Why Do People Need Assault Rifles? That's the Wrong Question to Ask
Submitted by logikal on Wed, 12/26/2012 - 19:29The Left sure knows how to take advantage of a crisis. They are offering up the Sandy Hook Elementary School tragedy as evidence that we need more gun control laws and are hoping that, as always, people allow their emotions to take over. But it only takes a little bit of critical thinking to realize that stricter gun laws wouldn’t solve a thing, and would only serve to take rights away from law abiding citizens.
We’re supposed to believe that passing more laws would prevent tragedies like this from happening, but aren’t guns already banned in schools? Here’s the thing about criminals. They don’t care about the law. It’s what makes them criminals. You cannot pass a law to prevent crazy people from doing crazy things.
Not only did Adam Lanza not care about the law that prohibits guns inside schools, but the law actually gives people like him an advantage over their victims. A school seems like the perfect place for massacres since law abiding citizens are not allowed to defend themselves with weapons of their own.
Have you ever heard of the Pearl River High School shooting?...
Continue Reading: http://www.truthinexile.com/2012/12/21/assault-weapons-ban-d...
- Login to post comments
The question we should be
The question we should be asking is why the people don't have assault weapons. A powerful standing army, more powerful than the civilian population was never the intent of the founders, actually it was the exact opposite and was listed in the Decleration of Independence an abuse by King George..."He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power."
Any abuse listed in the Declaration of Independence is an obvious example of a violation of your inalienable rights, otherwise it would not have been listed in the first place.
"Unhappy it is, though, to reflect that a brother's sword has been sheathed in a brother's breast and that the once-happy plains of America are either to be drenched with blood or inhabited by slaves. Sad alternative! But can a virtuous man hesitate in hi
Language usage
Calling them "assault rifles" is only accurate for those who use these weapons in a manner of committing aggression against the Natural Rights of others.
Of course statists and gun-grabbers would use this term. Why would those who believe in rational self-defense?
If you own a quality firearm of this sort, and do not have any aims of committing an assault on your fellow man, how is it an "assault rifle"? A weapon does not define intent.
This would be like calling hammers "murder hammers".
In the hands of good people, these sorts of rifles are "Self-Defense Rifles" not "Assault Rifles".
_________________________________
Freedom - Peace - Prosperity