oppo
Full Access Member
Consider the threat posed by the cartels. I would say that certainly constitutes a need for many.
Last edited:
-
Welcome Visitors!
Click here to join the community today! Registering is free and it only takes a minute!
Semi-automatic rifles, automatic assault rifles - question
- Thread starter BIRDMAN
- Start date
KKing
Full Access Member
I've posted this in another thread, but this is the best way I can say it.
http://youtu.be/0R3uLTnzs60
http://youtu.be/0R3uLTnzs60
Bullnettles
Full Access Member
Tim, you make a valid point, but look at our military guys that have gone in specifically for training using these weapons, among other things. I don't think training is necessarily the answer, because what if a trainer trains someone who turns around and shoots up a school? The trainer would be railroaded and be SOL in terms of a job, at the very least. If anything, maybe a psych test, if we're talking compromises. Health ha come leaps and bounds, maybe a Roschart (sp?) test while the person is in an MRI machine?
Mike Hammer
New member
I wish you would have posted that before I answered, I wasted..........about..........10 seconds thinking of that answer.
Silver-Bolt
Full Access Member
For me it's 100% recreational. I enjoy shooting it. It is accurate and fun to shoot. If I hunted I could hunt with it as long as the mag capacity is limited. I shoot 7.62/.308 so it would make a solid deer gun but a little light for elk. My first hands on AR experience came in the early 80's from Uncle Sam. I do not use it to defend my home. Way too much H/P for that. So my use is for punching holes in paper. Do I need 20 round mags (no 30's for 7.62)? Nope. If I venture into competitive shooting then the higher capacity mags will be a must.
Do I want to see limits placed on mag capacity or the type of weapons we can buy? Not a chance. I am a firm believer that the weapon is not the problem it's the operator.
Do I want to see limits placed on mag capacity or the type of weapons we can buy? Not a chance. I am a firm believer that the weapon is not the problem it's the operator.
RangerDanger
Full Access Member
What if a person that has a legal ccp goes and shoots a bunch of people. You can't stop all the crazies or criminals no matter what we do. At least this way the people legally owning would have a better chance to properly use the firearm. Some of the people I saw buying would probably injure themselves or an innocent bystander before hitting the bad guy. No matter what happens there's gonna be one side that feels like they got the shaft (hopefully that's the anti-gun people lol). I'm all for a psych eval and solid background checks. If seems to me that most responsible gun owners don't have a problem with some sort of compromise. I just don't know how we make the liberals to open their eyes a little and get over their fear of guns
hotrodpc
Super Moderator
So I'm late to this thread. Haven't read it all. I did skin and seen one of my 2 reasons. I also understand Birdman didn't ask the question to bring up the 2nd Amendment, but fact is, that is 1 of my reasons. 2nd Amendment allows a US Citizen the right to bear arms to protect themselves from it's own government and keep the playing field equal. I'm already at a disadvantage since they have tanks and choppers. My firearm doesn't even match theirs since they are allowed fully automatic weapons. My AR or AK can only be Semi, so they are 1 up on me there too. But, reason #1, don't trust the gubment. #2, the bad guys will have the semi auto rifles and hand guns like AR-15's, AK-47's, Uzi's Tec 9's etc, so why shouldn't I be allowed to be at least equal to the bad guy?
hotrodpc
Super Moderator
I"ll also agree, We gun owners need to educate the ignorant. Ignorant not meant in a negative way, but in the actual meaning of the word. Look it up in the dictionary. I tell my kids, it's OK to be ignorant, but it's NOT ok to be stupid !!! Ignorant is, "The Lack of Knowledge". So these people will no longer be ignorant on the subject, educate them.
Here is my AK-47? How can you call this an "Assualty Rifle" when before it could be imported for sale in the US, it's now a Semi-Auto, NOT a Fully Auto, the Bayonet Lug had to be ground off of it, and threads on the barrel end were ground off not even leaving enough meat for a rethread. So what about it is an "Assault Rifle" ??? Technically, I can go into a Toys R Us and get a toy pump lever action toy guy with an orange tip and beat someone over the head with it, and it's now an "Assault Rifle" since I assaulted someone with it. Right? :shrug: Assault rifle should be defined as a fully tactical rifle with Full Auto capability, Bayonet for hand to hand combat, threaded barrel for adding muzzle breaks and/or silencers for sniper purposes. My Ak-47 will be in the ban as an "Assault Rifle" and I can be just as lethal with a Marlin 60 .22LR 13 shot Tube Mag rifle.
Here is my AK-47? How can you call this an "Assualty Rifle" when before it could be imported for sale in the US, it's now a Semi-Auto, NOT a Fully Auto, the Bayonet Lug had to be ground off of it, and threads on the barrel end were ground off not even leaving enough meat for a rethread. So what about it is an "Assault Rifle" ??? Technically, I can go into a Toys R Us and get a toy pump lever action toy guy with an orange tip and beat someone over the head with it, and it's now an "Assault Rifle" since I assaulted someone with it. Right? :shrug: Assault rifle should be defined as a fully tactical rifle with Full Auto capability, Bayonet for hand to hand combat, threaded barrel for adding muzzle breaks and/or silencers for sniper purposes. My Ak-47 will be in the ban as an "Assault Rifle" and I can be just as lethal with a Marlin 60 .22LR 13 shot Tube Mag rifle.
Attachments
Last edited:
SilvrSRT10
Super Moderator
Like I said before. We are not dealing with a rational people pushing forward with gun control. They are reacting to a terrible situation and only using emotion to go on. There was another shooting yesterday where two firefighters were killed in upper NY. I believe four of them were hit but two survived. Again, a Bushmaster type weapon was used giving the emotional liberals more ammunition to work with.
When these people are blaming the NRA for the Sandy Hook shooting and say they have blood on their hands, you aren't dealing with someone who is thinking straight. For that reason alone I'm glad they don't like guns and hopefully don't own any. Some were saying that NRA members should be shot. What kind of reasoning is that? But if they are in the majority, they may get their way. Obama has already said he will use every power of the president if necessary. I smell another executive order on the horizon. Unless they are able to pass something through congress. We'll just have to wait and see how far and wide their ban goes. But I have a feeling something is going to happen. This isn't just going away.
When these people are blaming the NRA for the Sandy Hook shooting and say they have blood on their hands, you aren't dealing with someone who is thinking straight. For that reason alone I'm glad they don't like guns and hopefully don't own any. Some were saying that NRA members should be shot. What kind of reasoning is that? But if they are in the majority, they may get their way. Obama has already said he will use every power of the president if necessary. I smell another executive order on the horizon. Unless they are able to pass something through congress. We'll just have to wait and see how far and wide their ban goes. But I have a feeling something is going to happen. This isn't just going away.
Because I took an oath to support and defend the constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic.
Part of that constitution (the preamble) argues that the purpose of establishing the constitution is to "secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity."
Forfeiting a right protected by the constitution is violating both my oath and the purpose of the constitution.
Part of that constitution (the preamble) argues that the purpose of establishing the constitution is to "secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity."
Forfeiting a right protected by the constitution is violating both my oath and the purpose of the constitution.
Concealed 27
Full Access Member
I do it just in case the shit hits the fan. Like during the riots after the Rodney king, store owners were on their roof with weapons. I also shoot my AR for recreational shooting. I was not able to join the Military due to my health condition. So owning an AR and shoot well with it makes me feel better about myself. I was trained by a friend by an EX/ Army Ranger on how to shoot proficatally and effective. I also am lookiung to get into 3 gun compettion...
Pistol, AR-15, Shotgun....
http://actionshootingpodcast.com/2009/08/05/getting-started-in-3-gun-part-1-equipment/
JMHO, Concealed27
Pistol, AR-15, Shotgun....
http://actionshootingpodcast.com/2009/08/05/getting-started-in-3-gun-part-1-equipment/
JMHO, Concealed27
armoredman
Full Access Member
We never compromised on true assault rifles - Miller didn't show up to court, and the US Govt attorney was able to present his side of the story with no opposing views, otherwise NFA of '34 would likely have died on the spot, and we wouldn't be having these national "discussion". We the people didn't compromise - the government compromised for us.
When someone asks, "why do you NEED a rifle like that", I can answer, "why do you feel the need to control what I own? "
I have had this discussion with several anti's at work, and I have so far won one over to my side, and given up on another who fights with emotion, and throws out any logic that doesn't suit him.
Logic - disarmed people will still attack children, as seen in China with mass stabbings of kindergarten age children.
Answer - That doesn't matter, nobody cares about China.
Logic - Over 500 children are killed by gunfire every year in America. Well over 4,000 die every year from accidental drownings. Do you support a ban on swimming pools?
Answer - That doesn't matter, we're talking about guns, not swimming pools, don't try to confuse the issue.
Logic - The Center for Disease Control, National Research Council and the National Institute of Justice stated the old AWB had absolutely no discernible impact on crime whatsoever, and the ONLY people affected were law abiding gun owners. Criminals, by definition, break the laws, and if they are willing to break the laws on armed robbery, rape and murder, a gun charge bothers them not one whit.
Answer - That doesn't matter, because I feel threatened by your rifle, just because you have one, and you should get rid of it so I can feel better.
No.
I have zero need to define "need" to anyone who believes they can ask me intrusive questions about my personal possessions, no more than I require anyone to explain why they "need" something so demonstrably dangerous as a home swimming pool, or a fast car, or steak knives, or any other legal product they choose to own.
The trend in the states shows quite clearly that this is a manufactured "crisis", as the trends have been towards freedom, evinced by Constitutional Carry laws being enacted in 5 states already, when 30 years ago it was 1 state with Constitutional Carry, and CCW was a dream for most.
Last "answer", as it's been stated that so called "assault rifles" aren't useful for hunting. Wrong again. Here in AZ we repealed the magazine limit for hunting, so this rifle,
...will be a coyote hunting rifle. Cower in fear - those are 30 round magazines! Yes, and I will use them while hunting, first because nobody MAKES a magazine smaller than 30 in the US, and second, because that's what the rifle was made to use. It also doubles as a home defense rifle, and is a heck of a lot of fun at the range.
[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h-WD_pkAx9s[/ame]
Here is a shotgun that gives Feinstien the collywobbles, being semi-auto, has a collapsible stock and a magazine greater than 5.
OK, the magazine was an oops - I had no idea it was going to stick out that far when I ordered it like that.
The stock is a four position adjustable length deal so my wife and son can also use it, and guess what - I was rabbit hunting with it that day. Legally.
When I hear talk of, "let's compromise, or we'll lose everything", well, that's just defeatist talk. Let's DO a leftists style compromise, the one where one side loses something and the other side gains?
We'll repeal NFA of '34 and GCA of '68, and they can keep manual typewriters only. Sounds stupid? Look at the way they word "compromise", and you will see it is EXACTLY what they offer, and "we win, you lose" deal.
If you want to buy rifles that have only five round magazines, move to Canada - they "compromised".
When someone asks, "why do you NEED a rifle like that", I can answer, "why do you feel the need to control what I own? "
I have had this discussion with several anti's at work, and I have so far won one over to my side, and given up on another who fights with emotion, and throws out any logic that doesn't suit him.
Logic - disarmed people will still attack children, as seen in China with mass stabbings of kindergarten age children.
Answer - That doesn't matter, nobody cares about China.
Logic - Over 500 children are killed by gunfire every year in America. Well over 4,000 die every year from accidental drownings. Do you support a ban on swimming pools?
Answer - That doesn't matter, we're talking about guns, not swimming pools, don't try to confuse the issue.
Logic - The Center for Disease Control, National Research Council and the National Institute of Justice stated the old AWB had absolutely no discernible impact on crime whatsoever, and the ONLY people affected were law abiding gun owners. Criminals, by definition, break the laws, and if they are willing to break the laws on armed robbery, rape and murder, a gun charge bothers them not one whit.
Answer - That doesn't matter, because I feel threatened by your rifle, just because you have one, and you should get rid of it so I can feel better.
No.
I have zero need to define "need" to anyone who believes they can ask me intrusive questions about my personal possessions, no more than I require anyone to explain why they "need" something so demonstrably dangerous as a home swimming pool, or a fast car, or steak knives, or any other legal product they choose to own.
The trend in the states shows quite clearly that this is a manufactured "crisis", as the trends have been towards freedom, evinced by Constitutional Carry laws being enacted in 5 states already, when 30 years ago it was 1 state with Constitutional Carry, and CCW was a dream for most.
Last "answer", as it's been stated that so called "assault rifles" aren't useful for hunting. Wrong again. Here in AZ we repealed the magazine limit for hunting, so this rifle,
...will be a coyote hunting rifle. Cower in fear - those are 30 round magazines! Yes, and I will use them while hunting, first because nobody MAKES a magazine smaller than 30 in the US, and second, because that's what the rifle was made to use. It also doubles as a home defense rifle, and is a heck of a lot of fun at the range.
[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h-WD_pkAx9s[/ame]
Here is a shotgun that gives Feinstien the collywobbles, being semi-auto, has a collapsible stock and a magazine greater than 5.
OK, the magazine was an oops - I had no idea it was going to stick out that far when I ordered it like that.
The stock is a four position adjustable length deal so my wife and son can also use it, and guess what - I was rabbit hunting with it that day. Legally.When I hear talk of, "let's compromise, or we'll lose everything", well, that's just defeatist talk. Let's DO a leftists style compromise, the one where one side loses something and the other side gains?
We'll repeal NFA of '34 and GCA of '68, and they can keep manual typewriters only. Sounds stupid? Look at the way they word "compromise", and you will see it is EXACTLY what they offer, and "we win, you lose" deal.
If you want to buy rifles that have only five round magazines, move to Canada - they "compromised".
Last edited:
hotrodpc
Super Moderator
I like the point brought up about Swimming Pools being banned. My daughter and SIL have guns in the house with their kids now, 3 and 4 year old girls I don't worry about that. But this past summer when the girls were 2 and 3, I was scared shitless of the damn pool. The 2yo kept insisting on climbing the ladder and jumping in the 4.5 foot deep above ground pool without floaties even and laugh her ass off about it. I'd have nightmares over that damn pool and them baby girls. The parents SAY they set the ladder in the pool so the kids can't get in, but that's BS, everytime, and I do mean EVERYTIME I went over there, the ladder was over the edge of the pool.
oppo
Full Access Member
Who needs a swimming pool? They are obviously a danger. We should ban them. Afterall, it is for the kids.
armoredman
Full Access Member
Ban high capacity bathtubs! It's for the children!
RangerDanger
Full Access Member
Ban spoons. America has a obesity problem
hotrodpc
Super Moderator
Ban Cars, they kills thousands every year. Make everyone take a helicopter or plane to work.
Hell yeah, we will soon be like the Jetsons !!!
Hell yeah, we will soon be like the Jetsons !!!
