AR-15 Builders

[wildnkrazykat]

Question: What do you need an AR-15 for?

Cause America, that's why

 

[txbo]

Question: What do you need an AR-15 for? It looks basically like the old M-16 as far as I can tell. And the only purpose for that gun was to kill people easily. It was designed so anyone could hit a target pretty easily.

Now as far as I'm concerned anything with a long barrel isn't any good for home defense. I'm just curious WHY these things are of such interest.

“The only purpose for a pistol is to fight your way back to the rifle you should have never laid down.”
Clint Smith

 

[GoDucks349]

I'm not a hunter, or a gun guy of any type. Use to own a Smith and Weston 357 mag for home defense. Got rid of it when I had kids in the house. Later opted for bear spray and good relations with the local police. I live it a rural area where it's common to hear a rifle shot from a hunter outside of town. Our golf course gets run over by a couple herds of elk. Found a 300 mag shell in the 7th fare way yesterday.

The biggest safety threats are cougar and black bear. So if you're going out by yourself at dusk you want to be prepared for cougar. Especially in the dry season when they may come into town.

 

[GoDucks349]

Ok, here's how I see it.

1. I don't have any problem with a person owning and keeping a gun for home protection. Just be practical.

2. I see guns in three categories: 1: home and personal protection, 2: recreational activities such as target shooting, shooting at a range of any sort etc. 3: hunting

3. Let's figure out a safe way for people to have guns for home and personal protection.
4. Is their any reason that guns for recreational activities and hunting can't be stored in a safe "lock and store" requiring 3 days notice prior to the activity? This might help control the use of these guns for shootings. This doesn't stop or prevent anyone from owning guns for any and all activities that they choose.

Finally if we significantly increase the penalties for unauthorized use of weapons for violent crimes, I'm thinking death penalty within 12 months of conviction. Perhaps we can get people to think twice before they use a weapon against other people for something other than self defense.

 

[FLVOL_79]

Question: What do you need an AR-15 for? It looks basically like the old M-16 as far as I can tell. And the only purpose for that gun was to kill people easily. It was designed so anyone could hit a target pretty easily.

Now as far as I'm concerned anything with a long barrel isn't any good for home defense. I'm just curious WHY these things are of such interest.

Hunting bears

 

[TNsnyper20]

Ok, here's how I see it.

1. I don't have any problem with a person owning and keeping a gun for home protection. Just be practical.

2. I see guns in three categories: 1: home and personal protection, 2: recreational activities such as target shooting, shooting at a range of any sort etc. 3: hunting

3. Let's figure out a safe way for people to have guns for home and personal protection.
4. Is their any reason that guns for recreational activities and hunting can't be stored in a safe "lock and store" requiring 3 days notice prior to the activity? This might help control the use of these guns for shootings. This doesn't stop or prevent anyone from owning guns for any and all activities that they choose.

Finally if we significantly increase the penalties for unauthorized use of weapons for violent crimes, I'm thinking death penalty within 12 months of conviction. Perhaps we can get people to think twice before they use a weapon against other people for something other than self defense.

Serious question. But, why should i have to store my possession in another location and give the days notice to use it? I'm a law abiding citizen.

 

[BigOrangeD]

Serious question. But, why should i have to store my possession in another location and give the days notice to use it? I'm a law abiding citizen.

Exactly, No Way in Hell would I ever go for that. I have my own safe and can store my own guns just fine.

If someone wants to kill someone they will with or without a gun. The last mass killing only took a truck. Not too long ago, they used a bomb made out of a pressure cooker. A few years back, some box cutters and airplanes. The more guns we law abiding citizens have and the fewer gun free zones there are, the less gun violence there is. It will never go completely away no matter how many laws are passed. We live in a free society and there are risks associated with that. I prefer it that way as opposed to a Nanny State.

Also, the Founding Fathers made it the 2nd Amendment for a good reason. Not the 3rd, 4th, 5h, 6th, 7th, etc. The main reason for the 2nd Amendment is not for hunting or for personal defense but to protect us against tyranny.

Don't ever want a King, Dictator, or Socialist regime to rule America.

 

[GoDucks349]

Hunting bears

You're going to stop a bear with a AR-15? Have you ever done this?

