Obama and the Left....Excell as Salesmen for Firearm Manufactures

[esmith]

I've shot an AK-47 and have known two people one to own one. Of course, not fully automatic.

Well you can purchase a full automatic AK47 if you want to go through all the paperwork, and fees then comply with all of the do's and dont's. I for one can't afford the ammunition expense for a fully automatic weapon. The cost of 7.62x39 varies from $0.21 to $2.75 a round. A 30 round magazine would burn up a lot of cash in a very short time. If I was so inclined I would go with one of the AK47 clones in semi-auto only.

 

[dust1n]

Well you can purchase a full automatic AK47 if you want to go through all the paperwork, and fees then comply with all of the do's and dont's. I for one can't afford the ammunition expense for a fully automatic weapon. The cost of 7.62x39 varies from $0.21 to $2.75 a round. A 30 round magazine would burn up a lot of cash in a very short time. If I was so inclined I would go with one of the AK47 clones in semi-auto only.

'Tis true, though I'm really not sure why anyone would want a fully automatic rifle regardless. Unless someone is in a war, it would literally serve no function.

 

[esmith]

'Tis true, though I'm really not sure why anyone would want a fully automatic rifle regardless. Unless someone is in a war, it would literally serve no function.

There are a lot of people that enjoy shooting fully automatic weapons. Go to Las Vegas, the demand is so good that they have numerous businesses that give you the experience of firing automatic weapons. Just for giggles.
http://lasvegasoutdoorrange.com/
http://www.battlefieldvegas.com/
http://www.thegunstorelasvegas.com/
https://machinegunsvegas.com/
http://www.therange702.com/
http://machinegunexperience.com/

Not sure if I got them all or not.

 

[dust1n]

There are a lot of people that enjoy shooting fully automatic weapons.

Right. Serves no function. I mean, I guess unless we are considering entertainment as an actual function now-a-days. I personally prefer to have something like that, where people are more interested in just shooting a machine gun at a business that is far more safer than having any purchase an M249.

 

[metis]

I would also point out that if we base what is restricted based upon the number of attacks or the number of murders, the handgun makes the top of every list while assault rifles of the type banned by NYS barely even make the list.

Yes, and I mentioned that yesterday on one of the other gun-related threads.

 

[metis]

There are a lot of people that enjoy shooting fully automatic weapons. Go to Las Vegas, the demand is so good that they have numerous businesses that give you the experience of firing automatic weapons. Just for giggles.

So, "giggles" is more important than the fact that many more people can be mowed down by someone with such a weapon?

 

[Revoltingest]

So, "giggles" is more important than the fact that many more people can be mowed down by someone with such a weapon?

What is the purpose of this (loaded) question?
We have many things which provide enjoyment, but could possibly be used to kill....
- Bigfoot type trucks
- Cars & bikes capable of nearly 200 MPH
- Rifles which can take down an elephant
- Airplanes
The real questions should be whether such things pose too great a risk, & what our rights are to them?

But to answer yours, yes.....enjoyment is justification enuf.
The fact that one could do something evil is superseded by the fact that one doesn't do such evil.

Now, I've a question for you.....
Is your desire to have a big sharp kitchen knife more important than the fact that you
could murder your entire family (including pets) in their sleep with such a weapon?

 

[metis]

What is the purpose of this question?
We have many things which provide enjoyment, but could possibly be used to kill....
- Bigfoot type trucks
- Cars & bikes capable of nearly 200 MPH
- Rifles which can take down an elephant
- Airplanes
The real questions should be whether such things pose too great a risk, & what our rights are to them?
But to answer yours, yes.....enjoyment is justification enuf.
The fact that one could do something evil is superseded by the fact that one doesn't do such evil.

I put people's lives ahead of "giggles", so sorry that I can't agree with you. Yes, there's no doubt that we can't stop all death from accidents or intentional killings, but we sure can remove that which is not that terribly necessary in order to save lives. You post above is pretty much the kind of "logic" that goes "Let's legalize murder since we can't stop all murders".

So, our priorities do not match since it's obvious you believe that "giggles" has more a priority than doing our best to try and keep people alive..

 

[Revoltingest]

I put people's lives ahead of "giggles", so sorry that I can't agree with you.

No lives are lost when shooting on a range.
In fact, target shooting is one of the safest sports there is.
In high school, our rifle team never had an injury.
But football players had badly messed up knees & brains (concussions, you know).

Yes, there's no doubt that we can't stop all death from accidents or intentional killings, but we sure can remove that which is not that terribly necessary in order to save lives. You post above is pretty much the kind of "logic" that goes "Let's legalize murder since we can't stop all murders".

I suggest that you receive more training in logic.
Then you won't misread so many posts.
I introduced the idea that there should be a general approach to risks & benefits.
It would apply to all such things.
You might oppose such sport shooting because it could be deadly.
If this is a cromulent claim, then your argument should apply to other enjoyable things with risks.
But you didn't oppose fast cars, sport aircraft, etc, which can also be very deadly.
This is thus a special pleading approach, which calls your rationale into question.

So, our priorities do not match since it's obvious you believe that "giggles" has more a priority than doing our best to try and keep people alive..

This is mischievous language.
To reduce people's sporting enjoyment to "giggles", & to invent direct inevitable deadly consequences is fallacious.

 

[Demonslayer]

'Tis true, though I'm really not sure why anyone would want a fully automatic rifle regardless. Unless someone is in a war, it would literally serve no function.

