indiucky
Grandmaster
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....
I apologize for my foray beyond personal opinion unsupported by historical fact. I'll try to do better.
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.
The ego on this one.
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.
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"
Any examples of when someone need 30 rounds, or 100??
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.
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.
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.
So, why the need for the AR? Is it the Bugatti of rifles?
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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?