Assault rifles for self defense

[The T]

99.9% of all civilian uses of a gun for self defense are 2 shots or less. Almost always with a handgun.

The right wing rednecks have watched "Red Dawn" one too many times.

And, they're convinced that a communist president is gonna turn the US military against them and somehow, with their trusty AR15 and NO TRAINING, they'll fight off the most powerful military the world has ever known.

And are YOU an advocate of turning the Military against the citizen?

SON? You have no clue.

 

[The T]

Madison, who wrote the 2nd amendment went on to describe how the militia was a civilian militia with leaders of their own choosing and not to be controlled by the government or regular army. he also went on to describe what he saw the capabilities of the civilian militia were and how they could defeat the regular army if the government ever took arms against the people. of course the government trying to gain supreme power over the people would try to disarm the public. pin head liberal gun grabbers are too stupid to see this and attempt to aid them in their cause to make people submissive to the government.

That was back in the 1700's, when the "militia" and military both carried basically the same weapons: Muskets. And back when common citizens hunted and farmed and had to live rugged lives to survive, so really, aside from learning to march and salute, there wasn't a huge difference in "militia" and military.

TODAY?

The military is full of outstanding athletes, with world class weaponry, full time training, technology that 1980's movies could only dream of, tanks, drones, warships, etc, etc.

And the "militia" of right wing rednecks? Made up of 300 pound fatties on roto-scooters roving around Wal-Mart buying pork rinds, drinking Pabst Blue Ribbon on the recliner watching NASCAR, armed with an AR15 they bought with their tax return but have never been formally trained with?

YEAH.....I don't think the militia would win that one. Hell, there are 1,000,000 cops in America. I doubt "militia" could defeat them, much less the 3,000,000 man military.

Time frame regardless...the Founders meant what they stated...YOU seem to advocate the destruction of your own liberty, much less protect it. WHY?

Just because the calendar changes and there are advances in technology...does the human RIGHT to Liberty, protection of it change?

NO, it does NOT.

Game ,set, match. *BYE*

 

[Meister]

Madison, who wrote the 2nd amendment went on to describe how the militia was a civilian militia with leaders of their own choosing and not to be controlled by the government or regular army. he also went on to describe what he saw the capabilities of the civilian militia were and how they could defeat the regular army if the government ever took arms against the people. of course the government trying to gain supreme power over the people would try to disarm the public. pin head liberal gun grabbers are too stupid to see this and attempt to aid them in their cause to make people submissive to the government.

That was back in the 1700's, when the "militia" and military both carried basically the same weapons: Muskets. And back when common citizens hunted and farmed and had to live rugged lives to survive, so really, aside from learning to march and salute, there wasn't a huge difference in "militia" and military.

TODAY?

The military is full of outstanding athletes, with world class weaponry, full time training, technology that 1980's movies could only dream of, tanks, drones, warships, etc, etc.

And the "militia" of right wing rednecks? Made up of 300 pound fatties on roto-scooters roving around Wal-Mart buying pork rinds, drinking Pabst Blue Ribbon on the recliner watching NASCAR, armed with an AR15 they bought with their tax return but have never been formally trained with?

YEAH.....I don't think the militia would win that one. Hell, there are 1,000,000 cops in America. I doubt "militia" could defeat them, much less the 3,000,000 man military.

Time frame regardless...the Founders meant what they stated...YOU seem to advocate the destruction of your own liberty, much less protect it. WHY?

Just because the calendar changes and there are advances in technology...does the human RIGHT to Liberty, protection of it change?

NO, it does NOT.

Game ,set, match. *BYE*

Buc at one time stated he was a devout conservative, then the last election cycle came up and he stated he no longer could be a republican and turned to a democrat.
When he turned, he turned his back on anything that was remotely conservative and became a far left liberal.
I guess that meant his feelings on the Second Amendment, with as many people who own firearms in America, the only way to remove them would be to literally destroy this nation, and no government of ours would do that.

 

[The T]

That was back in the 1700's, when the "militia" and military both carried basically the same weapons: Muskets. And back when common citizens hunted and farmed and had to live rugged lives to survive, so really, aside from learning to march and salute, there wasn't a huge difference in "militia" and military.

