What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

Why would anyone need an assault rifle? (5 Viewers)

Assault Rifles

  • Ban them

    Votes: 309 74.6%

  • They have many uses outside of killing a lot of people in a short amount of time

    Votes: 105 25.4%
  • Total voters
    414
dparker713 said:
Bump stocks and replacement triggers are the legal methods I'm aware of.
Click to expand...
As I posted in the Orlando thread, there's a "Real Sports" segment on the popularity of sporting assault rifles.  They showed a $99 mod (legal) that made the semi-auto approximate a fully auto.  However in the same segment, it was pointed out that military manuals suggest soldiers operate their guns in semi mode as it was more accurate, economical and provided a better kill ratio.

So yeah, we can't buy a fully auto AR-15, but we can buy the one that operates as recommended by the military.

 
Anyhow it will never happen. If we couldn't have reasonable gun laws after Sandy Hook, if we can't even prohibit suspected terrorists on a no fly list from buying guns, a ban is never gonna fly. 

The NRA has never been as powerful as they are right now. 

 
comfortably numb said:
The speed limit is 70 in some areas?

I'd actually be fine with cars being made/modified to not go over 80ish as a law.
Click to expand...
Yeah but you don't need to drive on those roads. you could take the highway and get to where you're going. Anything above 55 is stupid not needed.

 
fantasycurse42 said:
Still haven't received one reasonable answer to this, though it was kind of a rhetorical question.
Click to expand...
You never will, but after nothing changed post Sandy Hook I don't expect anything to change in any of our lifetimes. Unfortunately, our nation is populated by a lot of very dumb people and enough of them also have a lot of money.

 
Dexter said:
Yeah but you don't need to drive on those roads. you could take the highway and get to where you're going. Anything above 55 is stupid not needed.
Click to expand...
Not true. Even if you stick to roads where the limit is 55, personal safety calls for you to be able to accelerate in certain circumstances.

 
I guess I'll take a stab at a serious answer, even though I know I'll get vilified by some on this board. I'm sure at least some of you recognize me as one of the board Liberals that occasionally gets combative, but this is a point on which I differ from nearly all Liberals. I think that the true intent of the 2nd Amendment was to act as a last defense against our own government. Everyone likes to think "that could never happen here" when it comes to despotism or totalitarianism, but history shows us that simply by nature of being a democracy, we are vulnerable. I'm sure some will argue that, even if that was the original intent, technology has made it irrelevant, but I highly disagree. I'm not saying it'd be easy to overthrow a mythical totalitarian government that controlled a good chunk of the US military, but without military style weapons among the populace that chance is basically zero. Frankly I think it functions better as a deterrent than a post-fact solution. 

All of that said, I'm more and more pained as events like these happen again and again, wondering at what point it no longer becomes worth it.

 
MAC_32 said:
You never will, but after nothing changed post Sandy Hook I don't expect anything to change in any of our lifetimes. Unfortunately, our nation is populated by a lot of very dumb people and enough of them also have a lot of money.
Click to expand...
The tide is turning on assault rifles... Maybe 10, 20, or 30 years, but one day these things will be banned

 
mcintyre1 said:
I guess I'll take a stab at a serious answer, even though I know I'll get vilified by some on this board. I'm sure at least some of you recognize me as one of the board Liberals that occasionally gets combative, but this is a point on which I differ from nearly all Liberals. I think that the true intent of the 2nd Amendment was to act as a last defense against our own government. Everyone likes to think "that could never happen here" when it comes to despotism or totalitarianism, but history shows us that simply by nature of being a democracy, we are vulnerable. I'm sure some will argue that, even if that was the original intent, technology has made it irrelevant, but I highly disagree. I'm not saying it'd be easy to overthrow a mythical totalitarian government that controlled a good chunk of the US military, but without military style weapons among the populace that chance is basically zero. Frankly I think it functions better as a deterrent than a post-fact solution. 

All of that said, I'm more and more pained as events like these happen again and again, wondering at what point it no longer becomes worth it.
Click to expand...
To extend that thought, what if the government fails? If it does, I want to be as heavily armed as possible.

 
mcintyre1 said:
I guess I'll take a stab at a serious answer, even though I know I'll get vilified by some on this board. I'm sure at least some of you recognize me as one of the board Liberals that occasionally gets combative, but this is a point on which I differ from nearly all Liberals. I think that the true intent of the 2nd Amendment was to act as a last defense against our own government. Everyone likes to think "that could never happen here" when it comes to despotism or totalitarianism, but history shows us that simply by nature of being a democracy, we are vulnerable. I'm sure some will argue that, even if that was the original intent, technology has made it irrelevant, but I highly disagree. I'm not saying it'd be easy to overthrow a mythical totalitarian government that controlled a good chunk of the US military, but without military style weapons among the populace that chance is basically zero. Frankly I think it functions better as a deterrent than a post-fact solution. 

