THE reason for assault weapons!

THE reason for assault weapons!

Posted in the Jackson Forum

First Prev
of 3
Next Last
we the people

Savannah, TN

#1 Jan 12, 2013
the 2nd amendment does not say anything about hunting nor defending your home, it does say well armed militia for the security of a FREE state. and militia does not mean our military. if these or any acts of tyranny were to be carried out if would be up to vice president and cabinet members to impeach if they fail to do so its falls congress if they fail it falls on supreme court if they fail to do so if falls on the military to remove all the above by force if they fail to do so it is an act on civil war against the citizens of these united states.. where it is they duty of us , a well armed militia
.... the right of the PEOPLE shall NOT be infringed!!!
Read

Jackson, TN

#2 Jan 17, 2013
The 2nd Amendment was written to Ratify slavery. Read a book and please learn to spell you backwards retard.
we the people

Savannah, TN

#3 Jan 18, 2013
well since slavery was abolished on jan 1 1863 and the second amendment was ratified in 1791... although your are right in context it was not the ONLY reason as you imply, retard. And as you imply is a oxymoron saying to ratify slavery when in the 2nd amendment it says for the security of a FREE STATE. or we can agree that it is for the people to protect themselves from criminals and government, that a tyranny in the govt. could make the people its slaves.

“It's a great day for.......”

Since: Nov 12

Location hidden

#4 Jan 18, 2013
There is no reason good enough!!!!!!!!!!
lol

Jackson, TN

#5 Jan 18, 2013
thats your opnion,nothing wrong with "assault weapons" it's the mentally ill..I dont own one for hunting,i own it cause if i ever need to defend myself,it's the perfect weapon. Anyone who don't agree move to New York or any other liberal state. Then you don't have to worry about it. Oh wait Obama and the fast and furrious deals with the cartel,nevermind you still will. He sould have been impeached for the killing of the border patrol agent.Oh wait again,it was the guns fault
lol

Jackson, TN

#6 Jan 18, 2013
should

Since: Dec 12

Cedar Grove, TN

#7 Jan 18, 2013
Maybe if you guys had better aim, there would be no reason for this overly blown out assault weapons issue. Seriously, what big mobs of people are you planning on mowing down? You guys waiting for the zombies, or what? What is it? Why is it so important to have any assault weapon other than mass killing or because you're not good enough with a single shot? I can see if you're living in Alaska, but not the burbs of Jackson. Come on.

*sigh*
lol

Jackson, TN

#8 Jan 18, 2013
NerdyBlackChick wrote:
Maybe if you guys had better aim, there would be no reason for this overly blown out assault weapons issue. Seriously, what big mobs of people are you planning on mowing down? You guys waiting for the zombies, or what? What is it? Why is it so important to have any assault weapon other than mass killing or because you're not good enough with a single shot? I can see if you're living in Alaska, but not the burbs of Jackson. Come on.
*sigh*
well no slut,the "gangs" around here are a good reason to have "assualt weapons". Just because someone owns an "assault weapon" doesnt mean they are looking or going to do a mass killing. The Sandy Hook killings were done with 2 9mm handguns,but you are the typical dumbass that believes what b/s you hear after a cover up.

“It's a great day for.......”

Since: Nov 12

Location hidden

#9 Jan 18, 2013
In Alaska, only the Palins are allowed to pack the heavy stuff.**LOL**
lol

Jackson, TN

#10 Jan 18, 2013
ChopperBlades wrote:
In Alaska, only the Palins are allowed to pack the heavy stuff.**LOL**
in Washington the Obamas are allowed the same,lol.
Freedom

Jackson, TN

#11 Jan 18, 2013
For me, it's not about an assault weapon as much as it is limiting my rights and freedoms. Assault rifles now; and next it will be shotguns; and then concealed handguns. Where does it stop? Assault rifles and weapons are NOT the problem. When a terrorist (foreign or domestic) drives a truck full of explosives into a public area or military base, the government doesn't try to limit the size of trucks that can be owned and operated or their capacity to hold materials. But maybe they should. After all, if only smaller trucks had been available, less explosives can be carried and fewer people will die. Forget the fact that the driver and organizer of the crime IS ON A MISSION, and aside from having intel and the ability to kill him before he gets into the truck, nothing is going to stop him.
And why do we label shootings with degrees based on the number of lives lost? Does the number of dead really determine what is the WORST mass murder? That seems to cheapen the value of life. If one person dies or 100 people die, it is a tragedy all the same. The value of an individual person's life is infinite, so multiple people dying doesn't devalue any one person's life. Nor does age or gender add to or take away from the infinite value of each individual.
So stop trying to take away and limit my freedoms because you don't place high enough value on the individual and you only see tragedy in numbers. Many innocent children died in a short amount of time in Sandy Hook. But that is no more of a tragedy or loss of life than the 500+ individuals murdered in Chicago in 2012.
When you devalue life, you devalue freedom.
When you LIMIT my freedom, it is no longer freedom.
well lets see

