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.
And if the shooter had used a different type of rifle, there are many more powerful that have 100 round magazines and shoot at the same speed, you can also use a bump stock on them, would you call a different one "a bullet fire hose"?
Any such weapon would be treated the same as an AR15. It is the capability not the specific design.
the intent is to allow self defense, hunting and sport shooting without taking great risk of mass casualties. Seem reason for tight regulation of auto fire weapons.
Any such weapon would be treated the same as an AR15. It is the capability not the specific design.
the intent is to allow self defense, hunting and sport shooting without taking great risk of mass casualties. Seem reason for tight regulation of auto fire weapons.
Ok you know they are not auto-fire, but you insist on calling them that. And almost all semi-auto hunting rifles, many 60-70 years old could inflict more damage than the AR. But I assume by now that you know your posts are nonsensical.
Ok you know they are not auto-fire, but you insist on calling them that. And almost all semi-auto hunting rifles, many 60-70 years old could inflict more damage than the AR. But I assume by now that you know your posts are nonsensical.
And your post show your bias and lack of understanding.
I've been around long enough to see the gun control issue shift focus to all types of firearms as the root of all evil. I became involved in shooting while we were stationed overseas and my Dad shot for the Navy. I remember sitting and watching for hours on end while Dad and his teammates practiced. The sailors and Marines he shot with got used to me hanging around asking all manner of silly questions while I watched the most boring spectator sport on Earth with rapt fascination. Bullseye shooting.
So They and my Dad started teaching me. Before I knew it I was flat hooked. Then when we got back stateside I started hearing about "gun control" . How guns were evil and needed to be banned. Back then the focus was handguns primariy. The same arguments being applied that we are seeing with service style rifles like the AR today. "Good for nothing but killing, nobody needs a handgun, no "sporting purpose." Blah blah.
The focus stayed there for a long time with various groups trying to get handguns as a whole banned and failing that they shifted to "Saturday night specials" in the first big divide and conquer effort. Get one class banned and then go after the rest later.
The Saturday night special ploy didn't work, and then in the mid 80s a guy named Patrick Purdey shot up a schoolyard in Stockton CA with an AK 47. Then the focus instantly switched from Saturday night specials to evil "assault rifles" in particular. he know nothing phobics then came up with the famous "list of defining features" that made a particular firearm evil and insidious such as detachable magazines, muzzle brakes, pistol grips, collapsible stocks, anything synthetic pretty much, and as far as the "assault rifle" monicker being placed on these service type rifles I blame manufacturers and sellers more for that than the phobics.
That is what the shooting community was calling them. That they are not technically assault rifles didn't come up till later and by that time the anti firearms groups had already taken the label up and ran with it. Thus began the AWB that really targeted imports of fine rifles like the HK G series, FN FAL, Steyr and some good handguns like the Norinco 1911s got caught up in it as well. I have one of the latter that I've built into a serious match grade piece. During the time the ban was enacted it did zero to stop any gun crime. But it did succeed in driving prices on certain firearms through the roof and took a lot of good guns off the table for shooters. Criminals weren't effected one bit.
Nowdays the evil Black Rifle is the whipping boy with the same stale arguments applied that went to Saturday night specials. "Only suitable for killing people, no sporting purpose (I loathe that one) choice of criminals and thugs in general, nobody needs one " blah blah. Thing is it's not just the AR being targeted it's an entire class of rifles commonly used for lots of various purposes. The grabbers saw an opening to exploit on tragedy to advance their agenda of a total firearms ban.
To say that the goal is otherwise and it's about public safety is an outright bald faced lie. We can cite the various legitimate and lawful purposes for these arms till we're blue in the face (and we have) and it won't change a bloody thing. My AR I currently have in service hasn't seen over a ten round magazine in years (though I do have a few on hand) and not once have I ever just emptied a magazine downrange as fast as I could just because I can. I shoot standard three shot strings that actually hit and group on the target. That is after all the purpose of shooting regardless of the type of firearm one is using.
The AR is the go to for service rifle matches any more because M1As and M1 Garands have been withheld from the public market via the efforts of anti firearms organizations. Thousands of fine rifles just chopped in half. If you are lucky enough to obtain a Garand these days you will pay dearly for a rifle that needs a complete arsenal rework and Springfield is very proud of the M1A which show in their price. The AR is affordable and fits the bill for service competition such as Camp Perry. A type of competition that stresses accuracy and marksmanship and draws the finest shooters from both citizen and service roles.
