Why the AR-15? (votes, gun control, assault, work)
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.
NOTE from rflmn™: I have selectively highlighted in blue all of the truly idiotic and uninformed passages in the quotes below. The good ones, in green. Staggeringly mis-informed info, but straight off the gun banners' talking points hit list (unverified non-facts, obviously...)
Quote:
Originally Posted by KickAssArmyChick
I laugh every time I hear the term "assault rifle" as if the AR were this military style weapon with a burst, that anyone can carry into a mall and start shooting people without moving their finger off the trigger. And then they say but it is a semi-automatic! And I just laugh because they obviously have no idea what they are talking about.
However more often than not the gun haters know nothing about guns - but like to pretend they do by using terms like "clips" instead of magazines.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JimRom
T
Number one, why ban any guns at all as a response to violence? Because it is far easier to try to take a way the tools used to commit violence than to address the societal, economical, and mental health problems plaguing this country which lead to the violence in the first place.
Number two, why the AR-15? Because it is easily demonized by people who don't understand firearms due to the way it looks. Anyone with a modicum of knowledge about firearms knows that the AR-15 is simply a semi-automatic rifle which is on the low end of the scale when it comes to ballistic power and range. Anyone who bothers to look at the facts knows that the AR-15 is used in such a small percentage of crimes that the statistic is nearly non-existent.
****But in today's world of emotional reaction, something has to be blamed and the scary looking gun makes a good target.****
Quote:
Originally Posted by pknopp
AR-15 is something that even the less educated can pronounce.
Now this one is a really good phrase for us to use from now on! Thx so much pk! G'head! Take an extra 1000 round box of .308 or 223ammo for your reward!
Quote:
Originally Posted by gmagoo
It "looks dangerous"? 2 dozen bodies carried out of an elementary school pretty much tells us it is dangerous but you`re correct. An assault pistol is just as deadly.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mac_Muz
I really despise the PC do nuthins who think they have a brilliant idea when the reality is they are all sitting dunces in a box in the corner.
Another LAW I would like to see is that ONLY LAND OWNERS could vote. Only people is substance and means are able to determine the direction of the country because the crew supposed to be leading us today are a;; out to lunch and are a dollar short.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mellowmike
Silly me, I did not realize that nobody ever hunted varmints & boars prior to weapons firing multiple shots in a short time span.
It's common practice to track your game & try to get close as opposed to firing from long range.
Oh-ohhh, huh? More BIT! (Blithering Idiot Talk, totally technically invalid and uninformed to boot!) As noted below, please provide us with your state hunting license info, OK? You couldn't hunt anything in reality, and if your life depended on it.
After all, "gunz" are inherently dangerous, even when locked in my safe. I hear them every night, trying to fiddle the lock from the inside soz they can get out and commit mayhem!
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. (rflmn™correctly notes: So what? You would be The One who knew exactly what was in the psychologically broken mindset of the perp?)
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.
Quote:
rflmn's notes: Hmmm... What, pray tell, are those specific new regs? What all-new laws would be duly and obediently considered by a LAWBREAKER CRIMINAL? I had no idea we'd left some illegal activities, like school yard mass shootings, were still allowed. I'll have to change my mind, yes?
Even your hero, Ronald Reagan, called for sensible gun regulations. In fact, the NRA who at the time represented the responsible gun owners, called for gun regulations. That was before the NRA became the lobbyist for the gun manufacturers.
EWe have ll the "sensible" gun laws that are required already. And that vacuous" "If it saves the life of just one child..." BS? What a load, else we'll have to ban, at the very least, trampolines, those sh-eye-tt design flimsy backyard swimming pools, the games of soccer & football, and skateboards.
Get your mind-set and "facts" in order, Mellowmind!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mellowmike
How do you know the proposed regulations would not reduce firearms crime?
No regulations have been proposed that would deny a law abiding person to own a firearm.
But Mellow, you have to admit that there is now a new list of specific firearms types in the new gun ban legislation, with specifically named models. Of which, statistically, generate absolutely minimal crime interest. After all, my National Match M1A semi-auto (.308 chambering) cost me, wholesale, a mere $2500 plus about $50 each for a few extra mags... After all, you can't shoot a 25 round tactical match with a 5 round mag.
