Help me understand why people need assault rifles to protect themselves

originally posted by: Thecakeisalie
For the sake of this thread, I’m going to ignore all the previous arguments for or against gun control, that poor dead horse has been flogged enough-You are well within your rights to bear arms and you will continue to enjoy that right unless there are radical changes in the constitution.

But I’m not here to talk about the gun control debate, I’m here to talk about the guns themselves.

What I can't fathom is how some folk feel the need to arm themselves with what could be considered as military grade weapons-weapons that would serve a purpose on the battlefield but would have little to no purpose in the family home. I've lost count of the times I’ve seen people posing with AR-15's, MP-5's, or other such weapons, claiming that said weapons will protect their family against those that seek to hurt them.

And that's sound reasoning to a point-one must protect ones family. But why do people arm themselves with such such weapons? Who are they expecting-Guerillas, spec ops, Spetsnaz? Your average home invader won't be adorned with kevlar and laser sighted weapons, more than likely the next burglar is just desperate for a fix and wants to lift your gear to pay for his habit, so why not use a sidearm with FMJ rounds to incapacitate them?

I need help in understanding the need for some to arm themselves to the teeth. A well placed shot from a pistol has the same stopping power as a spray and pray from an automatic weapon, but without the death.

So please enlighten me, I want to know the logic behind the purchase of these weapons.

1.People DON"T need assault weapons for self defense.

2. An AR-15 is NOT an assault weapon

3. The MP5 is an assault weapon.....The MP5-SFA2 is NOT an assault weapon & that's the one you can buy.

4. An assault weapon has the capability to fire on full auto or 2-3 shot burst.

5 A civilian owned SEMI-AUTO rifle fires one bullet with each pull of the trigger.

6. AR-15's are NOT military grade weapons

If people would learn the difference between "Assault weapons" & "semi-auto rifles" then half the battle would be won on firearm ignorance.

Could I defend my home with a FULL AUTO assault rifle? Yes. Do I need one...no.

To own a FULL AUTO assault rifle you have to go through a ton of paperwork, background checks, pay an expensive tax and then buy the firearm which is a few thousand dollars. Full auto weapons can't be imported into the USA since the 1968 gun control act so basically the ones that are here are all that's going to be here forever. They are very expensive to own and hard to get.

NO shooting I know of has ever been committed with a full auto rifle since back before the GCA of 1968. Back then you had the gangsters shooting up people with full auto fireams but not now.

Sheesh...tough crowd.

From what I've read there is no clear answer, and it probably should be left at that. Now if you'll excuse me this 'troll' needs to make an appearance on star trek forum claiming Kirk is superior to Picard. That's what trolls do...right?

a reply to: Thecakeisalie

Picard is a much better captain than Kirk.

We the American people do not have access to assault rifles unless jump through the hoops that a previous member pointed out.

As far as gun ownership and self defense, there are many criminals with guns and I do not want a criminal to have that kind of advantage over me. My 9mm HPs will drop an intruder. High power rifles serve a purpose, but for self defense in a home invasion I'm grabbing a pistol or shotgun.

Why does the SWAT team need high power REAL assault rifles when they do a home invasion on a non-violent person practicing horticulture?

a reply to: Thecakeisalie
You mention the MP-5, which is not an "assault rifle", it is a "sub machine gun" and is designed for close quarters soft targets, house fighting, urban fighting, Etc.
Obviously if you do not want to penetrate walls, a "SMG" is an excellent safe choice.
As for an "assault rifle" we are for the greater part not allowed them in the US....unless you are rich...(figure that, the rich have more freedoms as they can afford them).
Getting a real "assault weapon" requires all sorts of hoops and a tax stamp, and a weapon not made after...1986 I believe, these guns are not cheap.

As for the standard AR-15 this is no "assault rifle", sure it may resemble one but ultimately it is not.
You can dress a man in lipstick and a dress but he will never be a woman, well not without some serious cutting.

Now for the last idea, the people need their armament because sometimes bad things just happen.
There have been many "revolutions" all over the world, one should be able to defend one's family, country and home in such cases.
You never know when "insurgents" will cross your border and come for you.

You might have read that recently a kid with a rifle and a shotgun just took over a town and killed some police, I bet the residents there never in a million years would have thought that could happen in their town.
Luckily for them, it seems the gunman has a defined target and clear rules of engagement, several pictures of him and no dead civilians.
But if this shooter was opening up with a weapon that had killed 3 armed officers, wouldn't you want to have better weaponry than the officers had if the shooter was coming for your family?

originally posted by: g146541

Obviously if you do not want to penetrate walls, a "SMG" is an excellent safe choice.

Obviously.

The 55 grain HP .223 has less penetration than any of the other ammunition tested. Based on the results of this testing, there appears to be no basis for concern regarding the over penetration of the .223 [HP] round. In fact, it seems even safer in this regard than .40 S&W handgun ammunition.

Penetration testing

The whole indoor under-penetrating pistol rounds thing is one of those tired gun myths that just won't die.

ETA: Kirk > Picard. Picard never macked on the ladies like Kirk and didn't get into half the fist-fights Kirk did. Kirk is like Jason Statham in space.

a reply to: mwood

There have been a few shootings with fully automatic weapons since the GCA 1968. However, there have been only 2 shootings with legally owned and registered fully automatic weapons, one by a former police officer, and one by a current police officer. I think the years are 1988 and 1992, I can't remember specifically. The funny thing about those is that they are after the FOPA 1986. Other than that, your post is spot-f'ing-on.

What it amounts to is that from a criminal perspective, people who own NFA Title II weapons (MG, SBR, SBS, AOW, DD), are some of the least likely people in the country to commit a crime of any sort intentionally, let alone a violent crime with a firearm.



Also, I'd like to add that the media deliberately tries to confuse people by using the term "assault weapon" which was actually made up in the late 80s and didn't really become a political buzzword until the early 1990s. Look up political literature centering on firearms before that time and you can't find that term anywhere. Basically, it's a political word to describe a firearm that they think they can convince a lay person is dangerous and should be feared. Since the federal AWB (Assault weapon ban) of 1994 was such a failure at impacting firearm related crime and was allowed to sunset, only 7 states actually maintain the word "assault weapon" in their legal lexicon. For the rest of the states, the word has zero meaning.

An Assault Rifle is a machine gun, that is to say it can fire more than one cartridge per single depression of the trigger. One cannot legally own a machine gun in the US if it was made after 1986. Out of all of the firearm owners in the US, very very few have an assault rifle. I had an opportunity to go down that road a year or so ago. I had the money and the will, but slept on the decision and decided it would just be a novelty, and only temporarily fun for what would be the equivalent of buying a used car with cash and having to wait 6 months to get cleared by the FBI/ATF.

a reply to: Thecakeisalie

I am glad you asked that.

An AR-15 has multiple uses. Sure it really scary looking. So just the sight of it will make criminals melt, and then run away. It's black. It's mean. And it can shoot and keep shooting, every time I pull the trigger. 30 times if I chose. And the best thing of all? I can buy as many of them as I want. I can have one in each hand.

But, now you want to know what else it can do.

Well my friend. Behold.


With this small adapter, I can shoot golf balls about 400 yards.
I only know of a few golfers who can do that with a club, and very few of them can do it on demand, center of the fairway.

A few blanks, a few golf balls, and you have a good time on your hands.

