AR-15 inventor would be horrified and sickened.

[DoggyDaddy]

At no time have I said I have no problem with other guns. I used to own an FN 5-7, and that's a pretty deadly pistol, much more so that the .32 S&W my grandfather owned. Again, it's an issue of CAPACITY AND SPEED OF LOADING. I'm sure the folks at FN had ESCALATION OF LETHALITY in mind when they designed it. But does the average person need an FN5-7 around the home, if anywhere?

Who are these "average people" you keep referring to? I'm sure that the citizens of Fishers and Carmel thought they were "average people" living in "safe" neighborhoods, until their doors started being kicked in in daytime home invasions. Nobody's safety is guaranteed. I want the ability to have the same or better means of defense against those who would seek to do me or my family harm, be it a common thug or an agent of a tyrannical government should it come to that.

 

[HoughMade]

https://mic.com/articles/64663/5-pe...-and-it-probably-saved-their-lives#.Y0JBdt78K

"Assault rifle" saves teenagers from home invasion burglars | Human Events

PA Resident Uses AR15 to Defend Himself and His Wife from Intruder Who May Have Been on Drugs

 

[VERT]

https://mic.com/articles/64663/5-pe...-and-it-probably-saved-their-lives#.Y0JBdt78K

"Assault rifle" saves teenagers from home invasion burglars | Human Events

PA Resident Uses AR15 to Defend Himself and His Wife from Intruder Who May Have Been on Drugs

Stop telling stories. I could have done all of that with a double barrel shotgun. Ok well maybe not the story about the 15 year old kid. But a good 20 gauge pump is all I need. Keep in mind this turned into a discussion and debate about needs and the perception of lethality.

 

[HoughMade]

I apologize for my foray beyond personal opinion unsupported by historical fact. I'll try to do better.

 

[BE Mike]

I suppose that the AR-15 and its variants are the most popular centerfire rifles ever made. They are very versatile and easy to change configurations. It is THE rifle for centerfire rifle competitions, as well as, a good home defense weapon. In some configurations they are a very effective hunting rifle from varmints to big game. They are also easy to change into a .22 rimfire rifle. Let there be no doubt that if certain Democrats have their way, there won't be any configuration available (in any calibers). Of course they will have to eliminate the AK-47 civilian versions, as well. When the next terrorist, and there will be more attacks, uses a different weapon, like a semi-auto shotgun, the anti-gun crowd will want them banned. Some politicians want a mandatory turn in of any guns they don't like and like Australia's example. Mr. Stoner's family is out of touch with reality, as the rifle was first developed for killing people. Many of the civilian versions, don't have that as the primary purpose and over 99% of the owners of the "evil black rifles" will never use them for unlawful purposes.

 

[worddoer]

No, I wouldn't be fine with it. OTOH, I would have no legal recourse, as Congress has the sole authority to determine the scope of those rights.

And here is the root of the problem. This gentlemen believes that rights are granted by government and do not supersede government. He believes we live in a true democracy. Where the will of the masses is free to trample on the rights of the few. Not a republic built on the rule of law and the recognition of unalienable rights.

"Democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where 51% of the people may take away the rights of the other 49%." - Suspected but unconfirmed author....however, it is still true.

Using his logical process, if congress voted to bring slavery back, then this gentleman would be in favor. After all, "Congress has the sole authority to determine the scope of those rights". And if congress voted to put an entire class of people (religion, race, gender, ethnicity, ect) into prison camps.... Then, based on his logic, he must support that because "Congress has the sole authority to determine the scope of those rights". If congress voted that all individuals who are not useful to society (such as disabled/handicap, mentally ill, ect.) should be eliminated (killed) to reduce the burden on society and the government will now enforce eugenics, then he must support it. Because "Congress has the sole authority to determine the scope of those rights". If he disagrees with the statements above, then he is a hypocrite and only wishes to impose his will on others while excluding himself from those same infringements. Which is again evidence that he believes in democracy, not a representative republic that recognizes the unalienable rights of all humans that supersede any government.

