Oh, I can answer that...A cadillac on the crowded streets of Vegas, a hammer, a gallon of gasoline in the right spot. These are just a few examples of assault weapons. Why would anyone need any of these things? Well, I just don't know.
Australia's Anti-Gun Lobby Turns its Sights on Sports Shooters - April 10, 2003
"Not satisfied with their government's proposals to ban ownership of semi-automatic handguns among the wider public, Australian anti-gun campaigners are now calling for sports shooters to give up their semi-automatics, too."
Bush Resigns NRA Membership in Protest
Lobbyists: Ex-President says he is 'outraged' by group's fund-raising letter labeling federal agents as 'jackbooted thugs.'
Los Angeles Times By ROBERT SHOGAN TIMES POLITICAL WRlTER May 11, 1995 Page A8
Excerpt:
WASHINGTON--Former President George Bush has quit the National Rifle Assn. to protest a fund-raising letter sent out by the organization that labeled federal agents as "jackbooted thugs" and could roil the waters of the Republican presidential race. Bush described himself as "outraged" by the organization's failure to repudiate the letter, which points up the NRA's vulnerability in the wake of the bombing of the Oklahoma City federal building. In a letter to NRA President Thomas Washington dated May 3 and made available by his office in Houston, the former GOP chief executive added: "To attack Secret Service agents or ATF [Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms] people or any government law enforcement people as 'wearing Nazi bucket helmets and black storm trooper uniforms' wanting to 'attack law- abiding citizens' is a vicious slander on good people."
Bush was particularly irate because Wayne LaPierre, the NRA's chief lobbyist, defended the attack contained in the letter even after the Oklahoma City bombing. Asked if his language was excessive in view of the tragedy, LaPierre said "That's like saying the weather report in Florida on the hurricane caused the damage rather than the hurricane." In response to Bush's protest, the NRA released a letter from its president, Washington, to Bush, urging the former President to reconsider his resignation.
The letter claimed that the gist of the NRA's attacks would be supported by further inquiry and complained that Bush had not sought a private explanation before making his resignation letter public. "Such a course of action, I believe, would have better served the country than what now will become a public disagreement that can only lead to more polarization in these troubled times," the NRA said.
"The FBI spent $3 million of your tax money to blow up the World Trade Center." - Joseph Farah
The "average guy" loves slavery and government control
Few of us are. This is more about rights than about guns.
What do they classify as 'assault weapons'
THERE'S the first problem. At the moment, what they classify as an "assault weapon" ranges widely, from a totally legal rifle with a tiny bolt on the end to hold a bayonet (like the military does), to (get this) two tiny metal L-shaped pieces (called "sears") that can be added to a rifle (by a gunsmith or someone with more knowledge than I) to make it fully automatic (YES, you read that right, the two pieces of metal, weighing less than a few ounces, qualifies as an assault rifle), from fully legal rifles with flash suppressors added (those make the flame leaping out of the end of the gun spread out and less intense), to accessories that make the gun look like an automatic rifle (this is basically how it is described in CA law).
The elephant sitting in the living room on this issue is that these gun-hating morons also leave the door open to revise what qualifies as an "assault rifle" at their discretion (read: whim) at any time. You may invest $2000 in a beautiful new piece, and tomorrow, you must turn it in because owning it makes you a felon (complete with the loss of your right to vote). Ready to play THAT fun little game? And exactly where does this do justice for anyone, protect anyone, or make anyone freer?
and what would the average guy need these for?
DO NOT FALL FOR THEIR STUPID QUESTIONS!!!! Nobody EVER asks what we need our other rights for. Don't dare EVER let someone ask you this questioin about the 2nd Amendment.
Here's the answer, though, in case you find a sincere person such as yourself asking: The Founders knew how important it was that the citizenry be able to, at ANY time, defeat ANY army that threatened them, either foreign or domestic (actually, we wrote and rewrote rules against standing armies back then, but we eventually decided that having a military was too important). The ONLY way to guarantee that a bunch of untrained farmers could beat a world-class army (like they did to the Redcoats) is for those farmers to have the same basic weapon that the footsoldier of the world-class army. Today, that is the "assault rifle" (AR-15, M-16, MP5, etc). With both sides evenly matched in basic firepower, our lack of experience and training is compensated by our huge numerical advantage (45 million hunters againt China's 3 million soldiers? Fuhgeddaboudit!), and the fact that our troops will never be massed in one location (think guerilla tactics and VietNam... world-class armies CAN be fought by untrained farmers!).
If we don't have similar weaponry, and are limited to 5-shot capacity .22 caliber handguns in confronting brigades of armored soldiers with 300 round assault rifles, we don't stand much of a chance, numerical advantage be darned.
Hope that helps!
How about defending Freedom. Freedom remember is a condition where other folks don't go around dictating what other folks need, or don't need and what decisions are allowed, or disallowed.