DainBramaged
Lifer
- Jun 19, 2003
- 23,448
- 40
- 91
Originally posted by: Fingers
Originally posted by: gar3555
Originally posted by: Fingers
Originally posted by: gar3555
I'm not in the NRA and neither are any of my roommates, but we love guns, and hunting. we have two deer heads, soon to be three in our living room, as well as 5 more skulls in our garage. We hunt all the time, Deer, Turkeys, pheasants, doves, and anything else that moves basically. That being said, there is no reason the average person should own anything like that AR that DMT has pictured, you can't hunt anything with it. It's just not necessary. ~ed: also we have enough guns and ammo in our house to hold our own if things go down
![]()
They are good for entertainment value at the range and are quite effetive as varmint and preditor rifles.
That is true, it is fun to watch a coyote squirm when you blow his backside out with an AR at 100+ yds, but thats an expensive fun...and I can think of other things that bring me as much joy at a fraction of the cost.
just thought of a few other features:
After the initial cost the ammo is dirt cheap and you can easily modify it to .308 or .50 beowolf, but the latter kinda hinders the advantage of cheap ammo.
Also for the lady shooters and kids recoil is next to nothing.
Originally posted by: gar3555
Originally posted by: Vic
Just who the fsck are you to determine the "needs" of other people?
I'm not the one to determine there needs, people should be able to do that on there own. I just don't see too many people needing that kind of firepower, but you can be your own judge.
Originally posted by: Vic
Your argument suffers from the false belief that democracy can never be tyrannical.Originally posted by: preslove
That's not Authoritarianism. Authoritarianism is TOP --> Down. If the "you" in that example is an average joe then it is not Authoritarianism, but normal democratic response.
An ok synopsis on it.
"The term authoritarian is used to describe an organization or a state which enforces strong and sometimes oppressive measures against the population, generally without attempts at gaining the consent of the population.
In an authoritarian state, citizens are subject to state authority in many aspects of their lives, including many that other political philosophies would see as matters of personal choice. There are, however, various degrees of authoritarianism; and even democratic countries have shown inclinations to authoritarianism in some respects....
As an example of the last case, modern democracies often once enforced laws that would be nowadays considered abusive and authoritarian: for instance, countries such as the United States and the United Kingdom, until recently, enforced sodomy laws imposing the moral and religious values of the majority over matters of private life.
Originally posted by: JulesMaximus
Originally posted by: gar3555
Originally posted by: Vic
Just who the fsck are you to determine the "needs" of other people?
I'm not the one to determine there needs, people should be able to do that on there own. I just don't see too many people needing that kind of firepower, but you can be your own judge.
Okay, you've danced around this long enough. I want to know, if you are asked to vote or give an opinion on whether or not people should be allowed to own an AR style semi-automatic rifle your answer would be?
Yes or No?
Which is it?
Originally posted by: gar3555
Originally posted by: JulesMaximus
Originally posted by: gar3555
Originally posted by: Vic
Just who the fsck are you to determine the "needs" of other people?
I'm not the one to determine there needs, people should be able to do that on there own. I just don't see too many people needing that kind of firepower, but you can be your own judge.
Okay, you've danced around this long enough. I want to know, if you are asked to vote or give an opinion on whether or not people should be allowed to own an AR style semi-automatic rifle your answer would be?
Yes or No?
Which is it?
I haven't danced around anything, I firmly believe that people should have the right to bear arms. If people want to buy it they should be allowed to, but having said that, in my opinion people do not need these kinds of guns. The average idiot has no use for a rifle of this type, but I don't believe that the government should stop these idiots from owning these guns. It should be up to the individual, and any rational person would realize that they really don't need a gun like that and simply not purchase them, unless said person needs it for work, ie professional varmint killer, border patrol, etc.
Originally posted by: JulesMaximus
Originally posted by: gar3555
Originally posted by: JulesMaximus
Originally posted by: gar3555
Originally posted by: Vic
Just who the fsck are you to determine the "needs" of other people?
I'm not the one to determine there needs, people should be able to do that on there own. I just don't see too many people needing that kind of firepower, but you can be your own judge.
Okay, you've danced around this long enough. I want to know, if you are asked to vote or give an opinion on whether or not people should be allowed to own an AR style semi-automatic rifle your answer would be?
