Why are we able to own ASSAULT RIFLES
- Thread starter mister308
- Start date
Grizzly Guy
Regular
- Location
- This Side Of Hatfield
It's only the Police and Military that have assault rifles in this country,ask Him YYYYYYYYYYYYYYY,that is.
First, I disagree with the term assault rifle. By definition a semi-auto firearm is not an assault rifle. Also, unless you are using it to assault someone it’s a misleading label put on by the anti’s.
And, right when I see Blaxsun back… Hey budy, how's it going?
- Why do you need an assault rifle? In turn, why do you need to take my assault rifle? Have I personally demonstrated that a maybe a threat to public safety?
- So if you don't need an assault rifle, and there are similar rifles capable of firing the exact same cartridge, why would it be an issue to ban them? If you are offering me to trade in my “assault rifle” for a similar semi-auto what is the difference. A gun is a gun is a gun. They can all be used criminally against others.
- Why should you be able to own a gun that is capable of firing fully automatic when altered? There is no reason for someone like you to own one. This can very well be said for a Ruger 10/22. Any gun can be capable of full-auto when altered. Furthermore, AR15’s are not necessarily that easy to alter, to do it properly you would need a machine shop and the appropriate info and skills. There are exceptions here, but it is unlikely you own one of the exceptions, and I wouldn’t consider a malfunctioning firearm safe or sensible.
- So if you have other guns, why do you NEED an assault rifle. Personally, this is the aspect of the hobby that interests me the most. I hunt once a year, I go to the range and target shoot as often as I can. I feel it is no different than taking up boxing or karate. A baseball bat is easily a deadly weapon.
- Thats a bull#### argument, cars are designed to get from point A to point B, not to kill. There are plenty of items that were designed for purposes that they are no longer used for. I didn’t buy it for that purpose nor do I intend to use it for that purpose. Why do you feel it necessary to paint me with that brush?
- You can take a Ferrari to a race track and use its full potential...This one is a good one. Sure, you can take your Ferrari to a track but something tells me I can find plenty of reports where people where using them to do dangerous things on public roads. Find many licensed gun owners firing there restricted rifles out in public do we? Most of use would never consider this in the slightest, but those race car drivers... I see one just about everyday.
- Why does the military use this style of firearm then? Because they are extremely capable of killing. The military is probably one of the largest users of arms, they are on the fore front of the technology. Similar as to how most of the advancements found in cars nowadays come from F1, most of the advancements in firearms come from the military. Subsequently people notice these advancements and they naturally want them on their own guns. Just because the military uses it I don’t have to pretend the advancements of the past 60 years don’t exist.
- Slugs have a legitimate purpose in hunting. Once again, a gun is a gun is a gun. Answer me this, with specifics, what features don’t make an AR10 suitable for hunting? Is it too ergonomic? Does it not have enough wood? What differs it from any other semi-auto .308? It doesn’t resemble a bolt auction close enough?
- YOU OWN A F**CKING ASSAULT RIFLE, CAPABLE OF BEING ALTERED TO SHOOT FULLY AUTO. IF THAT FALLS INTO THE WRONG HANDS IT WOULD BE DEVASTATING. WHAT IF YOU SUDDENLY BECAME DEPRESSED ONE DAY, ASSAULT RIFLES MAKE IT EASY TO MASSACRE LARGE AMOUNTS OF PEOPLE I think you covered this last one. Quite simply it is impossible to predict something like this but we do know it doesn’t happen very often and the strictest laws are going to do very little to stop it. Case in point the 2011 Norway Attacks. As a responsible firearms owner I take precautions to ensure that it does not happen, not because the law says so, because I feel it is the right thing to do.
And, right when I see Blaxsun back… Hey budy, how's it going?
