Originally Posted by Jessiewoodard57
This is the biggest misconception about the AR (besides its initials, which most get wrong). It is not a powerful gun. Yes, by definition it is a rifle, and can shoot farther than handgun or shotgun. It is not a heavy load, does not have a huge powder load, and a relatively low FPS compared to most semi-automatic hunting rifles (most of which you can get a 30-round clip for). If I were the kind of guy who wanted to do a LOT of damage, it certainly wouldn't be with an AR.
Old guy with power (15.5-16; 325). Current arsenal--Storm Summit, RotoGrip Idol Helios, Storm Phaze III, Storm SureLock (retired), Storm IQ Tour Nano and Motiv Rebel tank (spare/dry). High sanctioned game - 300 (4). High sanctioned series - 856. A.V. 300-s - 8. Longest string - 25.
2023/2024 YTD highs--High game-300; high series-739
AR means Assault Rifle. It is for use clearing urban areas where you just want to kill the people nearby. The hunting rifle is usually a 30.6 better for distance. Why anyone would need a 30 round clip to bring down a deer is not clear. Maybe hunting should be done by Bow not firearms. Or make the rifle have to reloaded after every shot.
Seriously? Do your homework. Armalite Rifle, Model #15. And you have 30-round clips, because you can.
This is very simple. If you don't like guns, don't have one. In the mean time, I will exercise my Second Amendment right as an American citizen. This does not require either your approval or permission.
Old guy with power (15.5-16; 325). Current arsenal--Storm Summit, RotoGrip Idol Helios, Storm Phaze III, Storm SureLock (retired), Storm IQ Tour Nano and Motiv Rebel tank (spare/dry). High sanctioned game - 300 (4). High sanctioned series - 856. A.V. 300-s - 8. Longest string - 25.
2023/2024 YTD highs--High game-300; high series-739
Do you exercise ALL of the Second Amendment, or just pick and choose the portion you prefer?
A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
Maybe if the founders would have had the strongest military in the world, FBI, State police, County Sheriff and a local police force they would have worded the 2nd amendment differently.
You read it your way, I'll read it mine. Once again, I do not need your approval or permission. At no point in time am I trying to convince you that you need a gun, but you and Fordman are telling me I don't. Seems a bit high-handed to me......
Old guy with power (15.5-16; 325). Current arsenal--Storm Summit, RotoGrip Idol Helios, Storm Phaze III, Storm SureLock (retired), Storm IQ Tour Nano and Motiv Rebel tank (spare/dry). High sanctioned game - 300 (4). High sanctioned series - 856. A.V. 300-s - 8. Longest string - 25.
2023/2024 YTD highs--High game-300; high series-739
If you really want to understand the 2nd Amendment and the thoughts on the country's founders on it you should read some of the Federalist Papers. You will see the reason for a well armed citizen militia wasn't just to protect as an armed service from invasion but to protect the citizenry from despotism and out of control government. The armed citizenry were the check against a tyrannical government ruling against the wishes of the people.
Now if you would like to make a valid point you could argue that in this age it's useless as the military has access to weapons that makes any kind of armed resistance moot no matter how well armed. You could argue the second amendment is useless as intended but not that the only reason for the second amendment was for an adjunct army because that was never the intention.
Regardless of weapons bans bad and crazy people will still find ways of killing people it's always been that way and always will. It really doesn't matter if your shot, stabbed, blown up in a bombing, or set afire you're just as dead and the items to commit those acts will always be available to someone looking for a way to do it.
I am a proud member of Bowlingboards.com bowling forums and ball contest winner
Current arsenal
900 Global Badger Claw - Radical Ridiculous Pearl - Spare Ball Ebonite T Zone
Isn't the national guard a well armed militia?
1) Almost all data on the subject shows that murder rates are tied to population density and poverty level far more than anything else. Therefore, the only real, valid way to lower crime is to create opportunity in dense population areas or to move into sparsely populated areas.
2) The problem with gun control theory is actually quite simple. There is no study anywhere...that can make a connection between a gun control law and a reduction in terms of access of criminals to firearms. It's fairly simple, criminals...as a sort of rule...don't follow laws. You can make laws stricter...you can make penalties higher...but at the end of the day, law abiding citizens follow gun laws...criminals do not.
