AR-15 inventor would be horrified and sickened.

[indiucky]

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

Whoa dude.....You have good forays...No need to apologize and you are doing fine....

 

[david890]

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

In each example you posted (with the exception of the Koreatown riot), no more than 2 shots were fired. They could have used K98 Mausers and been as effective.

Any examples of when someone need 30 rounds, or 100??

 

[david890]

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.

Owned the items before I became disabled. My income fell off quite a bit. Comcast is damn expensive when there's no real competition.

 

[indiucky]

The ego on this one.

Not ego...Just Bloomington....

I don't know why but I have noticed it with folks from North Carolina and Texas as well.....

"I am from Texas but I think you should not have that kind of gun..."

"Whereabouts in Texas?"

"Austin"

"That explains it...Thanks..."

"I am from North Carolina and I do not think people should have those kind of guns..."

"Where abouts in North Carolina?"

"Asheville.."

"Okay...That explains it..."

Most red states seem to have a little blue spot where the folks who know how things ought to be live...

Bloomington is our Austin and Asheville.....

It's just different there...Not bad...Just different...Birkenstocks never rot, ponytails on men never go out of fashion and the folks believe they are very smart and truly believe they know what's best for everyone else.....

Wait a minute...That IS ego...Nevermind....

 

[worddoer]

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.

You are again making the argument based on a flawed concept of the rights that every person has. Rights supersede any need you or I will perceive. That is a very, very good thing. To believe that our rights should only be based on needs is honestly quite selfish. It shows that you want other peoples rights to be restricted to what you think is agreeable. It leaves our freedoms up to the fickleness of others and how they feel at any given moment. It would be quite interesting to see how you would react when the shoe is on the other foot and now others are denying the very rights that you care about deeply. Which obviously does not include the right to keep and bear arms based on your posts so far.

For example, what if a person in government perceives that you do not have a need to the freedom of speech. Especially in any public venue. No internet, no radio, no television, no newspaper, no public gatherings, nothing. You can disagree, but you better not tell another sole about it. Because you disagree with the government or leadership at any given time, your speech is now considering a hazard to public safety and could lead to public harm. Because of the potential of public harm, "Congress has the sole authority to determine the scope of those rights". Correct??? And if you try to speak freely, then imprisonment or worse is what you are looking forward to since you tried to speak against the will of those who decided otherwise.

What if a person in government perceives that you do not have a need to due process. No trail or jury of your peers. No facing your accuser. No ability to view evidence or confront the supposed witnesses. An accusation is made, and you immediately receive punishment. Because you are so stuck on that freedom of speech up above, the government decides that you are a danger to society. Any access to the information against you would endanger national security. Again, would you feel so strongly that "Congress has the sole authority to determine the scope of those rights" when you just lost yours?

If you honestly study our founding fathers and documents, you will see that our rights are not based on needs. Our rights are natural and supersede any government or society. These rights belong to every human on earth. But most of them do not have the opportunity to use their natural rights due to government infringement. And based on what you are saying so far, you are pro government infringement of a person's rights.

See Post #186

 

[david890]

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"

Okay. So our rights existed before Congress and the Constitution. Ideally, the Constitution is a limit on what Congress can and cannot do.

Please explain then why SCOTUS has repeatedly upheld limits on those rights. SCOTUS has reduced the scope of those rights. For example, "Free speech" has its bounds; you can't yell "Fire!" in a theater, and hate speech isn't protected by the 1st. As a teacher (and I was a teacher), there were things I could not say in class, as the students were a "captive audience". I haven't seen anyone on INGO defend unlimited speech in schools.

So, why then would you assume that ANY OTHER RIGHT is somehow inviolate? That neither Congress with their laws or SCOTUS with their rulings cannot limit the scope of the 2nd, just as they have with the 1st (and possibly with the 4th, given yesterday's SCOTUS ruling about that Utah drug search)?

 

[indiucky]

Any examples of when someone need 30 rounds, or 100??

My 1993 F150 truck will go 120 mph (it would shake me to death but it would do it) yet there is no normal need for anyone to go over 70 mph due to laws...Yet, in the event of an emergency I like it that my truck has the ability to go over 70 mph in case I ever need it....I have tried to follow your logic and I am not going to be mean but it seems you are confused as to what freedom entails....

Ben Franklin summed it up very well...

"Those that would sacrifice freedom for safety deserve neither..."

I am sorry you have had a loss in income and if you can come up with something you can make (within your disability like holsters or such) I will gladly sell them in my shop to help you out....Just PM me when you are ready....

