Can just one supporter of the AR-15 please annswer a simple few questions with no spin?

I tried asking this in the other thread, but it kept getting deflected and changed. So, I will ask in standard testing format here, hoping to get a response or two, because I genuinely want to know. Not because I think I'm right and you're wrong, but because I honestly want to know the justification in your head.
1. While I fully support the right to defend your home with a 9mm, shotgun, and other small capacity weapons, I feel like a semi-automatic assault rifle serves no purpose other than carnage. You, as the owner of an assault rifle, purchased that weapon because it offers what advantages, which a 9mm or shotgun does not?
2. If you are into game hunting, does an assault rifle offer you something that a standard low capacity rifle, or shotgun style weapon does not? If so, what does it offer?
3. Do you think that going out to shoot game with laws saying you can't have big magazines and semi-automatic rifles would be worth even the possibility that just one life would be saved? Or do you feel it's the status quo, and people will die anyways, why should my hunting be affected?
4. Lastly, I know a lot of NRA'ers are scared that "it's a slippery slope" when it comes to this. You start with assault rifles, but where does it stop? Before you know it, they outlaw all guns, and it's just the criminals, nutjobs, and government who have weapons while law abiding citizens will ultimately be the ones who get screwed. Is this a genuine concern? And also, do you believe that one day, you may actually need an assault rifle to fend off the government, or government troops, and that the second amendment gives you that right?
 

