targets don't stand still, they run, hide, duck, cover, etc


I've shot numerous ARs, AKs and deer rifles... and I'd be more afraid of anyone trying to kill me with a deer rifle than some jackass with an AK or an AR

not to mention penetration is much greater from the deer rifle and cover isn't as effective

why do you think snipers are so effective in combat?

[Edited on February 19, 2007 at 11:22 AM. Reason : ...]

2/19/2007 11:20:38 AM

A sniper shouldn't play into the discussion about some guy walking into a mall blasting.

Quote :

"I'd be more afraid of anyone trying to kill me with a deer rifle than some jackass with an AK or an AR"

Why does the guy with the assault have to be a jack ass? I'd be as much or more afraid of a former military guy going off the deep end and going into a mall and blasting people than a guy with a hunting rifle.

Quote :

"but thats the thing, if shit hits the fan, it's the guy with the rifle that takes out things with far greater value than a tank"

Such as? Face it, unless the rich amass their own militia with equivalent technology that the government has, the contest isn't even close. The best thing the common man could hope for a chance is for a faction from within the armed services to rise up against the government so that the playing field is more equal.

And I'm glad you pointed out the Iraq. The guys with the technology (us) are sitting back watching a civil war. The real work they did lasted a few weeks and sticks and stones didn't do much to stop that.

2/19/2007 11:36:42 AM

Quote :

"I just don't get why we continue to hearken back to when the constitution was founded to try and make arguments. It just isn't valid anymore."

So the constitution isn't valid anymore? It's validity can certainly be undermined by people like you tolerating the trampling our politicians are trying to give it.

And your argument about some glassy eyed nutjob opening fire in a public place is invalid as well, as it represents only a tiny fraction of a fraction of all crimes involving guns, and it ignores the much larger problem at hand.
Every crime involving guns is already illegal.

[Edited on February 19, 2007 at 11:42 AM. Reason : z]

2/19/2007 11:38:29 AM

No, the idea that the 2nd amendment was created to give the citizens a chance against an oppressive government - back during a time when they could have the same firepower as the government. Those days are gone, we're past that.

2/19/2007 11:41:35 AM

so whats your solution if they need were to arise, or do you just not care, or do you think it will never happen here?

^^^ a sniper basically uses a deer rifle to get his job done, does it well too... I think it's very valid to mention a sniper, he doesn't sit there with an AR

and anyone that goes into a crowded place with a weapon intent on killing innocents is a "jack ass" in my book....

a guy with a gun goes into a mall in say... NJ with a gun intent on killing people... who is gonna stop him? (it's not the citizens who have shirked their basic right to self defense but yet expect a 30k/year police officer to risk his ass to keep them alive, which I feel is a horrible form of elitism)

the contest wouldn't be close, smart people aren't gonna go for the people in tanks or apaches.. there are far better targets that are easier than that

you don't have to kill everyone to win a war


as for iraq, we've killed lots more of them... but, our troops get hit, alot, by ragtag, uneducated, ill equipped guys fighting with improvised munitions...
hell listening to the news and reading the soap box would actually have me believe that we are LOSING the "war" over there... so which is it?

it wouldn't take but a fractionally small number of people to make a change if it needed to be done

[Edited on February 19, 2007 at 11:52 AM. Reason : ...]

2/19/2007 11:49:21 AM

if we ever need to make a stand against the fed government we will use our state forces

2/19/2007 11:52:15 AM

yeah

the same state forces that have murdered how many citizens?

what if the state govt falls in lock step with the oppressive fed govt?

I'm ashamed that so many of you rely on everyone else but yourself to make sure you're safe

[Edited on February 19, 2007 at 11:54 AM. Reason : ...]

2/19/2007 11:53:40 AM

im ashamed that you are so disillusioned that you think a couple ar-15's are going to help you against federal forces.

just two or three years ago south carolina threatened to send national guardsman to stop a federal shipment of nuclear materials.

2/19/2007 11:59:59 AM

yeah, because I'm the only one with an AR

I know I can't fight federal troops, I never said I would... troops aren't really the "oppresive govt"

no citizen can for the most part

but wait, how can the insurgents kick our ass so badly then?

you can be ashamed that I own "assault weapons" and that I'd use them if I had to... I don't really care, I'm not a bad person, a criminal, or out to harm anyone

^ what if the state govt falls in lock step with the feds?

