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  
•       •       •

34421 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 | « | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-01-03 02:16:20 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.


Actually assault rifles wouldn't be nearly enough and you know it.

Therefore, people should be allowed to have tanks and helicopters.

there is some real farking idiots in this thread.
 
2013-01-03 02:16:24 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.


And...I could've saved myself time by reading further.

Oh well, worth posting twice anyway.
 
2013-01-03 02:16:27 PM

Benjamin Orr: 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.


The Newtown shooter shot all the victims multiple times. Had he been limited to 10 round magazines, he either could have brought a lot of magazines OR only a few and conserved his ammo and accomplished the same thing. I doubt people would be any less forceful about using this shooting to push their agenda if only 10 kids and 6 teachers had died and 30 shots out of three 10 round magazines were fired.
 
2013-01-03 02:16:33 PM

Kit Fister: 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?


so the only weapons for hunting critters is either .22 or ar ???

you aren't much of a gun nut are you?
 
2013-01-03 02:16:45 PM

Eponymous: 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


The 22 Hornet sits in the corner and cries.
 
2013-01-03 02:17:12 PM

Dimensio: 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.



I'm pointing out your specious logic.

If semi-automatics were banned, and another massacre took place, it wouldn't be evidence of failure of the ban.

Upon passage of .08 BAC laws, some drunk driver could have said:

".08 laws are a poor strategy for preventing drunk driving deaths. The question is, when the law is passed and a DUI wreck takes someone's life, will they admit that or double-down?"

...and it would be just just as dumb as your post.

This "if it doesn't work perfectly, it doesn't work at all" fallacy is stupid bullshiat.

/and I'm not even in support of a ban
 
2013-01-03 02:17:30 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.


Still waiting for the guy in a tower with a Barrett .50 BMG. That's not an NFA-regulated weapon, but a sawed-off shotgun and a switchblade are. Makes no sense.
 
2013-01-03 02:17:43 PM

Wolf_Blitzer: but "we made our bed and now we have to die lay in it" still leaves a bad taste in my mouth.


Well, sure, I don't much like it myself. But we have to be realistic here, the cat is out of the bag, the horse has left the barn, guns exist in greater numbers than you could ever hope to get rid of. It's a fact of life, and it's something that has to be dealt with intelligently. A ban isn't an intelligent way of dealing with it, because if you can't get rid of the massive existing supply it can only do one thing, stop future law abiding citizens from getting whatever you are banning. And I can tell you with absolute certainty, you cannot get rid of the supply of guns in the US. There are a few things you could try to lower that supply (I've seen buy-back programs mentioned) but that can't get them all and would still leave a number in the hands of criminals that I'm sure most people would agree is too damn high. Now, I'm not trying to make an "If you can't get 100% why bother trying" argument, I'm saying that if you can't get close enough to 0% to help then there's no reason to go there. I can't help thinking of the US' nuclear arsenal reductions. OK, we got rid of a shiat ton of them. Now we only have enough to kill the planet 15 times instead of 50. That really didn't help at all.

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?

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.


Apples and oranges. Those acts you mentioned directly harm other people. The act of possessing a gun does not. It's the difference between having a fist and punching someone in the head.
 
2013-01-03 02:17:50 PM

Gyrfalcon: 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.


I don't think anyone will say that about the AR-15.
 
2013-01-03 02:18:18 PM

Gyrfalcon: 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.


Ahh, another post about the history, purpose and design intent of the AR-15, from someone who has most likely never actually fired one.

In most major city police departments, a number of patrol officers are trained on and issued AR-15s. They are logged into the dispatch system as long gun officers. If a cop is ever going on a call where they have reasonable suspicion the suspect may be armed, the very first thing they do is get on the radio and ask for a couple of more cops with ARs.

Why? Because the AR-15 is simply the best weapon ever built for engaging in an armed confrontation. The low recoil means it is easily controlled. The ergonomics make it very fast to handle. The magazine capacity is a good thing when even police officers who engage an armed suspect only have a hit rate of 13%. The 5.56/.223 round actually displays the best overpenetration resistance of any other modern, commonly issued ammunition - so unlike a 9mm handgun round, it is LESS lethal after having gone through a wall or door.

I can list off a dozen reasons why the AR-15 is actually the very best weapon for self defense. I came to that conclusion after taking a number of self defense classes from well known schools and instructors. Every single one of them (i.e. people who are subject matter experts) will tell you that the only reason we have handguns is because we can't exactly go about our daily business slinging a rifle.

Of course, that doesn't matter. I'm just a "gun nut." Clearly the people who have zero experience with firearms, who's only knowledge of the subject was acquired through movies, TV shows and 2 weeks of internetting know what is best for self defense.
 
2013-01-03 02:18:36 PM
Wow, when a blog being treated as some kind of factual piece of writing we are all in trouble.
He goes as far as to quote a comment (verbatem) that was written under some article... a sad day indeed.
Killer sources...
 
2013-01-03 02:18:40 PM

The All-Powerful Atheismo: 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.

Actually assault rifles wouldn't be nearly enough and you know it.

Therefore, people should be allowed to have tanks and helicopters.

there is some real farking idiots in this thread.


If they can afford it. That's what the 2nd amendment says. Pretty much covered by "shall not be infringed".

Can't you read?
 
2013-01-03 02:18:44 PM

cr7pilot: 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.

No, I bring targets. I guess I should have mentioned that I also have a soft spot for environmental issues, but I clean up as best as I can when I'm done as well.


Good. You may be a responsible shooter. Then again most shooters claim to be responsible but there are a large number who are not and very few shooters want to do anything about them other than wishful thinking about an all knowing psychiatric service that will determine who is too crazy to have access to guns.

In a sane world, Dick Cheney should not be allowed to shoot anymore. In reality, since he is so famous, there are probably few people willing to go shooting with him. If he was a nobody then there wouldn't be that protection.
 
2013-01-03 02:19:09 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.


simple

does the magazine hold more than 10 rounds?

if "yes" - then yes to both your questions

ta daa
 
2013-01-03 02:19:12 PM

The All-Powerful Atheismo: 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.

Actually assault rifles wouldn't be nearly enough and you know it.

Therefore, people should be allowed to have tanks and helicopters.

there is some real farking idiots in this thread.


Slippery slope is slippery.

Tanks and helicopters and fighter planes are good enough to personally guard the Messiah though, huh?
 
2013-01-03 02:19:39 PM

mbillips: 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.


I'm not sure which is worse - thinking that suppressors are designed for criminals, or thinking that they're banned at all.
 
2013-01-03 02:20:35 PM

Thunderpipes: 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.


The assault weapons ban was stupid, and I'm one of the first to admit it. The potential carnage one can unleash with such a weapon doesn't come from it having a bayonet lug, a flash hider, a telescoping stock or a pistol grip. It comes from it being a self-loading weapon that accepts high-capacity magazines that can be carried in large numbers and rapidly swapped.

There are idiots on the gun control side, just like there are on the other side. If you choose to argue only with the idiots, you just bring yourself down to their level.
 
2013-01-03 02:20:48 PM

Cer10Death: 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.


It is simple that this right has been woefully misinterpreted for decades. The "but it says so right there in the Constitution" is nonsense. It is a living document, with plenty of stuff in it we no longer need, like the 3rd Amendment and the whole returning slaves to their owners thingie. Literalists are tarded the world over, from sekrit muslins to paranoid Murricans. Your need and "right" to feel like a macho package does not trump the right of me to be relatively safe in a school.
 
2013-01-03 02:21:23 PM

Thunderpipes: The All-Powerful Atheismo: 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.

Actually assault rifles wouldn't be nearly enough and you know it.

Therefore, people should be allowed to have tanks and helicopters.

there is some real farking idiots in this thread.

Slippery slope is slippery.

Tanks and helicopters and fighter planes are good enough to personally guard the Messiah though, huh?


It's not a slippery slope when that was the logical basis for his argument.
 
2013-01-03 02:21:53 PM

Dimensio: 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?


As a police round, to allow the use of harder bullet alloys that can better penetrate hard surfaces like windshields, car doors....and soft body armor. The NRA wanted them sold to the general public, rather than regulated as a police-only item.
 
