Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
Sign in to follow this  
fantasycurse42

Why would anyone need an assault rifle?

Assault Rifles  

441 members have voted

You do not have permission to vote in this poll, or see the poll results. Please sign in or register to vote in this poll.

Recommended Posts

2 minutes ago, timschochet said:

No. What does this mean? 

It means you can adjust it easily so people can customize. For example Change the typo of ammo it uses. Google is your friend on this one. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, tommyboy said:

Do you morons realize that AR-15 is a platform and not a gun?

I'm surprised that with your profound understanding of firearms that you're still arriving at the wrong conclusion. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, dparker713 said:

Bump stocks and replacement triggers are the legal methods I'm aware of.

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Still haven't received one reasonable answer to this, though it was kind of a rhetorical question.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, 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.

 

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, 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.

Brilliant stuff here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, 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.

What is magical about 55?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, fantasycurse42 said:

Still haven't received one reasonable answer to this, though it was kind of a rhetorical question.

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, 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.

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

  • Like 7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, 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.

The tide is turning on assault rifles... Maybe 10, 20, or 30 years, but one day these things will be banned

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can we at the very least ban the high capacity cartridges?

That would be a start.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, 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.

Successful deflection.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, dparker713 said:

What is magical about 55?

Clearly if nobody had access to cars that go faster than 55mph it would save more lives. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, tommyboy said:

Do you morons realize that AR-15 is a platform and not a gun?

Ctrl+F through the Constitution and couldn't find the word platform

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, 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.

To extend that thought, what if the government fails? If it does, I want to be as heavily armed as possible.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, 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.

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, fantasycurse42 said:

 

2) They're fun

 

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).

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Eephus said:

Ctrl+F through the Constitution and couldn't find the word platform

:lmao:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Dexter said:

Why would anyone need a car that goes faster than 55 mph?

Because when the speed limit is 70, you'll get run over otherwise.

Edited by Henry Ford

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, 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.

 

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, 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.

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. 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Henry Ford said:

Because the minimum speed on one of the highways near my house is 60.

Take a different road. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, 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.

Distinction without a difference. Who cares that the government owns them if nutsos can still get their hands on them?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, 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.

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. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, 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.

 

Sure, but officers and agents have still used government owned weapons in similar attacks, was my point. I don't think they cared who paid for them once they got them in their hands. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Christo said:

Distinction without a difference. Who cares that the government owns them if nutsos can still get their hands on them?

So, you're recommending more strenuous screening of law enforcement?  Sure, sounds great.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, 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. 

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.

Edited by mcintyre1
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

  • Like 9

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, 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

Ski Ball is life or death, mang. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, dparker713 said:

So, you're recommending more strenuous screening of law enforcement?  Sure, sounds great.

Absolutely. Hillary's State Dept. stopped checking out the Orlando shooter because it as 'politically incorrect'. Obviously that was the wrong decision. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, dparker713 said:

So, you're recommending more strenuous screening of law enforcement?  Sure, sounds great.

No, just more strenuous screening for everyone.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, FishTacoTuesday said:

Ski Ball is life or death, mang. 

you won't believe how many people don't ####### understand that you don't roll the ball with backspin in Ski Ball. not my fault they can't abide by the rules. i've dropped a few dads with a ball to the face and a gun butt.  guess who doesn't ever have to wait for SKi Ball anymore. 

this ####### guy

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, 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. 

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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, 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

:oldunsure:

Police: 5 teens injured in playground shooting

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, 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?

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. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, 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. 

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...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, 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.

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. 

Edited by Redwes25
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, mcintyre1 said:

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. 

If it were a popular uprising, rifles, shotguns and handguns would be enough.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Dexter said:

Take a different road. 

You've clearly never been to rural Louisiana.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.