ESAD, Roland Martin. And everyone else who thinks like you.
Ok I won’t buy an AK-47. I’ll buy this Remington 30 06 semi automatic rifle with scope!
Let me see if I have this right. You said, “But you do not need an AK-47”. hmmm..I’d have to say I agree with you on that ...YOU do not need an AK-47 and YOU DO NOT NEED to say anything about what anyone needs
I'm not average, at least not that way, and I'd wager few gun owners are.
Ergo, I reckon I need one.
For this pantywaist writer:
When the police put up their .38 specials in favor of Glock .40s and decided they were 'so outgunned' by the criminal class that they needed select fire Stoner variant rifles (M-16s) to keep up with the thugs, In order for me to adequately defend my family it became necessary for me to possess the most capable firearm I could afford.
After a great deal of research, there were two firearms which shone in terms of reliability: The M1A and the AK-47. Pity I had trouble affording the former, and the latter we could afford to obtain were watered down semiautomatic versions of the most widely used battle rifle in the world.
Why a 'battle rifle'? Well, because criminals can arm themselves with anything, they have nothing to lose, and do not operate within the law like those of us who try to color within the lines do. Literally anything they can find and afford is fair game--after all, that's why the police forces around the country told us they were upgrading their arsenals.
Now, at the time, a reliable, East Bloc firearm was selling for between $250 and $350, magazines (they aren't clips, BTW) were fairly cheap, and the ammo was, too. The SKS, another reliable but slightly less capable rifle was only about $100.00, and it used the same ammo as the semiautomatic AK clone, just generally 10 rounds before reloading, instead of 27 (only load your magazines to 90% to prevent malfunctions).
For about $500.00, a couple could have enough arms and ammo to defend their home against all sorts of miscreants--cheaper than the average decent pistol--and with enough ammo to become reasonably proficient.
Now, alarms only make noise and call the folks who will figure out what happened before they arrived. All that's fine if you live somewhere response times are down in the single digits, but most places just aren't like that, and out here in the boonies, the best advice I ever got came from a County Sheriff who learned I had been threatened by one of the criminal class and only had three deputies to cover a huge area: "Just be sure you are the one around to fill out the paperwork."
Yes, I need an AK. Any further questions?
We don’t “need” CNN, either...
Roland Martin:
Flaming racist leftard, Obama apologist and CNN talking head.
Not worth the time of day.
He is right really... you don’t need an AK-47 when an SKS will do the job just fine.... 7.62x39
I agree with the headline. Average Americans DO NOT need assault weapons. I don’t have one, nor do I want one.
But it’s sure great that my neighbor on one side has one, and so do two people up the street. And it’s great that I can still buy one, when I do think it will be necessary, and when I think that I can safely handle and store it.
And I’ll vote AGAINST anyone that wants to change any of the above.
When I had HS shop back in the day we had a guy make a 1911 frame. Some ninnyhammer got wind of it and there was a stink.
Obviously, the soloution is to ban metal shops and lock up all the machinists.
And yet another classic example of how stupid the gun grabbers really are. So ‘assault’ rifles are bad, but handguns are ok? I wonder if this idiot is aware than about 80% of all gun-related crime involves the use of a handgun, compared to around 5% with any kind of rifle?
We’re dealing with morons, folks.
“But you do not need an AK-47.”
Hell, I don’t *need* a car. I could walk, or bike.
However, life is not all about “need”. In this country, if we “want” something, and it’s legal, we may get it.
There’s absolutely nothing wrong with Americans owning AR rifles, or AKs if they prefer to slum a little bit. There is a proud tradition of Americans owning and shooting the same rifles used by the military. AR rifles make great hunting and target rifles, with the added benefit that if necessary they are also fine defensive weapons, especially with hi-cap magazines.
What I really don’t need is some joker from CNN telling me what to do. I hope he ends up in a SHTF situation with nothing but his bare hands...
Sure they do! With all of the gun grabbing commies trying to infringe on the 2nd amendment and other rights Americans need them more than ever.
Guns are required to stand up to a repressive government.
If I was the NRA I would get ICE-T’s written permission to rerun that quote every time a liberal-progressive-socalists-dimocrat claim that there is no need for the average Joe to have “assault” weapons. I would then also replay the final assault at Waco and then end with “Questions?”
The VAST majority of gun crimes are pistols. An AR, AK or any type of rifle is seldom used.
That said, for defending your home, I have pistols in case I run out of rifle ammo. Rifles are much more lethal in skilled hands.
I’m not looking for an AK-47. I’m waiting for this maxim to unfold: Your enemy will bring to you the weapons you need to defeat him - Mao Tsetung.
I’m sure the untrained 400-pound morons in homelend security will drop off something much better than an AK.
In my best Archie Bunker voice: “Would it make you feel any better, little liberal, if they was pushed out of windows?”
But my counter-point to my buddy is that someday we will need to encounter at least some part of our own military head-to-head... and having a few matching personal arms would be very important at that time.
ESAD, Roland Martin. And everyone else who thinks like you.
It's The Bill of RIGHTS, not the bill of needs.
For now, just until they get THIS piece bitten off the Second Amendment. Next time they will take bites off your Glock!
In point of fact, AK-47s and AR-15s are too large and too expensive for criminal use and maniacs are never deterred by laws anyway.
Further, the Second Amendment is all about MILITARY style weaponry, NOT hunting. Fully automatic weapons are currently HIGHLY regulated and unavailable to the average user.
These jackasses are so transparent. Do anything you can to get one type of weapon out of citizen hands, then proceed to the NEXT subject. And on, and on, and on, until you create a society of helpless unarmed sheep as, for instance, in England and Norway.
Its ESSENTIAL to fight this battle in the Congress, the Courts and anywhere else we need to. Scalia’s comments are indicative of the fact that even our friends can be swayed by maniac who kill with guns, and maniacs in the news media.
Chris (Are you a flake?) Wallace's interview and Scalia’s chilling response indicates that all the logic initially thrown out after the Colorado massacre by Lott and others on the realities of gun control’s failures, just evaporated in the wake of Michael Bloomberg’s comments and those who think emote like him.