Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

The question I would ask the officer is: Why do you want to disarm us? There has been no crime reduction benefit shown from keeping "assault weapons" out of citizens hands.
1 posted on 02/06/2012 6:02:07 AM PST by marktwain
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies ]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-25 last
To: marktwain

Funny, I know of at least two incidents where crooks had body armor.

Once case was in the People’s Democratic Republic of Kalifornia. The cops’ pistols couldn’t do the job, so they looted a nearby gun store or sporting goods store for hunting rifles that WOULD shoot through body armor.

Another case was in Florida. The FBI tried to take them down, and lost several agents before managing to kill them.

So yes, armor piercing capacity is useful for self defense.

And, of course, you might need it to deal with anonymous black-suited armored home invaders.


37 posted on 02/06/2012 7:43:50 AM PST by Little Ray (FOR the best Conservative in the Primary; AGAINST Obama in the General.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: marktwain

{Andy Rooney Voice} I believe in the 2nd Amendment right to bear arms.

Except for really useful rifles with scary features..or around children.. or anywhere outdoors. Besides, who needs the rapid fire capabilities of fixed cartridges? They shoot one right after another..bam-bam-bam. Flintlocks are okay, though. And why carry indoors where your neighbors can see in your windows and be scared? I’m all for the right to carry flintlock rifles in a box inside your home. Well, rifling gives too much accuracy.. maybe a flintlock smoothbore. And don’t forget the box, it has to be inside a box..” {/Andy Rooney Voice}


38 posted on 02/06/2012 7:52:43 AM PST by Rinnwald
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: marktwain
To repeat the oft quoted saying:

It’s Bill of {God-given} Rights, not Wants or Needs.

Do we really want the government telling a free-citizenry what they Need to defend themselves?

I’m picking up a strong hint of a conflict of interest there, does anyone else get that impression?

42 posted on 02/06/2012 8:33:48 AM PST by BerserkPatriot (I despise Progressive Obama Socialists.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: marktwain
I however do not understand the need to own an assault rifle for private use...

Does the 2ND Amendment ring a bell there Junior? It doesn't say a damned thing about Needs but is says a whole lot about Rights.

No one ever said you have to be smart to wear a badge.
43 posted on 02/06/2012 8:55:31 AM PST by Dr.Zoidberg (Warning: Sarcasm/humor is always engaged. Failure to recognize this may lead to misunderstandings.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: marktwain

“Do you need an AR-15 with 30-round clips to defend your house? From what?”

From you, moron, from you.

I do not believe that the government, in the form of the military and police, should be in sole possession of the means of deadly force.


50 posted on 02/06/2012 1:35:43 PM PST by PLMerite (Shut the Beyotch Down! Burn, baby, burn!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-25 last

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson