I never do it, it can become a record that is no ones business. If I want to show a picture I find a stock photo on the internet that closely resembles what I have, and I rarely do that.
the AR-15 follies: Here we go again!
- Thread starter Taichiliberal
- Start date
I never do it, it can become a record that is no ones business. If I want to show a picture I find a stock photo on the internet that closely resembles what I have, and I rarely do that.
Turgid Member
Verified User
That seems to be what the liberal gun haters want to do. Ban everyone (sane or insane) from owning what they think are "assault weapons," isn't it?
Well if you are discussing firearms such as here, I can see someone showing pictures of what they are talking about, not everyone knows what every firearm looks like, I sure don't, it gives a point of reference or clarity.
Just one point, the "military" style firearms are not going away, the new sales can be stopped by law, but those that already own them will end up retaining them, there really is little anyone can do to change that reality.
SmarterthanYou
rebel
we'll also just make our own and black market them
No doubt, but too much trouble and goes through ammo too quickly. Shooting an M2 .50 is fun until one has to pay for each round leaving the barrel.
Still, I support your right to own one.
OTOH, what STY forgets is he's living a fantasy. Vietnamese did pretty good against the Americans with Mosin-Nagants and punji sticks dipped in "night soil".
Speaking of which, a great Vietnam movie is "We Were Soldiers". There's a scene where LTC Moore advises Sgt. Maj. Plumley to carry an M-16 instead of just a sidearm. Plumley replies, "Sir, if the time comes I need one, there'll be plenty lying on the ground."
If it comes to revolution, "there'll be plenty lying on the ground" one way or another. Guerrilla tactics even with bolt-action rifles are very effective. After that, it's a matter of stripping the dead of weapons, ammo and equipment.
OTOH, assaulting the Capitol of the United States of America with bolt-action rifles and black powder pistols against a line of police officers and National Guardsmen armed with modern military weapons is, at a minimum, inadvisable.
No doubt, but too much trouble and goes through ammo too quickly. Shooting an M2 .50 is fun until one has to pay for each round leaving the barrel.
Still, I support your right to own one.
OTOH, what STY forgets is he's living a fantasy. Vietnamese did pretty good against the Americans with Mosin-Nagants and punji sticks dipped in "night soil".
Speaking of which, a great Vietnam movie is "We Were Soldiers". There's a scene where LTC Moore advises Sgt. Maj. Plumley to carry an M-16 instead of just a sidearm. Plumley replies, "Sir, if the time comes I need one, there'll be plenty lying on the ground."
If it comes to revolution, "there'll be plenty lying on the ground" one way or another. Guerrilla tactics even with bolt-action rifles are very effective. After that, it's a matter of stripping the dead of weapons, ammo and equipment.
OTOH, assaulting the Capitol of the United States of America with bolt-action rifles and black powder pistols against a line of police officers and National Guardsmen armed with modern military weapons is, at a minimum, inadvisable.
The M3 was inaccurate and as dangerous to the shooter as the enemy, the Only safety was the dust cover which would routinely pop open and if you drop one you could end up shooting yourself. I had about a dozen in my arms room, we issued them to the APC drivers because they took up so little room.
The M2 is my all time favorite Machinegun, have fired thousands of rounds in the military and would Love to own one but yes the cost of shooting it would be through the roof. Dreams....
Okay, so we all know that Ahmad Al Aliwi Alissa went postal in Boulder, CO grocery store this pas Monday. He killed a bunch of people before getting shot by the cops and surrendering. So far, the cops are saying it doesn't look like a American got "radicalized" by Islamic extremism. Instead, according to family and friends, the guy seems to be 1 brick shy of a load. The kicker is just 4 days before junior went off the very ban on the weapon he used was over turned by the district courts.
Now on one end you have the gun control folk and Democratic majority banging the table saying, "See! Get these damned things (assault weapons, i.e. the AR-15 type rifles) out of general population circulation! Ban them! "
On the other end you have the 2nd Amendment folk and Republican majority banging the table saying, "See! Muslim extremists/terrorists are here! It's not the guns, it's them!"
My take is this: If junior had no criminal record or official record of psychological problems, a 7 day waiting period for a background check wouldn't have made a difference. He would have every legal right under Colorado law to buy that weapon. You can only go far in trying to legislate against crazy.
BUT
Once again, the weapon of choice for mass shooters is the AR-15....a sweet little versatile weapon that does EXACTLY WHAT IT WAS DESIGNED FOR....ASSAULTING AND KILLING PEOPLE WITH ACCURACY (as much as the user can apply). Now people will debate until doomsday as to whether the same amount of damage could have been done with other types of rifles or a handgun (or handguns).
BUT
We will NEVER know if the AR-15 is available to ANYONE, ANY TIME, ANY WHERE.
And the band played on.
That's the hazard of open-bolt guns. MAC-10s have the same problem. Pre-Ban ones can be converted to full auto by moving a spring. Still, just emptying 30 round magazine into a room, much less out in the open, is mostly a waste of ammo. The main purpose is to get the other guys to duck.
My advice is to stand off with a bolt-action a 300+ yards and take down the threat from there.
Agreed on multi-prong. All complex problems have complex solutions. Only idiots think they can be solved with a singular or limited approach.
In the case of the Democrats, they are looking through the wrong end of the telescope by focusing on "AR-15s" instead of the main link uniting all mass murders and suicides: Mental Health.
As you point out, that's easy to say, but harder to do for political and financial reasons. Convincing the Democrats to focus on solving the Mental Health crisis by chipping away at it like they are chipping away at individual gun rights (and Republicans at abortion rights) would be a step in the correct direction.
Are you okay with requiring people to pass a mental health exam to own a gun? How about to vote? If different, then why?
Mr.Badguy
Super lefty
But at least they're trying SOMETHING. We had an assault weapons ban before, and the government didn't start invading everyone's homes. Full autos are regulated to shit but if you're a big enough gun nerd you can still get one.
It's clearly not the end of the world to not be able to buy a thing.
SmarterthanYou
rebel
you mean if you're a wealthy elitist.
the machine gun prohibition SHOULD trigger everyone who truly cares about the Constitution and the law, considering that the only ones a civilian can buy are those made BEFORE May 18, 1986. It would seem to be completely unconstitutional to have such an awkward distinction, but then again, most people don't care enough
signalmankenneth
Verified User
Let this sink in?!!
Results count. Again, installing a Nanny State government to dictate to people what to think, what to believe and what to do is going away from freedom, not moving toward it.
The purpose of government is to protect rights, not deprive them as you are advocating.
When they are banned, they will slowly disappear over time. As they are used and confiscated by police, they fade away. They will not all be gone ever. But stopping their sales will make the supply smaller. They will be taken from those who misuse them.
NiftyNiblick
1960s Chick Magnet
duplicate
Last edited: