Factually incorrect. The discussion pertains to the fallacies of the notion that certain firearms need to be restricted from legal access.
Legally they cannot, especially when such firearms qualify as being in common use for legal purposes.
Thats no answer thats evasion. The simple question is why would anyone but a psychopath want such an inherently lethal weapon anywhere near themselves their families or indeed others in a civilian scenario ?
You present VPC propaganda, not facts. And the VPC "studies" have been taken apart and destroyed every time. Just give up. You FAIL. The only reason you are here trolling is you are paid per post.
There are 15 million AR-15s and other magazine fed semi-automatic magazine fed rifles in the hands of about 5 million owners. They are used in mass shootings, on average, about twice a year since the end of the AWB. In 2005, 2008-2010 and 2014 there were no mass shootings using an "assault weapon", even with millions in the hands of citizens. Common legal uses for AR-15s and similar firearms: 1. Long distance shooting. http://thecmp.org/competitions/service-rifle/ 2. Competition - http://3gunnation.com/news 3. Practice – for long distance or competition 4. Plinking/recreational shooting – cheapest centerfire ammo, low recoil, adaptable frame. 5. Varmint hunting - http://www.rockriverarms.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=category.display&category_id=228 6. Big game hunting, in the proper caliber and legal magazine. - http://www.fieldandstream.com/artic...r-style-rifles-chambered-for-big-game-hunting 7. Self-defense. - http://www.shootingtimes.com/ammo/ultimate-300-aac-blackout-ammo-test/ EDIT: Sure, there are other guns that can do any of these better, but an AR is the only gun that can do them all. You can go from a self-defense gun chambered in .300 Blackout with low penetration rounds to an upper with a 16" or 18" barrel for competition to a 24" long range shooting barrelled upper in about 10 seconds per change. EDIT: All firearms are inherently lethal. Many knives are inherently lethal. Alcohol is inherently lethal. Automobiles are inherently lethal.
Mine are used for recreation. Some are used for hunting and self defense. A law being tossed around here in WA will classify all semi-automatic rifles as 'assault rifles' if it passes. There are numerous types of semi-auto rifles used for hunting. Bullpup rifles and carbines that fire pistol cardridges are very popular home defense weapons, as they are lower velocity and power (unlikely to penetrate walls and endanger neighbors) yet easy to handle, have minimal recoil and are small enough to maneuver in close quarters. These are often included in the definition of 'assault rifles' and indeed will be classified as such if the aforementioned law passes. The bottom line is that when you ask 'what purpose is there for assault rifles in civilian life' it shows that you dont understand what the gun control leadership wants: to restrict far more than 'military weapons', as evidenced by their continued efforts to restrict weapons used almost entirely outside the military.
It would be great to see something like 250,000 patriots like these armed with assault rifles and a few other choice weapons to protect the streets from government criminals and others. https://www.eurweb.com/2016/04/arme...-the-door-by-gun-toting-black-panthers-video/ Can I get an amen from a right winger that may possibly be patriotic?
Im glad you can at least understand the purpose for firearms and the importance of the right to self defense when black people excersize it. There is hope for you yet And for the record, if the story was accurate, then they get an 'amen' from me. The SPLC says that 'The New Black Panther Party is a virulently racist and antisemitic organization whose leaders have encouraged violence against whites, Jews and law enforcement officers. ...' Given that, its likely that most or all of those black folks from the story in your link would be barred from owning firearms (given their ties to a 'hate group') if the anti-gun had some of its 'reasonable restrictions' in place. Do you think it would have been better if they had been unarmed? Or do you think we need to protect their right to access to effective self defense?
You missed my past posts in which I said that I am a former member of NRA. To this day I still endorse the idea of the right of self defense against any enemy whether it be an attacker, intruder, or city/state/federal government agent who threatens a peaceful person.
They say they only encourage self defense, not attacks upon those who obey the law and do not post threats to them or their members.
If a Perp enters my home and I defend my ground with a carbine, how's that "an assault rifle" when I'm defending and take no offensive action? Somebody should ask that some Libs. By 2020 I expect Ballistic shields to be called "Attack shields". Disgusting.
I don't know of anyone who would deny you the right to protect yourself and your family. As far as I'm concerned, go ahead and defend yourself. One of these should get the job done:
But you dont have facts. Ever heard of facts? You probably have, but you dont use them because they destroy your argument. You can whine all you want, you are still wrong, still a troll.
Sure, let's burn the Constitution because people have abused it. Why, the First Amendment is clearly the enemy! People abuse things like that and it led to the ovens, right?
Please don't edit my comments. If you would like to draw attention to a particular point, emboldening, italicizing or underlining are all great ways to do that. Additionally, its generally considered to be in poor taste to respond to part of a comment but deliberately ignore a direct question (by editing it out, no less!). I happen to agree. I don't believe the black panthers are necessarily a hate group, and I don't trust the SPLC for anything. But many within the establishment do. Do you think it would have been better if the panthers had been disarmed (as they likely would have been with more 'reasonable restrictions' in place)? Or do you think we need to protect their right to access to effective self defense?