TODAY?

The military is full of outstanding athletes, with world class weaponry, full time training, technology that 1980's movies could only dream of, tanks, drones, warships, etc, etc.

And the "militia" of right wing rednecks? Made up of 300 pound fatties on roto-scooters roving around Wal-Mart buying pork rinds, drinking Pabst Blue Ribbon on the recliner watching NASCAR, armed with an AR15 they bought with their tax return but have never been formally trained with?

YEAH.....I don't think the militia would win that one. Hell, there are 1,000,000 cops in America. I doubt "militia" could defeat them, much less the 3,000,000 man military.

Time frame regardless...the Founders meant what they stated...YOU seem to advocate the destruction of your own liberty, much less protect it. WHY?

Just because the calendar changes and there are advances in technology...does the human RIGHT to Liberty, protection of it change?

NO, it does NOT.

Game ,set, match. *BYE*

Buc at one time stated he was a devout conservative, then the last election cycle came up and he stated he no longer could be a republican and turned to a democrat.
When he turned, he turned his back on anything that was remotely conservative and became a far left liberal.
I guess that meant his feelings on the Second Amendment, with as many people who own firearms in America, the only way to remove them would be to literally destroy this nation, and no government of ours would do that.

Yes I remember that. And I think the guy has lost all credibility. Instead of defending all he stated he was about, he turned to the dark side to prove a point. I guess standing on principle is a bit too much for the intellectual and spiritual weak at heart. His true side came out...but GOD Bless him anyway. Hopefully the light of Liberty might return.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

A little over 1200.00 for the optics,then add the rifle.
Then you add a good quality full floating foregripe,triggers,bolts maybe a new sling.
I stay away from the swiss army AR. My money went into optics and parts,not tripods and flash lights.

I have flippup Yankee Hill sights and a eotech red dot 512 (I think). Quad rails and rubber covers and a flashlight, but not an expensive one. I may be in the dark after the first shot so it's gotta count.

This is my optic set up.
https://www.google.com/search?espv=...rge-300-aac-blackout-fde-w-eotech%2F;1280;960

Whoops thought it would have brought up the right pic. It's the G3 with the NV capable Eotech.

 

[bucs90]

That was back in the 1700's, when the "militia" and military both carried basically the same weapons: Muskets. And back when common citizens hunted and farmed and had to live rugged lives to survive, so really, aside from learning to march and salute, there wasn't a huge difference in "militia" and military.

TODAY?

The military is full of outstanding athletes, with world class weaponry, full time training, technology that 1980's movies could only dream of, tanks, drones, warships, etc, etc.

And the "militia" of right wing rednecks? Made up of 300 pound fatties on roto-scooters roving around Wal-Mart buying pork rinds, drinking Pabst Blue Ribbon on the recliner watching NASCAR, armed with an AR15 they bought with their tax return but have never been formally trained with?

YEAH.....I don't think the militia would win that one. Hell, there are 1,000,000 cops in America. I doubt "militia" could defeat them, much less the 3,000,000 man military.

Time frame regardless...the Founders meant what they stated...YOU seem to advocate the destruction of your own liberty, much less protect it. WHY?

Just because the calendar changes and there are advances in technology...does the human RIGHT to Liberty, protection of it change?

NO, it does NOT.

Game ,set, match. *BYE*

Buc at one time stated he was a devout conservative, then the last election cycle came up and he stated he no longer could be a republican and turned to a democrat.
When he turned, he turned his back on anything that was remotely conservative and became a far left liberal.
I guess that meant his feelings on the Second Amendment, with as many people who own firearms in America, the only way to remove them would be to literally destroy this nation, and no government of ours would do that.

Nope. Not what it meant. It meant when I saw my former fellow right wingers chugging more and more bullshit and wanting to see who could jump off the highest cliff.......I decided to pack my bag and leave.

I always have, and still do, believe in the right to own a gun.

Read that again. The right to own "A GUN".

Not "ANY" gun.