 

[GoDucks349]

Serious question. But, why should i have to store my possession in another location and give the days notice to use it? I'm a law abiding citizen.

Not sure it would have to be at another location. It could be in a vault with an electronic lock that could be released via a remote authorization signal.

 

[Grand Vol]

You're going to stop a bear with a AR-15? Have you ever done this?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.458_SOCOM

 

[UTVolinExile]

Ok, here's how I see it.

1. I don't have any problem with a person owning and keeping a gun for home protection. Just be practical.

2. I see guns in three categories: 1: home and personal protection, 2: recreational activities such as target shooting, shooting at a range of any sort etc. 3: hunting

3. Let's figure out a safe way for people to have guns for home and personal protection.
4. Is their any reason that guns for recreational activities and hunting can't be stored in a safe "lock and store" requiring 3 days notice prior to the activity? This might help control the use of these guns for shootings. This doesn't stop or prevent anyone from owning guns for any and all activities that they choose.

Finally if we significantly increase the penalties for unauthorized use of weapons for violent crimes, I'm thinking death penalty within 12 months of conviction. Perhaps we can get people to think twice before they use a weapon against other people for something other than self defense.

1. I don't have any problem with you using a computer to speak out and express your opinions. Just be practical. Translation: someone, somewhere gets to tell you when THEY think you're not being practical.

2. Add to your list deterrent against tyranny.

3. What problem are you trying to solve here, intentional or accidental gun violence? "Safer" gun storage at home would not impact intentional gun violence. Accidental gun violence is handled sufficiently through standard gun safety training. Sounds like you are suggesting limitations on my use of firearms in my own home.

4. Ok, so that's exactly what you are suggesting. Well then, I think you should not be permitted to post online until your views and opinions have been reviewed after 3 days notice. Who does that reviewing? What is the basis for allowing/disallowing your posting? Do you see why your suggestions don't work in a free society?

And this is the point of why the Framers included the 2nd Amendment in the Bill of Rights. To prevent a government from being able to force its citizens to simply submit to the kind of control that you propose.

I appreciate the fact that you are making your arguments in a very respectful manner. But I absolutely reject your proposals. They are unconstitutional and would do absolutely nothing to curtail the problems I think you would claim to wish solved. Statistically, violent crime is at all-time lows right now, and this can be directly linked to proliferation of lawful gun ownership. If you really want to take a bite out of violent crime, pass universal open carry legislation.

 

[DEFENDTHISHOUSE]

There is no gun problem in America, there is a media problem in America.

 

[BEATBAMA12]

Ok, here's how I see it.

1. I don't have any problem with a person owning and keeping a gun for home protection. Just be practical.

2. I see guns in three categories: 1: home and personal protection, 2: recreational activities such as target shooting, shooting at a range of any sort etc. 3: hunting

3. Let's figure out a safe way for people to have guns for home and personal protection.
4. Is their any reason that guns for recreational activities and hunting can't be stored in a safe "lock and store" requiring 3 days notice prior to the activity? This might help control the use of these guns for shootings. This doesn't stop or prevent anyone from owning guns for any and all activities that they choose.

Finally if we significantly increase the penalties for unauthorized use of weapons for violent crimes, I'm thinking death penalty within 12 months of conviction. Perhaps we can get people to think twice before they use a weapon against other people for something other than self defense.

We have implemented extreme safety measures for vehicles but they still cause more fatalities than guns, I mean "drivers" do, silly me ,a gun is like a car, inanimate object needing a human (most of the times) to operate it.

If anyone one is scared of guns go get educated and learn to respect and use them safely, just like you did when you were 15yo getting behind the wheel of a high capacity 2 ton hunk of steel fully automatic death machine with overdrive .

Don't get me started on Fastfood and alcohol.

 

[InVOLuntary]

Serious question. But, why should i have to store my possession in another location and give the days notice to use it? I'm a law abiding citizen.

No offense to Duck but I think he answered your question when he said earlier he had no use for guns. People naturally are for regulations and laws when it doesn't affect them. People that don't drink would be all for banning alcohol in an effort to stop drunk driving.

I had a lady argue with me about guns and in particular ownership of "assault rifles". I asked her to define what an assault rifle was and she said "you know , those scary looking guns you see on tv. The ones the military uses". Knowing she was a huge animal lover, I said "We need to round up all the pitbulls and euthanize them and then ban ownership of them. Does anyone really need a pitbull? I mean does your freedom of ownership outweigh my fear of them? I mean they do kill and injure people."

