Firearms Forums

Full Version: Defending The Need for Assault Rifles and High Capacity Magazines
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
I am starting this thread to open up discussion on the Commentary I wrote entitled Defending The Need for Assault Rifles. You can read it here:

Let me know what you think on this issue.

One note: If you are not a registered user your first post will have to be approved to ensure you are not a spammer. Once your first post is approved you will not have to moderated any further.
You bring up a subject that is so hard to understand if you've never been there/lived that. I remember the LA Riots very well and all the destruction that was done. I was living in Colorado at the time, and many of the Black Community tried the same thing.
Actually no different than the Indian Wars from the 1800's, and taking away all their freedoms and harming "One of their Own", without any punishment to the wrong doers.
By rioting they let the Government know, in no uncertain terms, that to hurt one of their own, you'll have a fight on your hands, by taking away "My Rights".
We now have a situation, where not unlike the LA Riots, the Government is taking away and changing, the rights of Everybody just because of a few "Evil Doers", by interjecting false words into the 2nd Amendment, that our Founding Father's of this Nation seemed to know would happen, because they, been there/lived that, and they wanted the People of these United States to have the power and not the Government because corruption only breeds corruption.
Hi, I am new to this forum. I became interested in firearms recently when I inherited my father's cache of shotguns and hunting rifles. I found your site and like it very much. I read your commentary on assault weapons with interest and wanted to add my two cents.

You stated that there did exist a need in the U.S. for assault weapons and you highlighted the L.A. Riots as on example of when an assault weapon could come in handy.

While I appreciate your position, I want to point out that your argument actually SUPPORTS a ban on assault weapons. First, let me say that you immediately made the case for the ban when you used the Rodney King race riots as an example of when one might wish he had an assault weapon. You stated that when the rioting started, you went behind locked doors. That's just about what everyone did, and lo and behold, nothing happened to any of you! So going inside, locking your door, and maybe keeping a shotgun handy, really was more than enough for a person to keep safe during those violent days. Second, I cringed thinking about the courage an assault weapon would give certain people in a situation like that. Yes, with an assault weapon, you could POSSIBLY face down a dangerous crowd. But I thought about Reginald Denny, and how he was unarmed and surely about to be lynched when he was saved by onlookers. Reginald Denny was white; his attackers AND his saviors were black. A terrified person with an assault weapon witnessing that melee surely would have opened fire -- and probably killed not only his attackers but his saviors and Reginal Denny himself. That is why we have police. So that they can be the blue line between us and crazed crowds. Nothing good could come from American citizens taking it on themselves to quell riots of any sort with assault weapons. At any rate, I wanted to point these things out and I hope that you find them instructive.
Defuera, first off, welcome to the forum. While I respect your opinion, and your respectful way of presenting it (refreshing, actually), I have to respectfully disagree. First off, being behind locked doors was enough for me in San Diego. Fortunately, nothing major broke out that far South of Los Angeles. But being behind locked doors in L.A. was NOT enough for many, nor was being inside a locked vehicle. Many people were hurt that were simply hiding in hopes of the chaos to end.

I find it crazy that anyone, whether it be a simple citizen or the President of the United States to think they they are best qualified to tell ME how best I can protect my family.

You stated that going inside and locking the door was enough. That time, yes. What about the next one? Would you want to be the one that wished they had one more bullet when all hell breaks loose? Not me. I want all the ammo I can stuff into my AR-15, my 9mm(s) and my 45ACP so that when that time comes and I need it, I have it. You can throw all the "What If's" you want at me, but it only takes one "What If it isn't enough" to make it game over, you lose. I won't take that chance. Not with my life, my families lives, nor my neighbors lives if necessary.

And one more thing bothers me about your post:

Quote:A terrified person with an assault weapon witnessing that melee surely would have opened fire -- and probably killed not only his attackers but his saviors and Reginal Denny himself.

We are talking about people in their homes protecting their families and themselves. Sane people, armed or not, would NOT be in the middle of all that. They certainly wouldn't be walking around with an assault rifle. And finally:

Quote:That is why we have police.

Always remember, and this is VERY important when protecting yourself and your family. When seconds count, the police are only minutes away. In the case of the L.A. riots, they might not have showed up at all (they were a little busy).

Thank you for your input.
That's what's wrong with Cities/States that have restricted Gun Control. You get Hoodlums that know how to create confusion and harm. They know that Police will show up as late as 30minutes---if showing up at all. Which is how LA became---they didn't show up because the Police Dept knew, they would be on the losing end of any outcome. The Police had their own Court, and found not Guilty. Thus, the LA RIOTS. All because a Black man got a beatdown, because he was so high on drugs, that he couldn't even understand the simplist command, and all he wanted to do is be combative. A Sane Person can be controlled by one Cop. What did it take for King, 6 or 7. They used what means(outside of a bullet) to try and get this Man to cooperate. Nothing worked. The ONLY innocent Victim in this outcome was that poor Truckdriver Reginald Denny who didn't know what was happening, and was just trying to do his job. What did he get. Almost killed, and not a dime from the City, by a bunch of Vigilanties who didn't like the way the Law System worked. By the way, some of those Vigilantist, were identified, but not brought to Justice---all because of King, and the way things went down, because of a "Tape". All the Black's saw, was one of their own getting jacked-up. All the Police were trying to do is taking care of business with a Black Man who was jacked-up.
You'll also find that YOUR high ranking Officials of such Cities that have Gun Control, have all kinds of "Provided Protection" from YOU the taxpayer. What do you get in return? Nothing but your RIGHTS trampled on in the name of safety. Safety to whom?
Look at Chicage, Detroit, New Jersey, New York to know how Gun Control works, and you too would want the "Baddest Mother*%)$*ing Gun you can find, in either a Pistol or Rifle, to protect you and your Family when going out of the Home.
Roll this over and over in your Mind until you understand it. The Police DON'T HAVE TO PROTECT and SERVE YOU. Look it up. It's all a myth. While they serve(when they want), lie, deceive, and protect (their) own needs. However, if you lie, deceive, and try to protect You and Yours---you're arrested. Not all Police are D*^ks', but there's enough out there, to make you think they all must be.

By the way. Welcome to the Forum. Good to hear other's thoughts and opinions.
Reference URL's