Originally posted by: JDMnAR1
Originally posted by: gar3555
Originally posted by: JDMnAR1
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.
It is obvious that you still don't get it. The point that K1052, JulesMaximus, et.al. were trying to make is that your myopic view of what guns people should be allowed to own is the problem. Notice I didn't say "need" - as it has already been established that need is not necessarily a criteria that must be met for gun ownership. Instead of addressing this issue, you start talking about .270s and big game hunting in Africa and other things that really aren't germane to the issue. To quote your original post in the thread:
This is the exact attitude that many of the anti-gun factions hope to capitalize on - as has been done before. Perhaps allowing someone else to put it in different terms will help you to understand.
I really wish you would have read all of this, as I said, people should be able to decide on there own which guns they want to use, if they want 50 AR's and 20 .50 cal rifles, I'm not going to stop them. I just think that in my opinion they don't need them. I'm not going to parade around and say take guns away because I love guns, and I love shooting, I am a regular at the trap park, and most of the people there would agree with me on this. It is not a necessity for sportsmen to own such guns. Like you said, a Mini-14 would suffice, but if someone is so inclined to buy one, then let them. I just hate it when guns land in the hands of idiots who don't know how to use them, and there are alot of people out there who fall into this catagory as well. Also hunters don't need the capability to shoot of 30 rounds in a second, if you do your a horid shot and should take up golf or something. For me and most of my friends a bolt action rifle is good enough to take out the game we hunt as it is about accuracy and not rate of fire. If you have your heart set on spraying a deer with 20 rounds then go for it, but you won't have much of a deer left even with a .223 and its not much of a sport when you fire that many at once. I personally prefer on the whole to hunt deer with a bow and arrow, as that is a true challange, but I got dragged into this conversation because you people just don't understand where I'm coming from.
Facebook
Twitter