Now, in places like ny, you can never dream of getting a carry permit no matter how responsible you are or how much you have proven to society that you can be trusted. Even for a dumb target permit, you have to shell out a lot of cash and wait for almost a year to get a piece of paper that allows you to go to and from a range with millions of rules that treat you like a child.
The worst part about it is that the state sets you up to be a victim. Youre on a train, 5 punks come over and spit on you. They take your wallet, feel your 14 year old daughters boobs, slap her across the mouth and then jab a knife in your gut for kicks and laugh as your daughter watches you bleed to death. Thats not pleasant, fair or right. It does happen so dont say that it doesnt.
Imo, because you are not allowed to have a defense, the state is responsible. You cant even carry a knife, brass knuckles or a stun gun for christs sake.
Its not right
Everybody is smug and cocky until something happens to them.
I had an incident once. When the smoke cleared i sat there shaking, staring at my .45 subcompact thinking about the fact that i have never felt this level of fear before in my life ......and as bad as it was, if i didnt AT LEAST have that pistol.....the fear and terror would have been unimaginable. I thought about how helpless i would have become....how anything could have happened.
From that day on, I NEVER question anyones right to self defense.
I own an AR because it's the best technology for small arms that I can afford. I can hit a 3-inch group at 100yds from a standing position with it. It's design and weight allow for the best recoil recovery and target acquisition on the market. The fact that the bolt is recoiling directly at my shoulder (rather than above it) gives the gun nearly zero climb and the pistol grip is ergonomically the best design I've ever fired.
Your post about the Lautenburg amendment conviently left out the misdemeanor was for domestic abuse, not just some random misdemeanor.
Why should I have to justify it? It's one of the weapons I prefer to have at my disposal in the event of any foreseeable situation. I like it. That's all the justification I require. According to you, they should only be in the hands of those who have killed more people than all the civilian mass murderers throughout US history. Hell, I could probably come up with a single day in the last ten years our govt. has killed more people than all the mass-shootings in this country's history. Make it the last 80 years and I'm positive I could. If you really wanted to save lives from these terrible, scary assault weapons, you'd take them out of the hands of the govt. trained killers, too. Of course, that's not really the goal anyways.
Somehow, I'm not overwhelmed with a sense of trust for a govt. agent who so virulently, covetously eyes my liberty and my property. Call me crazy.
Perhaps evey post you make should be checked by a Mod, to see if you "purpose" meets certain qualifications.
An AR-15 is 100% cappable of:
2. Target Shooting
4. Looking Cool and Thats It.
Owning an AR-15 (or it's equivalent non-"millitary style" .223 semiauto which would remain legal under the proposed ban) is not a crime, nor should it be a crime.
If it's misused, then there is a crime. Not before.
The day the State has the right to decide all citizens are guilty of a crime because ONE MIGHT commit a crime, it a bad day for personal freedom and liberty, and a good day for Tyrany.
Last edited by Warfish; 02-02-2013 at 04:32 PM.
If you are using a AR-15 to hunt, that's sad and get a new hobby. Protection? What are you protecting? Target shooting? There are plenty of smaller caliber weapons that would suffice. Looks cool = GIANT TOOL.
You're worried about tyranny? I am worried when people run out to buy a weapon that was just used to slaughter 20 children, maybe that's just me?
Well regulated means what exactly?
We are told that average, everyday citizens do not need AR-15 or similar rifles, but the police need them in order to combat criminals. If using a firearm for self-defense is OK, and if you acknowledge police need these types of weapons to protect themselves and others from criminals who also have them, why can't average, everyday citizens have them? How does this make us safer?
That is what worries me when I hear gun advocates claim that arming everyone will make us safer.
The M-16 is.The weapon was built for the military to kill humans.
The AR-15 is not.
I'd expect a double-professional (soldier/federal officer) to be far more knowledgeable regarding the differences between a millitary full-auto/3-round burst M-16 and a semi-auto civillian AR-15, a gussied up .22 rifle.
Yes, both are "guns" and yes both can kill, traits every single gun shares.
You're entitled to your opinion. Your opinion is all it is. I'm sure if we here knew all of YOUR preferred hobbies, we'd find at least some of them to be sad too. Yet I doubt most of us would want to federally ban them.If you are using a AR-15 to hunt, that's sad and get a new hobby.
Plenty of caliburs smaller than .223, eh?Target shooting? There are plenty of smaller caliber weapons that would suffice.
Like what? .22, .223 or 5.56mm is all but the smallest common calibur in firearms. Only the rather obscure .20/5mm is smaller.
What, target shooters should use BB's?
A Professional former-solider and current law enforcemen officer would be well aware that the calibur of an AR-15 is not very large at all, and is amongst the smallest commonly used in firearms.
It's looks apparently fooled you, a self-professed double-professional, into thinking it was the equivalent of your M-16.Looks cool = GIANT TOOL.
The two have nothing to do with each other. The AR-15 has long been one of the more popular civillian firearms.I am worried when people run out to buy a weapon that was just used to slaughter 20 children, maybe that's just me?
Means the Milita (the Millitary) should be well regulated. Not the basic right to own firearms (which shall not be infringed).Well regulated means what exactly?
Remind me again, what does "shall not be infringed" mean? You keep ignoring that part.
Last edited by Warfish; 02-02-2013 at 09:17 PM.
Gotta love the gun grabbers.
They're the 1st to redefine life citizenship and marriage unlawfully yet deny you your incontrovertible Constitutional right to be armed, which is regulated anyway.
The AR-15 as offered in many variants is a very suitable rifle to hunt any type of game and kill Predatory animals like coyotes and wolves.
Last edited by Jungle Shift Jet; 02-02-2013 at 09:49 PM.
Lol, so I say, yea I'm lying, you want my Dd-214 too? Stop using Wiki for your info, the AR-15 and M-16 shoot .223 Remington and the 5.56x45mm round is practically the same exact thing. They are interchangeable. The only difference is that as the M16 is a military rifle, it has a selective fire mode, making it an assault rifle whereas the AR-15 is simply a semi-automatic rifle.
Sorry I have failed to meet your expectations.
Here's what I and the Supreme Court think about infringe.
The Court stated that the right to keep and bear arms is subject to regulation, such as concealed weapons prohibitions, limits on the rights of felons and the mentally ill, laws forbidding the carrying of weapons in certain locations, laws imposing conditions on commercial sales, and prohibitions on the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. It stated that this was not an exhaustive list of the regulatory measures that would be presumptively permissible under the Second Amendment.