Good Reason To Have An AR-15

[Revoltingest]

Oh yeah? And just how many folks who actually do live in your country know anything about the mindset of a hunter who takes the most tremendous personal risks, self disciplined to the utmost level, totally humbled by all around, with an understanding about a quarry reaching almost to love, who, having gone to all that trouble, will not shoot unless a kill is almost absolutely certain, clean and final?
Go on..... tell me another one.... just like the first one.

I can tell you about all the hunters I know. They mostly use bows, crossbows, muzzle loaders, &
bolt action rifles for hunting anything other than fowl. You are correct that they don't take personal
risks when hunting. (Although one friend did get a nasty case of frostbite once.....very very no fun.)
But I find that prudent rather than something to criticize.

We typically aren't risk loving adrenaline junkies.
I don't fault you for being one, so long as you don't put others at risk.

Note: The frostbite guy does use an M1A Supermatch with a 20 (standard) round mag (for larger game,
but this isn't about "spray & pray". It's simply one of the most accurate rifles (sub 1 MOA) around.
Tis about nostalgia from Marine basic training too.

 

[Knight of Albion]

Wisdom, Law, Love - and regret . I'd explain but ....

Take your gun and smash it against a rock. It'll be the best thing you ever did.

 

[Revoltingest]

Wisdom, Law, Love - and regret . I'd explain but ....
Take your gun and smash it against a rock. It'll be the best thing you ever did.

But that would ruin accuracy.

 

[Thief]

Saw a documentary exploring the possiblity that David and Goliath may have been a possible encounter.

Turns out, rock slinging is a sport.
The man up for the shot can whip a smooth stone to a small target....damn good!

Where shall we hide all of the rocks?!

 

[Dirty Penguin]

The problems remain.

It sure does...The 2nd. Amendment in this situation has "little" bearing on a state's ability to ban certain weapons...and in Maryland's case they have been effective in banning Combat Weapons regardless of this belief by CMike that he has a constitutional right to own any weapon he wants. If you lived in MD...what part of the 2nd. amendment gives you the right to own a Combat Weapon....none...surely you wouldn't be able to plead your case to a state judge because the law is clear at the state level....surely you wouldn't be able to plead your case to the SCOTUS, provided a state allowed your case to even get that far, because the SCOTUS has already ruled on this which is why a state like MD can ban Combat Weapons and high capacity magazines.

 

[Revoltingest]

It sure does...The 2nd. Amendment in this situation has "little" bearing on a state's ability to ban certain weapons...and in Maryland's case they have been effective in banning Combat Weapons regardless of this belief by CMike that he has a constitutional right to own any weapon he wants. If you lived in MD...what part of the 2nd. amendment gives you the right to own a Combat Weapon....none...surely you wouldn't be able to plead your case to a state judge because the law is clear at the state level....surely you wouldn't be able to plead your case to the SCOTUS, provided a state allowed your case to even get that far, because the SCOTUS has already ruled on this which is why a state like MD can ban Combat Weapons and high capacity magazines.

It's murkier than you portray, since the incorporation doctrine is lagging in its application to the 2nd.
I wouldn't be surprised if some day the USSC reins in MD somewhat, just as it did with DC recently.
When a fed constitutional right is curtailed by a state, this portends long term conflict. Thinking of
the 1st, imagine the problem if MD wanted to restrict speech or religion more than the fed allows.

 

[oldbadger]

I can tell you about all the hunters I know. They mostly use bows, crossbows, muzzle loaders, &
bolt action rifles for hunting anything other than fowl. You are correct that they don't take personal
risks when hunting. (Although one friend did get a nasty case of frostbite once.....very very no fun.)
But I find that prudent rather than something to criticize.

Now read my post again. I wrote that they can take the most tremendous personal risks. That was not a criticism, but an observation. I know that I sometimes took risks, and had some close shaves.

We typically aren't risk loving adrenaline junkies.
I don't fault you for being one, so long as you don't put others at risk.

Fair enough. Most sportspeople do risk, one way or another. Bow-hunters do, muzzle loaders do...... I knew both those challenges before legislation removed one and made the other very difficult.

Note: The frostbite guy does use an M1A Supermatch with a 20 (standard) round mag (for larger game, but this isn't about "spray & pray". It's simply one of the most accurate rifles (sub 1 MOA) around.
Tis about nostalgia from Marine basic training too.

I've got white-finger due to my sillier years. Can't wear gloves, must wear mittens, even when cycling.

Now that's more like it. Such extreme challenges reach beyond 'sport' into 'a way of life', almost a spiritual undertaking, beyond the understanding or acceptance of many who queue up at the meat counter.

My special objective was never achieved, to knock a wigeon out of a flight with a stone, hurled from a leather and chord sling. I can still throw a stone over 200 yards today, but never did succeed in that, and shan't now. But when I watch an aborigine working with a boomerang, or a bow-hunter drop a pheasant with a flu-flu....... that really stirs me to admiration. As for the big game bow-hunters..... well, I can't bring words to post....

 

[oldbadger]

Saw a documentary exploring the possiblity that David and Goliath may have been a possible encounter.

No doubt about that.
When I was a wildfowler I could send a clod of earth or a big stone far out into the middle of a creek to 'lift' rafts of wigeon into flight. And I could smash a petrol can at 30 yards, no problem.

Turns out, rock slinging is a sport.
The man up for the shot can whip a smooth stone to a small target....damn good!

No problem. The Greeks and Romans used special lead missiles for slinging. Nasty.

Where shall we hide all of the rocks?!

