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  
•       •       •

34444 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 | « | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2013-01-03 02:04:35 PM  

kombat_unit: 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.


Hey, I'm a Fark idiot and I recognize it.
 
2013-01-03 02:04:42 PM  

Noticeably F.A.T.: 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.


This is probably the most reasonable argument against greater firearms regulation that I ever see, one that to a great extent I agree with, but "we made our bed and now we have to die lay in it" still leaves a bad taste in my mouth.
 
2013-01-03 02:04:44 PM  

dofus: 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.


Don't need to worry about aiming?

Have you ever bothered to pattern a shotgun? Seriously?
 
2013-01-03 02:04:46 PM  

Amos Quito: The AR-15 is a nice gun to have for when people try to take your guns.


:-)


Sure, if it's worth dying for. If whitey comes for your guns, they are going to get them.
 
2013-01-03 02:05:12 PM  
Dear mental masturbaters,

It's simple. You currently have the right to own one. It doesn't matter if you or I think that anyone should own one. If you feel that people shouldn't have the right to own on, then amend the Second Amendment to preclude that.

You don't need to do any further justification for these rifles. I own plenty of things that I do so largely because I have the right to do so. Done.
 
2013-01-03 02:05:12 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.


A Remington 700 is not a military rifle, it's a hunting rifle. Or, if it's like mine with the heavy barrel, a target rifle.

There are a lot of military rifles that fall into the same category: any of many Mausers, the Lee Enfield, the 303 Springfield, the Arasaka, a mess of Russian rifles I don't have, the Caracano and a bunch of others I can't think of at the moment.
 
2013-01-03 02:05:33 PM  

Kit Fister: onstantly? 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!


the same could be said about 9/11, and look what that got us: two wars, the patriot act and a second term of george w. bush.
 
2013-01-03 02:05:33 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.


You left out a comma. It's "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed. Which means BOTH clauses shall not be infringed, not just the one about keeping and bearing. It basically says that the right of the people to keep and bear arms is a necessary, but subordinate part of maintaining a well-regulated militia.
 
2013-01-03 02:05:48 PM  

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 mean like how DUI laws should be overturned because people still die in DUI's and robbery laws should be trashed because robberies still occur, and murder laws should be scrubbed because people still get murdered? And child molestation laws should be scrapped because people still fark kids?

Heck, I bet people still break every law known to man the whole world over so clearly laws are completely farking useless and we should simply disband our pointless legal system and send the farking cops home because they accomplish nothing.
 
2013-01-03 02:05:50 PM  

Richard Flaccid: While we're at it, we might as well go after motorcycles and fast food. They are killing way more people than assault rifles and neither are necessary.

By the way. I'll give you 3/10 for effort.


If someone wants to kill themselves with fast I'm generally ok with that, it doesn't really affect the rest of us except for higher insurance premiums. Motorcycles are dangerous for the rider and passenger more than anyone else.
 
2013-01-03 02:05:55 PM  

mbillips: 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.


You know there's a difference between saying that they served an important role, and they served the most important role, right?
 
2013-01-03 02:06:08 PM  

jshine: 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.


It's a military weapon in 2013 as well.
 
2013-01-03 02:06:55 PM  
Texting drivers are killing people. I think we need to ban cell phones.

Why should innocent people get killed because some people want to send text messages?
 
2013-01-03 02:07:17 PM  
Who buys AR-15s?

0.tqn.com
 
2013-01-03 02:07:31 PM  

mbillips: 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.

You left out a comma. It's "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed. Which means BOTH clauses shall not be infringed, not just the one about keeping and bearing. It basically says that the right of the people to keep and bear arms is a necessary, but subordinate part of maintaining a well-regulated militia.


I didn't want to get too pedantic, but go right ahead.
 
2013-01-03 02:07:51 PM  

BgJonson79: 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?


Actually I agree with him.

A felon, on release, should be allowed to any any gun they want. And vote. And everything else.

Treating felons so differently is one of the major reasons it's so hard for them to get out of a life of crime. If a felon is too dangerous too own a gun, then they're probably too dangerous to own a knife, which probably means they're just "too dangerous" and should still be in prison.
 
2013-01-03 02:07:54 PM  

you have pee hands: 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.