And no I don't care that you are marching in lock step with the Democrat gun grabbers....Everyone is entitled to an opinion no matter how ill conceived, illogical, or just plain wrong said opinion is.....Going up against published Constitutional lawyers and folks that have spent a lifetime studying the Constitution and Founders intent head to head in a gun forum is gutsy...You're still wrong, embarrassingly so, but I admire your willingness to go into the fray.....

 

[david890]

What if a person in government perceives that you do not have a (need) RIGHT to due process. No trail or jury of your peers. No facing your accuser. No ability to view evidence or confront the supposed witnesses. An accusation is made, and you immediately receive punishment.

Sorry. Had to change that "need" to "right" in your statement. IANAL, but some of those might apply only in criminal cases, not civil. Kirk may know.

Anyway, it's already happened. "No-Fly list" and "Civil Asset Forfeiture", for example. Accusation(s) made, fines imposed or property confiscated. Cops target out-of-state drivers and confiscate money, knowing full well it would cost more for those folks to fight to get it back than what was confiscated.

Yet, I see no organization like the NRA lobbying against either of those. Couldn't the "National Rifle Association" become the "National RIGHTS Association" and fight those other fights as well? If there are such organizations, I doubt they throw the amount of money at those problems as does the NRA to Congress to kill any and every bill concerning guns.

 

[david890]

My 1993 F150 truck will go 120 mph (it would shake me to death but it would do it) yet there is no normal need for anyone to go over 70 mph due to laws...Yet, in the event of an emergency I like it that my truck has the ability to go over 70 mph in case I ever need it.

Okay. Let me build on your vehicle example.

While it's WAY COOL for the Koenigsegg One:1 to have 1360 HP, or a Bugatti Veyron to do 270+ MPH, do we really NEED vehicles like that? Does the "average" driver need a car with that much power? Typically, to get the most out of either, you'd need to be on a special track, designed to handle such power.

We would be fine is every car had just 75 HP. Boring, but fine. Young kids wouldn't be doing 100 MPH+ on city streets just to get that Snapchat photo when using the Speed Filter. A HS friend of mine probably wouldn't have wrapped his car around a utility pole on his 17th birthday (he survived the crash, but died 6 months later, never regaining consciousness).

It is not a "sacrifice of freedom" to limit the lethality of a firearms. Plenty of lethal firearms before the AR was designed. I suspect most INGO members consider themselves as lethal with an German K98 as they are with the AR. So, why the need for the AR? Is it the Bugatti of rifles?

 

[Wolfhound]

I am curious about you David. I accept that you are a gun owner but do not have the same views as most of us. Allow me to put it like this: I see all American gun owners as explorers surrounded by cannibals (leftists, socialists, gun control advocates etc). David is clearly an explorer but is trying to convince us that if we are reasonable and let the cannibals eat just a few of us they will be satisfied and go away even though we all know in Europe and Australia these same cannibals ate every explorer over a very short time. The erosion of rights never stops once the ball is set in motion.

What has turned you to the gun control side David? You seem reasonable and intelligent. Are you around progressives a lot living in Bloomington? Did you marry one? Does your age and disability limit your shooting so you no longer see those rights as valuable like the rest of us? I am not wanting to be judgemental simply wanting to understand where you are coming from.

 

[VERT]

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.

Don't sweat it dude! You misinterpreted my post, the emojis weren't directed at you. We are on the same team Bra! I was poking fun at the rest of INGO who are obviously too violent, unintelligent or misinformed to be allowed to own items that people such as us deem to dangerous for their own good. I don't own any NFA items, any high powered rifles or magazines that hold more the 30 rounds. I reload my own ammo, I shot competitively in high school and on a team in college. Heck I carry around either a 1911 with 8 rounds or J frame revolver. Those are also my home defense guns. Honest to goodness not making any of that up just ask people who know me. See we aren't so different. I have no need for any of that evil stuff.

Now that my obviously snarky rant is over, what makes us so different? You my friend do not get that guns are not mere possessions and why it is important to preserve our rights and the constitution. I doubt this group can explain it too you and that is unfortunate and ultimately your issue. I don't want to be compensated for the one single AR-15 that I own. I own that gun simply and only because of what it represents. As a result it is my obligation to know how to operate and maintain proficiency with that firearm. My AR-15 is safely unloaded and locked in a safe and while I don't feel that I need such a weapon to defend my home it is not my place to make that decision for other people. In fact I would argue that the AR platform is nearly optimum for defense of self, property and especially our community. I would also argue that it our civic responsibility to own such a weapon.

