Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Guys who want assault type rifles IMO are very similar to guys who want and own high powered automobiles. Do we need either one? No but I like high powered cars and if I had more money I would have more than the 400HP I now have. Guys who like guns should also be allowed to own them.
BUT
The big difference is that in order to drive your high powered automobile on the public street the govt. wants to know who owns them and where you live and for that reason they make you attach a registration tag on your vehicle. If you are reckless with your auto you need to be punished with a fine or suspension of driving privileges.
Rifles and pistols are too small to be sporting a license plate but the govt. should be able to track the owner down in case the rifle or pistol is involved in reckless or illegal operation. Gun owners should be held responsible for the operation of their owned weapons.
The only way to do that is to require every gun or rifle to be registered and the owner to be held responsible.
Why should a car owner be responsible for damage his vehicle causes but gun owners not held responsible?
I don't care if somebody want to own 100 semi automatic weapons as long as they keep them secure and are liable for the damage that rifle might cause.
Anybody who feels they should not be accountable for their weapon should not own any.
If you sell your rifle to your good buddy who can't pass a background check then you are responsible even if he only shoots himself in the foot.
But you're talking sensible regulations. People who want the "right" to own an arsenal in their basement without any govt. interference will fight people like you & I tooth and nail.
Guys who want assault type rifles IMO are very similar to guys who want and own high powered automobiles. Do we need either one? No but I like high powered cars and if I had more money I would have more than the 400HP I now have. Guys who like guns should also be allowed to own them.
BUT
The big difference is that in order to drive your high powered automobile on the public street the govt. wants to know who owns them and where you live and for that reason they make you attach a registration tag on your vehicle. If you are reckless with your auto you need to be punished with a fine or suspension of driving privileges.
Rifles and pistols are too small to be sporting a license plate but the govt. should be able to track the owner down in case the rifle or pistol is involved in reckless or illegal operation. Gun owners should be held responsible for the operation of their owned weapons.
The only way to do that is to require every gun or rifle to be registered and the owner to be held responsible.
Why should a car owner be responsible for damage his vehicle causes but gun owners not held responsible?
I don't care if somebody want to own 100 semi automatic weapons as long as they keep them secure and are liable for the damage that rifle might cause.
Anybody who feels they should not be accountable for their weapon should not own any.
If you sell your rifle to your good buddy who can't pass a background check then you are responsible even if he only shoots himself in the foot.
So hunters have not scoffed at people using AR-15s while hunting? We must not be reading the same articles.
you dont seem to understand that your ignorance is very obvious when you ask questions like this. you dont understand why a hunter might scoff at someone using an ar-15 for hunting. you dont seem to understand that an ar-15 is no more dangerous than a hunting rifle, so if a hunter scoff's its most likely because they think the ar-15 is underpowered for the job. the hunter would probably ask what caliber of bullet is being used and what type of game is being hunted before scoffing.
Guys who want assault type rifles IMO are very similar to guys who want and own high powered automobiles. Do we need either one? No but I like high powered cars and if I had more money I would have more than the 400HP I now have. Guys who like guns should also be allowed to own them.
BUT
The big difference is that in order to drive your high powered automobile on the public street the govt. wants to know who owns them and where you live and for that reason they make you attach a registration tag on your vehicle. If you are reckless with your auto you need to be punished with a fine or suspension of driving privileges.
Rifles and pistols are too small to be sporting a license plate but the govt. should be able to track the owner down in case the rifle or pistol is involved in reckless or illegal operation. Gun owners should be held responsible for the operation of their owned weapons.
The only way to do that is to require every gun or rifle to be registered and the owner to be held responsible.
Why should a car owner be responsible for damage his vehicle causes but gun owners not held responsible?
I don't care if somebody want to own 100 semi automatic weapons as long as they keep them secure and are liable for the damage that rifle might cause.
Anybody who feels they should not be accountable for their weapon should not own any.
If you sell your rifle to your good buddy who can't pass a background check then you are responsible even if he only shoots himself in the foot.
Why should a car owner be responsible for damage his vehicle causes but gun owners not held responsible?