That is fact. Undeniable. If a rifle needs to show a "sporting purpose" (which it doesn't) to be considered suitable for citizen ownership that alone is enough. I actually read an article in the docors office recently in Field and Stream on a AR hunting build. The author took the rifle on a Montana elk and mule deer hunt , chambered in 6.8 Creedmore and harvested his animals cleanly with one well placed shot at ranges out to 400 yards. Yes Virginia, the AR IS a hunting rifle. Albeit a 21st century one made of polymers and aluminum rather than good old wood and steel. There's those inconvenient facts popping up again.
So I'm going to finish my current build for a 308/243, and will continue in the meantime to use my 5.56/223 for lawful and enjoyable skill oriented precision shooting. Just like millions of other shooters do. No ducking, no obfuscation, no trying to justify myself to those who believe my rifles have no legitimate purpose. None of us who own and use service style semi auto rifles need justify ourselves to anyone. Though there are those who seem to think we do.
They can have their opinions and have full right to not own such rifles but at the same time they have no right to try and dictate their views onto us. Just leave us be and we will enjoy our sport peacefully and lawfully just like we always have. I would suggest that these folks actually attend a service match, centerfire rifle match steel or action match and see for themselves how these rifles are used. It may ust open some eyes and form a basis for an honest, informed opinion. Just sayin'....
I've been around long enough to see the gun control issue shift focus to all types of firearms as the root of all evil. I became involved in shooting while we were stationed overseas and my Dad shot for the Navy. I remember sitting and watching for hours on end while Dad and his teammates practiced. The sailors and Marines he shot with got used to me hanging around asking all manner of silly questions while I watched the most boring spectator sport on Earth with rapt fascination. Bullseye shooting.
So They and my Dad started teaching me. Before I knew it I was flat hooked. Then when we got back stateside I started hearing about "gun control" . How guns were evil and needed to be banned. Back then the focus was handguns primariy. The same arguments being applied that we are seeing with service style rifles like the AR today. "Good for nothing but killing, nobody needs a handgun, no "sporting purpose." Blah blah.
The focus stayed there for a long time with various groups trying to get handguns as a whole banned and failing that they shifted to "Saturday night specials" in the first big divide and conquer effort. Get one class banned and then go after the rest later.
The Saturday night special ploy didn't work, and then in the mid 80s a guy named Patrick Purdey shot up a schoolyard in Stockton CA with an AK 47. Then the focus instantly switched from Saturday night specials to evil "assault rifles" in particular. he know nothing phobics then came up with the famous "list of defining features" that made a particular firearm evil and insidious such as detachable magazines, muzzle brakes, pistol grips, collapsible stocks, anything synthetic pretty much, and as far as the "assault rifle" monicker being placed on these service type rifles I blame manufacturers and sellers more for that than the phobics.
That is what the shooting community was calling them. That they are not technically assault rifles didn't come up till later and by that time the anti firearms groups had already taken the label up and ran with it. Thus began the AWB that really targeted imports of fine rifles like the HK G series, FN FAL, Steyr and some good handguns like the Norinco 1911s got caught up in it as well. I have one of the latter that I've built into a serious match grade piece. During the time the ban was enacted it did zero to stop any gun crime. But it did succeed in driving prices on certain firearms through the roof and took a lot of good guns off the table for shooters. Criminals weren't effected one bit.
Nowdays the evil Black Rifle is the whipping boy with the same stale arguments applied that went to Saturday night specials. "Only suitable for killing people, no sporting purpose (I loathe that one) choice of criminals and thugs in general, nobody needs one " blah blah. Thing is it's not just the AR being targeted it's an entire class of rifles commonly used for lots of various purposes. The grabbers saw an opening to exploit on tragedy to advance their agenda of a total firearms ban.
To say that the goal is otherwise and it's about public safety is an outright bald faced lie. We can cite the various legitimate and lawful purposes for these arms till we're blue in the face (and we have) and it won't change a bloody thing. My AR I currently have in service hasn't seen over a ten round magazine in years (though I do have a few on hand) and not once have I ever just emptied a magazine downrange as fast as I could just because I can. I shoot standard three shot strings that actually hit and group on the target. That is after all the purpose of shooting regardless of the type of firearm one is using.
The AR is the go to for service rifle matches any more because M1As and M1 Garands have been withheld from the public market via the efforts of anti firearms organizations. Thousands of fine rifles just chopped in half. If you are lucky enough to obtain a Garand these days you will pay dearly for a rifle that needs a complete arsenal rework and Springfield is very proud of the M1A which show in their price. The AR is affordable and fits the bill for service competition such as Camp Perry. A type of competition that stresses accuracy and marksmanship and draws the finest shooters from both citizen and service roles.
