How to defend black rifles?

[Droid noob]

So in some casual conversation with my father in law, i mentioned i owned an AR and AK47. He was shocked to say the least. I had told him, I purchased them for fun at the range and i was a little worried they might ban them eventually. He didn't think we should have access to these types of firearms. His main argument was the capacity and long range accuracy they have(he obviously doesn't know the ak platform very well lol). I explained it was for sporting purposes and there are millions of ppl who own these firearms and are law abiding citizens. Basically saying a few rotten apples shouldn't ruin everyone's rtba.

What else could I have given as a good argument for not banning these great rifles? He not uniformed about what we can legally own. For instance, he understands these aren't fully automatic.
Sent from my ADR6350 using Tapatalk 2

 

[MtnCreek]

I explained it was for sporting purposes

Cringe...

 

[vulcandeathbuny]

Because ppl get killed due to drunk drivers should we ban cars?

 

[FMF Doc]

"Sporting Purpose" -- You are starting down a slippery slope. When we all start accepting sporting purpose, we give the gun-grabbers the ammo they need to make that the only purpose. Then they can say, "If it is for sporting, then you don't need more that 5 rounds in your rifle, or 3 in your shotgun...do you?" These are WEAPONS to defend your life and freedom with. If your father-in-law can not accept that, then that is his problem to deal with, but don't sugar coat the facts to try to apease him. It sends the wrong message.

 

[gunsandreligion]

More people are killed with bare hands than "assult rifles" in the us.

 

[68wj]

Is he one of those "but" heads? I support the 2nd Amendment, but...

 

[Caliper_Mi]

I explained it was for sporting purposes

Our Forefathers weren't shooting for sport at Lexington and Concord.

Quite honestly, there is nothing in the Constitution that protects sporting purposes. The 2A protects weapon ownership from the position of preserving the Peoples right to defend themselves in a military fashion against other human threats be they invaders or tyrants. ie: form a Militia.

 

[xwingband]

Black metal and plastic parts are more recyclable!

I don't know why that came to mind, but it cracked me up. Realistically everything that makes them more efficient at killing, is present in other guns not under a military pattern, and makes them more enjoyable to shoot period. So in the end unless they shoot them and realize the differences are superficial, there isn't much you can say that doesn't "sound bad".

 

[benEzra]

Rifles of all types, including AR's/AK's, are the LEAST misused of all firearms.

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2010/crime-in-the-u.s.-2010/tables/10tbl20.xls

Total murders...........................12,996.....100.00%
Handguns.................................6,009......46.24%
Firearms (type unknown)..................2,035......15.66%
Other weapons (non-firearm, non-edged)...1,772......13.63%
Edged weapons............................1,704......13.11%
Hands, feet, etc...........................745.......5.73%
Shotguns...................................373.......2.87%
Rifles.....................................358.......2.75%

"Black rifles" are just non-automatic civilian rifles...and they happen to be the most popular civilian centerfire rifles in the United States. Considerably more Americans own so-called "assault weapons" (as defined by the anti's) than hunt, so from a pragmatic standpoint it would be ridiculous to try to ban them, particularly when they are so rarely misused.

 

[Ftak]

Lol are you going green with respect to firearms

 

[stubbicatt]

From a Constitutional perspective, while that document provides solely for a Navy, it does not provide for a standing Army, an intentional omission. Instead of a standing Army, the drafters of that document anticipated a Militia, made of all able bodied men, and so the 2nd Amendment was born. I have often wondered why it was placed in the Bill of Rights when in fact it is not really a right, but an obligation. Or maybe a qualified right, in light of the need for a well equipped militia, the rights of the people (free men) to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

One of the early casualties of the judiciary was "natural law." Natural law dictates the right to self defense. Without the right to self defense, which has been watered down significantly in the intervening 2 centuries, and even more so by the advent of the Marxist inspired "Police Department," the need for a firearm becomes suspect. After all, with respect to the legitimacy of the police department, if the law has been taken from the people and reconstituted as an arm of the government, only the police then have the right to the use of force, whether to repel aggression on certain individuals, or to stamp out dissent which arises when approved aggression is used against certain other individuals.

I have found that rather than argue with these folks, it is easier to just take them to the range and spend about 100 rounds familiarizing them with firearms in general. When they are smiling due to the good time they just had, they tend to lose the fear that they had. It is axiomatic that one hates what one fears.

My $.02.

 

[JFtheGR8]

Vote and let your stance be known to your representatives. You can bet your father in law casts his vote.