scsinet

Active Member
I'll have a go at this.
Quote:
1. While I fully support the right to defend your home with a 9mm, shotgun, and other small capacity weapons, I feel like a semi-automatic assault rifle serves no purpose other than carnage. You, as the owner of an assault rifle, purchased that weapon because it offers what advantages, which a 9mm or shotgun does not?
I personally see disadvantages to defending one's home with a rifle, at least in most situations. The problem I have is that in a close quarters tactical situation, it is too easy for your attacker to gain partial control of the weapon by grabbing the barrel. Additionally, rifle rounds can easily penetrate the walls of the home, entering another home and potentially harming a bystander. That said, in situations of civil unrest - which we know DOES occur - the visual intimidation factor and capabilities of the AR-15 or similar weapn can be a very intimidating thing. The intimidation factor alone might mitigate the need to fire the weapon period. I'd much rather someone who intends on causing me harm runs away scared than me having to pull the trigger. I am not someone who you will hear bragging about how I will shoot anyone who harms blah blah blah as if he is looking forward to it. I hope I never have to draw a weapon on another human being, let alone pull the trigger. My stuff is not worth living with the thought that I shot someone, even if it is an intruder. Harm to my family members is another matter.
Quote:
2. If you are into game hunting, does an assault rifle offer you something that a standard low capacity rifle, or shotgun style weapon does not? If so, what does it offer?
From a hunting perspective, hunting potentially dangerous game, such as wild hog, is a safer activity for the hunter when a large caliber weapon capable of firing multiple shots quickly is used. I would never try to hunt hog with a bolt action rifle, because I can put a .30-06 round into a hog, and it can charge, not giving me time to get a second round re-chambered. I'd much rather have 19 additional rounds at my disposal. That said, the argument can be made of simply shooting accurately, but anyone who hunts will tell you that this is not always possible, because the animal may move in the instant the trigger is pulled or any number of other variables completely outside the control of the shooter. I do not use my semi-automatic rifles for hunting non-dangerous game, such as deer, pronghorn, etc. When I was last in Wyoming hunting pronghorn (yes, with my bolt action .30-06), a bison came into the processor when I was dropping off my game. The bison was taken with a Remington 700 chambered for 7mm Rem Mag. The bison turned, charged the hunter, and gored him in the buttocks with a horn. It put him in the hospital, because it happened quickly enough that the hunter did not have time to rechamber (I wasn't there, I don't know why that was, but that is the story). Luckily, his son was quick with his .270wsm, and managed to shoot the bison again while it was attacking his father. This situation could have been avoided with a semi-automatic rifle.
Quote:
3. Do you think that going out to shoot game with laws saying you can't have big magazines and semi-automatic rifles would be worth even the possibility that just one life would be saved? Or do you feel it's the status quo, and people will die anyways, why should my hunting be affected?
I have a hard time believing that if someone wanted to harm just ONE person, that the lack of a semi-automatic rifle with a large magazine would deter them. Therefore, this question is faulty.
I also know that for every person that commits one of these unspeakable acts, there are millions people out there with the same type of weapons. Those people and those weapons have never, are not, and will never be party to these acts. The value of human life is immeasurable, but at the same time, the value of freedoms and liberties is also immeasurable. I do not see how two immeasurable things can be effectively compared, outside the realm of personal opinion. What I do know is that there is no clear evidence to suggest that gun control will solve anything. What we have is a people problem, not a gun problem. Everyone could own any weapon they wanted and there would be no problem if people wouldn't use them for these atrocities.
At the risk of sounding indifferent to the tragic side of things, liberties and freedoms have immeasurable value to those that cherish them. For those that do not mind surrendering them willingly to the government in the name of security (made up term by the way), perhaps it easy to make a comparison.
4. Lastly, I know a lot of NRA'ers are scared that "it's a slippery slope" when it comes to this. You start with assault rifles, but where does it stop? Before you know it, they outlaw all guns, and it's just the criminals, nutjobs, and government who have weapons while law abiding citizens will ultimately be the ones who get screwed. Is this a genuine concern?
I'd say it's definitely a genuine concern. Again, the problem is not the guns, it's people who are using them in this way. The "assault rifles" are the weapon being used most often simply because it is what is most efficient and because it's available. If they are taken away, these acts will still be committed, just with other weapons. Lest we forget that some of the most horrific mass killings in this country's history, such as Oklahoma City and 9/11, were committed without the use of guns. 9/11 is a good example. Guns were not available, but it didn't stop the crimes, they used the most efficient weapon that they could use at that time and place, box cutters. It serves as an example that if we don't address why the killings are taking place, and instead only focus on what was used to do them, we are not really solving the problem. If we don't solve the problem, and only ever look at this from a gun control perspective, then the only continual solution is to keep banning more and more weapons. First all guns, then it'll go from there. The acts are the problem, not the tools.
Quote:
And also, do you believe that one day, you may actually need an assault rifle to fend off the government, or government troops, and that the second amendment gives you that right?
Actually, I believe that the founding fathers, if nothing else, intended the 2nd amendment specifically for this purpose. This country was established for a number of reasons, the biggest of which was to escape the tyranny of King George III. The framers set out to ensure that this sort of thing never happened again. To quote the declaration of independence:
But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.
Our system of government is all about checks and balances. Their intent was that an armed populace served to counter the potential evolution of our government into a tyrannical one.
Do I think it is likely to have an all out war between our citizens and the armed forces? No. However, I do believe that the right of the people to bear arms for that purpose is specifically enumerated in the 2nd amendment. Of course, there is also the fact that the amount of small arms registered in this country serves as a deterent to other nations as well. Ask yourself, would Germany have invaded Poland if they had the number of armed citizens that we do?
Discounting those possibilites as unlikely to the point of being unconcerned or unprepared for it is as much your right as it is mine to be concerned and prepared. However, it is not your right to try to take away those rights because you think you know better.
 

reefraff

Active Member
1
I have 2 45 auto pistols and a sawed off 12 gauge for home defense. The AR is for fun and small game or varmint hunting. Should we get into a Riot situation like those following the king verdict it would come in handy. You are too hung up on this 9mm thing. That is the round the original assault weapon, the Uzi fired. It is useless for anything but target practice or killing people.
2
In 308 the AR platform is an excellent hunting rifle. They are light, the firing mechanism helps to reduce recoil. In 223 they are OK for deer if you are a good shot and the state you live in doesn't restrict the round, some do because they are not that powerful.
3
There are numerous other products or activities we allow that kill more people than assault weapons. Start with them and we'll talk. I am sick and tired of being singled out.
4
Let's say the government could remove every "assault weapon" off the street tomorrow. The next nutjob will use a different style weapon and the anti gun nuts will go after them. I believe a well armed populous is a strong deterrent to the government attempting to take away our rights. When it comes down to brass tacks our military people aren't going to open up on civilians without a legitimate reason. You get some punks in law enforcement, primarily federal law enforcement who would and it's nice to know I could match their firepower if I ever had to.
 

2quills

Well-Known Member
Down here this weapon is a VERY popular choice for hog hunting. And yes, they are fun to shoot. If you've never let loose on a non-live target with one then you don't know what you're missing. :)
 

scsinet

Active Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2Quills http:///t/393813/can-just-one-supporter-of-the-ar-15-please-annswer-a-simple-few-questions-with-no-spin#post_3504606
Down here this weapon is a VERY popular choice for hog hunting. And yes, they are fun to shoot. If you've never let loose on a non-live target with one then you don't know what you're missing. :)
I have more than one, but only one that I use for hunting as described above. The others I use for target shooting, and there is no comparison to any other type of weapon for target shooting. It's just a different experience. The problem is that there are those who don't feel like that is "enough" of a reason and therefore, endeavor to force those opinions on others using the police power of government.
 

2quills

Well-Known Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by SCSInet http:///t/393813/can-just-one-supporter-of-the-ar-15-please-annswer-a-simple-few-questions-with-no-spin#post_3504623
I have more than one, but only one that I use for hunting as described above. The others I use for target shooting, and there is no comparison to any other type of weapon for target shooting. It's just a different experience. The problem is that there are those who don't feel like that is "enough" of a reason and therefore, endeavor to force those opinions on others using the police power of government.
Perhaps they would feel differently if they ever found themselves out in the brush being chased by one. They can get pretty mean and aggressive. While people who grow up in or around big cities all their life's may not understand. They can be a huge problem for some folk. Ever find yourself in a sticky situation and surrounded then I bet you they'd wished that they had one. No bag limits on them down here. They are infiltrating the country like the plague. Some farmers and ranchers actually do use these weapons to help protect their crops and livestock.
I understand peoples concerns and their desires to do what they can in order to help prevent as many tragedies as possible but going after guns isn't it. Guns just scare some people and I'm sure people have their reasons for feeling the way they do. But don't under estimate the resourcefulness of a person with intelligence who is either ill or miss guided. They almost certainly would use what ever tools that they could get their hands on. Who's to say he couldn't have done worse damage with a couple of sawed off shot guns and a 9mm with a couple of clips? If he had we'd be talking about different weapons. As mentioned here or in the other thread...folks want to go after the tool as well as the user. But the tool is just a tool. The internet could be used as a weapon as well. How much do you enjoy your freadoms? Just sayin...
 

reefraff

Active Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by SCSInet http:///t/393813/can-just-one-supporter-of-the-ar-15-please-annswer-a-simple-few-questions-with-no-spin#post_3504623
I have more than one, but only one that I use for hunting as described above. The others I use for target shooting, and there is no comparison to any other type of weapon for target shooting. It's just a different experience. The problem is that there are those who don't feel like that is "enough" of a reason and therefore, endeavor to force those opinions on others using the police power of government.
It is amazing. Having back yard swimming pools and the ability to drink alcohol at bars and night clubs kill far more people than these guns every year and nobody wants to ban those activities. AND NEITHER ARE GUARANTEED CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by reefraff http:///t/393813/can-just-one-supporter-of-the-ar-15-please-annswer-a-simple-few-questions-with-no-spin#post_3504652
It is amazing. Having back yard swimming pools and the ability to drink alcohol at bars and night clubs kill far more people than these guns every year and nobody wants to ban those activities. AND NEITHER ARE GUARANTEED CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS.
Yeah, that's true. Cause I'll tell you what, I heard there was nothing more John Hancock enjoyed than heading down to the East Village to Club Extacy, getting loaded on Bacardi and Coke, then coming home to crash in his infinity pool. Oh wait, you mean we live in a completely different time period from when the constitution was drafted, and those things didn't exist then, much like assault rifles? I totally forgot about that!
 
And for the record, I still think you could fend off wild hogs with something other than an assault rifle. Would it be the easiest option? Probably so. But so would a tactical nuclear strike if you really wanted to get technical. I'm pretty sure your Daddy and his Daddy's Daddy have been fighting off wild hogs since before the AR-15 came around, no?
And to do a complete 180, and change some folks minds about what you thought you knew about me... Because I own a business and do large cash drops after dark, I will be starting a CCW class next month, and also am looking to get a small, accurate, reliable pistol. From everything I have read, and the few people I have asked, I think I am going to be choosing the Glock G19 (Gen 4) 9mm. Anyone have any strong opinions one way or another about that model, or Glock in general?
 

2quills

Well-Known Member
No, hogs back in the day were no where near the problem that they are today. The AR is a rather effective tool in this regard. Clearly you have no understanding in this area. No offense but you're trying to differentiate one killing tool in the same thread that your inquiring about purchasing another for yourself.
 
Why not? I enjoy a glass of wine or Jack and Coke from time to time, that doesn't mean I condone methanphetamines. They both are mind altering agents, one is just much more deadly than the other in some circumstances. I think everyone ought to have the right to a firearm, I really do. However, I don't care what you tell me about hogs, or shooting at the range, or whatever else you want to say... The gun used in CT was something that in my opinion should be off the shelves. Would he have killed the same number of people with just the two hand guns? Maybe. However, I feel like based on the fact he got off over a hundred rounds in less than three minutes should tell you something. Even with extra magazines, how many rounds could he have gotten off without reloading several times? Not over a hundred. 15 per gun I'm guessing. So you have 30 shots fired before reloading two guns. Think that would have given LE more time to get there and try and help? Let's say it even shaved 30 seconds off the time first responders got there... Do you think that may have saved a life or two?
Again, I think it all comes down to do you believe human life is more or less important than your right to shoot a hog, go to the range, or have a small part of your personal rights "violated". If they were trying to take away all guns, I would be on your side, trust me. But I will never understand how outlawing the sale of an assault rifle is something that is more important than 20 slain 6 and 7 year olds.
 

reefraff

Active Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheClemsonKid http:///t/393813/can-just-one-supporter-of-the-ar-15-please-annswer-a-simple-few-questions-with-no-spin#post_3504676
Yeah, that's true. Cause I'll tell you what, I heard there was nothing more John Hancock enjoyed than heading down to the East Village to Club Extacy, getting loaded on Bacardi and Coke, then coming home to crash in his infinity pool. Oh wait, you mean we live in a completely different time period from when the constitution was drafted, and those things didn't exist then, much like assault rifles? I totally forgot about that!
Yep and those wise old white guys anticipated than and included a provision to amend the constitution as conditions warrant. If you think there is the will to specifically ban these guns contact your congressman and ask them to do it the right way rather than assume they don't have to follow the rule book. You allow them to crap on gun owner's rights it's only a matter of time until they get around to screwing with something you care about.
 

reefraff

Active Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheClemsonKid http:///t/393813/can-just-one-supporter-of-the-ar-15-please-annswer-a-simple-few-questions-with-no-spin#post_3504678
And for the record, I still think you could fend off wild hogs with something other than an assault rifle. Would it be the easiest option? Probably so. But so would a tactical nuclear strike if you really wanted to get technical. I'm pretty sure your Daddy and his Daddy's Daddy have been fighting off wild hogs since before the AR-15 came around, no?
And to do a complete 180, and change some folks minds about what you thought you knew about me... Because I own a business and do large cash drops after dark, I will be starting a CCW class next month, and also am looking to get a small, accurate, reliable pistol. From everything I have read, and the few people I have asked, I think I am going to be choosing the Glock G19 (Gen 4) 9mm. Anyone have any strong opinions one way or another about that model, or Glock in general?
Yeah but why should we have to? My so called assault weapon has never harmed anyone. You are talking about restricting my right based on what might happen. I'll say it again. If we are going to take that approach there are MANY MANY MANY other areas where we should start first if we are concerned with saving lives because death by AR is a microscopic spec in a barrel when it comes to preventable deaths in this country.
 

