AR-15 inventor would be horrified and sickened.

[BE Mike]

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

But you don't need a tv or computer/ internet. You'd do much better getting books from the public library. Want to communicate? You don't need a cell phone or any other kind of phone. Just write letter.

 

[BE Mike]

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??

You really don't need an automobile. You'd do the environment a favor by using public transportation or if that is not available consider carpooling.

 

[BE Mike]

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.

Your thinking is quickly entering the area of British lawmakers. They think that their subjects don't need anything more than a shotgun. That is the logical conclusion of your arguments.

 

[JettaKnight]

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?

When is the water police coming to take away my five shower heads? Sure, one will get me wet, but I like having extra waterpower to lethally spray down my 'nethers.

 

[hoosierdaddy1976]

When is the water police coming to take away my five shower heads? Sure, one will get me wet, but I like having extra waterpower to lethally spray down my 'nethers.

MONSTER! Killing millions of half-children with your hot water. HOT WATER BURN BABY!!!

 

[JettaKnight]

MONSTER! Killing millions of half-children with your hot water. HOT WATER BURN BABY!!!

Honestly, why does anyone need a shower nozzle capable of 700 drops per second aimed right at their junk?

 

[HoughMade]

I'm tired of class envy/dissatisfaction with the life you've built for yourself.

When ever you hear: "Nobody needs...." That's what you're hearing.

Learn to be content. Leave everyone else alone.

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??

The fact is that ARs were used to defend people against bad guys. Maybe you can see the future and predict how these incidents would turn out, but the people still alive in these cases, and myself, cannot.

 

[Nicu757]

The AR like all guns are part of what keeps us free men and women. The 2nd amendment was never written about hunting it was written to keep government in check and if need be there so the people will not be defenseless . I do not need examples of fire power or cars to explain this and I think this is lost in peoples mind. The AR and the musket to me are the same. Different times just means different weapons. The 2nd amendment and its meaning to me is the same as it was when written.

 

[Cerberus]

The Orlando ISIS terrorist used a SIG variant that shares no common parts.

As for the comparison to the musket, I kind of get it. The AR can be assembled from parts made by hundreds of manufacturers - very versatile. Back in the day one did not go to the store and buy a musket...or a Hawkin rifle...one went to three different craftsmen. The Lock maker, the stock maker and the barrel maker, hence the term lock, stock and barrel. It was then up to you or a competent gunsmith to put them together and make them work.

This is wrong, and an over simplification of the European guild system. The American scene had many fine craftsmen that made many a musket and rifle, in complete form for customers, whether it be individual or government. Granted, these gunmakers would at times use purchased parts to assemble into arms, or they might use parts of their own make. One of the most prolific, Jacob Dickert, who also had early military contracts, was known to make most of his own parts. Then there is the whole trade gun subject we could get into. "For the trade" was not just for Indians, it was also for mechantiles.

 

[worddoer]

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.

Why did you change "need" to "right"??? Your previous posts keep talking about "need" many, many times when referring to the 2nd amendment. So you randomly choose when something is a need and when something is a right? Sounds pretty convenient for someone who is anti-gun and attempting to portray themselves otherwise.

You use the examples of other rights that the government has infringed on as why it is proper for the government to also infringe on our right to keep and bear arms as well. So per your view, since the government has infringed on so many rights, we should lay down and offer no resistance. Matter of fact, we should facilitate and aid the government in the infringement of all of our rights. After all, we didn't complain enough about everything, so we should complain about nothing and lay down and accept what the government appears to be doing. Since each and every person on this board has not fought equally as hard against the no fly list or civil asset forfeiture, then we should offer no resistance to gun control measures. Again, sounds pretty convenient for someone who is anti-gun and attempting to portray themselves otherwise.

You have mentioned many times that you believe that bolt action guns are sufficient for a citizens needs. You mean that "sniper rifle" that you have. Such as "German K98s or Japanese Type 37 or 99s". Because I have seen articles in the past that called standard hunting rifles or military surplus bolt actions "sniper rifles". Who really needs to be able to shoot such a powerful bullet that can travel so far? "Why do you need such a high level of lethality"? You can still hunt with a muzzle loader that is limited to 50 yards. Look at the level of lethality that the bolt action "sniper" rifle can deliver. You can shoot people from hundreds or even thousands of yards away. Because, "It is not a "sacrifice of freedom" to limit the lethality of a firearms", citizens should be limited to muzzle loaders with 50 yard limits to protect the public.

See, your argument can be used to take your guns away also. That is assuming you even really care about your guns rights. Because your argument is strangely like someone who is anti-gun, attempting to portray themselves otherwise.

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".

"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)

 

[actaeon277]

I think David is taking a break.

 

[worddoer]

He probably needed to retreat to his safe space. The amount of micro aggressions in our discussion was intolerable. More likely than not, he will now be on another forum ranting out the need for more social justice...assuming it only benefits him and does not require anything of him.