Bald assertions are bald. You really could have saved some time and just typed "NO!"
 
2013-01-03 02:08:18 PM  

QueenMamaBee: 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).


Do we know exactly how many of the killed/wounded were shot with the AR-15? Sideshow Bob also used a shotgun and a .40-caliber pistol, but I've never seen a breakdown of how namy were shot with what.
 
2013-01-03 02:08:28 PM  
FTFA: When someone like Adam Lanza uses it to take out 26 people in a matter of minutes, he's committing a crime, but he isn't misusing the rifle. That's exactly what it was engineered to do.

Bears repeating.

Look, guys, the AR-15 is an ASSAULT RIFLE. Let's stop pretending it is anything but a military weapon with a few modifications that make it salable in the civilian market. Yes, you can use it to hunt, but it wasn't designed to do so. It is NOT a good home defense weapon, although it can be used to CLEAR a small area of intruders, because it was designed for that purpose. It was designed to fill a room with high-velocity shot by people who don't care that the rounds will go through the target, probably the walls, and likely anyone on the other side. Like, you know, in a military assault. Where the user is killing a roomful of the enemy and probably more in the next room. This makes it wrong for use in an apartment building, where the people in the next room are NOT the enemy.

Which is fine, if you want to go out to the desert and rock and roll; but at least let's all ADMIT that that's why the AR-15 exists and why it is in use. There are better weapons for hunting; there are much better weapons for home defense; the AR-15 is for killing large numbers of people or animals and for suppressive fire in combat. Don't tell me you're going to go out and shoot a deer on full auto and then eat whatever's left. At least not if you still have all your teeth.
 
2013-01-03 02:08:29 PM  
Cymbal: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.

www.pitch.com
 
2013-01-03 02:08:32 PM  

Kit Fister: 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.


Then there's the 16000 other people murdered with something OTHER then a firearm. 200 or so people killed in mass killings (by 15-25 people) out of 26,000 doesn't even make 1% .
 
2013-01-03 02:08:33 PM  

Big_Fat_Liar: jshine: 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.

It's a military weapon in 2013 as well.


I just Googled it & I stand corrected.
 
2013-01-03 02:08:45 PM  
Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Amendment II
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.

Amendment III
No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

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

Amendment V
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Amendment VI
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

Amendment VII
In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

Amendment VIII
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

Amendment IX
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.


One of the above give the People the power to defend the others.
 
2013-01-03 02:08:55 PM  
From my slight experience the a nice AR-15/ M-16 type of weapon in the right hands is more accurate then a scoped weapon in not so well trained hands especially for getting on target quickly in heavy brush.
 
2013-01-03 02:08:58 PM  

Trapper439: I'm an Aussie who has known just one person in my entire life who owned anything more powerful than a .22 rifle. He used to shoot wild pigs with it, and apparently he enjoyed that. Good for him.

But I seriously don't get why not having access to high-powered semi-automatic weapons would be a big deal for any sane person. That goes doubly for anyone who thinks that they need one to defend themselves from their own government.

Seems to me that if the "Freedom" of your country requires citizens to arm themselves against the government then you weren't ever very "Free" in the first place.

/maybe I'm just naive about the Black Helicopters and the UN


I seriously don't get why anyone would tolerate a government that decides what videogames its citizens are allowed to play. Interesting how someone can question Americans' zealous fight over freedom from government while simultaneously allowing their own government to oppress them. To each his own, I guess.

I'm also reminded of the arrest of Matthew Wood for the (admittedly tasteless) jokes he made on facebook/twitter/wherever. Governments are now arresting people for material they find "offensive." But hey, there's no way "offensive" could be completely subjective, right?
 
2013-01-03 02:09:17 PM  

Richard Flaccid: 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.


Yeaaaah. What synthetic junk are you talking about? You think it costs $1000 to put Tapco stuff on a 10-22? It's all the accurizing and high quality internals. The high end 10/22s aren't made to look like AR-15s, they typically have wood stocks. Then you can spend another $1,000+ on a high quality scope.

