A Complete Waste of Space

Well, if you're not going to bother looking at a link posted in a thread. I don't see how you can make any posts in that thread.


This is the post I was referring to. Hunting forums are not all about hunting.



1) Semiautomatic military-style firearms prevent the government from monopolizing violence through superior firepower. If a population is expected to resist a tyrannical government, it must possess appropriate arms. Take a look at situations like Libya and Syria where having high-power weapons are required to defend the populace from dictators.

2) It has been repeatedly made clear that the police cannot be relied upon to provide law enforcement. In such a situation, the citizens must possess appropriate weapons to defend themselves. For example, there are numerous documented incidents from the LA riots where citizens defended their homes and businesses with AK-47s. The rifles provided a visible deterrent. The stores that were not protected were looted. The cops were nowhere to be found.

Also, I think it is completely ludicrous to begin a gun debate with the words. "I DO NOT WANT THIS TO BE A GUN DEBATE." Further, I find it bizarre that you ask for reasons not concerning the Second Amendment. The Second Amendment is not the REASON we own guns... it is just the Constitutional Amendment that enshrines the right to do so.

It is also baffling to claim that you want examples other than law enforcement, when law enforcement is the fundamental reason for having these weapons. As far as I'm concerned, the weapons are obviously for law enforcement. The real question is who does the enforcing when the police cannot/do not/will not do it.

Buzz wrote:
1) Semiautomatic military-style firearms prevent the government from monopolizing violence through superior firepower. If a population is expected to resist a tyrannical government, it must possess appropriate arms. Take a look at situations like Libya and Syria where having high-power weapons are required to defend the populace from dictators.

well, we're going to be rehashing, which I was trying to avoid, but here goes: This chestnut is a serious pantload. The government can out-violent you in so many ways, an AR-15 is akin to a pea shooter. The government has drones, for chrissake!

2) It has been repeatedly made clear that the police cannot be relied upon to provide law enforcement. In such a situation, the citizens must possess appropriate weapons to defend themselves. For example, there are numerous documented incidents from the LA riots where citizens defended their homes and businesses with AK-47s. The rifles provided a visible deterrent. The stores that were not protected were looted. The cops were nowhere to be found.

fair enough, but AR-15s or AK-47s are not going to any more effective that standard shotguns or other perfectly legal weapons, and you know it.

Also, I think it is completely ludicrous to begin a gun debate with the words. "I DO NOT WANT THIS TO BE A GUN DEBATE." Further, I find it bizarre that you ask for reasons not concerning the Second Amendment. The Second Amendment is not the REASON we own guns... it is just the Constitutional Amendment that enshrines the right to do so.

except that the whole purpose was to ensure that the government never had the need for a Standing Army. However, by 1830, we HAD a standing army, rendering the 2nd Amendment quaint, but useless for the original purpose.

It is also baffling to claim that you want examples other than law enforcement, when law enforcement is the fundamental reason for having these weapons. As far as I'm concerned, the weapons are obviously for law enforcement. The real question is who does the enforcing when the police cannot/do not/will not do it.

private citizens DO NOT, and SHOULD NOT enforce the law. That is tantamount to a vigilante society.

Limiting the volume of hi-cap potential, semi-auto rifles like ARs among the law abiding public, won't inhibit those wanting to kill a large number of trapped, immobile people, at point blank range, in gun free zones. Those killers could carry more than one revolver, or semi-auto pistols, and any variety of shotguns including those intended just for sporting purposes to do exactly the same amount of killing, and they have.

An .223 AR type is a well rounded weapon than can kill predatory humans or most animals either for self defense or hunting at any practical range in a wide variety of situations. That can't be said for shotguns and pistols; it's a reasonable weapon for defensive insurance in a local area of societal breakdown e.g. LA riots, Katrina, name your disaster scenario.

You've finally convinced me Slick...these weapons are a danger to you.
Others, they ain't.

Barfly wrote:Limiting the volume of hi-cap potential, semi-auto rifles like ARs among the law abiding public, won't inhibit those wanting to kill a large number of trapped, immobile people, at point blank range, in gun free zones. Those killers could carry more than one revolver, or semi-auto pistols, and any variety of shotguns including those intended just for sporting purposes to do exactly the same amount of killing, and they have.

quite true, but if it makes even a handful fewer cases of mass killings, isn't it worth it?

An .223 AR type is a well rounded weapon than can kill predatory humans or most animals either for self defense or hunting at any practical range in a wide variety of situations. That can't be said for shotguns and pistols; it's a reasonable weapon for defensive insurance in a local area of societal breakdown e.g. LA riots, Katrina, name your disaster scenario.

watching a lot of Doomsday Preppers, are we?

You do remember the mass killing in a school during the last ban on assault rifles?

callmeslick wrote:

Barfly wrote:Limiting the volume of hi-cap potential, semi-auto rifles like ARs among the law abiding public, won't inhibit those wanting to kill a large number of trapped, immobile people, at point blank range, in gun free zones. Those killers could carry more than one revolver, or semi-auto pistols, and any variety of shotguns including those intended just for sporting purposes to do exactly the same amount of killing, and they have.

quite true, but if it makes even a handful fewer cases of mass killings, isn't it worth it?

An .223 AR type is a well rounded weapon than can kill predatory humans or most animals either for self defense or hunting at any practical range in a wide variety of situations. That can't be said for shotguns and pistols; it's a reasonable weapon for defensive insurance in a local area of societal breakdown e.g. LA riots, Katrina, name your disaster scenario.

watching a lot of Doomsday Preppers, are we?

My first point was that banning semi auto rifles won't prevent any mass shootings.

As to doomsday prep, yeah like I said before, I am motivated by that Charlton Heston real-life documentary "Omega Man" where he had to fend off hordes of albino/Irish/progressive zombies with his AK and night vision in '70s New York. You remember, you were there, helping spread the plague that turned people. I'm saving up now for a fancy IR scope and apartment security system.

Barfly wrote:My first point was that banning semi auto rifles won't prevent any mass shootings.

yet, incidence WAS lower during the last ban. Not a major change, but still lower.

As to doomsday prep, yeah like I said before, I am motivated by that Charlton Heston real-life documentary "Omega Man" where he had to fend off hordes of albino/Irish/progressive zombies with his AK and night vision in '70s New York. You remember, you were there, helping spread the plague that turned people. I'm saving up now for a fancy IR scope and apartment security system.

hey, it has to help the economy.....purchase away!!

Buzz wrote:You do remember the mass killing in a school during the last ban on assault rifles?

So, you won't ignore it again slick.

Buzz wrote:

Buzz wrote:You do remember the mass killing in a school during the last ban on assault rifles?

So, you won't ignore it again slick.

Just in case.