Some weapons do not belong in the hands of civilians. That's just a pure FACT that any cop or military person surely would agree on. Only a ******* idiot would think ANY weapon should be in the hands of ANY civilian and see it as a "right". There is a line to be drawn in what weapons the general public should be allowed to have.

 

[Not2BSubjugated]

one example... not too bad.

now lets compare that against the mass shootings involving guns:

Josh Sugarmann: 10 U.S. Mass Shootings Involving High-Capacity Ammunition Magazines (Slide Show)

List of rampage killers: Americas - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So based on the CHANCE of someone using a weapon for criminal activites, I have to lose my right to own said weapon, even with no prior bad acts and no current indication of any potential malicous activities?

So I guess because I MAY use fighting words on someone, I have to be gagged and prevented from speaking entirely.

again, no one is talking about complete gun elimination, but it has been shown already that certain weapons in the hands of the public do not serve a public good. these include assault weapons and high capacity magazines. no one is talking about complete gun elimination, but if you are a real hunter, there a number of weapons available that are not assault weapons that have very high rankings.

50 Best Hunting Rifles of the Past 10 Years -- Photo 18 | Outdoor Life

Not concerned about "a public good". I'm concerned with my own rights and my own protection. If you don't feel that the resulting societal statistics are optimal, feel free to whine about it. The 1st amendment is just as valid as the 2nd, and I don't believe in stamping on your rights any more than I beileve in you stamping on mine

 

[The T]

Time frame regardless...the Founders meant what they stated...YOU seem to advocate the destruction of your own liberty, much less protect it. WHY?

Just because the calendar changes and there are advances in technology...does the human RIGHT to Liberty, protection of it change?

NO, it does NOT.

Game ,set, match. *BYE*

Buc at one time stated he was a devout conservative, then the last election cycle came up and he stated he no longer could be a republican and turned to a democrat.
When he turned, he turned his back on anything that was remotely conservative and became a far left liberal.
I guess that meant his feelings on the Second Amendment, with as many people who own firearms in America, the only way to remove them would be to literally destroy this nation, and no government of ours would do that.

Nope. Not what it meant. It meant when I saw my former fellow right wingers chugging more and more bullshit and wanting to see who could jump off the highest cliff.......I decided to pack my bag and leave.

I always have, and still do, believe in the right to own a gun.

Read that again. The right to own "A GUN".

Not "ANY" gun.

Some weapons do not belong in the hands of civilians. That's just a pure FACT that any cop or military person surely would agree on. Only a ******* idiot would think ANY weapon should be in the hands of ANY civilian and see it as a "right". There is a line to be drawn in what weapons the general public should be allowed to have.

The Founders would disagree with you.

 

[The T]

So based on the CHANCE of someone using a weapon for criminal activites, I have to lose my right to own said weapon, even with no prior bad acts and no current indication of any potential malicous activities?

So I guess because I MAY use fighting words on someone, I have to be gagged and prevented from speaking entirely.

again, no one is talking about complete gun elimination, but it has been shown already that certain weapons in the hands of the public do not serve a public good. these include assault weapons and high capacity magazines. no one is talking about complete gun elimination, but if you are a real hunter, there a number of weapons available that are not assault weapons that have very high rankings.

50 Best Hunting Rifles of the Past 10 Years -- Photo 18 | Outdoor Life

Not concerned about "a public good". I'm concerned with my own rights and my own protection. If you don't feel that the resulting societal statistics are optimal, feel free to whine about it. The 1st amendment is just as valid as the 2nd, and I don't believe in stamping on your rights any more than I beileve in you stamping on mine

And defending BOTH.

 

[bucs90]

So based on the CHANCE of someone using a weapon for criminal activites, I have to lose my right to own said weapon, even with no prior bad acts and no current indication of any potential malicous activities?

So I guess because I MAY use fighting words on someone, I have to be gagged and prevented from speaking entirely.

again, no one is talking about complete gun elimination, but it has been shown already that certain weapons in the hands of the public do not serve a public good. these include assault weapons and high capacity magazines. no one is talking about complete gun elimination, but if you are a real hunter, there a number of weapons available that are not assault weapons that have very high rankings.

50 Best Hunting Rifles of the Past 10 Years -- Photo 18 | Outdoor Life

Not concerned about "a public good". I'm concerned with my own rights and my own protection. If you don't feel that the resulting societal statistics are optimal, feel free to whine about it. The 1st amendment is just as valid as the 2nd, and I don't believe in stamping on your rights any more than I beileve in you stamping on mine

Ok. So, if these rights are inalienable, meaning government cannot give/take or infringe upon them, then you agree that the government can NOT make a list of what "arms" you can and cannot have, right?

So, do you believe that ALL weapons, of any scope or kind, should be allowed in the hands of law abiding people if they can aquire them?

Tell me....which of the following "arms" should you have the right to possess in America:

Pistol
Assault rifle
Shotgun
Frag grenade
Claymore mine
RPG rocket
Stinger missile

 

[M14 Shooter]

Assault rifles for self defense

Real cowboys don't use assault rifles.

People with a sound position don't argue from emotion ignorance and/or dishonesty.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Home invasions? That's why you need a semi-automatic assault rifle? It's not to protect your First Amendment rights from a government that runs remote-controlled aerial assassinations on anyone that it deems "inconvenient" to corporate goals?

If you honestly cite the Second Amendment as your right to own an assault rifle to protect your television and jewelry, then you don't understand what the Second Amendment is for.

Thank you for wholeheartedly putting your ignorance on display for everyone to see.

 

[The T]

again, no one is talking about complete gun elimination, but it has been shown already that certain weapons in the hands of the public do not serve a public good. these include assault weapons and high capacity magazines. no one is talking about complete gun elimination, but if you are a real hunter, there a number of weapons available that are not assault weapons that have very high rankings.

50 Best Hunting Rifles of the Past 10 Years -- Photo 18 | Outdoor Life

Not concerned about "a public good". I'm concerned with my own rights and my own protection. If you don't feel that the resulting societal statistics are optimal, feel free to whine about it. The 1st amendment is just as valid as the 2nd, and I don't believe in stamping on your rights any more than I beileve in you stamping on mine

Ok. So, if these rights are inalienable, meaning government cannot give/take or infringe upon them, then you agree that the government can NOT make a list of what "arms" you can and cannot have, right?

So, do you believe that ALL weapons, of any scope or kind, should be allowed in the hands of law abiding people if they can aquire them?

Tell me....which of the following "arms" should you have the right to possess in America:

Pistol
Assault rifle
Shotgun
Frag grenade
Claymore mine
RPG rocket
Stinger missile

They Founders didn't discern...amplify or parse. Their objective was for the INDIVIDUAL to be able to defend themselves even against their own government. YOU seem to miss this point. WHY?

 

[M14 Shooter]

again, no one is talking about complete gun elimination, but it has been shown already that certain weapons in the hands of the public do not serve a public good. these include assault weapons and high capacity magazines. no one is talking about complete gun elimination, but if you are a real hunter, there a number of weapons available that are not assault weapons that have very high rankings.

50 Best Hunting Rifles of the Past 10 Years -- Photo 18 | Outdoor Life

Not concerned about "a public good". I'm concerned with my own rights and my own protection. If you don't feel that the resulting societal statistics are optimal, feel free to whine about it. The 1st amendment is just as valid as the 2nd, and I don't believe in stamping on your rights any more than I beileve in you stamping on mine

Ok. So, if these rights are inalienable, meaning government cannot give/take or infringe upon them, then you agree that the government can NOT make a list of what "arms" you can and cannot have, right?

So, do you believe that ALL weapons, of any scope or kind, should be allowed in the hands of law abiding people if they can aquire them?

Tell me....which of the following "arms" should you have the right to possess in America:

Pistol
Assault rifle
Shotgun
Frag grenade
Claymore mine
RPG rocket
Stinger missile

US v Miller
The 2nd protects any weapon that is suitable for service in the militia, part of the ordinary military equipment and in common use at the time.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

99.9% of all civilian uses of a gun for self defense are 2 shots or less. Almost always with a handgun.

The right wing rednecks have watched "Red Dawn" one too many times.