Posted from Thehighroad.org App for Android

 

[Droid noob]

Is he one of those "but" heads? I support the 2nd Amendment, but...

Maybe. The conversation was very light though. He didn't seem to care either way. He was more inquisitive than anything.

Sent from my ADR6350 using Tapatalk 2

 

[Droid noob]

"Sporting Purpose" -- You are starting down a slippery slope. When we all start accepting sporting purpose, we give the gun-grabbers the ammo they need to make that the only purpose. Then they can say, "If it is for sporting, then you don't need more that 5 rounds in your rifle, or 3 in your shotgun...do you?" These are WEAPONS to defend your life and freedom with. If your father-in-law can not accept that, then that is his problem to deal with, but don't sugar coat the facts to try to apease him. It sends the wrong message.

I know what you mean. Imo that just isn't the best way to get through to a peer. He would probably brush that off and think I'm just a tin foil hatter. Like someone else mentioned, the most constructive way might be to get him on the range. Most people that aren't in the shooting community think we're crazy for owning firearms to defend ourselves from a tyranny situation.

Sent from my ADR6350 using Tapatalk 2

 

[Mosbyranger]

First off, I would never say I own a "black rifle" or, god forbid, an "assault rifle". I own semi-automatic rifles and pistols of various calibers. Would you like to go to the range and try one out? Let him have the experience first, then go about re-educating him in regards to rights, terminology, facts etc. Leave the emotional baggage (meaning loaded language) at the curb, then let him make up his mind. He may change it or he may not, but with this you have done about all you can do to show him what it actually is, as opposed to what his current perception may be.
MR

 

[Kristensdaddy]

I use the analogy of a race car. Just because I paint a big #3 on the side doors and roof of a passenger car doesn't change what the car is. Just because the rifle is black and has stuff hanging off it doesn't make it any different than the M1 from WWII or from the Remington 7400. It is an ordinary rifle, no different from any other rifle on the shelf.

The COTUS says I have the right to have it. No further explanation necessary.

 

[gfanikf]

Rifles of all types, including AR's/AK's, are the LEAST misused of all firearms.

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2010/crime-in-the-u.s.-2010/tables/10tbl20.xls

Total murders...........................12,996.....100.00%
Handguns.................................6,009......46.24%
Firearms (type unknown)..................2,035......15.66%
Other weapons (non-firearm, non-edged)...1,772......13.63%
Edged weapons............................1,704......13.11%
Hands, feet, etc...........................745.......5.73%
Shotguns...................................373.......2.87%
Rifles.....................................358.......2.75%

"Black rifles" are just non-automatic civilian rifles...and they happen to be the most popular civilian centerfire rifles in the United States. Considerably more Americans own so-called "assault weapons" (as defined by the anti's) than hunt, so from a pragmatic standpoint it would be ridiculous to try to ban them, particularly when they are so rarely misused.

Oh man I'm copying that in the a word file. I've referenced it before but cut and pasting from the Uniform Crime Reports is such a PITA. Even if EVERY type unknown was a AR and AK it would still be dramatically lower.

Kung Fu appears to be more deadly...as it should be. lol

 

[Droid noob]

I do agree the sporting purpose isn't a very strong argument though.

Sent from my ADR6350 using Tapatalk 2

 

[ATLDave]

Rifles of all types, including AR's/AK's, are the LEAST misused of all firearms.

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2010/crime-in-the-u.s.-2010/tables/10tbl20.xls

Total murders...........................12,996.....100.00%
Handguns.................................6,009......46.24%
Firearms (type unknown)..................2,035......15.66%
Other weapons (non-firearm, non-edged)...1,772......13.63%
Edged weapons............................1,704......13.11%
Hands, feet, etc...........................745.......5.73%
Shotguns...................................373.......2.87%
Rifles.....................................358.......2.75%

"Black rifles" are just non-automatic civilian rifles...and they happen to be the most popular civilian centerfire rifles in the United States. Considerably more Americans own so-called "assault weapons" (as defined by the anti's) than hunt, so from a pragmatic standpoint it would be ridiculous to try to ban them, particularly when they are so rarely misused.

Speaking as someone who has a number of anti-gun relatives and friends, this is the ONLY argument suggested so far in the thread that has a prayer of making any headway.

