AR Ammo/Internet neutrality

[ZRod]

 

Sure a rifle can be used for those, but the models in question here were specifically designed with a military intent. Depending on where you live it's can be difficult to acquire a firearm because those places have chosen to take action on the issue.

The issue being? The average citizen having a firearm? Or are we talking about the origination of firearms bans when the old white guys wanted to keep guns away from blacks/hispanics/jews/etc?

 

It's for killing f'ing people, not game or target practice. Why make a semi automatic weapon that can easily be modified to a fully automatic weapon for public consumption?

 

 

 

And for godsake were not talking about cars here were talking about firearms, cars are pretty heavily regulated for safety by the government, you have to have specific license for specific operation, you pay higher taxes and insurance rates for those higher performance vehicles, you can't legally run nitrous in Nebraska which is a performance enhancement that doesn't really hurt anyone, and you can't just take a Formula 1 car out and run it around the streets.

 

Actually.... we were talking about 5.56 or .223 ammo being banned (which is used in a lot more firearms than the AR-15), and you dropped the "why do you need an assault rifle" line. The automatic assault rifle is illegal for the average citizen to own. You can rent one to use at a range, or go through the hoops of the tax stamps and trying to buy one (and it's friggin expensive), so it's similar to your nitrous example. Cars are "regulated for safety" by requiring airbags or them not exploding in the middle of the road. The regulation doesn't stop someone from speeding or driving unsafe.

 

We we're debating the ban, to which I said I erroneously went on a tangent but we continued the debate on AR's... And my nitrous example was more akin to the banning of M885 rounds; it's something that increases performance characteristics but doesn't inherently make the item any less dangerous in its absence, and yet it's regulated.

[BigRedBuster]

 

 

If you really want to get down to it an AR-15 can fairly easily be modified to a select fire weapon capable of fully automatic fire, which I believe makes it an assault rifle. I understand that they're not responsible for even close to the amount of deaths as handguns, but honestly why does anyone one need a weapon like that?

Short answer? Because It's easy to shoot, easy to maintain, and it's extremely reliable, and I like it. It's akin to asking why do people need a Corvette or Lambo when a Prius when get you from point A to point B?

 

Now, if you want to get into the debate of only allowing the rich and powerful to have something like this, we can go discuss that too.

 

Except were not comparing cars that you have to be licensed to operate, we're talking about an as of right now mostly unregulated platform that is really only intended for one purpose and that is "incapacitating" a human target.

 

I completely understand they're fun and cool to have, and that they may even have some use for an avid outdoorsman, but there are plenty of other fun and really cool things to have that are more regulated than firearms.

 

I don't own one but a comment I hear quite often is that you can shoot them and they have no kick. My brother used to say the same things about the military rifles he shot in the guards. So, you have the same type of gun but no kick so you can shoot them more and have more fun that pounding you shoulder.

[Saunders]

It's for killing f'ing people, not game or target practice. Why make a semi automatic weapon that can easily be modified to a fully automatic weapon for public consumption?

 

That's not just opinion, it's outright false. I'd argue (and the stats will show) that the vast majority of civilian rifles are used for exactly that, hunting and target practice. The numbers are so overwhelming, I'm not even sure why you're trying to go down that road.

 

And sure, it can be converted (although it's not nearly as easy as you suggest). It's also illegal as f#*k. I can also make a bomb out of the stuff in my garage. That's also illegal.

[Saunders]

 

 

 

If you really want to get down to it an AR-15 can fairly easily be modified to a select fire weapon capable of fully automatic fire, which I believe makes it an assault rifle. I understand that they're not responsible for even close to the amount of deaths as handguns, but honestly why does anyone one need a weapon like that?

Short answer? Because It's easy to shoot, easy to maintain, and it's extremely reliable, and I like it. It's akin to asking why do people need a Corvette or Lambo when a Prius when get you from point A to point B?

 

Now, if you want to get into the debate of only allowing the rich and powerful to have something like this, we can go discuss that too.

 

Except were not comparing cars that you have to be licensed to operate, we're talking about an as of right now mostly unregulated platform that is really only intended for one purpose and that is "incapacitating" a human target.

 

I completely understand they're fun and cool to have, and that they may even have some use for an avid outdoorsman, but there are plenty of other fun and really cool things to have that are more regulated than firearms.

 

I don't own one but a comment I hear quite often is that you can shoot them and they have no kick. My brother used to say the same things about the military rifles he shot in the guards. So, you have the same type of gun but no kick so you can shoot them more and have more fun that pounding you shoulder.

 

You are mostly correct. It's a small caliber, and minimizes recoil compared to older designs. It's also a fantastic home defense weapon. The fact is, my wife can shoot our AR much better than any handgun we own (besides a .22, which would be terrible for HD). It's absolutely excellent in that role, regardless of what a politician tells you.

[Saunders]

We we're debating the ban, to which I said I erroneously went on a tangent but we continued the debate on AR's... And my nitrous example was more akin to the banning of M885 rounds; it's something that increases performance characteristics but doesn't inherently make the item any less dangerous in its absence, and yet it's regulated.

Well if you're going for that angle, it's not quite correct. Nitrous would be comparable to incendiary rounds. Banning XM855 would be akin to the government banning fuel additives, or engine cleaners.

[BigRedBuster]

 

 

 

 

If you really want to get down to it an AR-15 can fairly easily be modified to a select fire weapon capable of fully automatic fire, which I believe makes it an assault rifle. I understand that they're not responsible for even close to the amount of deaths as handguns, but honestly why does anyone one need a weapon like that?