Your use of very useless stats in support of your predictable "but what if!" argument so often tossed out into otherwise honest discussion? Reprehensible.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JimRom
First, you are using an incident which is a statistical outlier as your example. Most gun crime has nothing to do with high capacity magazines.
Second, you are basing your arguments on assumptions and what ifs. You assume that a person with homicidal intentions would care about a magazine limit law.
There is not one single restriction on firearms which has provably reduced crime. Why would you expect any future restrictions to work when history shows that they don't? Stop buying into the propaganda and start pushing for solutions that address the cause of crime rather than the tools that are used to commit the crime.
I'm tired of arguing the "how many rounds do you need for xx activity" question. It has zero bearing on the issue and is a bogus argument put forth by people who have run out of talking points.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mellowmike
Actually, you don't have a right to own as large a capacity magazine as you want, that's up to the state in which you reside.
Quote:
WRONG! States will all have their own gun regulations as determined by the legislators of each state.
(Wrong. This i well outside of their legal purview when the topic is covered by the Constitution. If states try to do this, any such new but egregious law can and will be then shot down.!
We're a society & Police & National Guard handle the aftermath of events. Not vigilantes.
Or... "When seconds count, the police are only minutes away!"
Also, it should aways be noted that in many near-bankrupt cities (Dee-try-It being the v. worst example, where the average response time for all 911 calls last year was well over an hour...)
it is specifically NOT the job for your local LEO team to always protect you! How is that even a semi-plausible concept? We'd have to multiply the roaming city police presence by a factor of 10 to 20X minimum! Boy, do you ever live in a dream world!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jean71
They are CRIMINALS! Why should the law abiding citizen be punished for the acts of criminals? Will criminals go and turn in their magazines? All the magazines currently in circulation will be grandfathered. So criminals will still be able to keep their magazines, while us law abiding will have to adhere to the new laws.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mellowmike
Do you expect our Armed Services to protect the country from invasion or are you going to take it upon yourself to do so?
Yes, I do expect law enforcement to keep my community safe and that they be sufficiently funded to do so.
Quote:
Originally Posted by laughing.rflmn™
Uhmm... Well, we know for a FACT that scenario will not and certainly has not ever been the case, now has it, Mellowmike?
Sure, we all try to protect our family and we also rely on law enforcement to keep the community safe. While out of the home we protect our family by avoiding situations that pose a risk. If you choose to be a vigilante in protecting your family & in the process cause harm to a innocent bystander, be prepared to pay the consequences. The court takes a dim view of vigilantism.
So.. you are rudely awakened by an intruder in our home, on his time schedule and with his pre-planned surveillance trips, and you will then invoke a pleasant debate as to why he is in there, crowbar in his hands and Glock protruding from his belt, to "discuss" his intentnoi!
Good luck with that one. Meantime, legally, if I feel there's a credible threat to mi own, or my family's well-being, this guy, who has made his intentions clear, will be on the floor. I will have saved the local taxpayer a lot of court-time costs.
Best bet for such a mindset: don't bother with invading my house. Instead, go on over to Mellowmind's house where you will no doubt be invited in for a cuppa good fresh-ground coffee and some real fun talk-time!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Haakon
You also clearly don't realize that it is very common to shoot varmints at along range, and to fire multiple shots in a short time span.
It's also common to shoot larger game at long ranges, I'm sure you've never done it, or probably even been off pavement, but it's hard to get close to antelope on the prairie or in the desert.
You've never actually done any hunting, or shooting have you.
tNote: See the weapons in my YT selection below.
Seems like we'll have to ban all of these too, huh? Special Note: There are no real limits to the creativeness and engineering dominance of the American mind. You simply cannot BAN BAD THOUGHTs, else the conservatives here would have done so long ago.
As well, you should think on this alternative idea: with a mag capacity limit, any thoughtful criminal will then take better aim with his mere 10 rounds, instead of the infamous "spray and pray" shooting mentality that was actually taught to the conscripts going to the 'Nam.
Mellowmike, that your amazing and near-pathological lack of factual info is staggering but also dangerous. Good thing for you we have our First Amendment rights, but also Second [which should have been the First...] Amendment RIGHTS.