2013-01-03 02:22:01 PM

Cymbal: Dimensio: Cymbal: Dimensio: Cymbal: Wow, don't think I've ever seen so many NRA schills in one thread before.

Really wish you gun nuts could just all have fun with paintball instead. Would be a lot less senseless deaths. But that will never happen because you slack-jawed troglodytes have to be the most selfish and degenerate subhuman wasted of life assholes to ever live.

Do you have any rational commentary to offer, or are you relying upon ad hominem attacks due to an awareness that you advocate a position devoid of any intellectual merit?

See my comments up thread. AR-15 and guns like it should only be available to rent at shooting ranges, period.

So your answer is "no", you have no rational commentary to offer. Thank you for your honest admission.

Pretty small sacrifice to make on your part actually. You still get off on shooting your favorite guns, just in a regulated environment, in exchange for thousands of senseless deaths year. Seems pretty rational to me. But I have a feeling rational thoughts escape you all the time now.


you have put no effort into thinking with regard to gun control or...well...anything else, have you?
 
2013-01-03 02:22:03 PM

HairBolus: In a sane world, Dick Cheney should not be allowed to shoot anymore. In reality, since he is so famous, there are probably few people willing to go shooting with him. If he was a nobody then there wouldn't be that protection.


Sarah Brady purchased a high powered sniper rifle in order to transfer it to her son where her son did not go through the background check required in order to purchase the rifle.

Sarah Brady is a known straw purchaser of firearms and should be in jail as if she were a black man who did the same.
 
2013-01-03 02:22:07 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.


Why do the Police use them?

Are cops regularly assaulting houses and spraying rounds everywhere, not caring where they end up?
Do cops not end up in apartment buildings where the people in the next room are not the enemy?
 
2013-01-03 02:22:10 PM

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

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

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


Would never want to piss you off.
 
2013-01-03 02:22:40 PM

Richard Flaccid: 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?


No I'm not happy about that, I'm also not happy about alcoholics drinking themselves to death and I think these are issues our society can do more about but this is not the same as someone barging into an elementary school and killing 26 completely innocent and random people.
 
2013-01-03 02:23:17 PM

HairBolus: other than wishful thinking about an all knowing psychiatric service that will determine who is too crazy to have access to guns.


Why do people forget that we had a very efficient system of identification in the middle of the last century?
 
2013-01-03 02:23:21 PM

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


Odd. Mine stays in the safe and I shoot it maybe once or twice a year at a gun range.

404 RAMBO NOT FOUND
 
2013-01-03 02:23:35 PM

mbillips: The NRA wanted them sold to the general public, rather than regulated as a police-only item.


I was unaware of this advocacy. Have you a reference?

/Not a member of the NRA.
//Wayne LaPierre is an idiot.
 
2013-01-03 02:23:38 PM

inner ted: 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.

simple

does the magazine hold more than 10 rounds?

if "yes" - then yes to both your questions

ta daa


It is all relative. Founding fathers were talking about the very latest weapons, rifles that may shoot a few times a minute. The amazing thing about the founding fathers is that they were very bright people, and the Constitution still has every reason to apply today. back in their days, there were still cannon around, your everyday Joe could not afford one of those. Liberals main goals seem to be constant erosion of the Constitution. Why?
 
2013-01-03 02:23:43 PM

give me doughnuts: 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.


I can get on board with these requirements.

LarryDan43: Drug test people before providing any gun license and retest yearly.


Would we be testing for "legal" drugs like prescription meds and alcohol as well?
 
2013-01-03 02:23:46 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.


Well, you said it so it must be true.

mbillips: Teflon-coated bullets.


Stop getting your information from movies. Ronin was fun, but full of BS when it comes to to firearms.

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


I have. I addressed it in more detail in another comment, so here I'll just say that in the US it can't do enough to be worthwhile.
 
2013-01-03 02:23:50 PM

Noticeably F.A.T.: 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?

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.

Apples and oranges. Those acts you mentioned directly harm other people. The act of possessing a gun does not. It's the difference between having a fist and punching someone in the head.


