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 1346
    More: Interesting, semi-automatic rifle, semiautomatic pistols, federal assault weapons ban, Freedom Group, target shooting, Ayn Rand, car fire, long guns  
•       •       •

34431 clicks; posted to Main » on 03 Jan 2013 at 12:11 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-01-03 01:53:55 PM  
Those in favor of "banning" military rifles:
I have a Remington 700. Bolt action rifle. Is it a military rifle? Should it be banned?
Have fun with this, FARK.
 
2013-01-03 01:54:17 PM  

rufus-t-firefly: BgJonson79: technicolor-misfit: BgJonson79: 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.


Sure, you can argue about the meaning of "well-regulated" at the time the amendment was written...but then you might have to address the meaning of "arms" at that time. And the fact that they don't say what KIND of arms - perhaps halberds? And the fact that it doesn't say "any and all arms," just "arms." I don't see anyone demanding to end the ban on civilian-owned machine guns and rocket launchers. Why not? WHY DO YOU HATE THE SECOND AMENDMENT?!?!

Let's just stick with the Founders' intention and say everyone has a right to own blunderbusses and muskets - let's throw in flintlock pistols as well.


Actually, in 18th century language, "keep and bear arms" means military weapons of all types, including artillery. The People (as in Senate and People of Rome) were the propertied white men, who retained the right to collectively keep arsenals in order to fight Injuns and slave revolts, because they didn't want to be dependent on/subject to a standing federal army.

Pretty much a moot point, now.
 
2013-01-03 01:54:50 PM  

inner ted: the only reason guys want an ar - or any similar semi auto rifle with high magazine capacity - is to have more power. saying otherwise is just farking bullshiat.


You are correct; obviously, the reason that I use an AR-15 fitted to fire .22LR ammunition is a desire for "more power".
 
2013-01-03 01:54:56 PM  

Spade: lostcat: stiletto_the_wise: lostcat: It makes me sick that I have to worry about my wife and/or daugther being randomly gunned down in the street by some lunatic stranger who is just having a bad day, or doesn't give a shiat about the world.

The chances of that happening are miniscule--less than the chance that both your wife and daughter get struck by lightning at the exact same time.

We're talking orders of magnitude less than their very real chance of being killed in a car accident. I'd pick something better to worry about.

Tell that to the parents of the 20 dead kids...

Awe, appeal to emotion. That's cute.


Emotion...yes...Maybe you should look into it. It's the thing that makes you imagine a bullet entering the cowering back of a terrified six-year-old girl every time you pull the trigger on your COOL GUN TOY!
 
2013-01-03 01:55:18 PM  

vudukungfu: 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.


I forget which Call of Duty game had this quote in it, but I always loved, "Never forget that your weapon was made by the lowest bidder."
 
2013-01-03 01:55:35 PM  

ElBarto79: Personally I would be in favor of banning semi-automatic weapons entirely. Bolt action rifles, pump action shotguns and revolvers and that's it. But banning assault weapons is a good start.


Most revolvers are semi-automatic, and their design allows them to easily fire much more powerful rounds than an auto-loading handgun. A cheap, .38 snub nosed revolver has probably been used in more violent crimes since the 20th century than any other gun (with the possible exception of the .22lr, you know, the one the boy scouts use).

You don't know what you are talking about.
 
2013-01-03 01:55:39 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.


Sounds like that's the very definition of murder machine: 12 dead things in 2 minutes. I'm not crying for the hogs, but that anecdote really isn't making the point you're hoping it'll make.
 
2013-01-03 01:55:45 PM  

Kit Fister: ElBarto79: The_Sponge: ElBarto79: Putting assault rifles in the hands of citizens means that some of them will inevitably use them to kill people. That might be acceptable if assault rifles were necessary for some purpose and they were the best, or only, tool for the job. Cars can be used to kill people, but we need cars to get around, so we legalize them and try to make them as safe as possible.

Assault rifles are dangerous, unnecessary and serve no practical purpose that there are not already better and safer tools available for. Therefore we should ban them as an issue of public safety.


Well f*ck it....let's ban all firearms that are "meant to kill".

Personally I would be in favor of banning semi-automatic weapons entirely. Bolt action rifles, pump action shotguns and revolvers and that's it. But banning assault weapons is a good start.

Move to CA, IL, NY, or WADC and have fun with that. Let the rest of us alone.


I'd be happy to leave gun owners alone if they were capable of leaving the rest of us alone and weren't constantly barging into our public spaces blasting everyone in sight.
 