That is fact. Undeniable. If a rifle needs to show a "sporting purpose" (which it doesn't) to be considered suitable for citizen ownership that alone is enough. I actually read an article in the docors office recently in Field and Stream on a AR hunting build. The author took the rifle on a Montana elk and mule deer hunt , chambered in 6.8 Creedmore and harvested his animals cleanly with one well placed shot at ranges out to 400 yards. Yes Virginia, the AR IS a hunting rifle. Albeit a 21st century one made of polymers and aluminum rather than good old wood and steel. There's those inconvenient facts popping up again.
So I'm going to finish my current build for a 308/243, and will continue in the meantime to use my 5.56/223 for lawful and enjoyable skill oriented precision shooting. Just like millions of other shooters do. No ducking, no obfuscation, no trying to justify myself to those who believe my rifles have no legitimate purpose. None of us who own and use service style semi auto rifles need justify ourselves to anyone. Though there are those who seem to think we do.
They can have their opinions and have full right to not own such rifles but at the same time they have no right to try and dictate their views onto us. Just leave us be and we will enjoy our sport peacefully and lawfully just like we always have. I would suggest that these folks actually attend a service match, centerfire rifle match steel or action match and see for themselves how these rifles are used. It may ust open some eyes and form a basis for an honest, informed opinion. Just sayin'....
The firearms debate has always reminded me of breed specific legislation as applied to canines. There, also, the target has changed from generation to generation. At one point it was German Shepherds, then Dobermans, the Rottweilers, now it's Pitbulls.
Never mind the fact that responsible ownership alleviates the issue with both topics, for those who pursue such legislation it is never the irresponsible owners who are to blame - it is always the firearm or the breed of canine.
It truly is an example of laziness. It would be far more difficult to pursue the actual problems which lead to tragedy in either case, so the lazy way out is to simply say "You can't have it." Never mind the fact that millions of people are able to own both firearms and "devil dogs" with zero issue, never mind the fact that the people who do have issues are typically people who lack the knowledge to own either one responsibly - which could easily be addressed with education, althou not as easily as just passing a ban. Because a handful of people are incapable of owning one or the other, those of us who are capable must be prohibited from owning either in order to keep the idiots from getting them.
With firearms, the issue goes beyond laziness and touches on the ego. It has been proven over and over that the liberal approach to firearms does not work. However, admitting that would be admitting that their policies are failures. Instead, in order to salve their ego, they argue that more destined-to-fail policies are needed in order for the previous failures to work.
I've been around long enough to see the gun control issue shift focus to all types of firearms as the root of all evil. I became involved in shooting while we were stationed overseas and my Dad shot for the Navy. I remember sitting and watching for hours on end while Dad and his teammates practiced. The sailors and Marines he shot with got used to me hanging around asking all manner of silly questions while I watched the most boring spectator sport on Earth with rapt fascination. Bullseye shooting.
So They and my Dad started teaching me. Before I knew it I was flat hooked. Then when we got back stateside I started hearing about "gun control" . How guns were evil and needed to be banned. Back then the focus was handguns primariy. The same arguments being applied that we are seeing with service style rifles like the AR today. "Good for nothing but killing, nobody needs a handgun, no "sporting purpose." Blah blah.
The focus stayed there for a long time with various groups trying to get handguns as a whole banned and failing that they shifted to "Saturday night specials" in the first big divide and conquer effort. Get one class banned and then go after the rest later.
The Saturday night special ploy didn't work, and then in the mid 80s a guy named Patrick Purdey shot up a schoolyard in Stockton CA with an AK 47. Then the focus instantly switched from Saturday night specials to evil "assault rifles" in particular. he know nothing phobics then came up with the famous "list of defining features" that made a particular firearm evil and insidious such as detachable magazines, muzzle brakes, pistol grips, collapsible stocks, anything synthetic pretty much, and as far as the "assault rifle" monicker being placed on these service type rifles I blame manufacturers and sellers more for that than the phobics.
That is what the shooting community was calling them. That they are not technically assault rifles didn't come up till later and by that time the anti firearms groups had already taken the label up and ran with it. Thus began the AWB that really targeted imports of fine rifles like the HK G series, FN FAL, Steyr and some good handguns like the Norinco 1911s got caught up in it as well. I have one of the latter that I've built into a serious match grade piece. During the time the ban was enacted it did zero to stop any gun crime. But it did succeed in driving prices on certain firearms through the roof and took a lot of good guns off the table for shooters. Criminals weren't effected one bit.
Nowdays the evil Black Rifle is the whipping boy with the same stale arguments applied that went to Saturday night specials. "Only suitable for killing people, no sporting purpose (I loathe that one) choice of criminals and thugs in general, nobody needs one " blah blah. Thing is it's not just the AR being targeted it's an entire class of rifles commonly used for lots of various purposes. The grabbers saw an opening to exploit on tragedy to advance their agenda of a total firearms ban.
To say that the goal is otherwise and it's about public safety is an outright bald faced lie. We can cite the various legitimate and lawful purposes for these arms till we're blue in the face (and we have) and it won't change a bloody thing. My AR I currently have in service hasn't seen over a ten round magazine in years (though I do have a few on hand) and not once have I ever just emptied a magazine downrange as fast as I could just because I can. I shoot standard three shot strings that actually hit and group on the target. That is after all the purpose of shooting regardless of the type of firearm one is using.
The AR is the go to for service rifle matches any more because M1As and M1 Garands have been withheld from the public market via the efforts of anti firearms organizations. Thousands of fine rifles just chopped in half. If you are lucky enough to obtain a Garand these days you will pay dearly for a rifle that needs a complete arsenal rework and Springfield is very proud of the M1A which show in their price. The AR is affordable and fits the bill for service competition such as Camp Perry. A type of competition that stresses accuracy and marksmanship and draws the finest shooters from both citizen and service roles.
That is fact. Undeniable. If a rifle needs to show a "sporting purpose" (which it doesn't) to be considered suitable for citizen ownership that alone is enough. I actually read an article in the docors office recently in Field and Stream on a AR hunting build. The author took the rifle on a Montana elk and mule deer hunt , chambered in 6.8 Creedmore and harvested his animals cleanly with one well placed shot at ranges out to 400 yards. Yes Virginia, the AR IS a hunting rifle. Albeit a 21st century one made of polymers and aluminum rather than good old wood and steel. There's those inconvenient facts popping up again.
So I'm going to finish my current build for a 308/243, and will continue in the meantime to use my 5.56/223 for lawful and enjoyable skill oriented precision shooting. Just like millions of other shooters do. No ducking, no obfuscation, no trying to justify myself to those who believe my rifles have no legitimate purpose. None of us who own and use service style semi auto rifles need justify ourselves to anyone. Though there are those who seem to think we do.
They can have their opinions and have full right to not own such rifles but at the same time they have no right to try and dictate their views onto us. Just leave us be and we will enjoy our sport peacefully and lawfully just like we always have. I would suggest that these folks actually attend a service match, centerfire rifle match steel or action match and see for themselves how these rifles are used. It may ust open some eyes and form a basis for an honest, informed opinion. Just sayin'....
But you continue to try to twist the real argument. There is no doubt that the AR15 and other similar derivative pieces have useful and legal purposes. But they also have the capability of being used as bullet fire hoses. And that is the issue. If the industry had not developed such things as large magazines and bump stocks you would have a better argument. But they did.
I hate to inform the Democrat/Progressives, but you have lost, and continue to lose the "more gun control" debate. The politicians know it is political suicide, and that most people don't want more useless laws that only affect the law abiding. You lost. Get over it. If you want to try to amend the Constitution, go for it. You'll lose there also.
But you continue to try to twist the real argument. There is no doubt that the AR15 and other similar derivative pieces have useful and legal purposes. But they also have the capability of being used as bullet fire hoses. And that is the issue. If the industry had not developed such things as large magazines and bump stocks you would have a better argument. But they did.
There is no doubt that butcher knives and other similar derivative pieces have useful and legal purposes. But they also have the capability of inflicting grievous wounds. And that is the issue.
Both statements make equal sense. You can use the "possible" uses of almost any object in order to make it seem more dangerous than it is useful. Literally anything. For example, we could say that laundry detergent pods have useful and legal purposes. But, similar to firearms, because some idiots can't figure out what the proper use is we should ban laundry pods. Forget the fact that millions of people purchase them and use them as intended. Because a few mental midgets aren't capable of doing so, nobody should be allowed to have them.
Once you get past the point of blaming an inanimate object for the actions of people, you will be a lot closer to looking for real solutions to the problem, rather than thinking that removing that object will somehow magically make people less evil or less prone to violence. As you stated before, people will simply find a different item to take the place of any item that you ban.
There is no doubt that butcher knives and other similar derivative pieces have useful and legal purposes. But they also have the capability of inflicting grievous wounds. And that is the issue.
Both statements make equal sense. You can use the "possible" uses of almost any object in order to make it seem more dangerous than it is useful. Literally anything. For example, we could say that laundry detergent pods have useful and legal purposes. But, similar to firearms, because some idiots can't figure out what the proper use is we should ban laundry pods. Forget the fact that millions of people purchase them and use them as intended. Because a few mental midgets aren't capable of doing so, nobody should be allowed to have them.
