Death of A Nation DVD Advertisement

If You Don’t Like Assault Weapons, Don’t Get One

email Email

Gun control advocates love the line that “nobody needs an assault weapon for self-defense” or “no one needs a clip with more than seven rounds.” The best answer to these arguments is that if someone feels no need for a so-called assault weapon then that person should feel no obligation whatever to get one.

But in America, we don’t get to make such decisions for our neighbors. If you’re worried about the guy next door getting an assault weapon would you really be significantly less worried if he got a shotgun or pistol? What makes any gun dangerous isn’t the way it operates but the person who’s using it. That’s why the only sensible gun control involves blocking certain people from getting any guns at all, rather than blocking law-abiding citizens and good neighbors from getting certain types of guns.

email Email

Comments (11)

Leave a comment
  1. David  •  Mar 19, 2013 at 10:24 am

    Absolutely. We have enough gun regulations on the books. Start enforcing the regulations we have. The Second Amendment wasn’t created to protect our “hunting rights”, it was created to further mitigate the chances of a tyrannical government coming into power!

  2. Chris  •  Mar 19, 2013 at 11:09 am

    I am a gun advocate so please do not assume otherwise simply because I’m assuming the devil’s advocate role for just a moment.

    One major issue that has not been addressed by either side with regards to gun violence is that guns are a more impersonal method of killing. To kill someone using your bare hands, using a knife, a heavy object, is personal and requires close proximity. Guns, rifles, allow the killer to separate from the victim if only by a few feet.

    What I am suggesting is that a potential killer, a fence sitter, so to speak, may not commit the crime if they had to personally engage their victim, up close and personal. But having such easy access to guns and rifles, whereby they can distance themselves from the victim, acts as their enabler.

    I’d like to hear from a professional psychologist on this topic.

    • Joey  •  Mar 19, 2013 at 7:49 pm

      On the flip side – when you hear or read a story about a killer that has utilized a knife. Usually they’re crazed and they don’t simply stab one time, it’s multiple times – twelve times in this instance Pick your poison (I want neither) you want to get shot or suffer twelve stab wounds – do a little research. Another example Notably, knife wielding killers are usually very mentally unstable – the mindset to thrust a knife into someone is of psychopathic derangement. You don’t need a professional psychologist the online examples are countless. More homocides occur account to stabbings than firearms, especially domestic violence WORLDWIDE. Do a little research on the net. If you are facing a knife wielding attacker I would advise run or shoot him, one shot may not do the job (look up 21 foot rule, I would make it maybe 40 to keep my butt safe). In Alice Spring, Australia – it’s notoriety is for attaining the highest per capita stabbing rate in the world. Australia where guns are gone now – look it up. IN the UK – twenty-four people a month (6 /week) are stabbed to death I’ll keep my guns, In relation to homocides – should we ban them (knives, hatchets, ball point pens? It’s an assassin’s weapon of choice – quiet, stealthy, wound evidence left behind. The gun control the government seeks HAS nothing to do with quelling violence, it’s a gun grab by the government pure and simple…

  3. American  •  Mar 19, 2013 at 1:17 pm

    Not to mention that having such weapons is intended in the Constitution as part of the check and balance of government and not just for home defense.

  4. David  •  Mar 20, 2013 at 11:08 am

    Chris, the bottom line is that a major deterrent to that potential killer is having as many law abiding citizens owning guns as possible. If that coward knows there is a chance they’ll be shot if they act out on their sick desires to kill (whatever the reason), then they’re much more unlikely to do it. The point is, guns are out there and as long as they are, criminals don’t abide by gun regulations, law abiding citizens do. There should continue to be reasonable gun regulations but we don’t need more. Fully automatic machine guns are already against the law and should be; but semi-automatic weapons is a cross check to the unlikely rise of a tyrannical government; it also protects my home against gang bangers, psychotics, or any other disturbed individual that tries to break in and hurt my family.

