Why Do You Need An AR-15/AK-47/Military Style Rifle etc?

[Diamondback]

The AR could be banned from civilian ownership, and it won't affect me at all, as I have my various firearms of choice for my purposes, and noone is going to take them from me.

Fuddtard bambi-blasters could be banned from civilian ownership as "not suited for militia use", and it won't affect me at all, as I have my various firearms of choice for my purposes, and noone is going to take them from me.

See what I did there?

 

[DuneHopper]

Birdmove, you were on the board this afternoon, I'm hoping you see my question. I'd really like to hear your perspective.
P

Problem is people like Birdmove who have firearms really have no clue what ownership means. This is not and insult they truly honestly do not get it or understand it.
We know helmets save lives, thats why our kids wear them, football players due and riders, we know seatbelt saves lives too
these things were made laws to protect lives. Adding something that helps saves lives especially when its a option to do.
Birdmove does not get what a right is and what a privileged is. Cars are a privilege therefore they can be restricted rights can not simply be restricted because we want it that way and complying with it make sit much much worse as it tells the law makers we do not mind adjusting our rights. But people like Birdmove simply are wired to follow the government wished when they say they have your best interest at heart.

 

[Diamondback]

Problem is people like Birdmove who have firearms really have no clue what ownership means. This is not and insult they truly honestly do not get it or understand it.
We know helmets save lives, thats why our kids wear them, football players due and riders, we know seatbelt saves lives too
these things were made laws to protect lives. Adding something that helps saves lives especially when its a option to do.
Birdmove does not get what a right is and what a privileged is. Cars are a privilege therefore they can be restricted rights can not simply be restricted because we want it that way and complying with it make sit much much worse as it tells the law makers we do not mind adjusting our rights. But people like Birdmove simply are wired to follow the government wished when they say they have your best interest at heart.

In another time, another place and another demographic, there was a name for his part of that demographic: "Kapos"--Collaborators.

 

[pharmseller]

I sent birdmove a message, politely asking him to respond. He's in Hawaii, which is two, I think, hours behind us. We'll see.





P

 

[DuneHopper]

I think he is more then two hours behind, maybe more like 60 years is my guess.

 

[Andy54Hawken]

Like many things in the life...the answer is simple... ( Or should be )
If you want to a own a gun , any gun ...then own a gun....if you don't...then do not own one.
No one says you have to own anything...
Just don't make my choice for me or take my choices as a law abiding US citizen away.

Maybe ask those who want to know "Why do you need a AR15...?
Why don't:
We enforce the gun laws already in place...?

We take a look at which laws are actually working to do as they promised and which laws aren't...then get rid of the laws that don't work...

Hold folks accountable when they fail at their job of doing a BGC...?

Hire more folks to make the system we have work...?

The gun bans , regulations , laws , gun free zones work better at saving lives or stopping a shooting...?

Or maybe since we have seen that bans ,laws , regulations , gun free zones etc...aren't working ...Why do you think yet another ban of anything will work ....?
Andy

 

[KKG]

Like many things in the life...the answer is simple... ( Or should be )
If you want to a own a gun , any gun ...then own a gun....if you don't...then do not own one.
No one says you have to own anything...
Just don't make my choice for me or take my choices as a law abiding US citizen away.

Maybe ask those who want to know "Why do you need a AR15...?
Why don't:
We enforce the gun laws already in place...?

We take a look at which laws are actually working to do as they promised and which laws aren't...then get rid of the laws that don't work...

Hold folks accountable when they fail at their job of doing a BGC...?

Hire more folks to make the system we have work...?

The gun bans , regulations , laws , gun free zones work better at saving lives or stopping a shooting...?

Or maybe since we have seen that bans ,laws , regulations , gun free zones etc...aren't working ...Why do you think yet another ban of anything will work ....?
Andy

There you go again trying to apply logic to the question. Why do we "Need" Cowpasture Pool Gardens using up incredible amounts of water just so a few people can say they "SHOT" such and such a score when they NEVER fired a single round? And, we're having to drink bottled water because the water supply is going bad!

 

[Mikej]

Like many things in the life...the answer is simple... ( Or should be )
If you want to a own a gun , any gun ...then own a gun....if you don't...then do not own one.
No one says you have to own anything...
Just don't make my choice for me or take my choices as a law abiding US citizen away.

Maybe ask those who want to know "Why do you need a AR15...?
Why don't:
We enforce the gun laws already in place...?