A.) I was just pointing out the specious logic of "if it doesn't work perfectly, it doesn't work at all."
B.) Fine... So, I suppose individuals should be able to readily purchase RPG's or C4 at their local sporting goods store with no difficulty at all? The act of possessing those things doesn't directly harm other people.
 
2013-01-03 02:23:58 PM
Reading this thread is giving me flashbacks to 2001. Emotion-inducing event that is nevertheless so uncommon that its likelihood of happening to the average American is statistically irrelevant? Loud, emotionally-based, ill-conceived public outcry for the government to remove rights from the 99.999% of the population who has never committed a crime of the type being targeted, because SECURITY, and "think of the victims"-type emotional appeals? Proposal of a sweeping set of regulations that only really affect law-abiding people who willingly submit to them in the first place?

There are quite a few people in here who must fap vigorously every time the PATRIOT Act is renewed and expanded.
 
2013-01-03 02:24:25 PM

Cast: 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.


When was the last time a major world power was overthrown from within by guerrilla fighters? The Bolshevik revolution, maybe, if you'd stretch the definition enough to include Tsarist Russia as a world power? And they were losing a war to the Germans at the time with an army so badly underfunded they had a bullet ration. And it ended, eventually, with the new boss being even worse than the old boss.

The thing is I'm not even for strict gun control*. I think, from a pragmatic sense, it can't possibly work here and if we need a real focus it should be on cleaning up our criminal justice system so it's a little less effective at turning 18 year old farkups who might be rehabilitated into productive members of society into career criminals. I just get really annoyed by this fantasy that some gun owners have that they're the true patriots, protecting Real Americans from their Would Be Oppressors because they like to hunt and put holes in tin cans. Really a gun is just an expensive toy that's really dangerous if used incorrectly, like a sport bike or a Cessna. It's not saving the world.

* I would sort of like them to have a better way of tracing the source of weapons, to make it easier to prosecute people who sell weapons to felons for fun and profit, but I'm not sure what could possibly be used that wouldn't be stripped easily enough by the seller.
 
2013-01-03 02:24:25 PM

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

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

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

Same here. Works well for coyotes, too.

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

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

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

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


So when did a stinger missile become a "Firearm". Name a substance in a firearm that is controlled?

I have a strong feeling you don't even know what an apple or an orange is.
 
2013-01-03 02:24:38 PM

jimmythrust: Cer10Death: 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.

It is simple that this right has been woefully misinterpreted for decades. The "but it says so right there in the Constitution" is nonsense. It is a living document, with plenty of stuff in it we no longer need, like the 3rd Amendment and the whole returning slaves to their owners thingie. Literalists are tarded the world over, from sekrit muslins to paranoid Murricans. Your need and "right" to feel like a macho package does not trump the right of me to be relatively safe in a school.


Rights outlined by the constitution don't age out of existence. Also, you're twice as likely to be beating to death by bare hands and feet than to be killed with a rifle. Sorry if facts don't agree with your world view.
 
2013-01-03 02:25:07 PM

mbillips: Dimensio: 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?

As a police round, to allow the use of harder bullet alloys that can better penetrate hard surfaces like windshields, car doors....and soft body armor. The NRA wanted them sold to the general public, rather than regulated as a police-only item.


The teflon doesn't "allow" the use of harder bullet alloys. It just makes your barrel not wear out as faster when you use them. The same bullets are still sold, just without the teflon.

There's a reason Winchester SXT's were nicknamed "Same eXact Thing."
 
2013-01-03 02:25:22 PM

jimmythrust: Cer10Death: 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.

It is simple that this right has been woefully misinterpreted for decades. The "but it says so right there in the Constitution" is nonsense. It is a living document, with plenty of stuff in it we no longer need, like the 3rd Amendment and the whole returning slaves to their owners thingie. Literalists are tarded the world over, from sekrit muslins to paranoid Murricans. Your need and "right" to feel like a macho package does not trump the right of me to be relatively safe in a school.


You are extremely safe in American schools today. If you think otherwise, then you are the paranoid one.
 
