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.
You don't need a semi-auto with a 30 round mag to enjoy target shooting. A bolt action works just fine in that regard. If my hobbies resulted in children being murdered I would gladly give it up. Then again I have a conscious.
Fetishization doesn't automatically equate to something that is sexual.
to be excessively or irrationally devoted to (an object, activity, etc)
There is an absolute Fetishization with AR-15's that goes well beyond its capabilities. I believe its because our servicemen use them and it has come to carry a certain symbolic weight in the minds of many Americans. Much the same way the AK-17 has with Communist revolutionaries. I don't think its healthy for a gun to hold such a strong symbolic representation. Especially in a first world democracy in the 21st century.
Its interesting to note that the veterans of WW2 had no interest in collecting and owning the weapons they took to war with them. Probably since most of them didn't want to be reminded of the horrors they went through every time they looked at their gun.
I have no qualms about people owning weapons like the one shown below.
So whats the obsession with trying to turn your gun into your very own barbie doll?
Barbie Dolls, lol, you are from San Fran Area arent you..
My ARs have two items attached, Scopes and Suppressors. Much more fun to shoot.
What is it with the left and their fascination with sexual things, like doll, nuts, phalic symbols, small ones, etc when talking about AR15's and their owners. Dude, you need some prozac.. or maybe timeout...
ignore list..
I don't see the connection between a woman standing up for her civil rights and fighting discrimination and a freaking gun that has a sole purpose of killing people!
I have viewed the video in the OP, and I find the line of reasoning to be flawed. If one argues that an AR-15 is something that people should be able to have just because they like it, that would seem to be valid if it were not a tool that has been used to kill so many people. Tools that are dangerous are generally not allowed, even if they are nice to own. A gun is not a couch. We should not be allowed to have as many as we want, any kind we want. They are different from other possessions because they can result in the efficient death of our fellow citizens. I am very aware that many people own these guns and never use them to hurt anyone. But they are deadly instruments. That's why we license and regulate cars and their drivers - because they can be deadly tools if used incorrectly.
As to the thought that because the police and the military also like and want AR-15s, that, to me, does not add anything to the argument that civilians should have them. We don't demand flame throwers, land mines, military helicopters, or all kinds of other military equipment. The jobs that the military and the police do demand that they are appropriately armed. Civilian life does not require semi-automatic rifles.
I suppose it is a matter of balancing rights. Any semi-automatic gun can take the lives of human beings so efficiently, is the right to own one in balance with others' right to live? Sure, you can take a life with a frying pan, but it is not so efficient that you can kill 50 people within a few minutes. That level of killing efficiency seems very like a car to me, in that you can kill multiple people in a very short time. But cars are useful (obviously) in other ways. We tolerate their danger because of that, and try to manage that danger with restrictions on how they are used, who uses them, and constantly making safety enhancement, etc. So why should that not be done with such deadly weapons as AR-15s?
How many people in the last decade has an AR15 killed? Too many, I agree, but its the person loading it and pulling trigger.
The kid at Florida had 10 round magazines, which liberals fought for in many states, because 30's wouldnt fit in his tactical backpack.
22lr Rifle/Pistol?
AR10/Bolt action 308 rifle?
380acp pistol?
Glock 17/19? They hold up to 30 rounds too. or 31 with one in the chamber.
Seems your focused on one item, due to indoctrination.
The pistols killed more. FBI statistics data, raw.
Once again, liberals have no understanding of want.. If you ban the AR, I will get an MCx, or a Bullpup, or a Scorpion. Why, because I can and its a want. I enjoy shooting, hunting..
I don't see the connection between a woman standing up for her civil rights and fighting discrimination and a freaking gun that has a sole purpose of killing people!
SMH
Interesting....I use my guns quite frequently and they have never killed anyone...so does that mean I'm misusing them? Or maybe I found another USE for them...thereby making your statement FALSE!
Have you ever even been shooting or to a gun store...why in the world would they sell targets if the only purpose of a gun is to kill? They should be lining up idiots downrange...Hmmmm....
I don't see the connection between a woman standing up for her civil rights and fighting discrimination and a freaking gun that has a sole purpose of killing people!
SMH
The connection has to do with the word: Right, or rights.
I don't see the connection between a woman standing up for her civil rights and fighting discrimination and a freaking gun that has a sole purpose of killing people!
SMH
Really , you dont. There you go thinking a gun is just to kill. Sure its design is. But its a tool used in defense of ones life too, correct,.
Wouldnt it suck if you needed a gun and didnt have one. Being a believer in fairy dust in unicorns, I bet you think you can close your eyes and perp will just go away..
And Mrs Parks wasnt the first either to fight for a right, even though hers werent written yet, to be equal unfortunately due to Democrats. She wont be the last to fight for a Right.
Here is a great video explaining things at a simple. People are always asking why do you need. This explains it well. You may not agree, of course, it is liberal dominated, but enjoy. https://youtu.be/M6o-xjOhnIs
I listened for 30 seconds and it sounded like an episode of "The View" with people talking all at once over each other. Can you summarize?
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.