  5. Greg Crown  •  Mar 20, 2013 at 1:24 pm

    Liberals are forever seeking to solve problems through legislative measures that are symbolic – but fail to address the true problem. Those that dwell on symptoms rather than problems and feelings rather than facts are destined to forever be chasing true solutions.

  6. Steve Hansmann  •  Mar 21, 2013 at 6:12 am

    More idiotic, cognitively-bereft gibberish from the party whose gene pool needs a little chlorine. First, no one but a clueless, gibbering idiot needs the “assault rifle” to hunt with. My whole family has hunted with bolt-action, limited magazine capacity, .280, 30-30, 30-06, and various smaller caliber varmint rifles for the better part of a hundred years, my great uncle is 96, and it was a given that it should NEVER take more than two shots to kill, anything. Second, try to stand up to U.S. army special forces with your little assault rifle and see what happens. You, dead in .30 seconds. Period. Lastly, these semi-automatic rifles ordinance punches through concrete blocks, can travel literal miles, and with high-capacity magazines, can slaughter dozens of innocents in minutes. Pathetic. You guys are butchering crackers. I hope there is a hell. Enjoy your time there.

  7. Randy Dahlstrom  •  Mar 21, 2013 at 8:21 am

    Wow Steve, that’s some of the most idiotic, cognitively bereft gibberish I’ve ever heard. No one is making the argument that “assault rifles” are needed for hunting. Sure you should be able to hunt varmints with 2 shots. They’re not shooting at you or otherwise trying to kill you. If you feel that you need 2 shots or less then be my guest. Don’t speak for the rest of us. As usual, the points made by anti gunners are irrelevant. Also, the American military is a different animal than any other military in the world. The vast majority of the American military would support semi-auto, high capacity gun ownership. We’d likely be fighting along side them, not against them. Maybe you should get a grip on the actual issue before you engage in name calling. you’re just exposing yourself.

  8. maryanneg  •  Mar 21, 2013 at 6:02 pm

    Right Michael, if you don’t like assault weapons, you have the freedom to not buy them. I don’t understand the audacity of libs to take my rights away to make themselves feel better. No amounts of loss regarding our freedoms will placate the liberals unless it is total loss of freedom and total control of government over their citizens. Feinstein is such a hypocrite, it is okay for her to carry and have the ability to protect herself, but no one else is that valuable. In a society where government is everything to its people, the people loose. In a free society, people are far brighter, more ambitious and don’t need a government to tell them how to live. I enjoy America the way it is and I don’t want any Fundamental changes to this way of life and thinking.

  9. Bill Bo  •  Mar 22, 2013 at 6:22 pm

    It is our god-given right to bear arms. Psalm 23 Verse 4: Yay though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death I shalt fear no evil, for thou art with me. Thy rod [holds up rifle] and thy staff [holds up filled ammo clip] they comfort me. Amen.

  10. Mark Johnston  •  Mar 29, 2013 at 4:21 pm

    I think the conversation here is very important, and that there should be civil discourse. Both sides should open their ears, listen, try to understand where the other is coming from. We are still human beings, and everyone is entitled to their own opinion.

    Personally, I am moderately liberal, and I believe people who own weapons have that right. I respect sportsmen, individuals who wants to protect their family/community/country. A lot of the fear with Assault weapons is that they will be put into the wrong hands. So in order for the fears to be put to ease some automatically say that “no one can have them”, but that isn’t fair to the person who was responsible. The question is ” How can we all feel safe in our communities while having guns present?”

Tell Us What You Think

All fields required. The posting of advertisements, profanity, or personal attacks is prohibited. By using this website you agree to accept our Terms of Use.


Listen Commercial FREE  |  On-Demand
Login Join
Advertise with us Advertisement

Follow Michael

The Michael Medved Show - Mobile App

Download from App Store Get it on Google play
Listen to the show on your amazon echo devices
Michael Medved's History Store Also available on TuneIn