Originally posted by NoJoker13
reply to post by aryaputhra
...I live in MA where you can't own an automatic weapon aka an assault rifle...I have no need for automatics, and magazines over 10
rounds don't matter because I can cycle a mag in a second.
So what are we blowing up about here? I mean I agree everything in America should be free but lets get this straight, the NRA and gun advocates need a
better argument then "these guns are mine, my right, and you CAN'T HAVE THEM!!!". Since the new liberal base is much more highly educated I suggest
playing ball and upping your game.
I think you know good and well the difference between a fully automatic assault rifle and a semi-automatic military style rifle. But in case somehow
you've been hiding under a rock throughout this debate:
An assault rifle is a military grade, fully automatic weapon that when triggered, fires multiple bullets repeatedly until the trigger is released or
the clip runs out. For a private citizen to own one, you have to jump through crazy hoops and go through extensive checks, as well as paying very high
taxes for the privilege.
A so called "assault weapon" is a pretend name, created to demonize a style of rifle which functions exactly the same as an "acceptable" (to
liberals) form of the weapon. One trigger pull results in one bullet being released. For example, there is NO increase in lethality between a Ruger
mini-14 and an AR-15, no matter how many gadgets you bolt onto it.
And you want a more articulate argument than the most obvious, that it is a right guaranteed in the very foundation of our country's law? Here's
As for your speed in operating a bolt: Great, awesome, BUT...say your home was in the epicenter of some out of control mob violence, with looters bent
on murder, mayhem and general naughtyness. You may need more than ten shots to drive back the mobs who want to rape your wife or daughter, or rape you
for that matter. Or murder you and yours, or burn down your house because your skin is a different color, or you're rich and they aren't. The list
could go on and on with scenarios.
And don't poo-poo this reasoning. 20 years ago in America in a world-class major city (Los Angeles), folks found themselves in the very situation
I just described
, over the conviction of one person. No police came to protect them. In a hub of commerce, with 10's of thousands of Law
Enforcement personnel in the radius of response, they had to defend themselves.
Don't say that couldn't happen today either. Wasn't it just about 3 months ago there was a significant number of folks who openly declared that if
Obama lost there would rioting across the country? If so many were brazen enough to publicly declare their intentions, how many thousands more felt
the same way and would have mobilized? Personal defense is still
and always will be a relevant issue in this debate.
I would argue your final point, that the liberal base is "more highly educated" (sic) is just plain wrong. Simply because a demographic may have
gone to college and learned facts about whatever doesn't qualify them as educated on this issue.
In fact, if they were more highly educated, us inbred gun lovers wouldn't have to constantly re-educate them about the difference between an
automatic and semi-automatic rifle. We wouldn't have to explain that civilian military style weapons are the same as any legal rifle, just dressed
up in black. We wouldn't have to remind them history proves that civilization has never been, and never will be a guaranteed constant in our lives,
even in the good old US of A. We wouldn't have to point out the location of commas in the constitution, and why they separate out different parts of
the second amendment.
I submit that the liberal base are useful idiots, because they accept the party line on this issue without hesitation, without analysis, and without
common sense. Murders are tragedy, no doubt. But losing the forest for the trees is a short-sighted and foolish way to steer legislation.
And in case you forgot: