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? (1 Viewer)

Assault Rifles


  • Total voters
    414
A couple of years ago a neighbor showed me some ginormous gun he had that he claimed could take down a helicopter.  I'm guessing he needed that for the same reason guys need AR15's and his wife always flirts with me. 

 
A couple of years ago a neighbor showed me some ginormous gun he had that he claimed could take down a helicopter.  I'm guessing he needed that for the same reason guys need AR15's and his wife always flirts with me. 
Yeah, that's dumb.

Everyone knows zombies can't fly helicopters. 

 
CVS stopped selling cigarettes 2 years ago. It's a noble action, cost them $2 billion in sales, but didn't stop anyone from buying cigarettes.

Same will happen to #####.
maybe they’re doing it out of a sense of social responsibility.

 
CVS stopped selling cigarettes 2 years ago. It's a noble action, cost them $2 billion in sales, but didn't stop anyone from buying cigarettes.

Same will happen to #####.
Stock is down about 40% from those highs while the broader market has broken well above all time market highs.  

 
Stock is down about 40% from those highs while the broader market has broken well above all time market highs.  
Well, that depends on the timeframe you're looking at.  They announced their tobacco decision in February of 2014, 4 years ago now.  At that time their stock was selling around 66.  Their cease of tobacco products was to take affect by October 1, when they were selling at 81.  Their stock then continued to grow for another year, topping at around 112.  It's back to about 68 now, right at where they were when they announced their decision. 

Much of their recent volatility may be because of their announcement to buy Aetna. 

 
I want to thank you guys for explaining stuff to me... feels like I understand some of the distinctions better.

so for those of you with the AR15 style assault weapons or large capacity magazines for your semi-auto... what's the reason for owning these? 

 
I want to thank you guys for explaining stuff to me... feels like I understand some of the distinctions better.

so for those of you with the AR15 style assault weapons or large capacity magazines for your semi-auto... what's the reason for owning these? 
the tin cans really fly off that fence post!

 
so for those of you with the AR15 style assault weapons or large capacity magazines for your semi-auto... what's the reason for owning these? 


the tin cans really fly off that fence post!
Simplest answer, because it's part of who we are. Not the guns, but the ability to supersize our fries, drive cars 140mph, and buy a keg of beer. We are a nation of consumers. We are fat, impatient people.

 
I want to thank you guys for explaining stuff to me... feels like I understand some of the distinctions better.

so for those of you with the AR15 style assault weapons or large capacity magazines for your semi-auto... what's the reason for owning these? 
I think this question is not really fair.  Do others have to justify their use of free speech or their right to assemble?

I'll bite though... Last year 4 pitbulls who were owned by the neighbor attacked our llamas.  I heard the commotion and say what was happening and grabbed my AR15 that was in the front closet and shot all four of the attacking dogs.  The 30 round magazine was nice as I was 75 yards away shooting at moving targets that were not real large.  During the engagement one of the dogs charged me and it took 4 rounds to take it down.  End result was two llamas lost to the dogs but the road I live on is much safer for walking.  No person would have had a chance against the dogs with out a gun.

Many of the 330 million people who live in the US do not live in urban and suburban areas, and actually have legitimate use cases for guns besides just home protection and range shooting.  

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Do you own these type of weapons?
Sort of. The closest thing I have is a Ruger 10/22. It was purchased with a wooden stock and 10 round magazine. I purchased a collapsible, pistol grip, stock and a 30 round magazine for it. 

One of my deer rifles is a semi auto 30-06, that has a 4 round magazine. (no pistol grip stock, just a standard wooden stock)

I also own a compact glock semi auto 9mm that comes with a 10 round magazine, but I purchased a 17 round extended magazine and added a grip extension.  

 
I think this question is not really fair.  Do others have to justify there use of free speech or their right to assemble?