2/19/2007 12:05:17 PM

i dont care that you own an ar-15, i care that your argument is flawed

2/19/2007 12:06:45 PM

Quote :

" as for iraq, we've killed lots more of them... but, our troops get hit, alot, by ragtag, uneducated, ill equipped guys fighting with improvised munitions... hell listening to the news and reading the soap box would actually have me believe that we are LOSING the "war" over there... so which is it?"

We ARE losing (well, we aren't winning) the war for Democracy, and generally the war against terror, at least on the Iraqi front.




I'm curious, can you lay out whatever scenario is in your head that you think citizens, armed with at most assault weapons, can stand up to whatever oppression the government would be imparting upon us?

Quote :

"but wait, how can the insurgents kick our ass so badly then?"

I don't think the insurgents are really kicking our ass. They are preventing democracy from working and preventing peace, but I wouldn't say they are kicking our ass.

[Edited on February 19, 2007 at 12:10 PM. Reason : a]

2/19/2007 12:08:30 PM

im just wondering if when this fails too this guy can stop bringing up this issue in every thread

2/19/2007 12:12:06 PM

^^^and you have yet to answer my question which was pretty simple


and if you feel I shouldn't own one then yeah, you do care


how is my argument flawed?

because I don't agree with you?

because I believe that bad things happen, good people go bad,good governments overstep their bounds, and that sometimes the proverbial shit hits the fan and that I find nothing wrong with fighting back?

I may very well end up being a "victim" if it were to happen, but it's not gonna be because I shirked my responsibility to protect myself, family, or friends

whatever, think I'm crazy, or what not, I don't really care...but I don't have much tolerance for people who want to deny my basic right to self defense and preservation

^^
no problem, I see what you're saying and I pretty much agree with you

as for how armed citizens can fight an oppresive government... in that situation there are plenty of people other than joe army guy that would be targeted first... chances are you might not even see a soldier to do what would need to be done

^ I posted a link to a new law,something that I care about, it's in it's own thread, if you don't like it get out and quit trolling

[Edited on February 19, 2007 at 12:20 PM. Reason : ...]

2/19/2007 12:16:38 PM

your argument is flawed because you say that assault rifles are allowed because the 2nd amendment didnt specify what type of arms but then say that some types of arms shouldnt be allowed. basically you have a "whatever suits my belief" argument

2/19/2007 12:19:29 PM

I said later in the thread that I'm perfectly content with there being no distinction between the types of arms


but I know realistically that allowing stuff like hand grenades is probably not gonna happen (like I said before, if I wanted to blow something up I already know how to do it)

you're the one that keeps on telling me how I feel

^ and you pick and choose what rights are important for you to care about
as you've never been able to deny, you only give a shit about rights when it's what concerns you politically

Quote :

"whatever, think I'm crazy, or what not, I don't really care...but I don't have much tolerance for people who want to deny my basic right to self defense and preservation "

[Edited on February 19, 2007 at 12:25 PM. Reason : ...]

2/19/2007 12:23:28 PM

but you dont realistically believe that no one is going to take your guns?

2/19/2007 12:25:45 PM

lol, I want to see the grenade bill hit congress

2/19/2007 12:29:34 PM

^^ why would I not think that they would?

they've already tried

Feinstein was quoted as saying that "she'd take them all if she could" during the 94 bill

2/19/2007 12:32:15 PM

im sorry, i never new quotes could take your guns. maybe you do need protection.

2/19/2007 12:38:01 PM

you're in denial, about your own party at that


or is it the elitist, "I don't think affordable handguns should be legal, but it's perfectly ok if I have a $2000 fine shotgun to go hunting with"?