2013-01-03 01:55:47 PM  

inner ted: 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 also enjoy plinking & have done so with everything from .22 rifles & shotguns to a range of pistols & yes, even the holy grail of plinking - the ar15 - with all the bells and whistles (or should i say lasers and drum magazines)

so i feel qualified enough to say: bullshiat to your claim

the only reason guys want an ar - or any similar semi auto rifle with high magazine capacity - is to have more power. saying otherwise is just farking bullshiat.

if all you liked was the precision, then you could plink with any number of rifles

if all you liked was it's "scary black plastic" parts - as so many d-bags here like to say - then decorate a hunting rifle as needed

but that isn't the point is it? no... what makes it so great is that great big magazine and the ability to fire off that many rounds as fast as you can. (all the black plastic is just a bonus)

as to varmint control - if you can't do it with one of these:
[t3.gstatic.com image 459x110]
then you are doing it wrong
(note: i even included the real "scary" looking one - trying to make my point, but i doubt any will get it)
/hint: its the capacity of the magazine


Because a 22 Long Rifle will work perfectly for coyote and wild hogs, right?
 
2013-01-03 01:56:08 PM  

JesseL: I'd love for someone to define for me in the sort of technical terms suitable for a well-written law exactly what constitutes a "military grade" rifle that is currently available to the general public, and coherently explain what about those features should make it illegal.
Bonus points if you can point to a time when civilians didn't have "military grade" firearms.

.
1039 A.D. Link
 
2013-01-03 01:56:20 PM  

Cymbal: You are being obtuse. If they go down in number by just one/year, I don't know about you, but I'd say it was worth it.


if other crime goes up after, will you concede that it wasn't?
 
2013-01-03 01:56:22 PM  

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


.223 is VERY different from 5.56 NATO

BOTH are the same caliber (.223cal = 5.56mm) but 5.56 has a much greater chamber pressure from powder load and neck spacing.

A .223 marked rifle can have catastrophic failure (read as blow up in your face) if 5.56 is used.

A 5.56 NATO marked rifle can shoot both without a problem.
 
2013-01-03 01:56:28 PM  
How about this: own one because it is simply your right to do so. Why tirade and mentally masturbate over this? When it's no longer your right to own one, then poof, you won't. It doesn't matter what you or I think about if you should own one. The point remains you can. Done. Don't like it, step right up and try to change the Second Amendment...and we all know that's not happening.

I own a lot of things because it's my right to do so. Quit your biatchin'.
 
2013-01-03 01:56:56 PM  

Mitch Taylor's Bro: vudukungfu: 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.

I forget which Call of Duty game had this quote in it, but I always loved, "Never forget that your weapon was made by the lowest bidder."


Ahh, that old chestnut. Lowest bidder that can match specs.
 
2013-01-03 01:57:13 PM  

Spade: They're not good because

a) the bullets can easily penetrate walls (and houses) and hit people who aren't supposed to be hit
b) they're too long and awkward

Better a shorty shotgun with reduced recoil buckshot. The object is not to kill people - it's to make them stop what they're doing and go away. Or hold them at bay until the cops arrive. Shotguns are *really* *really* good at that.

Shotgun buckshot is going to tear through walls just as well or better than 5.56mm.


You missed the 'reduced recoil' bit. Think of it as a light power charge. It might go through a couple layers of sheetrock (I've never tried it) but if it does, I doubt there's much left in it.

I should have added

c) with a shotgun in the dark, you don't need to worry about aiming much. With other stuff, you better be pretty good if you're expecting to hit anything.
 
2013-01-03 01:57:16 PM  

xtrc8u: Those in favor of "banning" military rifles:
I have a Remington 700. Bolt action rifle. Is it a military rifle? Should it be banned?
Have fun with this, FARK.


Is it a military rifle? For WWI, sure.
 
2013-01-03 01:57:31 PM  

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

The .223 caliber is the english measurement; .223 of an inch, 5.56 is in millimeters,the metric measurement.

Learn nothing from articles like this, the writer is nearly as ignorant as the commenters here.


Correction, SOME of the commenters here. I see a lot of guys making a lot of sense in this thread which is really unusual for a liberal hot button topic like this.

Nice to see though.
 
2013-01-03 01:58:34 PM  

scottydoesntknow: 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...the first shot actually got 3 of them (they lined up perfectly)...


LIAR...there's no farking way a .223 (or even a 5.56) has energy to penetrate 36" of hog.....a 30-06 will typically only penetrate 12-18" into ballistic gelatin.
 