I'll bite though... Last year 4 pitbulls who were owned by the neighbor attacked our llamas.  I heard the commotion and say what was happening and grabbed my AR15 that was in the front closet and shot all four of the attacking dogs.  The 30 round magazine was nice as I was 75 yards away shooting at moving targets that were not real large.  During the engagement one of the dogs charged me and it took 4 rounds to take it down.  End result was two llamas lost to the dogs but the road I live on is much safer for walking.  No person would have had a chance against the dogs with out a gun.

Many of the 330 million people who live in the US do not live in urban and suburban areas, and actually have legitimate use cases for guns besides just home protection and range shooting.  
It's a question, not an indictment.

Regardless of my own stance on guns (naive, but against), I don't know anybody who owns these so am genuinely curious what uses they serve for their owners.

Scary business with llamas...glad it mostly worked out ok for you. And thanks for relaying the story.

I agree with you, many people don't live in Urban and suburban areas. Most don't also own llamas ;)

Thanks again for your answer.

 
Sort of. The closest thing I have is a Ruger 10/22. It was purchased with a wooden stock and 10 round magazine. I purchased a collapsible, pistol grip, stock and a 30 round magazine for it. 

One of my deer rifles is a semi auto 30-06, that has a 4 round magazine. (no pistol grip stock, just a standard wooden stock)

I also own a compact glock semi auto 9mm that comes with a 10 round magazine, but I purchased a 17 round extended magazine and added a grip extension.  
Why did you get the 30 round magazine?

 
To the original topic - not sure if anyone needs or doesn't need one, but if you want one, you won't be able to get it at ****'s Sporting Goods anymore
So I thought of something in regards to this decision of theirs.  So ok, they'll stop all semi auto rifle sales across the board - fine.  But the rule of not selling any gun to someone under 21 years of age - can they do that?  If a 20 year old wants to come in an purchase a pistol, which they are legally able to purchase and buy - can ****'s refuse to sell it to them?

Kinda reminds me of that baker case (though that had more legalese involved with religious freedom).  How can the shop legally prevent someone from purchasing something they are legally allowed to buy and own?

 
I think this question is not really fair.  Do others have to justify their use of free speech or their right to assemble?

I'll bite though... Last year 4 pitbulls who were owned by the neighbor attacked our llamas.  I heard the commotion and say what was happening and grabbed my AR15 that was in the front closet and shot all four of the attacking dogs.  The 30 round magazine was nice as I was 75 yards away shooting at moving targets that were not real large.  During the engagement one of the dogs charged me and it took 4 rounds to take it down.  End result was two llamas lost to the dogs but the road I live on is much safer for walking.  No person would have had a chance against the dogs with out a gun.

Many of the 330 million people who live in the US do not live in urban and suburban areas, and actually have legitimate use cases for guns besides just home protection and range shooting.  
Yes, in fact.  I definitely understand your frustration, but yes, city mice have to justify these things, much like country mouse folk are now being asked to justify weapons.  If you want to assemble or speak in some ways or places, you will need a permit.  Folks are just suggesting the same should be done for some weapons.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
El Floppo said:
Why did you get the 30 round magazine?
Because I owned a 25 round magazine when the first ban came out. I threw that one away in order to comply with the laws. When the ban ended, the 30 round magazine was in my price range.

Why did I want a 30 round magazine? Because it meant that I could shoot more rounds without having to stop and reload. If I'm out hunting, it means I can carry enough ammo that I don't have to worry about reloading as often (or at all). If you go to the range, you are charged by the hour. It doesn't make much sense to spend 45 minutes of that time loading your gun and 15 minutes shooting. I can load magazines at home for free. I have 4 magazines for my Glock. When I go to the range, those 4 are already loaded. 

 
Why does anyone need anything?

The gun control you seek. 

Mexico has. 

If gun control now is something you need. 

You you should move. 

 
El Floppo said:
I want to thank you guys for explaining stuff to me... feels like I understand some of the distinctions better.

so for those of you with the AR15 style assault weapons or large capacity magazines for your semi-auto... what's the reason for owning these? 
The responses earlier in the thread were:

"They're FUN!!!!11!!1!!!"

"'Cause it's my right, 2nd Amendment"

"Impending societal disruption"

The latter is definitely not the Zombie Apocalypse (suggest so at your own peril), but involves armed people coming for stockpiles of food and water

ETA: I forgot "COYOTES!". By which I hope is meant the four legged kind

 
Last edited by a moderator:
matttyl said:
So I thought of something in regards to this decision of theirs.  So ok, they'll stop all semi auto rifle sales across the board - fine.  But the rule of not selling any gun to someone under 21 years of age - can they do that?  If a 20 year old wants to come in an purchase a pistol, which they are legally able to purchase and buy - can ****'s refuse to sell it to them?

Kinda reminds me of that baker case (though that had more legalese involved with religious freedom).  How can the shop legally prevent someone from purchasing something they are legally allowed to buy and own?
If you’re selling alchohol you have the right to deny someone the sale. Not only that, you have the responsibility, and liability, to do so. If I’m a bartender, and you come in hammered and I serve you a few drinks and you leave and stumble into traffic the business I work for as well as myself could be held liable for their injury/death. If someone comes in and gets drunk, then I see them pull out their keys and ask to have their parking validated there is liability attached. Now, perhaps you need a reason like “I thought they were going to be public safety hazard” or “they were being disruptive” not for some other discriminatory reason, I’m not sure what the law states. 

If you hold a bar owner/worker responsible for what happens after a person leaves the bar (if negligent) I think it’s reasonable to apply the same reasoning to gun sellers. That doesn’t mean if you sell someone a gun and they use it improperly you get nailed, but I think I’d an 18 yr old comes in and wants a high capacity rapid fire weapon and lots of ammo you should at least give a casual “what are you planning on shooting with all this ammo?” due diligence. It shouldn’t be like buying a pack of smokes. 

 
If you’re selling alchohol you have the right to deny someone the sale. Not only that, you have the responsibility, and liability, to do so. If I’m a bartender, and you come in hammered and I serve you a few drinks and you leave and stumble into traffic the business I work for as well as myself could be held liable for their injury/death. If someone comes in and gets drunk, then I see them pull out their keys and ask to have their parking validated there is liability attached. Now, perhaps you need a reason like “I thought they were going to be public safety hazard” or “they were being disruptive” not for some other discriminatory reason, I’m not sure what the law states. 

If you hold a bar owner/worker responsible for what happens after a person leaves the bar (if negligent) I think it’s reasonable to apply the same reasoning to gun sellers. That doesn’t mean if you sell someone a gun and they use it improperly you get nailed, but I think I’d an 18 yr old comes in and wants a high capacity rapid fire weapon and lots of ammo you should at least give a casual “what are you planning on shooting with all this ammo?” due diligence. It shouldn’t be like buying a pack of smokes. 
The right, but not the obligation.  You have the obligation to deny the sale of a drink if they are under 21, because that's the law - which isn't the case currently with guns.  If I, in my mid (to late) 30s walk into a bar, after lunch time today, being of sound body and mind at the time - the bartender won't deny me a drink. 

Funny, to me, that you use the "buying a pack of smokes" example, and say that it shouldn't be like that - but ****'s (and now Walmart) is making it exactly like that.  They apparently are just going to card the buyer, just as a seller would do it you're buying a pack of smokes.  Under 18, you can't buy smokes - and that's a legal thing, which again is different.  If someone 20 year old wants to purchase a bolt action rifle for the upcoming deer season, or a simple shotgun for the upcoming duck or goose season - they will be denied the sale due solely to their age. 

 
The responses earlier in the thread were:

"They're FUN!!!!11!!1!!!"

"'Cause it's my right, 2nd Amendment"

"Impending societal disruption"

The latter is definitely not the Zombie Apocalypse (suggest so at your own peril), but involves armed people coming for stockpiles of food and water

ETA: I forgot "COYOTES!". By which I hope is meant the four legged kind
The four legged kind are just fulfilling their function in an ecological niche.  The two legged kind are vermin and should be eliminated.   .