So... here's some vids of things you will obviously want to BAN! After all, you don't need any more than one shot to sneak up on any legal game animal, now do you? One shot, one buffler down, eh?
Shooting the Vepr 12 - YouTube (Do note that that first to be shot Marlin lever action .22 has an amazingly dangerous ammo capacity, huh? Well... OK then... it'd be best pick them up first, eh? That will for sure create a lot of very unhappy farm-raised kids and hunter's sons though...)
Of course, a rational gun owner, beyond comprehension for some.
Sorry he is a on the outer fringe if he is a gun owner at all. And if e is why is he? I was a hunters son, and have hunted all my life. it was the mid 80's a decade after the PC started that crime hit my remote area, and I was caught off my guard with no weapons designed for self defense.
You have it quite WRONG. I am not the enemy, nor an i the criminal. You PC have created all of that. I used to be tolerant. I gave in to your ideas of gun control for 55 years. What have i ever received for being tolerant? Not a god damned thing that's what. You still continue to attack my way of life every single day.
You continue to breed rats and set them free every day. All that is different now is i will no longer tolerate you and the PC ways. I will work towards LAW as I see fit and right now The traitor Known as Harry Reid has no VOTES for mid terms for any gun control.
That's my idea of 0 TOLERANCE! See what you PC have taught me?
Personally I have no use for the puny .223 round. I personally consider that round too small for deer. The state will allow it, but I like 1 shot kills. So my bare bones minimum rnd is Winchester 30-30 or 7.62 x 39, which is ballisticly the same about.
Longer shots or bigger game are better suited to .308 win or 7.62 x 51.
Bigger game and or longer range again are better suited to .30-06 or 7.62 x 63.
I used to laugh when media claimed the AK-47 rounds were high power. They are a very low power round.
Media doesn't often know what they are talking about much less care.
If i were wanting to own a AR it would have to be the Ar-10. The AR 15 is just not for for deer sized game and up to suit me.
Mac, I've got a 6.5 and .300 blackout upper which is .30 30 power. The 6.5 has nice ballistics good for anyone recoil shy.
How are your civil rights being violated if you're not allowed to have any damned weapon you want?
Personally I would make it 1 round and anything over that would be a felony. So, you should be happy that the proposals are for 10 rounds.
We have law enforcement to protect the public. Vigilantism went out with the old west when we decided we wanted to live in a civilized society. If you feel you want to be on your own while in public, Somalia or the like would be a suitable environment for you. When you're in your home, it's your castle. Thus, the courts have ruled that you have a right to protect your castle.
My right to keep and bear arms is being infringement, I cant own the firearms I want, and need.
yeah one extra round and you loss your rights and have a crappy life...liberal logic in action..
What happens when that police don't come, cant come, or just aren't around?
There very few shoot up in the wild west, you are a fool if you don't know that.
We have decoded we want to live in a FREE SOCIETY. With the focus on Liberty and Freedom.
If you feel the need to be told what to do, how to live, and you feel you cant be trusted with your rights, fine move to China, Cuba, or North Korea...We are staying here and America.
When we are alive our body is our castle and we have just as much right to defend oursleve in pubic just as much as in our home..
yeah throw money at it, most of with goes to the police unions.... how is the 911 system in your state? after all some of the highest taxes, it must be great...
We do know that both of the participants had CCW's & both exited their vehicles & shot each other. It doesn't take a genius to figure out it's really irresponsible behavior to exit your vehicle and have a gun fight.
ok which one started the fight? which one was reacting in self defense?
Not necessarily. When I concerns the Second Amendment there are just as many liberals as conservatives who feel that our right should be protected. Conversely, there are just as many conservatives who are anti-gun as there are liberals. The Second Amendment is non-partisan.
If they feel our rights should be protected, then they should not be liberals...that is like a Jew voting for the Nazi party.
If you are anti gun, you are not a conservatives..end of story...
You know that exactly how, were you at the mall, some indicated he killed himself when he heard the police sirens, truth is we will never know why he killed himself. What we do know is the CCW decided not to take action, good intelligent choice.
Last edited by Goodnight; 09-22-2013 at 04:58 PM..
Reason: clarity
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.
Selected good and bad stuff!
