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 1354
    More: Interesting, semi-automatic rifle, semiautomatic pistols, federal assault weapons ban, Freedom Group, target shooting, Ayn Rand, car fire, long guns  
•       •       •

34414 clicks; posted to Main » on 03 Jan 2013 at 12:11 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



1354 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | » | Last | Show all
 
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.
 
Displayed 50 of 1354 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report