Your current ideas are spot-on.
Here is a link with data from NYC talking about how obesity kills significantly more than firearms. Stats if you want them.
Assault Rifles Kill 5 People Every Year in NY, While Obesity Kills 6,000: Do Gun Bans Make Sense?
Here is a great youtube video that shows what an assault rifle is not. This police officer takes a simple hunting rifle, swaps the stock and makes it into an ugly black gun. He explains selective versus semi-auto fire.
The Truth About Semi-Auto Firearms - YouTube
The LA Riots (Korean shop keepers), Katrina looters and Sandy looters are three recent examples.
also this link is a collection of flash mob incidents going back to 2002. In 2011 there were many instances of violent mobs that were not reported in the mainstream media. I did a rough estimation on this site and came up with something like 200+ incidents and over 100,000 violent participants if i recall correctly.
Violent Flash Mobs
This is what our First President said:
"A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined, but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government.” – George Washington
2 sources of fantastic facts, education and info:
GunCite: gun control and Second Amendment issues
Gun Facts - Gun Control | Facts | Debunk | Myths
and the JPFO genocide chart (Jews for the Preservation of Firearms):
Death by "Gun Control"
Try this link which was posted earlier by ccw9mm here on DC.... WHY does anyone NEED an ASSAULT RIFLE? - YouTube
Many good points, while I am not sure of the specific bolt-action rifles military snipers use but are they not military style weapons also?
Not by any standard that is being used by the politicians.
Originally Posted by msgt/ret
You have a good letter, not really any need for my input. I did remember saving this article and thought I'd pass it along to you, maybe there is something in it that may work for you or just give it to her as a link.
I AM A PEACEFUL AR-15 ASSAULT RIFLE OWNER - Phoenix Law | Examiner.com
I don't see how the last items are a gray area. I feel if you are a sane, law abiding citizen, there should be no reason why you shouldn't have those items.
Originally Posted by aus71383
If it were to hit the fan, as the second amendment refers to, doesn't the govt already have these? I want an equal playing field.
Here's one angle I've used when answering such questions, specifically, "Why does anyone need an AR-15? You're not fighting zombies or Soviets." I wrote this last night in response to that exact question, and my friend seemed to appreciate the answer because it's an angle he hadn't considered.
If you look at the past 60ish years, civilians have been choosing their defensive firearms based on what police are using. For instance, revolvers that shot .38 special ammo were popular in the 1970s and 1980s, because police used them. Then it turned to more modern semi-automatic pistols, like Glocks. Also, shotguns used to be the standard long gun for police, but in the 1990s that changed to the AR-15. The AR-15 is the best-selling rifle in the civilian market, and that's not due to coincidence.
If the weapon is good enough for police use, then people typically believe it's good enough for personal use. What are the police defending themselves against, anyway? Certainly not zombies or Soviets.
Ask him what he thinks the original intent of the 2A was,hunting, target shooting,or gun collecting.It is to insure that the people have a way of keeping the ones they send to represent us, to work for us, to do our bidding,to not forget who they work for. And if they do forget ,and start to trample on the rights of the people, they have a way to oust them, and to start over. The weapons that we allow the government to have for the common defense cannot out pace the ones the people have to keep them in check. They can have their modern rifles, and we get flintlocks?,I don't think so.It's already way to far out of balance. They fancy themselves the ruling class elite to lord over us, they have forgotten who they work for and why we sent them. It's not a need,it's a necessity to preserve our freedom.
In the excerpt of her message to you she puts some emphasis on the "assault weapon" deal which you do address. Here is another link, you might draw from, or just simply send her the link?
Reasoned Politics: Why Virtually All Gun Owners Oppose A Ban On "Assault Weapons" - And Why You Should Too
(hmmmm, I've sent you two posts on this, when I just said you had a good letter and didn't need my input)--:embarassed:
Ran by the CIA
go look it up...
I'm pretty sure military weapons have different rifling as well. 5 r I think, something like that. I could be wrong though.
Originally Posted by buckeye .45
I agree with you 100%.
Originally Posted by wraithls1
The problem is that now you have to legally define "sane, law abiding citizen" - which is where FFLs, the BATFE, and everything else comes into play. It gets messy real quick. Things that shoot bullets? Easy. Things that shoot projectiles that explode? Less simple....so, grey. I'm not saying I don't think people should be able to buy those things - just how it would work gets complicated. Are you going to order 60mm mortar rounds or cases of C-4 over the internet? Who is going to ship them to you? There are a lot of unknowns in that area.
Send her this too: The Truth About Assault Weapons
She has fallen into the MSM hype of "Battlefield Weapons" which are select-fire etc, not semi-auto
Hell, I think you should be able to pick them up at your local hardware store.
Originally Posted by aus71383
Seriously, it should be the same as buying a .22 or 30-30 at your local gun store. You give the guy at the gun shop your ID and he calls in the NCIS check. You pass the check, lay down your money and walk out the door with your C4, frag grenade, M203, etc...
What routinely rankles me regarding the "need" question (to wit,"why do 'civilians' need military-style weapons?") is that most of the people asking that question are ignorant of history.
Throughout the course of American history, it has been the civilian sector which has developed new firearms which the military subsequently adopted. As I have mentioned here many times, a generation before WWII my grandfather hunted deer with a semi-automatic rifle with a detachable magazine (a .351 Winchester). Civilians developed the revolving cylinder, the self-loading pistol and the lever-action rifle years before the military adopted them. None of those concepts was developed with a Manhattan Project-type of effort owned and funded by the government. Instead, these weapon developments were largely perfected in the civilian marketplace before the inertia-laden military recognized them as good ideas and adopted/modified them for their own use. This is vastly different than heavy tanks, artillery, nuclear weapons and shoulder-launched missiles - all of which were developed specifically for military use.