John Elway wants to take away your guns!!!!

[Houshyamama]

Originally Posted by Rohirrim

I think it's fine for people to have guns. I have some myself. Obviously, our society, our people, have not attained a level of consciousness that recommends they have access to semi-autos with banana clips. Maybe the press shouldn't have "protected" American sensibilities and instead broadcast the pics from that classroom and we could all have a better idea of what we're talking about? Anyway, it's not guns that will protect us from the government. Mubarak had tanks and guns in Egypt and the people, for the most part, were unarmed. Didn't save that government.

You don't need an assault rifle to shoot up a school, Klebold and Harris didn't use one. I find it interesting that you seem to judge yourself an authority on deciding where the seemly arbitrary line resides that distinguishes between guns you believe I have the right to own and guns you believe I don't. I don't need you to decide that for me.

[lonestar]

Originally Posted by errand

Every time some mentally disturb whack job pulls the **** that Sandy Hook clown pulled, the government will try to reduce your freedoms a little more.

I liken it like a frog being put into boiling water....if you drop him in the pot of water that is already boiling (a massive ban on all guns regardless of make or model or magazine size) he will jump out immediately to avoid being killed.....however if you put him in a cool pot of water and then turn the heat on increasing it a little at a time (starting with a ban on this gun, then that gun) by the time he finally figures out that it's starting to boil it's too late.

As for how did the founding fathers know the day may come? Look at history dude.....our founding fathers learned their lessons by looking at how other nations were ruled by despots and over reaching governments, which is why the Bill of Rights was written.

The constitution puts limits on what the government can do....not what we the people can do.

While molds of folks get this the far left progressives beleive that the document is a living ever changing one. They will never understand that the founding fathers were way smarter than they will ever be.

BTW IMO the founding fathers stated our right to firearms were pertinent for their time frame and understood the wording would be sufficient forever, or they would have included to the effect any firearm as they progress in effectiveness.

They expected people to be smarter than out current leadership seems to be.

[errand]

I saw a movie where the police and the military were the only ones who could possess weapons.....it was called "Schindler's List"

[errand]

Liberal : Why does anyone need an AR-15?

Law abiding Gun Owner : It's not about need, it's my 2nd amendment right to own such a weapon.

Liberal : But, assault weapons aren't necessary for hunting....

Law abiding Gun Owner : First off it's not an "assault weapon" it's a semi-automatic rifle. Secondly the 2nd amendment isn't about hunting, it's about protecting liberty from tyranny.

Liberal : So you're worried that a tyrant is going to take away your guns and liberty?

Law abiding Gun Owner : Well, no...because we have the 2nd amendment

[Rohirrim]

Originally Posted by Houshyamama

You don't need an assault rifle to shoot up a school, Klebold and Harris didn't use one. I find it interesting that you seem to judge yourself an authority on deciding where the seemly arbitrary line resides that distinguishes between guns you believe I have the right to own and guns you believe I don't. I don't need you to decide that for me.

All I want to do is have a national discussion over reducing the rate of fire available to the average citizen; A difficult thing to do in the most paranoid country on Earth.

Well, maybe not the "most." That's probably North Korea. But given the rate we kill each other while our culture wallows in violence, we're right up there.

[errand]

Originally Posted by Rohirrim

All I want to do is have a national discussion over reducing the rate of fire available to the average citizen; A difficult thing to do in the most paranoid country on Earth.

Well, maybe not the "most." That's probably North Korea. But given the rate we kill each other while our culture wallows in violence, we're right up there.

The rate of fire of a AR15 is the same as the rate of fire for a Glock9....as fast as you can squeeze the trigger.

As far as being paranoid goes....citizens of the US have the most freedom to lose than anyone else. In North Korea they very little if any freedom to lose.

[That One Guy]

Originally Posted by Rohirrim

All I want to do is have a national discussion over reducing the rate of fire available to the average citizen; A difficult thing to do in the most paranoid country on Earth.

Well, maybe not the "most." That's probably North Korea. But given the rate we kill each other while our culture wallows in violence, we're right up there.

Rate of fire isn't what matters. There's a reason why the military removed auto from personal weapons. Well placed shots are more effective than just throwing bullets any day of the week.

Give me 5 x 10 round magazines and I'll do more with it than someone carrying a "machine gun" any day of the week.

With military grade magazines, 50 rounds would take 3 magazines vs the 5 I suggested above. I guarantee I can pull a magazine and reload in less than 3 seconds. The difference in 10 round magazines vs 20s just became a whopping 6 seconds. Unless you're counting shots, know how many I have in my magazine, and are primed to run as soon as that 10th shot fires, the 3 second reload lapse is not going to do you any good at all.

Rate of fire is not the root of the problem here.

[That One Guy]

Originally Posted by errand

The rate of fire of a AR15 is the same as the rate of fire for a Glock9....as fast as you can squeeze the trigger.

As far as being paranoid goes....citizens of the US have the most freedom to lose than anyone else. In North Korea they very little if any freedom to lose.

We also have the highest occurrence of progressively deviating from a standard. Some countries announce their intentions while Americans have a habit of tiptoeing further and further away.

Example: Once upon a time, things were outside the federal gov't's domain and was reserved for state discretion.

[W*GS]

errand, how do you propose that an armed revolution would work? That was my question, and instead you launched into an irrelevant rant.

[W*GS]

Originally Posted by lonestar

While molds of folks get this the far left progressives beleive that the document is a living ever changing one. They will never understand that the founding fathers were way smarter than they will ever be.

You do realize that the FFs didn't want to be worshiped as gods, and that believing that what they wrote was Good because they had written it was something they feared.

[Fedaykin]

Originally Posted by errand

The rate of fire of a AR15 is the same as the rate of fire for a Glock9....as fast as you can squeeze the trigger.

Not in terms of effective rate of fire. A average person can easily squeeze a typical trigger 4-6 times a second (more with a more refined trigger), but there's no way an average person is going to maintain control over a pistol at anything close to that rate.

You won't have a particularly high level of accuracy even with a rifle, but you will be able to maintain control of the weapon. In other words, good luck hitting a specific target, but as long as you don't much care which target(s) you're hitting, you're fine.

[cutthemdown]

Originally Posted by DENVERDUI55

They are all the same semi automatic rifles and their actions work in similar fasion. The first picture is an AR that people always call a full automatic machine gun or assault rifle. Another funny thing is everyone thinks AR's come only in .223 caliber.

Yeah .223 just the most popular. They even have .22 tactical style rifles which are a blast to shoot I heard. But yeah hunters get them in .308 so they can hunt deer I know that. Media focuses on the .223 because that is a really popular calibar.

[cutthemdown]

Originally Posted by Rohirrim

I don't care what kind of arsenal you put together in your basement. One drone fires a missile from ten miles away and takes out you, your arsenal, your basement, and your house.

Why does that even matter. In America we do most things for recreation and sport. The stand up to the govt if they got oppresive just a non issue IMO.

[Fedaykin]

Originally Posted by errand

Umm, the maximum effective range is the same as a .30-06.....so it is in fact like other hunting rifles.

Note even remotely true. Both weapons will fire their respective projectiles with a similar ballistic trajectory (i.e. drop and velocity curves), but their effectiveness (i.e. accuracy and energy delivery) will vary greatly. A 30-06 fires a much more massive projectile, which means it has a much longer effective range. A 62gr projectile (from an AR-15) is not going to be as accurate or as deadly as a 180gr projectile (180gr is the typical for a hunting round, 220gr is the max).

There's a reason sniper rifles fire the most massive rounds. A more massive round is more stable, is less affected by wind (both resistance and crosswind), and delivers more energy to the target. When coupled with a soft nosed bullet a 30-06 is a great large game rifle (hence it's popularity as a sporting rifle).

With a 220gr bullet a 30-06 is an effective rifle at easily 1000m or more. Obviously this would require an expert marksmen (just like any long range shot), but the rifle itself is capable of delivering a projective with deadly force at that range. The round has been used for confirmed kills at that range.

As points of comparison. At ~550m a 180gr 30-06 round still retains more ballistic energy than the AR-15 started with. A 1000m, the 30-06 retains more ballistic energy than the AR-15 has @ 150m. And that isn't even the most energetic round a 30-06 is capable of firing.

A light, high penetration round is not what you want for hunting large game. It's much less likely to enable a clean kill at long range, and at short range you're going to get over penetration which is also something you don't want. Putting a nice clean hole through a boar is less desirable than making sure that bullet stays in the boar.

[W*GS]

As I understand it, typical military rifle rounds are designed to badly wound, not kill, because a badly wounded soldier is a double loss for the enemy - they can no longer fight but also require expenditure of considerable resources to treat, whereas a corpse requires no additional help.

[Fedaykin]

Originally Posted by cutthemdown

Yeah .223 just the most popular. They even have .22 tactical style rifles which are a blast to shoot I heard. But yeah hunters get them in .308 so they can hunt deer I know that. Media focuses on the .223 because that is a really popular calibar.

A .308 chambered AR-15 is significantly limited in fire rate by the recoil of that round.

[errand]

Originally Posted by Fedaykin

Note even remotely true. Both weapons will fire their respective projectiles with a similar ballistic trajectory (i.e. drop and velocity curves), but their effectiveness (i.e. accuracy and energy delivery) will vary greatly. A 30-06 fires a much more massive projectile, which means it has a much longer effective range. A 62gr projectile (from an AR-15) is not going to be as accurate or as deadly as a 180gr projectile (180gr is the typical for a hunting round, 220gr is the max).

There's a reason sniper rifles fire the most massive rounds. A more massive round is more stable, is less affected by wind (both resistance and crosswind), and delivers more energy to the target. When coupled with a soft nosed bullet a 30-06 is a great large game rifle (hence it's popularity as a sporting rifle).

With a 220gr bullet a 30-06 is an effective rifle at easily 1000m or more. Obviously this would require an expert marksmen (just like any long range shot), but the rifle itself is capable of delivering a projective with deadly force at that range. The round has been used for confirmed kills at that range.

As points of comparison. At ~550m a 180gr 30-06 round still retains more ballistic energy than the AR-15 started with. A 1000m, the 30-06 retains more ballistic energy than the AR-15 has @ 150m. And that isn't even the most energetic round a 30-06 is capable of firing.

A light, high penetration round is not what you want for hunting large game. It's much less likely to enable a clean kill at long range, and at short range you're going to get over penetration which is also something you don't want. Putting a nice clean hole through a boar is less desirable than making sure that bullet stays in the boar.

That's all nice and what not, but it has nothing to do with what I posted.

"maximum effective range" means......it is the distance at which a weapon can effectively be considered accurate. It has nothing to do with which round is more effective at maiming or delivering a more effective impact.

[ZONA]

Originally Posted by Bacchus

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pfRWE2ROW7A

Cmon don't be such a drama queen dude. Why don't you make your thread title reflect what he really said. He said he doesn't think people should have machine guns. He didn't say anything about taking away all of the guns. Seriously, if you want attention, just make a new thread that says I want attention.

[errand]

Originally Posted by W*GS

errand, how do you propose that an armed revolution would work? That was my question, and instead you launched into an irrelevant rant.

This nation has millions of armed law abiding citizens who will not allow themselves to be disarmed by the government as long as the 2nd amendment is a part of the Bill of Rights.

I'm sure you're of the thought that given how well equipped our military is that it would be impossible to overthrow the government that would try to take away our freedoms

I guess you haven't noticed the numerous law enforcement leaders who say that they will not obey unconstitutional orders to seize weapons owned by law abiding citizens....not to mention many of the law abiding gun owners in America are military people who swore an oath to defend the U.S. Constitution from all enemies foreign and domestic.....

now imagine if that domestic enemy is our own government....whose side do think these military men and women will be on? The President who is generally only liked by 50% and overstepping his authority or the Constitution installed to protect We the People that they have sworn to defend?

[peacepipe]

Originally Posted by errand

This nation has millions of armed law abiding citizens who will not allow themselves to be disarmed by the government as long as the 2nd amendment is a part of the Bill of Rights.

I'm sure you're of the thought that given how well equipped our military is that it would be impossible to overthrow the government that would try to take away our freedoms

I guess you haven't noticed the numerous law enforcement leaders who say that they will not obey unconstitutional orders to seize weapons owned by law abiding citizens....not to mention many of the law abiding gun owners in America are military people who swore an oath to defend the U.S. Constitution from all enemies foreign and domestic.....

now imagine if that domestic enemy is our own government....whose side do think these military men and women will be on? The President who is generally only liked by 50% and overstepping his authority or the Constitution installed to protect We the People that they have sworn to defend?