2/19/2007 12:40:27 PM

i think all weapons should be allowed, i really want a supersonic jet

2/19/2007 12:42:04 PM

you can have a supersonic jet


if you have the money

I don't care if you do, what you buy legally with your money is not my concern as long as you aren't hurting me or my loved ones

you're pretty bad for avoiding questions

[Edited on February 19, 2007 at 12:44 PM. Reason : and trolling]

2/19/2007 12:43:25 PM

im not allowed to legally own one

2/19/2007 12:44:44 PM

british airways does and they've flown them here



they aren't the military and I don't think they're government owned anymore

and I have no problem with you owning one if you were to choose to do so either


btw... you can buy a jet

http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/english/doc/2004-02/17/content_306823.htm (first link on google)

troll

[Edited on February 19, 2007 at 12:50 PM. Reason : ...]

2/19/2007 12:47:27 PM

they cant operate in the us

2/19/2007 12:48:04 PM

what in gods name is going on in this thread?

what does a multi million dollar jet have to do with freedom?

2/19/2007 12:48:46 PM

i need it to protect my freedom but im not allowed to have it or arm a subsonic jet

2/19/2007 12:50:49 PM

^^^ they did and do

read the link "know it all" troll


^^ not a damn thing, but this kid wants to troll whenever I ask a question


^ you're an idiot

[Edited on February 19, 2007 at 12:51 PM. Reason : ..subsonic now huh?]

[Edited on February 19, 2007 at 12:52 PM. Reason : and you people claim I mess up tsb]

2/19/2007 12:51:11 PM

you can own a surplus jet, but as soon as you go supersonic they take your pilots license and will likely take the jet. lots of people own mil-surplus jets but you arent allowed to arm them or go supersonic. i need both of these to protect myself from air support while defending my guns from the evil opressive government.

2/19/2007 12:55:50 PM

you're a troll


and in denial about people from your own political party

I'd appreciate it if you quit running this thread downhill with stupid shit, no one has advocated ownership or use of fighter jets to defend ones self

2/19/2007 1:22:51 PM

im advocating that, why are you denying my 2nd amendment rights

2/19/2007 1:23:57 PM

you're being a troll


and you still haven't answered any of my questions


are you one of those people that think handguns and affordable weapons shouldn't be owned but think it's ok to have a fine shotgun for hunting?

2/19/2007 1:27:46 PM

where are you getting handguns for cheaper than shotguns

2/19/2007 1:29:49 PM

plenty of places

like...any gun shop

2/19/2007 1:33:00 PM

i can go to walmart and get a shotgun really quick for cheap, i cant do that with a handgun

2/19/2007 1:33:50 PM

well thats no good


what if you need one within a week?

are the police going to stand vigilant outside of a womans house because her ex-husband threatened to kill her?

btw, you wait for a permit, not the gun... neither if you have a CCW permit

there are handguns cheaper than that shotgun

a person can't take part in most activities with a shotgun either... it can also get you arrested (brandishing a firearm to the terror of the public)

[Edited on February 19, 2007 at 1:38 PM. Reason : .]

2/19/2007 1:37:12 PM

im just pointing out that your "cheapness" argument breaks down. unless you are buying some italian collecters gun shotguns are always going to be the cheapest gun and no one is trying to take them away.

2/19/2007 1:39:53 PM

no, they aren't


you're wrong again about a subject you obviously know little about

"saturday night specials" are cheap, hell they don't always work, but who am I to use money as a means of determining who defends themselves or not

and you can't carry a shotgun on the street

women jogging at night can't carry a shotgun
old ladies that live in a bad neighborhood can't carry a shotgun

2/19/2007 1:43:32 PM

Quote :

"I'd appreciate it if you quit running this thread downhill with stupid shit, no one has advocated ownership or use of fighter jets to defend ones self"

But I thought you pointed out our fathers intended that the commoner be equipped with what a ground soldier would have. Are you now going to limit that to what he can carry on his person?

I think the absurd point that e30 is making is legit, and it's why I said a line has to be drawn somewhere.

You've already opened my eyes to the fact that maybe in a crazed madman situation, a hunting rifle isn't any different than an assault weapon. If this is really the case, can you point me to some sort of information where I can be educated on this matter? I think the general public probably has a fear of assault weapons. This may or may not be substantiated, but I haven't seen any commercials or literature educating me about this fact.

I know this question will draw some ire and some "you're a dumbass comments" but why are we equipping our soldiers with assault weapons if hunting rifles are better killing instruments?

2/19/2007 1:45:12 PM

if an experienced hunter who writes in a hunting magazine didnt know there was a legitimate point for assault rifles then you shouldnt feel like a dumbass

2/19/2007 1:48:06 PM

^ I agree, he messed up big time with his blog... tons of people have been getting into shooting ARs competitively and for varmint hunting

plenty of people still hunt with SKSs (they're dirt cheap)

^^ground soldiers don't have planes though

as for the reason troops carry them

there are a few

the Stoner designed Colt Rifle M16 A1 was designed as a select fire rifle that functions with the new .223 rem round. The round shoots a 55 grain (or 62 grain) .22 caliber bullet that is easy to carry in quantity (our old rifles were .30 cal)

the gun is lightweight, unlike the M14s and M1s before it, uses ammo that is easy to carry in quantity, and does a great job of taking out 2-3 men for every one person hit with it (doctors, meds, etc)

lightweight easily removed/replaced magazines (any of us can carry a shit ton of rounds)

government contracts, easy to build, plastic parts, etc (cheaper to field an army with these than it is to field an army with hunting rifles)

ammo is dirt cheap compared to hunting rounds

less failure from most mil spec weapons as opposed to hunting rifles


some generals have even blamed the GCA of 34 and 68 as being the worst legislation ever passed when it comes to maintaining our defense as a country, because it effectively halted firearm ideas and designs from private individuals... the best machine guns ever designed and built were designed by private inventors (John Browning for one)


anyway

I myself prefer the Kalashnikov designed AK-47 rifle over an AR but for functionality reasons more than anything

and as part of my "teach a new person to shoot every month" idea I have been toying with lately...

I'd be happy to take any of you who are interested out to my farm where I can teach you gun safety, gun design, ammo types, and show you how to shoot safely with a range of different firearms from the AK and AR to semi-automatic handguns and revolvers, to shotguns and deer hunting rifles

let me know if you're interested, shooting and hunting are tradional activities and any chance I have at teaching new people I welcome

[Edited on February 19, 2007 at 2:01 PM. Reason : .]

[Edited on February 19, 2007 at 2:18 PM. Reason : ..]

2/19/2007 2:00:31 PM

Quote :

"Take an unskilled shooter, say, some guy that shoots guns but isn't trained and isn't what you would call a marksman, will be able to kill more people in a mall/school with an assault weapon or a hunting rifle?"

Quote :

"I just find that hard to believe (and I think many other non-gun people would too) that a guy wielding an assault weapon walking into a crowded food court at the mall and filling the air with lead can't do more damage (ok, I said "kill" earlier, but injury too) this way than with a hunting rifle."

hmmm...I'll say "it depends." In a food-court scenario, I'd take an AK-47. it has enough power (though still less than most hunting rifles) and holds a lot of ammo. not very accurate, but in a food court, you don't need to be. AR-15 would be ok, but a lot less power. hunting rifles are usually much more powerful, but don't hold as much ammo (plenty of hunting rifles are semi-automatic, so that's the same across the board).

HOWEVER, if I wanted to go shoot up the food court at the mall, I wouldn't use ANY sort of rifle. I'd use my pistol, and maybe an illegally sawed-off 12-gauge shotgun. any rifle is going to be far more unwieldy and difficult to bring in unnoticed.

Quote :

"I've shot numerous ARs, AKs and deer rifles... and I'd be more afraid of anyone trying to kill me with a deer rifle than some jackass with an AK or an AR not to mention penetration is much greater from the deer rifle and cover isn't as effective"

yep, i agree. a hunting rifle is quite easy for even a novice to shoot very accurately. telescopic sights...smooth, light trigger...inherently better accuracy capability than an "assault" rifle, which compromises accuracy for simplicity, light weight, etc.

Quote :

"a sniper basically uses a deer rifle to get his job done, does it well too... I think it's very valid to mention a sniper, he doesn't sit there with an AR"

yep. i think it's quite valid, too. an assault rifle isn't the best tool for the job for shooting up the food court, but a hunting rifle is by far the best tool for the job for sniping (and such crimes have actually been committed). it's just that every politician knows that outlawing hunting rifles is an uphill battle, at best.