Just stealing a couple pictures off the internet of what high end 10/22s might look like.

www.snipershide.com

www.imfdb.org
 
2013-01-03 02:09:42 PM  

technicolor-misfit: You mean like how DUI laws should be overturned because people still die in DUI's and robbery laws should be trashed because robberies still occur, and murder laws should be scrubbed because people still get murdered? And child molestation laws should be scrapped because people still fark kids?


No; I am asking if assault weapons ban advocates will acknowledge that banning a subset of rifles based upon certain attachments is a poor strategy for preventing mass murder or if they will instead seek further bans should their current proposals prove ineffective. What you are suggesting as comparisons are more analogous to advocating legalizing mass murder.
 
2013-01-03 02:10:25 PM  
FTFA:

As one hunter put it in the comments section of http://www.americanhunter.org/ArticlePage.aspx?id=1956&cid=58">an article on americanhunter.org, "I served in the military and the M16A2/M4 was the weapon I used for 20 years. It is first and foremost designed as an assault weapon platform, no matter what the spin. A hunter does not need a semi-automatic rifle to hunt, if he does he sucks, and should go play video games. I see more men running around the bush all cammo'd up with assault vests and face paint with tricked out AR's. These are not hunters but wannabe weekend warriors."

Or, as I have put it here before, we have a certain number of legitimate, sane, responsible gun owners, and the rest are foolish vain fetishists who need a cool/scary-looking gun to feel good about themselves.

FAP FAP FAP FAP FAP

But don't worry, fetishists, I won't try to take away your sex toys.  You guys have won.  So:

FAP FAP FAP FAP FAP
 
2013-01-03 02:10:25 PM  

The Southern Dandy: 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.


Yeah, but that would be treason. Like all of those traitor citizens in Germany that used their private weapons to fight against Hitler's government in the 40's. Farking traitors, how dare they stand up to their own government!
 
2013-01-03 02:10:47 PM  

dofus: 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.

A Remington 700 is not a military rifle, it's a hunting rifle. Or, if it's like mine with the heavy barrel, a target rifle.

There are a lot of military rifles that fall into the same category: any of many Mausers, the Lee Enfield, the 303 Springfield, the Arasaka, a mess of Russian rifles I don't have, the Caracano and a bunch of others I can't think of at the moment.


He's trying to trap you because most sniper rifles are based off the 700. Of course, he's being disingenuous like most of the gun nuts in this thread, because the point isn't the "military" nature of a weapon, its the speed at which it puts out rounds. You'll find very few people wanting bolt-action rifles banned. You'll find an awful lot of people wanting tighter restriction on semi-automatics with 30 round detachable magazines. You'll find almost universal support for bans on belf-fed machine guns. There is a continuum of danger.
 
2013-01-03 02:11:21 PM  

pedrop357: Boudica's War Tampon: The idiot that murdered all those people in Tucson--I won't post the victims' names here because I would be accused of supporting a GUN BAN--was stopped because he ran out of bullets in his magazine and was jumped while he tried to reload..

So one guy was stopped by having to reload, that seals the deal. The rest all stopped when they felt like it or encountered resistance dozens of minutes after starting. But yeah, let's pretend that magazine size will make a difference.


Yeah... Va Tech shooter reloaded several times (with 10 and 15 round magazines). Colombine shooters reloaded several times. Newtown shooter reloaded several times. Sikh temple shooter reloaded several times.
 
2013-01-03 02:11:30 PM  

Jarhead_h:

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 ...


Other than that their main purpose is to allow a criminal to fire a handgun in an urban environment without drawing attention? Why do you think they've been banned, basically, forever? This is the weirdest of the many weird NRA crusades, right up there with Teflon-coated bullets.
 
2013-01-03 02:11:34 PM  

dofus: 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.

A Remington 700 is not a military rifle, it's a hunting rifle. Or, if it's like mine with the heavy barrel, a target rifle.

There are a lot of military rifles that fall into the same category: any of many Mausers, the Lee Enfield, the 303 Springfield, the Arasaka, a mess of Russian rifles I don't have, the Caracano and a bunch of others I can't think of at the moment.


the Remington 700s military designation is the m40 sniper rifle.


/I have a 700
//accurate to 1000 yards so far
///camp perry here I come
 
2013-01-03 02:11:43 PM  

Wolf_Blitzer: Noticeably F.A.T.: 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.