Yes or No?
Which is it?
I haven't danced around anything, I firmly believe that people should have the right to bear arms. If people want to buy it they should be allowed to, but having said that, in my opinion people do not need these kinds of guns. The average idiot has no use for a rifle of this type, but I don't believe that the government should stop these idiots from owning these guns. It should be up to the individual, and any rational person would realize that they really don't need a gun like that and simply not purchase them, unless said person needs it for work, ie professional varmint killer, border patrol, etc.
So, that's a YES then?![]()
Originally posted by: gar3555
Originally posted by: K1052
Originally posted by: gar3555
Originally posted by: K1052
Originally posted by: gar3555
Originally posted by: K1052
We don't have to justify it on "need" nor do you.
The "gun control" lobby has managed to convince you that we should have to.
I guess I'm old fashioned...and I believe everything should have a purpose, and you should buy something if you need it.
I guess I'm older fashoned:
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness"
Then how come I can't own a 120mm gun because that would make me happy.
Ah yes, here we go again.
I have some of these answers saved to prevent more wear on my keyboard
To those who would take the 2nd to an illogical extreme; In Colonial times "arms" meant weapons that could be carried. This included knives, swords, rifles and pistols. Dictionaries of the time had a separate definition for "ordinance" (as it was spelled then) meaning cannon. Any hand held, non-ordnance type weapons, are theoretically constitutionally protected. Obviously nuclear weapons, tanks, rockets, fighter planes, and submarines are not.
Credit to Amused.
so hand held is your definition....what about an RPG?
Originally posted by: gar3555
Originally posted by: JulesMaximus
Originally posted by: gar3555
Originally posted by: JulesMaximus
Originally posted by: gar3555
Originally posted by: Vic
Just who the fsck are you to determine the "needs" of other people?
I'm not the one to determine there needs, people should be able to do that on there own. I just don't see too many people needing that kind of firepower, but you can be your own judge.
Okay, you've danced around this long enough. I want to know, if you are asked to vote or give an opinion on whether or not people should be allowed to own an AR style semi-automatic rifle your answer would be?
Yes or No?
Which is it?
I haven't danced around anything, I firmly believe that people should have the right to bear arms. If people want to buy it they should be allowed to, but having said that, in my opinion people do not need these kinds of guns. The average idiot has no use for a rifle of this type, but I don't believe that the government should stop these idiots from owning these guns. It should be up to the individual, and any rational person would realize that they really don't need a gun like that and simply not purchase them, unless said person needs it for work, ie professional varmint killer, border patrol, etc.
So, that's a YES then?![]()
Are you Daft man? Of course I said yes. As with every other answer before I thought I should explain myself, and maybe you would understand, but I know you won't
Originally posted by: ribbon13
Originally posted by: notfred
Fvck you and your "I hate liberals" bullsh!t. Mosty people in this country would probably classify me as a "liberal", but I have absolutely no problem with owning guns.
I think abortion should be legal, I think the war in Iraq was misguided, and I have plenty of other "liberal" beliefs, but none of them have any bearing on my opinion on guns.
Stop being a jackass.
pro choice
pro guns
pro morons shutting the fvck up
:thumbsup:
Originally posted by: JulesMaximus
Originally posted by: gar3555
Originally posted by: JulesMaximus
Originally posted by: gar3555
Originally posted by: JulesMaximus
Originally posted by: gar3555
Originally posted by: Vic
Just who the fsck are you to determine the "needs" of other people?
I'm not the one to determine there needs, people should be able to do that on there own. I just don't see too many people needing that kind of firepower, but you can be your own judge.
Okay, you've danced around this long enough. I want to know, if you are asked to vote or give an opinion on whether or not people should be allowed to own an AR style semi-automatic rifle your answer would be?
Yes or No?
Which is it?
I haven't danced around anything, I firmly believe that people should have the right to bear arms. If people want to buy it they should be allowed to, but having said that, in my opinion people do not need these kinds of guns. The average idiot has no use for a rifle of this type, but I don't believe that the government should stop these idiots from owning these guns. It should be up to the individual, and any rational person would realize that they really don't need a gun like that and simply not purchase them, unless said person needs it for work, ie professional varmint killer, border patrol, etc.
