Virginia Gun Owners Forum - VGOF

meak99 wrote:

Palladin wrote:

meak99 wrote:Why own something simply because you have the right to? For me, there has to be some need/rationale for purchasing other than the fact that I have the right to....

Duty. I know it probably seems archaic, but that's the way I see it.

If all you can afford is a rusty old single shot, so be it. If you can afford to own a minigun and deploy it, then have at it. It all comes down to responsibility and self-governance. If you aren't responsible enough to govern yourself, some one will do if for you... it's just a matter of time.

I want to make sure I am understanding this correctly. Are you saying that I have a duty to buy the biggest, coolest, most powerful, most expensive gun I can afford and responsibly own and deploy? I hope I am wrong in my interpretation of your statement.

I guess that didn't come out right...

You said 'For me, there has to be some need/rationale for purchasing other than the fact that I have the right to...'

For me, the rationale is duty. I have the duty to provide for my defense, and I do that to the best of my ability and means. I can't swing a chopper, jet, sub, aircraft carrier, nuke, ICBM and the like, but I pay for them through my taxes, and sincerely hope that our government will employ them in a just fashion. Should those systems fail, however, I would hate to find my options limited to machetes, slings, bricks or nothing, because we the people saw fit to forgo the right to be able to possess the weapon of our choice.

The OP asked -
'I have a reason to have my handguns and shotguns in my home and on my person; defense of the home and defense for myself.

Other than "They are cool" or "they are fun" (and they are! I remember from my military days...), what is the reasoning behind purchasing an assault weapon?'

What is an assault weapon? Sounds sinister and illegal. I have no assault weapons, only defense weapons.

@meak99 - the only duty you have is to live your life as you see fit... it's what we used to call "Free Country".

MNMGoneShooting wrote:Hi all -

I'm not by any means new to firearms and I'm all about 2A; so don't be mislead by the title.

I have a reason to have my handguns and shotguns in my home and on my person; defense of the home and defense for myself.

Other than "They are cool" or "they are fun" (and they are! I remember from my military days...), what is the reasoning behind purchasing an assault weapon?

The only thing I can think of to tell the wife if I ever wanted to get one is "what if we get invaded?" While that is always a possibility, is it realistic to believe my ownership of an assualt rifle would be part of a solution?

I can see this has the potential to be a large debate (hold back, Kruetz!) - I hope it stays simple and cordial.

My question comes from curiousity and to be educated.
Might as well add the cool icon ----->

The reasoning is if I want one and can afford it, I should be able to have it.

The cops (also civvies despite their opinion to the contrary) have the rifles (and armored personnel carriers, sigh), why can't I?

meak99 wrote:WRW - I bowl or golf because I want to and can afford it. I don't bowl or golf simply because I have the right to do so. I hunt because I want to, even though I can afford meat at the grocery store, not because I have the right to. I am glad I have the right to do these things, but I don't do them simply because I have that right.

Recreational value is the term neither of us has used but that applies here.

WRW wrote:

meak99 wrote:WRW - I bowl or golf because I want to and can afford it. I don't bowl or golf simply because I have the right to do so. I hunt because I want to, even though I can afford meat at the grocery store, not because I have the right to. I am glad I have the right to do these things, but I don't do them simply because I have that right.

Recreational value is the term neither of us has used but that applies here.

True, but that is why someone would want to do something. Still not doing it only cause you can.

I was thinking about jdonovan's comment more... perhaps someone would feel the NEED or WANT to do something that they have the RIGHT to do, in order to help preserve that right by exercising it. Perfectly justifiable if that's the case, but I think there is still a want/need associated there.

It comes down to the ACTUAL purpose of the 2nd Amendment, which is to defend against TYRANNY IN GOVERNMENT.

If the government has the upper hand, militarily, then they can enact whatever legislation they want without fear of armed reprisal.

And that is exactly what they've done. The last time a comparably-armed force was used for its designated purpose it was defeated only after four years of horrible and bloody TOTAL war waged not just against armies, but against communities and civilian populations.

The South was nearly able to wrest its RIGHT to self governance from the tyranny of Lincoln, but ultimately failed. It has cost us DEARLY to live under the quasi-military rule of the federal enclave in Washington.

Truth be told, I believe we need fully automatic weapons now more than ever - and I believe they should be put to use for their duly designated purpose. All you need to do to understand this is read the text of the NDAA and HR 347 to see that the government has NOTHING IN MIND for this country but more subjugation and more usurpation.

Hmm, can't remember who my AR15 "Assaulted"

Regardless,

I own one because of two reasons:

1. I want one.
2. I have a right to own one.

I don't think it really gets any more complicated than that.