3) The current stunt by the Democratic house members is absurd. They are making the same mistake the Republicans did that allowed Trump to gain the nomination. Republicans assumed that most of the country are tea party, gun toting, muslim hating, and most of all "Obama/progressivism" haters. It turns out...only about 12% of the country are truly hard core conservatives. So the party left out way too many people. Roughly 30% of voters are registered Republicans......which means their own party was telling 18% of registered voters that they aren't "Republican enough". They kicked out John Boehner...one of the most conservative men in Congress. They are a party run amuck...being ran by ultra-right-wingers...to try and get the tea party in control. And their penalty was losing not only any shot of a Ted Cruz/Fiorina debacle....but they took down the establishment candidates as well.
The Democrats have similar assumptions. They assume the country is not only liberal-leaning...which it is...and populist-leaning...which it is...but the Democrats are making some other assumptions:
1) That most people in the country approve of Obama's policies. Most people (53%) do approve 'overall' with the Presidents agenda. The problem is, his 2nd term has been a disaster. Nearly all of his unpopular decisions (Bo Berghdahl, ISIS, Iraq, Afghanastan, Amnesty, transgender bathrooms, criminal justice reform, affirmative action, etc...)...pretty much all of the things the majority of people do NOT support...Obama did in his final term.
2) That the country has leaped to the left...and the reason Bernie Sanders did so well is because Americans are ready for socialism and radical leftist ideas. Completely wrong. Bernie did well for three reasons. First, he wasn't Hillary Clinton. That's important. Second, he sided with the middle class on free trade policies and gun policies. Third, he is the only option for left-leaning white men. Bernie thinks he did well because he was further to the left than Hillary...but that's not true...he did well because he's not Hillary Clinton and he was viewed as a sort of outsider who would go after the sacred cow of free trade the same way Trump would go after the sacred cow of immigration.
The summary is, the Democrats had a winning issue...a conservative block that is so petty and deadlocked...that they can't approve budgets, or judges, or really do anything to help govern. That was a winning issue in the general election. The problem is, the house Democrats have now not only stolen that tactic...but executed it in a silly 1960s era protest...that makes them look crazy. And for what?
The bill put forth by Republicans would have helped ensure people on the terrorist watch list didn't get weapons. But it required judicial oversight to protect the rights of the masses. The Democratic version, actually would be attacked by the left (like the ACLU) AND the right (the NRA)...because it allows the FBI and Homeland Security to simply "decide" that someone can't own guns. No due process. It's destined to fail in the courts...it's a stupid concept...and it makes the Democrats look like extremists....just before a general election when the audience no longer are hardcore socialists...now it's Reagan Democrats and moderates.
The National Guard is controlled by the government. Amyers has it exactly right, the constitution and specifically the Bill of Rights portion aren't just legal rights, but they were meant as protection from government and tyranny. The founding fathers had the foresight to understand that any government can become corrupt and unjust and that the only recourse would be arming it's own citizens. Now you can argue with modern weaponry, having all the guns in the world isn't going to do much against fighter jets. attack helicopters and tanks but the principle is still valid.
Now I'm not a gun person, not interested in getting one but I do believe all gun control does is prevent lawful citizens from getting guns. Criminals will still find a way to get guns and all it'll do is make the black market for guns more lucrative and I know this from experience. I'm Chinese and I grew up in NYC Chinatown during the 80s and Chinese Triad gangs were rampant. There were shootings constantly that never made it into the paper. I was 12 and was walking home one night and I got caught in a shootout, I felt bullets whiz by me, when they hit the sidewalk the bullets caused sparks. I knew a guy who was maybe 16 or 17 at the time, buy a full automatic Uzi off the black market and you have to remember NYC has one of the toughest gun laws in the country but guns were everywhere.
Gun control or no gun control, crazies will always find a way to carry out their evil deeds. Timothy McVeigh used fertilizer in the Oklahoma bombing, the 9/11 terrorist used box cutters and planes, not one gun used in either incident.
If you really want mass shootings to stop, pass a law to require every family and business to own a gun. I would imagine mass shootings would get cut down dramatically. Too much risk for the shooter to run into armed victims. I would imagine break ins would go down significantly as well.
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks