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 ...
The need does not matter, it is a right. I do not need a reason to express my right to free speech, I do not need a reason to tell a police officer that he can’t search my car, I do not need a reason to not testify at my trial.
Give me a Glock and a shotgun and I’ll deal with a civilian model AK. This writers ignorance shouldn’t be as stunning as it is.
Imagine if the shooter had a shotgun with 00 Buck. He had lots of time to reload.
The gun is not the problem, the person is.
Wait - how many people die daily as the result of a misused automobile?
Is there an amendment saying the right to drive an automobile shall not be infringed?
You know, it’s how liberals think. They also think people don’t need to breed dogs or any number of things that annoy or frighten or whatever them.
Who the hell are you to decide what anyone needs?
It ain’t about “need”— more to the point, it ain’t about anybody other than “redreno” deciding what “redreno” needs.
If “redreno” decides “redreno needs an ugly Russian gun”, then the only other deciding factor ought to be whether “redreno” has the appropriate mount of money with which to make the purchase.
AK-47? Belt-fed is the only way to go.
Hell no Roland, I’d rather have an FAL, or a Garand.
Well, Roland. I don’t remember asking you what I needed. Did I?
I thought not. Until I do, kindly STFU. I don’t have any idea who you are, or think you are, and I don’t watch your channel. Ever.
And so you know, the shooter at the theater used an AR-15, not an AK-47. Lucky for the rest of the people there. It jammed. An AK-47 wouldn’t have.
These people can’t tell you why you should have these and then they want to tell you why you don’t need them? FUCNN
Journalists don’t need a limo to drive them to work.
Hollywood stars don’t need a Ferrari.
Obummer doesn’t need Air Force One.
Pelosi doesn’t need a vineyard in Napa.
The list goes on...
The purpose behind the 2nd amendment is for the average citizen to protect oneself against tyrany. In order to to do that, we need to be able to buy the same calibers and capability of Government forces. This was mandated by or founding fathers.
I like my AKs, my soon to be purchased AR, my shotguns, my pistolas, and I may be going fishing soon with all of them and lose them in Galveston Bay, he he.
Why do Lib Commie Bass Turds always think guns are the problem? Idiots and commie/facist are the problem.
Someone quick post those great tyrannical gun photos.
Hey Martin, it is your and Holder’s people behind the triggers killing each other in Chicago.
With this rogue government, Americans need as many guns as they can get.
The 2nd amendment was meant to insure that citizens could possess weapons sufficient to confront a trained army.
In my mind this should be interpreted in that you should be able to own anything up to and including a heavy machine gun, bazooka or even artillery.
You are what’s great about FR. If I’m not lkaughing my ass off by the 2nd reply, I get profunnndities later,
sorry for the typos, I’m laffin - or cryin - dammoit!
I think if I were in a mob-rob situation, I’d like to get more than one shot off before going down.
Put it in context. When the second amendment was adopted the state of the art weapon was the musket. The government had the same weaponry. It was adopted not to hunt, not to target shoot, it was adopted for personal defense. The second amendment was written to protect people from a tyrannical government—One that they just defeated and an unknown number to follow. It is a right to bear arms. I go to bed every night thinking that this country is probably the safest on earth because nobody is stupid enough to invade us. Too many weapons in the hands of citizens.
Hey Roland, you say you want us not to have weapons?
How does it feel to WANT MFer?
You see, your problem is it’s too LATE, we already
have THEM, and unless you are willing to die to take
them, since we are willing to die to keep them you
are just SOL.
They want this fight? Fine. Bring it you assholes. Throw yourselves over the cliff if you want.
Yowza, I’m thinking it may be time to get that AR before the nannies decide I shouldn’t.
And a one MEEEELLION bullet clip to go with it.
if it is a “right” we do not need to convince you of our need.
Anything else you say is crass stupidity.
We don’t need CNN.
Someone tell the dems we’ll make a deal. We will negotiate in good faith. We give up the black scary guns and they give up abortion.
No? Why not? If we have to abandon a legit 2’nd amendment right, a made up by lib judges ‘right’ should be easy.
What is it about “BLACK” guns that the dems are afraid of? Sounds racist to me.
Well, I think liberals should not even have sharp pencils.
They have a mental illness.
Tell you what roland, there's some animal droppings in the driveway. Feel free to eat them all up.
Keep in mind Tim that there are levels of Tyranny,
the thug who wants your wallet is no different than
the politician who wants to take your freedom.
The gun is insurance against them both.
Try and take them from me, but be prepared to DIE.
The average American does not need Liberals.
Really; they don’t.
I notice that the left has recently changed their tactics on gun control.
They know fighting the second amendment is a loser, so they say it is OK to have guns, just not “assault weapons”.
They say they support the right to keep and bear arms, but with “sensible” restrictions.
Having unfortunately lived my entire life in California, every year the legislature finds several more “sensible” restrictions they must impose. There is no end to it.
The same old arguments. It feels like 1989 in California all over again!
I read one account of the Stockton schoolyard massacre that made it sound like the gun was floating in the air, killing the kids, and Patrick Purdy was desperately hanging on to the gun trying to make it stop.
Some journalists need to be confined, for their safety and ours.
I’ll make you a deal - you don’t tell me what I need and I won’t tell you about the enema YOU need!!
Obama's working on those, too.
This isn’t an editorial. It’s verbal diarrhea.
It’s not like the AK-47 (as in 1947, Roland, you ignorant putz) is new technology. The version available to most Americans is semi-automatic, unlike the selective fire weapon that soldiers use. Why denounce this particular rifle now? It wasn’t even the firearm present at the crime that prompted this outpouring of ignorance.
The semi-auto rifle used, with that 100 round magazine that has Roland’s panties in a bunch, jammed. I haven’t seen the details about who got hit by what from the police reports, but if the media reports are accurate (big if, as always) the majority of the damage done was with a shotgun and a couple Glock pistols that Roland deems to be A-OK. Even from a pro gun-control perspective, the stupidity of what passes for reasoning here is painful.
The only reason this sorry excuse for an editorial was written is because the boss of CNN, Obama the Bumbler, emitted his own spew about AK-47s, and his lesser minions are now eagerly smearing it around like the slavering lapdogs they are.
CNN is tanking, and with drivel like this being passed off as serious editorials, it’s about time.
Well dang, you beat me to it. Need and a right are not related at all, as you stated so well.
The gun is not the problem, the person is.
“If its a RIGHT, then we do not need to provide you with a NEED.”
That is well said, Sir.
Not much more I should add, except that I see that some of the comments on the CNN site suggest that times are different today than when the Constitution was written and it was mainly muskets that folks would possess and for the purpose of a militia.
Maybe true. But maybe not.
With the same basis for their position, the Internet didn’t exist when the Constitution was written, so does that mean that the Right to Free Speech isn’t necessary today?
I think NOT.
Damn, our Founding Fathers had some great foresight.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.