It goes "Rat-a-tat-a-tat!" and makes me feel powerful. Is that a function?

 

[metis]

No lives are lost when shooting on a range.
In fact, target shooting is one of the safest sports there is.

I suggest that you receive more training in logic.
Then you won't misread so many posts.
I introduced the idea that there should be a general approach to risks & benefits.
It would apply to all such things.
You might oppose such sport shooting because it could be deadly.
If this is a cromulent claim, then your argument should apply to other enjoyable things with risks.
But you didn't oppose fast cars, sport aircraft, etc.
This is thus a special pleading approach, which calls your rationale into question.

This is mischievous language.
To reduce people's sporting enjoyment to "giggles", & to invent direct inevitable deadly consequences is fallacious.

Nice song-and-dance. And it was not I who introduced the word "giggles" in this context. I can very well read what you posted last, and so can others, so I'll just let them judge for themselves.

All risks need to be weighed against what can or cannot be done, plus what the potential handicaps and problems may be. Banning cars is not an option, but banning automatic guns that can be and have been used in many places in the world to mow down people just so you and some others can have their "giggles" is not a very high price to pay in my book. If you disagree, then you disagree.

 

[Revoltingest]

Nice song-and-dance.

Do you think me disingenuous?
But I notice that you evade discussing my theme.

And it was not I who introduced the word "giggles" in this context. I can very well read what you posted last, and so can others, so I'll just let them judge for themselves.

But you chose to run with the word, & make it a theme.
You can't blame the other guy for that.

All risks need to be weighed against what can or cannot be done, plus what the potential handicaps and problems may be. Banning cars is not an option, but banning automatic guns that can be and have been used in many places in the world to mow down people just so you and some others can have their "giggles" is not a very high price to pay in my book. If you disagree, then you disagree.

Automatic guns are already highly regulated, & have been for some time.
You claim a "high price", but so far it's been only hypothetical.
Returning to the real world....
In what percentage of crimes to you think they figure?

 

[metis]

Returning to the real world....
In what percentage of crimes to you think they figure?

That's not the important point as I explained to you previously, Mr. Giggles.

 

[Revoltingest]

That's not the important point as I explained to you previously, Mr. Giggles.

That's not an answer though.
But I understand if it's uncomfortable, & easier to avoid it.

Oh, snap!

 

[metis]

That's not an answer though.
But I understand if it's uncomfortable, & easier to avoid it.

Oh, snap!

I shouldn't need to answer items that I've already covered or those that should be a rather logical by-product of what I have already covered. Our priorities are different, and I can understand that, but you can't even admit to that which you have previously posted.

Automatic guns for fun or people's lives-- I pick the latter as being more important, but you obviously disagree. That's just the way it is.

 

[tytlyf]

We have many things which provide enjoyment, but could possibly be used to kill....
- Bigfoot type trucks
- Cars & bikes capable of nearly 200 MPH

Cars/Trucks/Vehicles can be used as deadly weapons. But that isn't the purpose of vehicles. Vehicles don't kill, the drivers do.
Which is why there is training, tests, registration, insurance, laws against driving while impaired, prison, etc...

 

[Revoltingest]

I shouldn't need to answer items that I've already covered or those that should be a rather logical by-product of what I have already covered.

No one ever needs to answer a question.
But when one is relevant, & tends to diminish a claim, to not answer is telling.
In effect, a non-answer is an answer.
I accept it.

Our priorities are different......

Well, spluh!
You favor a more powerful government to provide us with security.
I prefer a smaller government to allow us more liberty.
There are both costs & benefits with each approach.
Are you just now noticed this?

 

[Revoltingest]

Cars/Trucks/Vehicles can be used as deadly weapons. But that isn't the purpose of vehicles. Vehicles don't kill, the drivers do.
Which is why there is training, tests, registration, insurance, laws against driving while impaired, prison, etc...

I favor training & regulation for guns & owners too.
But I was addressing the larger point of avoiding special pleading fallacy regarding guns.

 

[metis]

No one ever needs to answer a question.
But when one is relevant, & tends to diminish a claim, to not answer is telling.
In effect, a non-answer is an answer.
I accept it.

Well, spluh!
You favor a more powerful government to provide us with security.
I prefer a smaller government to allow us more liberty.
There are both costs & benefits with each approach.
Are you just now noticed this?

A smaller government may or may not lead to more liberty-- it's not the size that matters-- at least that is what I try to convince my wife of. Liberty more relates to what government may or may not do versus its size.

Also, if you remember one of our previous conversations whereas I spelled out in some detail the economic/political approach I prefer, it would amount to a much smaller government. Betcha forgot.

Also, not only have I not endorsed more military spending, there have been some other threads whereas I mentioned that I do believe we should reduce some of it. Betcha forgot that too.

Did you say you were 62 or 162?

 

[averageJOE]

Well, the results are in. Firearms are vanishing from stores inventory thanks to the best salesmen the firearms industry has....Obama and those on the left. Don't believe me?

http://www.nbcnews.com/business/consumer/americans-security-fears-stoke-gun-sales-n475596

I can vouch for that after visiting my local gun shop and the reports of those at other stores that sell firearms.
As one person was heard to say 9mm great Christmas stocking stuffer.

With stats like this we shouldn't hear the "If only more people had guns this wouldn't happen!" argument anymore. But for some reason, we do.