[rintense]

The 2nd amendment says I don't have to show a "need" for an assault rifle, or any other kind of gun. Just like the first amendment says I don't have to justify the books I read or the church I attend.

Yeah, but anti-war protestors use the first amendment to hide their hate speech. I'm just interested in why there was a ban in the first place, and two, why do you need such a weapon? I mean, if the second amendment gives us the right to own and bear arms, then why don't we all have cannons in our front yards? Simply saying 'because the law says I can' doesn't really cut it for me. But that's just me. I can understand a handgun, a pistol, a rifle, etc. I would just like someone to give me a practical reason as to why they would want an assault weapon- other than saying 'because I don't have to show a need'.

[Mr. Mojo]

I would just like someone to give me a practical reason as to why they would want an assault weapon- other than saying 'because I don't have to show a need'.

Let's say you're living on a decent-sized piece of property and you spot some dudes you know intend to do you and your family harm coming onto that property. An assault rifle allows you (if you know what you're doing) to get off many shots - some come with 20 to 30 round magazines - within a short period of time with a high degree of accuracy at long range. No other type of firearm has that capability.

[Long Cut]

Re: your post #382. If I may?

"I'm just interested in why there was a ban in the first place, and two, why do you need such a weapon?"

Okay, number 1: These firearms were banned because several isolated lunatics used them to kill people in a few mass-killing incidents. This terrified the more moderate soccer moms out there and made the idea of a ban palatable to politicians who previously would have rejected such a thing. Also, the anti-gun Left was WAITING for an excuse to get even a SMALL victory in their mad rush to ban anything with which a citizen could plausibly defend himself.

Number 2.: These weapons, being based on military firearms, are perfect for the defense of one's home, the taking of small game, or the defense of one's basic liberties against tyranny. In essence, they are simply perfect as all-around, general purpose rifles. They are, for the most part, the most reliable, easy-to-shoot, inexpensive(pre-ban), and robust firearms out there. Plus, their ammunition is and remains cheap. Oh, and they're great good fun to shoot, too.

Let's be clear...the 1994 ban covered not the weapons themselves, but certain features thereof...like flash supressors, pistol grips, folding stocks, and bayonet lugs. Their magazine capacity was limited to ten rounds, versus the 20-30 of preban models. What most folks, myself included, object to is the "camel's nose" that this represents. That, and the overall idiocy of it. Seriously, banning a gun because of a bayonet lug?!? Not even the psychopaths responsible for the bans ever used bayonets in their madness! So desperate were the gunbanners for a "win" that they abandoned any rationality.

I hope that this helps. Need to know any more?

[ApesForEvolution]

You obviously don't live on a ranch in southern Arizona, California, Texas or out in the middle of Nowhereville USA where a 911 call is guaranteed to be a clean up call. Nor have you considered, it seems, that in the event another American world communist is elected and, in cahoots with a different congress, ejects the Constitution altogether - that we might have to defend ourselves against a tyrannical government that obviously DOES possess mega-fire power.

Shoot, lots of people don't even see the need for the firearms you listed.....

[Technogeeb]

I would just like someone to give me a practical reason as to why they would want an assault weapon- other than saying 'because I don't have to show a need'.

Imagine you are a grocery store owner in some mythical place that, for the sake of this argument, we'll call "Los Angeles". Some social group gets enraged over some issue, say, for example, the results of some trial. Imagine that they start rioting, and large numbers of them come to destroy your property. Imagine that they are pulling people out of vehicles and beating them; and show a clear willingness to kill them. Now, it might be a stretch, but imagine that the police and fire departments are refusing to go into the area and stop the violence and put out the fires.

The only thing standing between your death and the destruction of your life's property is a rifle with a large capacity magazine. Not only that, but with an "assault" rifle, you can even be generous and fire "warning shots" to keep them away from your property, actually saving the lives of the people trying to kill you and destroy your property.

Now, I'm sure you'll say that this could "never happen" in America, but for the sake of the argument can't you imagine that it just might?

[tpaine]

I would just like someone to give me a practical reason as to why they would want an assault weapon- other than saying 'because I don't have to show a need'.
382 -rin-


Semi/auto large capacity magazine fed rifles in available military calibers are the best, most practical self defense tools on the market.
-- Why isn't that fact obvious to you?

[Henrietta]

" I can understand a handgun, a pistol, a rifle, etc. I would just like someone to give me a practical reason as to why they would want an assault weapon- other than saying 'because I don't have to show a need'."

These so-called "assault weapons" that they are trying to restrict are merely rifles (which you defend my right to own) with certain aesthetic and functional features that look "scary" to some folks. Banning rifles with a certain type of stock or a flash-hider is just plain silly, has no purpose (other than to inure people to the idea that certain weapons are "bad" 'cause they look "scary").

Why do I want a so-called "assault weapon?" Just in case the government decides it wants to be a bit too tyranical. That's why we have the 2nd amendment.

Hey, don't worry if you don't have a so-called "assault weapon"; if the spam hits the fan, you can hide behind me and my so-called "assault weapon."

[Mini-14]

Rintense, you stated that I can understand a handgun, a pistol, a rifle, etc.

Please show why you need a "handgun, a pistol, or a rifle?"

And by the way, a pistol is a kind of handgun, but not all handguns are pistols.

[B Knotts]

Please define "assault weapon."

[Atlas Sneezed]

"I can understand a handgun, a pistol, a rifle, etc. I would just like someone to give me a practical reason as to why they would want an assault weapon"

1. See my post above.

2. An assault weapon IS a rifle! It's just one particularly well suited for combat, which is what the second amendment is all about.

[Eaker]

why do you need such a weapon?

A well trained dog is an "assault weapon".

Stay safe; stay armed.

Please keep pinging me even though we don't agree on this issue!!!

[SauronOfMordor]

I would just like someone to give me a practical reason as to why they would want an assault weapon- other than saying 'because I don't have to show a need'.

First off, "assault weapon" is an evil-sounding phrase without a precise definition. It basicly means "whatever firearm the liberals don't like at the moment". Currently, it effectively means any military-style semi-automatic rifle that can accept a high-capacity magazine (a magazine being the thing which holds the ammo). For some liberals, it also means any handgun that accepts a large-capacity magazine

Why would one want one? Several reasons

1. Because they look neat (the same reason why guys like to buy cars that are able to greatly exceed the speed limit)
2. As an anti-riot gun. During the LA riots, store owners who owned semi-auto rifles were able to defend their places. Those who were unarmed were burned out. When the cops run away (like the LA riots) or are ordered to not get involved (Crown Heights riots in NYC), having the means to defend yourself against a mob can be very conforting
3. the widespread belief among gun owners that the Federal government is less likely to push people around and think it can ignore the Constitution when a large percentage of the population is armed

[Teacher317]

I'm just interested in why there was a ban in the first place, and two, why do you need such a weapon?

I'm just interested in why there was a ban in the first place, and two, why do you need to:

say such things?
follow that religion?
print such news?
assemble publicly in such groups?
have the same rights as whites?
keep the fruits of your own labor?
have women voting?

Get the point? None other than uber-liberal Alan Dershowitz said that allowing gun bans was a bad idea because it sets a road map for other rights to be attacked.