Jump to content
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

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

4 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. 

As a liberal, this is where we lose - because what you call a despot, we might call a great President.  And since conservatives typically own more guns, a hippie liberal commie pinko guy like me is screwed when the stuff hits the fan.  :wall:

 

I think the question is where you draw the line, because it can be blurry.  When it comes down to it, a tank is just a big mobile gun.

Grenade launchers?

Automatic guns?

Semi-automatic guns?

Pistols?

Toy guns?

To date, our government has said yes to semi-automatic and no to automatic.  Some believe it is too strict, others believe not strict enough.  People just disagree where that line is.

 

Hippie liberal commie pinko guy like me also believes that if you need an automatic gun to go hunting, you may just want to go to a butcher shop because you are doing it wrong.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, mcintyre1 said:

 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.

This is exactly our point.  We bifurcate handguns/hunting rifles and semi-auto AR15s with 100-round drums.  The latter fits into the category you described above.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, timschochet said:

I go back and forth on this. 

But here's my main question: if we do ban them, what about all the ones already out there? 

i know Philly and plenty of other cities offer gun buy-back programs. give multiple chances to sell back the gun for 3-4 times what it is worth. minor dent in city budget should justify saving a few lives

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 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.

 

Military, counterterrorism units, and SWAT - that's it... Nobody else has any practical use for these things.

One day we'll have a politician with balls to stand up to the NRA.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Captain Cranks said:

This is exactly our point.  We bifurcate handguns/hunting rifles and semi-auto AR15s with 100-round drums.  The latter fits into the category you described above.  

And I can see that point, definitely a big reason why my beliefs have wavered in recent years. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, mcintyre1 said:

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.

That line was forever crossed to me when some maniac walked into an elementary school and killed a bunch of little children.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Full automatics are not banned. They are heavily regulated and are VERY expensive. Like $10k expensive. 

Anyone willing to convert a semi automatic to full automatic is not worried about spending 20 yrs in jail on a firearms charge, so avoiding additional background checks or buying illegally will not slow them down.

As far as I know, a legally registered fully automatic weapon has never been traced to a violent crime. 

Why are cars that exceed the speed limit legal? ;)

:fishing:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, fantasycurse42 said:

Minimum mandatory sentence of like 10-15 years, that'll thin the herd. It'll take some time, but the groundwork will be laid and in a generation or two, they'll almost all be gone.

I don't own one, or want to really. But I have a few friends that do, and they enjoy them alot. They're not going  kill anyone, I promise you. And I don't think you should be able to take  them from them. 

The end

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Lester Burnham said:

Full automatics are not banned. They are heavily regulated and are VERY expensive. Like $10k expensive. 

Anyone willing to convert a semi automatic to full automatic is not worried about spending 20 yrs in jail on a firearms charge, so avoiding additional background checks or buying illegally will not slow them down.

As far as I know, a legally registered fully automatic weapon has never been traced to a violent crime. 

Why are cars that exceed the speed limit legal? ;)

:fishing:

Sort of.  Fully automatics made before 1986 are still legal.  They are so costly because there are only a finite number of them remaining in circulation. 

And yes, those owning these weapons are not committing crimes because they cost so damn much and are so hard to find.  The ones that are being used are converted or brought in from outside the US. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Redwes25 said:

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. 

The problem is, in 2008, the Supreme Court Heller decision (5-4) took the legs out from under this argument, so it will literally take an act of Congress to overturn the Supreme Court's decision.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Cowboysfan8 said:

I don't own one, or want to really. But I have a few friends that do, and they enjoy them alot. They're not going  kill anyone, I promise you. And I don't think you should be able to take  them from them. 

The end

And these guns could never be stolen from them?

Or sold to someone else with different views?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Lester Burnham said:

Full automatics are not banned. They are heavily regulated and are VERY expensive. Like $10k expensive. 

Anyone willing to convert a semi automatic to full automatic is not worried about spending 20 yrs in jail on a firearms charge, so avoiding additional background checks or buying illegally will not slow them down.

As far as I know, a legally registered fully automatic weapon has never been traced to a violent crime. 

Why are cars that exceed the speed limit legal? ;)

:fishing:

Don't you need a special registration/approval to buy one?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, lakerstan said:

The problem is, in 2008, the Supreme Court Heller decision (5-4) took the legs out from under this argument, so it will literally take an act of Congress to overturn the Supreme Court's decision.

Not disagreeing with what Heller did but I don't think the "so called" originalists that wrote the majority really found the original intent but found what they wanted to find. 

Edited by Redwes25
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Cowboysfan8 said:

I don't own one, or want to really. But I have a few friends that do, and they enjoy them alot. They're not going  kill anyone, I promise you. And I don't think you should be able to take  them from them. 

The end

In the end, this is still the most compelling argument for me. If I truly believed that we could save lives by banning them, I'd be for that, and I wouldn't care about this argument. But I have my doubts that this is the case. And unless somebody can convince me that it really would save lives, I don't see why we should take away these guns from law abiding citizens who enjoy using them. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Redwes25 said:

Not disagreeing with what Heller did but I don't think the "so called" originalists that wrote the majority really found the original intent but found what they wanted to find. 

I agree with you, and I believe the Supreme Court was incorrect as well.  But until something changes it, guns gonna shoot.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, timschochet said:

In the end, this is still the most compelling argument for me. If I truly believed that we could save lives by banning them, I'd be for that, and I wouldn't care about this argument. But I have my doubts that this is the case. And unless somebody can convince me that it really would save lives, I don't see why we should take away these guns from law abiding citizens who enjoy using them. 

Holy Crap! Tim said something that I agree with!

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, timschochet said:

In the end, this is still the most compelling argument for me. If I truly believed that we could save lives by banning them, I'd be for that, and I wouldn't care about this argument. But I have my doubts that this is the case. And unless somebody can convince me that it really would save lives, I don't see why we should take away these guns from law abiding citizens who enjoy using them. 

Has anyone posted that Onion article in here yet? Or that chart of gun deaths in developed nations. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Northern Voice said:

Has anyone posted that Onion article in here yet? Or that chart of gun deaths in developed nations. 

Gun deaths in developed nations? Haven't seen it, but I assume we're winning.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, Redwes25 said:

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. 

However, the members of the militia owned the guns, not the state. All able-bodied men in Idaho are members of the State militia and could be called out to defend the state. Not sure about other states where I have lived.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, lakerstan said:

  And since conservatives typically own more guns, a hippie liberal commie pinko guy like me is screwed when the stuff hits the fan.  :wall:

Damn right you are! But if you stay in your city and accept slow starvation, you probably have nothing to fear from us gun-toting rednecks living in the country.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, fantasycurse42 said:

Gun deaths in developed nations? Haven't seen it, but I assume we're winning.

I've seen it posted elsewhere on Twitter, but here it's the second chart under the 2nd point (Edit - The very first chart shows the same thing), appropriately titled: More guns mean more gun deaths. Period.

That article was posted last October, so it's not a reaction to this specific shooting (though I'm sure it was to one of them).

Edited by Northern Voice
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Quote

I don't own one, or want to really. But I have a few friends that do, and they enjoy them alot. They're not going  kill anyone, I promise you. And I don't think you should be able to take  them from them. 

The end

 

8 minutes ago, timschochet said:

In the end, this is still the most compelling argument for me. If I truly believed that we could save lives by banning them, I'd be for that, and I wouldn't care about this argument. But I have my doubts that this is the case. And unless somebody can convince me that it really would save lives, I don't see why we should take away these guns from law abiding citizens who enjoy using them. 

Really?  This is the most compelling argument?  I guess since he "promised" none of his friends will kill anyone, that is good enough for me!  Guessing Omar Mateen had friends too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Andy Dufresne said:

Until liberals would tone down their anti-anti-gun zealotry, rhetoric, and preference for governmental overreach there will be no compromise.

Nobody on the right believes you want to stop at assault rifles.

:shrug:

I'm starting to think 45 MPH is safer than 55 MPH.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, bueno said:

However, the members of the militia owned the guns, not the state. All able-bodied men in Idaho are members of the State militia and could be called out to defend the state. Not sure about other states where I have lived.

We don't need able-bodied anything to defend a state, it's not 1784.  HTH

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, dparker713 said:

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

What? "Hey look, here comes an M-1 tank backed up by Reaper drones. Hand me my AR-15. I'll stop 'em!!!"

Surprised the most obvious reason hasn't been brought up yet......

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, RUSF18 said:

If meaningful progress on gun control in this country can legitimately be impeded by "but people enjoy them" we're really, truly ####ed. 

Cigarettes still kill more people than guns, yet they are still legal. Lets not bring logic into this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, FishTacoTuesday said:

We don't need able-bodied anything to defend a state, it's not 1784.  HTH

The laws are still on the books. And Idaho does border a foreign country. Not that Canada's three canoes and 15 dog sleds are much of a threat  but still.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, bueno said:
4 minutes ago, FishTacoTuesday said:

We don't need able-bodied anything to defend a state, it's not 1784.  HTH

The laws are still on the books. And Idaho does border a foreign country. Not that Canada's three canoes and 15 dog sleds are much of a threat  but still.

Idaho National Guard down?  I think we already thought of that. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Lester Burnham said:

how many other countries have our bill of rights? Apples to oranges comparisons with countries not like us are useless. Lets compare state to state.

The English Bill of Rights, 1689, which predates the US by 100ish years, contains this passage, "That the subjects which are Protestants may have arms for their defence suitable to their conditions and as allowed by law." That bill of rights was then taken to most British Commonwealth countries (including Canada). The laws in most have them have evolved past 430 year old statutes :shrug:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Northern Voice said:

The English Bill of Rights, 1689, which predates the US by 100ish years, contains this passage, "That the subjects which are Protestants may have arms for their defence suitable to their conditions and as allowed by law." That bill of rights was then taken to most British Commonwealth countries (including Canada). The laws in most have them have evolved past 430 year old statutes :shrug:

Clearly all catholics here are killers 

Edited by Lester Burnham
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Andy Dufresne said:

It's at least as solid of an argument as "well, you don't NEED to own them".

How about they can kill a lot of people rather quickly, they aren't difficult to obtain, and we have lax gun laws where people like this Orlando guy, James Holmes, and the sandy hook scumbag can get their hands on them without much difficulty... Is that better? Plus they are far from a necessity in 2016 USA.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Hov34 said:

So if this idiot didn't have access to the type of weapons he had, what would he have done to cause the chaos he did?  Because I don't think he would have been deterred.

He'd have gone in with a shotgun and the carnage, while lessened of course, would have been enough to "begin the conversation" about banning shotguns.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Hov34 said:

So if this idiot didn't have access to the type of weapons he had, what would he have done to cause the chaos he did?  Because I don't think he would have been deterred.

 

 

He would've killed 5 people or 7 people, not 50 while wounding over 50 more.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, fantasycurse42 said:

How about they can kill a lot of people rather quickly, they aren't difficult to obtain, and we have lax gun laws where people like this Orlando guy, James Holmes, and the sandy hook scumbag can get their hands on them without much difficulty... Is that better? Plus they are far from a necessity in 2016 USA.

Yes, those are more compelling arguments.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, fantasycurse42 said:

Handgun down? I'd think they'd be easier to carry around. Furthermore, if a handgun isn't adequate, you might not be suited to use an assault rifle.

Not that I disagree with your original point (I'm fine with banning them), but a handgun is pretty damn hard to shoot with any accuracy. I'd say a good chunk of the population would have a much smaller chance than you'd think of successfully stopping a home invasion with a handgun. They'd make Lloyd Christmas look like a Navy SEAL. 

You probably mean shotgun, which is what most people would really need. 

But yeah, the general public really doesn't need assault rifles, even though they are a hell of a lot of fun to shoot. Whether it makes sense to outlaw them, or how, I really don't know.

Link to comment
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.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
  • Create New...