Good Reason To Have An AR-15

[metis]

What's so unfortunate about so much of the gun discussion here is that some here continually portray some of us that actually believe that there needs to be some restrictions on guns to be "anti-gun". Frankly, I haven't seen anyone here argue that all guns should be removed from all people in American society.

Therefore, and far more intelligent discussion would be to ask those who feel that there needs to be some gun restrictions exactly what they think should be restricted and why, but that rarely gets asked. Too many, it appears, operate from an either/or dichotomy versus actually understanding that the vast majority here, including those who say they're "pro-Second Amendment", do believe some restrictions are necessary.

So, to conclude, let me recommend actually asking questions versus stereotyping people and placing them at either extreme.

 

[Revoltingest]

What's so unfortunate about so much of the gun discussion here is that some here continually portray some of us that actually believe that there needs to be some restrictions on guns to be "anti-gun".

Note too that all the pro-gun types I've talked to here also believe in regulation.
The big difference is how much & in what way.
But when a discussion gets around to validity vs invalidity of the 2nd Amendment,
this can get rather polarizing. Without the 2A, many locales would ban private
gun ownership.

 

[metis]

Note too that all the pro-gun types I've talked to here also believe in regulation.
The big difference is how much & in what way.

Agreed, so this is what the discussion should be reflecting, imo, but all too often it doesn't, instead people often being labeled and stereotyped.

 

[Revoltingest]

Agreed, so this is what the discussion should be reflecting, imo, but all too often it doesn't, instead people often being labeled and stereotyped.

It's tiring, but all we can do is call people on inappropriate generalizations,
& try to steer conversations in a more productive direction.

 

[Apex]

Yet another example of our politicians attempting to create legislation on things they know almost nothing about.

Here is the video:
[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xI6eE_FAwao&feature=youtu.be[/youtube]

And here is a response to the video from a full-time deputy sheriff:

Sir,
My name is Matt *****. I am a full-time deputy sheriff and have been so employed for 17 years. I am a court recognized firearms expert, a lifelong shooting sports enthusiast and in my spare time, I write firearms and firearm related gear reviews for several media outlets, both online and print.
I am writing this letter as I attempt to sit through the YouTube video (Sen. Kevin de León - Ghost Guns PC 1/13/14 - YouTube) of your recent press conference given on January 13, 2014. As someone quite knowledgeable about firearms, I find it extremely difficult to listen to your presentation because almost nothing you said about these “Ghost Guns” (a term you used repeatedly that I have never once heard before) is factually correct.
I would like to try and both educate you at the same time as I dispel with the lies and obfuscations you presented to the media during that press conference.

 

[Guitar's Cry]

Maybe the referenced video might explain to some of you why a AR-15 is necessary. You will notice when the CNN Anchor ask about a 10 round magazine the reporter stated that a 30 round magazine was needed for the person to be more effective.

http://www.cnn.com/video/?hpt=hp_t2#...5-hog-swat.cnn

That guy enjoyed killing things with his night vision, thermal imaging, and assault weaponry way too much.

I mean, seriously?

He seems to be treating it like a video game. Take that as you will.

I grew up with guns. I'm not afraid of them. I shoot occasionally. I don't own any, because I don't feel I need to. But I've noticed that a lot of the people who do own them (my family and friends) say they keep them for home safety, but are perfectly willing to shoot things before considering other options. I remember stopping my brother from shooting a baby raccoon in a tree just because it was getting in the trash.

That's just my own experience and assumptions, and I'm not saying all gun owners are like this. I'm on the fence with gun laws. I think guns should be available for private ownership, but should be as regulated as things like driving.

In Maine, it is easier to get a gun and shoot it, then get a car and drive it. Driver's ed is more expensive than gun safety classes; you need a license, registration, insurance, and inspection sticker before you can get on the road. For a gun, you only need to be 18 (21 for a handgun), and a five day waiting period--unless its a private sale.