All of that said, I'm more and more pained as events like these happen again and again, wondering at what point it no longer becomes worth it.
Click to expand...
Its a reasonable reading of the amendment, but then you should be pushing for opening up the sale of RPGs, grenade launchers, tanks, Reaper drones, etc. to US citizens.

 
fantasycurse42 said:
2) They're fun
Click to expand...
You mock this reason, but its legit. 99% (guess, obviously) of people who buy an assault rifle will take it out to have fun shooting a target and never do anything illegal with it. 

So why should the gov't deny the 99% an enjoyable hobby because of the 1% #### ups? 

(I'm not saying the gov't shouldn't do that, but I don't think its an easy question at all).

 
Walking Boot said:
I have no problem "banning" them, but...

We're never going to stop the military and federal agents from having them.

We're not going to stop letting the police have them.

The Orlando shooter was a licensed security guard who worked for a federal Dept. of Homeland Security subcontractor and had taken police training. I don't know if it's been specified if he just took classes or, at some point, was enrolled in police academy.

But, preventing someone with those credentials from getting an assault rifle is not reasonable.

And a few of these incidents have come from military personnel, from cops, from federal agents, etc.

Better screening is my key, not stopping the guns themselves.
Click to expand...
Of course its reasonable to block the private ownership of these weapons regardless of a person's training.  The police departments and federal agencies own those weapons, not the officers or agents.

 
mcintyre1 said:
I guess I'll take a stab at a serious answer, even though I know I'll get vilified by some on this board. I'm sure at least some of you recognize me as one of the board Liberals that occasionally gets combative, but this is a point on which I differ from nearly all Liberals. I think that the true intent of the 2nd Amendment was to act as a last defense against our own government. Everyone likes to think "that could never happen here" when it comes to despotism or totalitarianism, but history shows us that simply by nature of being a democracy, we are vulnerable. I'm sure some will argue that, even if that was the original intent, technology has made it irrelevant, but I highly disagree. I'm not saying it'd be easy to overthrow a mythical totalitarian government that controlled a good chunk of the US military, but without military style weapons among the populace that chance is basically zero. Frankly I think it functions better as a deterrent than a post-fact solution.

All of that said, I'm more and more pained as events like these happen again and again, wondering at what point it no longer becomes worth it.
Click to expand...
What do you think the odds are that American citizens will need to violently overthrow the government in the near future? How about the odds of a mass shooting? I think we've long since passed the point where it's worth it. 

 
dparker713 said:
Of course its reasonable to block the private ownership of these weapons regardless of a person's training.  The police departments and federal agencies own those weapons, not the officers or agents.
Click to expand...
Distinction without a difference. Who cares that the government owns them if nutsos can still get their hands on them?

 
dparker713 said:
Its a reasonable reading of the amendment, but then you should be pushing for opening up the sale of RPGs, grenade launchers, tanks, Reaper drones, etc. to US citizens.
Click to expand...
I can see why you'd go that route, but I actually disagree with that. I think those types of weapons are too dangerous for random people to own and literally serve no purpose other than to fight a revolution or something similar. Guns still have sporting or pleasure uses that are reasonable. My rationale is that, if 'revolution' comes, guns are enough. All of those fancy things need supplies to function and are largely dispersed throughout the entire country. A despot would struggle immensely to secure all of those stockpiles and armories across an entire country during a revolution. I'd also expect that at least some of the army wouldn't want to shoot their friends and family. 

 
SameSongNDance said:
What do you think the odds are that American citizens will need to violently overthrow the government in the near future? How about the odds of a mass shooting? I think we've long since passed the point where it's worth it. 
Click to expand...
And that's where you're probably right. The part of me that loves to stand on principal wants to hold on, but the pragmatist in me screams it isn't close to worth it. It's a belief that I've been struggling over for years now.