reefraff

Active Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheClemsonKid http:///t/393813/can-just-one-supporter-of-the-ar-15-please-annswer-a-simple-few-questions-with-no-spin#post_3504695
Why not? I enjoy a glass of wine or Jack and Coke from time to time, that doesn't mean I condone methanphetamines. They both are mind altering agents, one is just much more deadly than the other in some circumstances. I think everyone ought to have the right to a firearm, I really do. However, I don't care what you tell me about hogs, or shooting at the range, or whatever else you want to say... The gun used in CT was something that in my opinion should be off the shelves. Would he have killed the same number of people with just the two hand guns? Maybe. However, I feel like based on the fact he got off over a hundred rounds in less than three minutes should tell you something. Even with extra magazines, how many rounds could he have gotten off without reloading several times? Not over a hundred. 15 per gun I'm guessing. So you have 30 shots fired before reloading two guns. Think that would have given LE more time to get there and try and help? Let's say it even shaved 30 seconds off the time first responders got there... Do you think that may have saved a life or two?
Again, I think it all comes down to do you believe human life is more or less important than your right to shoot a hog, go to the range, or have a small part of your personal rights "violated". If they were trying to take away all guns, I would be on your side, trust me. But I will never understand how outlawing the sale of an assault rifle is something that is more important than 20 slain 6 and 7 year olds.
There hasn't been any propagandising about a drum magazine so I assume he was using 30 round mags in the AR. Same number of shots between reloads.
 

2quills

Well-Known Member
Dont fool yourself in the idea that times have changed that much that it makes this argument any more valid against assult style weapons. Whats the point in starting a thread and possing questions if you dont care to hear the answers that you got? If you dont want to own one thats fine. But I'll be damned if im going to let someone else from a completely different demographic who has no cleaer understanding of my personal view point make that decision for me. Some things change in time but people have had to defend their livelyhoods for as long as weve known.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2Quills http:///t/393813/can-just-one-supporter-of-the-ar-15-please-annswer-a-simple-few-questions-with-no-spin#post_3504703
Dont fool yourself in the idea that times have changed that much that it makes this argument any more valid against assult style weapons. Whats the point in starting a thread and possing questions if you dont care to hear the answers that you got? If you dont want to own one thats fine. But I'll be damned if im going to let someone else from a completely different demographic who has no cleaer understanding of my personal view point make that decision for me. Some things change in time but people have had to defend their livelyhoods for as long as weve known.
But see that's the whole thing with a democracy. The people voted in the politicians, and they ultimately make the decisions. If the majority of people in this country want a ban on assault rifles, then guess what? There will be a ban on assault rifles. If you don't want someone "from a completely different demographic who has no cleaer understanding of my personal view point make that decision for you", then you better start looking for another place to live. You think half the people who voted in this election were happy with the outcome? And of those who were, do you think even half of them had any idea what they were ACTUALLY voting for, other than a name?
That's my biggest concern with America these days, is that the country is full of an ignorant electorate on both sides, who have no clue why they vote the way they do. That goes from everything from assault rifles to the POTUS. What I really hate is lobbying from people like the NRA who make policy decisions by putting money in the back pockets of the right politicians. And yes, I know the NRA is not even close to the only lobby with financial influence, but you get my point...
 

2quills

Well-Known Member
They can ban them if they want to. I just dont see it preventing trageties like what happened last week. If I could give mine up to give just one of those parents there kid back I would. We can speculate about how many lives it might possibly save in the future but the truth is we'll never really know and thats the problem that I have with this argument.
And there are plenty of people who have destroyed there lives or the lives of others with alcohol but thats ok and drugs arent?
 