Oak Ridge, TN

#12 Jan 18, 2013
NerdyBlackChick wrote:
Maybe if you guys had better aim, there would be no reason for this overly blown out assault weapons issue.
This is a completely irrelevant and moot point. Even the most seasoned shooters miss. Very few people in this world have a "perfect" shot all the time.
NerdyBlackChick wrote:
Seriously, what big mobs of people are you planning on mowing down?
Huh? This is another completely asinine point. This has nothing to do with the desire of owning an "assault weapon."
NerdyBlackChick wrote:
You guys waiting for the zombies, or what?
Asinine belittlement.
NerdyBlackChick wrote:
What is it? Why is it so important to have any assault weapon other than mass killing or because you're not good enough with a single shot? I can see if you're living in Alaska, but not the burbs of Jackson. Come on.
Who are you to tell me what I can own, or not own? In my own house?

I am a law abiding citizen, lawfully allowed to carry my weapon any where I go, and actually have a sidearm as part of my job.

Your question should be more centered around why it's important for someone to have a semi-automatic rifle.

This "assault weapon" is a mere ignorance in terminology.

You see, I have a semi-automatic rifle simply because I love the ability of being able to go to the range and shooting. For some of us, that is our hobby. It's not about aim or mass killings. No, I don't use it for hunting. I could if I wanted to, but I don't have to.

Defense purposes, it is there. I'd rather have it for nothing than not have it for something. If I never have to use it to defend myself, then fine. Besides, I hope I never have to anyways.

It's MY money. MY home. My RIGHT.

The CT shooting that occurred could have just been easily accomplished by a handgun with 7 round magazines.

Do you want to ban all semi-automatics?

If you want to get real technical, I could fire off many rounds in a minute with just a revolver.

People have the misconception that even a revolver takes time to reload. It doesn't with the right equipment.
henry ford

Tucker, GA

#13 Jan 18, 2013
Next they need to outlaw cars and trucks with fuel tanks over 5 gallons. The only reason to have a fuel tank over 5 gallons is to lead the cops on long distance car chases that hurt lots of people and officers. And you can reload your 5 gallon fuel tank at any fuel station so there is really no need to carry for than 5 gallons in your car at any given time. YOU DON'T NEED 26 GALLONS OF GAS TO DRIVE TO THE GROCERY STORE... STOP THE MADNESS.

“It's a great day for.......”

Since: Nov 12

Location hidden

#14 Jan 18, 2013
@ well let's see: You seriously think you can fire off as many rounds with a revolver that should be holding 6 rounds, maybe 8 if you have that little sexy 22 like I used to own, as I can with an M4 on full auto? Have you ever fired anything similar to an M4? The old 15 round mags could be emptied in 3 seconds if you never released the trigger. Not only have I seen it done, I have been there..done that. Even if you are using speed loaders, I do not believe you can reload that fast to beat my output in firepower.No brag, just what I see as fact?

Since: Dec 12

Tucker, GA

#15 Jan 18, 2013
lol wrote:
<quoted text>well no slut,the "gangs" around here are a good reason to have "assualt weapons". Just because someone owns an "assault weapon" doesnt mean they are looking or going to do a mass killing. The Sandy Hook killings were done with 2 9mm handguns,but you are the typical dumbass that believes what b/s you hear after a cover up.
So, you're saying the reason to have assault weapons is to kill gang members. What happens when there are none left? What's the point of having the guns then?

Why can't you just use hand guns? Your accuracy will be greater and there's less chance of stray bullets. It's not like there's going to be 20 gang members that just randomly run up on you. And if they do, it's more likely to be in public--where you won't have your assault weapon that is made just for this type of situation. But I imagine you would have a hand gun nearby, however.

I saw that video about uncovering the truth behind sandy hook. It's all just propaganda. Conspiracy theories. Someone with a hidden agenda. More idea than facts.
well lets see

Oak Ridge, TN

#16 Jan 18, 2013
ChopperBlades wrote:
@ well let's see: You seriously think you can fire off as many rounds with a revolver that should be holding 6 rounds, maybe 8 if you have that little sexy 22 like I used to own, as I can with an M4 on full auto?
Please go back and read. It is not my job to compensate for your lack of reading comprehension.

I never said that I could fire off equivalent in rounds as a semi-automatic rifle.

I did state, however, that one can fire off many rounds with a revolver fairly quick, given the proper equipment.
ChopperBlades wrote:
Have you ever fired anything similar to an M4? The old 15 round mags could be emptied in 3 seconds if you never released the trigger. Not only have I seen it done, I have been there..done that. Even if you are using speed loaders, I do not believe you can reload that fast to beat my output in firepower.No brag, just what I see as fact?
Again, I was not making a parallel between semi-automatics and a revolver as it relates to their amount of output. I was stating that a revolver can have high output. Obviously not in correlation of a semi-automatic, but that wasn't the point, either.
well lets see

Oak Ridge, TN

#17 Jan 18, 2013
NerdyBlackChick wrote:
Why can't you just use hand guns? Your accuracy will be greater and there's less chance of stray bullets.
This is false.
NerdyBlackChick wrote:
I saw that video about uncovering the truth behind sandy hook. It's all just propaganda. Conspiracy theories. Someone with a hidden agenda. More idea than facts.
I agree.
Been around

Tucker, GA

#18 Jan 18, 2013
ChopperBlades wrote:
@ well let's see: You seriously think you can fire off as many rounds with a revolver that should be holding 6 rounds, maybe 8 if you have that little sexy 22 like I used to own, as I can with an M4 on full auto? Have you ever fired anything similar to an M4? The old 15 round mags could be emptied in 3 seconds if you never released the trigger. Not only have I seen it done, I have been there..done that. Even if you are using speed loaders, I do not believe you can reload that fast to beat my output in firepower.No brag, just what I see as fact?
Every comment, on every post, just confirms the fact that you are a troll that likes to argue from behind a keyboard. All day! Lmao. Get a life. We're not talking fully auto TROLL!

“It's a great day for.......”

Since: Nov 12

Location hidden

#19 Jan 18, 2013
well lets see wrote:
<quoted text>
Please go back and read. It is not my job to compensate for your lack of reading comprehension.
I never said that I could fire off equivalent in rounds as a semi-automatic rifle.
I did state, however, that one can fire off many rounds with a revolver fairly quick, given the proper equipment.
<quoted text>
Again, I was not making a parallel between semi-automatics and a revolver as it relates to their amount of output. I was stating that a revolver can have high output. Obviously not in correlation of a semi-automatic, but that wasn't the point, either.
You are correct; I inadvertently added the word "as" into your post. I readily admit my mistakes.

Since: Dec 12

Tucker, GA

#20 Jan 18, 2013
well lets see wrote:
<quoted text>
This is a completely irrelevant and moot point. Even the most seasoned shooters miss. Very few people in this world have a "perfect" shot all the time.

Huh? This is another completely asinine point. This has nothing to do with the desire of owning an "assault weapon."
<quoted text>
Asinine belittlement.
<quoted text>
Who are you to tell me what I can own, or not own? In my own house?
I am a law abiding citizen, lawfully allowed to carry my weapon any where I go, and actually have a sidearm as part of my job.
Your question should be more centered around why it's important for someone to have a semi-automatic rifle.
This "assault weapon" is a mere ignorance in terminology.
You see, I have a semi-automatic rifle simply because I love the ability of being able to go to the range and shooting. For some of us, that is our hobby. It's not about aim or mass killings. No, I don't use it for hunting. I could if I wanted to, but I don't have to.
Defense purposes, it is there. I'd rather have it for nothing than not have it for something. If I never have to use it to defend myself, then fine. Besides, I hope I never have to anyways.
It's MY money. MY home. My RIGHT.
The CT shooting that occurred could have just been easily accomplished by a handgun with 7 round magazines.
Do you want to ban all semi-automatics?
If you want to get real technical, I could fire off many rounds in a minute with just a revolver.
People have the misconception that even a revolver takes time to reload. It doesn't with the right equipment.
I'm not saying they need to be a perfect shot, but a more skilled one. Why do you need several rounds to kill someone? A single shot in any of several different places will do it. Also, why kill? Injure.

And I'm definitely not trying to tell you that you can or can't do anything. In fact, I have absolutely no care in what you do or don't do. Perhaps you're right. Maybe my terminology was off? Or maybe everyone just missed the point I wanted answered. Why are weapons like that needed? There are infinity + 1 hobbies to take interest in that don't involve guns.

Look, I don't care about you having your guns, I'm just curious why a ban on certain weapons that are not really used for civilian protection has caused such utter outrage from sensible people. It's not like there would be a ban on ALL firearms. So what gives? Why the bad attitudes?

I don't do gun mechanics. I have no idea how fast or slow it would take someone to reload a weapon. Sure, I guess you could call it gun ignorance. And that's okay because guns are not part of my daily life, and it's pretty irrelevant.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 3
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Jackson Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Downtown Jackson 3 min Mike 176
Brownsville Protest 21 min guest 25
looking for a new realtor 21 min guest 6
Liberals are mentally ill 25 min BoyHowdy 87
Who Whoree it Better 39 min witness 2
When is Jeff Young staff Christmas party? 40 min patient 8
Mangina! Jeff is a Mangina 1 hr Glamour 1
News Family struggles to keep up after loss of son 1 hr Guest 79

Jackson Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Jackson Mortgages