It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Help me understand why people need assault rifles to protect themselves

page: 9
15
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join
share:
(post by ANNED removed for a serious terms and conditions violation)

posted on Jun, 14 2014 @ 12:03 PM
link   
Assault weapons are needed to discourage government
from forgetting who they work for and from
where they derive their powers



posted on Jun, 14 2014 @ 12:17 PM
link   
a reply to: spirited75

So you figure having a gun show AR-15 strikes fear and brings a moment of pause to Senate Majority Leader Reid, House Speaker Boehner or President Obama?

Somehow ..I really don't think the Government cares if we have assault rifles or full blown Mini-guns. Not in THAT sense, to change anything they are doing in the least because of it. Certainly not to have a moment of pause for the firepower citizens have. After all.... We can have an M1 Main battle Tank ..and it won't change much.

What that would do is make one of US feel real special and incredibly self important until someone tried to USE it for something foolish ....to find Uncle has one too. In fact...hundreds of them...and could probably have a dozen or so diverted to help take the one from a citizen who couldn't avoid abusing it.



posted on Jun, 14 2014 @ 12:28 PM
link   
Full metal jackets are not good ammo for home defense, they go through perps, then walls and may kill a family member or next door neighbor if in an apartment. Better to use hollow points.
edit on 14-6-2014 by Mikeultra because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 14 2014 @ 12:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: Mikeultra
Full metal jackets are not good ammo for home defense, they go through perps, then walls and may kill a family member or next door neighbor if in an apartment. Better to use hollow points.


The truly responsible firearms owner always ahs both handy.



posted on Jun, 14 2014 @ 12:53 PM
link   
Because if entire government has all the assult rifles and becomes a threat and dictatorship your pistol or one pump gun means death to you.



posted on Jun, 14 2014 @ 01:00 PM
link   
a reply to: Thecakeisalie


Have you ever tried shooting a handgun accurately from across the room whilst bullets are flying past your head? It's hard enough hitting your target without the "holy sh!t, I'm getting shot at" factor.

Plus, the National Guard has them, SWAT teams and the FBI have them, so I think I should also have them.

Plus, they're fun as hell to shoot.



edit on 14-6-2014 by TuEsIncredibiliterStultus because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 14 2014 @ 01:03 PM
link   
a reply to: Thecakeisalie

Simple.

The bigger the coward, the bigger the gun.



posted on Jun, 14 2014 @ 01:13 PM
link   
a reply to: TuEsIncredibiliterStultus

Have you ever tried firing ANY weapon in a high stress, high pressure tactical shooting course?

I mean..where you really live through and experience the scenario you're describing..not simply imagine how it might play out. I'll say for the money the courses cost to take, it's worth EVERY PENNY for simply learning the difference between those two things, IMO. Imagined events vs. the reality that happens. I found the two to be radically different....and it would have been a fatal lesson, I'm sure, had I learned it first in a real situation.

Yeah...it's damned hard to keep aim with a handgun in close quarters in a high stress/pressure scenario. A rifle makes it HARDER..not easier, in close quarters and close range tho.

Remember...however big the gun or whatever it might look like for a "scary gun"? The bullet is still under a half inch in diameter and usually MUCH MUCH smaller. So a fraction of an inch off...is still a 100% clean miss...and a bigger gun won't make a huge difference, IMO. Skill and constant ongoing practice will. Upgrading guns to something with a whole NEW set of challenges and problems, isn't likely to in my opinion.

@ Mikeultra

Thanks for the tip on the Hollow Points. It stuns me to see how many people badmouth hollow points with some imagined concept that the description makes them a bad thing, when of course, it's precisely the OPPOSITE. (unless you're the poor bastard in the E.R. having to dig the bullet out of someone) I understand doctors absolutely hate them for the razor edges they can take on after they expand.



posted on Jun, 14 2014 @ 01:16 PM
link   
Why does any one need a assault style weapon ..2012 FBI report less the 450 died by rifle , they did not break down type..

Why does anyone need a assault type car 300=HP to go a max speed of 85 MPH
When something happens with one these its called an accident until fault is determined.

Could not find stats on this but would the same people who are against guns care



posted on Jun, 14 2014 @ 01:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: Wrabbit2000
a reply to: TuEsIncredibiliterStultus

Have you ever tried firing ANY weapon in a high stress, high pressure tactical shooting course?

I mean..where you really live through and experience the scenario you're describing..not simply imagine how it might play out. I'll say for the money the courses cost to take, it's worth EVERY PENNY for simply learning the difference between those two things, IMO. Imagined events vs. the reality that happens. I found the two to be radically different....and it would have been a fatal lesson, I'm sure, had I learned it first in a real situation.

Yeah...it's damned hard to keep aim with a handgun in close quarters in a high stress/pressure scenario. A rifle makes it HARDER..not easier, in close quarters and close range tho.


I've taken some courses, and I'm a fairly good shot, but how is it going to make it harder? With a 16 inch barrel or more, I would agree. I was more referring to SBR's. Here's one of mine. The suppressor goes on another AR, the one that goes on this one is still awaiting BATFE approval.




posted on Jun, 14 2014 @ 01:50 PM
link   
a reply to: TuEsIncredibiliterStultus

How is it going to make it harder? In close quarters, in close range..how would it make it harder...

Lets see.. If I'm in my home at night, in the dark (and I'd want to be dark, so I don't advertise myself)...Which would I prefer to have as I come around corners or move around furniture?

Would it be better to have something that is little more than an extension of my own flesh and blood for total and full awareness of where it's pointing, where the end is in relation to what I sense around me, and removing any chance of getting caught across another object? ...and MORE than capable of handling a defense situation..

