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.
Everyone on the internet has an IQ higher than 130, owns 4 companies and is independently wealthy, they stated it so it must be true.
To say that this thread has gone off topic is an understatement.
It was mentioned in 2 or 3 posts. Now you and some others insist on making comments about it. Not only that, you're going to complain about it while perpetuating it.
Everyone on the internet has an IQ higher than 130, owns 4 companies and is independently wealthy, they stated it so it must be true.
To say that this thread has gone off topic is an understatement.
Meh, we covered the topic fairly well. The question was, in a nutshell, "Why is the AR-15 the target of so much hatred and fear?" The answer, in a nutshell, is that it's easy to convince the uninformed masses that the AR-15 is scary because of cosmetic features. The vast majority of hoplophobes, including media and politicians, couldn't identify an AR-15 in a police lineup if it was the only rifle in the room and was surrounded by shotguns and slingshots.
Meh, we covered the topic fairly well. The question was, in a nutshell, "Why is the AR-15 the target of so much hatred and fear?" The answer, in a nutshell, is that it's easy to convince the uninformed masses that the AR-15 is scary because of cosmetic features. The vast majority of hoplophobes, including media and politicians, couldn't identify an AR-15 in a police lineup if it was the only rifle in the room and was surrounded by shotguns and slingshots.
Not to mention that they'd also likely label the shotguns as assault rifles.
I haven't taken an I.Q. test in years, but the last time I did my results were in the high 130's as well. However, I can also start a fire with 2 sticks, with flint and steel, and with a fire bow. I also know how to live off the land and took survival trips several times when I was younger and didn't have 1/4 and 1/2 scale humans clamoring at my feet.
I'm looking forward to the time when my girls are old enough that I can take them into the woods without being overly worried about their curiosity getting the better of their common sense. Give us a couple of years and we'll be heading out of Florida to the Northwest, probably Montana from the research we've done so far. Can't wait to get to an area where taking the kids camping is something you can do in the summertime without dealing with the sweltering heat.
When in Montana, take what every large caliber semi auto you have with you...and a damn god sidearm...Grizzles are the least of your worry..
For those who enjoy the shooting sports, it's almost ideal in many ways. Light weight, great ergonomics, accurate at long range, very good handling characteristics, low recoil, relatively low cost ammo.
These are some of the reasons that it sells in the millions. Millions that are never used illegally.
If I was made of money, I'd own one too, but my firearms funds are limited.
You must not be keeping up on current prices..... some places are still selling it for a buck a round.
My own IQ is 138. Having a high IQ doesn't necessarily mean you end up in all the high paying jobs.
In fact, having a higher IQ is more likely to make you see the world for what it really is. That may hamper some people.
I have worked with some very smart engineers. But common sense didnt always apply. Almost autistic.
Be honest. The reason you buy an AR-15 is because you can shoot numerous shots in a short amount of time & they look like the weapons you see on the battlefield, right?
That's also the reason you're opposed to limiting the magazine to 10 rounds, correct?
What rational person, who's hunting, has the need to fire multiple rounds in a short period of time?
Number one, does it matter if thats the reason? Uh, no, it doesn't. Number two, we both know that hunting has nothing to do with the second amendment. The foremost reason is defense, wherever that threat may come from. So, If I'm being attacked by someone or by multiple people, in a highly stressed situation like that I want as many rounds as I can, because you know, I'll be stresed out, it may be dark and I'll miss......
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mellowmike
Maybe one day you'll be fortunate enough to find a couple of your co-workers murdered by a deranged maniac. When that day comes feel free to pass judgement on Senator Feinstein. Until then, you have no clue as to what Senator Feinstein experienced. All she's proposing are sensible gun regulations.
Her co-workers were murdered with a revolver, and nothing she is proposing would have prevented that, so.....
FAIL.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mellowmike
How do you know the proposed regulations would not reduce firearms crime?
Because they didn't reduce firearms crime when we had them the first go round from 1994 through 2004, or were you unaware of that? Columbine happened right in the middle of it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mellowmike
And I've seen videos in which the person is firing the AR-15 as fast as a automatic weapon. So you're bragging that you can fire your glock faster than a machine gun? Is that special to you for some reason? Oh, and you can load that fast; I'm impressed, NOT. It takes me a few minutes to put the ammo in my revolver or rifle. Surely you don't need to fire a weapon rapidly in order to bring down your prey or to protect your home, right? In firing a weapon rapidly & thus indiscriminately, you're likely putting more innocent bystanders in harms way.