The domestic enemy will likely be some right-wing fringe militia group who commits a terrorist act,based on some BS belief that the gov. is coming for their guns.
AR ban was constitutional back in the 90s,& will be constitutional now,if it were to pass.

[ZONA]

Originally Posted by errand

Liberal : Why does anyone need an AR-15?

Law abiding Gun Owner : It's not about need, it's my 2nd amendment right to own such a weapon.

Liberal : But, assault weapons aren't necessary for hunting....

Law abiding Gun Owner : First off it's not an "assault weapon" it's a semi-automatic rifle. Secondly the 2nd amendment isn't about hunting, it's about protecting liberty from tyranny.

Liberal : So you're worried that a tyrant is going to take away your guns and liberty?

Law abiding Gun Owner : Well, no...because we have the 2nd amendment

This debate has been going on for so so long. The 2nd amendment is not the most well detailed document written, let's just say that.

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Well, this is how I interpret this sentence. Back in the day when this was written, there was no national security or national military like the The Arm, Airforce, Marines or Navy. A well regulated militia of the people was necessary for protection. That is not the case anymore. The well regulated militia is now the military, not the people. And if you did want to argue it's the people, what we have now sure isn't "well regulated" by any means. The lack of background checks, the fact that you don't have to register as a gun owner, etc.

IMO, I don't think it's wrong for an American to own a gun but I think we should be limited to 1 handgun and 1 rifle. Each gun must have a title, similar to a vehicle. If there is a sale, there has to be documented transfer of title. There should be gun registration and every 5 years you should have to renew the registration and prove that you are cable of using said weapon safely.

This IMO would allow the people that are responsible gun owners to keep their and get the guns out of the hands of people that have no reason having one.

[That One Guy]

Originally Posted by ZONA

This debate has been going on for so so long. The 2nd amendment is not the most well detailed document written, let's just say that.

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Well, this is how I interpret this sentence. Back in the day when this was written, there was no national security or national military like the The Arm, Airforce, Marines or Navy. A well regulated militia of the people was necessary for protection. That is not the case anymore. The well regulated militia is now the military, not the people. And if you did want to argue it's the people, what we have now sure isn't "well regulated" by any means. The lack of background checks, the fact that you don't have to register as a gun owner, etc.

IMO, I don't think it's wrong for an American to own a gun but I think we should be limited to 1 handgun and 1 rifle. Each gun must have a title, similar to a vehicle. If there is a sale, there has to be documented transfer of title. There should be gun registration and every 5 years you should have to renew the registration and prove that you are cable of using said weapon safely.

This IMO would allow the people that are responsible gun owners to keep their and get the guns out of the hands of people that have no reason having one.

Would it really? Disarming gangs is really that simple?

[That One Guy]

Originally Posted by peacepipe

The domestic enemy will likely be some right-wing fringe militia group who commits a terrorist act,based on some BS belief that the gov. is coming for their guns.

History is written by the victor. A few guys once pledged their lives with the knowledge that if they failed their mission, they'd be considered traitors and hung. We revere them as heroes.

[peacepipe]

Originally Posted by That One Guy

History is written by the victor. A few guys once pledged their lives with the knowledge that if they failed their mission, they'd be considered traitors and hung. We revere them as heroes.

What they were dealing with was actually real,not some paranoid delusion.

[peacepipe]

Originally Posted by errand

Liberal : Why does anyone need an AR-15?

Law abiding Gun Owner : It's not about need, it's my 2nd amendment right to own such a weapon.

Liberal : But, assault weapons aren't necessary for hunting....

Law abiding Gun Owner : First off it's not an "assault weapon" it's a semi-automatic rifle. Secondly the 2nd amendment isn't about hunting, it's about protecting liberty from tyranny.

Liberal : So you're worried that a tyrant is going to take away your guns and liberty?

Law abiding Gun Owner : Well, no...because we have the 2nd amendment

At the end of the day,it's not going to be what you or me thinks. If an AR ban passes(which I highly doubt)it will be ruled constitutional by SCOTUS.