Help me understand why people need assault rifles to protect themselves

Ask a mountaineer why he climbs mountains, its an odds on favorite he will say "because its there" I have a collection of things that I buy because I like the workmanship, the design, the history, 'the thrill of the chase' I don't bother with the small accessories that go with them, don't need to, just the sight of the items on top of the bookcase keeps people quiet!

originally posted by: Thecakeisalie

What I can't fathom is how some folk feel the need to arm themselves with what could be considered as military grade weapons-weapons that would serve a purpose on the battlefield but would have little to no purpose in the family home. I've lost count of the times I’ve seen people posing with AR-15's, MP-5's, or other such weapons, claiming that said weapons will protect their family against those that seek to hurt them.
So please enlighten me, I want to know the logic behind the purchase of these weapons.

originally posted by: grey580
a reply to: Thecakeisalie

You might as well be asking why would anyone "need" to buy a Ferarri if a Toyota will get you from point a to point b. Certainly in stop and go traffic all that speed is kind of wasted....SNIP...does a person really need to eat three two thousand calorie meals per day when you can live a healthy lifestyle with 2500 calories per day?
Should we stop people from drinking 64 oz sodas?

See where this is headed?

Grey580: You are 100% correct. But sadly logic is lost to the abdicating leftist.

Thecakeisalie: It is painfully obvious that you and the left couldnt give a single, solitary # about doing a single thing to 'save the children', or to have 'not one more', or any semblance of actually making a difference.

CDC Leading Causes of Death


Selected Causes of Death, Ages 0-19, per 100,000 Population (2007) United States Child Mortality, 2007

Cause Number of Deaths Mortality Rate
Unintentional Injury 11,560 14.0
Motor Vehicle 6,683 8.1
Drowning 1,056 1.3
Fire/Burn 544 0.7
Poisoning 972 1.2
Suffocation/Strangulation1,263 1.5
Firearm 138 0.2

Homicide 3,345 4.1
Firearm 2,186 2.7

*note: this data is from 2007. Homicide rates are even lower, but that's immaterial to the point


You leftists can't seem to get #ty parents to stop leaving their kids in the car on a hot summer day or secure them in a car seat even though there are SCORES of laws regarding that very fact. Somehow mopping a child's remains off the pavement because mommy couldn't get off the phone (also illegal) isn't front page worthy.

What I also curious is how the left completely ignore the driving factor in the homicide rate, inner-city black youth killing each other.

Homicide According to the US Department of Justice, blacks accounted for 52.5% of homicide offenders from 1980 to 2008, with whites 45.3% and Native Americans and Asians 2.2%. The offending rate for blacks was almost 8 times higher than whites, and the victim rate 6 times higher. Most murders were intraracial, with 84% of white homicide victims murdered by whites, and 93% of black victims murdered by blacks

EIGHT. TIMES. MORE. LIKELY.

But that's right, the inner city thug is using a $1000 rifle to murder, right? And of course you can't tell 13.6% of the population to stop committing over 50% of this nations murders now can we...because that'd be racist. Cheap pistols and the 'gangsta' mentality may be the #1 cause of gun related death in this nation, but the #1 killer of kids are cars.

Obama can't be bothered to climb up on his soapbox and tell his fellow brothers to stop stooping each other with a cheap pistol, but demands I give up my rifle? And you find this morally acceptable and defensible?

So until you liberals are screaming 'NOT ONE MORE' and writing legislation mandating cars be made out of Nerf foam you and your gun-grabbing mentality can get

originally posted by: stormbringer1701
BTW the AR-15 as much as i like them is no different that a certain hunting rifle which actually is semi automatic and fires faster than the ar. it just lacks the scary looking pistol grip, compensator and bayonet lug. the mini14 is almost never the target of the gun grabbers but it is every bit as capable of mayhem as the AR15. it just looks like a hunting rifle. but there are "military" furniture kits you can add to it. picture a hunting rifle and cute fluffy bunnehs...then swap out the furniture making no changes to the capacity or functionality and oh my gosh it's an eeeeeevil assault rifle. it's too dangerous for you to have! aaaaargh! aaaaargh! Ban it! it looks scary! aaaargh!

The Feinstein bill last year was a perfect example of the type of ignorance you describe. As we all know, that bill had lists of firearms both specifically including them in the ban and another specifically exempting others. Sure enough, the Mini-14 was a rifle that was to be exempted from the ban, well, except for that eeevvviiilll Mini-14 Tactical....which differs from the standard version by a different stock and a flash hider. Really? Yeah, that makes it SO much more dangerous. They're the same rifle, based on the same semi-automatic design and take the same 30 round magazines, but one is OK because it looks like a hunting rifle, the other is banned because it looks scary.

And these people wonder why the pro-2A side just doesn't listen to them. Its a real mystery, ain't it? They have absolutely no idea what they're trying to ban or why they're doing it. They just know that if it looks scary and dangerous, dammit, it must be true.

originally posted by: Lipton


But that's right, the inner city thug is using a $1000 rifle to murder, right? And of course you can't tell 13.6% of the population to stop committing over 50% of this nations murders now can we...because that'd be racist. Cheap pistols and the 'gangsta' mentality may be the #1 cause of gun related death in this nation, but the #1 killer of kids are cars.

A good argument for the OP is why would I defend myself against some gansta (of any color) by using a cheap pistol too?

Obama can't be bothered to climb up on his soapbox and tell his fellow brothers to stop stooping each other with a cheap pistol, but demands I give up my rifle?

That part of the violence is conveniently left out of most of the discussion. It's something they do not want to address.

a reply to: Thecakeisalie

because advanced killing technology belongs in the hands of the people. the strongest detererrentfor invasion is a civilian population well armed not a military. i dont trust them

Because with a 30 round magazine, you can miss 29 times.

Assault rifles are not really assault rifles anyway, they're just a standard nugget thrower with a high capacity nugget feeder.

The thing with most of you "scaredy cats" is exactly the reason some like those scary "military lookin weppins", so we don't have to even chamber a round and the simple brandishing of it will send problem causers running with their tail between their legs.

Guns and any other weapons are nothing more than a deterrent if used correctly, that old saying "Don't point a weapon at somebody if you're not willing to pull the trigger" is more of a problem than the weapon itself because you don't have to pull the trigger or even brandish it if you're doing things right.

Nobody in their right mind wants to kill another person, believe me, I know from experience.

But really, it is nice being able to miss 29 times intentionally....

a reply to: Thecakeisalie

Why? Because they work so well?

originally posted by: revoltsquad806
a reply to: Thecakeisalie

because advanced killing technology ....

Be careful when using phrases like that. The anti's love it and it's simply not true.

The AK has been around for 65 years. The AR15 for 56 years. Semi-auto pistols have been around since the late 1800's.

The only things that might qualify as "advanced" are the add-ons like a fancy optic or mounted light.

Every other part of any gun available today is geriatric.

a reply to: vor78

except for that eeevvviiilll Mini-14 Tactical....which differs from the standard version by a different stock and a flash hider.

I am convinced that they (the government) don't want us to have flash hiders because they would like to where the bullets are coming from in low light conditions, while they would have the tactical advantage of having flash hiders under the same conditions.
I think the laws coming out limiting magazine capacities to ten rounds are meant for the same reasons. You have to change magazines twice while they don't need to change at all to fire thirty rounds. This would give them a tactical advantage.

You must understand that many with no real experience with anything but proxy experience, as in watchin TV and playin games online have no real idea of what it is they are talking about.

After years of being fed images of death and carnage in movies and games they are scared and helpless and want the government to protect them without their having to do anything.

Never mind an earlier poster who presented statistics that indicated that it's probably a bad idea to buy your dumb kid a car for their 16th birthday....Oh yeah, get them a cell phone too, so they can drive around and look cool like Mom and Dad do.

OOOOh, I B So scayaaahd, of all of the idiots out there driving their cars while I am out on this.

Aaaaghhh, pic wouldn't upload....Of my bicycle...

looky looky, I'm so important I gotta talk on my phone while I'm drivin cuz I B speshul and never learned how to manage my time well enough to be able to concentrate on one thing at a time, or spell...


a reply to: thisguyrighthere

A flash hider isn't necessary if you hit on the first or second shot.

They give the weapon a cooler sound though....

a reply to: butcherguy

a reply to: thisguyrighthere

i referred to it as advanced killing technology because of its advantage over bolt action rifles. we should always be able to have better access to defending ourselves than our system of government. and why are u worried my words will end up in a antigun arguement if they are wrong anyways?

originally posted by: MyHappyDogShiner
A flash hider isn't necessary if you hit on the first or second shot.

They give the weapon a cooler sound though....

a reply to: butcherguy

It is nice to have if you are one guy facing a platoon....a platoon that can call in air support.

a reply to: Thecakeisalie

why do I have to limit my reasons for owning a weapone to protecting my self? they are just damn fun to shoot!

a reply to: Thecakeisalie


are we using the US Army's definition of 'assault rifle', or the MSM definition?

HUGE difference...

a assault rifle is one that has black scary bits on it. the media and polytickians told me so!

a reply to: stormbringer1701

since nobody else mentioned it . should anyone be allowed ssri medication?

originally posted by: revoltsquad806
and why are u worried my words will end up in a antigun arguement if they are wrong anyways?

Because being wrong doesnt matter to them. The ones making the arguments are dumb as # and they're vying for the hearts of minds of the equally dumb.

Worse yet is they are intentionally and willfully ignorant actively ignoring fact.

Their whole business thrives on sensational buzz words.

a reply to: thisguyrighthere

then we got nothing to worry about right? our government is already one step ahead preparing for "us" thats what we should be worried about not ultranationalist posing as democrats