So, that's a YES then?![]()
Are you Daft man? Of course I said yes. As with every other answer before I thought I should explain myself, and maybe you would understand, but I know you won't
Relax, I'm was just trying to pressure you into making a clear declaration one way or the other. :laugh:
Originally posted by: gar3555
Originally posted by: JulesMaximus
Originally posted by: gar3555
Originally posted by: JulesMaximus
Originally posted by: gar3555
Originally posted by: JulesMaximus
Originally posted by: gar3555
Originally posted by: Vic
Just who the fsck are you to determine the "needs" of other people?
I'm not the one to determine there needs, people should be able to do that on there own. I just don't see too many people needing that kind of firepower, but you can be your own judge.
Okay, you've danced around this long enough. I want to know, if you are asked to vote or give an opinion on whether or not people should be allowed to own an AR style semi-automatic rifle your answer would be?
Yes or No?
Which is it?
I haven't danced around anything, I firmly believe that people should have the right to bear arms. If people want to buy it they should be allowed to, but having said that, in my opinion people do not need these kinds of guns. The average idiot has no use for a rifle of this type, but I don't believe that the government should stop these idiots from owning these guns. It should be up to the individual, and any rational person would realize that they really don't need a gun like that and simply not purchase them, unless said person needs it for work, ie professional varmint killer, border patrol, etc.
So, that's a YES then?![]()
Are you Daft man? Of course I said yes. As with every other answer before I thought I should explain myself, and maybe you would understand, but I know you won't
Relax, I'm was just trying to pressure you into making a clear declaration one way or the other. :laugh:
I've always been clear that way, I just don't like idiots with guns, I've been through numerous hunter safety courses, even helped teach some, and I know gun safety, but there are a million idiots that see a gun like the AR and think: "wow a cool looking army gun", and that is an idiot with a gun
Originally posted by: gar3555
I've always been clear that way, I just don't like idiots with guns, I've been through numerous hunter safety courses, even helped teach some, and I know gun safety, but there are a million idiots that see a gun like the AR and think: "wow a cool looking army gun", and that is an idiot with a gun
Originally posted by: Amused
Originally posted by: preslove
Originally posted by: Amused
Originally posted by: preslove
Originally posted by: JDub02
Originally posted by: Amused
Originally posted by: ElFenix
my political science professor in college, when asked by his housemate why he is an NRA member: "of course i have a gun, i'm a democrat in texas"
edit: and, technically, gun grabbing is antithetical to liberals.
That's why they NEED to be relabeled as "Authoritarian Socialists"
There is very little "liberal" about the left in the US today.
I like the term "cultural Marxists" .. but your term works as well.
Liberals really aren't "liberal" at all. They're really communists.
You both know nothing of political theory, so stfu.
:roll:
What else would you call people who push for nanny-state laws and socialism? Anarchists???
Sorry, I've been trying to keep out of conversations with people who talk like 12 year olds? but, if you knew anything about the american progressive movement then you would know that it arose entirely separately from socialism or communism, and that their similarities are merely tangential.
And the denial continues...
Your parroted line is so old, it dates back to the days of Stalin.
Originally posted by: JulesMaximus
Originally posted by: gar3555
Originally posted by: JulesMaximus
Originally posted by: gar3555
Originally posted by: JulesMaximus
Originally posted by: gar3555
Originally posted by: JulesMaximus
Originally posted by: gar3555
Originally posted by: Vic
Just who the fsck are you to determine the "needs" of other people?
I'm not the one to determine there needs, people should be able to do that on there own. I just don't see too many people needing that kind of firepower, but you can be your own judge.
Okay, you've danced around this long enough. I want to know, if you are asked to vote or give an opinion on whether or not people should be allowed to own an AR style semi-automatic rifle your answer would be?
Yes or No?
Which is it?
I haven't danced around anything, I firmly believe that people should have the right to bear arms. If people want to buy it they should be allowed to, but having said that, in my opinion people do not need these kinds of guns. The average idiot has no use for a rifle of this type, but I don't believe that the government should stop these idiots from owning these guns. It should be up to the individual, and any rational person would realize that they really don't need a gun like that and simply not purchase them, unless said person needs it for work, ie professional varmint killer, border patrol, etc.
So, that's a YES then?![]()
Are you Daft man? Of course I said yes. As with every other answer before I thought I should explain myself, and maybe you would understand, but I know you won't
Relax, I'm was just trying to pressure you into making a clear declaration one way or the other. :laugh:
I've always been clear that way, I just don't like idiots with guns, I've been through numerous hunter safety courses, even helped teach some, and I know gun safety, but there are a million idiots that see a gun like the AR and think: "wow a cool looking army gun", and that is an idiot with a gun
I would agree with that statement to a certain extent. Nobody likes idiots with guns and I certainly wouldn't want to be around them.
I've taken the hunter safety courses, I own guns and I've gone hunting with them. I also own handguns and I own a military style weapon. I don't think the type of weapon lends itself more or less to one doing stupid things with it though. As long as there are weapons there will be idiots doing stupid things with them.
You're assuming that guns can be made to go away. That is false. They exist and (short of humankind reverting to the stone age or the Second Coming of ChristOriginally posted by: Red Dawn
The AR is to protect you from other assholes that own guns. With the proliferation of guns in todays society it's almost a must that you should own one just to protect yourself from Joe Gungho down the street with his arsenal.Originally posted by: Vic
the AR is to protect your nation from foreign and domestic threats to your freedom. I fail to see the lack of need.
If I lived by high strung gun nut I'd feel the need to own a gun because of the odds that one day he'll go off his rocker and start shooting up the nieghborhood. An AR would work just fine in a case like that.
So economic tyranny is not a form of Authoritarianism? Bullsh!t.Originally posted by: preslove
Your response suffers from lack of reading comprehension. Democracies can be authoritarian (as my post stated) when they "impose the moral and religious values of the majority over matters of private life." While somewhat applicable the current American Right, the Left shows few signs of Authoritarianism.
Also, your original explication of Authoritarianism was totally inaccurate.
Originally posted by: gar3555
I wouldn't ban an AR just because it "looks" like a military rifle, I have fired one, my old roommate has one, they are good guns, they just aren't necessary guns to people that use guns for sport. I believe that anyone who hunts deer shouldn't be allowed to use anything bigger than a .270 as it is not necessary, I'm not saying that anyone with a .3006 or bigger should be thrown in jail.
Originally posted by: JDMnAR1
Originally posted by: gar3555
I wouldn't ban an AR just because it "looks" like a military rifle, I have fired one, my old roommate has one, they are good guns, they just aren't necessary guns to people that use guns for sport. I believe that anyone who hunts deer shouldn't be allowed to use anything bigger than a .270 as it is not necessary, I'm not saying that anyone with a .3006 or bigger should be thrown in jail.
So - do you have the same opinion of my "poor man's AR" (i.e. Ruger Mini-14)? It shoots the same .223 round as your standard issue AR, and I love to deer hunt with it. It is nice and light, swings to the target easily, yada yada. And where in the hell did you dig up this .270 size restriction when the whole issue was about your beliefs that people don't need to own ARs? Last time I checked, .223 was smaller than .270. And I know a lot of hunters that would flat knock you out if you told them they couldn't use their trusty old "ought-six" in the deer woods. Top that all off with the fact that it isn't up to you or me to determine what guns people "need". Since the founding fathers gave us the right to keep and bear arms, need doesn't enter the picture. If OP wants to own 20 ARs, and he has the financial means and meets appropriate state and/or federal guidelines for ownership, more power to him.![]()
Originally posted by: gar3555
so hand held is your definition....what about an RPG?
Originally posted by: Vic
The well-regulated militia btw is the common men, allowed to keep arms and to train themselves in the use of arms (not the national guard or any other professional or semi-professional military). In other words, the regular citizens, those same brave men who helped the Founding Fathers win the Revolutionary War, aka citizen soldiers, the same ones that were also considered indispensible in America winning WWII.
In general, "arms" are defined as those weapons that the common military infantry would carry on their persons; rifles, pistols, swords, etc. Grenades are considered to be explosives, which are ordinance. Cannons were not considered to be arms in Revolutionary War times, but artillery, and today that would include mortars, rpgs, nukes, tomahawk cruise missiles, etc.
Originally posted by: gar3555
Originally posted by: JDMnAR1
Originally posted by: gar3555
I wouldn't ban an AR just because it "looks" like a military rifle, I have fired one, my old roommate has one, they are good guns, they just aren't necessary guns to people that use guns for sport. I believe that anyone who hunts deer shouldn't be allowed to use anything bigger than a .270 as it is not necessary, I'm not saying that anyone with a .3006 or bigger should be thrown in jail.
So - do you have the same opinion of my "poor man's AR" (i.e. Ruger Mini-14)? It shoots the same .223 round as your standard issue AR, and I love to deer hunt with it. It is nice and light, swings to the target easily, yada yada. And where in the hell did you dig up this .270 size restriction when the whole issue was about your beliefs that people don't need to own ARs? Last time I checked, .223 was smaller than .270. And I know a lot of hunters that would flat knock you out if you told them they couldn't use their trusty old "ought-six" in the deer woods. Top that all off with the fact that it isn't up to you or me to determine what guns people "need". Since the founding fathers gave us the right to keep and bear arms, need doesn't enter the picture. If OP wants to own 20 ARs, and he has the financial means and meets appropriate state and/or federal guidelines for ownership, more power to him.![]()
Wow....here we go again. First off I picked .270 b/c anything bigger and the exit wound on the deer ruins too much meat in my (BIG WORD COMING UP) opinion. Actually most of the people I know use .306, but in my opinion its too big, damages too much meat. I personally use a .243, and feel its the best size, but I have also shot a .270, and its not that wierd of a size. A .223 is a suitable size, albeit...in my opinion a bit small as a standard .22 caliber is illegal, at least in the state of Kansas, to shoot deer. I never said that I should be the one choosing whether people need a gun or not, that is left to there better judgement, but I feel they don't need it in most cases, if you would have read this thoroughly instead of posting quickly. Once again this was all just my opinion, there was no need to get in my face about it, everyone is entitled to there own.
Originally posted by: gar3555That being said, there is no reason the average person should own anything like that AR that DMT has pictured, you can't hunt anything with it. It's just not necessary.
by Rev. Martin Niemoller, 1945First they came for the Communists, but I was not a Communist so I did not speak out. Then they came for the Socialists and the Trade Unionists, but I was neither, so I did not speak out. Then they came for the Jews, but I was not a Jew so I did not speak out. And when they came for me, there was no one left to speak out for me.
Originally posted by: Baked
Yeah, that's nice, too bad the Klan rejected your application.
That being said, there is no reason the average person should own anything like that AR that DMT has pictured, you can't hunt anything with it. It's just not necessary.
Originally posted by: doja1
Hi New to the forums.
It seems a lot of people here are forgetting one of the main reasons we should be allowed to have high powered fast shooting weapons. To protect our self's from the government.
I live in New Orleans, a city infested with crime corrupt cops and politicians. Why would I need a AR or more preferably somthing smaller like an mp5? Cuz, down here cops have broke into houses and killed hole family's. Once it was a man a women and their two kids not even teenagers (one i pretty sure was 5) shot in the back of the head execution style, about a year later another a man and his kid in there home were shot by cops.(no kind of warrant in both cases) Cops have been arrested here for rape murder drug dealing wrongful imprisonment and all types of other stuff in the past 3 years. Some say you don't need more then a hand gun to prtotect yourself and your family. What if two cops highly trained to take you down come and do so with no warrant and no other legit accuse to kill you and all you have is a hand gun to stop them? What if it's the crack dealers down the streat you called the cops on come after you with illegally attained ak 47s? These what ifs and others like them have happend and will happen agian. New Orleans cop problem was so bad in the 90's that the FBI built a huge building and sent alot more fbi agents to NO for the sole purpose to rid new orleans of these problems , it didn't work. So they sent a group that has murdererd torturerd and poisoned to protect us from murderers rapist torturers and crack dealers now that makes me feel safe. I fear the NOPD more then any criminal, terrorist or any other group of people, but i don't live in fear cuz i have the means to protect myself. Our national government is not that bad right now but what about 30 years from now? They are already starting to restrict our freedoms and if it gets to bad I will stand against it. I will fight for freedom if it is ever threatened no mater who is trying to take it away be it another country or this government. Thats why I think all guns should be legal cuz someday I might have to use them for the sake of the United States against the United States government. Like it says i have the right to do in the constitution of the United States. For right now i will keep a couple of legal weapons in my house and car to protect me from criminals and the worst of all scumb bags, corrupt cops.
