Investors.com: Why you need to own an 'Assault' Rifle

Posted in the Guns Forum

Comments

Showing posts 1 - 8 of8
LBer

Long Beach, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1
Jun 28, 2013
 

Judged:

2

1

1

http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials/1228...

Guns: The left keeps asking why anyone needs an "assault" rifle. Here's one reason in 2010, a Texas teen used a rifle similar to the one used in Newtown to defend his younger sister and himself from home invaders.

The left quite often exposes its raging elitism through its odious habit of asking why anyone would need the things that it doesn't like, from guns to big homes to monster trucks.

The implication is that if the elitists don't want whatever it is, then no one should be allowed to have it except, of course, it's fine for the elitists themselves to live in energy-sucking mansions, hire armed bodyguards and drive around in gas-guzzling limousines and SUVs.

When the left asks these questions it also reveals its blinding ignorance. Is there a single Democrat, dense celebrity or condescending journalist who is aware that "assault" rifles don't just define their owners as red necks but also serve as practical protection?

Actually the total amount of what they don't know about firearms and crime is enough to crush them.

Consider that, according to FBI data, in 2007, there were 453 homicides by rifle in the U.S. Yes, that's too many. But compare that number to a few other methods of homicide employed that year.

In 2007, there were 1,817 homicides committed with "knives or cutting instruments"; "blunt objects (clubs, hammers, etc.)" killed 674; while "personal weapons (hands, fists, feet, etc.)" were the choices in 869 homicides.

The number of rifle homicides has fallen steadily since then to 323 last year, as have the other three weapon classes, though each still remains a more common choice than the rifle.

In fact, when added together, knives, blunt instruments and the human body were responsible for more than nine times as many homicides as rifles in 2011.

Yet no one is asking why anyone would want to own a set of steak knives, place a heavy candelabra on their mantle or have a hammer in their garage.

The weapon used effectively as protection by the Texas teen was neither a club nor a fist but reportedly an AR-15, a rifle on which the .223-caliber Bushmaster used in the tragic Sandy Hook shootings was modeled.

Though tagged "assault" weapons, both are merely semi-automatics, just as are many hunting rifles, and all but a handful are used legally and peacefully.

But elitists on the left don't hunt they let someone else do their killing so how could they know?

None of this is intended to minimize the tragedy at Sandy Hook Elementary or any other mass shooting.

It's simply an attempt to point out that a screaming obsession over one particular weapon used less frequently to kill than knives is driven by ignorance, arrogance and a nonexistent sense of proportion.

Since: Feb 13

Amarillo, TX

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2
Jun 28, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

Quit flooding their propaganda mills with facts!

Fact confuse the gun control crowds. Did you see the finger pointing and back pedaling when the MAIG crowd was listing the Boston bomber as a vitim of gun violence? It was quite funny.
Marauder

Anchorage, AK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#3
Jun 28, 2013
 
Shelly Bl wrote:
Quit flooding their propaganda mills with facts!
Fact confuse the gun control crowds. Did you see the finger pointing and back pedaling when the MAIG crowd was listing the Boston bomber as a vitim of gun violence? It was quite funny.
The Boston bomber wasn't the only one. The source that MAIG used listed "ALL" firearm deaths to include those criminals killed by police officers and justifiable shootings by civilians. There is a website for their source that had a stick figure man...woman...or child for each person killed. It was seperated by month and you could click on each figure and it would show the reported circumstances for the firearm death. I picked one at random and it came up as a car jacker killed by a sheriff's deputy.

“O'er the land of the free ? ”

Since: Jan 09

Don't Tread On Me

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#4
Jun 29, 2013
 
Marauder wrote:
<quoted text>
The Boston bomber wasn't the only one. The source that MAIG used listed "ALL" firearm deaths to include those criminals killed by police officers and justifiable shootings by civilians. There is a website for their source that had a stick figure man...woman...or child for each person killed. It was seperated by month and you could click on each figure and it would show the reported circumstances for the firearm death. I picked one at random and it came up as a car jacker killed by a sheriff's deputy.
LMFAO !

Great post !

Since: Feb 13

Amarillo, TX

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#5
Jun 29, 2013
 
Marauder wrote:
<quoted text>
The Boston bomber wasn't the only one. The source that MAIG used listed "ALL" firearm deaths to include those criminals killed by police officers and justifiable shootings by civilians. There is a website for their source that had a stick figure man...woman...or child for each person killed. It was seperated by month and you could click on each figure and it would show the reported circumstances for the firearm death. I picked one at random and it came up as a car jacker killed by a sheriff's deputy.
I wonder if I should be shocked by it. It would be great if someone had the time to compare and contrast all of the "victims" because it would make interesting reading. But it would never hit the news. For some reason the press wants the 1st Amendment but not the 2nd.
Marauder

Anchorage, AK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#6
Jun 29, 2013
 
Shelly Bl wrote:
<quoted text>I wonder if I should be shocked by it. It would be great if someone had the time to compare and contrast all of the "victims" because it would make interesting reading. But it would never hit the news. For some reason the press wants the 1st Amendment but not the 2nd.
It could be a good project for a group of people over the weekend...lol. There are over 6,000 names.

If the MAIG wants to make a point, then read the circumstances along with the name being read. I would wager that would substancially reduce the number of names being read. I would think that those relatives of someone killed would be very upset for their loved one being lumped in with criminals getting killed by LE during the commission of a crime.
LBer

Long Beach, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#7
Jun 29, 2013
 
Shelly Bl wrote:
<quoted text>I wonder if I should be shocked by it. It would be great if someone had the time to compare and contrast all of the "victims" because it would make interesting reading. But it would never hit the news. For some reason the press wants the 1st Amendment but not the 2nd.
Give it time...they are already working on the 1st Amendment. Their plan is to focus on the 2nd, then logically (when your 'pants are down') when you're incapable of defending your rights with a firearm - in the tradition of our founders - they'll snap up the 1st Amendment.

Nanny state socialism...
Baba Yoga

Houston, TX

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#8
Jul 11, 2013
 
Next they'll tell me my box cutter is a weapon of mass destruction only used by terrorists and no sane civilian would dream of owning one.

Actually I hope they go that route because you know street cred is hard to come by when you're wearing khaki shorts and polos.

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Showing posts 1 - 8 of8
Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" 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.

•••
•••
Enter and win $5000
•••
•••