Somewhere on this forum someone posted a picture of an AR and a Garand, and made valid points as to which one actually had killed people and was designed for combat, compared with the other that just gets range time and is designed for sport shooting. The "scary" rifle is the one that hadn't killed.
All they's good for is KILLIN' people!
- Thread starter C5rider
- Start date
- Status
9MMare
Member
Amen!
huntsman
Member
yep but I'm a old KJV guy
One encounters many gun salesmen who are slightly less than knowledgeable and may gun owners carry prejudices about their firearms or calibers really no big deal, presenting a unified front for RKBA would be ideal but an engaged minority who is willing to risk it is more important.
Last edited:
gbran
Member
I own guns for sport that are certainly capable of killing humans and when I buy a gun for self-defence, I have no problem if it was created for no other reason than killing humans.
Bobson
Member
Would have been fun to agree with him and casually continue showing interest. Or better yet, pretend he taught you something and act even more interested.
doc2rn said:
There's absolutely nothning wrong with having a preference. holdencm9 wasn't slamming people for their preference of shooting iron; he was talking about the kind of "single-shot-mechanical-action-used-only-for-hunting" gun owners willing to throw all the rest of us "under the bus" when the anti's start talking about banning black guns and handguns.
doc2rn said:
Way to go The High Road, there.
You're seriously going to contend that everone who isn't shooting a single-shot mechanical action gun doesn't know how to shoot?
I learned on bolt guns and shoot them very well. However I have found a love for black guns in the last 3 years. I shoot them well also but not quite as well as the bolt. No gun owner should say one gun is better than the other. It is our right to be armed with whatever style of firearm we choose.
One thing I have been bringing up to those who say only the military should have "military" style weapons, as touched on before, that virtually all firearms were designed for military use. From breech loaders to lever-guns to bolt actions to semi auto. All were designed to allow soldiers to load and shoot faster. Each time a new model came out there was an uproar about how a civilian will take and use it to kill an innocent. Well unfortunately that does happen but not nearly as much as most think. There have been a few high profile killings using current military style weapons that keep being used as fuel to keep the fires burning. In all we know how few and far between these occur but not the general populous. They always focus on the evil AK47 or other military style weapon.
I just purchased a new Ar15 with the express reason to use it for hunting. None of my guns are there just for the purpose of killing someone. They are there for sport first and protection secondary. Yes I do carry but with the intent of using it as an absolute LAST resort.
One thing I have been bringing up to those who say only the military should have "military" style weapons, as touched on before, that virtually all firearms were designed for military use. From breech loaders to lever-guns to bolt actions to semi auto. All were designed to allow soldiers to load and shoot faster. Each time a new model came out there was an uproar about how a civilian will take and use it to kill an innocent. Well unfortunately that does happen but not nearly as much as most think. There have been a few high profile killings using current military style weapons that keep being used as fuel to keep the fires burning. In all we know how few and far between these occur but not the general populous. They always focus on the evil AK47 or other military style weapon.
I just purchased a new Ar15 with the express reason to use it for hunting. None of my guns are there just for the purpose of killing someone. They are there for sport first and protection secondary. Yes I do carry but with the intent of using it as an absolute LAST resort.
Lucifer_Sam
Member
- Joined
- Aug 1, 2011
- Messages
- 177
They're also called "Fudds" after Elmer Fudd. Besides "They're only good for killing people!" their other catch phrase is a very patronizing "What do you need one of those for?"
Here's a blog post I found about them, its not bad, and mentions a few counter points.
http://hueysgunsight.blogspot.com/2011/02/fudd.html
And just to be perfectly clear, since some here seem they would rather be contentious than bother taking 5 seconds to understand a post, this is nothing against hunters, hunting rights, or hunting weapons. Its against hunters that would be happy banning semi auto "assault rifles" or regular capacity magazines.
beatledog7
Member
This is a key point. The "walnut and blued steel" guys, by and large, don't hate evil black guns. They are simply afraid that the antis' hatred of evil black guns will not only succeed in banning the EBG but could bleed over into banning their preferred guns as well. They want to maintain a layer of separation between their revered "classic" firearms and the modern "killing machine" that is the EBG.
In a way, you can't blame them. How many times do we see the EBG advocate defend his ownership of EBGs by carefully pointing out that any firearm can be a killing machine? Why does he feel compelled to do that--so that, when if the AWB gets revamped and passed (not that it's likely to happen), the walnut and blue steel guy will lose his guns, too?
I'm not taking sides here. I love walnut and blue steel, but I also fully get why people want to own ARs (I'm planning to buy one in 2013) and hi-cap pistols (I have a few).
Texan Scott
Member
Correct, sir. Some guns are made for inflicting mortal violence on other people. My 38 snub, for instance, was purchased with this capability in mind. I don't WANT to hurt anyone, but sometimes it is necessary to possess that capability, even for the law-abiding and peaceful. Sometimes ESPECIALLY for them.
This is an ugly truth, one which some people feel safer and nicer to not acknowledge; I don't allow myself the dishonest luxury of pretending that everyone is always nice or that the world is always safe.