She never responded.

Point is, people only care when their perceived rights are being trampled on.

 

[GoDucks349]

Have I suggested taking anyone's guns away? No. Have I suggested that the right to keep and bear arms should be stopped? No.

Analogies to cars and computers, as well as statistics associated with those items, just aren't the same. However, the concept that you must be of a certain age, complete training and carry a current photo ID that shows you are authorized to use a car might not be a bad idea, plus license renewal and restrictions on future use for those that for one reason or another are no longer capable of using them safely. In addition, would you be open to arrest or ticketing for those who use fire arms in conjunction with alcohol be ok? There goes a whole lot of hunting and target practice.

 

[BigOrangeD]

Have I suggested taking anyone's guns away? No. Have I suggested that the right to keep and bear arms should be stopped? No.

Analogies to cars and computers, as well as statistics associated with those items, just aren't the same. However, the concept that you must be of a certain age, complete training and carry a current photo ID that shows you are authorized to use a car might not be a bad idea, plus license renewal and restrictions on future use for those that for one reason or another are no longer capable of using them safely. In addition, would you be open to arrest or ticketing for those who use fire arms in conjunction with alcohol be ok? There goes a whole lot of hunting and target practice.

Most definitely. I hate the idea of someone using alcohol or drugs in conjunction with a firearm.

I believe that should be the thing. Allow everyone to carry concealed anywhere and everywhere, even in a bar. But if you carry, you best not be drinking or doing drugs. Of course some dummies will.

 

[BigOrangeD]

No offense to Duck but I think he answered your question when he said earlier he had no use for guns. People naturally are for regulations and laws when it doesn't affect them. People that don't drink would be all for banning alcohol in an effort to stop drunk driving.

I had a lady argue with me about guns and in particular ownership of "assault rifles". I asked her to define what an assault rifle was and she said "you know , those scary looking guns you see on tv. The ones the military uses". Knowing she was a huge animal lover, I said "We need to round up all the pitbulls and euthanize them and then ban ownership of them. Does anyone really need a pitbull? I mean does your freedom of ownership outweigh my fear of them? I mean they do kill and injure people."

She never responded.

Point is, people only care when their perceived rights are being trampled on.

This times a million.

Alcohol causes way more problems and deaths. We should ban alcohol. Oh wait, we tried that already.

With freedom comes great responsibility.

No Nanny State for me. No thanks.

 

[TNsnyper20]

Not sure it would have to be at another location. It could be in a vault with an electronic lock that could be released via a remote authorization signal.

Would you be ok with having to give a three day notice to user your car? As involuntary said it's easy for you to create these rules as you don't have a use for a gun. I do. So those laws or rules you are wanting infringe upon my gun ownership. If I'm obeying the laws... Leave me alone and put your focus on those who are not law abiding.

 

[davethevol]

Most definitely. I hate the idea of someone using alcohol or drugs in conjunction with a firearm.

I believe that should be the thing. Allow everyone to carry concealed anywhere and everywhere, even in a bar. But if you carry, you best not be drinking or doing drugs. Of course some dummies will.

I disagree with imposing fines on someone using alcohol or drugs in conjunction with a firearm unless there is a crime being committed. What if someone has a few beers and someone breaks into their house? Does their right to defend themselves become null?

 

[InVOLuntary]

Have I suggested taking anyone's guns away? No. Have I suggested that the right to keep and bear arms should be stopped? No.

Analogies to cars and computers, as well as statistics associated with those items, just aren't the same. However, the concept that you must be of a certain age, complete training and carry a current photo ID that shows you are authorized to use a car might not be a bad idea, plus license renewal and restrictions on future use for those that for one reason or another are no longer capable of using them safely. In addition, would you be open to arrest or ticketing for those who use fire arms in conjunction with alcohol be ok? There goes a whole lot of hunting and target practice.

It is against the law in many states to use a firearm while under the influence. Also, you may not be championing a total ban but severe restrictions. Having to ask the government permission to use your own firearms is just about as a bad as a total ban.

