Great Argument Against Banning "Assault Rifles"

[James Madison]

Here's a great argument I've been using against lefties who support banning assault rifles, semi-autos and other weapons that "belong on the battlefield, not at home."

Liberal: You don't need an assault rifle to hunt with! Those weapons were made for war and belong on battlefields, not in civilian hands.
Me: Cops are issued assault rifles, and they are civilians. SWAT teams drive around in armored vehicles, automatic rifles, and full bulletproof armor. Each of these things were designed for combat and yet they are issued for civilian use.
L: Cops need those things to stop criminals and to protect themselves.
M: They need weapons of war to stop criminals? If these guns belong in Afghanistan (war), why do you support police owning such weapons at home? By your own logic, if they belong in the hands of police, are necessary to thwart crime, and are essential for defense then isn't it right to declare our homes, schools, churches, and parks a battlefield when criminals are present? If yes, your initial argument is invalidated. If no, you are declaring those in law enforcement have special rights to defend themselves but not 'the children' you have suddenly decided to show compassion towards.
L: (nothing)

[jj-]

kickass

[Acala]

Nice.

When I am talking to Democrats I will often say something like "So, you want Dick Cheney and his friends to have all the guns?" That nearly always jump-starts some thinking because there is always an unconscious assumption that the government will be composed of benevolent Mommy types, not (in their eyes) psychotic fascists.

[phill4paul]

FTFY:

Here's a great argument I've been using against lefties who support banning assault rifles, semi-autos and other weapons that "belong on the battlefield, not at home."

Liberal: You don't need an assault rifle to hunt with! Those weapons were made for war and belong on battlefields, not in civilian hands.
Me: Cops are issued assault rifles, and they are civilians. SWAT teams drive around in armored vehicles, automatic rifles, and full bulletproof armor. Each of these things were designed for combat and yet they are issued for civilian use.
L: Cops need those things to stop criminals and to protect themselves.
M: They need weapons of war to stop criminals? If these guns belong in Afghanistan (war), why do you support police owning such weapons at home? By your own logic, if they belong in the hands of police, are necessary to thwart crime, and are essential for defense then isn't it right to declare our homes, schools, churches, and parks a battlefield when criminals are present? If yes, your initial argument is invalidated. If no, you are declaring those in law enforcement have special rights to defend themselves but not 'the children' you have suddenly decided to show compassion towards.
L: YOU'RE JUST AN IDIOT AN IDIOT TEA BAGGER! ALL YOU RON PAUL RANDIANS WANT IS FOR EVERYONE EXCEPT YOURSELF TO DIE. DIE! DIE!

j/k. Or maybe not. Still, excellent point you make.

[aGameOfThrones]

Here's a great argument I've been using against lefties who support banning assault rifles, semi-autos and other weapons that "belong on the battlefield, not at home."

Liberal: You don't need an assault rifle to hunt with! Those weapons were made for war and belong on battlefields, not in civilian hands.
Me: Cops are issued assault rifles, and they are civilians. SWAT teams drive around in armored vehicles, automatic rifles, and full bulletproof armor. Each of these things were designed for combat and yet they are issued for civilian use.
L: Cops need those things to stop criminals and to protect themselves.
M: They need weapons of war to stop criminals? If these guns belong in Afghanistan (war), why do you support police owning such weapons at home? By your own logic, if they belong in the hands of police, are necessary to thwart crime, and are essenti
al for defense then isn't it right to declare our homes, schools, churches, and parks a battlefield when criminals are present? If yes, your initial argument is invalidated. If no, you are declaring those in law enforcement have special rights to defend themselves but not 'the children' you have suddenly decided to show compassion towards.
L: cops are fighting a war
M: what war is that?
L: the war on drugs!
M: (nothing)

..

[heavenlyboy34]

Well-played,OP.

[jtap]

..

Zing! Enjoy some imaginary +rep from me.


I like the original argument also. I saw a cop directing traffic the other day and his car was pouring water from the A/C running while he wasn't in it and it was obviously on and blasting and just chucked at the government waste. Yeah sure, they need all these weapons of war to show up after the crime has been committed and fill out some papers.