2013-01-03 01:58:40 PM  

dofus: angry bunny: So the argument here is that AR-15's give people the capacity to kill others with too much ease. However there's no good argument that they are a legitimate home defense weapon because they aren't good at killing people in your home? What happened to the fact that they give people the capacity to kill others with too much ease?

They're not good because

a) the bullets can easily penetrate walls (and houses) and hit people who aren't supposed to be hit
b) they're too long and awkward

Better a shorty shotgun with reduced recoil buckshot. The object is not to kill people - it's to make them stop what they're doing and go away. Or hold them at bay until the cops arrive. Shotguns are *really* *really* good at that.


Sorry, but "Shorty" shotguns have to be registered with the ATF and aren't legal in

damndirtyape: 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".


I will advocate for gun mufflers(I REFUSE to add a pretentious label to a tech that's been around for a hundred years and on the end of every exhaust pipe) all day long, and for exactly the reasons you mentioned. First and foremost, they are the most effective flash hider there is, a very effective muzzle break, and they quiet the gun down enough to reduce hearing damage to minimal levels. There is no good reason for them to be a controlled item.
 
2013-01-03 01:59:16 PM  
This guy buys the AR-15:

graphics8.nytimes.com

"I don't want to shoot holes in pieces of paper, I want to watch a watermelon be destroyed"

So before we rush to ban assault weapons, let's consider the needs of the redneck who just wants to be a deadlier version of Gallagher.
 
2013-01-03 01:59:16 PM  

ElBarto79: I'd be happy to leave gun owners alone if they were capable of leaving the rest of us alone and weren't constantly barging into our public spaces blasting everyone in sight.


I'd be happy to leave drinkers along if there capable of leaving the rest of us alone and weren't constantly barging onto our public roads and running everyone down.

It's worth pointing out that mass killings rarely account for more then 200 deaths in a year, which is a blip out of the 26,000 murders in this country, or the 10,000 of those murders that happen with firearms. Mass killings are perpetrated by maybe 25 people a year. You really think that 25 people should basically set policy for the country.
 
2013-01-03 01:59:18 PM  

BraveNewCheneyWorld: mbillips: Where you go from "properly functioning" to "immune from federal oversight," I have no idea.

"shall not be infringed" - reading is hard...

mbillips: Anyway, the Second Amendment's original intent was bulldozed by the reality that militias SUCK at protecting "the security of a free state." The War of 1812 settled once and for all that we needed a standing army, which the Founder expressly were scared of, and the Militia Act of 1903 did away with the last vestige of state/The People's control over the militia.

It was militias that were heavily responsible for our independence.


Not so much. They were OK when defending entrenched positions a la Bunker Hill, but the most important victories were won by Continental regulars and French troops. The only significant exception was Saratoga, and that was more a matter of Burgoyne being defeated by the wilderness than the militia.
 
2013-01-03 01:59:19 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?


I believe in the first amendment too, but there should be limits on military weapon grade bad logic.
 
2013-01-03 01:59:43 PM  

Cast: DO NOT put a 556 in a 223 unless you like facial reconstruction surgery


Unless the manufacturer says it's allright. All my .223 rifles will eat 5.56 just fine (I asked).

ElBarto79: Therefore we should ban them as an issue of public safety.


A ban never has and never will get rid of existing items. When you have a shiatload of something that doesn't go bad over time (or at least shouldn't for a very long damn time), the only thing you do is ensure that the only people possessing that thing are criminals.

abadabba: That being said it won't help with the millions of legally owned assault rifles that are already out there, and somebody who wants to buy one will be able to on the secondary/black market without much trouble.


So what's the point of banning them? You just admitted that anyone who wants them will get their hands on them easily, so the only people who won't have them are people willing to abide by the law, i.e. the one group of people you don't have to worry about.

JesseL: I'd love for someone to define for me in the sort of technical terms suitable for a well-written law exactly what constitutes a "military grade" rifle that is currently available to the general public, and coherently explain what about those features should make it illegal.
Bonus points if you can point to a time when civilians didn't have "military grade" firearms.


I'm still waiting on a definition of "hunting rifle" that nobody seems to care if I have.

It strikes me as a little odd that they don't seem to care that I have them, because looking at the guns I own that were specifically designed and purchased for hunting are really good at causing a lot of damage to large mammals from medium to long ranges. That seems like the kind of gun you'd want to see gone.
 
