An honest question on assault rifles.

Controlled Opposition said:
It's about parity. It's about the ability of the average citizen to meet the average soldier on almost equal terms.
Click to expand...

No, it's about the almighty dollar and the gun manufacturers making money off of a model that they initially couldn't sell very well to the military. It's about feeding off the paranoia of the average citizen. When you talk about "parity" you should remember that the NRA propaganda just 20 years ago was swearing that ANY gun control was a slippery slope to total gun confiscation and ban to the civilian population. By that take, you state that weapons of ANY caliber are a threat of resistance to the potential totalitarian/fascist/communist state. Any soldier worth his weight will tell you that they would rather NOT face a population armed with hunting rifles, rifles, handguns and shotguns of various caliber.

The militia is the "parity"....and that today is the National Guard and various state recognized & sanctioned militia. Other than that, the average citizen does have a right to a weapon....not a military grade one.

Well we know that the NRA blather NEVER had a chance of happening and was NEVER part of any proposal. The AWB of 1994 was an attempt to keep para-military weapons out of the general population and thus subsequently off the black market and out of the hands of potential nut jobs and terrorists.
 
Mott the Hoople said:
That’s a pretty vague question. Mainly handguns and shotguns shoot non ballistic rounds. Hunting rifles and assault riffles both fire ballistic round which have a far greater range in killing power with assault rifles having a greater rate of fire.
Click to expand...

But here's the thing; the basic defense people put forth for AR-15 (style) ownership is either "self defense" or "hunting". Well, all that you've mentioned can kill ya just as dead as an AR-15 in a home invasion, and no hunter I know of worth his salt wants to pepper the carcass with holes, whether he's going to eat it or not. I always remember the father of a friend of mine who was a duck hunter. The man was EXTREMELY careful with his weapon, because as he explained to me "The ammo is geared to take down a duck flying above you...imagine what that would do to a man less than 10 yards away. May not kill him, but he won't be happy!"
 
I Love America said:
I would argue that is is not the most effective. Those who have committed these atrocities strike me as being as ignorant about guns as you are.

They see dipshits like you make a big deal and think there is something to it

Be honest. You just think it looks scary. You have probably never even shot one
Click to expand...

If you've got nothing but this childish, pointless blather for a response, then it's obvious you have no interest in an honest discussion, and will be ignored.
 
SmarterthanYou said:
read the hughes amendment. it's pretty simple. if there's anything I know about the laws the best, it's GUN laws.



not sure what this has to do with ANYTHING I stated about why I prefer the AR15, but then I personally think it's your own personal fear of weapons.
Click to expand...

So if a guy has a registered machine gun pre-1968, he can sell it.....depending on what hoops they have to jump through in each State. That is NOT the same as availability at your local gun shop, but technically you're right.....very narrowly too, given how many of those actually exists.

You can "prefer" anything....give me a reason why, as you have an adequate number of hunting rifles, handguns and shotguns that'll get the job done just as (if not more) efficiently. THAT is the question.
 
Superfreak said:
and AGAIN, you fail to grasp the simple fact that it IS NOT AN ASSAULT RIFLE. Saying 'its the next best thing' is a marketing tool. It doesn't magically change the FACT that it is no different in how it fires rounds than any other semi auto rifle. It just LOOKS scarier/cooler. That doesn't alter one bit what the gun actually does.
Click to expand...

Spare me the hair splitting, because the nuts that have been choosing this weapon did so because it fit exactly what they wanted to do....assault a crowd of people. Deal with it.
 
Superfreak said:
Thanks for proving you have no clue about guns. Showing a video of an idiot modifying the AR15 with this ignorant 'crank' is fucking hilarious. First, he calls it a gat crank... fucking hilarious. Second, you can fire far faster with your finger than you can with a fucking crank like that.

Again... thanks for once again proving your ignorance.
Click to expand...

Seems you think that if one doesn't use EXACTLY the same term as you negates the bottom line. That's not the case here, chuckles.....what you have is a conversion from semi-auto to full auto....whether it's a crank or a flip of a switch and trigger pull or a bump stock. The victims don't really care. The magazine, the high capacity ammo capability...yeah, it's an assault rifle, as many victims of mass shootings discovered.
 
Celticguy said:
If you're looking to kill something, sure. Unless you're looking to kill something very large or very far away.
Click to expand...

Which is why the AR-15 is such an effective assault rifle, as recent mass shootings have shown. My grandpa's people did effective food hunting with single shot, bolt action or limited load rifles for decades....the AR15 doesn't fit that bill.
'
 
Taichiliberal said:
The militia is the "parity"....and that today is the National Guard and various state recognized & sanctioned militia. Other than that, the average citizen does have a right to a weapon....not a military grade one.
Click to expand...
It is the ABSOLUTE height of stupidity to believe that the framers would craft the 2nd Amendment as either a right to the government to have military arms OR to believe that the founders were thinking of a national guard when EVERY SINGLE COMMENTARY talked about the people having arms as well as the constitution specifically forbidding the states to keep troops.
 
SmarterthanYou said:
and you don't have the sense to see a bigger picture, but you're a government cock sucking little bitch anyway
Click to expand...

Right, because YOU are so off the grid...no social security, no veterans benefits.....you drive without a license or registration and rarely get ticketed, you don't pay taxes....and yet you manage to afford an enormous amount of time on the internet (without paying fees?).