This is an ugly truth, one which some people feel safer and nicer to not acknowledge; I don't allow myself the dishonest luxury of pretending that everyone is always nice or that the world is always safe.
Last edited:
Even though it might not be strictly true I'd say
"Well, you know Remington sells em now, and has sold a PILE of em to deer hunters, I hope no one tells the hundreds of deer which of been shot with em they aren't really dead...maybe once they deer learn that they'll crawl out of the freezers and butcher-shops and go back to the woods'
Of course it's easy to come up with a good come-back hours later
"Well, you know Remington sells em now, and has sold a PILE of em to deer hunters, I hope no one tells the hundreds of deer which of been shot with em they aren't really dead...maybe once they deer learn that they'll crawl out of the freezers and butcher-shops and go back to the woods'
Of course it's easy to come up with a good come-back hours later
True, but I disagree with this, to an extent. Yes, there are some hunters out there who take a strategic standpoint, "better them than us" because of fear that any the antis' hatred of AR's and AK's could bleed over into their guns/rights, but I have known several who are essentially the same as anti's, in that they DO dislike/fear black rifles, usually just because they are unfamiliar with them. If the only gun they have ever shot is dad's old bolt 30-06, once a year, then they will fear AR's, but those people are also not representative of "typical" gun owners.
doc2rn
Member
I said auto chuckers or EBRs are training platforms for young men and women fresh out of boot. I also said not everyone enters the service with the same level of marksman proficiency. Where did I say it was the only platform for experienced professionals?
Just because I prefer marksmanship to a mag dump doesn't mean I wasn't trained in the usefulness of walking fire onto a target, advance by rushes with suppressing fire, or even talking 249s in short sustained bursts. The likelyhood of needing to use these skills while walking down the street however is somewhat of a longshot.
However there is an everyday need of marksman to clear birds from runways, sniper, anti-sniper, farmer, slaughterhouse, gator wrangler, etc...
One does not have to be exclusive of the other, platform and proficiency are two totally different subjects. I say let each have his own preference.
Last edited:
beatledog7
Member
Holden, there's no doubt that many WBS guys actually do suffer from EBG revulsion. I don't mean to say they're all just forming a self-preservation strategy. But many are.
I have yet to meet a shooter who has spent some time with an AR who fears them or poo-poos them. I have a couple of shooting acquaintances, though, who own ARs but still would happily relinquish them to save their Win 70s.
I have yet to meet a shooter who has spent some time with an AR who fears them or poo-poos them. I have a couple of shooting acquaintances, though, who own ARs but still would happily relinquish them to save their Win 70s.
doc2rn said:
You said (quoted in entirety for context):
doc2rn said:
You say "Auto chuckers are for people who don’t know how to shoot." Since the list of guns included in the previous sentence included the M9, as a deliberate compare-and-contrast to "…a good 308 bolt action…" in the hands of "Force Recon bubbas," am I to assume by your logic and statements that semiauto pistols and rifles aren’t "real guns,“ (see opening statement), are disdained by elite military types, and are only used by people who don’t know how to shoot?
This is even more perplexing since you were responding to holdencm9's post, and holden said nothing about full-auto "spray-and-pray" military-only hardware. He was talking about the lack of unity amongst gun owners, and a propensity for the "wood-and-blue" gun-owning types to distance themselves from AR-platform owners. Which, you'll note, AR (in spite of their names) are semi-auto.
Your response seems to be nothing more than a strawman (and a rather defensive, derisive, and dismissive one at that) to an argument that holden never made. Again, I'll point out, holden never said anything, good or bad, about "wood-and-blue" guns-in-and-of-themselves.
He (nor I) ever said anything about marksmanhip, or lack thereof, in any type of gun owner or preference for any type of gun.
So why the arrogant snark?
I've used a gun to defend myself here in the civilian world. And in a couple cases I had to defend my animals. In another instance, a neighbor's calf got killed by a local dog pack because I was slow in getting my weapon and getting through the wire.
As noted above, it is a fact that almost all our civilian weapons had military origins. That does not make them inappropriate to own or use for whatever lawful purpose we see fit. Self defense is one of those purposes.
Lunatics who text and drive, don't make it unlawful to own cell phones or cars, both of which are used in the commission of many crimes. Yes, cars and phones had different origins than guns, but this simply points to the fact that demented or evil people need to be managed better and earlier.
With respect to antis, I sometimes try to explain how various firearms have been both fun and helpful to me personally. I sometimes ask what they'd do if someone comes take their life or that of their loved ones. In many places, police, however good, are too slow to be very helpful. If they say they'd call a cop, that's fine. In my opinion, though, it's a major failure if you cannot provide for your loved ones...and that includes their defense.
As noted above, it is a fact that almost all our civilian weapons had military origins. That does not make them inappropriate to own or use for whatever lawful purpose we see fit. Self defense is one of those purposes.
Lunatics who text and drive, don't make it unlawful to own cell phones or cars, both of which are used in the commission of many crimes. Yes, cars and phones had different origins than guns, but this simply points to the fact that demented or evil people need to be managed better and earlier.
With respect to antis, I sometimes try to explain how various firearms have been both fun and helpful to me personally. I sometimes ask what they'd do if someone comes take their life or that of their loved ones. In many places, police, however good, are too slow to be very helpful. If they say they'd call a cop, that's fine. In my opinion, though, it's a major failure if you cannot provide for your loved ones...and that includes their defense.
ExTank, thanks for the clear summary and clarification. Hopefully that's the end of it, but just to re-clarify, I have nothing against wood-n-blued guns. I can appreciate their beauty and see the attraction. I just don't have any...yet. My 700 is synthetic (all black) and I have 2 AR's. It's just preference. Heck, even my 10/22 I bought when I was 12 is stainless/synthetic. 
Isn't that a little harsh?
Texan Scott
Member
The fundamental assumption and implicit argument presented is that hunting is a valid use for guns, but lethal force (even in self defense) is not.
I reject that catagorically. I don't mean harm to anyone- but anyone who means harm to me or mine does so at risk of their life. I think that's fair and valid.
I reject that catagorically. I don't mean harm to anyone- but anyone who means harm to me or mine does so at risk of their life. I think that's fair and valid.
76shuvlinoff
Member
That is perfectly put. Thank you!
1911Tuner
Moderator Emeritus
I like blue steel and wood. Such arms are not only useful, but aesthetically pleasing.
I don't presently own any of the pseudo assault rifles because I don't have a need for one...real or perceived. Few of us have a real or defined "need" for a weapon at all...but "need" has nothing whatsoever to do with the question. If I want one, I should be able to go out and buy one legally and without being accused or even suspected of having a screw loose.
And so should we all.
But, these are the times that we live in, I suppose...propaganda and brainwashing such as it is...and it promises to be an uphill battle.
I don't presently own any of the pseudo assault rifles because I don't have a need for one...real or perceived. Few of us have a real or defined "need" for a weapon at all...but "need" has nothing whatsoever to do with the question. If I want one, I should be able to go out and buy one legally and without being accused or even suspected of having a screw loose.
And so should we all.
But, these are the times that we live in, I suppose...propaganda and brainwashing such as it is...and it promises to be an uphill battle.
Infidel4life11
Member
BAHAHAHAHAHA so true.
Education is always the most important thing, if everyone was educated on firearms, some not all, opinions would change and maybe the world would be a better place. I started part timing at a gun shop about a year ago, been in the military for 8+ years, had a gun in my hands since I was 6 and I am so surprised about how very little people know about guns and gun laws. I will never believe in gun control, but we should look into stupid people control.
mdauben
Member
This brings to mind a conversation I had with a good friend recently. This fellow is a self-confessed "pro-gun liberal". Due to the fact that my own political leanings are more conservative I generally just don't bring politics into the conversation but the other day we were discussion guns so I thought we were on safe, common ground.
After talking about each of our more recent purchases, the topic turned to possible future gun control. He didn't think we had much to worry about, and I pointed out that you-know-who had voiced support for a new AWB. He then suprised my by saying he saw no reason for people to own an AW, and he would not be opposed to the return of the ban!
I tried pointing out that the previous ban accomplished nothing. That so-called "Assault Weapons" are used in a vanishingly small percentage of gun crimes. That there are numerous legitimate reasons for owning one (home defence, target shooting, competition and hunting) but he didn't seem convinced.
It made me sad that after all this time, people are still falling for the same divide and conquor tactics...
After talking about each of our more recent purchases, the topic turned to possible future gun control. He didn't think we had much to worry about, and I pointed out that you-know-who had voiced support for a new AWB. He then suprised my by saying he saw no reason for people to own an AW, and he would not be opposed to the return of the ban!
I tried pointing out that the previous ban accomplished nothing. That so-called "Assault Weapons" are used in a vanishingly small percentage of gun crimes. That there are numerous legitimate reasons for owning one (home defence, target shooting, competition and hunting) but he didn't seem convinced.
It made me sad that after all this time, people are still falling for the same divide and conquor tactics...
When the Nazis came for the communists,
I remained silent;
I was not a communist.
When they locked up the social Democrats,
I remained silent;
I was not a social Democrat.
When they came for the trade unionists,
I did not speak out;
I was not a trade unionist.
When they came for the Jews,
I remained silent;
I wasn't a Jew.
When they came for me,
there was no one left to speak out.
I remained silent;
I was not a communist.
When they locked up the social Democrats,
I remained silent;
I was not a social Democrat.
When they came for the trade unionists,
I did not speak out;
I was not a trade unionist.
When they came for the Jews,
I remained silent;
I wasn't a Jew.
When they came for me,
there was no one left to speak out.
- Martin Niemöller
I'd tell the store manager that the employee cost him a large sale, and suggest said employee might be better placed in the Fabric or Housewares department.
I would follow up with the corporate office. I'd mention how Colt and Bushmaster would react to such disparagement of their product.
I would follow up with the corporate office. I'd mention how Colt and Bushmaster would react to such disparagement of their product.
- Status
