AR-15: Let's have some debating points

I cringe every time someone says these powerful tools are merely semiauto rifles.
Click to expand...

But they are merely semiauto rifles. Really, the only thing "bad" about them is they look like M16's and M4's. The M1 rifle is okay because it doesn't look evil. (At least to the folk who want to take away the AR's.)

The same can be said for a Remington Wingmaster vs the "tactical" version of the same.
 
Lon308 said:
I have a Cousin (about 64 years old) who is one of the bigest ourdoorsmen whom I know. He is almost a professional Hunter, Trapper, and Fisherman.

One day, folks in the family were talking about gun laws and AR-15's. He said, "Aw. People don't need those Assault Rifles."

What he doesn't understand is that,
After the "Assault Rifles will be High Capacity Pistols (entirely)"
After them: Pistols for anything other than hunting.
After them: 300 Magnum Sniper Rifles that can go through 3/4 inch of soft steel.

After all, "People don't need them."
Click to expand...

I keep hearing the Fudds talk about the dont need them arguement....But, what they dont understand, and history has shown, is that you dont need a firearm to hunt with either, there are plenty of effective primitive type weapons for hunting, etc uses, and have been used for centuries, such as a traditional type bow, and others. It would be so easy to create a ban on hunting firearms, because so far, if I am not mistaken, the second amendment right was for defense, and the supreme court ruled on those issues narrowly.

I've never seen any protection for hunters mentioned, but for some reason Fudds feel safe, for now. I havent hunted in years, and dont really plan to in the near future, so, and I am sure there are tons similar to me, defeating a future AWB and or mag capacity restrictions is paramount.
 
If they didn't want me to defend the constitution, they shouldn't have asked me to take the oath. It's really quite simple. Leave it to society to muck things up. I'm waiting for January, to see if it's worth getting riled up.
 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Akihabara_massacre

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ering-Karina-Menzies-trying-kill-13-more.html

http://www.japantimes.co.jp/text/nn20120310a7.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mamoru_Takuma

All rampage killings, all recent, with the primary weapon not being a firearm...

This link, will let you drill down to almost any subset you want.. asia, Europe, the Americas, schools, workplaces, and so on. Pretty much shows that where firearms are common, firearms are the weapon of choice, where they're not common, people use something else. In other words, murderous intent is the problem, not guns.
 
The main issues imo are the slippery slope and not caving in to those who try to dictate what we need and don't need.

Granted, like many have said, there are better rifles out there, but we all know that the guns aren't the problem. So banning AR's and other like rifles/guns won't solve the problem. So if they are banned and someone commits a massacre with a 10 round pistol, you can bet the anti's will be out in force wanting to ban those as well.

And quite frankly, I don't need the government telling me what I need or don't need. Because really, no one "needs" a luxury car or high-end home. No one needs many luxury items. But it's not there place to tell us what we need. And we are already hearing that argument when it comes to taxes. It just keeps going down the slippery slope of the socialists out there dictating and infringing on our freedoms.
 
The only thing I have killed so far with my AR is a white-tail deer. Are there better weapons for that task. Sure, my wife has a .243, she hunts with, are there better weapons for that task, sure, I have a .30-30 and various other rifles to deer hunt with, are there better weapons for that task, maybe, what is the perfect one, is that the only one we can hunt with. Most firearms of all types are mostly range or plinking guns etc., my bolt action hunting rifles fire at many more targets than they do deer. Thankfully we shoot at targets much more than other humans. My AR hangs over the bedroom door, it is fast, light and easy to shoot, also my wife has 14 years of time in the U.S. Army thus I ididn't have to teach her anything about the weapon and yet she can put it into action quickly and decisively should the need arise.
 
Hunting, sure they can be used for hunting in the sense that they fire bullets and are capable of killing. But there are better guns for that. And 30 round mags just get in the way when accuracy is important. And I've never needed a semi-auto rifle to hunt with. And I don't know many that have.
Click to expand...

I guess you could hunt with a five round magazine but if you are hunting feral hogs why would you? Millions of other people don't seem to have this accuracy problem.

