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

22 minutes ago, GrandpaRox said:

Again did we not have those for Iraq and Afghanistan? We are still sending people home in body bags and got our collective backsides kicked. Plus I did not say to overthrow the government at any time. 

We didn't get our assed kicked in Iraq or Afghanistan

If the purpose of having assault rifles is as a counter balance to the federal government, having weapons that can actually defend against their capabilities would seem to be important.  Or do you think assault weapons are an effective countermeasure to air superiority?

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 4.1k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

to take out modern superanimals, like the flying squirrel or the electric eel.

Worth it even if it saves only one life imo.

You guys crack me up.  Nothing is going to happen to anyone's guns, people.  A guy walked into a school and  killed twenty children and nothing changed about who can own a gun.  Why would someone shoo

23 minutes ago, GrandpaRox said:

You sir are clueless and have no idea what you are talking about.  We could not take and hold a small city in Iraq when the enemy had IED's and weapons not near as effective as an AR 15 platform weapon. 

But now I am done. Read history, recent history and learn something. Google is your friend research just a few of the incidents I posted earlier.   Wow.

Had we chosen, we could have leveled every city in Iraq like we did Dresden.  Small arms are only a sufficient defense when we exercise discretion.  

Edited by dparker713
Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, SameSongNDance said:

No. I still think your claim that the reason we shouldn't ban assault rifles is because we need to be prepared for a foreign invasion is stupid. 

It's an idea you disagree with, that is a far cry from stupid. Why use that word? Many people feel similar and I understand many people can all be wrong. It's fine if you trust the United Nations and World Banks but I don't. In fact I find it pretty stupid that more people don't ask questions about who prints our money, what their motives and interests are in the World(pretty obvious $$$). 

Let's ban guns and take them away from everyone and then invite all types of folks into this country from other countries, should end up a happy story. I'm thinking instead that the folks with the guns should rise up and take back this country and put it in the hands of the real people who aren't inherently wealthy and drive these sons of #####es into the oceans, now who's with me?

"MOP, could you come down to the office and bring everything in your desk with you?" 

Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, GrandpaRox said:

So we are going to level most American cities like we fire bombed Dresden. Are your relatives gonna fire bomb you and your neighbors. You gonna kill your cousin in another city?

People struggling for survival will do nasty things.

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

People struggling for survival will do nasty things.

Sure.  But unless aliens attack, the American airman isn't dropping a nuke on New York City. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Warsteinner said:

Yeah. The Muslim in Orlando did 2 things. 1. He went into a gun free zone. 2 he chose a demographic that thinks guns are scary. Has anyone of those people had a carry license and gun or had the workers in SB been armed these massacres would not have been as bad. 

You mean anyone aside from off-duty cop that was there and engaged him?

Edited by Ignoramus
Never mind. I see this has been covered.
Link to post
Share on other sites

Because there is no such thing as an assault rifle.

Mine is a self-defense/target shooting rifle.

...or a Mickey Mouse Unicorn rifle if you prefer.

These are all made-up subjective terms that are used to describe a rifle that looks more scary than other rifles.

My 30-06 "hunting" rifle will put your ### 6 feet under much more efficiently than my scary looking "assault" rifle.

Why does anyone need a sports car?  They kill people, right?!  ...and they go wayyy to fast.  Seems excessive.

BAN ASSAULT CARS!!!!!

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, GrandpaRox said:

Obviously the only real solution to defend ourselves from all these invaders is fewer restrictions on who can own what weaponry.  I mean, the government has tanks... how are we supposed to combat that unless we can legally own TOW missiles?

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, spider321 said:

Because there is no such thing as an assault rifle.

Mine is a self-defense/target shooting rifle.

...or a Mickey Mouse Unicorn rifle if you prefer.

These are all made-up subjective terms that are used to describe a rifle that looks more scary than other rifles.

My 30-06 "hunting" rifle will put your ### 6 feet under much more efficiently than my scary looking "assault" rifle.

Why does anyone need a sports car?  They kill people, right?!  ...and they go wayyy to fast.  Seems excessive.

BAN ASSAULT CARS!!!!!

