AR-15 inventor would be horrified and sickened.

[david890]

Back to your issue of power&capacity/escalation of lethality: I (and others) already provided scenarios where there is a need for the public to have those.

I think this is where we disagree. My point is that there are many other firearms that could fill your perceived "need" in those scenarios.

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?"

Keep in mind that the M-14 was designed to be accurate out to 800-1000 yards, but Vietnam showed soldiers didn't shoot the M-16 past 300-400 yards. You didn't "need" 7.62x51 when a 5.56x45 (or 7.62x39) was just as effective.

 

[david890]

G'night!

 

[BogWalker]

Given the number and variety of firearms I've owned over the years, the number of rounds I've fired, as well as doing my own reloading, I probably am more qualified than the "average" firearm owner. Don't forget that 100 is an "average IQ", and I'm smarter than that (tested around 140). How capable do YOU think the "average" firearm owner is?

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

The man really reckons himself to be a cut above.

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.

 

[KG1]

And speaking of middle ground. How can we reach a firm footing on middle ground without total capitulation as an expectation from the other extreme? Their proposed "middle ground" consists of shifting sand.

 

[Mgderf]

I think this is where we disagree. My point is that there are many other firearms that could fill your perceived "need" in those scenarios.

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?"

Keep in mind that the M-14 was designed to be accurate out to 800-1000 yards, but Vietnam showed soldiers didn't shoot the M-16 past 300-400 yards. You didn't "need" 7.62x51 when a 5.56x45 (or 7.62x39) was just as effective.

I have but one issue with your post.
Who made you,and your ilk, the decider in chief(s), of what I "need"?

No purple used or implied.
I eagerly await your response...

 

[BogWalker]

I have but one issue with your post.
Who made you,and your ilk, the decider in chief(s), of what I "need"?

No purple used or implied.
I eagerly await your response...

Why, because he is far more qualified than us mere citizens. He even says so in post #157. I mean, after all, if we were trusted with a rifle as deadly as an AR-15 we might kill somebody as asserted in post #86. So we must leave them to those who can properly be trusted with them, like david890.

 

[Mgderf]

Why, because he is far more qualified than us mere citizens. He even says so in post #157. I mean, after all, if we were trusted with a rifle as deadly as an AR-15 we might kill somebody as asserted in post #86. So we must leave them to those who can properly be trusted with them, like david890.

Yeah, I keep forgetting I'm an insignificant little nobody peon.
Thanks for the reminder!

 

[Rookie]

I think this is where we disagree. My point is that there are many other firearms that could fill your perceived "need" in those scenarios.

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?"

Keep in mind that the M-14 was designed to be accurate out to 800-1000 yards, but Vietnam showed soldiers didn't shoot the M-16 past 300-400 yards. You didn't "need" 7.62x51 when a 5.56x45 (or 7.62x39) was just as effective.

Are rights based on "need"?

 

[Sling10mm]

Strong the asshattery is in this one. David would appear to believe that the power of individual determination rests with the state (and himself) to determine what the rest of us need and should be allowed to have. As someone stated above, methinks you are all arguing with an anti-gun owner who at this point would just seem to be trolling you.

Now what was this thread about again?

 

[VERT]

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.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

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?"

Nothing but moronic substitution of your own opinion for historical fact.

At the founding there were guns that held many shots.

At the founding there were optics.

The Supreme Court has already rejected the moronic argument that gun technology cannot evolve while First Amendment technology can.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

When Colt bought the AR-15 from Armalite, the first target market was the sporting market.

 

[M67]

I like to shoot, but I don't hunt. I certainly see the need to hunt, as deer populations can become a problem (I often see 2-3 on my exercise walks in the middle of Bloomington).

I own several ARs for target shooting, but do I NEED an AR to target shoot? No. I could use a .22LR for that. Probably better for my hearing, but then I use suppressors on my ARs.

Would I be upset to give up my ARs? Only if not properly compensated, as I have $$$ invested in them. I would like something else to shoot, but it could be a bolt-action .22LR; I can't see much beyond 100 yards at this point.

You can bastardize the ownership of ARs but you went through the paperwork and paid the tax on a suppressor and you don't see the hypocrisy in that? How long will it take before you say that suppressors are too dangerous for civilian ownership?

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.

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?

 

[Kirk Freeman]

Here's an example of the b.s. of accommodation. Senator wants background checks but won't allow private individuals access to NICS.

Kaine's Gun Control Bill Is A Backdoor Ban On Private Sales

Burn all the gun control to the ground and tell them not to send any more.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

Guys, you need to accommodate. You don't need all those escalating lethal rights like a jury trial, the right to cross examine, or the right to counsel.

Modern lawyers are far too powerful and lethal compared to a few decades ago.

You need to start giving up rights, especially if you are a religion or ethnic minority that the government deems untrustworthy.

 

[actaeon277]

Lethal rights?

 

[Gary119]

I have a question. Do you guys ever go back after a few days and read what you wrote?

 

[actaeon277]

I have a question. Do you guys ever go back after a few days and read what you wrote?

I never listen to what I say when I say it. Why go back?

 

[The Bubba Effect]

I have a question. Do you guys ever go back after a few days and read what you wrote?

Not usually

 

[DoggyDaddy]

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.

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.