 

[Reverend Rick]

I have seen blood lust in many hunters. I have never took any pleasure in killing. I don't hunt that much, and look at it as harvesting to reduce herds for the well being of the species. I would not shoot a baby coon in my trash.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Yet another example of our politicians attempting to create legislation on things they know almost nothing about.

Here is the video:


And here is a response to the video from a full-time deputy sheriff:

As someone who worked at ATF, familiar with 3D printing and a gun owner myself...I find much of what he said there about the "Ghost Guns" to be factually correct. However I don't think, at this point in time, it's a big problem as some make it out to be. The materials are still too expensive as well as the printer itself. I have seen the composite weapons made on a printer before but nothing I'd ever want to try and shoot. Metal guns, parts and components can be fabricated on a (specific) 3D printer. But that particular printer cost hundreds of thousands of dollars and the price of the gun would be way too expensive.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u7ZYKMBDm4M



As far as the politician's claim about buying the "engine" (LOL!!!) of the gun and it having no serial number on it...well I haven't come across that. The ones I've seen do have a serial numbers on them.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

I have seen blood lust in many hunters. I have never took any pleasure in killing. I don't hunt that much, and look at it as harvesting to reduce herds for the well being of the species. I would not shoot a baby coon in my trash.

I agree. As a gun owner and hunter...I don't get the blood lust (in some). There have been times when shotgun and muzzle loader season opens and I would go hunting with friends and never see or shoot anything. I think to myself..(oh well. maybe next time). As far as the raccoon getting into the trash...well it's time to invest in better trash cans and better storage of trash/trash cans.

 

[Reverend Rick]

One little coon is cute, I agree get a better trash can problem solved. Now if a herd of coons try to intercept me bringing in the groceries or I cannot barbecue on my porch without being molested......

For me, most of the time the dogs or a few well placed fireworks does the trick.

 

[CMike]

What's so unfortunate about so much of the gun discussion here is that some here continually portray some of us that actually believe that there needs to be some restrictions on guns to be "anti-gun". Frankly, I haven't seen anyone here argue that all guns should be removed from all people in American society.

Therefore, and far more intelligent discussion would be to ask those who feel that there needs to be some gun restrictions exactly what they think should be restricted and why, but that rarely gets asked. Too many, it appears, operate from an either/or dichotomy versus actually understanding that the vast majority here, including those who say they're "pro-Second Amendment", do believe some restrictions are necessary.

So, to conclude, let me recommend actually asking questions versus stereotyping people and placing them at either extreme.

First we need to start off with it's a constitutional right.

Without this fact, any local government can do whatever they want regarding gun ownership rights.

However, they can't because it is a constitutional right.

No right is absolute. There is freedom of speech but libel and slander are still illegal.

Gun ownership rights are not absolute, but it's still a fundamental right.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

Technically no firearm is needed but anyone who has knowledge of guns already knows that there is no need for an assault rifle for personal protection. A handgun will do just fine. A 9 mil can kill. A shotgun will blow them apart. A 9mil can hold more than one shot and can be pretty damn accurate if you practice a little.

 

[metis]

Technically no firearm is needed but anyone who has knowledge of guns already knows that there is no need for an assault rifle for personal protection. A handgun will do just fine. A 9 mil can kill. A shotgun will blow them apart. A 9mil can hold more than one shot and can be pretty damn accurate if you practice a little.

I previously mentioned about having the local or state police and/or the FBI in my classroom, and I mentioned that they say do not try and confront but to call 911 instead, but a couple of them said that if you feel you must confront someone in your home, a shotgun is best. Handguns, with anyone but those who are well practiced, can be too shaky, and rifle bullets can too easily penetrate walls and possibly kill someone else.

 

[Revoltingest]

I previously mentioned about having the local or state police and/or the FBI in my classroom, and I mentioned that they say do not try and confront but to call 911 instead, but a couple of them said that if you feel you must confront someone in your home, a shotgun is best. Handguns, with anyone but those who are well practiced, can be too shaky, and rifle bullets can too easily penetrate walls and possibly kill someone else.

One may safely & effectively use a rifle for this purpose by selecting fragmenting
ammunition (eg, Glaser). This is also the best choice (IMO) for handguns too.

Note: perhaps the most dangerous ammunition is the NATO approved 'humane' military
ball ammo, which is prone to over-penetration & ricocheting.

 

[oldbadger]

I previously mentioned about having the local or state police and/or the FBI in my classroom, and I mentioned that they say do not try and confront but to call 911 instead, but a couple of them said that if you feel you must confront someone in your home, a shotgun is best. Handguns, with anyone but those who are well practiced, can be too shaky, and rifle bullets can too easily penetrate walls and possibly kill someone else.

This^^^

Also, one pro gun-rights debater on this thread has already explained (here or on another similar thread) that most of the 'real-hunters' that he knows only hunt with Bow, Crossbow or Muzzle loader. The true challenge....... beyond 'sport' into something much more special.
Amazingly, this mirrors part of an earlier post of mine which pointed out that a semi-automatic weapon and ten mags of ammo is pathetic when compared with the challenge of a rifle, two rounds, one shot and the thrill of tremendous effort and some risk.

Get rid of the AR15's boys...... be a real hunter, time to become men? You don't need 'em.....
(apologies to the women, there.... )

 

[Revoltingest]

This^^^

Also, one pro gun-rights debater on this thread has already explained (here or on another similar thread) that most of the 'real-hunters' that he knows only hunt with Bow, Crossbow or Muzzle loader.

This is a condition created by Michigan law though. We southern lopers
(lower peninsula types) are legally prohibited from using center fire rifles here.
Yoopers get to use'm though.

 

[oldbadger]

This is a condition created by Michigan law though. We southern lopers
(lower peninsula types) are legally prohibited from using center fire rifles here.
Yoopers get to use'm though.

Now you just shocked me.........
You telling me that M-hunters are restricted (banned) from using centre fire (incl bolt action) rifles?
That is fantastic...... a truly excellent idea.

Something similar...... UK wildfowlers have been banned from shooting from powered boats of any kind. Sail and oar only......

I'm very impressed with that. Really.

 

[Revoltingest]

Now you just shocked me.........
You telling me that M-hunters are restricted (banned) from using centre fire (incl bolt action) rifles?
That is fantastic...... a truly excellent idea.
Something similar...... UK wildfowlers have been banned from shooting from powered boats of any kind. Sail and oar only......
I'm very impressed with that. Really.

I was imprecise. We can't use'm for hunting, but they're otherwise OK.
I'm a fan of the M1A for punching holes in paper.

 

[oldbadger]

I was imprecise. We can't use'm for hunting, but they're otherwise OK.
I'm a fan of the M1A for punching holes in paper.

I'm still impressed.
In fact I'm more impressed with that law than I am with UK law. Here we are banned from hunting with any kind of arrow, spear or dart, and that includes fish, game, birds, mammals etc. I can still shoot Grey Mullet and Flounders with a bow, simply because the legislators did not (or could not) include sea fish below mean average high water mark. But it's years now since I actually did that, to be honest.

No...... good on the Michigam legislators.

What's a yooper, or whatever it was?

 

[Dirty Penguin]

This^^^

Also, one pro gun-rights debater on this thread has already explained (here or on another similar thread) that most of the 'real-hunters' that he knows only hunt with Bow, Crossbow or Muzzle loader. The true challenge....... beyond 'sport' into something much more special.
Amazingly, this mirrors part of an earlier post of mine which pointed out that a semi-automatic weapon and ten mags of ammo is pathetic when compared with the challenge of a rifle, two rounds, one shot and the thrill of tremendous effort and some risk.

Get rid of the AR15's boys...... be a real hunter, time to become men? You don't need 'em.....
(apologies to the women, there.... )

We also use rifles to hunt....but an AR 15 (Combat Weapon) is an effective bore hunting weapon.