This is probably the most reasonable argument against greater firearms regulation that I ever see, one that to a great extent I agree with, but "we made our bed and now we have to die lay in it" still leaves a bad taste in my mouth.


Guess you've never heard of gun buy-back programs or guns for toys, etc.

If you think that's the strongest argument against banning guns then you may be the stupidest person to ever live.
 
2013-01-03 02:12:07 PM  

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


wow. really? Not fat, spent four years in the US Army, proudly serving. and yes, i own one. dick.
 
2013-01-03 02:12:20 PM  
...Because when I want to be informed on a certain gun's practical uses and capabilities I turn to a Slate.com blog article written by someone who doesn't own a gun, and not a publication whose contributors have extensive knowledge on the subject, like Guns & Ammo or Field and Stream. Nope. Slate all the way.

I got a good deal buying it from a friend and for a while it was kinda fun and very affordable to shoot. But I only ever get it out to shoot coyotes, since bulk ammo isn't $110 for 1000 anymore.
 
2013-01-03 02:13:05 PM  

Wolf_Blitzer: Of course, he's being disingenuous like most of the gun nuts in this thread, because the point isn't the "military" nature of a weapon, its the speed at which it puts out rounds.


Assault weapon ban advocates rely upon an assertion of a "military" nature. Why, then, are opponents of such a ban being "disingenuous" for addressing the implications of banning firearms of a "military" nature?
 
2013-01-03 02:13:28 PM  
I keep seeing people say that the AR-15 is not good for hunting lager game. One of the great things about it is that you can swap stuff around on it fairly easily, this includes caliber changes.

"The AR-15 rifle is available in a wide range of configurations from a large number of manufacturers. These configurations range from short carbine-length models with features such as adjustable length stocks and optical sights, to heavy barrel models.

Due to the rifle's modular design, one upper receiver can quickly and easily be substituted for another. There are many aftermarket upper receivers that incorporate barrels of different weights, lengths and calibers. Some available calibers for the AR-15 platform are the .223 Remington/5.56x45mm, .45 ACP, 5.7x28mm, 6.5 mm Grendel, .338 Lapua,[15] 6.8 mm Remington SPC,[16] .50 Beowulf and .50 BMG" (wiki)

Plenty of people hunt big game with an AR-15, the article apparently didn't even bother to check wikipedia or a few hunting magazines (the reading kind, not the "put in your gun" kind) before running with this nonsense.

/worst part? They probably get paid more than I do...
 
2013-01-03 02:14:11 PM  

Thunderpipes: Texting drivers are killing people. I think we need to ban cell phones.

Why should innocent people get killed because some people want to send text messages?


We should make a list of all the things that get people killed that nobody "needs"
 
2013-01-03 02:14:40 PM  

Cymbal: Guess you've never heard of gun buy-back programs or guns for toys, etc.


Buy BACK?

Does the state think they owned them in the first place?

One man with a gun can tell 100 what to do....Lenin.
 
2013-01-03 02:14:49 PM  

Richard Flaccid: The Southern Dandy: 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.

Yeah, but that would be treason. Like all of those traitor citizens in Germany that used their private weapons to fight against Hitler's government in the 40's. Farking traitors, how dare they stand up to their own government!


Like that traitor that said "We must all hang together, or assuredly we shall all hang separately."
 
2013-01-03 02:14:54 PM  

ElBarto79: If someone wants to kill themselves with fast I'm generally ok with that, it doesn't really affect the rest of us


So you're ok with thousands of kids getting type II diabetes and dying at a young age as long as it does't affect you?
 
2013-01-03 02:15:00 PM  
mbillips:

Other than that their main purpose is to allow a criminal to fire a handgun in an urban environment without drawing attention?

Please substantiate this assertion.


This is the weirdest of the many weird NRA crusades, right up there with Teflon-coated bullets.

Are you aware of the purpose of coating a bullet in polytetrafluoroethylene?
 
2013-01-03 02:15:20 PM  

Dimensio: 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".


you didn't quite catch all of what i said

even though i said it over and over and over

if your blessed ar has a magazine capacity over 10, then i have issue- regardless of the ammo you fire through it

if that is somehow not clear to you, let me know.
 
