When You Really Need an “Assault Rifle”

[mmckee1952]

When You Really Need an “Assault Rifle”

By: Bill Frady

The situation in Baltimore, Maryland has got me thinking once again. It makes me think about several things, but mainly, I’m thinking about how incidents like Baltimore make the perfect argument or reason for our right to own “assault weapons”.

Tomorrow, April 29th, will mark the 23rd anniversary of the Los Angeles riots. They started in South Central Los Angeles and then spread out into other areas over a six-day period within the Los Angeles metropolitan area in California. Widespread looting, assault, arson and murder occurred during the riots, and estimates of property damage were over $1 billion. The rioting ended after soldiers from the California Army National Guard, the 7th Infantry Division, and Marines from 1st Marine Division were called in to stop the rioting when the local police could not handle the situation. In total, 53 people were killed and over 2,000 people were injured during these riots.

What isn’t mentioned in the media very much is the story of Korean shopkeeps and business owners who had to protect their own homes and business when the LAPD could not. Open gun battles were televised, as in one incident (caught on video) where Korean shopkeeps armed with M1 carbines, pump action shotguns and, get this, semi-automatic AK-47’s and UZI’s. These exchanges in gunfire finally led to the break up and forced retreat of the groups of armed looters.

The situation above ended without any bloodshed and the businesses were not harmed in any way.

Read More: http://lockandloadradio.com/when-you-re ... ult-rifle/

[kelu]

It's not an "assault rifle". It's what DHS calls a "personal defense weapon". Why we should name them differently?
What would be the liberal rhetoric if they were force to say "personal defense weapon", as it really is? Who wants to deny "personal defense"?

[SHMIV]

I heard that, Kelu. We should really be taking the offense on these word games. The Regressives will be playing them, anyway.

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

[0ne5hot]

When you control the language you control the conversation. And a good tactician never gives up the high ground.

[Reverenddel]

I think I've told this story here before, but it's worth repeating.

My friend Mark was living in New Orleans during Katrina. He was packing up some gear, and putting it in his Bronco in Faubourg Marigny. As he walked back inside, he saw three "yoots" walking down the street with ill intent (IE: Checking into car windows, Looking around, etc.)

So they got to his Bronco, and he picked up his AK folder. Slung it over his back, and walked onto the porch, and asked "Can I help you?"

They puffed up, and said "Yeah! You go the keys to this?" pointing to his Bronco.

He replied "Indeed, and again, can I help you?" They started walking towards him aggressively, he unslung, the AK, and said "One more step. "

They hauled keister. Keep in mind this is a couple days AFTER the storm, and the police were confiscating weapons, so he didn't call the cops, but he flat out said "Dude, if I didn't have that rifle with a bigazzed mag, and mean look? It wouldn't have been the same results if I pulled a hunting rifle."

(shrugs) There's your example of "protection as a deterrent"

[kelu]

We, as pro-gun supporters, should teach everyone that is not an assault rifle, but a personal defense tool. In every discussion, with reporters or general public.
Assault rifles are full-auto, for military. We don't have that.
Repeat that often enough and for long enough and the rhetoric will have to change.

[FiremanBob]

Actually, under 2A we are entitled to assault rifles without interference of any kind from the .gov. Some day a SCOTUS will undo all of the unconstitutional laws so far approved by the "Progressive" court since 1940. It is worth noting that FDR's attempts to nullify the Constitution failed at SCOTUS until late in his second term, when he finally had enough "Progressives" to stack the court.

[MarcSpaz]

It's not an "assault rifle". It's what DHS calls a "personal defense weapon". Why we should name them differently?
What would be the liberal rhetoric if they were force to say "personal defense weapon", as it really is? Who wants to deny "personal defense"?

Our military calls them PDW's too. SCAR-L, SCAR-H, 300 Blackout Honey Badger (full auto, integrated suppressor), etc.

If we were going to use two expressions to describe the same physical item, Congress and the bleeding hearts have it backwards. The military and law enforcement have assault weapons and citizens have personal defense weapons.

I have never seen a group of armed citizens run an offensive. Though, I have heard of the occasional criminal doing so, they are among the minority.

[SHMIV]

I wouldn't classify a fully automatic weapon as an assault weapon, either. Well, at least not if I owned it, anyway.

Anything can be an assault weapon, or a defensive tool, depending on how you use it. The main reason the phrase "assault weapon " gets used is to make a rifle sound scary, to foster a fear of it.

In prisons, toothbrushes and potato chip bags are assault weapons.

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]