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.
I'm going to order a Colt LE6920 - either the standard M4 or the MPB. They've been on sale now & then for $852 - $899, which is pretty darn good.
Comes with a 30 round Pmag. Will probably get at least 6 or 7 more to go with it. Maybe a red dot optic.
Already have a S&W M&P 15 Sport, which is a great little rifle for under $600.
Well, as long as this thread has gone to hell anyway, and I'm the OP, I've seen both of those rifles mentioned just about everywhere as good, solid, economical choices. I don't really need one but I might like to try it one day so what are the differences between them? If you already have the one, why get the other? Also, Walmart used to carry a Colt (maybe they still do) and I think it was the 6920 but I remember it was a couple hundred less. Any idea on that?
The founding Fathers wrote the second amendment as a way to maintain a citizen militia that could be called apon if needed to defend. A militia that they wouldn't need to pay like they would a regular army but could rely on if the poop hit the fan.
Of course when the founding fathers were framing the Constitution they could never imagine the destructive power of modern weapons and I wager they could never imagine that the first amendment would give someone the right to burn the nations flag or for a "church group" to loudly protest at a fallen soldiers funeral.
The founding fathers didn't know about flush toilets either. It's a wonder why someone hasn't come up with a reason why we shouldn't have them.
The founding fathers didn't know about flush toilets either. It's a wonder why someone hasn't come up with a reason why we shouldn't have them.
SHHH!!! Don't give them any ideas! Toilets are often inefficient and overuse water. Knowing some of the idiocy that has come to prevail in our government today, it's only a matter of time before someone realizes the words, "A well-regulated bowel being necessary to the general health of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear flushing toilets shall not be infringed" appear nowhere in the U.S. Constitution!
Social Liberal? Come on monkey, I think that's taking it just a bit too far, don't you? I challenge you to go find a Social Liberal that holds the same views as I on guns. It probably won't be an easy task. I didn't say that nobody should be allowed to own military grade weaponry, I merely said that I have no quams with the fact that it isn't as easily available as semi-auto's, etc. That is just my own personal opinion, and I wouldn't try to stifle your rights because of it, or use it to effect policy change. Like I said, I admit that if the Heller decision would have interpreted the 2A correctly, we'd have access to those type of weapons. Like chango said, I think the Hughes Amendment to the Firearm Owners Protection Act of 1986 should be repealed. If you can buy a select fire weapon manufactured before 1986, then you should be able to buy a newly manufactured one. You are right though, I agree with a lot of the Social Liberal agenda, such as gay rights, abortion { even though I see it as an evil, but maybe a necessary evil in some cases } legalizing marijuana { even though I don't think people should use it recreationaly, who am I to tell someone what they can and can't put in their own bodies }
Like I told you before, I'm a fence sitter, I like being unpredictable on any given issue. Basically, if it expands individual freedom, I'm for it, even if I don't necessarily agree personaly.
I agree, except in the case of violent felons, and especially repeat violent offenders. You rape someone, you become a drug dealer, etc, you lose your right to a firearm. I have no problem with that, and neither did the founders. There is evidence to back that up. One of them said "no peaceable citizen ought to be barred the right to arms". Stands to reason they wouldn't have a problem with making an exception for unpeaceful citizens, and deny them their firearm rights.
ok, maybe not a social liberal, probably more like a moderate republican.
the point being about semi-auto's is, that the founders never sought to limit what type of weapon the people should be owning at all. if you read the Bill of Rights as written, they are not there to give you a right you already have, they are there to limit the federal governments ability to make any law at all concerning the individual citizens natural right of self defense, and also the people are the last stop before tyranny happens in the USA.
ok, maybe not a social liberal, probably more
like a moderate republican.
Meh, I'll take it.....
Quote:
the point being about semi-auto's is, that the founders never sought to limit
what type of weapon the people should be owning at all. if you read the Bill of
Rights as written, they are not there to give you a right you already have, they
are there to limit the federal governments ability to make any law at all
concerning the individual citizens natural right of self defense, and also the
people are the last stop before tyranny happens in the USA.
I think I would be more intimidated staring down the barrel of an 80 year old pump shotgun vs an AR15. Toss some slugs in it and there's just WAY more power in that weapon vs a .223/5.56.
But I think you are absolutely right in how the AR15 is perceived badly and is now "tacticool" to the point of being almost as mainstream as an AK47. The general public has no idea the mechanics of firearms and just how they work. I doublt half the people even know what a semi-automatic is, and that it's been around for 100 years and was perfectly OK until the recent mass shootings. Now it's sacrelidge.
Ruger Mini-14 is a good example of how little the public actually knows.