 

This is always such a stupid argument. How many sports cars are used to purposely kill people each year? Now, how many people die each year from purposely being shot by a gun?

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, 3C's said:

This is always such a stupid argument. How many sports cars are used to purposely kill people each year? Now, how many people die each year from purposely being shot by a gun?

We could go back and forth on this for eternity, but the ban you want is never going to happen.  

Most gun owners are never going give up their Constitutional right to bear arms.  ...and don't make the mistake of assuming that the majority of police officers and members of the military would be on your side even if you did find some liberal judges to overrule the Constitution.

Thousands, if not millions, of Americans would die if the government tried to take it's citizens 2nd Ammendment rights away from them.

So, blah, blah, blah, it ain't gonna happen.  

Sorry.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, spider321 said:

We could go back and forth on this for eternity, but the ban you want is never going to happen.  

Most gun owners are never going give up their Constitutional right to bear arms.  ...and don't make the mistake of assuming that the majority of police officers and members of the military would be on your side even if you did find some liberal judges to overrule the Constitution.

Thousands, if not millions, of Americans would die if the government tried to take it's citizens 2nd Ammendment rights away from them.

So, blah, blah, blah, it ain't gonna happen.  

Sorry.

Where did I say I want a ban? I said your argument is stupid...because it was. Motorcycles, cars, pools, and all these other devices people bring up to compare death rates to guns are  seldom if ever used to purposely kill other people.

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, 3C's said:

Where did I say I want a ban? I said your argument is stupid...because it was. Motorcycles, cars, pools, and all these other devices people bring up to compare death rates to guns are  seldom if ever used to purposely kill other people.

The point is that these people want to take away my Constitutional right just because they don't agree with it.  I hope you realize that is a very slippery slope.

 ...and that there is no such thing as an "assault" rifle.

Their wish to take away my "assault" rifle that has never harmed a single human being is no more valid than than if I wished to take away their Toyota Priuses because they are ugly.  ...or their tofu.  ...or whatever else liberal weenies are into these days.

But arguing about it and me getting mad on here this morning isn't worth it.

The line has been drawn in the sand already.  We aren't giving up our guns.

Argue away.

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, spider321 said:

The point is that these people want to take away my Constitutional right just because they don't agree with it.  I hope you realize that is a very slippery slope.

 ...and that there is no such thing as an "assault" rifle.

Their wish to take away my "assault" rifle that has never harmed a single human being is no more valid than than if I wished to take away their Toyota Priuses because they are ugly.  ...or their tofu.  ...or whatever else liberal weenies are into these days.

But arguing about it and me getting mad on here this morning isn't worth it.

The line has been drawn in the sand already.  We aren't giving up our guns.

Argue away.

You can say that the AR15 isn't one, but you can't say there is no such a thing as "assault" rifles.

Some want outright bans, some want smarter, tighter gun controls. Some, maybe you, want nothing done at all. Those who want nothing done at all are the problem.

Arguing about it and you getting mad isn't worth it yet here you are.

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Redwes25 said:

Happy to see that 75 percent of people in this poll want to ban these type of guns. Maybe there is some hope. 

Believe most of the country does as well. It's the idiots in Congress that have no desire for such thing to happen.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, 3C's said:

This is always such a stupid argument. How many sports cars are used to purposely kill people each year? Now, how many people die each year from purposely being shot by a gun?

I presume your intent to ban these types of weapons is to save lives.  So if that is the case it doesn't matter what sports cars and pools are intended to do. They kill people more so them guns, so by you logic they should be banned. Logic is your friend.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, boots11234 said:

I presume your intent to ban these types of weapons is to save lives.  So if that is the case it doesn't matter what sports cars and pools are intended to do. They kill people more so them guns, so by you logic they should be banned. Logic is your friend.  

So true, maybe you could use some.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, spider321 said:

Most gun owners are never going give up their Constitutional right to bear arms.  ...and don't make the mistake of assuming that the majority of police officers and members of the military would be on your side even if you did find some liberal judges to overrule the Constitution.