I'm certainly glad my state took the initiative to ban the high capacity magazines you own. There's really no reason for them in either home defense or hunting.
Quit pretending yur a gun owner, because clearly your not. It doesn't take "minutes" to load a revolver.
And yes, you just might need to fire a weapon rapidly in order to defend you home depending on a number of factors:
Size and caliber of ammo
Size of intruder
Intruders state of mind { is he numb on drugs or not}
Did you miss at all?
You clearlydon't know half of what you think you do. You've just consumed a bunch of anti-gun talking points and are trying to make them your own so that you can sound original.... pretty obvious.
When one looks at the myths the media has created about semi auto service rifles, it is almost amusing. Lets look at a couple of them: 1: "Assault rifles" are the number one choice of criminals. No, smaller, lighter weapons that are more easily concealed top the list.
2: Criminals can obtain these weapons via the public market. Again, wrong, anyone with a felony record would be identified by the background check. Besides, criminals, especially gangs, can purchase the real, full auto, stuff, on the black market. Stolen semi autos make it to them, but, that's hardly legal, above board, public market.
3: Rifles like the AR15 are functionally different from "sporting" rifles. Yea, right. The AR uses a gas system thats been around for a century or better. Direct impingement. It's all cosmetic. Especially now, with the advent of rail systems.
So, it seems that there is a perception that we shooters should stay with anachronistic firearms. More "traditional" and oriented for "sporting use". More modern designs are deadly, and we have no need of such advances. Only the cops and the military can be trusted with such ergonomic improvements. Magazine capacity, as well, is not something we civilians need. Take all this from us, and the bad guys won't have them either. Sheesh, 30 round mags float off military bases like dandelion seeds, written off as range loss. The whole hoopla over the AR and others like the AK is just silly. The Navy yard shooter didn't even use one of these rifles. The Chicago shooting was done by gangs, that can get whatever they want whenever they want. No law would have stopped either incident. There is no real logic being applied by the disarmament proponents. As things stand, more decent people need to be armed. We don't have a gun problem, we have a criminal problem. Focus on them. Not We the People.
As one of the few resident armed Liberals on this board I agree with the idea that an AR-15 is considered a scary gun. It is not a scary weapon. It is just another small caliber semi-automatic rifle.
From my experience in a war far, far away and a long time ago, any gun pointed at you is a scary looking gun. A 30 cal. SKS is a very scary weapon. When I had the choice of arming myself with an M-16 or a slide action 12 gauge I chose the shotgun. A .72 cal. carbine is a very effective weapon.
Now. over 45+ years later I have a .45 carbine for home defense. I plan on buying a .22 cal. pistol for target practice and a Derringer for carrying.
IMHO the nonsensical goal of the gun grabbers is complete disarmament of the general population along with reliance on authorities to keep violence from happening. I believe they use the modern classroom as an example of a perfectly peaceful society even if they have to ignore the bullies in the hallways. The problem is their willingness to ignore the simple fact that there are very few dangerous weapons (like hand grenades) but a whole lot of dangerous people. Most of these people are dangerous without weapons. I prefer to have the tools to defend myself available now instead of having to wait for some authority to stop the assault.
Just for your expert information the AR-15 was a precursor to the M16 and was almost purchased for use in Vietnam if not for a change in military procurement philosophy. Not sure what you issue is with calling an AR-15 a military style weapon but I would have to say that a gun that was about to be used by the military as more than just style, it would in fact be a military weapon.
Incorrect. The AR-15 is, and always has been, a civilian weapon. The M-16, which was based upon the AR-15, is the military weapon. The AR-15 was created, sold, and used by civilians for more than a decade before the M-16 was adopted for use by the military. Lots of military weapons were first civilian weapons originally. Just because the military uses civilian weapons does not mean that the weapon should not be used by civilians. Both the Remington and Mossberg shotguns are still used by the military. Should all shotguns now be banned from civilian use simply because the military uses them?
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.
