaration that I don’t need one comes with no explanation why, nor even with a suggestion that something less capable would be enough, nor even a hint of his consideration of the scenarios involved.
And that’s what’s wonderful about a free country: the whims of the ignorant do not obviate the rights of the informed.
The Constitution’s “Letters of Marque and Reprisal” clause presumes the private possession of battleships and cannons.
Fareed Zakaria? WTF would you know about what is or isn’t American, you piece of camel dung!
Sorry, I think I misunderstood your request. I got the info about the jamming during the crime from one of the news reports. I thought you were asking about the jamming history of the weapon itself.
Of course none of this is going to make one of those jam-o-matic drum contraptions work...and they don't magically work because they are plugged into AKs either.
I’m liking your logic so far...what caliber have you chosen for this?
For now, just until they get THIS piece bitten off the Second Amendment. Next time they will take bites off your Glock!
In point of fact, AK-47s and AR-15s are too large and too expensive for criminal use and maniacs are never deterred by laws anyway.
Further, the Second Amendment is all about MILITARY style weaponry, NOT hunting. Fully automatic weapons are currently HIGHLY regulated and unavailable to the average user.
These jackasses are so transparent. Do anything you can to get one type of weapon out of citizen hands, then proceed to the NEXT subject. And on, and on, and on, until you create a society of helpless unarmed sheep as, for instance, in England and Norway.
Its ESSENTIAL to fight this battle in the Congress, the Courts and anywhere else we need to. Scalia’s comments are indicative of the fact that even our friends can be swayed by maniac who kill with guns, and maniacs in the news media.
Chris (Are you a flake?) Wallace's interview and Scalia’s chilling response indicates that all the logic initially thrown out after the Colorado massacre by Lott and others on the realities of gun control’s failures, just evaporated in the wake of Michael Bloomberg’s comments and those who
think emote like him.
Heavy cannelured (crimped) 5.56 rounds from an 11.5” barrel. Seems it has lowest wall penetration while retaining the still-effective incapacitation rate prior to hitting that wall; fragments upon first penetration (sheetrock or perp), minimal effect upon hitting second layer of sheetrock. Best option short of reinforcing/armoring key walls.
Yeah, 5.56 doesn’t have a good reputation, but given the scenario there’s an important tradeoff between doing the job and not doing it “too well”.
To the point of the thread: given a viable application and cold analysis of the problem, average Americans DO need AWs.
The FAL is a nice rifle reliable & real hard hitting. 8*)
Glad I bought one when I did, couldn’t afford one now.
“Certainly it is your personal choice. But remember, by the time you think its necessary, it may be too late. When theyre kicking in your front door, its not the time to be reaching for the yellow pages.”
I know what you’re saying...I’m just making the point regarding that it isn’t just gun-owning whackos (in the eyes of the media) that benefit from a gun-owning society.
Hey Roland you moron, If AR’s and AK’s are “instruments of war” as the left claims, then no police officer or any SWAT team in America should have any AR’s, as the Constitution forbids standing armies within the United States.
Not only do we need "Assault Weapons" an equally rational analysis of the constitution shows that it was designed to protect "the people" as being a bulwark to tyranny. We can't fight tyranny unless we have the same tools as those that want to subjugate us.
There is no difference between self defense and national defense. Self defense is your fair 1/300,000,000th part of national defense.
Be Ever Vigilant!!
To Mr. Martin,
I’ll give up mine when the Government gives up all of theirs including all LE, military, etc.
Until they give up theirs, don’t dare demand I give up mine.