I see this conversation going nowhere and I do not wish to run afoul of the moderators. INGO is a wonderful community. This will be my last post in this thread. Thank you for sharing your opinions. I do not agree with them but that is one of the great things about America. Please be safe and remember that some day everyone has to lay in the bed they make.

 

[Sniper 79]

No reason to be ashamed or sickened. People unfortunately kill other people. If it wasn't firearms it would be something else.

 

[indiucky]

So, why the need for the AR? Is it the Bugatti of rifles?

More like a Honda Accord/Nissan Sentra...Semi Auto only, everyone has one and if you don't have one you will probably end up with one if you live long enough...I am not buying the "lethality" bit....Too much water is lethal but my tap just goes and goes...I just don't open my mouth and hold it under it while I drown...Some might but just because they do why should my tap stop????

Are you okay with SKS's, AK's etc...? Write down your dream list of what guns you think folks should not be allowed to own...How far are you willing to go so folks can be "safe"???

And what happens when your dream comes true and folks are still dying from weapons with magazines that hold more than 10 rounds....(There are oodles of AR magazines out there and they will be grandfathered in as they were before) What next? Give us your best shot...Tell us exactly what guns you would ban and how you would go about enforcing said ban in a peaceful manner...

I really want to know...When someone comes across as intelligent (as you have) but so very wrong the curious side of me wants to know why and how...Make your case...Please...

 

[churchmouse]

Don't sweat it dude! You misinterpreted my post, the emojis weren't directed at you. We are on the same team Bra! I was poking fun at the rest of INGO who are obviously too violent, unintelligent or misinformed to be allowed to own items that people such as us deem to dangerous for their own good. I don't own any NFA items, any high powered rifles or magazines that hold more the 30 rounds. I reload my own ammo, I shot competitively in high school and on a team in college. Heck I carry around either a 1911 with 8 rounds or J frame revolver. Those are also my home defense guns. Honest to goodness not making any of that up just ask people who know me. See we aren't so different. I have no need for any of that evil stuff.

Now that my obviously snarky rant is over, what makes us so different? You my friend do not get that guns are not mere possessions and why it is important to preserve our rights and the constitution. I doubt this group can explain it too you and that is unfortunate and ultimately your issue. I don't want to be compensated for the one single AR-15 that I own. I own that gun simply and only because of what it represents. As a result it is my obligation to know how to operate and maintain proficiency with that firearm. My AR-15 is safely unloaded and locked in a safe and while I don't feel that I need such a weapon to defend my home it is not my place to make that decision for other people. In fact I would argue that the AR platform is nearly optimum for defense of self, property and especially our community. I would also argue that it our civic responsibility to own such a weapon.

I see this conversation going nowhere and I do not wish to run afoul of the moderators. INGO is a wonderful community. This will be my last post in this thread. Thank you for sharing your opinions. I do not agree with them but that is one of the great things about America. Please be safe and remember that some day everyone has to lay in the bed they make.

Well said sir.
I would add that you really do not need the ultra-high cap stuff. I have witnessed your ability's. When one is confident that they can hit what they are shooting at.....well.....nuff said.

 

[pipelinen]

 

[BugI02]

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.

David. I wouldn't 'need' a drum mag for my AR because they aren't particularly reliable and interfere with the light weight and high pointability of the firearm. That doesn't mean I would in any way seek to ban anyone else from having one. I act on my opinion of my options to optimize my personal circumstances - others are different and come to different conclusions and they are free to do so.
I only seek to be the boss of me

I've never felt a 'need' for a Barrett but I find them quite interesting, and if money were not an object ( it is ) I might have one (as a fun toy, not for home defense) but I affirm most strenuously that those with the means and desire are welcome to have one. It might make a dangerous sniper weapon - in the hands of a trained sniper, not some jihadi wannabe - but its extreme lethality is overcome by its extreme lack of portability and non-existent ease of deployment against non-fixed targets

I think the true crux of this discussion is that if I am facing an existential threat then I want the maximum lethality I can realistically bring to that confrontation. I am utterly unconcerned if anyone I choose to shoot survives that decision and realistically would prefer they did not (and I believe one day I will be judged for my transgressions). I know you, and others like you, are appalled by this sort of carnage (meaning Orlando) and are thrashing about looking for some handle on the problem. Capacity is not the answer. As others have said, he could do the same job with explosives or any good shotgun and a multi-pistol rig ala Taxi Driver. The body count might be different but would still be appalling