You might like to read 'The White Company' by Arthur Conan-Doyle. He describes how whole companies of Spanish slingers could destroy an enemy army quite as easily as English Longbow-men could.

 

[CMike]

It sure does...The 2nd. Amendment in this situation has "little" bearing on a state's ability to ban certain weapons...and in Maryland's case they have been effective in banning Combat Weapons regardless of this belief by CMike that he has a constitutional right to own any weapon he wants. If you lived in MD...what part of the 2nd. amendment gives you the right to own a Combat Weapon....none...surely you wouldn't be able to plead your case to a state judge because the law is clear at the state level....surely you wouldn't be able to plead your case to the SCOTUS, provided a state allowed your case to even get that far, because the SCOTUS has already ruled on this which is why a state like MD can ban Combat Weapons and high capacity magazines.

"the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." That part gives yhou the right.

Almost any weapon is potentially a combat weapon. A knife is a combat weapon too.

The Supreme Court has had a bad habit of making law instead of interpreting it.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

"the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." That part gives yhou the right.

It doesn't give a right; it presupposes a right without saying what that right entails.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

"the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." That part gives yhou the right.

Almost any weapon is potentially a combat weapon. A knife is a combat weapon too.

The Supreme Court has had a bad habit of making law instead of interpreting it.

And this premise is lacking considering in the state of MD. you don't have the right to buy or own that weapon regardless of the second part of the 2nd amendment or your interpretation of it. So your blanket statement that it gives you the right to own any weapon you want and it shall not be infringed is lacking considering that particular state is within its right to ban it (at least for now).

 

[Dirty Penguin]

The Supreme Court has had a bad habit of making law instead of interpreting it.

SCOTUS does not make law...They do in fact interpret law..You may not like or agree with it but that is what they do. If they agreed with your understanding of the constitution or any other law I doubt you would take issue with their rulings......

 

[Revoltingest]

SCOTUS does not make law...They do in fact interpret law....

They do both, although with a far greater proportion of the latter.
It should be strictly about interpretation though.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

They do both, although with a far greater proportion of the latter.

... but I'm sure District of Columbia vs. Heller isn't an example of this, right?

 

[Revoltingest]

... but I'm sure District of Columbia vs. Heller isn't an example of this, right?

Now, now....I know you're using the standard NPR accusation that rulings are only "judicial
activism" when the complainant disagrees. But you should be above such glib trickery.
I've examples of making law by the USSC:
- Kelo v New London actually rewrites the 5th Amendment regarding takings.
- Lewis v United states created the Petty Offense Doctrine which removes the right to trial by jury for some.
Perhaps we can agree that their job is strictly interpretation rather than amending, even if it isn't always clear.

 

[Northern Lights]

Answering the OP...

What you need is irrelevant in a democrat society.

We don't need the New York Times. Why don't we ban it? I find it offensive.

We don't need liberal new statations. How about we ban it?

We have the consitutional right to own an AR-15.

Now I can answer what benefits to own an AR-15

1) it's an excellent home defense gun. With frangible rounds it has less penetration than even a handgun.

2) It has tremendous amount of knock down power. If G-D forbid I am in a gun fight I don't want a fair fight. I want to have more firepower than the person shooting at me.

3) The 30 round capacity is very important. You can't have too much ammo. What if there are multiple attackers?

Shooting and hitting people that are moving in low light conditions is very difficult. We need as much ammo as we can get into the magazine. Reloading takes precious time.

God forbid, if reincarnation or rebirth exist, that I am born in your world.

Such excitement and enthusiams over a machine designed to tear apart human flesh and organs and kill.

3) The 30 round capacity is very important. You can't have too much ammo. What if there are multiple attackers?

You just (like a lot of gun-toting Americans) come across as paranoid and delusional, in statements like these.

That's all thanks.

 

[Revoltingest]

You just (like a lot of gun-toting Americans) come across as paranoid and delusional, in statements like these.

This is just empty nasty name calling.
(Don't make the voices in my head angry...they're armed!)

 

[Reverend Rick]

Everything boils down to, if I have to explain you would not understand. The sides boil down to those who are self sufficient and those who are dependant on others.

When you dial 911 and get the busy signal if you even can get a call out at all, you are on your own.

Some people stick their heads in the sand when it comes to disaster prepairedness.

Most don't have enough food or water to last a week.

 

[Revoltingest]

Everything boils down to, if I have to explain you would not understand. The sides boil down to those who are self sufficient and those who are dependant on others.
When you dial 911 and get the busy signal if you even can get a call out at all, you are on your own.
Some people stick their heads in the sand when it comes to disaster prepairedness.
Most don't have enough food or water to last a week.

Aye....all the arguments & statistics aside, what I observe is that people are drawn to a particular political
orientation because of their fundamental values & sense of independence. Those who want a top down
system of government provided security will never agree with those of us bent on handling our own security.

(Now, don't nobody go & get all angry that I'm making it all black & white.
There will be a number of folks in the continuum between these extremes.)

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Everything boils down to, if I have to explain you would not understand. The sides boil down to those who are self sufficient and those who are dependant on others.

When you dial 911 and get the busy signal if you even can get a call out at all, you are on your own.

Some people stick their heads in the sand when it comes to disaster prepairedness.

Most don't have enough food or water to last a week.

So that's why you keep guns? "Disaster preparedness"?

I have plenty of water and non-perishable food for myself, but instead of a gun, I have a ham radio. In an emergency, I would prefer to relay messages for my neighbours, not shoot them. Different strokes for different folks, I guess.