2013-01-03 01:59:44 PM  

Dimensio: Cymbal: Dimensio: If an "assault weapons ban" is enacted, and another "rampage" style shooting occurs, and is committed with use of a firearm not prohibited by the "ban", will advocates of the ban acknowledge the failure of the ban and instead seek an alternative approach to preventing such occurrences in the future, or will they instead demand further restrictions upon firearm ownership?

You are being obtuse. If they go down in number by just one/year, I don't know about you, but I'd say it was worth it.

How, specifically, will you establish the reduction to have been the result of the ban and not of any other factor, especially when you have already failed to explain how a ban on a subset of rifles will prevent "thousands" of deaths per year despite all rifles being used in fewer than four-hundred murders per year?


I think you made it pretty clear the number of senseless deaths don't matter to you, so why should I continue to argue with you and show you how selfish and inconsiderate you are? You won't ever get it.
 
2013-01-03 02:00:07 PM  

Magnanimous_J: ElBarto79: Personally I would be in favor of banning semi-automatic weapons entirely. Bolt action rifles, pump action shotguns and revolvers and that's it. But banning assault weapons is a good start.

Most revolvers are semi-automatic, and their design allows them to easily fire much more powerful rounds than an auto-loading handgun. A cheap, .38 snub nosed revolver has probably been used in more violent crimes since the 20th century than any other gun (with the possible exception of the .22lr, you know, the one the boy scouts use).

You don't know what you are talking about.


If our stated purpose is limiting the damage from mass shootings, the power of individual rounds is a lot less important than the magazine capacity.

And a double-action revolver is not "semi-automatic". Now who doesn't know what they're talking about?
 
2013-01-03 02:00:14 PM  
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.

The 2nd amendment is one sentence. Is does not mention hunting or home defense. It mentions MILITIA for a free state, and the right of the PEOPLE to bear arms.

A militia keeping a state free isn't about shooting at deer or burglars. It's about fighting a world class military power like England, or the USA. Assault rifles are the very least you would need to fight such an opponent.

You may not like that the founding fathers gave us that right, but a lot of people don't like the rights the founding fathers gave us. The religious right don't like that the founding fathers gave us separation of church and state. Everybody hates that the founding fathers gave Westboro Baptist Church the right to free speech, and others the right to burn the US flag, but they did give us those rights for a reason. To keep our state free.
 
2013-01-03 02:00:27 PM  

Nattering Nabob: Wolf_Blitzer: 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.

When black powder pistols used to take a while to load, people would carry...2 or more. The Columbine killers' plan was for a bomb attack. If the Sandy Hook guy was in decent shape, he could have easily killed all those people in the same amount of time with a machete. They were defenseless teachers and basically babies.


This might be the single dumbest thing I've ever read on the internet.
 
2013-01-03 02:00:29 PM  
Who buys it? I know of the following professionals that own them:

An account manager
A mechanical engineer
A tech writer
A mid-level manager
A quality engineer

None of them are both fat and white.
 
KIA
2013-01-03 02:00:34 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.


Be very careful with this. A 5.56 round is military grade and generates more pressure than a .223 round. All 5.56 rifles can shoot .223, however many .223 rifles cannot handle the higher pressure of the 5.56 and may be damaged or rupture.
 
2013-01-03 02:00:38 PM  

Big_Fat_Liar: 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?

I believe in the first amendment too, but there should be limits on military weapon grade bad logic.


[ohsnap.jpg]

/well played!
 
2013-01-03 02:00:42 PM  

rufus-t-firefly: BgJonson79: technicolor-misfit: BgJonson79: 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?

Subject to regulation? Yes.

Where do you get subject to regulation?

The words "well-regulated."

Sure, you can argue about the meaning of "well-regulated" at the time the amendment was written...but then you might have to address the meaning of "arms" at that time. And the fact that they don't say what KIND of arms - perhaps halberds? And the fact that it doesn't say "any and all arms," just "arms." I don't see anyone demanding to end the ban on civilian-owned machine guns and rocket launchers. Why not? WHY DO YOU HATE THE SECOND AMENDMENT?!?!

Let's just stick with the Founders' intention and say everyone has a right to own blunderbusses and muskets - let's throw in flintlock pistols as well.


I'm good with that. Kiss your Internet, TV, radio and other modern communication methods goodbye as well. What's good for the Second is good for the First!
 
2013-01-03 02:00:45 PM  

Arkanaut: There are already laws regulating the sale, storage, and movement of propane.


I don't recall a background check at the Speedway when I got a new tank for my grill.
 
