Dont Taze Me Bro

The Gun Control Debate Thread - Say hello to my little thread

Recommended Posts

I remember reading an article in which there were quotes from the inventor of the AR-15. He said it was a weapon designed for warfare and it was his opinion that it should not be in civilian hands.

 

I suspect he knows what he's talking about. As I said several times now...  when the bad guys can buy a weapon at Walmart that police armor can't stop then we have a problem.

 

Now, if what you are actually saying is that these "sporting" weapons are equally horrible and shouldn't be readily available to the consumer because they are just as dangerous as the weapons we go to war with I'm okay with having that discussion. Somehow I don't think that's the direction you're going.

 

Your more interested in defending weapons that are not designed for self defense or hunting, but to kill large numbers of humans wearing body armor.

Edited by Burgold

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

An AR 15 shoots 1 bullet at a time just like any other "hunting rifle" so yeah if you are going to ban one and not the others then it's like banning Honda civics because it causes the most traffic deaths.

Calling an AR 15 an assault weapon is just political bs for people who don't want to spend the 30 seconds to find out the difference.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, you disagree with the inventor and the Marines.

I'm with you by the way. If you really feel we should ban them all. I'll take your word that that's the way to go.


Family of AR-15 Inventor Eugene Stoner: He Didn't Intend It for Civilians

 

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/family-ar-15-inventor-speaks-out-n593356

 

"Our father, Eugene Stoner, designed the AR-15 and subsequent M-16 as a military weapon to give our soldiers an advantage over the AK-47," the Stoner family told NBC News late Wednesday. "He died long before any mass shootings occurred. But, we do think he would have been horrified and sickened as anyone, if not more by these events."

 

The ex-Marine and "avid sportsman, hunter and skeet shooter" never used his invention for sport. He also never kept it around the house for personal defense. In fact, he never even owned one.

 

And though he made millions from the design, his family said it was all from military sales.

"After many conversations with him, we feel his intent was that he designed it as a military rifle," his family said, explaining that Stoner was "focused on making the most efficient and superior rifle possible for the military."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just more bs, the gun was designed to be an automatic weapon and the civilian version isn't automatic therefore the entire point is a distortion. Of course he's going to say that civilians shouldn't have automatic weapons.

By the way the AK 47 is automatic, why would the military try to compete with it by using a non automatic AR 15?

They wouldn't.

Edited by SkinsFTW

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just more bs, the gun was designed to be an automatic weapon and the civilian version isn't automatic therefore the entire point is a distortion. Of course he's going to say that civilians shouldn't have automatic weapons.

By the way the AK 47 is automatic, why would the military try to compete with it by using a non automatic AR 15?

They wouldn't.

We spent a significant amount of time discussing automatic vs semi automatic earlier in this thread. The general consensus was that whether a gun semi or full auto is completely irrelevant given you have more or less the same firing rate either way. Add to that the fact that shooters tend to be significantly more accurate with semi auto, and you'll find that you're still giving weapons of war to the civilian population with the tactical/assault rifles currently available.

Now, we'll agree that labels are pointless. Which is why many in here have focused less on specific types of weapons and more on the traits that make them too dangerous for the civilian population to have limitless access.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's the question I keep coming back to: Should the state have a monopoly on the use of force?

Edit: In honesty I find the question terribly difficult. I don't mean for the question to imply a particular answer.

Edited by s0crates

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

An AR 15 shoots 1 bullet at a time just like any other "hunting rifle" . . . .

Excellent. Then we can ban them tomorrow and it will have absolutely zero impact on any legitimate gun owners whatsoever.

I mean, since they're all the same, and all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I remember reading an article in which there were quotes from the inventor of the AR-15. He said it was a weapon designed for warfare and it was his opinion that it should not be in civilian hands.

I suspect he knows what he's talking about. As I said several times now... when the bad guys can buy a weapon at Walmart that police armor can't stop then we have a problem.

Now, if what you are actually saying is that these "sporting" weapons are equally horrible and shouldn't be readily available to the consumer because they are just as dangerous as the weapons we go to war with I'm okay with having that discussion. Somehow I don't think that's the direction you're going.

Your more interested in defending weapons that are not designed for self defense or hunting, but to kill large numbers of humans wearing body armor.

Walmart stopped selling AR'S a while ago. But you can get them at similar places which I'm guessing was your point. Normally an AR will not go through body armor. And armor piercing rounds for the most part are illegal. Now what constitutes armor piercing etc is a long topic I'll let you research. It also depends on what level of body armor you are talking about. And things that can go through body armor is a pretty long list. Dirty Harrys gun would either go through or at least punch it so hard that the armor itself would pentrate the body. Long story short it's where the law doesn't keep pace with technology. And it's another way where banning an item based on its name sounds good but good luck define it.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We spent a significant amount of time discussing automatic vs semi automatic earlier in this thread. The general consensus was that whether a gun semi or full auto is completely irrelevant given you have more or less the same firing rate either way. Add to that the fact that shooters tend to be significantly more accurate with semi auto, and you'll find that you're still giving weapons of war to the civilian population with the tactical/assault rifles currently available.

Now, we'll agree that labels are pointless. Which is why many in here have focused less on specific types of weapons and more on the traits that make them too dangerous for the civilian population to have limitless access.

I remeber the semi vs full auto discussion but don't remeber that outcome. Guess when your mind is already made up, you hear I different result.

Excellent. Then we can ban them tomorrow and it will have absolutely zero impact on any legitimate gun owners whatsoever.

I mean, since they're all the same, and all.

I don't know what you are even saying here. Like I'm legitimately confused. If you are saying ban AR'S, fine go ahead. There are other models just as good. Most people just don't know the difference as we saw with the Orlando shooting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"why don't ya'all just put yur bullets in yur mouths since yur shootin' those off all the damn time"

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's the question I keep coming back to: Should the state have a monopoly on the use of force?

Since I moved to TX two weeks ago, I've had a few epiphanic moments of clarity. Let me instruct the masses regarding two of the great truths that I have attained through my red state of enlightenment.

1. The U S of A is the greatest country in the history of the world. I am sitting here right now on my lawn chair in my sleeveless bald eagle shirt, drinking a Budweiser in the patriotic can, and an American flag bandana tied to the end of my AR. I am a super patriot and will fight anyone who says anything bad about my country.

2. This evil mother****ing country would come and kill us all tomorrow if they had the chance which is why I must have the ability to buy every death machine under the sun at a moments notice with no wait.

Edited by Sacks 'n' Stuff
  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is one of the most nonsensical truthiness-filled posts we've seen on ES in quite some time. Congrats.

How's the weather in the alternate reality you live in?

 

Not surprised, typical response with no defense to what was posted.

 

Nobody posted anything here about gun control, and no one in Congress has held any sit-ins in the aftermath.

 

You can't address the issues, so you just try to attack the messenger and not the real truth.

 

Stop being a hypocrite and explain why the gun control folks didn't respond to this shooting.

 

Here on planet Earth, the weather is just fine.  Answer the question.  I just know why you can't. :P 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

CNN: Tearful Democrats make emotional plea for gun control after Dallas

 

WP: Why President Obama went right to gun control after five police officers were killed in Dallas

 

Clinton Calls for Criminal Justice Overhaul and Gun Control After Dallas Shooting

 

Lynch Pushes Gun Control In Aftermath Of Dallas Shooting, Praises BLM

 

Black lawmakers connect Dallas shooting to congressional inaction on gun control

 

 

Seems you got your brainless, intellectually lazy criticisms crossed up. You were supposed to be slamming Obama for politicizing the tragedy.

 

edit: See, here you go. Just pull the old 180, jump on board with these guys, and we'll pretend those two other posts never even happened.