One of the best reasons I can think of is simple..."Because WE can"!

The Second Amendment was intended as a safe guard against tyranny. It has everything to do with the duty to rebel against a tyrannical government.

Thomas Jefferson wrote in the Deleration of Independence about the people's right and duty to rebel against oppressive governments.

But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security

When the Second Amendment was created it's intention was to protect the people's right to own a great tool of rebellion, the gun. The founding father's understood that that right could be threatened. In fact when the first shots where fired during the Revolutionary War the British were on their way to seize firearms and ammunition from the colonist's militias.

The Second Amendment serves as the people's last hope, when all other methods of negotiation and comprise have failed, to uproot their government and establish a new one.


Now how all that relates to "Assault Weapons": They are the battle rifle of today and if the Second Amendment is the stay meaningful it must protect the weapon that would be used by today's people to rebel against their government.

Some will say, "They could have never envisioned the rapid fire semi automatic weapons that we have today." and that much might be true but it's irrelevant because that did envision a government that people maintained control of and if that vision is to be true then such weapons cannot be banned.

SN: I'm sure they also didn't envision TVs but the First Amendment applies to them doesn't it?

Great input guys, but really - I only need to be lectured once. I'm a big boy. Thanks for correcting me (multiple times).

MNMGoneShooting wrote:Great input guys, but really - I only need to be lectured once. I'm a big boy. Thanks for correcting me (multiple times).

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Don't take it personally. Once you get this crowd started, there ain't NO stopping us. It's almost like talking to your wife.

Understood.

This is really an interesting discussion.

It has made me think about the radical changes in government across the worlds, and what the possibilities would be if this government collapsed. Not really a matter of if, but when - and what would occur in that vacuum?

In a scenario where we formed our own militias for protection of liberties, I suppose my handguns won't be entirely effective.

Do we really need a reason? It your right to own them!

PulsatingBeaver wrote:Do we really need a reason? It your right to own them!

I would say no, you dont need a reason at all.
But it's good to discuss your reasons if someone is curious or wants to be educated.

MNMGoneShooting wrote:

PulsatingBeaver wrote:Do we really need a reason? It your right to own them!

I would say no, you dont need a reason at all.
But it's good to discuss your reasons if someone is curious or wants to be educated.

I really dont have any reasons to own an "assult" rifle. A .22lr can be an "Assult" gun imo.

dorminWS wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Don't take it personally. Once you get this crowd started, there ain't NO stopping us. It's almost like talking to your wife.

can't even get a word in edgewise.

Yes dear.... but- ...... but.... no, dear.... but... but... yes, dear
ow, dear

Reasons for owning an assault rifle? How many members of congress are there?

Also we've already been invaded, the've come here under the guise of work visa's. Not crossing borders but flying here, tickets bought and paid for by the mexican government. And condoned by our government!

So you want a big reason why? Go look at the caopital building!

Just saying what most are thinking.

"Duty. I know it probably seems archaic, but that's the way I see it.

If all you can afford is a rusty old single shot, so be it. If you can afford to own a minigun and deploy it, then have at it. It all comes down to responsibility and self-governance. If you aren't responsible enough to govern yourself, some one will do if for you... it's just a matter of time."

paladin hit the nail on the head and so did many others for diffrent reasons. But duty sums it up perfectly responsible free men using arms to protect themselves is how our country came about and how our children may live to see a glimmer of what we have had growing up. It doesn't have to be an assault rifle a well trained rifleman with a 30 caliber can provide for his families needs safety and come to the aid of his fellow countrymen.


Molon Labe

oh and go to Appleseed been to two now shot rifleman awesome instruction great history and good people couldn't think of a better weekend for the price unless i'm in port in Australia http://www.appleseedinfo.org/

ill even go with ya if you want someone too and got about five friends that will go again too

Yep. Duty. I've been saying that American citizens are duty-bound to own and carry guns for years. We are responsible for our own safety and well-being; guns can be useful for that.

As Kreutz pointed out, the police (and military, too) have all this advanced weaponry, so why can't we? Further, why shouldn't we want that sort of thing? Seems to me that having them would be in our best interest.

SHMIV wrote:Yep. Duty. I've been saying that American citizens are duty-bound to own and carry guns for years. We are responsible for our own safety and well-being; guns can be useful for that.

As Kreutz pointed out, the police (and military, too) have all this advanced weaponry, so why can't we? Further, why shouldn't we want that sort of thing? Seems to me that having them would be in our best interest.

Responsible for our own safety? Let's elaborate a bit:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_in ... ted_States