 
The right, but not the obligation.  You have the obligation to deny the sale of a drink if they are under 21, because that's the law - which isn't the case currently with guns.  If I, in my mid (to late) 30s walk into a bar, after lunch time today, being of sound body and mind at the time - the bartender won't deny me a drink. 

Funny, to me, that you use the "buying a pack of smokes" example, and say that it shouldn't be like that - but ****'s (and now Walmart) is making it exactly like that.  They apparently are just going to card the buyer, just as a seller would do it you're buying a pack of smokes.  Under 18, you can't buy smokes - and that's a legal thing, which again is different.  If someone 20 year old wants to purchase a bolt action rifle for the upcoming deer season, or a simple shotgun for the upcoming duck or goose season - they will be denied the sale due solely to their age. 
The best way to think of this is to start from the assumption that businesses can turn away anyone they want for any reason they want.  The exception to this rule is if federal or state law protects certain types of people from discrimination (for example the Civil Rights Act protects black people from discrimination at places of "public accommodation").  And then there are exceptions to that exception if there's a law that protects the business, like a religious freedom law or if the business's Constitutional rights are violated (this is the argument in the Colorado gay wedding cake case- Colorado state law protects homosexuals from discrimination, but the baker is claiming that his First Amendment right to free expression supersedes that because baking cakes is a form of artistic expression).

So the only way ****'s and Wal-Mart would not be allowed to limit gun sales to people 21 and up is if there's a federal or state law that protects people age 18-20 from discrimination.  To my knowledge there are no such laws.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
The best way to think of this is to start from the assumption that businesses can turn away anyone they want for any reason they want.  The exception to this rule is if federal or state law protects certain types of people from discrimination (for example the Civil Rights Act protects black people from discrimination at places of "public accommodation").  And then there are exceptions to that exception if there's a law that protects the business, like a religious freedom law or if the business's Constitutional rights are violated (this is the argument in the Colorado gay wedding cake case- Colorado state law protects homosexuals from discrimination, but the baker is claiming that his First Amendment right to free expression supersedes that because baking cakes is a form of artistic expression).

So the only way ****'s and Wal-Mart would not be allowed to limit gun sales to people 21 and up is if there's a federal or state law that protects people age 18-20 from discrimination.  To my knowledge there are no such laws.
What if someone is a 19 year old lesbian African American?  By denying the 19 year old one is also denying the sale to the African American.  Now picture a scenario where the young woman is being improperly pursued by Roy Moore or Mel Gibson (I figure , like lots of these cats, what he protests about with his foul mouth is actually his heart's desire.)  She needs a weapon for protection, court orders having already proven fruitless.  Why is ****'s denying her the  right to self defense. with a firearm. 

Lets presume that ##### has driven all the Mom and Pop gun stores from the community, and therefore the region, corporate behemoth that they are. 

 
What if someone is a 19 year old lesbian African American?  By denying the 19 year old one is also denying the sale to the African American.  Now picture a scenario where the young woman is being improperly pursued by Roy Moore or Mel Gibson (I figure , like lots of these cats, what he protests about with his foul mouth is actually his heart's desire.)  She needs a weapon for protection, court orders having already proven fruitless.  Why is ****'s denying her the  right to self defense. with a firearm. 

Lets presume that ##### has driven all the Mom and Pop gun stores from the community, and therefore the region, corporate behemoth that they are. 
They'd have to show the court that the discrimination was due to her race (or, depending on state law, her sexual orientation).  She would almost certainly fail given the publicly stated and presumably enforced policy of not selling to someone under 21.  Just like if a black person went to a place with a dress code dressed in pajamas or something and was turned away at the door the business would probably be immune from any Civil Rights Act challenge.

As for the "right to self-defense": the second amendment right to bear arms belongs to the people and protects them from government infringement. It doesn't create an obligation for private businesses to provide services. Nothing in the Constitution does that. That's why Title II of the Civil Rights Act was necessary to protect black people from discrimination.  Otherwise we could just point to the 14th Amendment and say "stop being racist, #######s."

 
Last edited by a moderator:
What if someone is a 19 year old lesbian African American?  By denying the 19 year old one is also denying the sale to the African American.  Now picture a scenario where the young woman is being improperly pursued by Roy Moore or Mel Gibson (I figure , like lots of these cats, what he protests about with his foul mouth is actually his heart's desire.)  She needs a weapon for protection, court orders having already proven fruitless.  Why is ****'s denying her the  right to self defense. with a firearm. 

Lets presume that ##### has driven all the Mom and Pop gun stores from the community, and therefore the region, corporate behemoth that they are. 
"Denying her right for self defense" simply because a particular business chooses to raise their gun sale age?

And there is not another single gun shop in town that would sell to the 19 year old? Online? Gun show? 

Come on.

 
"Denying her right for self defense" simply because a particular business chooses to raise their gun sale age?

And there is not another single gun shop in town that would sell to the 19 year old? Online? Gun show? 

Come on.
So, not a fan of the Socratic method?  I must say, I do like that the part you found far fetched and worthy of questioning or mockery was the lone gun shop part of the hypothetical, but not he part where Mel Gibson is stalking a 19 year old black lesbian.  Well done Sir!

 
So, not a fan of the Socratic method?  I must say, I do like that the part you found far fetched and worthy of questioning or mockery was the lone gun shop part of the hypothetical, but not he part where Mel Gibson is stalking a 19 year old black lesbian.  Well done Sir!
Huh? What does her being a black lesbian have to do with anything?

Maybe this is an inside joke I'm unaware of....I'll see myself out. Carry on.

 
Huh? What does her being a black lesbian have to do with anything?

Maybe this is an inside joke I'm unaware of....I'll see myself out. Carry on.
Please don't.  The place is richer for your participation.  I am just having a bit of a goof this morning. Testing opinions, not necessarily disagreeing with them.  Carry on.  I'll show myself out for a bit.

 
Henry Ford said:
Yes, in fact.  I definitely understand your frustration, but yes, city mice have to justify these things, much like country mouse folk are now being asked to justify weapons.  If you want to assemble or speak in some ways or places, you will need a permit.  Folks are just suggesting the same should be done for some weapons.
Some folks are suggesting that firearms require additional permitting and that seems like a reasonable discussion and may have some positive impact.  However, others are discussing the outright ban of certain firearms that they deem unnecessary.   

I think the equivalent would be if the government denied permits to the KKK to assemble for a rally.  Many would argue that there is no good use for them to hold a rally in public but we still allow it because, while on a whole we as a society don't agree with their opinions or views, we do value the right to express options and views regardless of how awful they are to us.

And similarly to the above, no idea on its own has hurt anyone, just as no good on its own has hurt anyone.  It is when bad people who use the guns and ideas that we have issues.

 
Some folks are suggesting that firearms require additional permitting and that seems like a reasonable discussion and may have some positive impact.  However, others are discussing the outright ban of certain firearms that they deem unnecessary.   

I think the equivalent would be if the government denied permits to the KKK to assemble for a rally.  Many would argue that there is no good use for them to hold a rally in public but we still allow it because, while on a whole we as a society don't agree with their opinions or views, we do value the right to express options and views regardless of how awful they are to us.

And similarly to the above, no idea on its own has hurt anyone, just as no good on its own has hurt anyone.  It is when bad people who use the guns and ideas that we have issues.
I think it depends on the weapon.  Some weapons, I think it's similar to the government denying the KKK a permit to burn a cross on Stone Mountain.

 
I think it depends on the weapon.  Some weapons, I think it's similar to the government denying the KKK a permit to burn a cross on Stone Mountain.
from the link provided

The park clamped down on event safety after an April 2016 white supremacist gathering swelled with hundreds of protesters opposed to the rally, which was ultimately attended by just a few dozen white supremacists.

The association cited the April 2016 rally and said the cross-burning would require more safety resources than could be provided.

Ironically the issue is the protesters of the cross-burning that assembled with out permit and caused a safety issue.  I don't condone the KKK in any way, shape, or form, but I do support their right to free speech as long as it is conducted in a safe manner.  

 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top