Now you know, and you will never ever have to ask such a silly question.

you do not understand the framer's intent. they made clear that the right to bear arms was not one thing. it was not just sport. not just hunting and not just self defense. It was all of those things plus a couple of others; first it gave the U.S. a ready supply of well practiced riflemen that could be enrolled in regular militias as needed. all able bodied men were considered members of this unenrolled militia. several months after the ratification of the bill of rights the militia act formalized the idea of both enrolled and unenrolled militias. but even more; the framers (not just one outlier nearly to a man, considered it vital that the citizens have weapons equal to any that an infantry man had in order as a last resort to put down the government should it lapse into dictatorship. and the knowledge that the citizenry were armed and would resist was considered a powerful deterent against politicians so inclined.

so the answer to your question for the most part is because the government does not want us to and seems to be going in the direction of turning on it's citizens more and more but the founders did. furthermore AR platform weapons are a blast to own and shoot. I've watched mine carefully and it has never leapt up and killed anyone of it's own accord nor has any of its magazines. imagine that.

originally posted by: Thecakeisalie
For the sake of this thread, I’m going to ignore all the previous arguments for or against gun control, that poor dead horse has been flogged enough-You are well within your rights to bear arms and you will continue to enjoy that right unless there are radical changes in the constitution.

But I’m not here to talk about the gun control debate, I’m here to talk about the guns themselves.

What I can't fathom is how some folk feel the need to arm themselves with what could be considered as military grade weapons-weapons that would serve a purpose on the battlefield but would have little to no purpose in the family home. I've lost count of the times I’ve seen people posing with AR-15's, MP-5's, or other such weapons, claiming that said weapons will protect their family against those that seek to hurt them.

And that's sound reasoning to a point-one must protect ones family. But why do people arm themselves with such such weapons? Who are they expecting-Guerillas, spec ops, Spetsnaz? Your average home invader won't be adorned with kevlar and laser sighted weapons, more than likely the next burglar is just desperate for a fix and wants to lift your gear to pay for his habit, so why not use a sidearm with FMJ rounds to incapacitate them?

I need help in understanding the need for some to arm themselves to the teeth. A well placed shot from a pistol has the same stopping power as a spray and pray from an automatic weapon, but without the death.

So please enlighten me, I want to know the logic behind the purchase of these weapons.

a reply to: stormbringer1701

Well put. It's almost a duty as a US citizen to provide a credible threat of force against the government. The most conspicuous way of doing that is exercising the 2nd amendment right to keep and bear arms, being well educated in the practical application of force, and being united with your fellow citizens, whether you disagree with them or not. It's never been Reps vs Dems, it has always been people vs govt.

the framers even saw bearing arms as a mental physical and moral exercise. this is recorded in some of the framer's letters concerning bearing arms.

see the thing is... anyone who says the framers thoughts are not available to us are wrong the framers left hundreds or records that contained their thoughts. both in the constitutional convention and debates and in their own state's debates and also letters to various correspondents.

this record is why it is particularly appalling that Heller was decided 5/4 along ideological lines when the courts job is to determine the framers intent when interpreting the constitution. that 4 of the justices did not know what the framers plainly recorded for posterity on the subject to the extent they dissented on the issue of whether bearing arms was intended to be an individual right. that is just unbelievable.

a reply to: superluminal11
Losing food, water and electricity?
My Goddess man!
Have you seen what some people do when they want to be the first to get a Christmas present?
That alone is a reason to not be on the defenseless side.

Why don't people who want to argue against firearms, learn about firearms. That would seem to be the first step to take.

originally posted by: roadgravel
Why don't people who want to argue against firearms, learn about firearms. That would seem to be the first step to take.

But then they wouldnt have anything to argue about.

Knowledge defeats ignorance and ignorance is all they have.

james madison ( he only wrote the thing, what does he know?)

The highest number to which a standing army can be carried in any country does not exceed one hundredth part of the souls, or one twenty-fifth part of the number able to bear arms. This portion 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 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. Besides the advantage of being armed, it forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of. The governments of Europe are afraid to trust the people with arms. If they did, the people would surely shake off the yoke of tyranny, as America did. 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.

"What, Sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty.... Whenever Governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise an army upon their ruins." (Rep. Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts, spoken during floor debate over the Second Amendment [ I Annals of Congress at 750 [August 17, 1789]])

Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom of Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any bands of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States" (Noah Webster in `An Examination into the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution', 1787, a pamphlet aimed at swaying Pennsylvania toward ratification, in Paul Ford, ed., Pamphlets on the Constitution of the United States, at 56(New York, 1888))

Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American... The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state government, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people" (Tench Coxe, Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788)

and what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned from time to time that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms....The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants" (Thomas Jefferson in a letter to William S. Smith in 1787. Taken from Jefferson, On Democracy 20, S. Padover ed., 1939)

there are countless other examples but i do not intend to post a books worth of cites. the point is the framers intent is clear. there is no ambiguity and the SCOTUS and legislators should know better than to pretend the framer's intent was ambiguous. all of these documents are authenticated. many museums and archives contain them all.

a reply to: thisguyrighthere
Actually I was comparing a pistol type round to a "real assault waapon" M-60 or M-249 one being a 308 and the other a 5.56, 5.56 is NOT .223. Big difference there.
But also the fact that frangible ammunition can be used in pistol calibers, frangibles can be gotten now for .223 but are a fairly newcomer to the scene.
But this mix up is my fault for not going in depth and naming specific weapon models and ammo types.
I understand the OP is just trolling and I just wanted to put out some clear clean quick info.
BTW, Picard would have ruined Kirk!
+1 to you!

The AR15 is a light weight civilian rifle made for wet or very cold weather.

The Armalite AR15 was sold to civilians for about 5 years before colt bought the rights and turned it into the M16.

Armalites can be spotted by the brown stocks.
imagizer.imageshack.us...

I have worked in many rural areas at gold mining operations where it was more likely that criminals coming on the property would be armed with rifles. Many mines i worked the sheriffs officers were at least a hour away.
i am a vietman vet and was trained on the M16 so i know how to shoot the AR15 very well.
I had a AR15 so the criminals would KNOW they were outgunned. I also had a 120 round drum mag that made the gun look impressive.
You have to be able to defend yourself in seconds and cops a hour away are no help.
i had the AR15 so i would NOT have to shoot someone.

a reply to: Thecakeisalie

For the same reason when the government finally comes to take them and disarm you that they don't send one man.

Because nothing says Molon Labe like a semi automatic gas fed carbine with a 150 drum mag and a guy like me behind the trigger

But in all seriousness I have an "assault rifle" as you put it for defence against tyranny and oppression. If an army or police force or andbody tries to mess with me or my family unlawfully I want to be able to pack the same punch they do.
In a home defence situation I have my 870 With some 00 Buck for my everyday carry weapon i use my Springfield XDM .40 the JIC gun and my DPMS AR-15 for stopping tyranny and police oppression in its tracks. Plus my pistol and shotgun become less leathal the farther out im shooting. So my AR also comes into play as my distance weapon out to about 400 yards or so. My 30-06 or my 6mm Ruger are my really long distance guns 400+ yards.

But none of those weapons i described are "assault weapons" as you put it. But to answer your question tyranny is the reason one would need a semi auto long rifle.

Meh, True assault rifles (machine guns) spew precious lead everywhere. A three shot weapon (like MP5) is a fantastic close quarters weapon.

I have always had a philosophy regarding guns and most importantly when I will use one.

Home invasion: This will most likely come down to a 45acp in tight quarters. I will drop the clip into them.
Home defense long distance: This will be defending the homestead from invaders at a greater distance in a SHTF scenario. In this instance I would prefer a 223 or similar as I am going for head shots.
Home defense close quarters: perfect for the MP5. Won't send lead to far down range and a three shot pull is great for being in a hurry.

Shotguns? Well those are just for hunting.

Americans do not need automatic weapons capable of spewing hundreds of rounds down range, per minute. However the weapons above should all be okay to own.

Your also forgetting shooting ranges...not everyone likes hunting. I prefer to shoot targets as it is a fun and time consuming thing..and why not have the most bad ass weapons to shoot with? Why would you want me to stick to shooting cans with a 9mm when I can use a .308? The choices in firearms are amazing, and Like someone else said in an event where we need protection (zombie apocalypse, tyrannical government) I sure would like a better gun then a pistol..