We take a look at which laws are actually working to do as they promised and which laws aren't...then get rid of the laws that don't work...

Hold folks accountable when they fail at their job of doing a BGC...?

Hire more folks to make the system we have work...?

The gun bans , regulations , laws , gun free zones work better at saving lives or stopping a shooting...?

Or maybe since we have seen that bans ,laws , regulations , gun free zones etc...aren't working ...Why do you think yet another ban of anything will work ....?
Andy

With all due respect @birdmove , the bolded part of Andy's post, I would dare say, is the way everyone on this thread feels. And many many more on NWFA who may have not posted here. I will support your full rights to free speech, choice of any crazy religion you wish to participate in and fight for all the other rights guaranteed to you by The Constitution and Bill of Rights, if you will give us the same due respect IF it ever comes to a vote, to vote against any of the current list of restriction on our 2nd amendment rights. If you can't bring yourself to vote in favor of the 2nd Amendment, over the gun grabbers current list of restriction, I would believe that you really don't belong here. But, it is your choice to come and go freely here. Just don't expect much interaction.

 

[birdmove]

No insults from me, your opinion is just as valid as mine.

But I'd like you to answer a question: why do you think it will stop at ARs?

I'd like to remind you of the deadliest school shooting in US history. It occurred at Virginia Tech on April 16, 2007. Seung-Hui Cho used a Glock 19 and a Walther P22 to kill 32 and wound 17 people. No AR, no rifle at all. Just a 9mm and a .22. And let's be honest, neither cartridge is very powerful.

I don't accept the premise than banning ARs will reduce AR involvement in violence, but let's say it does. What happens next? Crazy people will simply use a different tool. Like what happened at Virginia Tech.

So then what happens? Since it was okay to prohibit ARs, the precedent is set to prohibit Glocks, SA, S&W, what have you. You said okay before, because it was the responsible choice. It must be okay now, because it's the same choice.

When a right is compromised it ceases being a right, and becomes a suggestion.

My concern, and that of many others, is that if we say it's okay to take certain guns away from us, then it's okay to take more guns away from us. And then more. It becomes a question of how many, not if they can take them at all.

So please answer the question, I'd love to hear your response.





P

I think there are a lot of gun owners that are not for civilians owning. and I won't say "assault weapons", because that will then bring out haters who quibble about definitions, semi autos with replaceable magazines (woe be it to the man who says "clips"). I'm ready to give in on availability of these types of firearms. I also recognize that, let's take the AR-15, the on;ly use where that gun excells is killing large numbers of people as quickly as possible. You have to agree that it is not in the running as far as accuracy goes. A bolt action of half the price will out shoot it. I could go on, but I can already hear the responses.
I am willing to consider possibly outlawing high capacity mostly after market magazines for these guns. What if they did that instead of actually limiting the firearms?
I draw the line on outlawing or confiscating hunting, target firearms. I have owned a bunch of guns, which I mostly sold before moving to Hawaii, which is not very firearm friendly. We moved here because someone in my family that lives here needed help, and to be with our grandaughter. Here is what I kept and brought: 1-Colt Model 1911 .45 acp. 1-Charter Arms Bulldog Pug in .44 special, which was my carry gun in Washington state for many years. 1-Marlin Model 1894 lever action in .357 magnum. 1- Stevens Model 311 12 gauge side by side. 1-ancient Savage .22 pump action takedown rifle. 1-Pedersali Remington Rolling Block, unfired in 45-70 (you never know when you might be charged by an elephant).
To recap. I think there are valid arguments to limit semi automatic rifles with high capacity magazines available. They won't take my firearms while I still breath. But, I"m not willing to draw that line for those of you that want the firearms in question. I'll use the Las Vegas massacre as an example of what an efficient tool for a mass shooter with a well thought out plan can do. The fact that this weapon configuration is often the choice of these people says it. If I wanted to take out as many as possible, I'd choose an SR-15 with multiple high capacity mags, and choose a spot as he did, where accuracy isn't needed. Just fast shooting into a dense crowd at what, 300+ yards? Would banning these stop all murders with firearms? Hell no. But it would help to take the best tools for mass shooters away.
The firearms I have, at least the 1911, .44 special, 12 gauge, and the lever action Marlin, cover my self defense needs just fine. And, even at 64 with prostate cancer, a blown up right knee, and old eyesight, I can still hit these. An AR-15 (or other rifle of the type I mentioned above) sucks for your typical self defense, which is a home invasion. I've been through one of these on my 22nd birthday, and a revolver was the perfect choice. An AR fires a .22 caliber bullet at about 3250 fps. Is that really what you would choose to shoot bad guys in your house, or yard? Do you really believe your country is going to have a military takeover where you'll be fighting against heavily armed trained fighters?