And please don't make the mistake of speaking for the military. I was in for a very long time. I knew few that owned high capacity weapons. Not everyone in the military, and nowhere near a majority, are the gun toting nuts you seem to want to believe they are.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I wonder how things would change if you made the seller responsible for the guns that are sold through their store instead of making the government responsible for the background checks. We hold bar owners responsible for selling to someone that seems intoxicated. Let the free market come up with a suitable system for background checks and quit relying on a system that obviously does not work. 

And please for the love of what ever god you follow, these civilian AR-15s that are being used are not freaking assault rifles.  An assault rifle is a fully automatic weapon and these guns that are being used are single shot weapons.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Buddy Ball 2K3 said:

I wonder how things would change if you made the seller responsible for the guns that are sold through their store instead of making the government responsible for the background checks. We hold bar owners responsible for selling to someone that seems intoxicated. Let the free market come up with a suitable system for background checks and quit relying on a system that obviously does not work. 

And please for the love of what ever god you follow, these civilian AR-15s that are being used are not freaking assault rifles.  An assault rifle is a fully automatic weapon and these guns that are being used are single shot weapons.  

I like to refer to them as high powered, high capacity murder instruments.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, 3C's said:

I like to refer to them as high powered, high capacity murder instruments.

Not particularly high powered, in fact I might argue otherwise.  Certainly capable of accepting high capacity magazines.  Certainly effective at murder, and in large numbers.

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Buddy Ball 2K3 said:

I wonder how things would change if you made the seller responsible for the guns that are sold through their store instead of making the government responsible for the background checks. We hold bar owners responsible for selling to someone that seems intoxicated. Let the free market come up with a suitable system for background checks and quit relying on a system that obviously does not work. 

And please for the love of what ever god you follow, these civilian AR-15s that are being used are not freaking assault rifles.  An assault rifle is a fully automatic weapon and these guns that are being used are single shot weapons.  

 AR15 is an assault rifle with the ability to fire automatic remove. It was designed by the military for use by the infantry. Also military rarely uses in full automatic mode but rather single shot since it is not accurate on full auto and more efficient on single shot. 

Edited by Redwes25
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Redwes25 said:

 AR15 is an assault rifle with the ability to fire automatic remove. It was designed by the military for use by the infantry. Also military rarely uses in full automatic mode but rather single shot since it is not accurate on full auto. 

I have shot them, I know what they are. Civilian AR-15s are not assault rifles. With this thinking you could call any semi-automatic long gone an assault rifle, they arent. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, spider321 said:

The point is that these people want to take away my Constitutional right just because they don't agree with it.  I hope you realize that is a very slippery slope.

 ...and that there is no such thing as an "assault" rifle.

Their wish to take away my "assault" rifle that has never harmed a single human being is no more valid than than if I wished to take away their Toyota Priuses because they are ugly.  ...or their tofu.  ...or whatever else liberal weenies are into these days.

But arguing about it and me getting mad on here this morning isn't worth it.

The line has been drawn in the sand already.  We aren't giving up our guns.

Argue away.

No one is talking about eliminating your Constitutional right.  People are talking about limiting your Constitutional right.  The Right to Bear Arms is no different from any other right in the Constitution - its subject to limits.

Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Buddy Ball 2K3 said:

I wonder how things would change if you made the seller responsible for the guns that are sold through their store instead of making the government responsible for the background checks. We hold bar owners responsible for selling to someone that seems intoxicated. Let the free market come up with a suitable system for background checks and quit relying on a system that obviously does not work. 

And please for the love of what ever god you follow, these civilian AR-15s that are being used are not freaking assault rifles.  An assault rifle is a fully automatic weapon and these guns that are being used are single shot weapons.  

I favor a title system for each gun and strict liability for whomever holds title.