Once you get past the point of blaming an inanimate object for the actions of people, you will be a lot closer to looking for real solutions to the problem, rather than thinking that removing that object will somehow magically make people less evil or less prone to violence. As you stated before, people will simply find a different item to take the place of any item that you ban.
Again banning overly dangerous devices is perfectly legal and does not require a Constitutional amendment.
I would doubt there is any real possibility of it happening in the immediate future but I would not be at all surprised if it happens in some states. And it will be found constitutional.
I continue to support very permissive concealed carry as I believe that there will be no substantial change in our gun laws and the good guys may as well be armed if the bad guys have easy access. But I would think it a good thing if say CA banned AR15s and similar.
Until the prevailing culture changes..... then --> racial profiling, sterilization, outlaw "Gansta" rap, ban single parents, no welfare, no handouts unless you have a full time job...... kid skips school = no welfare,
Get out of line and don't straighten up..... get shipped to Africa where they will show you how to behave.
This is a culture war and it needs to be solved by any means necessary....
There is a reason true patriotic motherland Africans HATE blacks in the US
This seem normal to you?
Yet its a SEVERE problem with culture.
I do this my father beats my ass and I'm reported and in jail until I change my ways.
Not in the AA community... this crap is tolerated, celebrated and encouraged.
Fine upstanding citizens.
People in the 60's who fought and gave their lives for an entire community's freedom are rolling over in their graves over what the AA community has become.
If you are using this thread as an excuse to vent your own anger at Black Americans, then your input for this thread is worthless, as all you have to offer is hatred.
If you can't tell the difference between regular Black people and hood rats, you are lost. Racial profiling won't deter criminals. It will only anger the law-abiding Black people. And if you think law-abiding Blacks should tolerate being singled out, well, that says alot about your mentality.
As for rap music, alot of White kids listen gangster rap, and don't turn to murder. Whites are the top consumer of gangster rap. Black men were being murdered in high numbers before gangster rap was invented. Most of that occurring in the ghettos and alot of it in the heat of arguments, as well as gangs. Hoood rat dynamic.
You can't ban single parents. Single parents have bern around for a long time ,going back to the 50s and 40s. And something else. Alot of Whites are on welfare, but the murder rate isn't high over all. And Blacks had a higher murder rate than anyone else BEFORE the welfare programs. Go read what Daniel Patrick Moynihan said in his report. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_...ational_Action
Furthermore, sterilization. People are not going to willingly submit to sterilization, unless they are in prison. And something else. Black women get more abortions than any other group of females. And yet, the crime problem persists. Sounds like abortion is not the answer.
We have had culture wars for years. Regular Black people aren't the problem. It exists in higher proportions with the underclass. And I never said ot was normal to be a violent criminal. You don't know anything about me, except perhaps, my race.
Like I said, hood rats don't listen to anyone. This is why the rest of the Black population glees from such types when the chance/opportunity comes. When you havr have individuals who don't expect to live past 30, they don't care. No deterrent will work.
As for those videos, nice job on picking the very worst of the Black population to represent the entire Black population. This is a big part of why race discussions turn ugly. Finding hood rat videos are easy. One reason I didn't watch them. Not worth my time. I can find videos of Black people doing good things and not being hood rats. I can find videos of Black Americans discussing how much they hate hood rats. This stuff is not encouraged by the average Black American. It's encouraged in the ghetto and hood rat circles. Hood rats don't listen to anyone, period.
As for Africans, if you're using Africans to justify hating all Black Americans, you're just being a closeted bigot.
As for people in the 60s, there were hood rats back then too. There were all kinds of crime movies in the 60s. And juvenile violence was an issue in the 50s as well. https://youtu.be/a_DD_SMjMsE
And no, this didn't represent everyone in the 50s. Just saying it did happen back then too.
And you can't kick U.S. citizens out of the USA. This "send them to Africa" crap is delusional. Not only that, some African cities have thugs more ruthless than American thugs. This is what we know of thugs. Put them in an environment where they can find other thugs, it re-enforces. The only way you can send someone away to make them behave is if they get put in the military.
You mentioned getting beaten. Black youths get more beatings than any other youth demographic. There have been a few Black comedians who made jokes about getting beaten with objects that cause injury. Hasn't deterred some young Black people from committing murder or fighting with police. The suicide rate among some young Black males is on the rise. Sounds like lack of beatings isn't the problem.
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.
