The next time someone says "no one uses an AR to hunt" - Page 3

Tirod · February 27, 2013, 11:14 AM

The important part of any discussion is being fair and honest about it. If anyone approaches it as a win/lose situation, better you shut up and back off. You will not be the example needed, wrong guy at the wrong time.

Weak egos needing to prop up their masculinity need not apply. I realize that sounds like a challenge, but that is exactly the problem we face - taking things as a personal challenge to one's self esteem.

Guys, it's really a problem bringing that to the table - it plays into their game plan. The whole "disarm America" is them wanting to put us in our place - subordinate to their will. And if you act like a juvenile with a bad attitude and can't hold an adult conversation on it, you need to toughen up and learn how.

The biggest way to tell if you are headed straight to a confrontation is when you absolutely know the other guy is a freaking disrespectful idiot. NO, he is NOT. He's just another guy, JUST LIKE YOU, with an opinion and lots of emotion backing it up.

If your blood pressure goes up when you hear them talk, YOU are the problem. Back off, some dummy spouting off in public baiting the crowd with over the top rhetoric is being an attention getter. Don't feed the troll, same as here.

Talking about gun control is something else entirely, and in public, it's a lot more like a speech and debate tournament. There are rules - you absolutely do not diss the other party. Violate that, and it all goes downhill. It then becomes YOU over THEM, and that is exactly what they are trying to pull off.

Gun control is mostly decided by who is better informed and has the patience to explain their view clearly with the facts. If you can't play by the rules, learn how. We have enough problems from those who go off the deep end and get benched.

Stevie-Ray · February 27, 2013, 01:03 PM

My brother told me, "NOBODY NEEDS AN ASSAULT RIFLE". I told him, "Nobody needs a Corvette, either, and since sports cars kill more people each year than "assault rifles" and the vette is #1 in death for those accidents, maybe we should ban Corvettes. Now you know how silly that sounds every time it's spouted. It's the Bill of Rights, not the bill of needs"

EnfieldEnthusiast · April 28, 2013, 07:55 AM

"No one uses an AR-15 to hunt"? This is what the anti-gun lobby wants people to think,because in their view these things are unnessecary & Rebecca Peters admitted in the gun debate,in London last year that she knew people used them for hunting in Australia(before the 1996 ban)but thought of them as unnessecary,along with handguns.

This is a personal view on things,not a factual view,by a bunch of halfwits.

Carl N. Brown · April 28, 2013, 08:40 AM

Around here ARs are used in modern military matches.

ARs are also used for varmint hunting using bullets in the 45gr to 55gr weights and, where legal, for deer hunting using bullets in the 62gr to 77gr weights. (The German 5.6x57mmRWS was designed for European red deer, and there are .223Rem loads in the same class.)

Military people who take up sports shooting tend to gravitate toward the guns they are familiar with to the point of instinctive reflex. Soldiers familiar with the 1860 Henry wanted the Winchester 1866 in civilian life. Soldiers familiar with the Krag or Springfield in service wanted bolt actions in civilian life. The AR is the modern sporting rifle (as much as I prefer my Marlin 336 lever action) and that's a fact.

And the two hunters using ARs deer hunting I know (I thought 72gr 223 but one owns a 6.8mmRem AR come to think about it) took deer with one shot kills: I helped butcher the deer (so spare me the "anyone who needs 30 shots to kill a deer aint a hunter" rants).

Ford4x4 · April 28, 2013, 10:54 AM

The vast majority of handguns are never used to hunt.

Stevie-Ray, thanks. I might have to order a new bumper sticker: "Its the Bill of Rights. not the Bill of Needs"

Bruno2 · April 29, 2013, 02:32 AM

The fact that people do hunt with AR's should be addressed just to expose the lies. However, the argument shouldn't be used to justify why we should always be allowed to have them. That has nothing to do with it.

t's all about the gov not having any say in what guns we should have or shouldn't. That was why the amendment was created to limit the gov's powers over us. The fact that we have any gun laws period flies in the face of the 2A.

That's one of the reasons I whole heartedly oppose UBC's. Do you think that the King would have approved any of the framers or sons of Liberty to own a gun? I bet not.