Link to post
Share on other sites

As I said. I am a bigger believer in that people and religion are the issue not the tool. I dont believe the answer is to ban them. The answer is to make the sellers of them responsible for selling them. This means that the manufacturers have to be responsible for the dealers they sell them to and the dealers must be responsible for selling them to the end user. This would lead to insurance policies, the free market developing a much better background check system, a longer wait period, the purchaser giving up quite a bit of privacy, it would make the "gun show sales" quite difficult,  etc etc etc. But this is how you solve the problem with out banning anything, hold the people responsible, not the the tool.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Buddy Ball 2K3 said:

I have shot them, I know what they are. Civilian AR-15s are not assault rifles. With this thinking you could call any semi-automatic long gone an assault rifle, they arent. 

So was the gun not designed for military use and the civilian version is just without the automatic capacity? Does the military train to use mostly in semi automatic mode since full automatic is inaccurate?

 

You know the answer to these questions and undercuts the whole line of thinking that this isn't a weapon designed for personal use. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, 3C's said:

I like to refer to them as high powered, high capacity murder instruments.

In the firearms world, they are often maligned for using a ballistically inferior projectile. It's just a faster/longer .22 bullet. Not that I agree. If I'm hit with any bullet you'll likely see me on the ground squealing like a little girl ;) 

 

ETA: AR-10 is high powered, but nobody is afraid of those.

Edited by BowieMercs
Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, Redwes25 said:

So was the gun not designed for military use and the civilian version is just without the automatic capacity? Does the military train to use mostly in semi automatic mode since full automatic is inaccurate?

 

You know the answer to these questions and undercuts the whole line of thinking that this isn't a weapon designed for personal use. 

Your lack of understanding about the accuracy of an fully automatic weapon and the military use of it is telling.  If the shooter used an actual assault weapon (full automatic) in that club how many deaths would there be?

What if he used a Rugger 10/22 with a high capacity mag, and stinger bullets? 

Edited by Buddy Ball 2K3
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, BowieMercs said:

In the firearms world, they are often maligned for using a ballistically inferior projectile. It's just a faster/longer .22 bullet. Not that I agree. If I'm hit with any bullet you'll likely see me on the ground squealing like a little girl ;) 

 

ETA: AR-10 is high powered, but nobody is afraid of those.

"proliferation" of AR15s is likely why people are afraid of them. There's something like 10 million or so in circulation owned by something like 5 million people. I'm pretty certain those who are afraid of guns are afraid of all guns though, not just the AR15.

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, leftcoastguy7 said:

At least any foreign army thinking of invading our land had better think again.

We are greatest armed population in the world, and we will cut you to ribbons.

Not much good when drones take you out.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, BowieMercs said:

The orlando shooter didnt use an AR-15 after all. But lets ban them anyway.

Yeah...when we talk about banning guns like AR15s, there's no way this would include a gun like the SS MCX.  Totally different conversation with the different letters and all.  

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

These discussions always begin with very reasonable arguments from the pro-gun crowd: "the ban wouldn't be effective", "there's too many out there already", etc. etc. But eventually they always devolve because the crazies show up: "WHEN THE LIBS BRING IN THE UNITED NATIONS AND THE BLACK HELICOPTERS AND THE NEW WORLD ORDER, I'M GONNA NEED MY AR-15, IT WILL SAVE ME FROM BEING SENT TO AUSCHWITZ!" 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Do you deny that the army primarily use and trains to use in semi auto mode?  

My guess on full auto is actually less death as the guy runs out of ammo faster.

Rutger with a high capacity mag is also totally unnecessary. Standard mag is 10 bullets why is anything more than that needed. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Redwes25 said:

Do you deny that the army primarily use and trains to use in semi auto mode?  

My guess on full auto is actually less death as the guy runs out of ammo faster.

Rutger with a high capacity mag is also totally unnecessary. Standard mag is 10 bullets why is anything more than that needed. 

You haven't heard Regulate? 17 is standard for a handgun now.

16 in the clip and one in the hole...

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Redwes25 said:

Do you deny that the army primarily use and trains to use in semi auto mode?  

My guess on full auto is actually less death as the guy runs out of ammo faster.

Rutger with a high capacity mag is also totally unnecessary. Standard mag is 10 bullets why is anything more than that needed. 

No, they train in semi mode, because they are not trying to kill a large amount of people in a contained area as quickly as possible. They are training for a much different encounter.  

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.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.


×
×
  • Create New...