2013-01-03 02:15:20 PM  

Dimensio: Wolf_Blitzer: Of course, he's being disingenuous like most of the gun nuts in this thread, because the point isn't the "military" nature of a weapon, its the speed at which it puts out rounds.

Assault weapon ban advocates rely upon an assertion of a "military" nature. Why, then, are opponents of such a ban being "disingenuous" for addressing the implications of banning firearms of a "military" nature?


Your opponents being stupid isn't an excuse for you to be equally stupid.
 
2013-01-03 02:15:25 PM  

Wolf_Blitzer: dofus: 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.

A Remington 700 is not a military rifle, it's a hunting rifle. Or, if it's like mine with the heavy barrel, a target rifle.

There are a lot of military rifles that fall into the same category: any of many Mausers, the Lee Enfield, the 303 Springfield, the Arasaka, a mess of Russian rifles I don't have, the Caracano and a bunch of others I can't think of at the moment.

He's trying to trap you because most sniper rifles are based off the 700. Of course, he's being disingenuous like most of the gun nuts in this thread, because the point isn't the "military" nature of a weapon, its the speed at which it puts out rounds. You'll find very few people wanting bolt-action rifles banned. You'll find an awful lot of people wanting tighter restriction on semi-automatics with 30 round detachable magazines. You'll find almost universal support for bans on belf-fed machine guns. There is a continuum of danger.


No, it is not about the speed of the weapon only. Why do nuts want to ban bayonet lugs and flash suppressors? I am quite worried about the future of being able to finish my WW II rifle collection. Garand is certainly an evil weapon in the eyes of Dems and soon to be outlawed, even though it does not use an external magazine.
 
2013-01-03 02:15:45 PM  

Gyrfalcon: Look, guys, the AR-15 is an ASSAULT RIFLE. Let's stop pretending it is anything but a military weapon with a few modifications that make it salable in the civilian market. Yes, you can use it to hunt, but it wasn't designed to do so. It is NOT a good home defense weapon, although it can be used to CLEAR a small area of intruders, because it was designed for that purpose. It was designed to fill a room with high-velocity shot by people who don't care that the rounds will go through the target, probably the walls, and likely anyone on the other side. Like, you know, in a military assault. Where the user is killing a roomful of the enemy and probably more in the next room. This makes it wrong for use in an apartment building, where the people in the next room are NOT the enemy.


Guess how I know you know absolutely nothing about bullets. Seriously, someone as ignorant as yourself should refrain from speaking on the subject.
 
2013-01-03 02:15:58 PM  

dofus:
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.


If I had a dollar every time I heard this BS I could retire and fark supermodels all day long.

What kind of spread do you really think that a shotgun has? Especially at ranges inside of a house?
 
2013-01-03 02:16:06 PM  

FlashHarry: Kit Fister: onstantly? 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!

the same could be said about 9/11, and look what that got us: two wars, the patriot act and a second term of george w. bush.


Yep, because of ZOMG TERRORISTS.

People that want to ban guns are no different than people who want to own guns for protection. Gun owners are wary of those who would do them harm or any number of other sources of evil, and thus arm themselves against that evil. Gun grabbers are wary of those who would do them harm, too, except instead of protecting themselves, they seek to make everyone equally helpless and live under the irrational assumption that just because something is unlikely to occur means that it won't happen to them.

Or, put another way, kid A knows of several bullies at his school, and decides the best course of action is to learn self defense (karate, boxing, whatever), in case he should have to deal with a bully. Kid B knows of several bullies at his school, and decides that since most bullies use physical force against other kids, decides to make it his mission to get all physical contact, or at least certain kinds of physical contact, banned because no one needs it anyway.

Of course, that doesn't stop all bullying (although it does stop those who would maybe have hit someone else while horsing around, or someone who might consider becoming a bully fleetingly), it just minimizes it. And, it also doesn't stop bad things from happening to him, it just reduces his risk.
 
2013-01-03 02:16:15 PM  

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

5.56 NATO and .223 Remington are almost the same.  Generally speaking an AR-15's chamber is set to handle both specs.


some are some arnt.
 
Displayed 50 of 1346 comments


Oldest | « | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | » | Newest | Show all


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