Short answer? Because It's easy to shoot, easy to maintain, and it's extremely reliable, and I like it. It's akin to asking why do people need a Corvette or Lambo when a Prius when get you from point A to point B?

 

Now, if you want to get into the debate of only allowing the rich and powerful to have something like this, we can go discuss that too.

 

Except were not comparing cars that you have to be licensed to operate, we're talking about an as of right now mostly unregulated platform that is really only intended for one purpose and that is "incapacitating" a human target.

 

I completely understand they're fun and cool to have, and that they may even have some use for an avid outdoorsman, but there are plenty of other fun and really cool things to have that are more regulated than firearms.

 

I don't own one but a comment I hear quite often is that you can shoot them and they have no kick. My brother used to say the same things about the military rifles he shot in the guards. So, you have the same type of gun but no kick so you can shoot them more and have more fun that pounding you shoulder.

 

You are mostly correct. It's a small caliber, and minimizes recoil compared to older designs. It's also a fantastic home defense weapon. The fact is, my wife can shoot our AR much better than any handgun we own (besides a .22, which would be terrible for HD). It's absolutely excellent in that role, regardless of what a politician tells you.

 

If you're going for home defense, I'm going with my shot gun or buying a Judge. In the heat of the moment, I don't have to aim too much. You come down the hall at me and I'm blasting that thing into you so hard it's going to stop you.

[Saunders]

 

 

 

 

 

If you really want to get down to it an AR-15 can fairly easily be modified to a select fire weapon capable of fully automatic fire, which I believe makes it an assault rifle. I understand that they're not responsible for even close to the amount of deaths as handguns, but honestly why does anyone one need a weapon like that?

Short answer? Because It's easy to shoot, easy to maintain, and it's extremely reliable, and I like it. It's akin to asking why do people need a Corvette or Lambo when a Prius when get you from point A to point B?

 

Now, if you want to get into the debate of only allowing the rich and powerful to have something like this, we can go discuss that too.

 

Except were not comparing cars that you have to be licensed to operate, we're talking about an as of right now mostly unregulated platform that is really only intended for one purpose and that is "incapacitating" a human target.

 

I completely understand they're fun and cool to have, and that they may even have some use for an avid outdoorsman, but there are plenty of other fun and really cool things to have that are more regulated than firearms.

 

I don't own one but a comment I hear quite often is that you can shoot them and they have no kick. My brother used to say the same things about the military rifles he shot in the guards. So, you have the same type of gun but no kick so you can shoot them more and have more fun that pounding you shoulder.

 

You are mostly correct. It's a small caliber, and minimizes recoil compared to older designs. It's also a fantastic home defense weapon. The fact is, my wife can shoot our AR much better than any handgun we own (besides a .22, which would be terrible for HD). It's absolutely excellent in that role, regardless of what a politician tells you.

 

If you're going for home defense, I'm going with my shot gun or buying a Judge. In the heat of the moment, I don't have to aim too much. You come down the hall at me and I'm blasting that thing into you so hard it's going to stop you.

 

Oh, well that's also a great option. I do plan on getting a shotgun (I've never shot skeet, and would like to), but even the recoil on that is crazy compared to an AR. And the Judge is lols. I've seen them at the range, and holy sh#t....

[GM_Tood]

The AR-15 is my choice for home defense as well. As stated above, the wife (and my 3 girls) feels more comfortable shooting a weapon with 4 contact points than using a two contact pistol. IMO, ease of acquiring multiple targets and the stability of shooting a rifle makes it a no brainer. (Also not as loud as a handgun/shotgun)

 

I would fall to my AR-10 for longer range/riot/SHTF defense.

[BigRedBuster]

The AR-15 is my choice for home defense as well. As stated above, the wife (and my 3 girls) feels more comfortable shooting a weapon with 4 contact points than using a two contact pistol. IMO, ease of acquiring multiple targets and the stability of shooting a rifle makes it a no brainer. (Also not as loud as a handgun/shotgun)

 

I would fall to my AR-10 for longer range/riot/SHTF defense.

Everyone needs to be comfortable with what ever.

 

However...I had to laugh at the bold.

 

If you are in my house and I want you out....I want the loudest MFing cannon I can find. And....oh yeah...you will hear me chambering a cartridge.

[GM_Tood]

 

The AR-15 is my choice for home defense as well. As stated above, the wife (and my 3 girls) feels more comfortable shooting a weapon with 4 contact points than using a two contact pistol. IMO, ease of acquiring multiple targets and the stability of shooting a rifle makes it a no brainer. (Also not as loud as a handgun/shotgun)

 

I would fall to my AR-10 for longer range/riot/SHTF defense.

Everyone needs to be comfortable with what ever.

 

However...I had to laugh at the bold.

 

If you are in my house and I want you out....I want the loudest MFing cannon I can find. And....oh yeah...you will hear me chambering a cartridge.

 

The noise factor was for the wife/kids shooting it...

 

And a shotgun is a very nice option for home defense/scaring the crap out of an intruder.

[Saunders]

Yay, common sense prevails. Now to wait for prices to come back down.

 

 

[BIGREDIOWAN]

It was a completely ridiculous argument in the first place that they were trying to use as the foundation to their argument. Now it's going to take some time for manufacturers to catch back up which means the price will stay up for some time until the supply grows larger. They only drive more rounds out to the general public when they do these things than they would if they knocked this crap off. Same thing happened with AR's after Sandy Hook happened. Everybody seemed to be buying AR's, it took me a year to get mine from a local gunsmith shop.