Guns, Guns and more guns.

[WinterBorn]

A bit more info against the idea of banning the AR15.

https://www.businessinsider.com/us-20-million-ar-15-style-rifles-in-circulation-2022-5

https://www.newsweek.com/ar15-rifle...lings conducted with AR-15-style rifles at 36.


According to the first link, there are roughly 20 million AR style rifles in private hands in the US.

According to the second link, there were three mass shootings with ARs in 2022 in the US.


So there are 19,999,997 ARs owned by law abiding citizens that you want to take away because of what 3 lunatic criminals did.



Yeah, that make good sense.

 

[Into the Night]

Hey, fuckwit, it was a serious post, so your bullshit was not required. Take it elsewhere moron.

Your 'serious posts' are pointless.

 

[Into the Night]

As an owner of elegant weaponry, I would be embarrassed to walk around with ugly shit like they gave me in the service.
Is class completely dead in flyover country?
This forum certainly offers evidence of that from time to time.

Buzzword fallacies. You don't get to define 'class'.

 

[NiftyNiblick]

It sounded serious, so I answered in a serious way.

You want to restrict people's 2nd Amendment rights based on rare occurances of school shootings. There are tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of ARs in private ownership. And yet, 3 or 4 owners commit atrocities in a year and you want to take the gun away from everyone.

Guns aren't my biggest liberal issue, WB; not compared to health care, education, and unions in which I take a hard stand on the liberal side.
My concern with guns is that if there isn't a bigger effort to reach compromise, they're eventually going to go too far as they did in the UK or Australia.
That would be every bit as bad as no restrictions at all from my perspective..

 

[RB 60]

It would please me. Guns made America into a shooting gallery. We do not have to live like this. No other nation does. Having children go through active shooter drills, does not bother you? The mass shootings as a daily occurrence do not bother you?

Of course it would please you, you want control over those who refuse your total control tactics. You can't bring your kids up to respect others so you have to disarm the responsible. Ain't happening.

 

[NiftyNiblick]

Of course it would please you, you want control over those who refuse your total control tactics. You can't bring your kids up to respect others so you have to disarm the responsible. Ain't happening.

You're going to disarm the responsible of everything by trying to keep assault weapons.

Things will eventually go too far because you wouldn't sit at the table and compromise, and then,
how can you claim tht you didn't deserve it?

 

[RB 60]

You're going to disarm the responsible of everything by trying to keep assault weapons.

Things will eventually go too far because you wouldn't sit at the table and compromise, and then,
how can you claim tht you didn't deserve it?

I can cause as much or more havoc with my 70+ yr old Winchester as I could with my M-1s or M1-A (although both are rather accurate).

I refuse to sit at a table and "compromise" with those who would prefer to ban what I have legally bought and don't break any laws with.
Would you give up your Vette for a Prius? Don't think, even for a moment, I'd give up my Cobra for a bunch of tree-hugging climate freaks...

 

[NiftyNiblick]

I can cause as much or more havoc with my 70+ yr old Winchester as I could with my M-1s or M1-A (although both are rather accurate).

I refuse to sit at a table and "compromise" with those who would prefer to ban what I have legally bought and don't break any laws with.
Would you give up your Vette for a Prius? Don't think, even for a moment, I'd give up my Cobra for a bunch of tree-hugging climate freaks...

It's not that I don't see your point, Arby,
but I also see the UK and Australia with practically no privately owned firearms,
and if it happens here, which one of us, as two gun owners, would be more at fault?

 

[RB 60]

It's not that I don't see your point, Arby,
but I also see the UK and Australia with practically no privately owned firearms,
and if it happens here, which one of us, as two gun owners, would be more at fault?

You, for not pushing back against the gun-banning left? Or me, for not accepting any of the left's gun banning/confiscation agenda?

 

[NiftyNiblick]

You, for not pushing back against the gun-banning left? Or me, for not accepting any of the left's gun banning/confiscation agenda?

I've pushed back vigorously against excessive firearms restrictions right on these pages alone...including in my last post, on another thread, before this one.
I'm not willing to defend your AR-15s.
I'm genuinely concerned that you might lose your deer rifles due to be being unwilling to sacrifice what the critics perceive as assault weapons.
Only the extreme, over-zealous anti-gun people will be sitting at the table when they make the laws.

 

[RB 60]

I've pushed back vigorously against excessive firearms restrictions right on these pages alone...including in my last post, on another thread, before this one.
I'm not willing to defend your AR-15s.
I'm genuinely concerned that you might lose your deer rifles due to be being unwilling to sacrifice what the critics perceive as assault weapons.
Only the extreme, over-zealous anti-gun people will be sitting at the table when they make the laws.

I've read those posts of yours, short of a complete "push back" on all restrictions.
I don't own an AR, I doubt I ever will (the M1-A's .308 is much more powerful anyway).
The "critics" perceive my Winchester and my Remmington 700 (both were used as sniper
rifles in Nam) as assault weapons. Don't think they don't. Many think a single shot 12 gauge
slug gun is good enough for us to hunt with and would be happy with the harsh restrictions
in the UK and Australia (which is a model for the gun banning left). It still won't stop the
criminal element, they aren't afraid to break the law. Shooting the unsuspecting and
unarmed civilians is of no concern to them.
You want to slow down the rampant (gun) crime? Start shooting the fringe that do the
"smash and grab." Shoot a few who are found robbing private businesses. Put a little fear
in the hearts of criminals. Maybe they'd think before they commit crimes against decent
armed citizens, knowing they could die for stealing that $20 for a rock of meth.

 

[Uncensored2008]

I've always been fascinated by the AR-15 and other "assault style" rifles. They are clearly made to LOOK very military. But I have heard as you stated that they are not really related to any military hardware.

But the look of them is what is attracting gun enthusiasts. I grew up around guns and even I think those are cool looking. But I see ZERO need for that kind of armament. What is the point? Why go to such lengths to make it look all menacing and military? I assume that is why gun nuts also like them. They are often mentally deranged and feel a need to be a "big man" but they probably can't get ahold of actual military hardware so they go for this one. It makes them FEEL manlier.

That's the heart of America's gun problem: we have too many people who are stuck in infancy and want the gun to make them feel a certain way. It's not a healthy relationship with ANY tool, let alone one that is engineered to put holes in living things until the living things stop being living things.

In the dark ages, there were castes that people were born into. The vast majority were born peasants, and would die peasants - serfs subjugated by the nobility.

Obviously the overlords of the state would never allow commoners to have weapons, but more than that, the weapons of the time took great skill. Even if a peasant attempted to rise up and fight back and managed to get a sword or a mace, it made no difference. The nobles trained in the martial arts from the time they could walk. They had the training needed to effectively use the weapons.

Firearms changed all of that. With a firearm, anyone can point and pull a trigger, with deadly effect. Guns broke the grip of the ruling elite. Hell, it got so bad that a bunch of farmers took on and defeated the greatest military in the world. THEN turned around and spawned a middle class that at one time overshadowed the wealth and power of the elite.

This is why you of the left hate guns, they are the great equalizer - they empower those that the left seeks to subjugate. You of the left seek to do what tyrants always do, disarm your victims.

 

[Uncensored2008]

The 30-60 rounds per minute is what disturbs me.

The use of myth and disinformation by the anti-liberty left disturbs me.

"An unarmed population is an obedient population."

 

[Geeko Sportivo]

Hey Ashli Babbitt- COME TAKE IT!

 

[Into the Night]

Guns aren't my biggest liberal issue, WB; not compared to health care, education, and unions in which I take a hard stand on the liberal side.
My concern with guns is that if there isn't a bigger effort to reach compromise, they're eventually going to go too far as they did in the UK or Australia.
That would be every bit as bad as no restrictions at all from my perspective..

Unconstitutional. The right of self defense is inherent. Again, you discard and deny the Constitution.

 

[Into the Night]

You're going to disarm the responsible of everything by trying to keep assault weapons.

Things will eventually go too far because you wouldn't sit at the table and compromise, and then,
how can you claim tht you didn't deserve it?

Nope. It is unconstitutional to ban or limit any weapon (including any type of gun). There is no such thing as an 'assault weapon'.

 

[Damocles]

LOL. Curt is a genius.

 

[Into the Night]

I've pushed back vigorously against excessive firearms restrictions right on these pages alone...including in my last post, on another thread, before this one.

Lie.

I'm not willing to defend your AR-15s.

Irrelevant. People with AR-15s can defend themselves.

I'm genuinely concerned that you might lose your deer rifles due to be being unwilling to sacrifice what the critics perceive as assault weapons.

There is no such thing as an 'assault weapon'. It is unconstitutional to ban or limit any weapon (including any gun).

Only the extreme, over-zealous anti-gun people will be sitting at the table when they make the laws.

Unconstitutional.

 

[Into the Night]

LOL. Curt is a genius.

He certainly is! An excellent example of turning the tables on Bernie!

 

[Lionfish]