Originally Posted By Dabob2 "this is the level of logic that is used in some quarters not just to argue on message boards, but to set policy and influence the public at large." Boy howdy.
Originally Posted By Goofyernmost <<<No one uses an AR-15 for defense. I would maybe buy that argument for hand guns, but not for semi-automatic rifles. They have only two uses... sport shooting and committing mass violence.>>> AR-15's, also known as M-16 in the military, is an offensive and a defensive weapon. It only has one use..mass death. That's what it was designed for and unless one considers absolutely pulverizing your target it can hardly be considered a "sport" weapon. It has no place in civilian society. A group that not only doesn't know how to use it safely, but also really don't understand it's destructive power and that, my friends, is massive.
Originally Posted By Tikiduck Don't forget that these guns are also frequently embellished with the very latest in military scope technology, that makes targeting as easy (and quick) as placing a red dot. This makes these weapons three times as lethal, from close, medium, and long range. They are, quite simply, killing machines.
Originally Posted By TomSawyer Sometimes it isn't so easy to tell who the good guys are and who the bad guys are. Someone invading your house? They are a bad guy. Federal officers serving a warrant because you have illegal weapons? Depends what news station you watch, I guess.
Originally Posted By SuperDry << AR-15's, also known as M-16 in the military, is an offensive and a defensive weapon. It only has one use..mass death. That's what it was designed for and unless ... It has no place in civilian society. >> Keep in mind that a great many people that support private ownership of such weapons see them potentially being used just as you describe then: against a government gone bad or an invading UN force of some type.
Originally Posted By RoadTrip <<That's what it was designed for and unless one considers absolutely pulverizing your target it can hardly be considered a "sport" weapon.>> I was referring to target shooting, not hunting.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 "Keep in mind that a great many people that support private ownership of such weapons see them potentially being used just as you describe then: against a government gone bad or an invading UN force of some type." Yep. aka " idiots whose paranoia should not be forming the basis of any rational public policy "
Originally Posted By TomSawyer Why would they need AR-15's? They should just fight the invaders with beer since it is more dangerous.
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder "Why would they need AR-15's? They should just fight the invaders with beer since it is more dangerous." Sure, why not? They could: -Somehow restrain them and force them to consume a case or so of the stuff until they pass out and choke on their own vomit. The flaw here though is managing to restrain them, so we might be back to the AR-15 to accomplish that. -Somehow restrain them and force them to consume enough beer to achieve alcohol poisoning, which considering the relatively low content of alcohol in most beers could take a while, but again, see above about restraining them. - Sneak up behind the invader and smash a full bottle of beer over his head. If there's more than one "bad guy" you better be pretty quick about it, however. If they have a gun, even something less impressive than an AR-15, well, good luck. It's also a waste of beer if the bottle breaks and the contents spill everywhere. -Have a bucket of beer or a large vat of the stuff on hand at all times, and be prepared to spill it into the path of the bad guys, causing them to slip and fall. What happens after that is a matter of conjecture. -If you don't want to spill it, still have the large container of some sort readily available to throw in their face, causing them to momentarily think they've broken into a frat house. Either perpetuate that misconception by giving them a wedgie and then fleeing, or look around for a place to hide.
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder "Apparently, Donny has nothing more to say on the subject..." He's binging. Hence, this thread.
Originally Posted By mawnck >>Apparently, Donny has nothing more to say on the subject.<< He's working on his next one-sentence content-free troll post that will result in 34 responses (and counting). >>Why would they need AR-15's? They should just fight the invaders with beer since it is more dangerous.<< Beer is redneck holy water. Just sprinkle some at the Muslim infidels and they melt like a wicked witch. I understand they are planning airdrops. True patriots are warned not to stand outside with their mouths open due to the risk of drowning.
Originally Posted By velo >>-If you don't want to spill it, still have the large container of some sort readily available to throw in their face, causing them to momentarily think they've broken into a frat house. Either perpetuate that misconception by giving them a wedgie and then fleeing, or look around for a place to hide.<< hmm..so Beer Pong could become the new platform for International diplomacy! Mys son's roommates were right all along!
Originally Posted By Tikiduck Personally, I think alcohol is one of society's greatest banes. But we all know how prohibition worked out. Something like that might apply to firearms, but only if it involved a total ban. Based on the NRA reactions, you would think it was a total ban.
Originally Posted By ecdc >>Personally, I think alcohol is one of society's greatest banes. But we all know how prohibition worked out.<< I highly recommend Ken Burns' documentary on prohibition. Great stuff. What I find so amusing about Donny's continued insistence on bringing up alcohol every time gun control comes up, is that we regulate alcohol more than firearms in many ways. DUIs are very strictly enforced, and we cut deaths from DUI in half or better. Minors cannot use alcohol. Perhaps Donny feels that anyone under 21 should be banned from firing a gun?
Originally Posted By ecdc Why Donny is wrong: <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/17/gun-fails-second-amendment-rights-gone-wrong_n_2490579.html" target="_blank">http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...579.html</a>
Originally Posted By Tikiduck What the video shows is that, in not one clip, was the gun at fault. Every instance was Human failure. So where should we concentrate, on guns or people? Banning assault weapons is a good idea, based on common sense, but the real problem is that any idiot can own a gun. All responsible gun owners should be educated, licensed and insured for the privilege.
Originally Posted By mawnck >>So where should we concentrate, on guns or people?<< I wouldn't know an AR-15 if it shot me in the ass, but I would assume that an accident involving one would not be so hilarious. I believe the idea is to concentrate on both the guns AND the people who can get them. Of course the NRA wants neither.