Or do I want a high power rifle for a shooting likely to cover 3-5 FEET...with 16 inches of metal, half of which is out beyond my own flesh and blood...and hence, the instinctive awareness of where 'it' is in relation to every other object sensed in my environment? In the dark, with someone else nearby who IS GOING TO KILL YOU if given half a chance at all? I want the absolute minimum in complications, fancy garbage or variables to help get me killed.

Every variable is another fatal screw up waiting to happen and insure you don't survive the encounter.

In short, I'll take my little 7+1 1911 automatic to clear my house over my old AR-15 any day and twice on Sunday.

....I also want to know that my slow freight train .45 ball rounds won't punch through and through every wall in my house and effectively murder my wife and son ...BY ACCIDENT...whether I hit OR miss the main threat.

After all, my family knows to get down, stay down and NOT MOVE if something goes terribly wrong and I tell them that. however... I won't bet their lives that they FOLLOW that in a chaotic situation ...so I won't use ammo or weapons inside my home which will have NO problem hitting things 2+ rooms and multiple walls away in tragic circumstances. An AR-15 is a great weapon for a battlefield or OPEN shooting in OPEN spaces.

It's a very dangerous weapon without frangible ammo, and bordering on criminally reckless..to use as home defense in close residential housing, like I'm living in. In apartment life like many live in? I won't even say it BORDERS anymore. That IS criminally reckless in my view. Not to OWN one...but to actually have it locked and loaded at home with the intent of using it as a home defense weapon.



posted on Jun, 14 2014 @ 01:55 PM
link   
a reply to: Thecakeisalie
Why use a nail gun instead of a hammer? It is the tool that kills people fast and easy. The gun nuts want the best tool. I sold mine. Not much chance of me using it for what it is designed.



posted on Jun, 14 2014 @ 01:55 PM
link   
a reply to: Thecakeisalie
Well if the junkie invading your home is brandishing an uzi,an AR 15 may just tip the balance a touch in your favour!,but yes it is getting out of hand with military spec weapons being the norm these days.



posted on Jun, 14 2014 @ 02:02 PM
link   
a reply to: spirited75
I used to think that assault rifles in the hands of revolutionary nuts could stand a chance against the military. They got no chance with those peashooters. The times have changed. The assault rifle is no match for the new technology that can quell civil unrest immediately.



posted on Jun, 14 2014 @ 02:03 PM
link   
My bolt action .308 is fine for me. I don't normally miss what I aim at.

If I have a need to be able to shoot simply by pulling the trigger, either my .22 Ruger Carbine (10 round mag), or 9mm Marlin Camper (12 round mag) will do just fine.

Of course if I wanted a challenge, I could just use my 24C Savage. It's a single shot 20 gauge, with a 2nd barrel for a .22 LR. I have bird shot, rabbit shot, buck shot and solid slug for this one.



posted on Jun, 14 2014 @ 02:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: earthdude
The assault rifle is no match for the new technology that can quell civil unrest immediately.


You mean like we did in Iraq?



posted on Jun, 14 2014 @ 02:32 PM
link   
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus
Sarcasm? We have a home team advantage. But never underestimate to power of a million rednecks with assault rifles.



posted on Jun, 14 2014 @ 02:33 PM
link   
a reply to: Wrabbit2000

Yeah, I've got 2 1911's as well, and a 9mm Glock 17c, all with hollow points in them. I also remember stating that I was referring to SBR's. My SBR's (mk18's) have 10.3 inch barrels. Also, I'm not using M855's here, although I do have over 1000 of those, I'm using a Hornady round that is very similar, if not exactly like this:

Keep in mind, this was out of a 24inch barrel, I've got a 10.3, so the velocity, and penetration will be quite a bit lower.



Also, none of my handguns have a pressure activated light on it, a red dot, or a green laser (also pressure activated) for assistance. They don't have a suppressor on them either (which one of my ar's already has, and the other 2 will be getting one soon if the ATF get's it's sh!t together), so I'd be deaf for a minute or so after the first shot with any of the handguns, not with the mk18.

And yes, I have shot one of my 1911's without ears once, just to see how loud it actually was, and it basically incapacitated me. I never actually heard the shot, just pain and silence followed by lots of ringing. That was outside. Now imagine inside. You better have some head gear near that handgun of yours, or else you better hit and incapacitate all of the intruders with your first shot, because if you've never fired a .45 1911 indoors without ear pro before, you're in for a surprise. One that you cannot afford in such a situation. A suppressor allows use of the gun without ear pro, so not only are you not deaf after your first shot, but you can hear better both before and after beings you don't need the ear protection.

Again, do what you want, it's just my $0.02.



posted on Jun, 14 2014 @ 02:49 PM
link   
I'll give my $0.02 for whatever it's worth.

The Constitution says that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. It specifies 'the people', so that means no government affiliation necessary. Arming of the public served (and serves) two purposes. Firstly, the people are supposed to be the militia, called up when necessary to defend the state or the nation. Civilian ownership of arms is supposed to circumvent the need to have a full-time army, which would be (and is) a huge tax burden. Secondly, the people are supposed to hold the overbearing power and not to relinquish it to federal government. Since the nation was founded on the principle of liberty, it was and is important to ensure control remains in the hands of the people.

To serve the design purpose, government in general, federal, state, county, or local should never have any more right or sponsorship of lethality in the arms they hold. Scalia, although voting that the right to keep and bear stood, was all wet when he said it was not unrestricted. Government should never have more than the people in terms of firepower. The whole idea was that government would be representative and not dictatorial.

Hard pill to swallow for a lot of people, but at least to me, it makes all sorts of sense.



new topics

top topics



 
15
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join