Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.
Note: forcing pagination mode for this thread because of the high number of comments. (why?)

(Slate)   Let's talk about who really buys the AR-15   ( slate.com) divider line
    More: Interesting, semi-automatic rifle, semiautomatic pistols, federal assault weapons ban, Freedom Group, target shooting, Ayn Rand, car fire, long guns  
•       •       •

34493 clicks; posted to Main » on 03 Jan 2013 at 12:11 PM (4 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



1346 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | » | Newest

 
2013-01-03 11:12:30 AM  
interesting piece.
 
2013-01-03 11:16:44 AM  
So we should consider banning the AR-15 because they sell well and are popular with shootists?

Okay then...
 
2013-01-03 11:17:45 AM  
Article say .223 or AR-15?  I thought AR-15s were .556?
 
2013-01-03 11:19:00 AM  

CPT Ethanolic: Article say .223 or AR-15?  I thought AR-15s were .556?


Nevermind - I see they're essentially identical.

/Only shot M16s with .556.
 
2013-01-03 11:19:16 AM  

CPT Ethanolic: Article say .223 or AR-15?  I thought AR-15s were .556?


5.56 NATO and .223 Remington are almost the same.  Generally speaking an AR-15's chamber is set to handle both specs.
 
2013-01-03 11:27:04 AM  
But the AR-15 is not ideal for the hunting and home-defense uses that the NRA's Keene cited today. Though it can be used for hunting, the AR-15 isn't really a hunting rifle. Its standard .223 caliber ammunition doesn't offer much stopping power for anything other than small game. Hunters themselves find the rifle controversial, with some arguing AR-15-style rifles empower sloppy, "spray and pray" hunters to waste ammunition.

While I do agree that it is not very well suited for hunting standard game, I did watch one tear though almost a dozen hogs in around 2 minutes. We've got a huge hog problem at our deer lease and one of the guys on the lease brought his son's AR-15 to see if he could pop a couple. My uncle and I are sitting around the fire pit when we heard 1 shot. Then about 5 minutes later we heard about 20 shots in a row. The guy with the AR radios us and tells us to come to his blind. He's got around 10 hogs on the ground, all dead. Said the first shot actually got 3 of them (they lined up perfectly), then about 5 minutes later a whole drove of them come to his blind and he just opened up on them.

Yea it's an anecdotal CSB, but I have seen their uses beyond just murder machines.
 
2013-01-03 11:28:22 AM  
I own an AR-15. I'm not a survivalist or a gun nut or a hunter. I'm a guy who enjoys going out in the desert and shooting assorted targets for fun. It's really that simple. If you like shooting as a sport, the AR-15 is a lot of fun to shoot. I understand that some people don't like shooting as a sport and think "why do you need that kind of gun" but that's just because it's not their thing. AR-15 owners don't buy AR-15s because they have some inherent desire to have more "killing power."

Also, many people here in rural Utah use AR-15s as varmint control weapons. As the article states, a .223 cartridge is not ideal for large game hunting, but it is good for varmint control and a lot more flexible than a bolt-action rifle.
 
2013-01-03 11:40:04 AM  
is the .223/.556 the same NATO round that the current western militaries use? it's essentially a high-powered .22, right?
 
2013-01-03 11:40:13 AM  

cr7pilot: I own an AR-15. I'm not a survivalist or a gun nut or a hunter. I'm a guy who enjoys going out in the desert and shooting assorted targets for fun. It's really that simple. If you like shooting as a sport, the AR-15 is a lot of fun to shoot. I understand that some people don't like shooting as a sport and think "why do you need that kind of gun" but that's just because it's not their thing. AR-15 owners don't buy AR-15s because they have some inherent desire to have more "killing power."


 This is me as well.  I own some hand guns (one .45 and two 9mms) for "home defense" but I also just enjoy shooting.  I've been considering getting an AR15 for a while now.  Used to own an AK-47 and, although the ammo is damned expensive, they're fun to shoot.
 
2013-01-03 11:41:02 AM  

CPT Ethanolic: cr7pilot: I own an AR-15. I'm not a survivalist or a gun nut or a hunter. I'm a guy who enjoys going out in the desert and shooting assorted targets for fun. It's really that simple. If you like shooting as a sport, the AR-15 is a lot of fun to shoot. I understand that some people don't like shooting as a sport and think "why do you need that kind of gun" but that's just because it's not their thing. AR-15 owners don't buy AR-15s because they have some inherent desire to have more "killing power."

 This is me as well.  I own some hand guns (one .45 and two 9mms) for "home defense" but I also just enjoy shooting.  I've been considering getting an AR15 for a while now.  Used to own an AK-47 and, although the ammo is damned expensive, they're fun to shoot.


where do you go that you find AK ammo expensive?
 
2013-01-03 11:47:07 AM  

CPT Ethanolic: cr7pilot: I own an AR-15. I'm not a survivalist or a gun nut or a hunter. I'm a guy who enjoys going out in the desert and shooting assorted targets for fun. It's really that simple. If you like shooting as a sport, the AR-15 is a lot of fun to shoot. I understand that some people don't like shooting as a sport and think "why do you need that kind of gun" but that's just because it's not their thing. AR-15 owners don't buy AR-15s because they have some inherent desire to have more "killing power."

 This is me as well.  I own some hand guns (one .45 and two 9mms) for "home defense" but I also just enjoy shooting.  I've been considering getting an AR15 for a while now.  Used to own an AK-47 and, although the ammo is damned expensive, they're fun to shoot.


Me too. I've got a .380 and a 9mm, but the AR-15 is fun to shoot on a long range. It's also handy for disposing of those leftover Halloween pumpkins...
 
2013-01-03 12:00:38 PM  

dr_blasto: where do you go that you find AK ammo expensive?


I haven't bought 7.26 rounds since the 90's so couldn't comment on prices today.  I just remember that we'd go out with the AK, a 22 rifle, and a .38 when we went shooting, and the AK ammo always seemed crazy expensive compared to the rest.  I bought my current 9mm for target practice because the .45 ammo was way too expensive to pop off a few hundred rounds at the range.
 
2013-01-03 12:06:06 PM  

doglover: So we should consider banning the AR-15 because they sell well and are popular with shootists?

Okay then...


LOL!  Let's make them sound all sophisticated and elegant!  "Shootists" is like calling a pool player a "cueist."
 
2013-01-03 12:12:19 PM  

cr7pilot: CPT Ethanolic: cr7pilot: I own an AR-15. I'm not a survivalist or a gun nut or a hunter. I'm a guy who enjoys going out in the desert and shooting assorted targets for fun. It's really that simple. If you like shooting as a sport, the AR-15 is a lot of fun to shoot. I understand that some people don't like shooting as a sport and think "why do you need that kind of gun" but that's just because it's not their thing. AR-15 owners don't buy AR-15s because they have some inherent desire to have more "killing power."

 This is me as well.  I own some hand guns (one .45 and two 9mms) for "home defense" but I also just enjoy shooting.  I've been considering getting an AR15 for a while now.  Used to own an AK-47 and, although the ammo is damned expensive, they're fun to shoot.

Me too. I've got a .380 and a 9mm, but the AR-15 is fun to shoot on a long range. It's also handy for disposing of those leftover Halloween pumpkins...


It's good to see people admit that this hoopla is really about their 2nd Amendment right to have "fun."
 
2013-01-03 12:13:49 PM  
But AR-15s look just like the military model PEW PEW PEW YEEHAW gunnuh shoot them commies up just like ol Schwartenaggur used tah do!

They just wants to take away our cool looking guns so that we'll be a bunch of sissies when they come git us and take us away!
 
2013-01-03 12:15:44 PM  

scottydoesntknow: Yea it's an anecdotal CSB, but I have seen their uses beyond just murder machines.


He penetrated 3 hogs (wild boars?) with a single .223 round?
 
2013-01-03 12:16:45 PM  

BarkingUnicorn: It's good to see people admit that this hoopla is really about their 2nd Amendment right to have "fun."


  Much of it is.  I could have a shotgun and a .45 pistol and be about as protected as I'm going to get in my home, barring some kind of riot outside or something.  But - shooting is fun.  It's been a hobby since guns were invented.  I go back and forth on banning assault weapons because I do appreciate the hobby of shooting, but I would be in favor of banning high capacity magazines.  Assault weapons can be used for "fun", but high capacity magazines are ONLY meant for producing a high casualty count in a short period of time.  There is no other realistic use.  For target practice, you don't need a 30+ rnd magazine.
 
2013-01-03 12:17:04 PM  
In before the whiny anti-gun nuts who think the mere act of holding a gun makes one a psychopathic killer.
 
2013-01-03 12:17:23 PM  
I own an AR-15.

I support gay rights, healthcare reform, I'm not religious, I'm pro-abortion, I think "preppers" (I hate even typing the word) and people who say "SHTF" are usually weird if not idiots.

But DURR, they're only owned by rednecks and criminals.

Around TWENTY TIMES more people die to handguns than rifles. Rifle deaths a year amount in the low hundreds. Handgun deaths amount to 6000 odd. Both numbers are dropping.

But let's go batshiat insane over one particular type of rifle.
 
2013-01-03 12:17:40 PM  
Fat white men who were rejected from the military?
 
2013-01-03 12:18:07 PM  

cr7pilot: Me too. I've got a .380 and a 9mm, but the AR-15 is fun to shoot on a long range. It's also handy for disposing of those leftover Halloween pumpkins...


I enjoy shooting too, and have fired my friend's AR-15 a couple times, but do people honestly believe our entertainment justifies twenty dead six-year-olds?
 
2013-01-03 12:18:17 PM  
Facepalm article.

It's popular and underpowered, so people with guns should be forced to buy more powerful and less popular guns. Ok then.
 
2013-01-03 12:18:20 PM  

BarkingUnicorn: cr7pilot: CPT Ethanolic: cr7pilot: I own an AR-15. I'm not a survivalist or a gun nut or a hunter. I'm a guy who enjoys going out in the desert and shooting assorted targets for fun. It's really that simple. If you like shooting as a sport, the AR-15 is a lot of fun to shoot. I understand that some people don't like shooting as a sport and think "why do you need that kind of gun" but that's just because it's not their thing. AR-15 owners don't buy AR-15s because they have some inherent desire to have more "killing power."

 This is me as well.  I own some hand guns (one .45 and two 9mms) for "home defense" but I also just enjoy shooting.  I've been considering getting an AR15 for a while now.  Used to own an AK-47 and, although the ammo is damned expensive, they're fun to shoot.

Me too. I've got a .380 and a 9mm, but the AR-15 is fun to shoot on a long range. It's also handy for disposing of those leftover Halloween pumpkins...

It's good to see people admit that this hoopla is really about their 2nd Amendment right to have "fun."


Cars are fun too. Unless I decide to go on a bender or have an epileptic seizure and plow through a crowd.
 
2013-01-03 12:18:48 PM  
" ...able to penetrate both sides of a standard Army helmet at 500 meters rifle..."

With or without a head inside?

And why are we creating guns designed to shoot through our own soldiers helmets?
 
2013-01-03 12:18:49 PM  
Who are we kidding here?

Newtown will bring back the assault weapons ban. Deep down the NRA knows this, but must maintain a "hell no" stance just for image, but they will relent on this one.

And that's it.

Way too much money and power to be relinquished for any meaningful change.

And school security will continue to consist of crossing fingers.
 
NFA
2013-01-03 12:18:51 PM  
Well, since the AR15 (semi-auto version of the M16) isn't useful for hunting or defense, I suppose our military will abandon it immediately?  I mean if it's useless for hunting, then you couldn't possibly go out in the field and hunt 200 lb humans in the Jungle or anywhere else, Right?  Or if it's useless for defense they will start using something else to protect themselves?  Defense forces around the world use the full auto version of the AR-15 as a standard of protection.  Will this be going away because some clueless writer thinks the firearm doesn't have merit?

I know people who hunt with the AR15 and are quite successful with it.  Saying it isn't useful as a hunting gun is an outright lie.  Saying that a M4 version of an AR15 can't be used for defense is an outright lie.  The AR15 didn't cause these crimes.  Mental illness caused these crimes.  Take away the AR-15 and they'll use AK-47's.  Take those away and they'll use shotguns, take those away and they'll use AR-7's.  Doesn't it make sense to seek out and treat mentally ill people?  What if Adam Lanza carried two 30 lb bottles of propane into the basement of the school, screwed a transfer adapter into the valve and released 60 lbs of propane into the basement and then lit a lighter?  The entire school would have likely been destroyed with all the children in it.  Thank god it chose the less deadly method of using a firearm.  Or what if he packed a backpack with four 5lb bags of flour and an electric fan, snuck into the school and plugged the fan into back of an auditorium (or the basement) and dumped the flour into the fan then lit a lighter?  Ever heard of a grain silo explosion?  Grain dust explosions are absolutely devastating.  Hundreds of people would die.  Should we ban propane because it's TOO DANGEROUS?  Should we ban flour because it's TOO DANGEROUS?  See my point?  There will ALWAYS be something available to mentally ill people.

Vilifying the method of killing is just a ploy to start down the slippery slope of eliminating a gun or class of guns and superimposing the actions of violent criminals onto inanimate objects.
Let's not get into the entire black market issue.Once we ban guns we'll create a prohibition like market for guns.The illegal import market will be happy to import hand grenades, rocket launchers, machine guns, etc.See my point?This is completely the wrong direction.
 
2013-01-03 12:19:20 PM  

you have pee hands: scottydoesntknow: Yea it's an anecdotal CSB, but I have seen their uses beyond just murder machines.

He penetrated 3 hogs (wild boars?) with a single .223 round?


All 3 were piglets. The sow went running after that (not sure if she was part of the drove that showed up 5 minutes later). I've gotten a 2-fer before, but never had 3 line up.
 
2013-01-03 12:19:30 PM  
Short version:

Gun nuts are all over the AR-15 because banning guns is bad. They're making up all kinds of dumb justifications about how the AR-15 is a hunting rifle somehow. Target practice with an AR-15 is valid--recreational shooting is a real thing.

Liberal nanny-pants are focused on how many crazy loons have used the AR-15 style rifle as a murder weapon in mass shootings. This is primarily because it looks bad-ass and sociopaths have this internal image they try to execute. The AR-15 is primarily a munitions weapon, and they believe all semi-automatics are munitions.

The flaws here are glaring. AR-15 sucks for hunting. AR-15 is not the only semi-auto--take any pistol, especially revolvers. Semi-auto isn't the best or only way to kill a bunch of people in a crowd--consider pipe bombs, or how bad-ass you'd look with a pump-action shotgun (name's Ash. Housewares.). Repeating weapons are common, full-auto is relatively harmless (really, you're going to pop-pop-pop into a crowd, people will die; if you spray bullets like mad, each individual will take MANY more bullets, but overall effectiveness isn't greatly increased) but AR-15 isn't a fully-auto weapon--mentioned because people are afraid of bad-assery like fully auto rock-'n'-roll mode rifles.

Everybody in this argument is stupid.
 
2013-01-03 12:19:44 PM  
Who wants an AR15? Someone that wants a relatively weak rifle that "looks mean."
Oooh, scary.
 
2013-01-03 12:20:10 PM  
Article sort of misses the point... The AR-15 is not necessarily absolutely ideal for hunting of home defense, but it's quite good for either. It's a single, versatile platform. Good home defense ammo is available. It's highly maneuverable-- sorry, TFA is just plain wrong about that. It's highly accurate. In short, if you can only afford one quality rifle, it may be a great choice for you. On the other hand, if you're hunting big game (elk, moose, blue whales), you're going to have to shell out for something more potent.
 
2013-01-03 12:20:28 PM  
I inherited a 1972 Colt-made AR 15 a few years ago. Had no use for it, so I sold it. Kinda wish I kept it. You know, for hunting and home protection.
 
2013-01-03 12:21:12 PM  

doglover: So we should consider banning the AR-15 because they sell well and are popular with shootists?

Okay then...


You know, I don't actually see the line in the article where the author specifically proposes a ban.

But perhaps a reasonable person may want to consider the function and design purpose of a firearm when deciding how it should be regulated? Or is that just too 'gun grabby' to say?
 
2013-01-03 12:21:46 PM  

Teknowaffle: Fat white men who were rejected from the military?


Why does it have to be a white man? Racist.

2.bp.blogspot.com
 
2013-01-03 12:22:00 PM  
Nice try subby, not clicking on the political propaganda rag.
 
2013-01-03 12:22:22 PM  

Wolf_Blitzer: cr7pilot: Me too. I've got a .380 and a 9mm, but the AR-15 is fun to shoot on a long range. It's also handy for disposing of those leftover Halloween pumpkins...

I enjoy shooting too, and have fired my friend's AR-15 a couple times, but do people honestly believe our entertainment freedom justifies twenty dead six-year-olds?


Absolutely.
 
2013-01-03 12:22:28 PM  

cr7pilot: It's also handy for disposing of those leftover Halloween pumpkins...


Are you Hickok45 from YouTube?
 
2013-01-03 12:23:00 PM  
Don't ban but subject people with more than 4 guns or these types of a rifles a mental health examine every three-five years
 
2013-01-03 12:23:12 PM  
Not any good for defense? Then why do the police have them? Offensive purposes?
 
2013-01-03 12:23:27 PM  

scottydoesntknow: But the AR-15 is not ideal for the hunting and home-defense uses that the NRA's Keene cited today. Though it can be used for hunting, the AR-15 isn't really a hunting rifle. Its standard .223 caliber ammunition doesn't offer much stopping power for anything other than small game. Hunters themselves find the rifle controversial, with some arguing AR-15-style rifles empower sloppy, "spray and pray" hunters to waste ammunition.

While I do agree that it is not very well suited for hunting standard game, I did watch one tear though almost a dozen hogs in around 2 minutes. We've got a huge hog problem at our deer lease and one of the guys on the lease brought his son's AR-15 to see if he could pop a couple. My uncle and I are sitting around the fire pit when we heard 1 shot. Then about 5 minutes later we heard about 20 shots in a row. The guy with the AR radios us and tells us to come to his blind. He's got around 10 hogs on the ground, all dead. Said the first shot actually got 3 of them (they lined up perfectly), then about 5 minutes later a whole drove of them come to his blind and he just opened up on them.

Yea it's an anecdotal CSB, but I have seen their uses beyond just murder machines.


Building on that, I have an AR-10 style weapon, not one of the original Stoner production run of course, and I have to say that 7.62x39 is a damn fine round for hogs. Having been charged by a 300 pound monster with tusks once (after my dumb ass hunting partner managed to make it mad) I also have found feelings regarding the 30 round magazine. 7.62x39 is also a nice round for deer.

While I know that AR-15 =/= AR-10, if we're going to ban AR style semi-autos, a bunch of AR-10 owners who use that style to hunt are going to be mildly annoyed at the very least. I definitely agree that home defense is not a prime use for the AR style though.