 

[TwinTurbo]

I hope David comes back. He's so much smarter than we are and a much better shooter. Plus, I'm sure he's better looking and has a longer...uh...barrel length than we do. Golly gee, how will I determine what I need or don't need without our supreme leader?




I can't figure out how to purple on my phone. Maybe he can tell me how to do so.

 

[HoughMade]

I hope David comes back. He's so much smarter than we are and a much better shooter. Plus, I'm sure he's better looking and has a longer...uh...barrel length than we do. Golly gee, how will I determine what I need or don't need without our supreme leader?

I can't figure out how to purple on my phone. Maybe he can tell me how to do so.

And he has omniscient knowledge of the future.

 

[indiucky]

This is wrong, and an over simplification of the European guild system. The American scene had many fine craftsmen that made many a musket and rifle, in complete form for customers, whether it be individual or government. Granted, these gunmakers would at times use purchased parts to assemble into arms, or they might use parts of their own make. One of the most prolific, Jacob Dickert, who also had early military contracts, was known to make most of his own parts. Then there is the whole trade gun subject we could get into. "For the trade" was not just for Indians, it was also for mechantiles.

Cerebus is correct (with one caveat)...I have a ca 1830-1840 original Pennsylvania Rifle in here with a Ketland lock...We COULD make our own locks but it seems we still were purchasing some of our locks from Europe even as late as the mid 19th century...I think it was just cheaper...It wasn't that we couldn't do it..It just made more sense from a business standpoint to buy them overseas...That's my theory anyway..

Cerebus you seem to know quite a bit about this...Why do you think that is the case???? It amazes me the number of early to mid 19th century obviously American made firearms using Ketland locks...They all can not be recycled...

 

[indiucky]

And he has omniscient knowledge of the future.

Man hough***Ya shore 'nuff use purty words...I'ma gonna try that thar omni word on the Missus when I gets home...."Hey darlin'...I got this here omniscient idea of what's gonna make you happy...No it's not Coach purse..No it's not diamonds...Of course I know what "omniscient" means....Whut do you mean "apparently not?""

 

[Hawkeye]

I hope David comes back. He's so much smarter than we are and a much better shooter. Plus, I'm sure he's better looking and has a longer...uh...barrel length than we do. Golly gee, how will I determine what I need or don't need without our supreme leader?




I can't figure out how to purple on my phone. Maybe he can tell me how to do so.

Twin Turbo - its not a questtion of barrel length. Its girth that's improtant! Not so sure if it's a "heavy barrel" or bore diameter, but its girth.

 

[BogWalker]

Twin Turbo - its not a questtion of barrel length. Its girth that's improtant! Not so sure if it's a "heavy barrel" or bore diameter, but its girth.

Bore diameter. Haven't you ever sat in on a 9mm vs .45 debate?

 

[david890]

I own that gun simply and only because of what it represents.

There is NO OTHER WEAPON that represents this idea that you have? Not a single model? It MUST be the AR-15?

True, gun are not "mere possessions". However, they are NOT "untouchable ideals" either. We've had gun control laws for quite awhile now, and I don't see anyone demanding unrestricted access to NFA items for everyone. I'm sure you know a few people who, while having the RIGHT to KBA, probably shouldn't be trusted with such things; they ain't right in the head, too prone to anger issues, or just plain reckless.

If you agree with that last sentence, then you're FOR gun control!

Now, the issue becomes one of the amount - the scope - of gun control, and that seems (to me, anyway) to be the domain of Congress. Are universal background checks unreasonable? Someone on the "No Fly" or other terrorist watch list shouldn't get one? Instead of the 3-day waiting period proposed (and shot down) by the GOP, how about 7 days? Ya know, give the FBI time to do a proper investigation.

 

[david890]

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????

A faucet doesn't have the CAPACITY to drown someone (though infants/toddlers have drowned in 2" of water left in buckets). The powerhouse outflow of the Hoover Dam, or a tsunami, OTOH....

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"???

Again, the issues with those 2 - as they are with the AR - would be CAPACITY and SPEED OF RELOADING. So, no, if ARs face restrictions, then so do SKS and AKs.

"Own" and "use" are two different issues. As I've stated previously, there are a lot of weapons a civilian does not NEED to own. However, having them available for people to shoot in a "well-regulated" area (e.g., Knob Creek) is fine with me.

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...

Part of regulation would be restricting magazine capacity; perhaps 5, perhaps 10. There's no requirement that hi-cap mags be grandfathered. As I've stated before, giving up my 30-round mags would require proper compensation on the part of the government, as was the case in Australia. Would everyone give up their hi-cap mags? Of course not. But then they run the risk of becoming a felon and losing 2A rights completely.

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...

I really want to know...when someone comes across as intelligent (as you have) yet can abide NO limits on firearms. You seem to do okay with speed limits, mandatory auto insurance, seat-belt laws, not being able to buy beer on Sunday, etc. There are lots of limits and controls in your life. There are limits on the 1st Amendment that you appear to accept, so how are controls/limits on the 2nd fundamentally different than those limits on the 1st?

Make your case...Please...