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.

(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  
•       •       •

34479 clicks; posted to Main » on 03 Jan 2013 at 12:11 PM (3 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 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | » | Newest

 
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.
 
Displayed 50 of 1346 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | » | Newest


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter








In Other Media
  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report