Competition, sure I suppose they could be used for that, but competition is not a practical matter either.

Recreation, same as competition
Click to expand...

I am not sure what your point is here.

I am really surprised by the ignorance within the gun community about capabilities and judging by appearances.
 
I remarked to a Fraternity Brother of mine at the tacky sweater party that the only thing a ban would accomplish is hinder two, or possibly three, of my forthcoming gun projects. When queired as to what I wanted to do, I told him that I want to buy a Colt LE6920 and outfit it like the M-4A1 I carried in the Sandbox. Including the ACOG, a Cobray flare launcher, and a bunch of NATO STANAG steel mags with bits of paracord taped too them as a poor's man magpul sleeve.

Also on my list of things to do is an AR-15 match rifle, something like a Colt H-BAR. And finally, I want a Beretta 92FS to stick in my old leather shoulder holster that somehow wound up in my duffel bag after coming home.

Every one of those guns would be subject to the rigors of most of the proposed "assualt weapon" legislation I've seen.

What struck me, was that my Fraternity Brother, who isn't necessarily anti-gun, but anti-scary looking guns, responded that by virtue of my military service I should be allowed to own whatever I wanted.

I like to turn that argument on it's head. The AR-15, too me, atleast is targeted because it looks like something that the military uses.

I fail to see how a cosmetic ban will stop crime. And try to tell that to as many people as I can.

We've had magazine fed, semi-auto rifles since atleast 1907.

The humble Winchester Model 1907 was my great-Granpa's "patrol carbine" when he was the Sheriff.
 
See this is what I'm worried about. There are a lot of apathetic gun owners in the US. Hardworker doesn't need an AR for hunting, and won't sweat it when they're banned. I've chatted with CCW'ers who don't need them either. Wait until their guns are banned. Those evil handguns and "sniper rifles".
 
Coronatj said:
But, to the point, I'm not so sure that we need gun control as much as we need people control. I hear people complain about having to wait for a time period, before being allowed to get their gun. I'd like to see a more vigorous waiting period, where mental health is checked, and there are minimum standards that have to be met.

Yea. I said it.
Click to expand...

The problem with your statement, Coronatj, . . . is simply that YOU are a part of the problem, . . . not the solution.

YOU are willing to throw away the one and only right that has kept this country free, . . . by giving the keys to it to a bunch of beurocrats and gov't do nothings who WILL start out with a minimum set of standards. That set will go up higher and higher with every shooting, every election, every robbery, . . . just in the same manner other things have done.

In say 1960: you had to be able to pass a simple eye test with or without corrrective lenses, . . . and a simple physical, . . . take a test and pass it for a chauffer's license, . . . and you were good to go with almost any truck, bus, or other vehicle you could get hired to drive. The employers were responsible, and did what they needed to do.

Today, . . . a license to drive a big rig in Ohio, . . . it'll cost you 4 grand, and a couple months of your life, etc. all because the gov't got it's fingers in the pie, . . . because some one who didn't know better opined "I'd like to see a more vigorous waiting period, where mental health is checked, and there are minimum standards that have to be met."

No, . . . I don't like your suggestion, . . . I think it is dumb, . . . there, I said it.

As far as the AR is concerned, . . . it is a very unique little rifle, . . . if I don't stand corrected, . . . it is the weapon of choice now days for many 1000 yd shooting matches, . . . and just may be the single most copied design since the 1911.

Yeah, . . . I like it, . . . I said that too.

May God bless,
Dwight
 
What struck me, was that my Fraternity Brother, who isn't necessarily anti-gun, but anti-scary looking guns, responded that by virtue of my military service I should be allowed to own whatever I wanted.
Click to expand...

I hear that a lot and could not disagree more. I think it is wonderful that some people serve in the military but it do not think that should entitle them to special gun rights in private life. Many people can not serve for whatever reason. Does this mean they should be denied?
 
Let's not lose sight of the fact that in a great many minds, we don't even need to make the argument. We've been making it since 1968, and we've been winning steadily. Gun rights are stronger now in many states than they've been in many decades. We've won in the Courts, we've won in the state legislatures, we've won in the popular opinion.

The only folks pushing for a ban now are the mainstream media. And they're having to argue some fairly ridiculous points. One of th best roundups I've seen so far is over at Townhall magazine.

We don't need to argue among ourselves. Sit back, be calm and relax. This too will pass. Harry Reid's not going to let this get anywhere in the Senate, and the blue Representatives from Red states know that this is a sure way to lose their job. I don't see it happening, guys. Simply don't see the political will. Sure, they'll bang the drums and make a lot of noise, but there's nothing there but sound and fury.

It's hard to argue that 30 round magazines are bad, when the standard magazine for the AR is a 30-round magazine. Those aren't "HIGH CAPACITY", they're standard magazines. It's hard to argue that the AR is a "killing machine" when the vast majority of the American people know that is simply not the case, and the AR platform is one of the largest selling rifles in the US.

I am reminded of Macbeth: It is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.
 
Defense, yes they could be used for. I'm not debating that. That's exactly what they were made for. Killing people.

Hunting, sure they can be used for hunting in the sense that they fire bullets and are capable of killing. But there are better guns for that. And 30 round mags just get in the way when accuracy is important. And I've never needed a semi-auto rifle to hunt with. And I don't know many that have.

Competition, sure I suppose they could be used for that, but competition is not a practical matter either.

Recreation, same as competition



I'm not against people owning them, I've said so plenty. I've shot them and thought it was cool, but I stand by my statement that the only thing they are really useful for killing people.
Click to expand...

Your statements just don't add up.

Lets generalize: all guns are made to kill. If you can own the most effective tool to kill (for whatever reason i.e. self defense, hunting, military uses,etc) why would you not want the most effective tool there is?

It doesn't matter if you use a shotgun, pistol, bolt-action or AR15. All those firearms are made to kill. You are somehow saying that the AR15 is made to kill, when all other guns are made to kill. The AR15 is just a more effective tool in doing that. So why not?


The rest of your reasoning from hunting, competition, recreation is subjective. The AR15 is quite capable of doing all of that and more. I really don't see why you would not want an effective tool that can fulfill multiple tasks. If I can own a rifle I can use for SD/HD, hunting, recreation, and competition, you bet I'm using an AR15.

Now i'm not being biased. I own 2 bolt-action rifles, a shotgun, a 22lr rifle, and a handgun. The problem with those is that they are limited in their uses one way or another. The AR15 provides a good balance and middle-ground IMO.
 
I'm not against people owning them, I've said so plenty. I've shot them and thought it was cool, but I stand by my statement that the only thing they are really useful for killing people

Seems to me i saw a show about the accuracy and shooting one in full auto.
If i remember right hit ratio was down to like 30%. Umm Not to good at the killing people thing. I do not own one and the bug has not hit me yet either,But i do think they are a sport rifle as is the bolt and auto is. Therfore i group them as just that. This would be just a stepping stone for the anti-gunners to begin there mass assult on all guns. We need to stop them ASAP.
Stick up for your rights even if it is not a gun of your choice.
 
"I hear that a lot and could not disagree more. I think it is wonderful that some people serve in the military but it do not think that should entitle them to special gun rights in private life. Many people can not serve for whatever reason. Does this mean they should be denied?"

The Univ of Texas tower shooter, the Ft Hood shooter....former and current military, respectively. I think I posted on here somewhere recently that in high school I had a pistol pointed at my head who later went into the Marines, came out, and was shortly in prison for crimes involving a firearm.

Kudos to our veterans but it's a flawed argument.
 
I consider myself pro-gun. However, if AR's get banned I won't lose sleep because they aren't good for anything. There are better hunting rifles and better target rifles. They're made to kill people.
Click to expand...

Let's look at this from a different angle. It could be argued that nearly all guns are made to kill people since the vast majority of firearms were originally designed or at the least derived from designs that were intended for use by the military. For example, a Winchester Model 70, which most people would look upon as a sporting rifle, is based heavily upon the Mauser 98 which was a military rifle designed and used extensively to kill people. Likewise, a Ruger No. 1 is based heavily upon the Martini-Henry which was the standard rifle of the British Empire for decades and thus used for killing lots of people. This is because the firearms industry has always catered heavily to the military because the military has always been among the largest and most lucrative customers.

Also, while not the most politically correct thing to say, "killing people" can be a valid purpose. No one seems to lose sleep when a soldier kills a terrorist with a gun or when a police officer kills a violent criminal with one, so why does the notion of an armed citizen killing a would-be rapist, murderer, or other violent attacker provoke a different reaction? According to the Supreme Court, the right to lawful self-defense is the central reason behind the Second Amendment and, as inconvenient or uncomfortable as the fact may be, lawful self-defense entails a fairly high likelihood of the aggressor being killed.
 
The Second Amendment provides the right to bear arms in defense of a tyrannical government. SCOTUS recently upheld this opinion, in confirming that the citizenry is a "militia"....

Think it can't happen here?
Who knows...
Might be the fact that there ARE several hundred million weapons here that has prevented any government from contemplating it.

If soldiers with M-16's come knocking at my door to confiscate my property some day, I want an AR-15 with 30 round clips to defend my property and my Constitutional rights.

Once you start whittling away at what we can, and cannot, own, where do you draw the line? Select fire weapons are already largely banned. What's next after 30 round mags? Ten round?

Will we eventually be relegated to single-shot, break-open .22 LR rifles?

Main point is, there are no FACTS, or STATISTICS, to back up the anti-Second Amendment loons....

If they had them, they might have a rational argument.

After the recent Florida case, the nutjobs came out in force. Facts be damned, they don't matter to them...

Violent, gun related crimes have DECREASED 50% in Florida since it became a shall-issue state.

'NUFF SAID?
 
Banning an AR makes about as much sense as banning Hummers and Escalades because they kill more people and cause more damage than a Honda Civic or a Prius. Who really "needs" a Hummer? If soldiers with M 16s come knocking on my door to confiscate my property I want a crate full of Claymores. Much more effective than 5.56 rounds. None of this current noise is about "need". It's about "will". The 2nd Amm. is about limiting Government, not people or things.
 
In say 1960: you had to be able to pass a simple eye test with or without corrrective lenses, . . . and a simple physical, . . . take a test and pass it for a chauffer's license, . . . and you were good to go with almost any truck, bus, or other vehicle you could get hired to drive. The employers were responsible, and did what they needed to do.

Today, . . . a license to drive a big rig in Ohio, . . . it'll cost you 4 grand, and a couple months of your life, etc. all because the gov't got it's fingers in the pie, . . . because some one who didn't know better opined "I'd like to see a more vigorous waiting period, where mental health is checked, and there are minimum standards that have to be met."
Click to expand...

I can back this from experience. Only it cost me about $6,000, all said, and that was 5 years ago.

You want a real world experience in government regulation run amok, get your Class A license and climb behind the wheel of a road tractor. They change the Hours of Service regs every two weeks, it's now something like a $13,000 fine to talk on your cell phone while driving a CMV, and you've got to pull in a weigh station every hundred miles and jump through hoops for them. It's insane. So, before you give in to "reasonable" regulations, you better remember what we told you...
 
Hardworker wrote:

I am simply calling a spade a spade. And yes, I also believe most pistols were made to kill people. I and many others use them to shoot bottles and stuff but that doesn't change why they were designed and built.
Click to expand...

Guns don't know why they were designed and bulit only people do. You are deminizing an inanimate object that does not know intent, design, nor reason it is being used. Only people are concerned with these things. What difference does it make what something is designed to do without the intent, and use of an individual? AR-15's and other military looking semi auto rifles are used in a statisically insignificant amount of crime yet there are emotional cries for banning them.

SUV's, hammers, screw drivers, swimming pools, bath tubs, chainsaws, tall buildings, bridges, bolt action hunting rifles, etc have all been used to kill people. Those object cared not what they were designed to do yet still were able to kill. So, what's your point?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top