1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Possible AR argument point

Discussion in 'General Gun Discussions' started by RustHunter87, Jan 28, 2013.

  1. RustHunter87

    RustHunter87 Well-Known Member

    I was thinking, if some how we could some how get the stat on how many deer were shot with an AR's last year and put that side by side with the # of people killed by AR's it might take some of the steam out of there "Only good for killing humans" argument.
  2. dbb1776

    dbb1776 Well-Known Member

    Put me down for a spike, doe, pig, and a coyote.
  3. Yo Mama

    Yo Mama Well-Known Member

    Doesn't matter. The 2nd doesn't have anything to do with hunting.

    If we try to justify it, you're just playing into their game to divide the masses.

    A gun is a tool.
  4. browneu

    browneu Well-Known Member

    Correct. Also some states like mine doesn't allow deer hunting with rifles.

    Sent from my SGH-T999 using Tapatalk 2
  5. Skylerbone

    Skylerbone Well-Known Member

    Yep. It's about limiting liberty incrementally until there is none. Witness Bloomberg and his no trans fats, no big sugary drinks, no smoking and no handguns prison yard. Not taking away rights and freedoms just "reasonably" withholding them.
  6. jamesbeat

    jamesbeat Well-Known Member

    What he said ^

    The Second Amendment protects our rights to keep and bear arms precisely because they can be used to kill humans if the need ever arises.
    Bad humans. The kind that like to hurt good humans.
  7. Tirod

    Tirod Well-Known Member

    Actually, it does work. I hear it a lot, nobody needs a military weapon or a 30 round magazine. It's BS, but trying to sell "The 2A says I can have one to kill people" is feeding them a real good reason to ban them. That's exactly what they are worried about.

    Actually, the AR is a better hunting rifle than the traditional ones. For one, the detachable mag means I can unload more easily, I don't jack rounds into the chamber with a cocked bolt. That's important in a atmosphere of reporting every negligent discharge a manual action has caused on the internet. The AR is a safer, easier gun to unload.

    Second, the AR is more accurate, and easier to shoot more accurately. Because they are NOT a high powered magnum deer rifle, there is less recoil, and the shooter is more intent on a good shot. If there is an obstruction or the game moves, the needed second shot comes more quickly because the hand and finger stay on the trigger, the eyes on the sights. A second shot isn't delayed cycling the action and getting the sight picture back on running game. That improves the game being hit properly the first time, and not losing it.

    The AR is a better, more accurate, and safer hunting rifle than the traditional 100 year old designs we previously used. Military rifles generally are improvements over the previous designs precisely because more research into human ergonomics and dynamic use is done on them. The companies spend the money because the government requires it as part of the contract, and selling an Army's worth of guns makes money. It's when they have to depend on civilian sales that progress is stifled.

    Talking to them in their own language means telling them the AR is actually more humane, ethical, and safer - which it is. It's a lot more palatable than claiming the 2A gives people the right to have guns to kill people. They get that, it's why they want to amend the constitution and remove the 2A altogether.
  8. jamesbeat

    jamesbeat Well-Known Member

    Understood, and I agree with you.
    The problem is, if we do use the 'sporting use' defense, we'll be stuck with it.
    Then, after a while, we'll see this argument:

    'You think it's ok to let kids die just so you can enjoy your sport?!"

    Being railroaded into the 'sporting use' argument is the beginning of the end for our rights.
    Your argument is compelling, but the Second Amendment is not about hunting.

    If you don't believe me, read about the history of gun control in the UK.
  9. PedalBiker

    PedalBiker Well-Known Member

    Don't get in the hunting trap. People use flintlocks and bow and arrow to hunt too, and that's all we will get if we keep falling for the lies.

    AR style rifles are the ADA equivalent of wheel chairs or ramps.

    AR = light, inexpensive, easy to operate for those of small stature, and those who may be injured or disabled.

    AR = medium power, low recoil, ergonomic.

    AR = more likely to hit your target than a handgun and less chance for ricochet

    AR magazines = easy to store "available" ammo AWAY from the gun.

    One of the safest, most effective means of self defense for the average person should not be banned due to the actions of the certifiably insane.
  10. vamo

    vamo Well-Known Member

    If you want to use the hunting argument be prepared to lose your 30 round magazine.
  11. Skylerbone

    Skylerbone Well-Known Member

    And when they limit the AR to a 3-round capacity there won't be a solid reason for anyone to use it. Dead industry, enjoy your bolt action. Lowering capacity to 10 won't stop murderers. That will be the next "proof positive" statistic that incrementally lowers the count to 5 or 4 or single-shot. When murderers continue to murder, statistics will show a shift to handguns (already more popular than ARs), then shotguns and finally all firearms will be deemed evil. Anti gun rights crowd believes it now but they're happy with a slow beat down.
  12. RustHunter87

    RustHunter87 Well-Known Member

    Well of course its not the beat all argument for sure many don't want us to hunt either, its more of a starting point for getting some one to actually listen

    well considering the fact that Maybe 30 kids were killed with ARs and thousands were used to put meat on the table and cull dangerous predators that eat baby cows and cute fuzzy bunny's

    were gonna have to use some logic here guys the antis and fence sitters have all ready bought in to what has been thrown in there faces and many don't even know these guns are widely used for hunting.