Those of us here are likely to feel deeply about firearms as a RIGHT. Those who have no interest in guns won't feel that way. They will likely make a cost/benefit analysis of guns. Whether this is "right" or not makes no difference; if what you care about is persuading them, then you have to come to them with arguments that will make sense TO THEM. Explaining that the percieved costs to society (extra violent crime) are much lower than they likely percieve is likely to be persuasive. Then you can talk about benefits that they are missing. Among other things, you can reference the increasing contribution of guns and ammunition to the national economoy, and the fact that manufacturing (not just design and corporate functions) still happens here.

In the end, you've got to ask what the purpose of the conversation is. If it's to feel right, then make some of the arguments raised here. If it's to convince your father-in-law that you're right, or at least not wildly wrong, then approach it from a costs and benefits view. And ask him to go shooting. Once he sees how much fun it is, the benefits get a lot clearer!

 

[Ehtereon11B]

AR and AK weapons (I refuse to use the term assault weapon in a serious context) is the fence for most 2A supporters. I have seen people say "I support the Second but ban those damn black rifles." These are usually people with no military or police experience and play into the fear mongering of the media in regards to semi-autos. It really is a slippery slope either way. For example, I support AR/AK ownership but not something larger like dual .50 mounted behind the headlights for wannabe Bonds. And that is the slippery slope with AR/AK as the apex. If ARs are banned where will it stop? If ARs are fully allowed (kinda like now) where will it stop?

Its easy to defend ARs for me. They are a familiar rifle for me which will make it great for hunting and defense. When I eventually get one.

 

[brnmuenchow]

Very good question, and no I do not have a good answer. Only because if someone has already made up their mind about a particular type of gun it may be unlikely you will be able to convince them otherwise. I have people ask me that as well, "WHY?" All I can tell them is they are fun to own and shoot and I don't really care if they agree with my purpose for owning one. I am in my 30's I don't even have so much as a speeding ticket on my record, no criminal behavior ever and I have a right to own one if I want one.

Make no mistake I do believe in defending our rights as responsible gun owners and I do against the political anti's, but getting into it with your father/ mother-in-law over gun rights is like walking a minefield that does not really get you anywhere. IMO. (It might even get you put in the "Dog house"!)

Plus on another note I know that many (not all), but many of the older gen. folk really don't see a reason to own anything other than a lever or bolt gun. I understand that it is just part of the way they grew up. Even my own grandfather's who all are pro- gun ex-military never really used the guns they used in combat for common leisure fun when they got back, many did but not all. Think about how sitting around a campfire on the hunt back in the 1970/80's chances are you did not see many if at all AR's, AK's, SKS's, etc... They used bolt/ lever action's back then. I believe as time progresses and more people use these types of firearms for hunting, target shooting, plinking around, or whatever (Hopefully within legal means of use.) They will one day become just as accepted as our more traditional firearms, but only time will allow that.

 

[MachIVshooter]

Even if EVERY type unknown was a AR and AK it would still be dramatically lower.

I suspect the "type unknown" category breaks down in about the same percentages.

 

[gfanikf]

I suspect the "type unknown" category breaks down in about the same percentages.

I would too (and perhaps some zip guns), iit was more just looking at it from the "worst" possible angle how it still comes out being favorable.

 

[lobo9er]

explaining that a 30-30 lever gun is more potent than either might help. I have used that in debates before. It helps bring people back to reality of the capabilities of an AK. I remember some poli-tricker said that an AK would blow a deer up, and I am sure there are plenty of people that believe such non sense.

 

[Midwest]

What else could I have given as a good argument for not banning these great rifles?

Korean store owners defended their stores from looters in the infamous LA riots with 'black rifles' . I don't think 'sporting' .22 squirrel rifles would have done much good.

Please if this comes up again, and it surely will. Here is the link and the article

http://gunowners.org/fs0404.htm

"D. Semi-automatic "assault weapons" are excellent for self-defense
2. Hi-capacity semi-autos can help decent people to defend themselves

Los Angeles riots: Many of the guns targeted by so-called assault weapons bans are the very guns with which the Korean merchants used to defend themselves during the 1992 Los Angeles riots.(124) Those firearms proved to be extremely useful to the Koreans. Their stores were left standing while other stores around them were burned to the ground.

The Korean merchants would probably agree with Capt. Massad Ayoob. When one is facing mob violence and the police are nowhere to be found, one needs a gun that shoots more than just six bullets. A ban on large capacity semi-automatic firearms will only harm one's ability to defend himself and his family. "



124 "Koreans make armed stand to protect shops from looters," Roanoke Times & World-News, 3 May 1992.