 

[InVOLuntary]

I disagree with imposing fines on someone using alcohol or drugs in conjunction with a firearm unless there is a crime being committed. What if someone has a few beers and someone breaks into their house? Does their right to defend themselves become null?

I think the law would be in your favor here. Outside your property is when it could get dicey.

 

[UTVolinExile]

Have I suggested taking anyone's guns away? No. Have I suggested that the right to keep and bear arms should be stopped? No.

Analogies to cars and computers, as well as statistics associated with those items, just aren't the same. However, the concept that you must be of a certain age, complete training and carry a current photo ID that shows you are authorized to use a car might not be a bad idea, plus license renewal and restrictions on future use for those that for one reason or another are no longer capable of using them safely. In addition, would you be open to arrest or ticketing for those who use fire arms in conjunction with alcohol be ok? There goes a whole lot of hunting and target practice.

Actually, what you suggested was that the right to keep and bear arms should be put in the hands of some nameless entity who decides what use you can make of a particular firearm (defense? Target practice? Hunting?) and when/whether you are permitted to use said firearm (pre-approval for use). The 2nd Amendment says the right to keep and bear arms "shall not be infringed." It does NOT say "shall be permitted as regulated by the Congress." So yes, your proposal does suggest that the 2nd Amendment as written should stop.

By definition, analogies are between concepts that are not the same. Analogy is comparison between similar things for purpose of explanation or clarification. You have not offered any reason why the analogy between the protected right of bearing arms in the 2nd amendment and the protected right of speech in the 1st amendment is not applicable to guns/computer posting.

I will offer an explanation for why YOUR analogy to cars does not hold water. There is no constitutional right protecting/guaranteeing a right to means of transportation. So your example of government restriction on the ability to drive is NOT comparable to your suggested restrictions on the 2nd amendment.

 

[InVOLuntary]

Actually, what you suggested was that the right to keep and bear arms should be put in the hands of some nameless entity who decides what use you can make of a particular firearm (defense? Target practice? Hunting?) and when/whether you are permitted to use said firearm (pre-approval for use). The 2nd Amendment says the right to keep and bear arms "shall not be infringed." It does NOT say "shall be permitted as regulated by the Congress." So yes, your proposal does suggest that the 2nd Amendment as written should stop.

By definition, analogies are between concepts that are not the same. Analogy is comparison between similar things for purpose of explanation or clarification. You have not offered any reason why the analogy between the protected right of bearing arms in the 2nd amendment and the protected right of speech in the 1st amendment is not applicable to guns/computer posting.

I will offer an explanation for why YOUR analogy to cars does not hold water. There is no constitutional right protecting/guaranteeing a right to means of transportation. So your example of government restriction on the ability to drive is NOT comparable to your suggested restrictions on the 2nd amendment.

"Excuse me Mr Home invader/burglar. You'll have to come back in three days after the government reviews my application and grants me permission to use my firearms."

 

[BigOrangeD]

I disagree with imposing fines on someone using alcohol or drugs in conjunction with a firearm unless there is a crime being committed. What if someone has a few beers and someone breaks into their house? Does their right to defend themselves become null?

I agree with that. Your home is your castle, but people do need to be responsible with Alcohol if they may need to use a firearm. My belief is if you are going to carry a gun on your person or handle a firearm, stay away from the drugs and alcohol.

 

[BigOrangeD]

Actually, what you suggested was that the right to keep and bear arms should be put in the hands of some nameless entity who decides what use you can make of a particular firearm (defense? Target practice? Hunting?) and when/whether you are permitted to use said firearm (pre-approval for use). The 2nd Amendment says the right to keep and bear arms "shall not be infringed." It does NOT say "shall be permitted as regulated by the Congress." So yes, your proposal does suggest that the 2nd Amendment as written should stop.

By definition, analogies are between concepts that are not the same. Analogy is comparison between similar things for purpose of explanation or clarification. You have not offered any reason why the analogy between the protected right of bearing arms in the 2nd amendment and the protected right of speech in the 1st amendment is not applicable to guns/computer posting.

I will offer an explanation for why YOUR analogy to cars does not hold water. There is no constitutional right protecting/guaranteeing a right to means of transportation. So your example of government restriction on the ability to drive is NOT comparable to your suggested restrictions on the 2nd amendment.

Excellent retort.