The reality is 5.56 and .223 are so damn cheap because a lot of companies have lines going to do bulk production for the military and LEOs. Same with the AR style frame. Lots of companies are making them for LEO and lots of ex military guys are buying them because it is the tool they know. That leads to economies of scale and increasing popularity.

/I still want an AR style that handles 7.62×63
//the WASR 10 is nice
/we have a huge hog problem too and go help out various farmers by clearing them out
 
2013-01-03 12:23:42 PM  
looks like a hell of a lot of fun to shoot out in the desert. doesn't mean i'm going to defend either side with any vigor.

handguns are most certainly the most commonly used murder tool in the US. and something needs to be done to keep them out of the hands of criminals while respecting the rights of law abiding citizens. and something needs to be done to keep AR-type weapons out of the hands of crazies who wants to kill lots of people quickly, while still trying to allow for recreational use by law abiding citizens.
 
2013-01-03 12:23:52 PM  
Keene ridiculed the notion that AR-15-style rifles ought to be banned just because "a half dozen [AR-15s] out of more than three million have been misused after illegally falling into the hands of crazed killers." And, sure. But the AR-15 is very good at one thing: engaging the enemy at a rapid rate of fire. When someone like Adam Lanza uses it to take out 26 people in a matter of minutes, he's committing a crime, but he isn't misusing the rifle. That's exactly what it was engineered to do.

The bottom line (literally)

/responsible gun owner
 
2013-01-03 12:23:54 PM  

FlashHarry: is the .223/.556 the same NATO round that the current western militaries use? it's essentially a high-powered .22, right?


5.56
 
2013-01-03 12:23:56 PM  
Got this with a simple search.
The following is a list of some of the calibers that the AR-15 can use,

Without bolt modification
.17 Remington
.17/223
.20 Tactical
.20 Practical
.20 Vartag
.204 Ruger
.221 Fireball
.222 Remington
.222 Remington Magnum
.223 Remington (5.56x45mm)
.223 Remington Ackley Improved
6x45mm
6mm TCU
6x47mm
6mm Whisper
.25x45mm
6.5mm Whisper
7mm Whisper
7mm TCU
.300 Whisper (.300/221, .300 Fireball)
.338 Whisper

AR-15, with bolt modification
223 WSSM
5.45x39mm (.21 Genghis)
243 WSSM
6mm PPC
6mm WOA
6mm BR Remington
6mm Hagar
6.5mm PPC
6.5 WSSM
6.5 WOA
6.5mm Grendel
25 WSSM
6.8x43mm SPC
.30 Herrett Rimless Tactical (6.8x43mm case trimmed to 41mm and necked up to .308; the 6.8mm version of the .300 Whisper)
7.62x25
7.62x39mm
.30 RAR
300 OSSM
.357 Auto
.35 Gremlin (necked up 6.5 Grendel to 358)
.358 WSSM (various names, but all are some form of a WSSM necked up to 35 caliber, some are shortened to make them big game legal in Indiana)
.458 SOCOM
.50 Action Express
.50 Beowulf

AR-15 using a simple blowback operation
.17 HMR
.22 LR
.22 WMR
9x19mm
9x21
9x23
30 Carbine
357 Sig
40S&W
400 Cor-Bon
41 Action Express
10mm Auto
45 GAP
45ACP
45 Super
45 Win Mag

This list is in no way complete.

Story seems to be done by someone who has no clue but a agenda.
 
2013-01-03 12:24:08 PM  

bluefoxicy: They're making up all kinds of dumb justifications about how the AR-15 is a hunting rifle somehow.


bluefoxicy: AR-15 sucks for hunting.


The AR is quite capable as a hunter. Sorry, but any claim otherwise is simply a non-starter.
 
2013-01-03 12:24:15 PM  
Where exactly in the 2nd Amendment does it mention hunting?
 
2013-01-03 12:24:42 PM  

david_gaithersburg: Nice try subby, not clicking on the political propaganda rag.


Oh you...
 
2013-01-03 12:24:58 PM  
I think we should start banning everything we think other people "don't need." Who wants to go first?
 
2013-01-03 12:25:59 PM  

bluefoxicy: or how bad-ass you'd look with a pump-action shotgun (name's Ash. Housewares.)


Allow me to be a movie/gun nerd for a moment:

Ash didn't have a pump-action...he had a double barrel.  In "Army of Darkness", he claims it is a Remington, but it's actually a Stoeger Coach Gun.

/Own one.
 
2013-01-03 12:26:23 PM  
Having been a NRA member.....I got better....and having been a hunter since I was a teen, I know exactly the type of man who wants an AR-15: Rambo wannabe.
 
2013-01-03 12:26:36 PM  
I don't have any guns, but I think ending the War on Drug Users would easily prevent half our murders.
 
2013-01-03 12:26:58 PM  

scottydoesntknow: But the AR-15 is not ideal for the hunting and home-defense uses that the NRA's Keene cited today. Though it can be used for hunting, the AR-15 isn't really a hunting rifle. Its standard .223 caliber ammunition doesn't offer much stopping power for anything other than small game. Hunters themselves find the rifle controversial, with some arguing AR-15-style rifles empower sloppy, "spray and pray" hunters to waste ammunition.

While I do agree that it is not very well suited for hunting standard game, I did watch one tear though almost a dozen hogs in around 2 minutes. We've got a huge hog problem at our deer lease and one of the guys on the lease brought his son's AR-15 to see if he could pop a couple. My uncle and I are sitting around the fire pit when we heard 1 shot. Then about 5 minutes later we heard about 20 shots in a row. The guy with the AR radios us and tells us to come to his blind. He's got around 10 hogs on the ground, all dead. Said the first shot actually got 3 of them (they lined up perfectly), then about 5 minutes later a whole drove of them come to his blind and he just opened up on them.

Yea it's an anecdotal CSB, but I have seen their uses beyond just murder machines.


Same here. Works well for coyotes, too.
 
2013-01-03 12:27:28 PM  
If isn't really about disarming Americans, but about restricting access to military-grade weapons, then for every assault rifle the government 'confiscates', let the government supply either a hunting rifle or shotgun (sporting or home defense - owner's choice).
 
2013-01-03 12:27:28 PM  
The only person I've ever even heard mention the AR-15 is dead.

/His lyrics are blueprints to moneymakin'
 
2013-01-03 12:27:31 PM  

scottydoesntknow: But the AR-15 is not ideal for the hunting and home-defense uses that the NRA's Keene cited today. Though it can be used for hunting, the AR-15 isn't really a hunting rifle. Its standard .223 caliber ammunition doesn't offer much stopping power for anything other than small game. Hunters themselves find the rifle controversial, with some arguing AR-15-style rifles empower sloppy, "spray and pray" hunters to waste ammunition.

While I do agree that it is not very well suited for hunting standard game, I did watch one tear though almost a dozen hogs in around 2 minutes. We've got a huge hog problem at our deer lease and one of the guys on the lease brought his son's AR-15 to see if he could pop a couple. My uncle and I are sitting around the fire pit when we heard 1 shot. Then about 5 minutes later we heard about 20 shots in a row. The guy with the AR radios us and tells us to come to his blind. He's got around 10 hogs on the ground, all dead. Said the first shot actually got 3 of them (they lined up perfectly), then about 5 minutes later a whole drove of them come to his blind and he just opened up on them.

Yea it's an anecdotal CSB, but I have seen their uses beyond just murder machines.


Now I want one. farking hogs need to die.
 
2013-01-03 12:27:35 PM  

Delectatio Morosa: I think we should start banning everything we think other people "don't need." Who wants to go first?


.
Smartphones, those things make people walk in front of moving trains.
 
2013-01-03 12:27:58 PM  

Billy Bathsalt: I don't have any guns, but I think ending the War on Drug Users would easily prevent half our murders.


What kind of american are you?

Guns = good. Drugs = bad. Jeebus = good. Libs = bad.

That's all you need to know.
 
2013-01-03 12:28:05 PM  

kqc7011: Got this with a simple search.
The following is a list of some of the calibers that the AR-15 can use,

Without bolt modification
.17 Remington
.17/223
.20 Tactical

(ETC.)

This list is in no way complete.

Story seems to be done by someone who has no clue but a agenda.


You may want to RTFA before hypocritically accusing the author of failing to know what he's talking about. The entire point is that while the AR-15 is versatile, making arguments similar to the one you're making is disingenuous at best. Way to miss the point (understandable as you didn't actually read it).
 
2013-01-03 12:28:08 PM  

Teknowaffle: Fat white men who were rejected from the military?


...and have finally outgrown nunchucks.
 
2013-01-03 12:28:19 PM  

TheOther: If isn't really about disarming Americans, but about restricting access to military-grade weapons, then for every assault rifle the government 'confiscates', let the government supply either a hunting rifle or shotgun (sporting or home defense - owner's choice).


a payment of fair market value would be just as fine.
 
2013-01-03 12:28:20 PM  
Who cares who buys them and why? They shouldn't be available to the general public. If a shooting range wants to rent one out to you to use on the premises that would be fine, and the ONLY situation where I can see them being available to use.
 
2013-01-03 12:28:26 PM  
I'm sure I could do some serious damage with my 300 ultramag, but no one seems interested in taking this away from me.

(Not mine, but similar in nature)

i205.photobucket.com

Guess it's not 'military looking enough'.
 
2013-01-03 12:28:26 PM  
I always figured the AR-15 was for people that wanted to put holes in paper and people. Lately it's more about people because we know the fascists are coming.
 
2013-01-03 12:28:43 PM  
.223 rounds kill deer just fine...with one shot.
 
2013-01-03 12:28:45 PM  

Wolf_Blitzer: I enjoy shooting too, and have fired my friend's AR-15 a couple times, but do people honestly believe our entertainment justifies twenty dead six-year-olds?


I dunno about you, but I personally don't think I got any entertainment out of the deaths of twenty 6 year olds. Okay, maybe I got some entertainment out of the derp in the threads following the incident from folks like you.
 
2013-01-03 12:28:52 PM  

TheOther: If isn't really about disarming Americans, but about restricting access to military-grade weapons, then for every assault rifle the government 'confiscates', let the government supply either a hunting rifle or shotgun (sporting or home defense - owner's choice).


Civilian-marketed AR-15 rifles are not "military-grade". Any claim that they are is a lie.
 
2013-01-03 12:29:17 PM  
I've been saying this since the beginning. These weapons are not made the way they are for no reason - someone designed them this way for a reason. They are different than hunting rifles, pistols, shotguns, etc, because they were designed that way.

The banning argument totally removed  - stop lying and pretending that there are not military style rifles making their rounds, and they are not "just the same as any other rifles." I've fired a few kinds. The're different. I was there.
 
2013-01-03 12:29:17 PM  

Delectatio Morosa: I think we should start banning everything we think other people "don't need." Who wants to go first?


If anything needs to banned, it's crazy people.  Let's start with Congress.
 
2013-01-03 12:30:05 PM  

jackiepaper: TheOther: If isn't really about disarming Americans, but about restricting access to military-grade weapons, then for every assault rifle the government 'confiscates', let the government supply either a hunting rifle or shotgun (sporting or home defense - owner's choice).

a payment of fair market value would be just as fine.


I will also demand payment for my additional magazines and for my .22LR bolt replacement that would become useless under such a confiscation.
 
2013-01-03 12:30:11 PM  
The US Gubmint should just issue stock AR-15's to every citizen. With all the mods, and individual setups that can be had for that weapon, we'd fix our economy in no time at all.
 
2013-01-03 12:30:25 PM  

TwowheelinTim: Keene ridiculed the notion that AR-15-style rifles ought to be banned just because "a half dozen [AR-15s] out of more than three million have been misused after illegally falling into the hands of crazed killers." And, sure. But the AR-15 is very good at one thing: engaging the enemy at a rapid rate of fire. When someone like Adam Lanza uses it to take out 26 people in a matter of minutes, he's committing a crime, but he isn't misusing the rifle. That's exactly what it was engineered to do.

The bottom line (literally)

/responsible gun owner


Very few guns (possibly some very high-end performance target-shooting specialty guns) WEREN'T engineered to kill as many as possible as quickly as possible.  Firearms evolution is entirely about maximizing lethality.  It might be that certain trade-offs were made, like rate of fire vs accuracy, or round weight vs penetration, or portability vs maintainability... but ultimately, from the flintlock to the Lee-Enfield to the submachine gun to the assault rifle, it was an evolution of trying to kill.

So, really, the point that the AR is somehow special in this is really rather misleading.  It's just the most modern example of it.
 
2013-01-03 12:30:27 PM  

Kit Fister: scottydoesntknow: But the AR-15 is not ideal for the hunting and home-defense uses that the NRA's Keene cited today. Though it can be used for hunting, the AR-15 isn't really a hunting rifle. Its standard .223 caliber ammunition doesn't offer much stopping power for anything other than small game. Hunters themselves find the rifle controversial, with some arguing AR-15-style rifles empower sloppy, "spray and pray" hunters to waste ammunition.

While I do agree that it is not very well suited for hunting standard game, I did watch one tear though almost a dozen hogs in around 2 minutes. We've got a huge hog problem at our deer lease and one of the guys on the lease brought his son's AR-15 to see if he could pop a couple. My uncle and I are sitting around the fire pit when we heard 1 shot. Then about 5 minutes later we heard about 20 shots in a row. The guy with the AR radios us and tells us to come to his blind. He's got around 10 hogs on the ground, all dead. Said the first shot actually got 3 of them (they lined up perfectly), then about 5 minutes later a whole drove of them come to his blind and he just opened up on them.

Yea it's an anecdotal CSB, but I have seen their uses beyond just murder machines.

Same here. Works well for coyotes, too.


Apparently works well for children, too. Keep on grasping.
 
2013-01-03 12:30:27 PM  

BarkingUnicorn: cr7pilot: CPT Ethanolic: cr7pilot: I own an AR-15. I'm not a survivalist or a gun nut or a hunter. I'm a guy who enjoys going out in the desert and shooting assorted targets for fun. It's really that simple. If you like shooting as a sport, the AR-15 is a lot of fun to shoot. I understand that some people don't like shooting as a sport and think "why do you need that kind of gun" but that's just because it's not their thing. AR-15 owners don't buy AR-15s because they have some inherent desire to have more "killing power."

 This is me as well.  I own some hand guns (one .45 and two 9mms) for "home defense" but I also just enjoy shooting.  I've been considering getting an AR15 for a while now.  Used to own an AK-47 and, although the ammo is damned expensive, they're fun to shoot.

Me too. I've got a .380 and a 9mm, but the AR-15 is fun to shoot on a long range. It's also handy for disposing of those leftover Halloween pumpkins...

It's good to see people admit that this hoopla is really about their 2nd Amendment right to have "fun."


Actually, the unalienable right to "fun" - aka "Pursuit of Happiness" - goes back even further, to the Preamble of the Declaration of Independence.
 
2013-01-03 12:30:41 PM  

gregory311: I'm sure I could do some serious damage with my 300 ultramag, but no one seems interested in taking this away from me.


Duh, it's not black. It's a proven fact that a black rifle is much, much more powerful than a green one. It's like the red "R" stickers on ricers. That alone adds about 250 horsepower. Paint it black and maybe add some rails and some sort of laser. You'll see.
 
2013-01-03 12:30:51 PM  

gregory311: I'm sure I could do some serious damage with my 300 ultramag, but no one seems interested in taking this away from me.

(Not mine, but similar in nature)

[i205.photobucket.com image 598x307]

Guess it's not 'military looking enough'.


Don't be ridiculous. Of course you can pick out any weapon you like and say "I can still kill with it." That's not a point.
 
2013-01-03 12:31:04 PM  

The_Sponge: bluefoxicy: or how bad-ass you'd look with a pump-action shotgun (name's Ash. Housewares.)

Allow me to be a movie/gun nerd for a moment:

Ash didn't have a pump-action...he had a double barrel.  In "Army of Darkness", he claims it is a Remington, but it's actually a Stoeger Coach Gun.

/Own one.


Shop smart. Shop..... S-Mart.
 
2013-01-03 12:31:11 PM  
Why is it that the same people who love to point out the first phrase of the 2nd amendment, which concerns arms' potential to be used against people, are the same people who say that if a gun is suited to anything more than hunting, it's too much gun?
 
2013-01-03 12:31:15 PM  

Fissile: Having been a NRA member.....I got better....and having been a hunter since I was a teen, I know exactly the type of man who wants an AR-15: Rambo wannabe.


Aaaaand that's why I am not an NRA member. Too many 'tards like you infest that organization.

/2nd Amendment isn't about duck hunting, dork.
 
2013-01-03 12:31:20 PM  
Why do the mods constantly approve gun articles from Slate? It's like constantly approving bridge construction plans written by special olympics bronze medal winners. What's the point?
 
2013-01-03 12:31:23 PM  

Cymbal: Who cares who buys them and why? They shouldn't be available to the general public. If a shooting range wants to rent one out to you to use on the premises that would be fine, and the ONLY situation where I can see them being available to use.


I agree, let's restrict and ban all laptops from public use. And cell phones, they're dangerous, cause accidents, and shouldn't be available to the general public.

/Has a full-auto, legally registered M60 Machine gun. Belt-fed full-auto, baby. hellatiously expensive, but I'm retiring on what I can sell it for.
 
2013-01-03 12:31:27 PM  

treesloth: gregory311: I'm sure I could do some serious damage with my 300 ultramag, but no one seems interested in taking this away from me.

Duh, it's not black. It's a proven fact that a black rifle is much, much more powerful than a green one. It's like the red "R" stickers on ricers. That alone adds about 250 horsepower. Paint it black and maybe add some rails and some sort of laser. You'll see.


Nobody wants to ban black guns, stop making shiat up.
 
2013-01-03 12:31:44 PM  
Surprisingly well thought out piece.  I am a gun advocate, but assault rifles serve only a few real purposes.  Sport shooting and Survivalist Wet Dreams.

But ya know.  Paranoid survivalists aren't as crazy as they seem.  Soldiers coming back from war torn countries know exactly how bad things can get, and how fast.  And riots happen everywhere.

That being said.  The guns are wicked stupid.  I've thought about it a lot.  A person breaks into my house, use a shotgun, a handgun or a bat.  An AR-15 will kill your neighbor or the kid playing outside.  And it's not worth it.

/Oh, but there is the persuation factor I guess.  Someone points an AR-15 at your head and says "move along" you might just loot the house next door.
 
2013-01-03 12:32:16 PM  

Kit Fister: Wolf_Blitzer: I enjoy shooting too, and have fired my friend's AR-15 a couple times, but do people honestly believe our entertainment justifies twenty dead six-year-olds?

I dunno about you, but I personally don't think I got any entertainment out of the deaths of twenty 6 year olds. Okay, maybe I got some entertainment out of the derp in the threads following the incident from folks like you.


.
Oh puhlease. Many here have a warm tingly feeling running up their leg at that thought of taking away basic human rights from their fellow Americans. In this case the human right of self defense.
 
2013-01-03 12:32:32 PM  
U

Dimensio: Civilian-marketed AR-15 rifles are not "military-grade". Any claim that they are is a lie.


I used the M-16 in the military.
It's a piece of shait. (as far as a killing machine goes)
/Much prefer the M-60 or AK.
 
2013-01-03 12:32:32 PM  

david_gaithersburg: Where exactly in the 2nd Amendment does it mention hunting?


It doesn't.  And it's probably not contained within the intent of the second at all.  But perhaps it can be found in the same place the word "privacy" can - the 9th amendment.
 
2013-01-03 12:32:34 PM  

TheOther: then for every assault rifle the government 'confiscates', let the government supply either a hunting rifle or shotgun (sporting or home defense - owner's choice).


How about no?
 
2013-01-03 12:32:44 PM  

seniorgato: Surprisingly well thought out piece.  I am a gun advocate, but assault rifles serve only a few real purposes.  Sport shooting and Survivalist Wet Dreams.


Assault rifles are already federally restricted and are not commonly available.
 
2013-01-03 12:32:54 PM  

FlashHarry: is the .223/.556 the same NATO round that the current western militaries use? it's essentially a high-powered .22, right?


Gosh, it's getting into meme territory. It's .223 caliber in the old 'inches of diameter' system. 5.56mm in the new metric system. NOT .556mm, though I think the swiss produced a gun firing something about that size. The gun is about the size of a matchbook, and was designed/assembled by watch makers.

Of course, you still have issues with rounding, advertising, etc... Thus .38/.357 being the same diameter.

And yes, the 'high powered' round used by western militaries is illegal to hunt with in many states against human sized game such as deer, and even in areas where it's legal most don't due to it being considered inhumane.

To address some comments from the article -
"Its standard .223 caliber ammunition doesn't offer much stopping power for anything other than small game." - There's still plenty of 'small game' out there to hunt with it, and the AR-15 action has been chambered in many calibers up to and including .50BMG. 6.5mm Grendel and 6.8 SPC are both better hunting calibers that only needs swapping the upper to chamber the rifle for it. You're looking at ~$700 for the upper, at which point swapping is like 30 seconds.

"AR-15-style rifles empower sloppy, "spray and pray" hunters to waste ammunition." - Really. You've always had types like this, plus part of the problem many areas are having is that they don't have ENOUGH hunters to keep wild game populations under control. Besides, a miss is a miss and said hunter is going to go home without any game if he's just 'spray and pray' firing, and the semi-auto simply means he's tossing even more money downrange. Plus, I'd like to know what hunters are going after big game with a 'standard' AR-15. Most going with such a package are going to be going with one of the said custom uppers that fire a much heavier bullet. Which means each trigger pull is expensive again, AND the rifle still ends up costing around 5 times as much as a traditional bolt action.

"The AR-15 is a long gun, and can be tough to maneuver in tight quarters." - Blame NFA regulations against short guns, but the AR-15 doesn't have to be that long even without being classified as a 'short barreled rifle'.

The article makes some good points - it's a fun gun to fire, relatively cheap on ammo and the shoulder, and is extremely reliable and customizable. Why wouldn't people like it?
 
2013-01-03 12:33:17 PM  

SacriliciousBeerSwiller: Kit Fister: scottydoesntknow: But the AR-15 is not ideal for the hunting and home-defense uses that the NRA's Keene cited today. Though it can be used for hunting, the AR-15 isn't really a hunting rifle. Its standard .223 caliber ammunition doesn't offer much stopping power for anything other than small game. Hunters themselves find the rifle controversial, with some arguing AR-15-style rifles empower sloppy, "spray and pray" hunters to waste ammunition.

While I do agree that it is not very well suited for hunting standard game, I did watch one tear though almost a dozen hogs in around 2 minutes. We've got a huge hog problem at our deer lease and one of the guys on the lease brought his son's AR-15 to see if he could pop a couple. My uncle and I are sitting around the fire pit when we heard 1 shot. Then about 5 minutes later we heard about 20 shots in a row. The guy with the AR radios us and tells us to come to his blind. He's got around 10 hogs on the ground, all dead. Said the first shot actually got 3 of them (they lined up perfectly), then about 5 minutes later a whole drove of them come to his blind and he just opened up on them.

Yea it's an anecdotal CSB, but I have seen their uses beyond just murder machines.

Same here. Works well for coyotes, too.

Apparently works well for children, too. Keep on grasping.


Yeah, my pickup truck works well for children, too. Plow into a group and back up a few times, takes out just as many, with less effort. Just because a person can USE it for bad things, doesn't mean that it is FOR bad things.
 
2013-01-03 12:33:21 PM  
Here is an excellent article explaining why 2A ain't about "Bambi and burglars" Link
 
2013-01-03 12:33:30 PM  

Kraftwerk Orange: BarkingUnicorn: cr7pilot: CPT Ethanolic: cr7pilot: I own an AR-15. I'm not a survivalist or a gun nut or a hunter. I'm a guy who enjoys going out in the desert and shooting assorted targets for fun. It's really that simple. If you like shooting as a sport, the AR-15 is a lot of fun to shoot. I understand that some people don't like shooting as a sport and think "why do you need that kind of gun" but that's just because it's not their thing. AR-15 owners don't buy AR-15s because they have some inherent desire to have more "killing power."

 This is me as well.  I own some hand guns (one .45 and two 9mms) for "home defense" but I also just enjoy shooting.  I've been considering getting an AR15 for a while now.  Used to own an AK-47 and, although the ammo is damned expensive, they're fun to shoot.

Me too. I've got a .380 and a 9mm, but the AR-15 is fun to shoot on a long range. It's also handy for disposing of those leftover Halloween pumpkins...

It's good to see people admit that this hoopla is really about their 2nd Amendment right to have "fun."

Actually, the unalienable right to "fun" - aka "Pursuit of Happiness" - goes back even further, to the Preamble of the Declaration of Independence.


Wow. You could use that argument to eliminate literally every law on the books.
 
2013-01-03 12:33:35 PM  
dermatology-s10.cdlib.org
 
2013-01-03 12:33:44 PM  

Dimensio: jackiepaper: TheOther: If isn't really about disarming Americans, but about restricting access to military-grade weapons, then for every assault rifle the government 'confiscates', let the government supply either a hunting rifle or shotgun (sporting or home defense - owner's choice).

a payment of fair market value would be just as fine.

I will also demand payment for my additional magazines and for my .22LR bolt replacement that would become useless under such a confiscation.


See! That's an economy boosting injection!
 
2013-01-03 12:33:56 PM  
the AR-15 Is Useful for Hunting and Home Defense. Not Exactly.

BS. The kid on (I think it's called) Yukon Men, uses an AR to hunt. He got a caribou and a bear with it on the few episodes I've seen.
 
2013-01-03 12:33:58 PM  
Hey, while we're at it, let's ban planes since some jackholes killed 3000 people with a few of them a decade ago. And don't give me that "But we need them!" bullshiat, because we sure as hell didn't need them a century ago when they didn't exist.

/same solution to both problems: Ban jackholes.
 
2013-01-03 12:34:38 PM  
When you shoot it, it'll overpenetrate-sending bullets through the walls of your house and possibly into the walls of your neighbor's house-unless you purchase the sort of ammunition that fragments on impact. (This is true for other guns, as well, but, again, the thing with the AR-15 is that it lets you fire more rounds faster.)

Funny how they slip that in there... If you are using fragmenting rounds, they either fragment or they don't, firing them faster doesn't suddenly stop them from working. It's kind of subtle how they slip that bullshiat in there...
 
2013-01-03 12:34:42 PM  

LasersHurt: Nobody wants to ban black guns, stop making shiat up.


Did you just hear a whistling sound over your head?
 
2013-01-03 12:34:50 PM  

abhorrent1: the AR-15 Is Useful for Hunting and Home Defense. Not Exactly.

BS. The kid on (I think it's called) Yukon Men, uses an AR to hunt. He got a caribou and a bear with it on the few episodes I've seen.


You can drive across the country in a rusted out Yugo, if you want, but it doesn't mean it's the right tool for the job.
 
2013-01-03 12:34:50 PM  

The_Sponge: TheOther: then for every assault rifle the government 'confiscates', let the government supply either a hunting rifle or shotgun (sporting or home defense - owner's choice).

How about no?


Why not?
 
2013-01-03 12:34:52 PM  
If they made a musket look like a AR-15, the same group of people would want to ban it.
 
2013-01-03 12:35:03 PM  

Firethorn: Of course, you still have issues with rounding, advertising, etc... Thus .38/.357 being the same diameter.


.38/.357 IIRC is diameter to the outside/inside of the rifling, respectively.
 
2013-01-03 12:35:11 PM  

abhorrent1: the AR-15 Is Useful for Hunting and Home Defense. Not Exactly.

BS. The kid on (I think it's called) Yukon Men, uses an AR to hunt. He got a caribou and a bear with it on the few episodes I've seen.


here it is

img.poptower.com
 
2013-01-03 12:35:21 PM  

900RR: 2nd Amendment isn't about duck hunting, dork.


Yeah. It's about a well regulated militia and grants "The People" the right to bear arms. Notice "The People" is capitalized, meaning the population as a collective, not every person.

This is exactly why gun control is not in opposition to the 2nd amendment. It is actually in perfect agreement with it.

And yes, most dudes who want an AR-15 want it because it looks like an M-16. I had one. It was cool, but if I were to hunt, I'd go with a 30-30 since the bullets look cooler.
 
2013-01-03 12:35:41 PM  
The article talks about over penetration and how the rifle is not suited for home defense because it is long.....well you can build an SBR and take that 16 inch barrel down to 8.5 maybe even less...and the autopsies on the kids in Newtown showed that all the rounds stayed in the body cavity so there is no worries about over penetration.

The author of the article was wrong about a couple other things too....and they had to have known...because in one sentence they claim the rifles standard .223 chambering is too weak for hunting...yet in another sentence they claim the rifle is highly modular allowing you to swap out an upper chambered in .223 for one chambered in something else.
 
2013-01-03 12:35:43 PM  
It's the SUV of guns. Looks cool but not particularly useful.
 
2013-01-03 12:35:48 PM  
So if/when there's a ban on AR-15s and other scary black guns along with the "high-capacity" magazines, how will the success of the ban be measured?
 
2013-01-03 12:35:54 PM  

treesloth: LasersHurt: Nobody wants to ban black guns, stop making shiat up.

Did you just hear a whistling sound over your head?


No, unless you WEREN'T performing a reductio ad absurdum just to discredit something instead of discussing it honestly.
 
2013-01-03 12:36:06 PM  

BarkingUnicorn: doglover: So we should consider banning the AR-15 because they sell well and are popular with shootists?

Okay then...

LOL!  Let's make them sound all sophisticated and elegant!  "Shootists" is like calling a pool player a "cueist."


Or a billiardist. Oh, wait...
 
2013-01-03 12:36:07 PM  
"A well educated House of Representatives, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and read Books, shall not be infringed."

Do you believe this sentence says that only government officials can own and read books?
 
2013-01-03 12:36:17 PM  
This "reporter" is a liar. Nothing new here. His/her bulls--t claims that (s)he is progun is just another lie.
 
2013-01-03 12:36:25 PM  

Wolf_Blitzer: cr7pilot: Me too. I've got a .380 and a 9mm, but the AR-15 is fun to shoot on a long range. It's also handy for disposing of those leftover Halloween pumpkins...

I enjoy shooting too, and have fired my friend's AR-15 a couple times, but do people honestly believe our entertainment justifies twenty dead six-year-olds?



If you think ARs should be banned, then please "keep it real", and never shoot it again.

Would you have felt better if he had used handguns or shotguns instead?
 
2013-01-03 12:36:51 PM  

abhorrent1: the AR-15 Is Useful for Hunting and Home Defense. Not Exactly.

BS. The kid on (I think it's called) Yukon Men, uses an AR to hunt. He got a caribou and a bear with it on the few episodes I've seen.


Another thing I find amusing is the caricature that hunters using an AR and army surplus gear when they hunt are somehow different than more traditional hunters. I'm sorry, since when did I have to fill your Fudd-esque image of what a hunter is to be a hunter? Am i out to kill an animal? Am I going to do so in a safe, humane way? Well then, shut the hell up, I'll wear a goddamn clown suit if it pleases me.
 
2013-01-03 12:36:52 PM  

OnlyM3: This "reporter" is a liar. Nothing new here. His/her bulls--t claims that (s)he is progun is just another lie.


They disagree, therefore no true Scotsman, eh?
 
2013-01-03 12:37:20 PM  
So a guy who says he "generally" supports the 2nd amendment, does not own a gun because New York makes it hard, says AR-15s are scary. Got it.

2nd amendment has nothing to do with the right to hunt.

M1A owner here. makes the AR-15 (in .223) look like a toy. Laser accurate, semi auto .308 (only 20 round mags though). Love it. Just bought a matching numbers DUV 41 K98, most beautiful rifle I have seen yet. WW II bolt action, sure, but will be illegal according to many standards set forth by liberal gun haters. Think about what the idiot libs want to ban...

Bayonet lugs? How many friggin mass bayonettings, or any bayonettings have occured? Not even sure that is a word. Know how many antique weapon owners this screws?
Flash suppressors? How many times has this ever, ever been an issue, anywhere? My M1A has one. How is this more lethal than one without?

How does banning them do anything with so many in circulation? Oh, they will make you re-register them? They will confiscate them? How many people do you think will all of a sudden lose their rigles and magazines? "Sorry Obama Brown Shirt guy, I misplaced that rifle, not sure where it is." There are tens of millions of high capacity magazines out there as it is.

None of this even solves the problem, which is bad people in society, or crazy people in society. They need to be beaten down, locked away, and parents slapped in the face until they raise their kids right.
 
2013-01-03 12:37:24 PM  

Kit Fister: Cymbal: Who cares who buys them and why? They shouldn't be available to the general public. If a shooting range wants to rent one out to you to use on the premises that would be fine, and the ONLY situation where I can see them being available to use.

I agree, let's restrict and ban all laptops from public use. And cell phones, they're dangerous, cause accidents, and shouldn't be available to the general public.

/Has a full-auto, legally registered M60 Machine gun. Belt-fed full-auto, baby. hellatiously expensive, but I'm retiring on what I can sell it for.


Awesome false equivalency there. Wait hold on a sec, I think my laptop is pointing an AR-15 at me. Noooooooooooo!!!!!
 
2013-01-03 12:37:35 PM  
well recently it's people who have far too much disposable income
 
2013-01-03 12:37:39 PM  

david_gaithersburg: Kit Fister: Wolf_Blitzer: I enjoy shooting too, and have fired my friend's AR-15 a couple times, but do people honestly believe our entertainment justifies twenty dead six-year-olds?

I dunno about you, but I personally don't think I got any entertainment out of the deaths of twenty 6 year olds. Okay, maybe I got some entertainment out of the derp in the threads following the incident from folks like you.

.
Oh puhlease. Many here have a warm tingly feeling running up their leg at that thought of taking away basic human rights from their fellow Americans. In this case the human right of self defense.


Don't be an ass. You have the right to defend yourself, but there will always be limits as to the means by which you do so. You can't keep an ICBM in your basement to defend yourself, either. If you need an assault rifle to defend yourself, you're a pussy.
 
2013-01-03 12:37:55 PM  

LasersHurt: No, unless you WEREN'T performing a reductio ad absurdum just to discredit something instead of discussing it honestly.


No, I was performing a "dumb joke". Lighten up, Francis. Go shoot something. It'll help you relax.
 
2013-01-03 12:38:01 PM  
I'm fine with people owning weapons. Even weapons that look scary but use slightly better ammunition than a .22 (I don't own a gun, mostly due to financial reasons. When a better job comes around, I'd certainly consider it)

What I DO support is limiting access to those guns, and limiting the availability of people to walk around in a Dirty Harry fantasy.

-Mental health screenings for every purchase
-Limits on number of bullets bought at once (similar to ephedrine)
-Periodic reviews of gun holder abilities and stability (driver's license renewal)
-Make a person legally liable for a stolen gun if precautions were not taken to prevent its use other than the registered owner (those thumbprint locks are not expensive)

If you pass those, I've got no problem with the people mentally able to hold a firearm having them.
 
2013-01-03 12:38:09 PM  

TheOther: The_Sponge: TheOther: then for every assault rifle the government 'confiscates', let the government supply either a hunting rifle or shotgun (sporting or home defense - owner's choice).

How about no?

Why not?



1) Because I want to keep it, and I'm never giving it up.

2) Do you think the government would give me an equivalent rifle or shotgun that is at the same market value as my rifle?
 
2013-01-03 12:38:11 PM  
Adam Lanza's mother, Nancy Lanza, has been described as "a gun-hoarding survivalist who was stockpiling weapons in preparation for an economic collapse."

Yeah, she owned a whopping 5 guns. Mitt Romney has more houses than that, is he "hoarding" them?
 
2013-01-03 12:38:33 PM  

kqc7011: Got this with a simple search.
The following is a list of some of the calibers that the AR-15 can use,

Without bolt modification
.17 Remington
.17/223
.20 Tactical
.20 Practical
.20 Vartag
.204 Ruger
.221 Fireball
.222 Remington
.222 Remington Magnum
.223 Remington (5.56x45mm)
.223 Remington Ackley Improved
6x45mm
6mm TCU
6x47mm
6mm Whisper
.25x45mm
6.5mm Whisper
7mm Whisper
7mm TCU
.300 Whisper (.300/221, .300 Fireball)
.338 Whisper

AR-15, with bolt modification
223 WSSM
5.45x39mm (.21 Genghis)
243 WSSM
6mm PPC
6mm WOA
6mm BR Remington
6mm Hagar
6.5mm PPC
6.5 WSSM
6.5 WOA
6.5mm Grendel
25 WSSM
6.8x43mm SPC
.30 Herrett Rimless Tactical (6.8x43mm case trimmed to 41mm and necked up to .308; the 6.8mm version of the .300 Whisper)
7.62x25
7.62x39mm
.30 RAR
300 OSSM
.357 Auto
.35 Gremlin (necked up 6.5 Grendel to 358)
.358 WSSM (various names, but all are some form of a WSSM necked up to 35 caliber, some are shortened to make them big game legal in Indiana)
.458 SOCOM
.50 Action Express
.50 Beowulf

AR-15 using a simple blowback operation
.17 HMR
.22 LR
.22 WMR
9x19mm
9x21
9x23
30 Carbine
357 Sig
40S&W
400 Cor-Bon
41 Action Express
10mm Auto
45 GAP
45ACP
45 Super
45 Win Mag

This list is in no way complete.

Story seems to be done by someone who has no clue but a agenda.


As are most articles from Slate.
 
2013-01-03 12:38:34 PM  
The NRA doesn't represent gun owners; it represents the gun industry. Big difference there. Their purpose is not to advocate for more gun rights, it's to sell more guns.
 
2013-01-03 12:39:12 PM  

scottydoesntknow: But the AR-15 is not ideal for the hunting and home-defense uses that the NRA's Keene cited today. Though it can be used for hunting, the AR-15 isn't really a hunting rifle. Its standard .223 caliber ammunition doesn't offer much stopping power for anything other than small game. Hunters themselves find the rifle controversial, with some arguing AR-15-style rifles empower sloppy, "spray and pray" hunters to waste ammunition.

While I do agree that it is not very well suited for hunting standard game, I did watch one tear though almost a dozen hogs in around 2 minutes. We've got a huge hog problem at our deer lease and one of the guys on the lease brought his son's AR-15 to see if he could pop a couple. My uncle and I are sitting around the fire pit when we heard 1 shot. Then about 5 minutes later we heard about 20 shots in a row. The guy with the AR radios us and tells us to come to his blind. He's got around 10 hogs on the ground, all dead. Said the first shot actually got 3 of them (they lined up perfectly), then about 5 minutes later a whole drove of them come to his blind and he just opened up on them.

Yea it's an anecdotal CSB, but I have seen their uses beyond just murder machines.


That's not hunting. Thats extermination of a pest. Calling that hunting is like me calling the time that My uncle and I set a hog trap and caught about eight, then proceeded to shoot them while they were in the trap. No gamesmanship.
 
2013-01-03 12:39:17 PM  

H31N0US: 900RR: 2nd Amendment isn't about duck hunting, dork.

Yeah. It's about a well regulated militia and grants "The People" the right to bear arms. Notice "The People" is capitalized, meaning the population as a collective, not every person.

This is exactly why gun control is not in opposition to the 2nd amendment. It is actually in perfect agreement with it.

And yes, most dudes who want an AR-15 want it because it looks like an M-16. I had one. It was cool, but if I were to hunt, I'd go with a 30-30 since the bullets look cooler.


actually, the phrase discussing a well-regulated militia, and the phrase discussing the right of the people to bear arms, are separate statements, not acting on each other. This has been pointed out time and time again by scholars of the document, and upheld by the courts.
 
2013-01-03 12:39:34 PM  

TheOther: The_Sponge: TheOther: then for every assault rifle the government 'confiscates', let the government supply either a hunting rifle or shotgun (sporting or home defense - owner's choice).

How about no?

Why not?


sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net
 
2013-01-03 12:39:37 PM  

doglover: So we should consider banning the AR-15 because they sell well and are popular with shootists?

Okay then...


That's exactly what the article says. There's no other possible way to interpret what the article says but the way you stated here. Well done.
 
2013-01-03 12:39:40 PM  
Yesterday ITS NOT A TOY!!!


Today SO WHAT IF ITS A TOY!!!

At least be consistent, gun nuts
 
2013-01-03 12:39:48 PM  

seniorgato: That being said.  The guns are wicked stupid.  I've thought about it a lot.  A person breaks into my house, use a shotgun, a handgun or a bat.  An AR-15 will kill your neighbor or the kid playing outside.  And it's not worth it.


You might have thought about it a lot, but you didn't bother to research. Select an optimal 223 hollow point and the likelihood of someone in the next room getting killed is remote at best.
 
2013-01-03 12:40:00 PM  

SacriliciousBeerSwiller: Wow. You could use that argument to eliminate literally every law on the books


Actually, the argument that the supreme court uses to claim states cannot have religious displays or make laws regarding religion would, if applied, ban all state laws not set in the Constitution. Essentially, they argue that the 14th amendment specifies in the "Incorporation Clause" that states may not pass any laws which restrict an individual's rights further than the Constitution allows for in general--that is, that if the Constitution does not provide for the Federal Government to do a thing, then it does not allow for the States to do a thing.

The Constitution does not allow the Federal Government to set speed limits.
 
2013-01-03 12:40:02 PM  

Snarcoleptic_Hoosier: I'm fine with people owning weapons. Even weapons that look scary but use slightly better ammunition than a .22 (I don't own a gun, mostly due to financial reasons. When a better job comes around, I'd certainly consider it)

What I DO support is limiting access to those guns, and limiting the availability of people to walk around in a Dirty Harry fantasy.

-Mental health screenings for every purchase
-Limits on number of bullets bought at once (similar to ephedrine)
-Periodic reviews of gun holder abilities and stability (driver's license renewal)
-Make a person legally liable for a stolen gun if precautions were not taken to prevent its use other than the registered owner (those thumbprint locks are not expensive)

If you pass those, I've got no problem with the people mentally able to hold a firearm having them.


What "limitation" would you apply to rounds of ammunition purchased at one time? What would prevent ammunition purchasers from making multiple simultaneous transactions? How would you address the fact that such a measure would result in substantially increased interest in reloading?
 
2013-01-03 12:40:06 PM  

LasersHurt: gregory311: I'm sure I could do some serious damage with my 300 ultramag, but no one seems interested in taking this away from me.

(Not mine, but similar in nature)

[i205.photobucket.com image 598x307]

Guess it's not 'military looking enough'.

Don't be ridiculous. Of course you can pick out any weapon you like and say "I can still kill with it." That's not a point.


Actually, it is. I think you are missing the point. Bullshiat artists like the author of this article specifically pick out, as you say, "any weapon they like" and follow with pointless commentary without considering the ramifications of other weaponry. If you don't want people to own them, then you don't. But don't fark around and pick out a military-style rifle because its easier than doing research.

See, it's easier for suckers to believe all the shiat they see or read when they immediately recognize stuff they see on TV and in films. If I put my SKS side by side with my UltraMag and asked Jennie Sixpack which one should be handled differently, she'd pick the SKS. Despite the fact that, as I said, I'd probably be able to do more damage with the non-scary looking rifle.

Get it?
 
2013-01-03 12:40:32 PM  

H31N0US: 900RR: 2nd Amendment isn't about duck hunting, dork.

Yeah. It's about a well regulated militia and grants "The People" the right to bear arms. Notice "The People" is capitalized, meaning the population as a collective, not every person.

This is exactly why gun control is not in opposition to the 2nd amendment. It is actually in perfect agreement with it.

And yes, most dudes who want an AR-15 want it because it looks like an M-16. I had one. It was cool, but if I were to hunt, I'd go with a 30-30 since the bullets look cooler.


Why would "the people" mean something different in this amendment than the others? Also, the amendment grants nothing. It *GUARANTEES* it.
 
2013-01-03 12:40:43 PM  

SacriliciousBeerSwiller: Kraftwerk Orange: BarkingUnicorn: cr7pilot: CPT Ethanolic: cr7pilot: I own an AR-15. I'm not a survivalist or a gun nut or a hunter. I'm a guy who enjoys going out in the desert and shooting assorted targets for fun. It's really that simple. If you like shooting as a sport, the AR-15 is a lot of fun to shoot. I understand that some people don't like shooting as a sport and think "why do you need that kind of gun" but that's just because it's not their thing. AR-15 owners don't buy AR-15s because they have some inherent desire to have more "killing power."

 This is me as well.  I own some hand guns (one .45 and two 9mms) for "home defense" but I also just enjoy shooting.  I've been considering getting an AR15 for a while now.  Used to own an AK-47 and, although the ammo is damned expensive, they're fun to shoot.

Me too. I've got a .380 and a 9mm, but the AR-15 is fun to shoot on a long range. It's also handy for disposing of those leftover Halloween pumpkins...

It's good to see people admit that this hoopla is really about their 2nd Amendment right to have "fun."

Actually, the unalienable right to "fun" - aka "Pursuit of Happiness" - goes back even further, to the Preamble of the Declaration of Independence.

Wow. You could use that argument to eliminate literally every law on the books.


I'm willing to concede only types of fun that don't hurt other people should be allowed. Drugs and guns would be allowed under my interpretation.
 
2013-01-03 12:40:43 PM  

treesloth: LasersHurt: No, unless you WEREN'T performing a reductio ad absurdum just to discredit something instead of discussing it honestly.

No, I was performing a "dumb joke". Lighten up, Francis. Go shoot something. It'll help you relax.


I enjoy shooting. I also enjoy reasonable arguments on this issue because if we don't get reasonable on all sides of this, it's gonna go nowhere.
 
2013-01-03 12:41:11 PM  

H31N0US: 900RR: 2nd Amendment isn't about duck hunting, dork.

Yeah. It's about a well regulated militia and grants "The People" the right to bear arms. Notice "The People" is capitalized, meaning the population as a collective, not every person.

This is exactly why gun control is not in opposition to the 2nd amendment. It is actually in perfect agreement with it.

And yes, most dudes who want an AR-15 want it because it looks like an M-16. I had one. It was cool, but if I were to hunt, I'd go with a 30-30 since the bullets look cooler.


Are you saying that if it wasn't capitalized, you'd agree it refers to individual rights?
 
2013-01-03 12:41:21 PM  

Cymbal: Kit Fister: Cymbal: Who cares who buys them and why? They shouldn't be available to the general public. If a shooting range wants to rent one out to you to use on the premises that would be fine, and the ONLY situation where I can see them being available to use.

I agree, let's restrict and ban all laptops from public use. And cell phones, they're dangerous, cause accidents, and shouldn't be available to the general public.

/Has a full-auto, legally registered M60 Machine gun. Belt-fed full-auto, baby. hellatiously expensive, but I'm retiring on what I can sell it for.

Awesome false equivalency there. Wait hold on a sec, I think my laptop is pointing an AR-15 at me. Noooooooooooo!!!!!


Hey, you arbitrarily pick an object to ban that is part of an overarching right, I pick one too. I just happen to choose a tool or two useful to the right of free speech and freedom of the press, rather than the right to keep and bear arms.
 
2013-01-03 12:42:01 PM  

SacriliciousBeerSwiller: If you need an assault rifle to defend yourself, you're a pussy.


What is this world coming too....now thatthe left is exhibiting sings of being bootstrappy.

When I was your age I defended my homestead with gumption and some ambergris!!!! Yarrrrrrr!
 
2013-01-03 12:42:06 PM  

NFA: Or what if he packed a backpack with four 5lb bags of flour and an electric fan, snuck into the school and plugged the fan into back of an auditorium (or the basement) and dumped the flour into the fan then lit a lighter?


Go on.
 
2013-01-03 12:42:07 PM  

SacriliciousBeerSwiller: If you need an assault rifle to defend yourself, you're a pussy.


It's not an assault rifle. And leaving me able to be a pussy is a characteristic I value in a weapon.

"Back when we audited the FBI academy in 1947, I was told that I ought not to use my pistol in their training program because it was not fair. Maybe the first thing one should demand of his sidearm is that it be unfair." -- Jeff Cooper
 
2013-01-03 12:42:32 PM  
Also just to play devil's advocate. Lets assume we pull assault rifles off the market. Yet we'll still need home defense weapons, because a large part of this country is not densely populated and LEO response can be 20+ minutes away.

A home defense weapon is a weapon that has to maneuver well indoors and kill a human. Really it needs to be able to kill a couple in case of accomplices. So you have handles well indoors, capable of multiple shoots, and kills people. That's a gun that will shoot up a school just fine.

Going after the AR style and 30 round magazines is just feel good dickery that fails to address the real problem of nutcases. You hamstring the AR and all you're doing is reducing the death toll of the incident. I'd rather address why we have crazy farkers running around. The Aurora guy had a psych profile and some people were afraid of him, the Newton guy was in the process of involuntary commitment, the Swiss shooter had known mental health issues. The rifle is just the common tool, something else is the common cause.
 
2013-01-03 12:42:39 PM  

NFA: Well, since the AR15 (semi-auto version of the M16) isn't useful for hunting or defense, I suppose our military will abandon it immediately?  I mean if it's useless for hunting, then you couldn't possibly go out in the field and hunt 200 lb humans in the Jungle or anywhere else, Right?  Or if it's useless for defense they will start using something else to protect themselves?  Defense forces around the world use the full auto version of the AR-15 as a standard of protection.  Will this be going away because some clueless writer thinks the firearm doesn't have merit?


Good thing the military doesn't use the AR-15 then.


I know people who hunt with the AR15 and are quite successful with it.  Saying it isn't useful as a hunting gun is an outright lie.  Saying that a M4 version of an AR15 can't be used for defense is an outright lie.  The AR15 didn't cause these crimes.  Mental illness caused these crimes.  Take away the AR-15 and they'll use AK-47's.

Good argument! An assault weapons ban would prevent people from getting AR-15's but not AK-47's.


Take those away and they'll use shotguns, take those away and they'll use AR-7's.

Both those weapons are slower-firing and shorter-ranged than AR-15's.


Doesn't it make sense to seek out and treat mentally ill people?  What if Adam Lanza carried two 30 lb bottles of propane into the basement of the school, screwed a transfer adapter into the valve and released 60 lbs of propane into the basement and then lit a lighter?  The entire school would have likely been destroyed with all the children in it.  Thank god it chose the less deadly method of using a firearm.  Or what if he packed a backpack with four 5lb bags of flour and an electric fan, snuck into the school and plugged the fan into back of an auditorium (or the basement) and dumped the flour into the fan then lit a lighter?  Ever heard of a grain silo explosion?  Grain dust explosions are absolutely devastating.  Hundreds of people would die.  Should we ban propane because it's TOO DANGEROUS?  Should we ban flour because it's TOO DANGEROUS?  See my point?  There will ALWAYS be something available to mentally ill people.

There are already laws regulating the sale, storage, and movement of propane. Plus, both of your plans for mass killing require time and familiarity with the facilities, whereas you can walk into any crowded area with an assault rifle and expect to kill dozens with virtually no prior planning other than how to acquire the weapon.

Plus, virtually everyone has been in favor of providing additional help to people with mental health issues. It's just that the Democrats have been proposing gun control measures on top of that.

So yeah, your excuses suck.
 
2013-01-03 12:42:46 PM  

kombat_unit: Here is an excellent article explaining why 2A ain't about "Bambi and burglars" Link


If by "excellent" you mean "laughably naive masturbatory fantasy", than sure.  Disorganized rabble with AR-15s is no more of a threat to the authoritarian government takeover strawman than disorganized rabble with M1 Garands or 30-06 deer rifles.  Let's see someone try to take out an A-10, an F-18, or an Abrams with one.  And I'd bet that same guy didn't have the same outrage over warrentless wiretapping, unlimited detention without trial, and various other abuses of power by the US Government that are actually real.
 
2013-01-03 12:42:58 PM  

Dimensio: TheOther: If isn't really about disarming Americans, but about restricting access to military-grade weapons, then for every assault rifle the government 'confiscates', let the government supply either a hunting rifle or shotgun (sporting or home defense - owner's choice).

Civilian-marketed AR-15 rifles are not "military-grade". Any claim that they are is a lie.


It's the big lie theory. Keep repeating 'assault rifle', 'military grade', 'assault weapon', 'military weapon' over and over until people believe it. The press could be accurate but since gun control/banning fits into their political philosophy...
 
2013-01-03 12:43:04 PM  
The AR-15 is actually the best home defense weapon. As a rifle it is more accurate than any handgun, and if you choose the right bullet it penetrates less through wall materials than any handgun or shotgun bullet that would also effectively stop a threat. Look up Dr. Fackler and his studies on bullet penetration if you don't believe this.

I would also bet, that in today's age Ar-15s are used to take more game than any other rifle. They are perfect for small game from rodent control, (prarie dogs) up to coyotes, and if your state allows it, they can take smaller deer easy.

The reason they are so popular is that they are ergonomic and easy to modify and customize at the user end, without hiring a gunsmith due to their modular nature.
 
2013-01-03 12:43:13 PM  
People who are afraid of ARs need to watch this. Seriously

What Is An "Assault Rifle"? - You've Probably Been Lied To
 
2013-01-03 12:43:21 PM  

Kit Fister: SacriliciousBeerSwiller: Kit Fister: scottydoesntknow: But the AR-15 is not ideal for the hunting and home-defense uses that the NRA's Keene cited today. Though it can be used for hunting, the AR-15 isn't really a hunting rifle. Its standard .223 caliber ammunition doesn't offer much stopping power for anything other than small game. Hunters themselves find the rifle controversial, with some arguing AR-15-style rifles empower sloppy, "spray and pray" hunters to waste ammunition.

While I do agree that it is not very well suited for hunting standard game, I did watch one tear though almost a dozen hogs in around 2 minutes. We've got a huge hog problem at our deer lease and one of the guys on the lease brought his son's AR-15 to see if he could pop a couple. My uncle and I are sitting around the fire pit when we heard 1 shot. Then about 5 minutes later we heard about 20 shots in a row. The guy with the AR radios us and tells us to come to his blind. He's got around 10 hogs on the ground, all dead. Said the first shot actually got 3 of them (they lined up perfectly), then about 5 minutes later a whole drove of them come to his blind and he just opened up on them.

Yea it's an anecdotal CSB, but I have seen their uses beyond just murder machines.

Same here. Works well for coyotes, too.

Apparently works well for children, too. Keep on grasping.

Yeah, my pickup truck works well for children, too. Plow into a group and back up a few times, takes out just as many, with less effort. Just because a person can USE it for bad things, doesn't mean that it is FOR bad things.


You claim it's easier, and yet last I checked there has not been a rash of pickup-truck driving madmen killing scores of people via vehicular homicide. Reality just doesn't jive with your rhetoric.

Further, your logic could be applied to any number of ridiculous positions. Hey, let's make it legal for private citizens to keep Stinger missiles in their house. After all, they make great fireworks, and could be used for sport drone shooting. Herpity derp.
 
2013-01-03 12:43:23 PM  

Doom MD: Facepalm article.

It's popular and underpowered, so people with guns should be forced to buy more powerful and less popular guns. Ok then.


Its only good for small varmits, target shooting and clearing kindergarten classes. Record numbers are being purchased. For which of those 3 reasons remains to be seen.
 
2013-01-03 12:43:25 PM  
I like all this attention to the AR-15, because this year I had no problems finding 7.62x39 for my Saiga-made AK-47 -- 500 rounds for $130, too.

The range is waist-deep in asspipery, tho. Just like with the gym around New Year's Day, it's suddenly crowded with people who won't show up after the second visit.

/Registered Democrat
//Never "badgered the witness" to Red Dawn
///Ok, that one time, but I had a thing for Lea Thompson
////Ok, it was Powers Boothe
 
2013-01-03 12:43:56 PM  

RickN99: Dimensio: TheOther: If isn't really about disarming Americans, but about restricting access to military-grade weapons, then for every assault rifle the government 'confiscates', let the government supply either a hunting rifle or shotgun (sporting or home defense - owner's choice).

Civilian-marketed AR-15 rifles are not "military-grade". Any claim that they are is a lie.

It's the big lie theory. Keep repeating 'assault rifle', 'military grade', 'assault weapon', 'military weapon' over and over until people believe it. The press could be accurate but since gun control/banning fits into their political philosophy...


You are attributing to malice what is more easily attributed to incompetence.
 
2013-01-03 12:44:04 PM  
Being that only a few hundred people died in 2011 of rifles, how many do you think of those were even AR-15's?

I'm guessing sub 30, if not less than 20.
 
2013-01-03 12:44:08 PM  

gregory311: LasersHurt: gregory311: I'm sure I could do some serious damage with my 300 ultramag, but no one seems interested in taking this away from me.

(Not mine, but similar in nature)

[i205.photobucket.com image 598x307]

Guess it's not 'military looking enough'.

Don't be ridiculous. Of course you can pick out any weapon you like and say "I can still kill with it." That's not a point.

Actually, it is. I think you are missing the point. Bullshiat artists like the author of this article specifically pick out, as you say, "any weapon they like" and follow with pointless commentary without considering the ramifications of other weaponry. If you don't want people to own them, then you don't. But don't fark around and pick out a military-style rifle because its easier than doing research.

See, it's easier for suckers to believe all the shiat they see or read when they immediately recognize stuff they see on TV and in films. If I put my SKS side by side with my UltraMag and asked Jennie Sixpack which one should be handled differently, she'd pick the SKS. Despite the fact that, as I said, I'd probably be able to do more damage with the non-scary looking rifle.

Get it?


Is it your claim that there is no way to restrict deadlier weapons? Or that there are no deadlier weapons at all?

If it's neither, then you're missing the point - the point is to reduce the impact of those deadlier weapons. Work from that standpoint, and you can better understand the intent of these people, then maybe help better define the issue.

I suspect, however, that your opinion would be "I do not support any further controls of any kind."
 
2013-01-03 12:44:43 PM  

Cymbal: Who cares who buys them and why? They shouldn't be available to the general public. If a shooting range wants to rent one out to you to use on the premises that would be fine, and the ONLY situation where I can see them being available to use.


Why shouldn't they be available? They are quite honestly nowhere near as dangerous as many other platforms that are also legally available. They are just a lot cheaper and or they look a lot more military so they tend to attract the crazy morons who have a hardon for being Rambo and can't hold down a stable job (due to their mental illness) and hence cannot afford an expensive weapon.

It's like saying that we should ban spoilers on economy cars because those cars get in more fatal accidents. Well yeah young idiots who like to drive fast and have no idea how to do so safely are attracted to cars with spoilers but the spoilers don't cause the accidents.

/I have nothing against spoilers lot of ordinary people have them too
//the same as AR15s
 
2013-01-03 12:44:59 PM  
Its noones business how many guns I have, or what type. God bless America.
 
2013-01-03 12:45:13 PM  

Mr. Coffee Nerves: I like all this attention to the AR-15, because this year I had no problems finding 7.62x39 for my Saiga-made AK-47 -- 500 rounds for $130, too.


I shoot .22LR with my AR-15. I have avoided the local firing range, however, and I will likely not return for at least another week.
 
2013-01-03 12:45:14 PM  
Perhaps the first amendment should be tightly regulated too. He way not apply the mental evaluation to it and put Fark our of business.
 
2013-01-03 12:45:28 PM  

ha-ha-guy: /I still want an AR style that handles 7.62×63


Wrongs. You want an AR that handles 300BLK. That is a sexy round.
 
2013-01-03 12:45:29 PM  

LarryDan43: Doom MD: Facepalm article.

It's popular and underpowered, so people with guns should be forced to buy more powerful and less popular guns. Ok then.

Its only good for small varmits, target shooting and clearing kindergarten classes. Record numbers are being purchased. For which of those 3 reasons remains to be seen.


Then why do the military and SWAT teams purchase them?
 
2013-01-03 12:45:32 PM  
SacriliciousBeerSwiller: Apparently works well for children, too. Keep on grasping.

oh cool, emotion!
 
2013-01-03 12:45:35 PM  

manimal2878: The AR-15 is actually the best home defense weapon. As a rifle it is more accurate than any handgun


In a home invasion, you're not going to be shooting at someone from any distance where that additional accuracy is particularly important.
 
2013-01-03 12:45:49 PM  

abhorrent1: abhorrent1: the AR-15 Is Useful for Hunting and Home Defense. Not Exactly.

BS. The kid on (I think it's called) Yukon Men, uses an AR to hunt. He got a caribou and a bear with it on the few episodes I've seen.

here it is

[img.poptower.com image 600x338]


Yeah the whole carbine style weapon is fine platform for training kids to hunt before giving them the bolt action deer rifle that fires something a lot heavier. Weapon doesn't weigh as much, not as much recoil, etc.
 
2013-01-03 12:45:58 PM  

Teknowaffle: Fat humans who were rejected by the military, police , and mall security?


FTFY
 
2013-01-03 12:46:15 PM  
Though it can be used for hunting, the AR-15 Mauser isn't really a hunting rifle. Its standard .223 8mm caliber ammunition doesn't offer much stopping power for anything other than small game. Hunters themselves find the rifle controversial, with some arguing AR-15-style bolt action rifles empower sloppy, "spray and pray" hunters to waste ammunition.

The perspective of a buffalo hunter with a single-shot Sharps.

Fudds always fear the new. And semi-auto hunting rifles have been around for 100 years now. Time marches on.
 
2013-01-03 12:46:23 PM  

riverwalk barfly: scottydoesntknow: But the AR-15 is not ideal for the hunting and home-defense uses that the NRA's Keene cited today. Though it can be used for hunting, the AR-15 isn't really a hunting rifle. Its standard .223 caliber ammunition doesn't offer much stopping power for anything other than small game. Hunters themselves find the rifle controversial, with some arguing AR-15-style rifles empower sloppy, "spray and pray" hunters to waste ammunition.

While I do agree that it is not very well suited for hunting standard game, I did watch one tear though almost a dozen hogs in around 2 minutes. We've got a huge hog problem at our deer lease and one of the guys on the lease brought his son's AR-15 to see if he could pop a couple. My uncle and I are sitting around the fire pit when we heard 1 shot. Then about 5 minutes later we heard about 20 shots in a row. The guy with the AR radios us and tells us to come to his blind. He's got around 10 hogs on the ground, all dead. Said the first shot actually got 3 of them (they lined up perfectly), then about 5 minutes later a whole drove of them come to his blind and he just opened up on them.

Yea it's an anecdotal CSB, but I have seen their uses beyond just murder machines.

That's not hunting. Thats extermination of a pest. Calling that hunting is like me calling the time that My uncle and I set a hog trap and caught about eight, then proceeded to shoot them while they were in the trap. No gamesmanship.


Soooo what point are you trying to make?
 
2013-01-03 12:46:31 PM  

ultraholland: SacriliciousBeerSwiller: Apparently works well for children, too. Keep on grasping.

oh cool, emotion reality!


FTFY.

But, fyi, emotion is the basis of all law.
 
2013-01-03 12:46:35 PM  

david_gaithersburg: Perhaps the first amendment should be tightly regulated too. He way not apply the mental evaluation to it and put Fark our of business.


The same people who like to ban scary black guns are the same people that like to ban "hate speech."
 
2013-01-03 12:47:05 PM  
Has anyone defined "military-style" yet? Because every journalist on earth is using this term, but none so far have been able to articulate what makes a gun "military-style" besides describing how scary it looks to them.

I could hand these bozos an AR-15 with a nice polished wood stock and they'd think it's a beautiful, safe, deer hunting rifle.
 
2013-01-03 12:47:15 PM  

treesloth: SacriliciousBeerSwiller: If you need an assault rifle to defend yourself, you're a pussy.

It's not an assault rifle. And leaving me able to be a pussy is a characteristic I value in a weapon.

"Back when we audited the FBI academy in 1947, I was told that I ought not to use my pistol in their training program because it was not fair. Maybe the first thing one should demand of his sidearm is that it be unfair." -- Jeff Cooper


I like this quote of his better....it fits alot of the ramblings of the gun control crowd.

The problem with the Internet is it is full of people who have nothing to say that say it anyway'~~~~Jeff Cooper.
 
2013-01-03 12:47:16 PM  

CPT Ethanolic: Article say .223 or AR-15?  I thought AR-15s were .556?


Military AR-15 & M-16 is 5.56 mm and .223 (usually used in training). The cilivian AR-15 is .223 only. M-16 is capable of up to full auto, AR-15 is semi-auto (even though it can be modded to full).

I think the reason the AR-15 is being used more as a hunting rifle is not because of its accuracy, or ability to drop a deer out of the box... it's the familiarity and customization ability. You can make and AR shoot more than .223, with even one mod going 30-30.
 
2013-01-03 12:47:20 PM  

SacriliciousBeerSwiller: ultraholland: SacriliciousBeerSwiller: Apparently works well for children, too. Keep on grasping.

oh cool, emotion reality!

FTFY.

But, fyi, emotion is the basis of all law.


Must be why we're so farked.
 
2013-01-03 12:47:46 PM  

SacriliciousBeerSwiller: Kit Fister: SacriliciousBeerSwiller: Kit Fister: scottydoesntknow: But the AR-15 is not ideal for the hunting and home-defense uses that the NRA's Keene cited today. Though it can be used for hunting, the AR-15 isn't really a hunting rifle. Its standard .223 caliber ammunition doesn't offer much stopping power for anything other than small game. Hunters themselves find the rifle controversial, with some arguing AR-15-style rifles empower sloppy, "spray and pray" hunters to waste ammunition.

While I do agree that it is not very well suited for hunting standard game, I did watch one tear though almost a dozen hogs in around 2 minutes. We've got a huge hog problem at our deer lease and one of the guys on the lease brought his son's AR-15 to see if he could pop a couple. My uncle and I are sitting around the fire pit when we heard 1 shot. Then about 5 minutes later we heard about 20 shots in a row. The guy with the AR radios us and tells us to come to his blind. He's got around 10 hogs on the ground, all dead. Said the first shot actually got 3 of them (they lined up perfectly), then about 5 minutes later a whole drove of them come to his blind and he just opened up on them.

Yea it's an anecdotal CSB, but I have seen their uses beyond just murder machines.

Same here. Works well for coyotes, too.

Apparently works well for children, too. Keep on grasping.

Yeah, my pickup truck works well for children, too. Plow into a group and back up a few times, takes out just as many, with less effort. Just because a person can USE it for bad things, doesn't mean that it is FOR bad things.

You claim it's easier, and yet last I checked there has not been a rash of pickup-truck driving madmen killing scores of people via vehicular homicide. Reality just doesn't jive with your rhetoric.

Further, your logic could be applied to any number of ridiculous positions. Hey, let's make it legal for private citizens to keep Stinger missiles in their house. After all, they make great firewo ...


Aside from modern manufacture, I can already own and keep claymore mines, grenades, explosives, and other munitions (at $200+paperwork+cost of device) in my home. I can own a tank if I have the money. Want a decommissioned military aircraft? Yep, I can own that too. All it takes is money.

As to not seeing it happen with cars...how many people died in the last month/year due to drunk drivers? I seem to recall quite a few cases involving DUIs and/or texting where a driver killed or caused an accident that killed lots of people at a time. But yeah, that's totally not the same thing, right?
 
2013-01-03 12:47:48 PM  
I have an AR-15 type rifle. If it would bring back those 20 kids, you can have it. If taking it will keep another 20 alive, you can have it. The problem is, it won't. The Sandy Creek shooter (we should not use their names and give them the satisfaction of knowing they will be famous), had two handguns with him that were perfectly capable of doing the exact same damage in the same amount of time. Take away the rifle and even cut the magazine capacities on the handguns down to 10 and he could have done the same thing in the same amount of time. How long do you think it takes to drop a mag out of a handgun and pop in another while kids are cowering in closets? We like to believe we can fix all problems if we just pass a smart law. You may have noticed that is not working out so well for us.
 
2013-01-03 12:48:07 PM  

stiletto_the_wise: Has anyone defined "military-style" yet? Because every journalist on earth is using this term, but none so far have been able to articulate what makes a gun "military-style" besides describing how scary it looks to them.

I could hand these bozos an AR-15 with a nice polished wood stock and they'd think it's a beautiful, safe, deer hunting rifle.


So you're sticking with "there is no such thing, and it doesn't matter." ?
 
2013-01-03 12:48:11 PM  
"The AR-15 was designed...to penetrate both sides of a standard Army helmet at 500 meters"

I should look up the last Fark thread on this topic where some dude was arguing with me that the AR-15 "wasn't designed to kill people, it was designed to fire a projectile".
 
2013-01-03 12:48:12 PM  

H31N0US: 900RR: 2nd Amendment isn't about duck hunting, dork.

Yeah. It's about a well regulated militia and grants "The People" the right to bear arms. Notice "The People" is capitalized, meaning the population as a collective, not every person.

This is exactly why gun control is not in opposition to the 2nd amendment. It is actually in perfect agreement with it.

And yes, most dudes who want an AR-15 want it because it looks like an M-16. I had one. It was cool, but if I were to hunt, I'd go with a 30-30 since the bullets look cooler.


That was... insane. Which part of the "collective" gets to exercise their 1st Amendment rights? Who decides?

/Learn history. Start with the Federalist papers and go from there.
//If the 2nd A. doesn't grant rights to individuals, ALL individuals, it's the only one in the entire Bill of Rights.
 
2013-01-03 12:48:22 PM  

BgJonson79: LarryDan43: Doom MD: Facepalm article.

It's popular and underpowered, so people with guns should be forced to buy more powerful and less popular guns. Ok then.

Its only good for small varmits, target shooting and clearing kindergarten classes. Record numbers are being purchased. For which of those 3 reasons remains to be seen.

Then why do the military and SWAT teams purchase them?


Target shooting combined with budget constraints. Its the coolest looking they can afford.
 
2013-01-03 12:48:27 PM  

Hickory-smoked: doglover: So we should consider banning the AR-15 because they sell well and are popular with shootists?

Okay then...

You know, I don't actually see the line in the article where the author specifically proposes a ban.

But perhaps a reasonable person may want to consider the function and design purpose of a firearm when deciding how it should be regulated? Or is that just too 'gun grabby' to say?


Basically, the article is saying that the "home protection" and "hunting" angles are disingenuous. And if you want to convince the general populace who neither want to repeal the 2nd Amendment nor demand that every American own a gun, you should make a different, more convincing argument.

The big issue is that the Bushmaster is the weapon of choice in these mass killings. Yes, I realize that one could use a sharpened toothbrush to kill large numbers of people somehow, but that's not what these people use.
 
2013-01-03 12:48:29 PM  

SacriliciousBeerSwiller: manimal2878: The AR-15 is actually the best home defense weapon. As a rifle it is more accurate than any handgun

In a home invasion, you're not going to be shooting at someone from any distance where that additional accuracy is particularly important.


Depends on the home.  If you're Romney, I can imagine 100' ranges.
 
2013-01-03 12:48:41 PM  
i197.photobucket.com
 
2013-01-03 12:48:47 PM  

manimal2878: The AR-15 is actually the best home defense weapon. As a rifle it is more accurate than any handgun, and if you choose the right bullet it penetrates less through wall materials than any handgun or shotgun bullet that would also effectively stop a threat. Look up Dr. Fackler and his studies on bullet penetration if you don't believe this.

I would also bet, that in today's age Ar-15s are used to take more game than any other rifle. They are perfect for small game from rodent control, (prarie dogs) up to coyotes, and if your state allows it, they can take smaller deer easy.

The reason they are so popular is that they are ergonomic and easy to modify and customize at the user end, without hiring a gunsmith due to their modular nature.


I use mine to hunt Key Deer down in Florida.
 
2013-01-03 12:48:50 PM  

NFA: Well, since the AR15 (semi-auto version of the M16) isn't useful for hunting or defense, I suppose our military will abandon it immediately?  I mean if it's useless for hunting, then you couldn't possibly go out in the field and hunt 200 lb humans in the Jungle or anywhere else, Right?  Or if it's useless for defense they will start using something else to protect themselves?  Defense forces around the world use the full auto version of the AR-15 as a standard of protection.  Will this be going away because some clueless writer thinks the firearm doesn't have merit?

I know people who hunt with the AR15 and are quite successful with it.  Saying it isn't useful as a hunting gun is an outright lie.  Saying that a M4 version of an AR15 can't be used for defense is an outright lie.  The AR15 didn't cause these crimes.  Mental illness caused these crimes.  Take away the AR-15 and they'll use AK-47's.  Take those away and they'll use shotguns, take those away and they'll use AR-7's.  Doesn't it make sense to seek out and treat mentally ill people?  What if Adam Lanza carried two 30 lb bottles of propane into the basement of the school, screwed a transfer adapter into the valve and released 60 lbs of propane into the basement and then lit a lighter?  The entire school would have likely been destroyed with all the children in it.  Thank god it chose the less deadly method of using a firearm.  Or what if he packed a backpack with four 5lb bags of flour and an electric fan, snuck into the school and plugged the fan into back of an auditorium (or the basement) and dumped the flour into the fan then lit a lighter?  Ever heard of a grain silo explosion?  Grain dust explosions are absolutely devastating.  Hundreds of people would die.  Should we ban propane because it's TOO DANGEROUS?  Should we ban flour because it's TOO DANGEROUS?  See my point?  There will ALWAYS be something available to mentally ill people.

Vilifying the method of killing is just a ploy to start down the sl ...


I'm just looking for a place to sell me 155mm HEAT rounds. Make this T72 purchase seem a little less foolish, and keep those damn kids out of my yard.
 
2013-01-03 12:48:54 PM  
On a related note, the company which makes extended capacity magazines has sold out a 3 and 1/2 year supply in the last 10 days.

If you liked the War on Drugs, this is really going to be big fun.
 
2013-01-03 12:48:55 PM  

LarryDan43: BgJonson79: LarryDan43: Doom MD: Facepalm article.

It's popular and underpowered, so people with guns should be forced to buy more powerful and less popular guns. Ok then.

Its only good for small varmits, target shooting and clearing kindergarten classes. Record numbers are being purchased. For which of those 3 reasons remains to be seen.

Then why do the military and SWAT teams purchase them?

Target shooting combined with budget constraints. Its the coolest looking they can afford.


Got a source to cite?
 
2013-01-03 12:49:19 PM  

cr7pilot: I own an AR-15. I'm not a survivalist or a gun nut or a hunter. I'm a guy who enjoys going out in the desert and shooting assorted targets for fun. It's really that simple. If you like shooting as a sport, the AR-15 is a lot of fun to shoot. I understand that some people don't like shooting as a sport and think "why do you need that kind of gun" but that's just because it's not their thing. AR-15 owners don't buy AR-15s because they have some inherent desire to have more "killing power."

Also, many people here in rural Utah use AR-15s as varmint control weapons. As the article states, a .223 cartridge is not ideal for large game hunting, but it is good for varmint control and a lot more flexible than a bolt-action rifle.


I've been thinking about getting one for years, I just am looking for a reliable fun firearm. The mini22 interested me, as well maybe an m1 instead.

Would you buy one again? Any preferred make/model or manufacturer? Or would you go with a different firearm?
 
2013-01-03 12:49:32 PM  

H31N0US: 900RR: 2nd Amendment isn't about duck hunting, dork.

Yeah. It's about a well regulated militia and grants "The People" the right to bear arms. Notice "The People" is capitalized, meaning the population as a collective, not every person.


First of all, the supreme court says you're wrong.

Second, you don't even make sense. If "the people" can own guns, how do you justify denying them to me? Am I not a person?

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Obviously, this means the 1st and 4th amendment both refer to a "collective" right too... Your argument is asinine to anyone who's literate.  Of course these rights are individual rights, otherwise they'd be meaningless.
 
2013-01-03 12:49:32 PM  

Nattering Nabob: I have an AR-15 type rifle. If it would bring back those 20 kids, you can have it. If taking it will keep another 20 alive, you can have it. The problem is, it won't. The Sandy Creek shooter (we should not use their names and give them the satisfaction of knowing they will be famous), had two handguns with him that were perfectly capable of doing the exact same damage in the same amount of time. Take away the rifle and even cut the magazine capacities on the handguns down to 10 and he could have done the same thing in the same amount of time. How long do you think it takes to drop a mag out of a handgun and pop in another while kids are cowering in closets? We like to believe we can fix all problems if we just pass a smart law. You may have noticed that is not working out so well for us.


The type of gun and amount of ammunition are irrelevant, which is why it's crucial there be no limits on them. We need them. For no reason.
 
2013-01-03 12:49:32 PM  
I am no huge fan of the ar15. The taticool movement in my opinion shows too much about what some people need from their weapons.

Not that customization is a bad thing, but adding stuff for fashion is annoying.

If a crazy wanting to take out a whole bunch of people, a mini-14 is no different for that purpose from my understanding.

This guy is a hoot.
Link
 
2013-01-03 12:49:55 PM  
Last month, I estimated that upward of 3.5 million AR-15-style rifles currently exist in the United States.

So what are the murder rates between the number of AR-15s and other weapons? Are there more kills for every 3.5 million machetes, for instance? Just wondering, since they have only given half a statistic here, it would be interesting to see the breakdown. Maybe .22 automatics are the REAL killers, who knows?
 
2013-01-03 12:49:55 PM  
Meh... I'll stick with my .88 Magnum.
 
KIA
2013-01-03 12:50:13 PM  
The author says he sees people carrying AR style rifles in the woods but they aren't acceptable hunting rifles.

Has he not heard of the AR-10 chambered in .308? It looks exactly like an AR-15 but very slightly larger.

Also, AR style rifles tend to be more durable, have more useful mounting points and rails, and are usually easier to clean and maintain as they were designed for field-stripping and rugged use.
 
2013-01-03 12:50:18 PM  

Teknowaffle: Fat white men who were rejected from too chickenshiat to join the military?



Let's be honest, we're talking about the most terrified people on the planet... people who like to fantasize about carrying around big bad-ass looking weapons to strike an imposing figure precisely because the reality of themselves is so very different.

Practically every gun nut I know is either a doughy nerd who's still nursing grudges about being a bullied outcast in school or a paranoid who obsesses about unrealistic threats they imagine lurking around every corner.

These are NOT Steve Rogers-types eager to rush into the fray of battle to test their mettle and unfortunately held back by physical misfortune. These are LARPers who want to play dress up as far away from the field of actual battle as possible.
 
2013-01-03 12:50:25 PM  

People_are_Idiots: CPT Ethanolic: Article say .223 or AR-15?  I thought AR-15s were .556?

Military AR-15 & M-16 is 5.56 mm and .223 (usually used in training). The cilivian AR-15 is .223 only. M-16 is capable of up to full auto, AR-15 is semi-auto (even though it can be modded to full).


Most, if not all, civilian-marketed AR-15 rifles are built to tolerate 5.56x45mm NATO ammunition. In fact, many civilian-marketed rifles sold as being chambered in the .223 Remington caliber will tolerate 5.56x45mm NATO.
 
2013-01-03 12:50:54 PM  
My only worry is that if the day comes, and I can barely imagine it, where the American military turns it's guns on us, and we don't have guns; What then?

What if 30 years down the line any foreign power anywhere is taken over by raving lunatics, who, in turn, invade our now gunless country?

It is incredible the world we live in, everybody has the power to change the world with bullets.
I think everyone should have firearms training.
I think everyone should be a government employee.
I think prisoners(those who commit against a human) should work much harder than they do, lifers to clean haz-mat/superfund sites.
I think people should perform for mastery instead of money.
I think fistfighting should be decriminalized.
I think I could use natural ways to bring everyone free utilities.
I think fossil fuels should be used for transportation only, but when you buy a car you have plant and manage your carbon offset.

Instead of talking about gun-control, lets talk about people control?

I think I should run for President!
 
2013-01-03 12:51:07 PM  
I just like how the AR15 is only ever available in one caliber so let's keep farking that football.

A suppressed subsonic 300BLK SBR is the ultimate home defense weapon. Go ahead, let off a shell from your 12ga or your .45 in an enclosed space in the dead of night. You'll be blind from the flash and deaf from the blast. Hope to hell you only need one and he doesnt have a buddy in the next room. Now do the same with the AR described. Ears might ring a little but it's considered hearing safe and no flash. Proper bullet selection combined with subsonic velocity reduces if not eliminates over penetration.

But that's all too scary so forget I said anything. Continue your sensationalism and believing that you're more progressive and somehow better because you ignore that bad things can happen to good people and the second amendment's real intent was to protect the populace from the government and "well regulated" means "orderly and trained" and "militia" was defined as "males of age not otherwise barred from or already enlisted into service".
 
2013-01-03 12:51:17 PM  

technicolor-misfit: Teknowaffle: Fat white men who were rejected from too chickenshiat to join the military?


Let's be honest, we're talking about the most terrified people on the planet... people who like to fantasize about carrying around big bad-ass looking weapons to strike an imposing figure precisely because the reality of themselves is so very different.

Practically every gun nut I know is either a doughy nerd who's still nursing grudges about being a bullied outcast in school or a paranoid who obsesses about unrealistic threats they imagine lurking around every corner.

These are NOT Steve Rogers-types eager to rush into the fray of battle to test their mettle and unfortunately held back by physical misfortune. These are LARPers who want to play dress up as far away from the field of actual battle as possible.


And doesn't the Second Amendment guarantee their right to do just that?
 
2013-01-03 12:51:32 PM  

cr7pilot: I own an AR-15. I'm not a survivalist or a gun nut or a hunter. I'm a guy who enjoys going out in the desert and shooting assorted targets for fun.


Do you actually bring targets that you shoot or do you like to pour lead into the vegetation.

In many desert areas one can find cactus, which takes a long time to grow, destroyed or full of bullet holes. I recall reading about a problem in Colorado Springs where gun owners don't like to pay for going to shooting ranges but instead go out into public woods and shoot the shiat out of trees, leaving some areas with them largely destroyed.

Sure, people with single shot guns will also shoot at trees, but they are a good bit less effective decimating the local vegetation. And no, the argument that "it will grow back" really doesn't hold water.
 
2013-01-03 12:51:34 PM  

gregory311: Actually, it is. I think you are missing the point. Bullshiat artists like the author of this article specifically pick out, as you say, "any weapon they like" and follow with pointless commentary without considering the ramifications of other weaponry. If you don't want people to own them, then you don't. But don't fark around and pick out a military-style rifle because its easier than doing research.

See, it's easier for suckers to believe all the shiat they see or read when they immediately recognize stuff they see on TV and in films. If I put my SKS side by side with my UltraMag and asked Jennie Sixpack which one should be handled differently, she'd pick the SKS. Despite the fact that, as I said, I'd probably be able to do more damage with the non-scary looking rifle.

Get it?


A whole bunch of THIS.

Personally, I'm more if a bolt action guy for better accuracy, but there's no way to do real control, because you're going to basically end up banning everything semi-auto. Everything else is just cosmetic, or quibbling over logistics of x- number of rounds on a mag.

Also, the author has no clue on guns. calling the .223 an underpowered round for big game is insane. I hunt deer with a .222 and it is very effective.
 
2013-01-03 12:51:45 PM  

ElBarto79: "The AR-15 was designed...to penetrate both sides of a standard Army helmet at 500 meters"

I should look up the last Fark thread on this topic where some dude was arguing with me that the AR-15 "wasn't designed to kill people, it was designed to fire a projectile".


It is. The gun itself is designed only to feed and fire the .223/5.56mm projectile, standard, or a myriad of other calibers. The .223/5.56mm bullet was designed for its capability to penetrate as above at 500m (which, by the way, the standard 55gr Ball round is pretty miserable at.)
 
2013-01-03 12:51:57 PM  
There's way too much serious discussion in here.
 
2013-01-03 12:51:58 PM  

ha-ha-guy: abhorrent1: abhorrent1: the AR-15 Is Useful for Hunting and Home Defense. Not Exactly.

BS. The kid on (I think it's called) Yukon Men, uses an AR to hunt. He got a caribou and a bear with it on the few episodes I've seen.

here it is

[img.poptower.com image 600x338]

Yeah the whole carbine style weapon is fine platform for training kids to hunt before giving them the bolt action deer rifle that fires something a lot heavier. Weapon doesn't weigh as much, not as much recoil, etc.


I don't know how old he is but since they live a subsistence lifestyle, I'm guess he's probably been hunting since he was big enough to hold a rifle. So I doubt that's a training weapon. And obviously, since he took down a caribou and a bear with it, what it fires is plenty heavy.
 
2013-01-03 12:52:01 PM  

treesloth: Article sort of misses the point... The AR-15 is not necessarily absolutely ideal for hunting of home defense, but it's quite good for either. It's a single, versatile platform. Good home defense ammo is available. It's highly maneuverable-- sorry, TFA is just plain wrong about that. It's highly accurate. In short, if you can only afford one quality rifle, it may be a great choice for you. On the other hand, if you're hunting big game (elk, moose, blue whales), you're going to have to shell out for something more potent.


There's a more important point to be made here: The AR-15 platform can be the 'something more potent'.

The default .223 Remington upper receiver is really only good for varmint hunting. If you have a lot of groundhogs to get rid of, you're in luck.

But pop two pins and put on a different upper and a different magazine, and you've a different gun. Need to move from groundhog to feral hog? Get a .458 SOCOM upper and your 30 round .223 magazine becomes a 9 round magazine.

You can even get a bolt action upper receiver that doesn't utilize the magazine well, and shoot .50 BMG.

Some bleat about 'military style'. Well, once you've put the 'automatic' vs 'semi-automatic' difference aside, since that is truly the defining difference between military and non-military arms, what does military style mean? More to the point, what does the military look for in the design of a weapon?

Ergonomics
Customizable
Reliability
Ease of Maintenance
Operating time before maintenance
Skill required to maintain
Steady supply chain
Skill required to operate
Weight

These are pretty much all the things a non-military person would look for as well. In fact, most of these criteria are the same ones you use when buying a car. So, if the military criteria for what makes a good weapon (outside of full-auto vs semi-auto) are the same as a rational civilians criteria, is it any wonder that the designs converge? Considering the innovation that is happening in the civilian market for the AR-15, essentially dragging the glacier slow military market forward, I think it would be more appropriate at this point to call the M-16/M-4 the militarized version of the civilian AR-15.
 
2013-01-03 12:52:14 PM  

you have pee hands: kombat_unit: Here is an excellent article explaining why 2A ain't about "Bambi and burglars" Link

If by "excellent" you mean "laughably naive masturbatory fantasy", than sure.  Disorganized rabble with AR-15s is no more of a threat to the authoritarian government takeover strawman than disorganized rabble with M1 Garands or 30-06 deer rifles.  Let's see someone try to take out an A-10, an F-18, or an Abrams with one.  And I'd bet that same guy didn't have the same outrage over warrentless wiretapping, unlimited detention without trial, and various other abuses of power by the US Government that are actually real.


This, that that and that.

People making the "defense from the government" argument are idiots, unless they go all the way and argue they should also have equal access to ALL modern arms. "Arms" is not limited to "guns". If it is, then the entire spirit of the 2nd Amendment is rendered obsolete by modern reality, and the pro-gun crowd making that distinction are thus undermining their own cause.
 
2013-01-03 12:52:21 PM  

technicolor-misfit: Teknowaffle: Fat white men who were rejected from too chickenshiat to join the military?


Let's be honest, we're talking about the most terrified people on the planet... people who like to fantasize about carrying around big bad-ass looking weapons to strike an imposing figure precisely because the reality of themselves is so very different.

Practically every gun nut I know is either a doughy nerd who's still nursing grudges about being a bullied outcast in school or a paranoid who obsesses about unrealistic threats they imagine lurking around every corner.

These are NOT Steve Rogers-types eager to rush into the fray of battle to test their mettle and unfortunately held back by physical misfortune. These are LARPers who want to play dress up as far away from the field of actual battle as possible.


You are a liberal, you don't know any gun nuts. You fantasize about them.
 
2013-01-03 12:52:45 PM  

Mr. Coffee Nerves: The range is waist-deep in asspipery, tho. Just like with the gym around New Year's Day, it's suddenly crowded with people who won't show up after the second visit.


LOL I saw the same thing a few days ago at one of our local rifle ranges. I've never seen so many brand spanking new guns in the hands of relative newbies in my life. Every 15 minutes or so someone was getting an earful for shiat ranging from safety to range etiquette. I got a little unnerved walking downrange during the target changing breaks.
 
2013-01-03 12:52:58 PM  

Mikey1969: Last month, I estimated that upward of 3.5 million AR-15-style rifles currently exist in the United States.

So what are the murder rates between the number of AR-15s and other weapons? Are there more kills for every 3.5 million machetes, for instance? Just wondering, since they have only given half a statistic here, it would be interesting to see the breakdown. Maybe .22 automatics are the REAL killers, who knows?


The murder rate of rifles vs. handguns, you say? Why, the FBI has statistics on that right on their website! I'm guessing the amount of deaths by AR-15s in a given year is, oh, well under 1 percent.

The number of deaths by things like Saturday Night Special .22LRs in the hood is probably quite significant, though.

i.imgur.com

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-t h e-u.s.-2011/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-8
Link
 
2013-01-03 12:52:59 PM  

SacriliciousBeerSwiller: you have pee hands: kombat_unit: Here is an excellent article explaining why 2A ain't about "Bambi and burglars" Link

If by "excellent" you mean "laughably naive masturbatory fantasy", than sure.  Disorganized rabble with AR-15s is no more of a threat to the authoritarian government takeover strawman than disorganized rabble with M1 Garands or 30-06 deer rifles.  Let's see someone try to take out an A-10, an F-18, or an Abrams with one.  And I'd bet that same guy didn't have the same outrage over warrentless wiretapping, unlimited detention without trial, and various other abuses of power by the US Government that are actually real.

This, that that and that.

People making the "defense from the government" argument are idiots, unless they go all the way and argue they should also have equal access to ALL modern arms. "Arms" is not limited to "guns". If it is, then the entire spirit of the 2nd Amendment is rendered obsolete by modern reality, and the pro-gun crowd making that distinction are thus undermining their own cause.


Why shouldn't I be able to have what Uncle Sam has?
 
2013-01-03 12:53:25 PM  

TheOther: If isn't really about disarming Americans, but about restricting access to military-grade weapons, then for every assault rifle the government 'confiscates', let the government supply either a hunting rifle or shotgun (sporting or home defense - owner's choice).


Yes ,because the government would never encroach citizens' rights for no good reason whatsoever.
 
2013-01-03 12:53:30 PM  
 
2013-01-03 12:53:40 PM  

Mikey1969: So what are the murder rates between the number of AR-15s and other weapons?


An upper limit is less than 3% of homicides; all rifles (of which AR-15 rifles are a smaller subset) were used to commit fewer than 3% of homicides in 2011. More homicides in that year were committed with unarmed attacks.
 
2013-01-03 12:53:40 PM  
I'm glad that an article written by someone with absolutely no training in the topic has informed me of what is and is not effective for self defense.
 
2013-01-03 12:53:42 PM  

Dimensio: People_are_Idiots: CPT Ethanolic: Article say .223 or AR-15?  I thought AR-15s were .556?

Military AR-15 & M-16 is 5.56 mm and .223 (usually used in training). The cilivian AR-15 is .223 only. M-16 is capable of up to full auto, AR-15 is semi-auto (even though it can be modded to full).

Most, if not all, civilian-marketed AR-15 rifles are built to tolerate 5.56x45mm NATO ammunition. In fact, many civilian-marketed rifles sold as being chambered in the .223 Remington caliber will tolerate 5.56x45mm NATO.


You can get "milspec" rifles, and they're more expensive, but the gun shop guys tell me there's no real difference.
 
2013-01-03 12:54:21 PM  

JesseL: Here's an article on the subject by someone who actually knows a thing or two about guns:
http://backwoodshome.com/blogs/MassadAyoob/2012/12/29/why-good-peopl e- need-semiautomatic-firearms-and-high-capacity-magazines-part-i/


My dad went to HS with him. A few years back he mentioned to me that Mas was interested in firearms then, too, but if it was today they'd have thrown him in jail indefinitely.
 
2013-01-03 12:54:22 PM  

LasersHurt: So you're sticking with "there is no such thing, and it doesn't matter." ?


No such thing as what? A journalist who can define "military-style"?
 
2013-01-03 12:54:38 PM  

HairBolus: cr7pilot: I own an AR-15. I'm not a survivalist or a gun nut or a hunter. I'm a guy who enjoys going out in the desert and shooting assorted targets for fun.

Do you actually bring targets that you shoot or do you like to pour lead into the vegetation.

In many desert areas one can find cactus, which takes a long time to grow, destroyed or full of bullet holes. I recall reading about a problem in Colorado Springs where gun owners don't like to pay for going to shooting ranges but instead go out into public woods and shoot the shiat out of trees, leaving some areas with them largely destroyed.

Sure, people with single shot guns will also shoot at trees, but they are a good bit less effective decimating the local vegetation. And no, the argument that "it will grow back" really doesn't hold water.


Wah wah wah. Some plants were damaged by people having a good time.
 
2013-01-03 12:54:49 PM  

The Lone Gunman:  big issue is that the Bushmaster is the weapon of choice in these mass killings. Yes, I realize that one could use a sharpened toothbrush to kill large numbers of people somehow, but that's not what these people use.


but the Connecticut shooter had two semi-auto hand guns and which in the context of the shooting would probably more dangerous weapons than the AR-15. He probably chose it because of it's "cool" military styling but don't fool yourself into thinking that banning it would have prevented the shooter or seriously inconvenienced him. Once rights are taken away it's notoriously hard to get them back and it would be a shame to lose rights over a knee jerk reaction.
 
2013-01-03 12:54:57 PM  

dr-shotgun: I'm glad that an article written by someone with absolutely no training in the topic has informed me of what is and is not effective for self defense.


Or as we like to call them, journalists.
 
2013-01-03 12:55:01 PM  

LasersHurt: gregory311: LasersHurt: gregory311: I'm sure I could do some serious damage with my 300 ultramag, but no one seems interested in taking this away from me.

(Not mine, but similar in nature)

[i205.photobucket.com image 598x307]

Guess it's not 'military looking enough'.

Don't be ridiculous. Of course you can pick out any weapon you like and say "I can still kill with it." That's not a point.

Actually, it is. I think you are missing the point. Bullshiat artists like the author of this article specifically pick out, as you say, "any weapon they like" and follow with pointless commentary without considering the ramifications of other weaponry. If you don't want people to own them, then you don't. But don't fark around and pick out a military-style rifle because its easier than doing research.

See, it's easier for suckers to believe all the shiat they see or read when they immediately recognize stuff they see on TV and in films. If I put my SKS side by side with my UltraMag and asked Jennie Sixpack which one should be handled differently, she'd pick the SKS. Despite the fact that, as I said, I'd probably be able to do more damage with the non-scary looking rifle.

Get it?

Is it your claim that there is no way to restrict deadlier weapons? Or that there are no deadlier weapons at all?

If it's neither, then you're missing the point - the point is to reduce the impact of those deadlier weapons. Work from that standpoint, and you can better understand the intent of these people, then maybe help better define the issue.

I suspect, however, that your opinion would be "I do not support any further controls of any kind."


Perhaps you need to get your reading skills together. Go back and try reading my post again.

AR-15s, AK-47s, and SKSs are no deadlier than any other weapon in the hands of someone who knows how to use them, but some sure do look a lot scarier than others. That was the intent of the article.

But nice of you to try to divert the conversation with more bullshiat about my stance on firearms and gun control, which I never even brought up.

Perhaps you might ask me.
 
2013-01-03 12:55:10 PM  

david_gaithersburg: Delectatio Morosa: I think we should start banning everything we think other people "don't need." Who wants to go first?

.
Smartphones, those things make people walk in front of moving trains.


How about requiring things that people do "need"? Like belts for those morans with saggy pants. Or shirts for the fat hairy guys at the beach.
 
2013-01-03 12:56:05 PM  

T.M.S.: " ...able to penetrate both sides of a standard Army helmet at 500 meters rifle..."

With or without a head inside?

And why are we creating guns designed to shoot through our own soldiers helmets?


Helmets were never designed to stop rifle rounds, but instead as protection from large pieces of (relatively) low-velocity shrapnel. They started being issued in WW1 as a defense to artillery shells exploding over the trenches. They're meant to keep your brainbucket intact from the immediate damages of things like grenades.

Other pieces of interesting trivial:
Standard-issue bulletproof vests by themselves will (probably) stop a round from a handgun or the aforementioned grenade, but not a rifle round. To stop that, you slip in ceramic inserts. Ceramic and Kevlar being a fairly good insulator, this creates an effect not unlike wearing a pizza oven. I've cooked MRE's before by sticking them in a pocket on the inside of my vest.
Also, some units have occasionally disregarded the wearing of helmets altogether in favor of regular camouflage hats. The reasoning behind this being that the things make it harder to hear things.
 
2013-01-03 12:56:16 PM  

Kit Fister: As to not seeing it happen with cars...how many people died in the last month/year due to drunk drivers? I seem to recall quite a few cases involving DUIs and/or texting where a driver killed or caused an accident that killed lots of people at a time. But yeah, that's totally not the same thing, right?


Cars are a necessary component of our current civilization, assault rifles in the hands of citizens are not. Cars are not designed to kill people and have numerous legitimate uses. Assault rifles were designed specifically to kill people and are not a particularly good tool for much else.
 
2013-01-03 12:56:25 PM  

you have pee hands: kombat_unit: Here is an excellent article explaining why 2A ain't about "Bambi and burglars" Link

If by "excellent" you mean "laughably naive masturbatory fantasy", than sure.  Disorganized rabble with AR-15s is no more of a threat to the authoritarian government takeover strawman than disorganized rabble with M1 Garands or 30-06 deer rifles.  Let's see someone try to take out an A-10, an F-18, or an Abrams with one.  And I'd bet that same guy didn't have the same outrage over warrentless wiretapping, unlimited detention without trial, and various other abuses of power by the US Government that are actually real.


If we're so helpless against governments, why is it that dictators bother to disarm their citizens in the first place? And if they're so delusional, why have so many been so successful using the very same strategy every single time?
 
2013-01-03 12:56:26 PM  

SacriliciousBeerSwiller: you have pee hands: kombat_unit: Here is an excellent article explaining why 2A ain't about "Bambi and burglars" Link

If by "excellent" you mean "laughably naive masturbatory fantasy", than sure.  Disorganized rabble with AR-15s is no more of a threat to the authoritarian government takeover strawman than disorganized rabble with M1 Garands or 30-06 deer rifles.  Let's see someone try to take out an A-10, an F-18, or an Abrams with one.  And I'd bet that same guy didn't have the same outrage over warrentless wiretapping, unlimited detention without trial, and various other abuses of power by the US Government that are actually real.

This, that that and that.

People making the "defense from the government" argument are idiots, unless they go all the way and argue they should also have equal access to ALL modern arms. "Arms" is not limited to "guns". If it is, then the entire spirit of the 2nd Amendment is rendered obsolete by modern reality, and the pro-gun crowd making that distinction are thus undermining their own cause.


To expand on that, there are really two choices:
Either
1) the 2nd Amendment is about "bambi and burglars", and thus it is perfectly reasonable to put a limits/controls on the types of guns available, or
2) the 2nd Amendment is about maintaining the ability to fight the government, which breaks down into 2 sub-choices...
2a: eliminate ALL restrictions on ALL weaponry or
2b: the entire Amendment is outdated and irrelevant and was effectively undone long ago by reality
 
2013-01-03 12:56:52 PM  

vygramul: Dimensio: People_are_Idiots: CPT Ethanolic: Article say .223 or AR-15?  I thought AR-15s were .556?

Military AR-15 & M-16 is 5.56 mm and .223 (usually used in training). The cilivian AR-15 is .223 only. M-16 is capable of up to full auto, AR-15 is semi-auto (even though it can be modded to full).

Most, if not all, civilian-marketed AR-15 rifles are built to tolerate 5.56x45mm NATO ammunition. In fact, many civilian-marketed rifles sold as being chambered in the .223 Remington caliber will tolerate 5.56x45mm NATO.

You can get "milspec" rifles, and they're more expensive, but the gun shop guys tell me there's no real difference.


In 2009 I purchased an AR-15 pattern rifle manufactured by DPMS for less than $800. It was advertised as being chambered in 5.56x45mm NATO. "Milspec" was not featured in the product description.

/Have never shot anything other than .22LR out of it.
 
2013-01-03 12:57:01 PM  

Karac: T.M.S.: " ...able to penetrate both sides of a standard Army helmet at 500 meters rifle..."

With or without a head inside?

And why are we creating guns designed to shoot through our own soldiers helmets?

Helmets were never designed to stop rifle rounds, but instead as protection from large pieces of (relatively) low-velocity shrapnel. They started being issued in WW1 as a defense to artillery shells exploding over the trenches. They're meant to keep your brainbucket intact from the immediate damages of things like grenades.

Other pieces of interesting trivial:
Standard-issue bulletproof vests by themselves will (probably) stop a round from a handgun or the aforementioned grenade, but not a rifle round. To stop that, you slip in ceramic inserts. Ceramic and Kevlar being a fairly good insulator, this creates an effect not unlike wearing a pizza oven. I've cooked MRE's before by sticking them in a pocket on the inside of my vest.
Also, some units have occasionally disregarded the wearing of helmets altogether in favor of regular camouflage hats. The reasoning behind this being that the things make it harder to hear things.


I learned that trick from Uncle Enzo in Snow Crash.
 
2013-01-03 12:57:11 PM  
You always hear the argument that no one needs a gun whose sole design and purpose is to "kill people" stated as a fact.

Is there never a legitimate, or dare I say even a moral, reason for one human being to kill another? Just admit it. This is a weapon designed to kill people, and that is not a "good" or "bad" thing, it is what it is.

Now, argue over whether a person ever has a legitimate reason to kill another person.
 
2013-01-03 12:57:13 PM  
gregory311:

This article in particular just happens to be about one kind of rifle, but that kind is in the news because of its connection to recent shootings and a potential Assault Rifle ban being legislated. I'm trying to keep it in the context of reality, since looking at this article in a vacuum would be silly.
 
2013-01-03 12:57:20 PM  

gregory311: ut nice of you to try to divert the conversation with more bullshiat about my stance on firearms and gun control, which I never even brought up.

Perhaps you might ask me.


This is an issue where, if you're not in full lock-step with one side or the other, you're dismissed as either a "gun-grabber" or "gun-nut".  Only blind adherence to the extremes is allowed.
 
2013-01-03 12:57:21 PM  

NFA: Well, since the AR15 (semi-auto version of the M16) isn't useful for hunting or defense, I suppose our military will abandon it immediately?  I mean if it's useless for hunting, then you couldn't possibly go out in the field and hunt 200 lb humans in the Jungle or anywhere else, Right?  Or if it's useless for defense they will start using something else to protect themselves?  Defense forces around the world use the full auto version of the AR-15 as a standard of protection.  Will this be going away because some clueless writer thinks the firearm doesn't have merit?


I realize you are either a troll or completely self-deluded, but what you describe, engaging *ENEMIES* in combat, is NOT the same as hunting animals out in the woods. Anyone who equates the two is seriously deranged.

Second, the article pointed out that the AR-15 is not ideal for *HOME* defense. Again, NOT the same thing as defending yourself from enemies in a warzone.

Take your gun-nut survivalist ass to Montana and hide away there for 40 years, and rid us of your stupidity.
 
2013-01-03 12:57:25 PM  
Let's talk about the purpose of the 2nd amendment.

"The 2nd Amendment is the last form of defense against tyranny."

--Ice T.

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government."

--Thomas Jefferson

With the correct purpose of the 2nd Amendment in mind, who needs access to an AR-15?

The free citizens of the United States.
 
2013-01-03 12:57:31 PM  

BarkingUnicorn: cr7pilot: CPT Ethanolic: cr7pilot: I own an AR-15. I'm not a survivalist or a gun nut or a hunter. I'm a guy who enjoys going out in the desert and shooting assorted targets for fun. It's really that simple. If you like shooting as a sport, the AR-15 is a lot of fun to shoot. I understand that some people don't like shooting as a sport and think "why do you need that kind of gun" but that's just because it's not their thing. AR-15 owners don't buy AR-15s because they have some inherent desire to have more "killing power."

 This is me as well.  I own some hand guns (one .45 and two 9mms) for "home defense" but I also just enjoy shooting.  I've been considering getting an AR15 for a while now.  Used to own an AK-47 and, although the ammo is damned expensive, they're fun to shoot.

Me too. I've got a .380 and a 9mm, but the AR-15 is fun to shoot on a long range. It's also handy for disposing of those leftover Halloween pumpkins...

It's good to see people admit that this hoopla is really about their 2nd Amendment right to have "fun."



The whole point of a *right* is that it exists independent of whether or not other people approve.

Similar arguments could be made about the 1st: since neo-Nazis and KKK members use their freedom of speech in ways you find objectionable, maybe we should just curtail it a little bit...
 
2013-01-03 12:57:31 PM  

topcon: Being that only a few hundred people died in 2011 of rifles, how many do you think of those were even AR-15's?

I'm guessing sub 30, if not less than 20.


well in 2012, 26 at Newtown and 12 in Aurora (58 wounded).
 
2013-01-03 12:57:35 PM  
And no surprise, it is by someone who does not own guns and is misinformed. In fact, an AR-15 variant is quite good for home defense. In a realistic home defense scenario, you are not going to go madly running room to room trying to clear it like an action hero. You can going to hunker down. A rifle or shotgun works just fine for that. Now in terms of the AR-15 itself, it is good at home defense because of its round. .223/5.56 has a few highly desirable properties:

1) It is extremely effective, far more than pistol rounds. At ranges under 100 meters it is very lethal because a good BTHP round is going so fast it fragments on impact, causing a lot of damage.

2) It is lousy at barrier penetration. That same high velocity and penchant for fragmentation means that if it hits glass or drywall, it likewise fragments and quickly loses all its energy. So a miss does not over penetrate very much, as opposed to 12ga 00-buck which can penetrate many layers of drywall and still maintain lethal force.

3) It has low recoil, making it easy to fire multiple rounds or switch targets as needed.

It really is a very good choice. It isn't the One True Way(tm) or anything but it is a very good choice for home defense. You might notice that SWAT teams like to use weapons that fire .223/5.56 rounds, often AR variants (usually with shorter barrels than are easy for civilians to own) for indoor operations. The reasons they use them are the same reasons it makes a good defense weapon.

Seriously, this dislike of the AR-15 is silly. People don't like it because it looks "military" or "scary". You can get the same basic function and lethality out of other weapons. The Remington 750 would be a good example. Semi-automatic, gas operated, box magazine fed rifle available in carbine lengths. Only difference is it shoots larger rounds and that it looks like a "hunting" rifle rather than a "military" rifle. The 750 chambered in .308 Winchester is very functionally equivilant to a SIG716 yet people will call hue and cry on the 716, but be ok with the 750.

If we want to restrict things based on what they do, ok that's a real argument, but let's stop crying because something looks scary.
 
2013-01-03 12:57:45 PM  

SacriliciousBeerSwiller: SacriliciousBeerSwiller: you have pee hands: kombat_unit: Here is an excellent article explaining why 2A ain't about "Bambi and burglars" Link

If by "excellent" you mean "laughably naive masturbatory fantasy", than sure.  Disorganized rabble with AR-15s is no more of a threat to the authoritarian government takeover strawman than disorganized rabble with M1 Garands or 30-06 deer rifles.  Let's see someone try to take out an A-10, an F-18, or an Abrams with one.  And I'd bet that same guy didn't have the same outrage over warrentless wiretapping, unlimited detention without trial, and various other abuses of power by the US Government that are actually real.

This, that that and that.

People making the "defense from the government" argument are idiots, unless they go all the way and argue they should also have equal access to ALL modern arms. "Arms" is not limited to "guns". If it is, then the entire spirit of the 2nd Amendment is rendered obsolete by modern reality, and the pro-gun crowd making that distinction are thus undermining their own cause.

To expand on that, there are really two choices:
Either
1) the 2nd Amendment is about "bambi and burglars", and thus it is perfectly reasonable to put a limits/controls on the types of guns available, or
2) the 2nd Amendment is about maintaining the ability to fight the government, which breaks down into 2 sub-choices...
2a: eliminate ALL restrictions on ALL weaponry or
2b: the entire Amendment is outdated and irrelevant and was effectively undone long ago by reality


I'll go with 2a. Why shouldn't I be able to have it all?
 
2013-01-03 12:57:48 PM  
Rather own my AR-15 than my neighbors goofy looking Prius. Then again I'm not trying to take away his car because is scares me and I dont like it
 
2013-01-03 12:57:51 PM  

stiletto_the_wise: LasersHurt: So you're sticking with "there is no such thing, and it doesn't matter." ?

No such thing as what? A journalist who can define "military-style"?


Nor apparently any gun owners who can define it either.
 
2013-01-03 12:58:03 PM  

scottydoesntknow: We've got a huge hog problem at our deer lease .



I'm sure the fact that most Texas "hunters" have a deer feeder set with a timer to spew corn every hour or so has nothing to do with the hog problem.
That's not hunting, it's shooting.
 
2013-01-03 12:58:19 PM  

SacriliciousBeerSwiller: SacriliciousBeerSwiller: you have pee hands: kombat_unit: Here is an excellent article explaining why 2A ain't about "Bambi and burglars" Link

If by "excellent" you mean "laughably naive masturbatory fantasy", than sure.  Disorganized rabble with AR-15s is no more of a threat to the authoritarian government takeover strawman than disorganized rabble with M1 Garands or 30-06 deer rifles.  Let's see someone try to take out an A-10, an F-18, or an Abrams with one.  And I'd bet that same guy didn't have the same outrage over warrentless wiretapping, unlimited detention without trial, and various other abuses of power by the US Government that are actually real.

This, that that and that.

People making the "defense from the government" argument are idiots, unless they go all the way and argue they should also have equal access to ALL modern arms. "Arms" is not limited to "guns". If it is, then the entire spirit of the 2nd Amendment is rendered obsolete by modern reality, and the pro-gun crowd making that distinction are thus undermining their own cause.

To expand on that, there are really two choices:
Either
1) the 2nd Amendment is about "bambi and burglars", and thus it is perfectly reasonable to put a limits/controls on the types of guns available, or
2) the 2nd Amendment is about maintaining the ability to fight the government, which breaks down into 2 sub-choices...
2a: eliminate ALL restrictions on ALL weaponry or
2b: the entire Amendment is outdated and irrelevant and was effectively undone long ago by reality


OR...
2) it really is limited to a well regulated militia.
 
2013-01-03 12:58:25 PM  

kqc7011: Got this with a simple search.
The following is a list of some of the calibers that the AR-15 can use,

Without bolt modification
.17 Remington
.17/223
.20 Tactical
.20 Practical
.20 Vartag
.204 Ruger
.221 Fireball
.222 Remington
.222 Remington Magnum
.223 Remington (5.56x45mm)
.223 Remington Ackley Improved
6x45mm
6mm TCU
6x47mm
6mm Whisper
.25x45mm
6.5mm Whisper
7mm Whisper
7mm TCU
.300 Whisper (.300/221, .300 Fireball)
.338 Whisper

AR-15, with bolt modification
223 WSSM
5.45x39mm (.21 Genghis)
243 WSSM
6mm PPC
6mm WOA
6mm BR Remington
6mm Hagar
6.5mm PPC
6.5 WSSM
6.5 WOA
6.5mm Grendel
25 WSSM
6.8x43mm SPC
.30 Herrett Rimless Tactical (6.8x43mm case trimmed to 41mm and necked up to .308; the 6.8mm version of the .300 Whisper)
7.62x25
7.62x39mm
.30 RAR
300 OSSM
.357 Auto
.35 Gremlin (necked up 6.5 Grendel to 358)
.358 WSSM (various names, but all are some form of a WSSM necked up to 35 caliber, some are shortened to make them big game legal in Indiana)
.458 SOCOM
.50 Action Express
.50 Beowulf

AR-15 using a simple blowback operation
.17 HMR
.22 LR
.22 WMR
9x19mm
9x21
9x23
30 Carbine
357 Sig
40S&W
400 Cor-Bon
41 Action Express
10mm Auto
45 GAP
45ACP
45 Super
45 Win Mag

This list is in no way complete.

Story seems to be done by someone who has no clue but a agenda.


TFA mentioned the modularity (is that even a word?) of the AR platform but completely neglected the fact that you can easily swap calibers. That's what makes the AR so wonderful. I currently have an 5.56 AR with a 20" HBAR that I use for target shooting as well as coyote and groundhog hunting. If it were legal here in VA to hunt deer with it I would use it and only take headshots. The .223/5.56 round is hugely popular with subsistence hunters in AK and similar areas because the rounds are relatively cheap and you can carry more of them than you can larger rounds. Plus the low recoil and relatively flat trajectory make them viable for head shooting elk, reindeer, moose, etc so that you don't waste any meat. I'm currently saving for an upper in 6.8SPC for deer hunting. It weighs less than my other hunting rifle and I won't be hurting nice looking wood and steel when the weather is nasty,

TFA also didn't research beyond barfcom about terminal ballistics. If he had he would know that a 5.56 is actually a good round for home use because it is relatively easy to find rounds that will not over penetrate. He mentions fragmenting rounds very briefly but only after he lambasts the option.
Also, if "an AR-15-style rifle is probably less useful than a handgun. The AR-15 is a long gun, and can be tough to maneuver in tight quarters" were true then SWAT and military units would not use them to clear buildings. Long guns are damn near inherently more accurate (from the user point of view) due to the longer sight radius, ease of mounting optics and lights to aid in target acquisition, as well as the lower recoil of the 5.56/223 round.
 
2013-01-03 12:58:26 PM  
The only reason I own 5 AR-15s NIB and 5 AKs is for resale only. They have never been fired by me, and are only going up in value. Everything is safely put up for a rainy day should I ever need to sell them, kinda like collecting gold coins for some people.
 
2013-01-03 12:58:35 PM  

scottydoesntknow:

...about 5 minutes later we heard about 20 shots in a row. The guy with the AR radios us and tells us to come to his blind. He's got around 10 hogs on the ground, all dead. Said the first shot actually got 3 of them (they lined up perfectly), then about 5 minutes later a whole drove of them come to his blind and he just opened up on them.

Yea it's an anecdotal CSB, but I have seen their uses beyond just murder machines.


Murder is a fancy way of differentiating your target. The gun performed exactly as it was intended....we just need to come to grips with the notion that with this tool, we have to power to kill lots of targets quickly.

/Love to shoot my Enfield 2A1
//.308 NATO rounds are a bit too pricey these days....I miss the cheap "battle packs" at the gun shows, 160 or 240 rounds for $20 or $30...
 
2013-01-03 12:58:43 PM  

david_gaithersburg: Perhaps the first amendment should be tightly regulated too. He way not apply the mental evaluation to it and put Fark our of business.


The first amendment makes no mention of regulation. The second amendment does.

BraveNewCheneyWorld: If "the people" can own guns, how do you justify denying them to me? Am I not a person?


See above.
Not every moron in this country gets to own a gun, and nor should every kind of gun be available to the general public. There really isn't an argument here.
 
2013-01-03 12:58:49 PM  
Article is rubbish with the intent to give a biased perspective. I have hunted smaller game with no issues with an AR-15 style weapon and for larger game I use my H&K G3A3 with no issues.

I'm in Federal law enforcement and know from experience that more often in today's climate of home invasions it's becoming more of a common occurrence that a pistol is not the right tool for the job when those doing the invasions are wearing body armor.

I know my go to weapon if anyone was to hit my house would be my civilian equivalent of an M-4. It will penetrate body armor and it's the weapon I'm most comfortable with due to my time in the military, even while on duty I prefer an M-4 over a pistol.

Now if I had neighbors that were of closer proximity I would choose a weapon with less penetrating power but that's because I'm a responsible law abiding gun owner, which I'd say that over 99% of those that own and use such scary weapons are.
 
2013-01-03 12:59:03 PM  

SacriliciousBeerSwiller: SacriliciousBeerSwiller: SacriliciousBeerSwiller: you have pee hands: kombat_unit: Here is an excellent article explaining why 2A ain't about "Bambi and burglars" Link

If by "excellent" you mean "laughably naive masturbatory fantasy", than sure.  Disorganized rabble with AR-15s is no more of a threat to the authoritarian government takeover strawman than disorganized rabble with M1 Garands or 30-06 deer rifles.  Let's see someone try to take out an A-10, an F-18, or an Abrams with one.  And I'd bet that same guy didn't have the same outrage over warrentless wiretapping, unlimited detention without trial, and various other abuses of power by the US Government that are actually real.

This, that that and that.

People making the "defense from the government" argument are idiots, unless they go all the way and argue they should also have equal access to ALL modern arms. "Arms" is not limited to "guns". If it is, then the entire spirit of the 2nd Amendment is rendered obsolete by modern reality, and the pro-gun crowd making that distinction are thus undermining their own cause.

To expand on that, there are really two choices:
Either
1) the 2nd Amendment is about "bambi and burglars", and thus it is perfectly reasonable to put a limits/controls on the types of guns available, or
2) the 2nd Amendment is about maintaining the ability to fight the government, which breaks down into 2 sub-choices...
2a: eliminate ALL restrictions on ALL weaponry or
2b: the entire Amendment is outdated and irrelevant and was effectively undone long ago by reality

OR...
2) it really is limited to a well regulated militia.


Isn't the militia any able-bodied adult?
 
2013-01-03 12:59:25 PM  

david_gaithersburg: TheOther: The_Sponge: TheOther: then for every assault rifle the government 'confiscates', let the government supply either a hunting rifle or shotgun (sporting or home defense - owner's choice).

How about no?

Why not?

sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net


---


And look where it got him... :)

In all seriousness, believing that the second amendment is important and believing in regulation of gun ownership are not mutually-exclusive. It says "well-regulated" right there in the amendment.

We don't let people buy fully-automatic weapons willy-nilly. There's no reason to assume that the willy-nilly sale of semi-automatics should be any more permissible or desirable.

I'm not for a ban, but I'd be all for putting semi-autos on a higher tier that required more stringent evaluation for purchase and regulation.of manufacture/sale.

/cue someone pointing out that Oswald used a bolt-action rifle
 
2013-01-03 12:59:35 PM  
I am more terrified of being robbed/attacked with a semi auto nine millimeter than an "assault" weapon. As the article points out, the AR 15 has many flaws--mainly stopping power and maneuverabillity. When people at my office go nuts vehemothly calling a ban on all "assault weapons" because "dey r moar dangarus," it is obvious they have no clue what they are talking about. I have no problem with people expressing their opinion but they sure sound uninformed pretending like hand guns can't kill while "assault" rifles are only for killing. They should they say what they really mean--ban all guns. I'd have more respect for them.
 
2013-01-03 01:00:25 PM  

Sasquach: //.308 NATO rounds are a bit too pricey these days....


CSB:

I was going through some old boxes recently, and found a box of Winchester .308 I had bought back in 2001 or so....20 rounds for $9.99
 
2013-01-03 01:00:30 PM  

Nattering Nabob: I have an AR-15 type rifle. If it would bring back those 20 kids, you can have it. If taking it will keep another 20 alive, you can have it. The problem is, it won't. The Sandy Creek shooter (we should not use their names and give them the satisfaction of knowing they will be famous), had two handguns with him that were perfectly capable of doing the exact same damage in the same amount of time. Take away the rifle and even cut the magazine capacities on the handguns down to 10 and he could have done the same thing in the same amount of time. How long do you think it takes to drop a mag out of a handgun and pop in another while kids are cowering in closets? We like to believe we can fix all problems if we just pass a smart law. You may have noticed that is not working out so well for us.


Part of California's firearms restrictions are that a magazine is no longer considered "detachable" if it requires a tool to be removed. If firearms were modified to take ten seconds with an allen wrench to switch mags, combined with a limit on capacity, I think that would go a long way to minimizing the damage from lone crazies, while still retaining use of the weapons for defensive purposes.
 
2013-01-03 01:00:38 PM  

boogie_down: You always hear the argument that no one needs a gun whose sole design and purpose is to "kill people" stated as a fact.

Is there never a legitimate, or dare I say even a moral, reason for one human being to kill another? Just admit it. This is a weapon designed to kill people, and that is not a "good" or "bad" thing, it is what it is.

Now, argue over whether a person ever has a legitimate reason to kill another person.


Of the thousands of these rifle sold to the public how many have been used to kill anybody?

/would bet that the vast majority are used for target shooting
//the "guns are only for killing" argument is disengenuous
 
2013-01-03 01:00:46 PM  

SacriliciousBeerSwiller: To expand on that, there are really two choices:
Either
1) the 2nd Amendment is about "bambi and burglars", and thus it is perfectly reasonable to put a limits/controls on the types of guns available, or
2) the 2nd Amendment is about maintaining the ability to fight the government, which breaks down into 2 sub-choices...
2a: eliminate ALL restrictions on ALL weaponry or
2b: the entire Amendment is outdated and irrelevant and was effectively undone long ago by reality


Or as recent insurgencies have proven, some dedicated dudes with basic weaponry, moderate knowledge of IEDs, and willingness to die can gum up the works of the most powerful Army in the world. Thus as long as the government allows equipment of a certain effectiveness to remain in civilian hands, the 2nd still works.

That said there are of course even more effective ways to address government power abuses without going all crazy militia. However to argue that it is a binary choice in terms of weapons is not correct.

/Hypothetically speaking you don't have to fight the entire military, just put two rounds in the skull of the guy who declares himself dictator for life
 
2013-01-03 01:00:47 PM  

jbuist: NATO


5.56 NATO (millimeters) and .223 Remington (inches) have exactly the same outside dimensions. Either round will fit in a rifle marked 5.56 or .223

The NATO round generally has more brass in it and a stronger charge so it generates higher gas pressure than the .223

As a result, you can shoot .223 Remington in either rifle but you should only put 5.56 in a rifle marked 5.56. It's built to handle the higher pressures (one hopes).

You'll run into people who say "Ah, it's no big deal. Go ahead. I do it all the time." I wouldn't take their advice.
 
2013-01-03 01:01:39 PM  

technicolor-misfit: I'm not for a ban, but I'd be all for putting semi-autos on a higher tier that required more stringent evaluation for purchase and regulation.of manufacture/sale.


The NRA will oppose it because they oppose all restrictions and gun control advocates will oppose it because they oppose allowing any civilian to posses such firearms.
 
2013-01-03 01:01:45 PM  

Arkanaut: Both those weapons are slower-firing and shorter-ranged than AR-15's.


Huh. Seems to me the asshole who used a .22 LR rifle and a shotgun to go on a killing spree in the UK back in 2010 wasn't significantly inconvenienced by his lack of access to an AR-15.

Another thing to consider is that on a per-shot basis, when used within its range limitations, the 12 gauge shotgun is far more lethal than the AR-15.
 
2013-01-03 01:01:55 PM  

ElBarto79: Kit Fister: As to not seeing it happen with cars...how many people died in the last month/year due to drunk drivers? I seem to recall quite a few cases involving DUIs and/or texting where a driver killed or caused an accident that killed lots of people at a time. But yeah, that's totally not the same thing, right?

Cars are a necessary component of our current civilization, assault rifles in the hands of citizens are not. Cars are not designed to kill people and have numerous legitimate uses. Assault rifles were designed specifically to kill people and are not a particularly good tool for much else.


We're not talking about assault rifles, we're talking about semi-automatics. There's a motherfarking difference and if you can't be bothered to understand it then you need to STFU and go sit at the kids table.

Secondly, killing people is a perfectly legitimate thing to do under some circumstances. If the police find an AR-15 to be an appropriate tool to use in keeping the peace and defending innocents, why shouldn't any other citizen who hasn't lost the right to do so via due process?
 
2013-01-03 01:02:32 PM  

WildManBand: They should they say what they really mean--ban all guns. I'd have more respect for them.


Even a convicted felon can carry 4 (count 'em, four) colt .45 Navy pistols in side holsters and shoulder holsters open legally.
that's 24 rounds fast, if you fan them.
 
2013-01-03 01:02:35 PM  
While it isn't an AR-15, I've found that an amazing target shooter is an SKS with a scope. After a couple thousand rounds, I have yet to have it jam on me. Loading the clips, with the scope, however isn't all that fun.
dixietriggers.com
/similar, not mine

A 10/22 with an aftermarket 50-round mag . . . good luck getting 10 rounds through without a jam. The OEM magazine works well though.
www.survival-gear-guide.com
/similar, but also not mine.
 
2013-01-03 01:02:53 PM  

BgJonson79: Isn't the militia any able-bodied adult?


Yes, and able-bodied implies able-minded.
 
2013-01-03 01:03:03 PM  

cr7pilot: I own an AR-15. I'm not a survivalist or a gun nut or a hunter. I'm a guy who enjoys going out in the desert and shooting assorted targets for fun. It's really that simple. If you like shooting as a sport, the AR-15 is a lot of fun to shoot. I understand that some people don't like shooting as a sport and think "why do you need that kind of gun" but that's just because it's not their thing. AR-15 owners don't buy AR-15s because they have some inherent desire to have more "killing power.".


So, an AR-15 is attractive the same sort of douche that would buy a Corvette. Or a Hummer.

Got it.
 
2013-01-03 01:03:17 PM  

Dimensio: technicolor-misfit: I'm not for a ban, but I'd be all for putting semi-autos on a higher tier that required more stringent evaluation for purchase and regulation.of manufacture/sale.

The NRA will oppose it because they oppose all restrictions and gun control advocates will oppose it because they oppose allowing any civilian to posses such firearms.


That's ridiculous, and you should be ashamed to have said it. I advocate for "gun control," but not "gun banning."
 
2013-01-03 01:03:42 PM  

dropdfun: Now if I had neighbors that were of closer proximity I would choose a weapon with less penetrating power but that's because I'm a responsible law abiding gun owner, which I'd say that over 99% of those that own and use such scary weapons are.


Bingo!

I own an AR and live in a condo, and my home defense firearm is definitely not a rifle.
 
2013-01-03 01:03:53 PM  
0-media-cdn.foolz.us
 
2013-01-03 01:03:57 PM  

SacriliciousBeerSwiller: To expand on that, there are really two choices:
Either
1) the 2nd Amendment is about "bambi and burglars", and thus it is perfectly reasonable to put a limits/controls on the types of guns available, or
2) the 2nd Amendment is about maintaining the ability to fight the government, which breaks down into 2 sub-choices...
2a: eliminate ALL restrictions on ALL weaponry or
2b: the entire Amendment is outdated and irrelevant and was effectively undone long ago by reality


You could do all that creativity, or you could just read the amendment. Funny how nobody seems to be putting so much editorial effort into the first amendment:

"Hmm... ya think the first amedment was supposed to only protect journalists using ink on paper? Or maybe it was supposed to protect journalsts using typewriters too... It protects every citizen? Wow, that's one interpretation I guess! Maybe it protects political speech only... If it protects all speech, then logically you must allow kiddie porn, so that couldn't be it. OH GOD HOW CAN WE KNOW WHAT THE FOUNDING FATHERS REALLY MEANT???"
 
2013-01-03 01:03:59 PM  

Thunderpipes: technicolor-misfit: Teknowaffle: Fat white men who were rejected from too chickenshiat to join the military?


Let's be honest, we're talking about the most terrified people on the planet... people who like to fantasize about carrying around big bad-ass looking weapons to strike an imposing figure precisely because the reality of themselves is so very different.

Practically every gun nut I know is either a doughy nerd who's still nursing grudges about being a bullied outcast in school or a paranoid who obsesses about unrealistic threats they imagine lurking around every corner.

These are NOT Steve Rogers-types eager to rush into the fray of battle to test their mettle and unfortunately held back by physical misfortune. These are LARPers who want to play dress up as far away from the field of actual battle as possible.

You are a liberal, you don't know any gun nuts. You fantasize about them.



I was born and raised in Alabama, dumbshiat.
 
2013-01-03 01:04:02 PM  

ElBarto79: Kit Fister: As to not seeing it happen with cars...how many people died in the last month/year due to drunk drivers? I seem to recall quite a few cases involving DUIs and/or texting where a driver killed or caused an accident that killed lots of people at a time. But yeah, that's totally not the same thing, right?

Cars are a necessary component of our current civilization, assault rifles in the hands of citizens are not. Cars are not designed to kill people and have numerous legitimate uses. Assault rifles were designed specifically to kill people and are not a particularly good tool for much else.


No they are not. Liberals demand we all use public transportation, because cars are evil.
 
2013-01-03 01:04:31 PM  

Kit Fister: abhorrent1: the AR-15 Is Useful for Hunting and Home Defense. Not Exactly.

BS. The kid on (I think it's called) Yukon Men, uses an AR to hunt. He got a caribou and a bear with it on the few episodes I've seen.

Another thing I find amusing is the caricature that hunters using an AR and army surplus gear when they hunt are somehow different than more traditional hunters. I'm sorry, since when did I have to fill your Fudd-esque image of what a hunter is to be a hunter? Am i out to kill an animal? Am I going to do so in a safe, humane way? Well then, shut the hell up, I'll wear a goddamn clown suit if it pleases me.


At least you would be less likely to get shot by accident by another hunter if you were wearing the clown suit.
 
2013-01-03 01:05:03 PM  

H31N0US: BgJonson79: Isn't the militia any able-bodied adult?

Yes, and able-bodied implies able-minded.


Who gets to decide able-minded?
 
2013-01-03 01:05:09 PM  
Drug test people before providing any gun license and retest yearly.
 
2013-01-03 01:05:09 PM  

LasersHurt: Dimensio: technicolor-misfit: I'm not for a ban, but I'd be all for putting semi-autos on a higher tier that required more stringent evaluation for purchase and regulation.of manufacture/sale.

The NRA will oppose it because they oppose all restrictions and gun control advocates will oppose it because they oppose allowing any civilian to posses such firearms.

That's ridiculous, and you should be ashamed to have said it. I advocate for "gun control," but not "gun banning."


LasersHurt: Dimensio: technicolor-misfit: I'm not for a ban, but I'd be all for putting semi-autos on a higher tier that required more stringent evaluation for purchase and regulation.of manufacture/sale.

The NRA will oppose it because they oppose all restrictions and gun control advocates will oppose it because they oppose allowing any civilian to posses such firearms.

That's ridiculous, and you should be ashamed to have said it. I advocate for "gun control," but not "gun banning."


I am referencing publicly prominent advocates, such as those at the Brady Center, those at the Violence Policy Center, those at the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence (which opposes any "violent" use of firearms under any circumstances, including self-defense) and lawmakers such as Senator Dianne Feinstein.
 
2013-01-03 01:05:19 PM  

People_are_Idiots: CPT Ethanolic: Article say .223 or AR-15?  I thought AR-15s were .556?

Military AR-15 & M-16 is 5.56 mm and .223 (usually used in training). The cilivian AR-15 is .223 only. M-16 is capable of up to full auto, AR-15 is semi-auto (even though it can be modded to full).

I think the reason the AR-15 is being used more as a hunting rifle is not because of its accuracy, or ability to drop a deer out of the box... it's the familiarity and customization ability. You can make and AR shoot more than .223, with even one mod going 30-30.


Seriously, if you have no farking idea what you're posting about just don't.
<