scsinet

Active Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheClemsonKid http:///t/393813/can-just-one-supporter-of-the-ar-15-please-annswer-a-simple-few-questions-with-no-spin#post_3504678
And for the record, I still think you could fend off wild hogs with something other than an assault rifle. Would it be the easiest option? Probably so. But so would a tactical nuclear strike if you really wanted to get technical. I'm pretty sure your Daddy and his Daddy's Daddy have been fighting off wild hogs since before the AR-15 came around, no?
And to do a complete 180, and change some folks minds about what you thought you knew about me... Because I own a business and do large cash drops after dark, I will be starting a CCW class next month, and also am looking to get a small, accurate, reliable pistol. From everything I have read, and the few people I have asked, I think I am going to be choosing the Glock G19 (Gen 4) 9mm. Anyone have any strong opinions one way or another about that model, or Glock in general?
This is the reason why I don't like answering these trick threads when people present themselves as trying to educate themselves, but actually only want to advance their own agenda/ignite a debate. You present yourself as someone "objective" when really all you are is another dead-set gun control advocate wtih an agenda.
You asked the following question:
Quote:
2. If you are into game hunting, does an assault rifle offer you something that a standard low capacity rifle, or shotgun style weapon does not? If so, what does it offer?
I answered your question to the letter. I gave a clear, accurate hunting situation where an "assault rifle" has advantages, and where it would be used in a safe, responsible, and legal manner. Your response was basically "Naw, you don't need that." Was that the point of all of your questions? I gave you an opportunity by giving clear responses that were not the usual talking points, but all you really want to do is disregard or trivialize any answers and argue.
Whatever.
Oh, and by the way, be it as it may that you are considering a handgun purchase, doing so does not lend any credibility to your anti-gun arguments.
 

scsinet

Active Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheClemsonKid http:///t/393813/can-just-one-supporter-of-the-ar-15-please-annswer-a-simple-few-questions-with-no-spin#post_3504711
But see that's the whole thing with a democracy. The people voted in the politicians, and they ultimately make the decisions. If the majority of people in this country want a ban on assault rifles, then guess what? There will be a ban on assault rifles.
We are not a democracy, we are a constitutional republic. There is a KEY difference, and creating a democracy was exactly what the framers did NOT want. The difference is the rule of LAW versus the rule of MEN. The framers deliberately wanted to avoid exactly this type of situation:
If the majority of the people in this country want ________________ then guess what, there will be ___________________________.

When you think about it, the dangers in this type of system are apparent to anyone that values freedoms and liberties, and the ideology transcends to an infinite number of social and politicial topics, not just guns.
Suffice to say this for the moment. This is not meant to be a gun reference, but this is how the quote goes, so don't read into the gun bit too far.
A democracy is four wolves and three lambs deciding what is for dinner.
Liberty is a lamb picking up a gun and challenging the vote.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by SCSInet http:///t/393813/can-just-one-supporter-of-the-ar-15-please-annswer-a-simple-few-questions-with-no-spin#post_3504721
This is the reason why I don't like answering these trick threads when people present themselves as trying to educate themselves, but actually only want to advance their own agenda/ignite a debate. You present yourself as someone "objective" when really all you are is another dead-set gun control advocate wtih an agenda.
You asked the following question:
I answered your question to the letter. I gave a clear, accurate hunting situation where an "assault rifle" has advantages, and where it would be used in a safe, responsible, and legal manner. Your response was basically "Naw, you don't need that." Was that the point of all of your questions? I gave you an opportunity by giving clear responses that were not the usual talking points, but all you really want to do is disregard or trivialize any answers and argue.
Whatever.
Oh, and by the way, be it as it may that you are considering a handgun purchase, doing so does not lend any credibility to your anti-gun arguments.
I appreciated your clear and concise answer on the subject. It doesn't change the way I feel personally, but it does help me better understand why those like you who want to keep them think. Like I said earlier, I think it's a fine line between what you would trade for the value of a human life. The same can certainly be said for alcohol and drugs. Both are legal and both are abused, which cause death and destruction.
My entire stance on the issue, is that those in favor of something like an AR-15 have (in my PERSONAL opinion) very ticky-tack reasons for wanting to allow them to be legal on the streets. As someone who is an avid hunter, I get your point of view. I'm not well versed enough in weapons to know whether you could get by with something else or not. You seem to think not so much. I still feel like under most circumstances not involving wild boar, you could get by with something less deadly.
I guess I just still don't get why a woman who lives by herself with a kid with mental problems left a gun accessible. Maybe instead of blaming mental health issues, or gun control, we ought to take a good long look at how and where people store their weapons. I can tell you right now, I don't have children, so I will keep my gun in a simple lock box. However, if I had kids, or even kids in my home even semi regularly, to whom the best of my knowledge were sane, I would make sure I was the only one with access to that weapon.
 
Top