February 27, 2013, 01:03 PM	#52
Stevie-Ray Member Join Date: February 22, 2003 Location: Mitchi-gun Posts: 3,732	My brother told me, "NOBODY NEEDS AN ASSAULT RIFLE". I told him, "Nobody needs a Corvette, either, and since sports cars kill more people each year than "assault rifles" and the vette is #1 in death for those accidents, maybe we should ban Corvettes. Now you know how silly that sounds every time it's spouted. It's the Bill of Rights, not the bill of needs" __________________ Stevie-Ray Join the NRA/ILA "Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable.".......John F. Kennedy

April 28, 2013, 08:40 AM	#54
Carl N. Brown Member Join Date: May 10, 2005 Location: Kingsport Tennessee Posts: 5,890	Around here ARs are used in modern military matches. ARs are also used for varmint hunting using bullets in the 45gr to 55gr weights and, where legal, for deer hunting using bullets in the 62gr to 77gr weights. (The German 5.6x57mmRWS was designed for European red deer, and there are .223Rem loads in the same class.) Military people who take up sports shooting tend to gravitate toward the guns they are familiar with to the point of instinctive reflex. Soldiers familiar with the 1860 Henry wanted the Winchester 1866 in civilian life. Soldiers familiar with the Krag or Springfield in service wanted bolt actions in civilian life. The AR is the modern sporting rifle (as much as I prefer my Marlin 336 lever action) and that's a fact. And the two hunters using ARs deer hunting I know (I thought 72gr 223 but one owns a 6.8mmRem AR come to think about it) took deer with one shot kills: I helped butcher the deer (so spare me the "anyone who needs 30 shots to kill a deer aint a hunter" rants). __________________ Cogito me cogitare; ergo, cogito me esse. Last edited by Carl N. Brown; April 28, 2013 at 08:48 AM.

February 27, 2013, 11:14 AM	#51
Tirod Member Join Date: May 24, 2008 Location: SW MO Posts: 1,950	The important part of any discussion is being fair and honest about it. If anyone approaches it as a win/lose situation, better you shut up and back off. You will not be the example needed, wrong guy at the wrong time. Weak egos needing to prop up their masculinity need not apply. I realize that sounds like a challenge, but that is exactly the problem we face - taking things as a personal challenge to one's self esteem. Guys, it's really a problem bringing that to the table - it plays into their game plan. The whole "disarm America" is them wanting to put us in our place - subordinate to their will. And if you act like a juvenile with a bad attitude and can't hold an adult conversation on it, you need to toughen up and learn how. The biggest way to tell if you are headed straight to a confrontation is when you absolutely know the other guy is a freaking disrespectful idiot. NO, he is NOT. He's just another guy, JUST LIKE YOU, with an opinion and lots of emotion backing it up. If your blood pressure goes up when you hear them talk, YOU are the problem. Back off, some dummy spouting off in public baiting the crowd with over the top rhetoric is being an attention getter. Don't feed the troll, same as here. Talking about gun control is something else entirely, and in public, it's a lot more like a speech and debate tournament. There are rules - you absolutely do not diss the other party. Violate that, and it all goes downhill. It then becomes YOU over THEM, and that is exactly what they are trying to pull off. Gun control is mostly decided by who is better informed and has the patience to explain their view clearly with the facts. If you can't play by the rules, learn how. We have enough problems from those who go off the deep end and get benched.

April 28, 2013, 07:55 AM	#53
EnfieldEnthusiast Member Join Date: October 29, 2011 Location: Kent,United Kingdom. Posts: 45	"No one uses an AR-15 to hunt"? This is what the anti-gun lobby wants people to think,because in their view these things are unnessecary & Rebecca Peters admitted in the gun debate,in London last year that she knew people used them for hunting in Australia(before the 1996 ban)but thought of them as unnessecary,along with handguns. This is a personal view on things,not a factual view,by a bunch of halfwits.

April 28, 2013, 10:54 AM	#55
Ford4x4 Member Join Date: November 8, 2010 Posts: 40	The vast majority of handguns are never used to hunt. Stevie-Ray, thanks. I might have to order a new bumper sticker: "Its the Bill of Rights. not the Bill of Needs"

April 29, 2013, 02:32 AM	#56
Bruno2 Member Join Date: August 3, 2009 Location: Tulsa , Oklahoma Posts: 627	The fact that people do hunt with AR's should be addressed just to expose the lies. However, the argument shouldn't be used to justify why we should always be allowed to have them. That has nothing to do with it. t's all about the gov not having any say in what guns we should have or shouldn't. That was why the amendment was created to limit the gov's powers over us. The fact that we have any gun laws period flies in the face of the 2A. That's one of the reasons I whole heartedly oppose UBC's. Do you think that the King would have approved any of the framers or sons of Liberty to own a gun? I bet not.