I personally don't feel the need to justify what I own to anyone, but why do I own AR's, 858's and the rest, because I can and because I refuse to rely on someone else to protect me and mine. I don't dislike the police so please don't misconstrue the following statement but I just don't trust that when I need a police officer to be there that they will be. I take my and my families safety very seriously, I was downtown when the Vancouver hockey riot happened, to me this was a defining moment. before hand I had always owned firearms for sport and not really with self defence in mind, but if a hoarde of morons can tear a city apart in one night over losing a hockey game, what will happen if the next "big" earthquake that's predicted to hit here happens? What will those same "normal" people resort to when civil services and rule of law are reduced to after thought's? Hurricane Katrina got my attention for sure, but the Vancouver riot grabbed me by the nose and forced me to act with self preservation in mind. From that day forth I decided I would do what was necessary to protect me and my family and I wouldn't let my conscience bother myself when it came to the question of why I purchased a particular firearm platform. Now I'm sure this arguement doesn't help our collective cause against the anti's but I have to admit, I have and will continue buy particular firearms with a dual purpose motivation of having to use them against my fellow citizen IF THE NEED EVER AROSE and I had to take it to that extreme, and using them for sport. I believe I have that right and could not care less what rule of law says what, and written by whomever, mother nature trumps all laws IMHO, and mama say's don't take no #### from nobody son. As I said these firearms have a dual purpose as I enjoy spending time at my range using them and becoming proficeint in their operation, I enjoy firearms, I enjoy the sport, the people, the camraderie and I don't feel the need to justify that to friend or foe (see Lieberal). My 2c
the term assault was used for trapdoors and such it's just a term means nothing but it's designed to kill fast what we call assault rifles now is based on its platform in ten years the assault rifle will be something completely different looking i just hope we have them too........
Hey I think it would be best if you would drop the argument. Make it a point that you are a responsible gun owner and ambassador.
Thing with what you are doing is trying to convince someone that has several valid reasons from their perspectives. He will be as determined to find arguments as you are, and in his mind he's right. And from his perspective, he really is right. From your perspective, you are also right.
Just don't give him any more reasons to hate on sporting rifles.
Just call your friend a fukctard. That right there means you won the argument. 
You will never convince a hard core anti. Dont ever bother arguing with a anti. They will drag you down with their level of stupidity and beat you with experience.
You will never convince a hard core anti. Dont ever bother arguing with a anti. They will drag you down with their level of stupidity and beat you with experience.
Last edited:
Your very first priority should be not to cave to the terminology of the very ignorant anti-gun crowd. While something like an M4 and AR-15 may look cosmetically similar they are completely different firearms. Many of the parts that give them distinct differences are not interchangable. In many cases they don't even fire the same bullet (a military 5.56 is not the same as a civilian .223). Refuse to cater to their ignorance by incorrectly identifying the firearms. You might as well refer to the AR-15 as a canon because that is just as accurate a description as assault rifle.
Here are pictures of 3 different objects. One is an M4, one is an AR-15, and one is a bb gun. Visually they all appear identical, and most anti's couldn't tell you which is which.
Here are pictures of 3 different objects. One is an M4, one is an AR-15, and one is a bb gun. Visually they all appear identical, and most anti's couldn't tell you which is which.
I thought about this and Slaymoar has a pretty good point here. I think it is pretty clear that your friend has picked up some interesting “facts” that may not be entirely correct. Presenting him with information that you believe are facts doesn’t necessarily help your argument as you can easily view each other as being misinformed and/or bias. Fundamentally, you can provide your friend with a lot of information that supports your view but if he is not open to it, which appears to be the case, you will do little to change his mind. I find that I can often get someone to agree with the points I make but it may not necessarily change their view. In these cases I provide them with some hard facts and then encourage them to be open minded and research it on their own. I tell them that I once felt the same way but after doing the research, and with a fundamental belief in liberty, I can no longer. After this they generally have very few arguments, as either they did some research and see my point or they didn’t and can no longer argue with an uneducated point of view. If it does come down to all of this and all other arguments have been whittled away they may finally come back with “I just don’t like them” and well that is a pretty easy argument to agree on. Laws can never and should never be based on personal feelings of like and dislike.
I don’t need to argue with them. Give them a few good points and send them off on their own.