And, they're convinced that a communist president is gonna turn the US military against them and somehow, with their trusty AR15 and NO TRAINING, they'll fight off the most powerful military the world has ever known.

Guess what, oh master of irrelevant statistics, 100% of your statistics are bullshit.

 

[bucs90]

Not concerned about "a public good". I'm concerned with my own rights and my own protection. If you don't feel that the resulting societal statistics are optimal, feel free to whine about it. The 1st amendment is just as valid as the 2nd, and I don't believe in stamping on your rights any more than I beileve in you stamping on mine

Ok. So, if these rights are inalienable, meaning government cannot give/take or infringe upon them, then you agree that the government can NOT make a list of what "arms" you can and cannot have, right?

So, do you believe that ALL weapons, of any scope or kind, should be allowed in the hands of law abiding people if they can aquire them?

Tell me....which of the following "arms" should you have the right to possess in America:

Pistol
Assault rifle
Shotgun
Frag grenade
Claymore mine
RPG rocket
Stinger missile

They Founders didn't discern...amplify or parse. Their objective was for the INDIVIDUAL to be able to defend themselves even against their own government. YOU seem to miss this point. WHY?

Oh, I don't think I miss YOUR point.

So, you are saying that I should be allowed to own and carry in my pickup truck an RPG or shoulder fired missile?

Or, should I be allowed to carry a couple fragmentation grenades in my backpack?

They are "arms". And the government cannot infringe on my right to own them.

Right? THAT is the right wing's point, correct?

 

[WinterBorn]

one example... not too bad.

now lets compare that against the mass shootings involving guns:

Josh Sugarmann: 10 U.S. Mass Shootings Involving High-Capacity Ammunition Magazines (Slide Show)

List of rampage killers: Americas - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So based on the CHANCE of someone using a weapon for criminal activites, I have to lose my right to own said weapon, even with no prior bad acts and no current indication of any potential malicous activities?

So I guess because I MAY use fighting words on someone, I have to be gagged and prevented from speaking entirely.

again, no one is talking about complete gun elimination, but it has been shown already that certain weapons in the hands of the public do not serve a public good. these include assault weapons and high capacity magazines. no one is talking about complete gun elimination, but if you are a real hunter, there a number of weapons available that are not assault weapons that have very high rankings.

50 Best Hunting Rifles of the Past 10 Years -- Photo 18 | Outdoor Life

I am a hunter. The only AR I have owned I bought specifically for hunting. I used it on coyote and got several double kills. No other rifle action would have allowed that.

 

[bucs90]

99.9% of all civilian uses of a gun for self defense are 2 shots or less. Almost always with a handgun.

The right wing rednecks have watched "Red Dawn" one too many times.

And, they're convinced that a communist president is gonna turn the US military against them and somehow, with their trusty AR15 and NO TRAINING, they'll fight off the most powerful military the world has ever known.

Guess what, oh master of irrelevant statistics, 100% of your statistics are bullshit.

So what is the average number of shots used in a civilian self-defense shooting??? 30??

 

[bucs90]

Analysis of Five Years of Armed Encounters (With Data Tables)

Civilian self-defense shootings fall into two categories:

- 2 or fewer shots fired

- Entire magazine emptied (person just pulling trigger until they have no more ammo, whether needed or not)

Quantam, you are wrong. If you need a gun for self defense, odds are, you wont need more than 1-2 shots. Unless you are a typical redneck with no training who panics and just keeps firing until empty......sending bullets God-knows-where into the street or parking lot.

 

[WinterBorn]

99.9% of all civilian uses of a gun for self defense are 2 shots or less. Almost always with a handgun.

The right wing rednecks have watched "Red Dawn" one too many times.

And, they're convinced that a communist president is gonna turn the US military against them and somehow, with their trusty AR15 and NO TRAINING, they'll fight off the most powerful military the world has ever known.

Guess what, oh master of irrelevant statistics, 100% of your statistics are bullshit.

So what is the average number of shots used in a civilian self-defense shooting??? 30??

Do you have a link for your statistics, or are you just making them up?

And whether they are bullshit or not, they are certainly irrelevant.