2013-01-03 02:00:45 PM  

Cymbal: Dimensio: If an "assault weapons ban" is enacted, and another "rampage" style shooting occurs, and is committed with use of a firearm not prohibited by the "ban", will advocates of the ban acknowledge the failure of the ban and instead seek an alternative approach to preventing such occurrences in the future, or will they instead demand further restrictions upon firearm ownership?

You are being obtuse. If they go down in number by just one/year, I don't know about you, but I'd say it was worth it.


Ah, the old "if it saves one life".

Hey, warrantless searches and indefinite detention would save a lot of lives too.
 
2013-01-03 02:00:56 PM  

BraveNewCheneyWorld: I'm sorry, but I can't talk to you if you're going to refute even our own nation's history with bald assertions.
Another fact you seem to omit is that supply lines run not from the military, but from the people. Kind of hard to fight a war when you depend on the people you're fighting for your infrastructure.


That's fine, because you don't seem to be particularly interested in facts that don't fit your preconcieved worldview so this conversation isn't likely to go anywhere.  In any event, the American Revolution is not a particularly good example of what you're trying to point out because it involved a colony, with the help of a major world power, convincing a country so distant that two way communication took literally weeks that the fight wasn't worth the cost; not an overthrow of a local authoritarian dictatorship, and it happened 240 years ago when standing armies were not nearly as well trained and equipped as they are now.
 
2013-01-03 02:01:00 PM  

Magnanimous_J: ElBarto79: Personally I would be in favor of banning semi-automatic weapons entirely. Bolt action rifles, pump action shotguns and revolvers and that's it. But banning assault weapons is a good start.

Most revolvers are semi-automatic, and their design allows them to easily fire much more powerful rounds than an auto-loading handgun. A cheap, .38 snub nosed revolver has probably been used in more violent crimes since the 20th century than any other gun (with the possible exception of the .22lr, you know, the one the boy scouts use).

You don't know what you are talking about.


You think revolvers are semi-automatic, and HE doesn't know what he's talking about? Semi-automatic means self-loading. Many revolvers are double-action, which is the term you're looking for that means you don't have to cock them before firing.
 
2013-01-03 02:01:05 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.


I am outraged about all of those things. I'm also not so naive as to think guerrilla tactics a masturbatory fantasy, because real world evidence seems to suggest it is rather effective.
 
2013-01-03 02:01:15 PM  

Super Chronic: So before we rush to ban assault weapons, let's consider the needs of the redneck who just wants to be a deadlier version of Gallagher.


I fear people who don't look or think like me and who like to destroy plants.
 
2013-01-03 02:01:17 PM  

Gentoolive: Its noones business how many guns I have, or what type. God bless America.


i43.tinypic.com

what do i care if you have a gun?
 
2013-01-03 02:01:18 PM  

xtrc8u: Those in favor of "banning" military rifles:
I have a Remington 700. Bolt action rifle. Is it a military rifle? Should it be banned?
Have fun with this, FARK.



Does it go BANG?

Ban it.
 
2013-01-03 02:01:32 PM  

topcon: Remember, some people have well over a grand in 10-22s.


Wow, that's crazy. I paid like $200 for my stainless around 15 years ago (maybe 20, I'm old).

I don't understand why someone would wan't to pay all that money to "trick it out" by taking off the nice wooden stock and putting on some synthetic junk? I guess to each their own.
 
2013-01-03 02:01:34 PM  

technicolor-misfit: BgJonson79: technicolor-misfit: BgJonson79: 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?


Subject to regulation? Yes.

Where do you get subject to regulation?


Are you suggesting guns aren't subject to regulation?

I suppose a felon can walk into his local Circle K and buy a full-auto Tommy-gun right off the rack, cash on the barrel-head, no questions asked and and stroll around town big as you please and the po-po better not say shiat to him?


What kind of felon? Tax evasion? Hacking? Being 18 years and 1 day old with a 15 year old and 364 day old GF?
 
2013-01-03 02:01:58 PM  

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

This list is in no way complete.

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


What no love for the the .223 Wylde?

/RRA Rocks
 
2013-01-03 02:02:48 PM  

The Southern Dandy: 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.

The 2nd amendment is one sentence. Is does not mention hunting or home defense. It mentions MILITIA for a free state, and the right of the PEOPLE to bear arms.

A militia keeping a state free isn't about shooting at deer or burglars. It's about fighting a world class military power like England, or the USA. Assault rifles are the very least you would need to fight such an opponent.

