What's the argument for allowing assault rifles?

One argument is that the whole body of citizens (the militia) should own and carry the same type of weapon as those in the government's standing army.

 

Nope. A true "battle rifle" is not well suited for personal defense in an urban environment. It overpenetrates walls and structures. The blast in an enclosed space is deafening even with hearing protection (which you probably would not be wearing in a standard home defense scenario) and recovery from recoil is slower. Besides, while the FAL is a fine weapon - I've owned one and consider it one of the best of the battle rifle designs ever fielded - it is still too long and too heavy for effective CQB application. My preferred carbine is a Robinson Arms XCR 5.56mm, which I keep loaded with Hornady's excellent TAP ammunition. It is fast handling, light (my wife can shoot it with ease), with mild recoil, and sub-MOA accuracy. It is also less likely to penetrate the exterior walls of my home to endanger my neighbors than even a handgun; not to mention much easier to maneuver in the tight spaces of my house.

I do have a .308 carbine (One of the new SIG 716 .308/7.62 NATO rifles) and it is amazingly accurate and easy to shoot, but it is not as effective in the CQB envelope as the XCR, or even as the M4 Carbine my wife favors over the other rifles.

 

The media organizations and websites are indeed horrifically ignorant on guns and gun terminology. For instance: the use of the term "clip" when one means a "magazine". The use of the term "assault weapon" is a propaganda tactic; the very definition of the concept of repeating a lie so often it becomes the perceived truth. The term "clip" has been misused so often for so long even gun people now find themselves getting sucked into the use of the incorrect term.

A tactical carbine - whether we call it an "assault rifle" or a "military-style rifle" or a "sport utility rifle" - is simply the best tool for the job of interpersonal combat; be it offensive or defensive. Banning them or limiting the capacity of their magazines is idiotic and accomplishes NOTHING but letting ignorant people feel like "something is being done". The fact is that if you are serious about personal security and defensive tactics then you own one or you should own one. Period. Wanting to try to ban stuff so the bad guys can't kill people quite so quickly instead of wanting to be effectively armed to defend yourself against such attacks is the attitude of a sheep and a perpetual victim.

 

yes they are. they are extremely expensive. 15k expensive. plus a $200 tax stamp paid to the ATF, and additional paperwork called a form 4 on top of the regular 4473 form for purchasing any other firearm.

 

you don't need a special permit.

 

As always when people claim I misread a post, I reread your series of posts. You should reread your posts, I addressed the issues you wrote about. People can only respond to what is written, people cannot read your mind.

 

The key point is "psycho". The debate should be about identifying and stopping the psycho. If the psycho can't get a firearm, he will use something else. Would you rather the CO shooter simply use his home made grenades and explosives instead of the firearms? The explosives would have been much worse.

As to 5 20-round mags vs a 100 round drum, the 5 20 round mags are much more "dangerous". The 100 round drum is notorious fer being unreliable and jamming (and as mentioned that is exactly what happened to the CO shooter). Even given a working 100 round drum, a normal person with a little practice can change 20 round mags very quickly, you will barely notice the difference in firing rate between the drum and 20-rnd mags. And a 100 rnd drum is heavy, it definitley affects the handling of the rifle.

This arguement over limiting magazine capacity is based on ignorance and inexperience. Unfortunately that is typically what drives gun control people and measures.

 

Go back to my post.

An Assault Rifle is a specific type of weapon. It is a selective fire weapon that fire an intermediate cartridge. The AR-15 is not selective fire.

Assault Weapon is a US law. Assualt Rifle and Assualt Weapon are not the same thing.

And the AR-15 does not use clips.

 

It must be true, I read it on the internets!

 

Thought it needed bringing up again.

Also:


This is an example of a magazine. It is only one type. Magazines are where firearms store their cartridges to be fired. Some firearms have internal magazines that are not detachable. They are loaded with:


Clips. Clips are loaded into magazines. Some clips are loaded into the magazine and then removed while others are loaded into the magazine and become part of the internal working mechanism of the firearm.

Clips and magazine are not interchangeable terms.

 

Exception to the rule was the british L1A1 FAL,only fired semi auto,because it was nearly uncontrollable in full auto

 

That was a battle rifle though.

 

As the Argentines found out...

 

Flash Mob defense! If they come toward your house you have a reasonable deterrent and you can hold them off with handguns while your wife reloads your 10 MT clips

 

And here's a clip from a 6.5 Mannlicher-carcano,the kennedy asassination rifle...

 

The Tax Stamp could be said to be a permit.

 

Especially if you don't get one, the penalty is pretty stiff.

 

no more so than a sales tax.

 

You don't get 10 years in a Federal Prison for not paying a sales tax.

 

true, but there are still legal ramifications. neither sales tax or tax stamp are a permit.

 

Way to dodge the question.

 

Hardly dodging. It's our right, and we don't need to justify keeping a rifle in the house because the aesthetics of an AR-15 or AK-47 rifle scare people who are afraid of guns.

If you want my justification. It's so if a foreign nation invades or our Government becomes Tyrannical, or if our Government collapses all together...

It's so the Militia (all able bodied men in the Nation, and women who have military or law enforcement experience) can protect the people and ensure the stability and security of a free state.

 

Other than the fact is it a piece of people, a defacto license, you must possess to legally possess a Class III item.

I can purchase anything without sales tax, I can simply purchase it from someone who is not legally required to collect tax. I cannot however, purchase a Class III item without a tax stamp, no matter the source.

 

3 reasons: Primary purpose of 2nd ammendment is to counter militaries from any nation, we need military grade weapons to do this most effectively.
2) US banned assault weapons in 1968, anything you hear about US assault weapons is scare mongering, they're just semi-auto hunting rifles
3) and this is most important, we believe in rights, in innocent until proven guilty. We don't need to prove we have a reason to have something, you need to prove that we shouldnt' have it.

 

How about self-defense. How about the fact that "assault rifles" are the most effect self-defense weapons. How about they make up a miniscule number of the crimes commited anywhere.