To expand on this, I personally think that a lot of our current problems with mass shootings stem from other issues that we're not addressing by just taking away the guns. We need immensely better mental and physical healthcare access. We need to reign in our own government's love of foreign intervention and shadowy dealings that's sparked this modern wave of extremism, but that won't happen until we change how we elect our politicians. I think taking away the guns would stem the numbers quite a bit, but there are other underlying problems that we're largely ignoring.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
only ever bring my Kalashnikov when we go to Chuck E Cheese.  let's the older kids know i'm ####### serious about the ball pit rules. some kid gets a little casual and starts throwing the balls a little too hard and i pop off a handful of rounds in to the ceiling to let them know i'm not to be ####ed with.  mom & dad want a piece? they can go home without a leg.

it's my right to defend myself

 
mr. furley said:
only ever bring my Kalashnikov when we go to Chuck E Cheese.  let's the older kids know i'm ####### serious about the ball pit rules. some kid gets a little casual and starts throwing the balls a little too hard and i pop off a handful of rounds in to the ceiling to let them know i'm not to be ####ed with.  mom & dad want a piece? they can go home without a leg.

it's my right to defend myself
Click to expand...
Ski Ball is life or death, mang. 

 
I wasn't being flippant. Every reason I have given is a valid one for someone who lives in a rural area with no hope of rapid police response.

A semiautomatic for me in my situation is not unreasonable.

 
mcintyre1 said:
I can see why you'd go that route, but I actually disagree with that. I think those types of weapons are too dangerous for random people to own and literally serve no purpose other than to fight a revolution or something similar. Guns still have sporting or pleasure uses that are reasonable. My rationale is that, if 'revolution' comes, guns are enough. All of those fancy things need supplies to function and are largely dispersed throughout the entire country. A despot would struggle immensely to secure all of those stockpiles and armories across an entire country during a revolution. I'd also expect that at least some of the army wouldn't want to shoot their friends and family. 
Click to expand...
This makes zero sense.  I'm pretty sure firing an RPG and exploding a old car would be fun as ####.  And guns are enough?  Is that why the insurgents in Iraq created so many IEDs?

 
What an upside down conversation this is. There is no path to reasonable conversation regarding gun ownership. NONE! It does not exist.

Until thieves no longer govern us, and poverty is eliminated - we will continue to reap what we sow, as we always have.

 
mr. furley said:
only ever bring my Kalashnikov when we go to Chuck E Cheese.  let's the older kids know i'm ####### serious about the ball pit rules. some kid gets a little casual and starts throwing the balls a little too hard and i pop off a handful of rounds in to the ceiling to let them know i'm not to be ####ed with.  mom & dad want a piece? they can go home without a leg.

it's my right to defend myself
Click to expand...
:oldunsure:

Police: 5 teens injured in playground shooting

A gunman shot and wounded five teens in an East Flatbush playground Monday, police say.

 
dparker713 said:
This makes zero sense.  I'm pretty sure firing an RPG and exploding a old car would be fun as ####.  And guns are enough?  Is that why the insurgents in Iraq created so many IEDs?
Click to expand...
I thought I was fairly clear, but I guess I'll reiterate, the guns are enough to get you the rest if the time comes. 

 
SameSongNDance said:
What do you think the odds are that American citizens will need to violently overthrow the government in the near future? How about the odds of a mass shooting? I think we've long since passed the point where it's worth it. 
Click to expand...
If you listen to some of the Clinton supporters we might need to violently overthrow the government as early as next January if Trump is elected...

 
mcintyre1 said:
I guess I'll take a stab at a serious answer, even though I know I'll get vilified by some on this board. I'm sure at least some of you recognize me as one of the board Liberals that occasionally gets combative, but this is a point on which I differ from nearly all Liberals. I think that the true intent of the 2nd Amendment was to act as a last defense against our own government. Everyone likes to think "that could never happen here" when it comes to despotism or totalitarianism, but history shows us that simply by nature of being a democracy, we are vulnerable. I'm sure some will argue that, even if that was the original intent, technology has made it irrelevant, but I highly disagree. I'm not saying it'd be easy to overthrow a mythical totalitarian government that controlled a good chunk of the US military, but without military style weapons among the populace that chance is basically zero. Frankly I think it functions better as a deterrent than a post-fact solution. 

All of that said, I'm more and more pained as events like these happen again and again, wondering at what point it no longer becomes worth it.
Click to expand...
I don't disagree with the thinking around this but it goes to the militia language and the constitution prior to incorporation of 14th amendment that said constitiution applies to states. Think real intent was that the federal government could not ban guns in a manner that would infringe the states rights to have local militias to fight against the evil central government. Limiting the sale of assault rifles like the ar15 to individuals doesn't impact the right of states to have militias. 

If you think of the experience of the founders where state and local militias existed to fight the UK that is comparable to need of militias to fight the federal government. Not for individuals to stockpile their own personal arsenals not tied to state militias. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

GordonGekko
New York Enacts Ridiculous New Gun Laws: "I’m A NYC Liberal, And I Want A Gun" (7/3/22 20:29 PST)
Replies
28
Views
802
FairWarning
FairWarning

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 6 (members: 0, guests: 6)
Top