You may not like that the founding fathers gave us that right, but a lot of people don't like the rights the founding fathers gave us. The religious right don't like that the founding fathers gave us separation of church and state. Everybody hates that the founding fathers gave Westboro Baptist Church the right to free speech, and others the right to burn the US flag, but they did give us those rights for a reason. To keep our state free.


Honestly, it's no use. Fark idiots refuse to recognize the truth.
 
2013-01-03 02:02:57 PM  

Dimensio: 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.


So of course AR-15s are the whole problem...
 
2013-01-03 02:03:27 PM  
I really must wonder what is going through someones head when they start listing off alternative guns as a reason to ban assault rifles. They would rather I have a small arsenal of multiple types of weapons than get myself a gun that can fill multiple roles?
 
2013-01-03 02:03:31 PM  

Thunderpipes: Rapmaster2000: Thunderpipes: technicolor-misfit: 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.

You don't know any gun nuts. No gun nut would associate with a liberal crybaby pants.

Says the "guy" in Vermont.  Did you and your wife take the Subaru Outback down to Massachusetts to get married yet or did Moonbeam down at the courthouse do it for you?  It's really great that you can wear your flannels and mullets and enjoy the leaves and maple syrup of Vermontistan together now that the SC allows scissor sisters to get married.

I agree with your post. This state sucks.

But.... at least, for now, it has some of the least controlling gun laws there are. I moved out of hippie county to farmer county. There are a small minority of us that work and pay taxes. Most Vermonters are wealthy out of state transplants, or welfare diggers. Even here though, the anti-gun nut Democrats are rallying. Will be a tough sell.

You can go anywhere you want with a weapon here, concealed or not, and don't need a permit. We have some of the lowest homicide rates, and gun homicide rate ...


Because hippies are scared wittle homos that cry when they see guns and so you and the eight other REAL men in Vermont are safe to enjoy each others' company in your backwoods compounds far from the prying eyes of welfare lesbians in that urban hellhole of Montpelier that don't want to work for their Phish tickets and think government should PAY for the Ben and Jerry's that they feed each other in bed.
 
2013-01-03 02:03:49 PM  

ElBarto79: I'd be happy to leave gun owners alone if they were capable of leaving the rest of us alone and weren't constantly barging into our public spaces blasting everyone in sight.


Constantly? Really? Statistically speaking you'll sooner contract AIDS or die in a car wreck than have someone barge in on you and start shooting. The way you talk, Newtown happened in 50 different places at the same time!

Isn't that a bit dishonest? A tragedy is a tragedy, but let's be realistic. 10,000 deaths a year in a population of 300,000,000...And if we're going to be specific about it, unlike a previous poster said, that number includes the numbers of handgun-related suicides at a rate of about 60% of them, and the remaining deaths are 80% related to drug and gang violence.

So, to recap, you have a .00333333% chance of being killed, by population. Not going to kill yourself? Well, then you're down to a .0013333% chance of being killed, by population. Not involved in the drug trade or gangs? assuming that a full 80% of non-suicide deaths by firearm are related to that (based on FBI data), you now have a whopping .00026666667% chance of death, by population.

The chances of a spree killer shooting up your place is astronomically low. Little comfort, but let's face reality here.

I'd be willing to bet that you have a better chance of getting hit by a bus and simultaneously contracting HIV than be involved in such an event.
 
2013-01-03 02:04:00 PM  

Delectatio Morosa: 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?


Columbine happened during the last AWB....so can we call it a failure?
 
2013-01-03 02:04:10 PM  

Cymbal: Dimensio: Cymbal: Dimensio: If an "assault weapons ban" is enacted, and another "rampage" style shooting occurs, and is committed with use of a firearm not prohibited by the "ban", will advocates of the ban acknowledge the failure of the ban and instead seek an alternative approach to preventing such occurrences in the future, or will they instead demand further restrictions upon firearm ownership?

You are being obtuse. If they go down in number by just one/year, I don't know about you, but I'd say it was worth it.

How, specifically, will you establish the reduction to have been the result of the ban and not of any other factor, especially when you have already failed to explain how a ban on a subset of rifles will prevent "thousands" of deaths per year despite all rifles being used in fewer than four-hundred murders per year?

I think you made it pretty clear the number of senseless deaths don't matter to you, so why should I continue to argue with you and show you how selfish and inconsiderate you are? You won't ever get it.


You have confused lying about me, which you have done, with a reasonable justification of your position, which you have not.
 
Displayed 50 of 1346 comments

First | « | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
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