Your premise is false. Car owners are not responsible for the damage their vehicles cause. Drivers are responsible for the damage they cause with the vehicles they drive. If someone steals my car I'm not responsible for any damage they cause with it.
Your premise is false. Car owners are not responsible for the damage their vehicles cause. Drivers are responsible for the damage they cause with the vehicles they drive. If someone steals my car I'm not responsible for any damage they cause with it.
If somebody steals your car and somebody gets injured of killed, your going to get sued and your insurance co is going to settle.
In any auto deaths everybody gets sued and it's the insurance co which usually pays up.
I can't tell if your pro gun or not so I will not comment any further.
Regardless gun owners should be held responsible for the care and storage of their weapons, that's only common sense.
So hunters have not scoffed at people using AR-15s while hunting? We must not be reading the same articles.
Look up stories about pro hunter Jim Zumbo when he decided to bloviate, from his lofty, well appointed perch, what "real" hunters should shoot and not shoot.
It cost him dearly among the hunting ranks.
I don't care what the object is when it comes to a person's interests, there are always going to be purists and scoffers.
It doesn't matter to them whether they're knowledgeable on the subject matter or not.
Look up stories about pro hunter Jim Zumbo when he decided to bloviate, from his lofty, well appointed perch, what "real" hunters should shoot and not shoot.
It cost him dearly among the hunting ranks.
I don't care what the object is when it comes to a person's interests, there are always going to be purists and scoffers.
It doesn't matter to them whether they're knowledgeable on the subject matter or not.
Especially when they're emotionally invested.
EBwick is completely clueless about what he is saying here. he has no idea why a hunter might scoff at someone using an ar-15 for hunting. he probably thinks a hunter would find an ar-15 too deadly and dangerous for hunting. he doesnt even think logically that a hunter is looking to kill a large animal with a single shot, hunting rifles are generally more powerful than an ar-15 rifle.
EBwick is completely clueless about what he is saying here. he has no idea why a hunter might scoff at someone using an ar-15 for hunting. he probably thinks a hunter would find an ar-15 too deadly and dangerous for hunting. he doesnt even think logically that a hunter is looking to kill a large animal with a single shot, hunting rifles are generally more powerful than an ar-15 rifle.
I read somewhere that the AR-15 is used primarily for bird hunting which surprised me. I do not even remotely pretend to know about all the different types of guns and what they are used for but my first thought was: Why would anyone use such a powerful gun for hunting birds? Wouldn't it obliterate the bird? Apparently not at long range (and who besides Dick Cheney shoots birds only a few feet from you? LOL). I've been trying to educate myself on the subject as much as possible so I have at least a little bit of a clue as to what everyone is talking about. I think it is frowned upon by the larger game hunters because the caliber bullet it takes is small and not large enough to typically take a deer down, they frequently get away with gun shot wounds and causes more injuries that will inevitably cause a slow, painful death but using for birds is perfectly acceptable among enthusiasts. That's my take anyway based on different articles I've read.
I read somewhere that the AR-15 is used primarily for bird hunting which surprised me. I do not even remotely pretend to know about all the different types of guns and what they are used for but my first thought was: Why would anyone use such a powerful gun for hunting birds? Wouldn't it obliterate the bird? Apparently not at long range (and who besides Dick Cheney shoots birds only a few feet from you? LOL). I've been trying to educate myself on the subject as much as possible so I have at least a little bit of a clue as to what everyone is talking about. I think it is frowned upon by the larger game hunters because the caliber bullet it takes is small and not large enough to typically take a deer down, they frequently get away with gun shot wounds and causes more injuries that will inevitably cause a slow, painful death but using for birds is perfectly acceptable among enthusiasts. That's my take anyway based on different articles I've read.
check out the picture below yank. the 3 cartridges on the right are the most popular for hunting. now look at number 3, the .22lr. that is a very common cartridge for peoples "assault rifles." the other cartridge thats most common would be number 8, the .223 or 5.56mm nato. using a typical "assault rifle" for hunting is using a tool that is too weak for the job. also, i believe many "assault rifles" will have a shorter barrel which (i believe) leads to less accuracy and less velocity.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Couldn't have said it better myself!