It is this same belief system that has allowed such horrible war crimes across the world. This belief system has not brought more freedom and liberty to the world. This belief system has only allowed darkness to grow and deepen itself across the globe.

As many have said here, the rights that are recognized in the "bill of rights" are not granted by the government. Rather, they are natural rights that all humans on the entire earth have. Most humans on earth are not allowed to exercise their natural rights due to the infringement of government on those rights. The bill of rights was intended to limit the government so it did not infringe on those unalienable rights that already existed prior to its creation.

You sir, seem to approve of the government infringement of rights. Maybe you would feel more at home in Cuba, Russia, China or North Korea. Those governments have exercised their "sole authority to determine the scope of those rights".

 

[Wolfhound]

Anyone else find it a little odd that someone claims to have multiple AR's and suppressors but can't afford home internet service? Doesn't pass the smell test in my opinion.

 

[NightFisher]

Anyone else find it a little odd that someone claims to have multiple AR's and suppressors but can't afford home internet service? Doesn't pass the smell test in my opinion.

Describes 99% of the gun owners I work with.

Not everyone is a gun nerd. A lot of them are rednecks.

 

[HoughMade]

Anyone else find it a little odd that someone claims to have multiple AR's and suppressors but can't afford home internet service? Doesn't pass the smell test in my opinion.

I'd say that at least proves that some priorities are in order.

 

[Wolfhound]

I definitely don't believe he is a redneck. More likely an IU sociology student.

 

[JettaKnight]

I suspect our forefathers would be appalled at our skill with firearms. "Why do you need so many shots? Why do you need a scope?"

Or maybe they'd think it's friggin' awesome!!!


Or maybe they'd be too busy complaining about the speed of your car to worry about guns. Or the television. Or your cargo shorts - why do you need so many pockets?



I am sick of having to explain why I need to exercise my rights. I tire of being told what is common sense.

 

[DoggyDaddy]

Or maybe they'd think it's friggin' awesome!!!


Or maybe they'd be too busy complaining about the speed of your car to worry about guns. Or the television. Or your cargo shorts - why do you need so many pockets?



I am sick of having to explain why I need to exercise my rights. I tire of being told what is common sense.

You just know that Ben Franklin would be building some awesome ARs...

 

[david890]

I would imagine this statement is insulting to the vast majority of INGO users and US firearms owners.

Never said I was better than the "average INGO user", just the "average firearm owner". Prove me wrong.

The man really reckons himself to be a cut above.

In some ways, yes. Other ways, not so much.

I see a similar attitude from Senator Feinstein. Doesn't think anyone should have the right to carry a firearm, but she carried a firearm herself for some time because she's not just "anyone".

You're not anti-gun. You're anti-gunowner.

So, how does someone who owns guns - including Class 3 items and who reloads his own ammo - qualify as "anti-gunowner"? Seems rather contradictory, doesn't it?

 

[david890]

Who made you,and your ilk, the decider in chief(s), of what I "need"?

No one. It was my question to other posts in the thread. Again, why do you - or any civilian - "need" an AR with a 100-round drum mag, or a Barrett Model 88? Why do you "need" a Glock with a 33-round mag? Why do you need such a high level of lethality?

I have no problem with situations in which hi-cap mags are appropriate, such as shooting competitions. I don't find them appropriate for home defense.

 

[GIJEW]

No they don't. It is Congress' job to make laws within the framework of the Constitution. In other words, they are limited by the Constitution. It is up to the judicial branch (SCOTUS) to interpret these laws and to make sure do not run afoul of the Constitution. The rights themselves existed before there was a congress or a constitution. The Constitution merely acknowledges these rights and states what Congress can not do with said rights.

He's been told this several times already. A case of "Don't confuse me with the facts, I've already made up my mind"

 

[david890]

I like David! I have owned lots of guns and shot thousands of rounds, I reload my own ammo and my IQ tests around 140. So I get to keep all my guns while the rest of you guys have to give yours up. I even have the benefit of being able to afford internet at home. Of course I don't spend $200 on tax stamps so that helps the budget. But if I did want to be regulated I get to be one of the chosen and trusted ones.

Nice. Such mature emojis. Way to keep the discussion at an adult level.

Please note that I have never stated that I would keep all my guns while the rest would have to give their up. I have said that if there is a ban on the AR, I would want appropriate compensation. Big difference.

As for the NFA stamps, those were purchased long before my health went downhill and my income plummeted. I didn't get them yesterday, but go ahead and make asinine claims.

 

[GIJEW]

So, how does someone who owns guns - including Class 3 items and who reloads his own ammo - qualify as "anti-gunowner"? Seems rather contradictory, doesn't it?

We think it's contradictatory too but here's your explanation: When she was mayor of S.F. D. Feinstein had the ONLY CCW in town, for her snub .38. and Biden apparently has a double barrel shotgun(O/U?) and tells us we don't need ARs, we can just fire two BLASTS from the balcony ("don't you peons have those?") for HD. He sounds a little like marie anttoinette talking about eating cake if one doesn't have bread. Speaking of class 3 firearms, I recall ted kennedy had his body guard try to bring one the plane with him. Apparently the private jet wasn't available.

Done here

 

[david890]

How long will it take before you say that suppressors are too dangerous for civilian ownership?

Never. Suppressors simply aren't dangerous for civilians, unless you use one to bludgeon someone. Also, the reason I purchased them was to PREVENT ADDITIONAL DAMAGE TO MY HEARING. As noted previously, my tinnitus is pretty bad and I don't want to make it worse.

I don't hunt either, and besides popping the occasional crow I have no interest in hunting. I'm a shooter all the way. Semi autos with detachable magazines are my go to.

But why? What it is about a semi-auto with a detachable mag that FUNDAMENTALLY changes your desire to shoot? If there were no semi-autos, you would NEVER go shooting? I doubt it. You'd be at the range with a bolt-action.

Plenty of people drink and drive and kill people. Texting and driving and kill people. Stab each other to death, beat each other to death. People are the issue, not the firearm. Would have it made you feel better if that guy went into the club with a home made bomb?

No, the issue, once again, is CAPACITY AND SPEED OF RELOADING. As it was in Sandy Hook. And Aurora.

Yes, people drink and drive, but the worst I saw with that crime was 26 dead in KY, and that's only because Larry Mahoney hit a BUS. How many people died in the worst "texting and driving" incident? How many have died at the hands of a single knife-wielder? What's the largest number of deaths in a single beating rampage?

My point is that, even after being engaged by a trained, uniformed OPD officer, Mateen was still able to kill 49 people. Are you really suggesting the same body count for someone with a knife, club or automobile? I'm not saying it's impossible; I'm saying we wouldn't see example after example after example.

ISIS has made it clear that our laws are so lax that future "soldiers" should use whatever guns they can get! No need for a risky suicide belt when you can get an AR and a 100-round drum mag without raising red flags! I have little doubt the next attack - and there will be one - will use an AR or AK, and very likely legally purchased by the shooter.

Finally, no, I would NOT have felt "better" had the guy used a bomb. What a ridiculous statement.

 

[indiucky]

Sarah Winchester Syndrome....

Why couldn't they take their money and just build a house big enough to confuse the ghosts of everyone killed by an AR 15 instead of this???

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winchester_Mystery_House

I know of three people, (one a friend I fished with,) that inherited their money from their family's bourbon fortune...They deal with the guilt from where their wealth came from through substance abuse...It usually lasts a couple of years and they either die or get over it...I know one that died in her mid 20's from an heroin overdose, one that I can't really say what happened, out of respect, but she ended up clean, and my buddy who had whipped his demons by 22 years of age....Wealth can be a curse.....

 

[BogWalker]

Never said I was better than the "average INGO user", just the "average firearm owner". Prove me wrong. Saying you're better than somebody makes you better than nobody.



In some ways, yes. Other ways, not so much. See above. You are not a cut above anybody.



So, how does someone who owns guns - including Class 3 items and who reloads his own ammo - qualify as "anti-gunowner"? Seems rather contradictory, doesn't it? It's not contradictory at all. You said you have no problem with the AR as a platform; you're just against certain people owning them in certain capacities. You are against those people.

The ego on this one.