Rooster Cogburn said:
SODAssault said:
Just to throw in a little bit of common sense: nobody's overthrowing the military with their friends and the contents of their gunsafe.
Us Americans are too comfortable and coddled in our lifestyles to go from civilian to proper soldiers at the drop of a hat.
Now. But men have done it and we should ready ourselves. If the government really has us so subdued to tyranny, that is a problem we must immediately address.
EDIT: Sorry about the double post.
(Can't believe I hadn't seen this in my inbox.)
It's a legitimate point, and I'm not arguing against it, but people seem to place too much value on weaponry over discipline. They associate an easy-to-use weapon with being an effective freedom fighter.
I think I'll call it Red Dawn syndrome: people that think by being armed and implementing guerrilla tactics, they're more than a match for any respectably trained armed force, when reality dictates that the several months of straight-up military training will leave an opponent ready to go toe-to-toe with another highly-trained military operative, let alone several handfuls of irate American civilians with guns.
Addressing other arguments:
"Most of our own military wouldn't fire on civilians even if ordered to."
Are you so sure about that? If it ever gets to the point of a tyrannical dictatorship, the government certainly wouldn't be above threatening the lives of not only the soldiers, but the families of the soldiers. Seems likely to me that coercion wouldn't be a problem at all for a government that requires overthrowing, and I find it very unlikely that insubordination would be allowed to fly. You'd be facing a well-trained, coordinated and well-motivated fighting force, not a ragtag group of soldiers with a hard-on for murder; no small-arm weapon is going to increase your chances of survivability if you decide to take them on.
"The sensationalist media is to blame for the bad PR assault weapons have gained."
Partially true, as the news media does tend to overhype all incidents involving firearms of any sort. On the other hand, the several-hour standoffs that have occurred in the past where multiple police officers were injured/killed were made more dangerous by the fact that the shooter was armed with an assault rifle. While it's true that any gun is deadly in the right hands, an assault rifle only facilitates the ability to kill multiple people in a short amount of time. A large clip of armor-piercing rounds (the 5.56mmx45mm was designed during the cold war specifically to pierce body armor, in the event of Soviet invasion, and the fact that it's an armor-piercing round is the reason why it performs with lackluster results against unarmored insurgents; additionally, the 7.62x39mm round has proven its ability to pierce quarter-inch steel and standard body armor time and time again, with the added ability to hit unarmored targets very, very hard) from a compact and accurate rifle was designed for the purpose of killing groups of other human beings, and makes a deranged shooter that much deadlier when he's holding a purpose-built weapon to achieve his goals.
"The majority of gun-related crime is committed with a pistol."
The amount of people killed with a different weapon does not diminish the amount of fatalities caused by another.
And my personal favorite:
"The ban only bars weapons with 'scary' aesthetic features."
Well, if this is the issue, simply buy equivalent weapons that do not have such aesthetics. If it seems trivial to ban a weapon because it has a pistol grip or a collapsible stock, allow me to introduce you to the difference between appearances and ergonomics. My AKM-S, which has both a pistol grip and an underfolding stock, does not have these features for the "whoa, awesome" factor. It has them because it makes the weapon tactically sound and easier to implement sooner in a combat scenario than later (both factors that I have no need of, any nobody else should need them unless they happen to be a soldier).
Now, before you call me a hypocrite, I would like to emphasize that the weapon remains completely unmodified by me thus far, and all unnecessary features like the stock and the grip came as-purchased. In fact, I have future plans to put a fixed stock on it. Now, allow me to give specific examples why such additions are not merely cosmetic: a folding stock, for example, is designed for artillery and vehicle crews. As none of you are likely to belong to one of the aforementioned professions, you do not need one. Why is it dangerous? Because while, as I mentioned in my original post, an assault rifle is by no means ideal or necessary for everyday concealed carry, with the stock folded my AKM-S could easily be put on a sling, hidden under a trenchcoat or large overcoat and carried into a public place undetected. I could easily walk into a large crowd and begin opening fire without any warning (though I never would). Getting the picture?
Another example would be pistol grips and foregrips. Their purpose is to make the weapon easier to control during periods where multiple shots are made in rapid succession (this can easily be applied to any semi-auto firearm, so don't say "oh that's just for full-auto weapons, you're dumb"). Again, what is the practical purpose of this for a civilian weapon? To help a man with Parkinson' hunt bears? This feature is meant to help control the weapon as you engage multiple targets, or quickly put several rounds into a single target.
Anybody that argues that they wish to put these modifications on their guns without any intent of using them for their intended purpose clearly has the same mentality of a highschool boy putting decals, spoilers and body kits all over his Civic. Weapons are not a medium with which you express yourself, they are tools designed to take lives and destroy equipment.
Now, a disclaimer: While I am not die-hard opposed to a ban against assault weapons, I do not support such a ban. I wouldn't hope for one at any time. However, as a firearms enthusiast, I am required to point out the fallacies of my fellow supporters of the second amendment, in order to maintain our credibility. That's all I'm doing.