You're so full of it.
 
SmarterthanYou said:
It is the ABSOLUTE height of stupidity to believe that the framers would craft the 2nd Amendment as either a right to the government to have military arms OR to believe that the founders were thinking of a national guard when EVERY SINGLE COMMENTARY talked about the people having arms as well as the constitution specifically forbidding the states to keep troops.
Click to expand...

The national guard evolved out of the "well regulated militia" part of the 2nd Amendment, you braying jackass. and then there's this https://constitutioncenter.org/blog/on-this-day-congress-officially-creates-the-u-s-army

Stop ignoring what you don't like, bunky. Join the real world.
 
Taichiliberal said:
So if a guy has a registered machine gun pre-1968, he can sell it.....depending on what hoops they have to jump through in each State. That is NOT the same as availability at your local gun shop, but technically you're right.....very narrowly too, given how many of those actually exists.
Click to expand...
probably a typo on your part, but its 1986, not 1968.

Taichiliberal said:
You can "prefer" anything....give me a reason why, as you have an adequate number of hunting rifles, handguns and shotguns that'll get the job done just as (if not more) efficiently. THAT is the question.
Click to expand...

I'm not a hunter. I don't like sport hunting, therefore I have no need of hunting weapons. My choice of weapons is predicated upon two things......what am I good with and what does the job I need it for. The job I need it for is killing and that means good rounds, fast action, and decent usability. The AR15 fits that purpose for me.
 
Taichiliberal said:
No, it's about the almighty dollar and the gun manufacturers making money off of a model that they initially couldn't sell very well to the military. It's about feeding off the paranoia of the average citizen. When you talk about "parity" you should remember that the NRA propaganda just 20 years ago was swearing that ANY gun control was a slippery slope to total gun confiscation and ban to the civilian population. By that take, you state that weapons of ANY caliber are a threat of resistance to the potential totalitarian/fascist/communist state. Any soldier worth his weight will tell you that they would rather NOT face a population armed with hunting rifles, rifles, handguns and shotguns of various caliber.

The militia is the "parity"....and that today is the National Guard and various state recognized & sanctioned militia. Other than that, the average citizen does have a right to a weapon....not a military grade one.

Well we know that the NRA blather NEVER had a chance of happening and was NEVER part of any proposal. The AWB of 1994 was an attempt to keep para-military weapons out of the general population and thus subsequently off the black market and out of the hands of potential nut jobs and terrorists.
Click to expand...

Why would a citizen have a right to any weapon at all, if they can't have one for the purposes of the 2nd Amendment?
 
Taichiliberal said:
Right, because YOU are so off the grid...no social security, no veterans benefits.....you drive without a license or registration and rarely get ticketed, you don't pay taxes....and yet you manage to afford an enormous amount of time on the internet (without paying fees?).

You're so full of it.
Click to expand...

when you have no argument, resort to hyperbole. I have seen it many times. i'd explain to you how i'm able to do what I do, but you'd not believe me because intellectually inferior people can't seem to comprehend that there are people out there with job skills that are so needed, that companies will pay them to work from home.....which is what I do. and paying fees? i'm paying a corporation to provide me internet access. Now personally I have issues with how the regulations keep it limited to a few corporations, but I do have to work within the system at times. I just keep it to a minimum.
 
Taichiliberal said:
The national guard evolved out of the "well regulated militia" part of the 2nd Amendment, you braying jackass. and then there's this https://constitutioncenter.org/blog/on-this-day-congress-officially-creates-the-u-s-army

Stop ignoring what you don't like, bunky. Join the real world.
Click to expand...

the national guard evolved out of the dick act and has nothing to do with the 'well regulated' militia because it isn't the militia. the militia is 'we the people, except a few public officials'. so maybe you need to stop ignoring what you don't like about the constitutional debates and commentaries.
 
Taichiliberal said:
Which is why the AR-15 is such an effective assault rifle, as recent mass shootings have shown. My grandpa's people did effective food hunting with single shot, bolt action or limited load rifles for decades....the AR15 doesn't fit that bill.
'
Click to expand...

So ? The 2nd amendment is not about game hunting.
 
Taichiliberal said:
Spare me the hair splitting, because the nuts that have been choosing this weapon did so because it fit exactly what they wanted to do....assault a crowd of people. Deal with it.
Click to expand...

It isn't splitting hairs you moron. They are very different weapons. The reason the AR style is chosen could just as much be blamed on the media coverage of said weapon.
 
Taichiliberal said:
Seems you think that if one doesn't use EXACTLY the same term as you negates the bottom line. That's not the case here, chuckles.....what you have is a conversion from semi-auto to full auto....whether it's a crank or a flip of a switch and trigger pull or a bump stock. The victims don't really care. The magazine, the high capacity ammo capability...yeah, it's an assault rifle, as many victims of mass shootings discovered.
Click to expand...

When it comes to fully automatic vs. semi, yeah, ya probably should know the difference. Again, that crank doesn't make it full auto. It is still one squeeze of the trigger for one round as it is the crank that pulls the trigger. AGAIN... that crank is FAR SLOWER than using a finger to pull the trigger.

Nope... still not an assault rifle. No matter how many times you want to pretend it is. Still one trigger pull, one round.
 
sear said:
Really?
Please post the article & section numbers. Thanks.
Click to expand...

Art. 1, Sec 10. Clause 3....to wit...

No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top