 

Republicans accuse Obama of pushing gun control agenda after Dallas shootings

Edited by Sacks 'n' Stuff
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's the question I keep coming back to: Should the state have a monopoly on the use of force?

Edit: In honesty I find the question terribly difficult. I don't mean for the question to imply a particular answer.

I will take a stab at this one. As the framers lived through and intended, the people have the right to peaceably assemble and petition government for a redress of greviances. Given that they just kicked King George's rule out via citizen force, I can't see that they wanted the state to have a monopoly on force.

As it has happened 200+ years later, we have trusted the form of government enough they provided to act as a check on excessive state use of military power... especially since the power is under civilian control.

The closest public redress of greviances has come is our Civil War.

I believe if enough of the public was convinced a "gun grab" was policy worth implemented, we would not repeat a civil war, even if we are nowhere close to the public believing that now.

The difference between now and those times is the harshness of greviances - I am annoyed by plenty of things caused by our government (economic imbalance, especially health care and colllege education - our system is tilted to the 1% and folks who then 1% favor... everyone else is told to be happy with fighting over the scraps).

In spite of this, we have yet to see widespread public protests over those issues - even Occupy Wall Street movement is at a standstill (or so it seems).

Democracy of information has allowed people to be content "hacking the system" well enough to survive and avoid the wholesale "redress of greviances" that occurred back then.

One is either the 1%, supporting the system, "hacking the system", or trying all of the above to survive. I think our current system is one or two generations away from some systemic event... but we are resilient in thinking and prone to be proud to go at it alone, without

the Founder's organization...

In short, it probably will be a gunless "revolution".. and less dramatic.

Not even sure I answered the question here...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not even sure I answered the question here...

I like the answer. 

 

In the early days, we had neither the manpower, resources, or money to pay for a standing army. Heck, we couldn't even repay most of the soldiers who fought in the Revolutionary War what we owed them. Therefore, it made little sense to put the defense of the people into the "military". More, the country was loosely populated with threats from wild animals, natives, and the British who were certain to come back. People needed to be able to defend themselves because there wasn't anything else out there. We needed "Minuteman" a citizen army that could grab their musket and assemble for the public good in a minute.

 

Fast forward to the 21st Century. We have very strong courts, a standing armed police force, and military. The need for a "Minuteman" militia is all but zero. We have mechanisms to redress corruption and abuse in government without total warfare. In fact, though we don't do it well... we have a revolution every 2, 4, and 6 years where we oust the old government and install the new one we prefer.

 

Should the state have a monopoly on the use of force?

 

It doesn't. And it depends how we define force. I think the need for the citizenry to have an equal strength in force or superior strength in force to the State is over. What we saw in Dallas was an example of that. What we saw in Orlando was an example of that. These were not Minutemen acting in response to a threat as part of a well regulated militia. These were mad man and murderers. 

 

Once the people decided we should have a standing army, a large, well-armed police force which never needs to round up deputies from the community, I think the idea of the Minuteman militia became outdated. The need for them to have Army level of force became obsolete.

 

That's my 2 cents.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Obsolete? How so.

We have a large standing military which obsoletes the need for a militia.

We have a large standing police force which obsoletes the need for a standing militia.

We have a well established and stable government with good rules for removing abusive or corrupt members. This too obsoletes the need for a militia.

All this is different than what we had in the 18th Century.

The citizens don't need military level force anymore. What they need is force sufficient for self-defense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What they need is force sufficient for self-defense.

 

in that case I'm going tank shopping, not sure I can afford the air cover though  :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We have a well established and stable government with good rules for removing abusive or corrupt members.

 

Gonna have to disagree with this one.  Though a person with a gun hasn't solved the issues with 90% of the people in DC.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gonna have to disagree with this one. Though a person with a gun hasn't solved the issues with 90% of the people in DC.

Would you agree that our government is stable enough that there is no chance that the citizens will need to go to war against it though?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.