A long and painful speech by me. Yays.
Guns are not toys, or items of epic awesomeness, they are tools used to achieve a purpose-killing, obviously. People should recognize that tbh, to me most people who own guns don't have any idea about the context they're used in and what it's actually like to use them.
I am well aware that guns are not toys, darknoon. I am well-aware of their initial purpose. Do I use guns to kill? Yes, but those guns I use to kill are #1. The shotgun, and #2. The Hunting rifle. I own other types of guns as well, Darknoon, and these guns are very controversial, and I know what context they are intended for usage in, and I do not use them for their intended context. I use them for recreation and leisure. You see, the Assault rifle, (had to say it.), is initially a Military Purpose rifle, designed for incredibly efficient slaughter of other human beings. However, my AR is used for target shooting in its civilian life, and it is semi-automatic only. You see, target shooting is pointless, but it is practice as well. Practice for what, exactly? In the VERY unlikely scenario that we here in America are to have a civil war, It will be necessary for my own survival that I have the ability to be proficient with one, as my life would depend on it. Now, that's one of the few useless scenarios that exist. Here are some more down-to-earth and real ones that take place here.
One, would be target competitions. Target competitions pit some of the best shootists against eachother in target shooting, in other words, using a class of weapon to fire multiple rounds into a target efficiently and accurately. I am interested in this competition, and I enjoy practicing for such occasions because when I grow older, I plan to enter in one myself to see if I can win prize money. It is a waste of a bullet, or so it seems. You see, the brass that any weapon fires has a reloading potential, therefore, if I fire and recover fourty brass cartridges, then I can later reload them with black powder, a primer, and the bullets themselves, resulting in another 40 rounds to fire through my gun.
Two, would be self defence. The assault rifles intended use is to kill, thus, it naturally fits this rule in terms of home defence. If I were to live in a dangerous negiborhood, I would want to have some way to protect myself and my house. By keeping my weapons locked inside of a 600 pound safe, as well as close to my bed, I would be able to defend myself, children, or wife in the case of a break-in. As assured by the Castle-Law, in effect in several American states, I have the right to kill home intruders. Thus, if someone broke in and tried to steal my LCD television, I would have the legal right to fire upon him. It would also be in my best interest to do so, as many American criminals are repeat offenders, or may come back with a grudge for being rushed out of their robbery, in which it would be best for me to simply put them down because being an American, I am well aware of what criminal Americans will do. I read it on MSNBC and news sites everywhere, criminals break in, beat up old couples, rape children, and escape with sometimes hundreds of dollars worth of assets and 30 percent of the time get away with the initial robbery scott-free. I wouldn't let that happen, and although a Pump-action shotgun may be just as effective, a Soviet AK-47 would be even-more such if there are multiple armed intruders as it is not only loud and fearsome, but deadly accurate at close ranges, and deadly in general.
Third, hunting. Hunting is a useful sport as well as way of life. Currently, I live on the boarder of a city, where I am in a rural area. 10-12 deer pass through my area daily, and it would be possible for me to attach a scope to any one of my assault rifles. Do I need all these rounds to hunt? No, but it pays if you miss a shot. It may seem like overkill, but most normal people know that it is simply common sense to not waste rounds into the dirt and conserve ammo when necessary. Firing a bunch of rounds into the body of a deer can ruin the meat, but an Assault (or battle) rifle can ensure plenty of rounds are avalible, and that not all are necessary for the kill. I could use an FN-FNAR to hunt, using a large .308 round to down a deer from 200 yards away, where If I miss, I can do a quick follow up and have something to eat. It is also even more effective up north in areas like Montana, Alaska, and west in Wyoming. Hunting larger game like Bear, Elk, Moose, and sometimes other breeds can require larger bullets, or more for that matter. Also in the case of bears, there can be a large amount of danger involved, if you are hunting for deer up north, then you would be SOL if you came across a starving or diseased bear with a bolt-action rifle, as seen on Animal PLanet, where the danger of being mauled and killed is quite high. If you have a charging bear running at you, you would want to be sure that you can kill it. A large caliber hunting rifle may do the trick, but if you miss or the single shot doesn't kill it, you may be pissing your pants too much before you are able to load another round into the chamber. Using an AR-10 or FNAR could easilly down it, and if it doesn't die in one shot or you miss, you have 10-30 more bullets at your disposal.
Finally, nearly 40% of gun-related crimes in America are committed with a legally acquired gun, mainly from retail stores where they sell with little or no looking into the customers history, or at gunstores with incompetent management. The rest are either illegally acquired, or borrowed, from a friend or family member and used to do the deed. These people force others to fear the firearm, and be well aware of the bad potential of the weapon.
Even if Assault rifles and pistols were banned from sales, illegal influx of weaponry into the United states would soar higher than ever, and we would see the true potential of criminals arise. And citizens that already own the weapons would refuse to hand them over for any compensation, even if that meant gunning down law officials, because those who refuse will generally become outlaws because they would see it as a martyrdom.
I know these types of people, and I know who I am. I wouldn't hand anything over to the government, because I interpret the Second amendment in a unique way of my own.
In my own opinion, when the Second Amendment is meant to be interpreted in a certain way.
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
A Militia is ordinarilly thought of as a Civilian paramilitary force. I too believe such. As an American citizen, I find myself a necessity to this force, and I am already well regulated as background checks and mental stability scannings, and the limiting of fully automatic firearms and explosives are in my opinion good regulations. Thus, we are well-regulated as-is. Now, we are necessary to the security of a free state, a state free of foreign rule, a state of America and not any others. There was a good reason the emperor of Japan didn't invade, and that was because, as Yamamoto put it, "there would be a rifle behind each blade of grass." And the Japanese are world renounded for being pretty damned smart. That's the way it was back then, and that's the way it is now. Next, is the right to bare arms. In the time of the founding fathers of America, G.W. didn't want a standing army, but Sheys Rebellion changed that. The Federal government needed a standing army with the best equipment to stand guard over the states, and keep everyone orderly and prepared for any wars, home or foreign. But, we can't rely on the Army itself because it's just a bunch of soldiers trained to do what they do, we need to be able to stand up for ourselves as well. We can't do that when we are limited to bolt and pump and one-shots. We need to atleast be as close as possible to our own military's armaments. You see, the closest we are allowed is to have semi-automatic versions of our military weapons. Of course, people with full-auto permits are allowed otherwise, but that's a different story. As an American citizen, I have the right to bear arms as one of the well regulated militia men, and my right should not be infringed. Thus, I have 3 assault rifles, 8 pistols, and a few rifles. These are necessary to protection, my protection, even though it may be overkill, we can all diversify. Now, as I feel that I am digressing, I think it is time to end this ramble one a high note. We are all people, and we all should have the right to defend ourselves, our loves, and our homes when we are in danger. We should be allowed to stand a chance if our country were to become a totalitarian police state under martial law, regardless of how unrealistic it may seem. We are all humans, and just fists and feet don't cut it anymore. We can't be like the Boers, we have to be self-sufficient. We have to stand a chance if threatened.