    I under stand the 2A argument and anyone who dose is on our side the others they will just keep ignoring it like they have FOR YEARS, you gotta give them some thing they understand like maybe a thousand pictures of kids grinning ear to ear because they shoot there first deer thanks to and AR

    No its not gonna win every one over for sure but i think it would work good on the rural crowd, divide and conquer just like the opposition
  13. nathan

    nathan Well-Known Member

    Criminals now come in numbers well armed. They are mostly sociopaths and hardcore criminals who have no qualms killing just to get their way. If you are underpowered, then you will be at a disadvantage. THe AR with high cap mag is a big equalizer enabling one to defend and fight against these ugly heads showing up in your front door.
  14. Skribs

    Skribs Well-Known Member

    We can attack the argument from both sides, it doesn't have to be either/or. We can say "well, on the one hand, the AR-15 is quickly becoming one of the most popular rifles for hunting, and is the most popular rifle in almost all target and action rifle competitions, so it DOES have a legitimate hunting AND sporting use. On the other hand, the Second Amendment is not about hunting and sports, it is about defense, and the AR-15 is about the best tool for that job as well."
  15. flatlander937

    flatlander937 Well-Known Member

    I agree that it is a bad point to argue with... but on that same note, I'm curious as to how many are used in 3-gun matches vs shotguns in skeet/trap shooting... since that is the bandwagon that every politician jumps on when they "also support the 2nd Amendment." :rolleyes:
  16. Gregg28

    Gregg28 Member

    We should paint them pink and blue and yellow. Then they won't look so scary.
  17. Skylerbone

    Skylerbone Well-Known Member

    I doubt pictures of the Branch Davidian compound ablaze with men, women and children being cooked alive by Janet Reno would have any impact on the anti-gun crowd, they just don't care for rational, meaningful or true discussion.

    Do you recall what happened with the tax debate? Once Republicans "compromised" by accepting a call for increases on the wealthy, Democrats led by President Obama let everyone know that Republicans had finally acknowledged that tax increases were both necessary and the correct action for the economy.

    Offer anything and they will twist for everything. Their compromise will be to lock them up at a "sporting club" where you can go to shoot it under supervision, with a welded in place follower...hey it's just for sporting purposes, right? My compromise? Send the anti-gun folks to Canada.
  18. David White

    David White member

    Rifles, pistols, revolvers; primary function through most of history:

    Weapons of war. Used by men to kill or severely maim others during conflicts or open war.

    Small arms; pistols / revolvers;
    Developed over time through consistent improvement of cartridge/ gun design.

    Primary usage: personal protection, self defense, alternate armament after and for close quarters combat / when primary (rifle) is empty.

    Rifles, Long guns; first fully portable method of defense/offense, developed around the use of "gun powder".

    Devised as a weapon of war, and as an alternative to the crossbow and sword.
    Usable from a distance to up close.
    Delivered small (.50-.70 cal.) rounds at high velocity. Shot could penetrate most armor of the early 4th Dynasty.

    Rifles / Pistols:
    Through history, these Weapons have been used and improved upon for a singular function of which they do well.
    To inflict damage and or to kill your adversary.

    Secondary functions include hunting and self defense, target shooting, gun competitions, etc.

    I know we are in a fight for our rights to self defense.
    I know that "killing" is a frowned upon description when speaking of our right to own and use our rifle/handgun.

    The problem is, our weapons are designed, first and foremost, to kill other humans who intend on killing us. They originated as weapons of war and remain as such to this day.

    I make no excuse for that fact. My firearms are held primarily for that express reason.
    I do not hunt.
    I am not military or law enforcement.

    My weapons (and they ARE weapons) are used, by me for the defense of my home, family and self.. Period.

    My weapons are not for "plinking", gun matches, hunting, although they can be used as such.
    They are deadly, dangerous and capable of inflicting severe injury and or death.

    Firearms are designed to kill, and or severely injure.
    They are a tremendous responsibility to possess.
    Please, call them what they are.

  19. Skylerbone

    Skylerbone Well-Known Member

    What? No sugar coating? No dividing hunters, sharpshooters and SD guys?
  20. RustHunter87

    RustHunter87 Well-Known Member

    wow, Im not talking a bout a compromise Im not talking about a compromise, I was thinking more like some actual evidence that like 99 percent of the ARs in the states are NOT USED TO MURDER people

Share This Page