Quote :

"I don't think the insurgents are really kicking our ass. They are preventing democracy from working and preventing peace, but I wouldn't say they are kicking our ass."

i think that his point is that armed citizens don't need to be able to go toe-to-toe with the DoD in order to enact change if the shit really were to hit the fan.

i don't think that's really an very likely scenario and is way down the list on my reasons for despising many gun control measures, but I wouldn't call pwrstrkdf250 incorrect about it.

Quote :

"but you dont realistically believe that no one is going to take your guns? "

there are people--to include people in power--who absolutely desire to take every gun I have. I don't think it's likely to happen (although needless draconian measures that limit what types of guns I buy and how much of a headache it is to do so, not to mention how i'm allowed to use them, are certainly plausible).

hell, look at what happened in New Orleans following Hurricane Katrina.

Quote :

"im not allowed to legally own one"

you can own a supersonic jet fighter. it just costs more than you can imagine. millions to buy and thousands of dollars per hour to operate.

Quote :

"you can own a surplus jet, but as soon as you go supersonic they take your pilots license and will likely take the jet. lots of people own mil-surplus jets but you arent allowed to arm them or go supersonic. i need both of these to protect myself from air support while defending my guns from the evil opressive government."

dude, even the military can't take them supersonic over land. you can't break 250 kias below 10,000', either. this has NOTHING to do with any sort of arms. you're bringing FAA regulations into this, which are completely unrelated.

Quote :

"im just pointing out that your "cheapness" argument breaks down. unless you are buying some italian collecters gun shotguns are always going to be the cheapest gun and no one is trying to take them away. "

I disagree, mostly with the former statement, but also slightly with the latter.

2/19/2007 2:54:14 PM

Quote :

"hell, look at what happened in New Orleans following Hurricane Katrina. "

they've already said it was a mistake and they wont do that again, stop fear mongering

2/19/2007 3:00:24 PM

they did?


did they give all the possessions back to the rightful owners?

last I heard they had no plans on returning their firearms


if they did I am glad, shocked too

the fact remains that they took them from law abiding citizens in the first place, sent swat teams after old ladies, arrested and confiscated peoples property


guess what, that was the national guard from other states and COPS from OTHER CITIES

2/19/2007 3:04:10 PM

Quote :

"they've already said it was a mistake and they wont do that again"

well shit, that puts me at ease.



[Edited on February 19, 2007 at 3:07 PM. Reason : yeah, i'm sure they regret the shit out of it since the NRA has been hammering their titties.]

2/19/2007 3:07:24 PM

ooops, we didn't mean to violate your rights!!!!

I honestly wish some of those people had fought back and that the issue would have been on the news

but I'm sure the govt would have found something about everyone that made it ok to do what they were doing

"it's ok, these people had an illegal turtle in an aquarium, so we used machine guns and tear gas to get them out, they refused to leave after all that so we flew over their home with a blackhawk and filled it with machine gun fire until it started burning, we'll call the fire department in 40 minutes to put it out... we couldn't find the turtle and we killed everyone so they can't testify, my bad"

[Edited on February 19, 2007 at 3:13 PM. Reason : ...]

2/19/2007 3:12:49 PM

http://youtube.com/watch?v=WHvAfTU2haE

2/19/2007 3:49:43 PM

I didn't know if I was gonna be able to find these videos again

and I've posted them before, but as far as I'm concerned it needs to be seen by everyone

http://www.gunowners.org/abcnews.mpg

mms://a568.v129484.c12948.g.vm.akamaistream.net/7/568/12948/v0001/vod.ibsys.com/2005/0908/4946889.300k.wmv

http://www.givethemback.com/pages/never

2/20/2007 1:53:35 PM

^ Yeah, I'm not really sure why the police needed to go house to house at gunpoint. I think it also is pretty indicative of how easy it would be for guns to be confiscated if the government really wanted.

From the first page:

Quote :

"It really feels like in this day and age that none of our rights are 100% iron clad."

Truth is, they never are unless we vigorously assert and defend them.

2/21/2007 7:36:48 PM