Why we need guns, even "assault weapons"

[netsecurity]

The recent murderous attacks should be a perfectly good example of why we need guns, sophisticated weapons, to protect ourselves. Instead, all we hear is that we should ban all guns, which seems like a juvenile argument to me. So what if ALL assault weapons, and ALL pistols were banned? What if MULTIPLE attackers came into a church with such banned weapons and killed 19 people? Would this convince any of these liberals that maybe we need to be able to defend ourselves? Probably not, but here is a case of exactly that happening...in Nigeria, where handguns and assault weapons are illegal, yet the murderers had them.

http://www.cnn.com/2012/08/07/world/africa/nigeria-church-attack/index.html?hpt=hp_bn2

Nigerian gun laws:
http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/nigeria
-->
In Nigeria, civilians are not allowed to possess machine-guns, military rifles and handguns
In Nigeria, private possession of semi-automatic assault weapons is prohibited
In Nigeria, private possession of handguns (pistols and revolvers) is prohibited

 

[Whitey]

I need guns because it is my right to own them. if guns were outlawed in 1776 we all would still be talking funny.

 

[VikingWarlord]

I wish people on both sides would stop making comparisons to other countries. It's nonsense.

Some countries have high gun ownership and few murders.
Some have low ownership and lots of murders.
Some have high ownership and lots of murders.
Some have low ownership and few murders.

Drawing conclusions based on a single variable is irresponsible, especially when there are so many better points to make for strengthening legal gun ownership in the United States.

 

[netsecurity]

I need 30 round magazines, because there could be multiple attackers. I need HiCap mags because the bad guys will have them. End of story.

Liberals see recent attacks as preventable with laws, but look at Nigeria. This one shooting was worse than Aurora, because it had multiple shooters. These shooters didn't care about any gun laws.

I want to be able to fend off multiple attackers. I want hicap mags, and M4's.

 

[SirRealism]

I wish people on both sides would stop making comparisons to other countries. It's nonsense.

Some countries have high gun ownership and few murders.
Some have low ownership and lots of murders.
Some have high ownership and lots of murders.
Some have low ownership and few murders.

Drawing conclusions based on a single variable is irresponsible, especially when there are so many better points to make for strengthening legal gun ownership in the United States.

I agree, but it is a reasonable retort to someone on the other side who already went down that road.

 

[netsecurity]

I wish people on both sides would stop making comparisons to other countries. It's nonsense.

Some countries have high gun ownership and few murders.
Some have low ownership and lots of murders.
Some have high ownership and lots of murders.
Some have low ownership and few murders.

Drawing conclusions based on a single variable is irresponsible, especially when there are so many better points to make for strengthening legal gun ownership in the United States.

Obviously, I disagree. This discussion is about scenarios where we need sophisticated weapons to defend ourselves. The scenario could've taken place in the South Pole, and it wouldn't change the fact that you'd need a lot of bullets and firepower to defend yourself from such an attack. The fact that the weapons used were likely completely banned in Nigeria just makes it more obvious that gun bans are terrible.

So go ahead then, name a reason you need 30 round magazines. And don't tell me because you want them, or because you don't like to reload at the range, I mean a reason that makes them necessary. I can think if no better reason than to stop multiple attackers, and this scenario is a PERFECT example that just happened IN THE REAL WORLD today. Believe it or not, but things that happen in other parts of the world are no different than things here, they may just be more or less common.

Don't act like the Ft. Hood attack didn't happen here, or that we don't have attacks in churches, c'mon man.

 

[3gunshooter]

I believe the right answer is to make it an equalizer or a bit more superior. I also believe if you do not know how to use what you got hi cap. or not it will not do you much good.

 

[sprshggy07]

I have a couple of AK's and as far as I know 30 rounders are standard capacity mags

 

[netsecurity]

I have a couple of AK's and as far as I know 30 rounders are standard capacity mags

According to liberals, no one needs more than 10 round mags. Anything larger is not used for hunting, and is only useful for killing multiple people.

 

[sprshggy07]

According to liberals, no one needs more than 10 round mags. Anything larger is not used for hunting, and is only useful for killing multiple people.

I just think it's funny that they think the 2nd is about hunting, it makes me LOL at their ignorance.

 

[thebishopp]

I wonder why we always use these stupid "sporting purposes" and "self defense" arguments in fighting to maintain our 2nd Amendment protected rights?

Those arguments are easily defeated. No you don't need those 30 round magazines to deal with the common criminal. No you don't need those military weapons to hunt deer.

They are quite right, we don't "need" them for those things. Low capacity magazines (just carry a few more of them) and regular "hunting" rifles are all that are "needed" using those arguments.

What we do "need" Military weaponry and magazines for is the reason the 2nd Amendment was created.

To, as a last resort, enable us to protect ourselves should the government become an enemy of the people (like a bigger version of the common criminal).

Right now we have a situation where the "criminal" is specifying what weapons we can have and use against him should the need arise. It's ridiculous.

"The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government." - Jefferson

and since I tend to quote Jefferson more than anyone, let's not forget the other founders:

If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no recourse left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government, and which against the usurpations of the national rulers may be exerted with infinitely better prospect of success than against those of the rulers of an individual State. In a single State, if the persons entrusted with supreme power become usurpers, the different parcels, subdivisions, or districts of which it consists, having no distinct government in each, can take no regular measures for defense. The citizens must rush tumultuously to arms, without concert, without system, without resource; except in their courage and despair.
-- Alexander Hamilton


" ... but if circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude, that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people, while there is a large body of citizens, little if at all inferior to them in discipline and use of arms, who stand ready to defend their rights ..."
-- Alexander Hamilton

"And that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress ... to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms.... "
--Samuel Adams

"I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
— George Mason

And a nice little quote by Tench Coxe who worked under Madison, Washington, and Jefferson:

As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people duly before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow-citizens, the people are confirmed by the next article in their right to keep and bear their private arms.

— Tench Coxe (1755–1824), writing as "A Pennsylvanian," in "Remarks On The First Part Of The Amendments To The Federal Constitution," in the Philadelphia Federal Gazette, June 18, 1789, p. 2 col. 1

 

[netsecurity]

Nice quotes. Yes, the 2A is about defense from tyranny. Any group of attackers, be they government sponsored, or a rogue militia, require the same defense--and an ADEQUATE defense, requires military rifles.