Guns are designed to maximize lethality. You are fighting Darwin and market forces (another type of Darwinism) to attempt to make them less so

There is also a deep and widespread distrust of governments (real) motives for doing anything, and until you can work on mitigating that you're going to have little success in persuading anyone on our side of the fence to accept more restrictions that prima facie will not accomplish their stated purpose

And persuade is what you must do. Attempts to elect a Clinton so you can pack the SCOTUS with enough justices to uphold unconstitutional laws will only succeed in making a lot of us (technically) criminals, and an attempt at confiscation brings us right back to 155 years ago when government badly overstepped its authority, from the point of view of roughly half the country

This is not as much hyperbole as I believe you wish to think. Inalienable rights exist

 

[hammer24]

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 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.



But do we need hi-power, hi-cal ARs around the home? Is there not another firearm with which you can defend yourself?

No, I wouldn't be okay with losing my pistols (I own several) or my shotgun (just the one). OTOH, I see no NEED for someone to own a 33-round mag for their Glock. 5-8 is enough for most people.



Does a civilian shooter need a high-capacity magazine and the ease/speed of reloading when other rifles - such as the Remington 700 or Winchester 70 - are available in the caliber of your choice? Do you think Mateen could have killed 49 with a Rem 700 or Win 70 in ANY caliber?

"Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves." --William Pitt the Younger (1783)

 

[M67]

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 have hearing damage as well and I love to use my suppressors. But, if someone can legally purchase a firearm and pass a 4473, don't you think they'd be approved for a NFA item as well and use it illegally? If they have the patience? All of these things are premeditated, so some terrorist always could form 4 something and legally get it. Or, they could just make one. Be it on a bolt action or a semi auto they are a tool that could be used to harm others.

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.

My dad was a hunter, not a shooter. I've shot bolt actions and lever actions and personally speaking, big whoopty doo. I have several bolt actions but they're all rimfires and mainly cause I like CZ actions. My shooting area for the most part is 50 yards. I have a 22 for bench rest, but I shoot a lot of handguns and carbines. To me, ARs are more comfortable, feel more natural, and fit MY needs better than a lever action or bolt action.

It's not like a World War was fought with bolt actions and it's not like plenty lever actions never killed any body, or revolvers.

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

Drinking alcohol faster than your body can take it.

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?

28 people die a day for drunk driving. So, 1 shooting incident performed by a nutjob is worse than the 28 people who die per day by drunk drivers? 8 people die a day from texting and driving and many more injured. I also remember people with SUVs, either intoxicated or just plain crazy plowing into croups of people in Vegas and at least 1 college. So the larger the rarity tragedy outweighs the "normal" every day deaths?

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.

He had training, big deal. Anyone with half a brain and determination could have done exactly what he did. Has the possibility of any friendly fire good guys crossed your mind as well? Could have added to the number

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.

The way you come off, blaming the rifle and not the person, really makes one wonder that if he had used a bomb if you would have created so much a fuss. It's not the tool used, it's the person, or the people. Maybe the issue is ISIS and not the guns?

 

[TheBoss930]

Okay. Let me build on your vehicle example.

While it's WAY COOL for the Koenigsegg One:1 to have 1360 HP, or a Bugatti Veyron to do 270+ MPH, do we really NEED vehicles like that? Does the "average" driver need a car with that much power? Typically, to get the most out of either, you'd need to be on a special track, designed to handle such power.

We would be fine is every car had just 75 HP. Boring, but fine. Young kids wouldn't be doing 100 MPH+ on city streets just to get that Snapchat photo when using the Speed Filter. A HS friend of mine probably wouldn't have wrapped his car around a utility pole on his 17th birthday (he survived the crash, but died 6 months later, never regaining consciousness).

It is not a "sacrifice of freedom" to limit the lethality of a firearms. Plenty of lethal firearms before the AR was designed. I suspect most INGO members consider themselves as lethal with an German K98 as they are with the AR. So, why the need for the AR? Is it the Bugatti of rifles?

You could die with 75hp still, and people would find ways to still go fast. so why not just ban cars all together?

 

[KG1]

Yeah to go along with the drunk driving analogy. There are laws upon laws against it. Many people have lost their driving privileges and have even went to jail only to get behind the wheel and drive drunk and kill someone. It's happened many, many times proving it's not the implement it's the person behind such an act.