 

[Mikej]

I stopped reading as soon as you said this.

because that will then bring out haters who quibble about definitions,

"Scuse me, I need to stir the big pot of chili on the stove with the large "Assault spoon".

 

[Boboclown]

I am willing to consider possibly outlawing high capacity mostly after market magazines for these guns. What if they did that instead of actually limiting the firearms?

Except "high capacity" magazines are not after market, with the exception of drums and such in regards to the AR. AKs do have 40 round magazines and drum magazines that are not after market.

An AR-15 (or other rifle of the type I mentioned above) sucks for your typical self defense, which is a home invasion. I've been through one of these on my 22nd birthday, and a revolver was the perfect choice. An AR fires a .22 caliber bullet at about 3250 fps. Is that really what you would choose to shoot bad guys in your house, or yard?

Considering they don't penetrate a lot and varmint rounds, as well as other hunting ammo, exist that could be used as home defense as well. Easier to shoot a rifle than a handgun.

I also recognize that, let's take the AR-15, the on;ly use where that gun excells is killing large numbers of people as quickly as possible.

Sure, if we ignore the fact that there were also semiautomatics in the past that used detachable magazines that were not intended for military service.

I draw the line on outlawing or confiscating hunting, target firearms.

Clearly not, otherwise you would not be supporting the ban on AR-15s which are useful for varmint hunting and also useful against wild boar. I guess you don't have to deal with wild boar in Hawaii, but we do here.

 

[MrMillspecer]

It's funny how when a bad guy is hold up in a house the SWAT team shows up with 8 or more guys using AR15s . Against one bad guy ! If it's such a killing machine why are they so overpowered just to take down one guy ? Do I have the right to defend myself as I see fit within the law ? Bad guys have illeagle firearms some full auto, and I would like some firepower as well.

 

[birdmove]

We do have wild pigs here. A bolt action works just fine. In fact, my 45-70 single shot should drop one like it was hit by a one ton anvil. Maybe a Marlin lever action in 45-70 if follow up shots are needed. Or one in .444 Marlin.

 

[Mikej]

Do I have the right to defend myself as I see fit within the law ?

No.

According to some people.

 

[Mikej]

Double post. derp

 

[Boboclown]

We do have wild pigs here. A bolt action works just fine. In fact, my 45-70 single shot should drop one like it was hit by a one ton anvil. Maybe a Marlin lever action in 45-70 if follow up shots are needed. Or one in .444 Marlin.

And an AR works better when you deal with more than just one or two. Wild boar population is not going down in NC any time soon despite not having any limitations on how many you can get.

I have bolt action rifles, I've had ARs. An AR can be accurate (even sub-MOA). To suggest an AR cannot be accurate or have to cost a lot to be accurate only shows ignorance.

 

[MrMillspecer]

Saying the AR platform is not accurate does show signs of someone's experience or intelligence. It's all clear now. Thanks !

 

[pharmseller]

Thank you for responding. I will state my thoughts in full later, but I'd like to point out that the shooter in Las Vegas fired over 1,100 rounds to kill 58 people, or one fatality for every 20 rounds. That doesn't seem very effective to me.

In contrast the Virginia Tech shooter fired approximately 178 rounds to kill 32 people, or one fatality for every 6 rounds.

More later.




P

 

[birdmove]

It's funny how when a bad guy is hold up in a house the SWAT team shows up with 8 or more guys using AR15s . Against one bad guy ! If it's such a killing machine why are they so overpowered just to take down one guy ? Do I have the right to defend myself as I see fit within the law ? Bad guys have illeagle firearms some full auto, and I would like some firepower as well.

Are you expecting to have to deal with a situation like that? Sure, you have the right to defend yourself.

 

[birdmove]

Saying the AR platform is not accurate does show signs of someone's experience or intelligence. It's all clear now. Thanks !

Didn't say it wasn't accurate. You are saying that your AR is as accurate as a good bolt action? I'm not a bench rest master, but with an old Tradwinds bolt action .243, when I was 14, on a good day, my hand loaded groups could be covered with a dime. And, I"m nothing special. That's at 100 yards.