2013-01-03 02:25:25 PM
The AR-15 was designed to produce many casualties quickly, which is why law enforcement needs them and you do not.
 
2013-01-03 02:25:48 PM

aelat: mbillips: 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.

I'm not sure which is worse - thinking that suppressors are designed for criminals, or thinking that they're banned at all.


OK, not banned, regulated under the NFA. Which is fine, if it were up to me, any semi-auto with a detachable mag, and any mag over 10 rounds, would be an NFA item, available with a Form 3. Ditto .50 BMG weapons and the equivalent. I'd also make the feds start issuing machine-gun manufacture permits again, so I could get my PPSh working instead of being a demilled parts kit.
 
2013-01-03 02:25:59 PM
i.imgur.com
 
2013-01-03 02:26:00 PM

The All-Powerful Atheismo: Actually assault rifles wouldn't be nearly enough and you know it.

Therefore, people should be allowed to have tanks and helicopters.

there is some real farking idiots in this thread.


Care to show any laws prohibiting people from owning/having tanks or helicopters?
 
2013-01-03 02:26:34 PM

BigNumber12: Reading this thread is giving me flashbacks to 2001. Emotion-inducing event that is nevertheless so uncommon that its likelihood of happening to the average American is statistically irrelevant? Loud, emotionally-based, ill-conceived public outcry for the government to remove rights from the 99.999% of the population who has never committed a crime of the type being targeted, because SECURITY, and "think of the victims"-type emotional appeals? Proposal of a sweeping set of regulations that only really affect law-abiding people who willingly submit to them in the first place?

There are quite a few people in here who must fap vigorously every time the PATRIOT Act is renewed and expanded.


4.bp.blogspot.com
 
2013-01-03 02:26:42 PM

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

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



Oh really? Read the other posts about the AR-15. They are the iPhone/Android of the rifle, versatile and able to be easily customized. I only went by what my friend said on the .223/5.56 barrels, but they are -very- customizable.
 
2013-01-03 02:26:44 PM

inner ted: simple

does the magazine hold more than 10 rounds?

if "yes" - then yes to both your questions

ta daa


What affect would that magazine size limitation do for that rifle? Would it affect it's performance in any significant way?
 
2013-01-03 02:28:28 PM

DPXFP2: The AR-15 was designed to produce many casualties quickly, which is why law enforcement needs them and you do not.


Law enforcement needs them because the bad guys had them first. California initiated its patrol-rifle system after the bank shootout where the perps had body armor and full-auto modified AKs.
 
2013-01-03 02:28:41 PM

DPXFP2: The AR-15 was designed to produce many casualties quickly, which is why law enforcement needs them and you do not.


I always ask gun control supporters that sort of question when they say that "assault weapons" are 'weapons of war that do belong on the streets', or they claim that it's only good for killing large numbers of people or is only good for killing cops. They never have an answer as to why the police would still be able to have them.
 
2013-01-03 02:28:42 PM

ALC59: [i.imgur.com image 500x710]


Feinstein wants to ban the Mini-14 by name. And the M1 carbine.
 
2013-01-03 02:28:51 PM

DPXFP2: The AR-15 was designed to produce many casualties quickly, which is why law enforcement needs them and you do not.


What if Law Enforcement starts using them to round up people with Fark handles starting with DPX? What shall we use to defend the freedoms of DPXers?
 
2013-01-03 02:28:53 PM

dr-shotgun: Ahh, another post about the history, purpose and design intent of the AR-15, from someone who has most likely never actually fired one.
....
Of course, that doesn't matter. I'm just a "gun nut." Clearly the people who have zero experience with firearms, who's only knowledge of the subject was acquired through movies, TV shows and 2 weeks of internetting know what is best for self defense.


Translation: "unless you're a gun fetishist like me, who creams his shorts just thinking about that sweet, sweet, sulfurous aroma of a freshly fired Bushmaster, your views are invalid." Way to rule out the other side of a debate without even having to think about it first. News flash: a lot of stuff people know, they learned by reading. You might not be familiar with that concept but it's pretty commonplace.
 
Displayed 50 of 1354 comments

First | « | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report