In nice, normal rifle mode
ANd in tactical mode
Same exact rifle shooting the same round (same as AR15 too) andf yet one looks more scary than the other. Let's not even get started about the AWB that bans features....
you are very correct. people are scared because of the way a firearm looks and not its actual function.
I shall never trust the liberals on any subject when it comes to firearms. they always say "why do you need 30 bullets to shoot a deer"? I always say, why do you need cops to come to you when a crime is happening when the scotus has already ruled that they do not have any responsibility to answer any 911 call.
also, the 2nd Amendment has never been about hunting. it is about the people ability to resist tyranny coming from the federal government.
you are very correct. people are scared because of the way a firearm looks and not its actual function.
I shall never trust the liberals on any subject when it comes to firearms. they always say"why do you need 30 bullets to shoot a deer"? I always say, why do you need cops to come to you when a crime is happening when the scotus has already ruled that they do not have any responsibility to answer any 911 call.
also, the 2nd Amendment has never been about hunting. it is about the people ability to resist tyranny coming from the federal government.
We have a Senate Majority Leader who stated from the floor that "government is inherently good" in a critique of Republicans who seemed to believe "government was bad and needed to be controlled." I dare say, Harry Reid and the likes of him are the reason why we have the 2nd Amendment. When you go willfully ignorant to the reality of power and its ability to corrupt you are on the brink of tyranny.
PS: I wish Reid's accusation were true. I wish Republicans DID believe government needed to be controlled. I wish Democrats did too.
I don't own a MSR or 'assault rifle', or any other type of rifle for that matter but I have become interested in the subject over the past couple of years. I've also become more interested in the history of firearms and today came across this video which, from a historical and political context, is very interesting to me. I thought I'd share for two reasons. First, for any history buffs out there, if you haven't seen this before, you will really like it. Second, it pretty much blows away the argument that the founders would never have allowed citizens to own semi-automatic weapons or military-style rifles, had they existed. It turns out they did exist, and existed before the 2nd amendment was written, and they were obviously not excluded. The rifle was the Girardoni and you can learn more about it here:
I doubt that we will ever know just what was on the minds of the founders who wrote our Constitution. And in Hillary's own words "What Does It Matter", the words in the Constitution have guided us for many years and can only be interpreted to mean what they mean, end of the story. As far as the Girardoni Air Rifle being an auto loader, it is not, it's a repeater, and nothing more.
To those who feel compelled to argue with me over this, I'm not going to answer each point--it will take forever so let me say this. My personal point of view is that the constitution should be taken literally, not interpreted, whenever possible. If enough people want to change the constitution, there's a mechanism for that but, failing that, we must operate under the constitution as it is. When modernity makes it impossible to take it literally or when there is nothing in the constitution that specifically addresses an issue, any interpretation should always be done in a way that minimally restricts the rights and freedoms spelled out in the constitution but, where a right is specifically protected from governmental interference (as in the 2A), that's it, no interpretation due to modernity or whatever is needed because no interference is permitted.
Having said that, however, the specific right that is protected from governmental interference in the 2A is not the right to access to all arms, it's the right to keep and bear arms. So, when someone says, for example, that the 2nd guarantees the people the right to the same armament as the military, I say you (and I) may choose to look at it that way but it no more guarantees that right than it affords the government the authority to limit what guns an individual may own. Sorry, neither 'right' is there in that amendment. It only says you have the right to keep and bear arms. So, unless a law specifically interferes with that right, I think Congress has the right to limit certain guns which is why it is important that we elect people who won't try to muck things up.
if you read the 2nd Amendment as is, then you have to acknowledge that the 2 Amendment is about limiting the governments ability of limiting the peoples right. also, congress has no right to limit any type of firearm at all. that is why the 2 Amendment says " The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.".
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.
I challenge you to go find a Social Liberal that holds the same views as I on guns. It probably won't be an easy task. I didn't say that nobody should be allowed to own military grade weaponry, I merely said that I have no quams with the fact that it isn't as easily available as semi-auto's, etc. That is just my own personal opinion, and I wouldn't try to stifle your rights because of it, or use it to effect policy change. Like I said, I admit that if the Heller decision would have interpreted the 2A correctly, we'd have access to those type of weapons. Like chango said, I think the Hughes Amendment to the Firearm Owners Protection Act of 1986 should be repealed. If you can buy a select fire weapon manufactured before 1986, then you should be able to buy a newly manufactured one. You are right though, I agree with a lot of the Social Liberal agenda, such as gay rights, abortion { even though I see it as an evil, but maybe a necessary evil in some cases } legalizing marijuana { even though I don't think people should use it recreationaly, who am I to tell someone what they can and can't put in their own bodies }