[John F Kennedy III]

Here's a great argument I've been using against lefties who support banning assault rifles, semi-autos and other weapons that "belong on the battlefield, not at home."

Liberal: You don't need an assault rifle to hunt with! Those weapons were made for war and belong on battlefields, not in civilian hands.
Me: Cops are issued assault rifles, and they are civilians. SWAT teams drive around in armored vehicles, automatic rifles, and full bulletproof armor. Each of these things were designed for combat and yet they are issued for civilian use.
L: Cops need those things to stop criminals and to protect themselves.
M: They need weapons of war to stop criminals? If these guns belong in Afghanistan (war), why do you support police owning such weapons at home? By your own logic, if they belong in the hands of police, are necessary to thwart crime, and are essential for defense then isn't it right to declare our homes, schools, churches, and parks a battlefield when criminals are present? If yes, your initial argument is invalidated. If no, you are declaring those in law enforcement have special rights to defend themselves but not 'the children' you have suddenly decided to show compassion towards.
L: (nothing)

I love it.

[torchbearer]

the attackers chose defenseless victim zones for a reason. they didn't shoot up a police station full of armed people.
so how is making more people defenseless victims fixing the problem?

[James Madison]

Bump for importance.

[ninepointfive]

copid from another site:

if for instance the libtard states "cops have guns to protect people"
you tell them this Justices Rule Police Do Not Have a Constitutional Duty to Protect Someone

the supreme court has ruled that cops have no duty to protect anyone but themselves.

so y does a cop have a gun?
-to protect himself!

boom argument over, at this point a light should appear somewhere behind the libtards cold dead eyes. if not they are clearly a lost cause.

[alucard13mmfmj]

Yeah.. Cops takes 5-20 minutes to get to your house. A professional burglar can ransack your house in under 10 minutes and dissapear.

[jkob]

I've had this argument before, a lot of leftists would sacrifice cops having guns too tho

[Rudeman]

Yea some are willing to sacrifice cops having guns and others I've talked to always deflect back to Europe/Australia gun bans.

[James Madison]

Yea some are willing to sacrifice cops having guns and others I've talked to always deflect back to Europe/Australia gun bans.

And I could point to Mexico, nation with essentially a total gun ban has...what? 25,000 homicides a year? 50,000?

[Rudeman]

And I could point to Mexico, nation with essentially a total gun ban has...what? 25,000 homicides a year? 50,000?

I've done that yet they come up with some dis-qualifiers for anything that goes against a gun ban being good. Stuff like an enforceable gun ban.

[James Madison]

I've done that yet they come up with some dis-qualifiers for anything that goes against a gun ban being good. Stuff like an enforceable gun ban.

Then Obama should lead by example and make the White House a gun free zone...and end the Secret Service, too. Then he should stop sending guns to Mexico, Syria, and the like. It's quite ironic for Obama to lecture us on the dangers of guns when the US exports more firearms than all other nations combined. Oh, but that's different because it happens in a country most Americans can't find on a map.

[Shredmonster]

Brilliant argument that needs to go viral. We need to send this out.

[ravedown]

the rebuttal to this argument will go something like....'that's stupid-apples and oranges. cops are trained to use assault rifles-they train constantly on gun safety and only use them in extreme cases....civilians use them for mass murder when they finally snap. huge difference, pull your head out dude.'

[James Madison]

the rebuttal to this argument will go something like....'that's stupid-apples and oranges. cops are trained to use assault rifles-they train constantly on gun safety and only use them in extreme cases....civilians use them for mass murder when they finally snap. huge difference, pull your head out dude.'

I am quite trained in gun safety and would only consider using an assault rifle in extreme cases. Again...what's the difference?

Cops are also civilians, by the way.

[PaulConventionWV]

L: *blank stare followed by more psycho babble*

Rinse, repeat.

[Ronulus]

Wouldn't an assault rifle on full auto be less harmful then a semi auto weapon? More desctruction to one target yes, but you would be out of ammo so quickly and aim dramatically reduced correct? So i don't see the fascination with a ban on assault rifles when a .22 rifle with a large clip could be more deadly (one shot per trigger depression, get time to aim etc).

I usually get those that argue that they aren't for a ban of all guns just assault rifles.