How to defend black rifles?

[powder]

Having an AR with a 5 round mag. is like going to the woods with a dull knife, or drinking whiskey in church: you can do it, but it's ill advised.

There's a place for battles and wars-with in-laws is not one of them. I am far to the right on RKBA from them, and they are far to the right from me on social issues. Keep the peace.

 

[Neverwinter]

Separate your front line argument from the propriety of fighting implements, and fall back to the basic value proposition of military designs: <br />
<br />
They are accurate, hardy, reliable, foolproof, and cost effective.

This goes for non-fighting implements too.

If they complain about "military features", remind them of the origins of GPS and the Internet. If they don't agree with civilians having access to such technologies, invite them to put their money where their mouth is. This approach works wonders with modern antibiotics and people who disagree with evolution.

Sent using Tapatalk 2

 

[mmitch]

Of coarse the only real reason to own them is so you can pass-them-down to his future grand-children. He should understand that.

Mike

 

[labhound]

I've learned that you're not going to win an arguement with a liberal or conservative when it comes to guns, politics or religion. The last liberals I had a Facebook discussion with about evil semi-auto handguns and rifles with high capacity mags I discovered they had no idea what a semi-auto was. I got replies concerning long guns that it was okay to own a shotgun to hunt with and maybe a small handgun for self defense. I did tell them how devestating a shotgun could be and that small handguns come in very big calibers. I've given up trying to change their already made up minds. If one of the shows interest, I'll take them to my range and let them shoot. Other than that, I've decided it's a waste of my time to engage in a discussion with someone that has already made up their mind and has no interest in my side of the issue or has no interest is learning any facts that I may present them with. I don't need to justify anything to them. I can own guns therefore I do!

 

[alsaqr]

This black rifle needs no defense:

http://imageshack.us/a/img838/4774/dsc01350u.jpg

 

[mljdeckard]

Society has invented this imaginary line where the military should have one kind of weapon, and civilians should have a different kind. They have invented this term like "High capacity" to describe their idea of "too many bullets".

This is of course gibberish. Civilian arms have always been the same arms the military has. Now as well as then. People don't have any idea that there were old lever guns that held 18 rounds. They don't realize that a WW I Enfield has a range of more than twice that of a modern M-16. They don't realize that modern combat rifles use intermediately powered cartridges.

They freak out about AR-pattern rifles, but they have no idea that pretty much all bolt action rifles are descended in one way or another from the old Mauser. They are ALL military-style rifles.

 

[Owen Sparks]

It is futile to argue facts and reasons against emotion.

 

[Iramo94]

Black metal and plastic parts are more recyclable!

So true! If wood breaks, you gotta cut down a whole new tree, but if plastic breaks, just melt them down and cast a new one.
I'm totally using that for my super-hyper-eco-friendly friends.

 

[holdencm9]

I just like to find out something they enjoy or hold dear and ask how they'd enjoy it if the government stripped their freedom to do that.

This is especially effective if your friends enjoy drinking big gulps.

 

[Wanderling]

A rifle is a platform for shooting a round.

Any rifle that is capable of shooting a similar round at a similar rate of fire from a magazine of similar capacity is creating the same end effect, the rest is irrelevant.

It's the round that does the damage. Remington 750 with a 10 round mag in 30-06 is more deadly than AK47 with 10 round mag (at reasonable distances, i.e. not too close where length becomes an issue) . It's shooting a similar round at a similar rate of fire but with a much better accuracy. So this beautiful hunting rifle is no more or less "evil" than AK. It is a tool that produces similar results in most circumstances.

 

[Wanderling]

I just like to find out something they enjoy or hold dear and ask how they'd enjoy it if the government stripped their freedom to do that.

This is especially effective if your friends enjoy drinking big gulps.

This isn't going to work since they don't believe that it's right for you to have it in the first place. Just think of some of the other things some people enjoy a few of them are illegal and for a good reason.

"I want it because I want it" is not an argument. "There's no practical difference on the working end between a semi-auto hunting rifle and a semi-auto black rifle" is a better line. Me thinks.

 

[xwingband]

So true! If wood breaks, you gotta cut down a whole new tree, but if plastic breaks, just melt them down and cast a new one.
I'm totally using that for my super-hyper-eco-friendly friends.

You better hope they aren't knowledgeable though because then you might start talking about embodied energy. Hopefully it just shuts them up for a bit. Saying with a stupid grin that "My AR is more sustainable because I could recycle it" would be worth it. Then tell them you recycle (reload) your ammo too!

"There's no practical difference on the working end between a semi-auto hunting rifle and a semi-auto black rifle" is a better line.

Better... but still not effective. There is no need in their eyes. Food for hunting? They'd tell you to go to the supermarket and go down the meat aisle. Defense? Until they've been assaulted it's someone else's job to protect or such a rare occurance that you're being paranoid. Defense of liberty? That's even more absurd. It's "my right"? They don't believe that. If it's not needed for hunting or defense of anything, it's no surprise that people think it's a killing machine.

Again I think the only way to change a mind is to take away the mystic and have them shoot. I didn't think a darn thing about shooting until someone took me. It's a great hobby for many as it involves skill to improve upon and things to tinker with... and I like that it goes bang.

 

[Powderman]

Sir, the only reason you need is that you want one. Don't go defensive, and definitely don't be apologetic. You want it because you felt the need to purchase one. Period, end of story.

 

[JohnKSa]

The 2nd Amendment was written to protect the right of citizens to own weapons that were, at the time, state of the art military firearms.

It wasn't written to protect their right to own firearms for recreation or hunting.

 

[zorro45]

why

According to JPFO (Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership)
conservative estimate, 280 Million people killed by their own governments in the past century (1900-2000). What more reason do you need?

 

[RBid]

I have not read the whole thread. I read a few responses, and skipped to responding.


"why should we have them" is NOT the question.

Why SHOULDN'T we have them?... that's the question.

The response will be something along the lines of, "all they are used for...", "they have only one purpose", "they're too dangerous", "they aren't for", etc.


We win on this front, every time, by referencing these facts:

- semiautomatic rifles are used in fewer than 300 murders, each year. Bare hands are used to kill about 800.

- the FBI has estimated that there are about 4 million privately owned "assault rifles" in the US. This means that roughly 4 million are not being used for murder. They are, in fact, being used for everything except "the only thing they are used for".

- violent crime has continually decreased since the AWB expired in 2004, while ownership has clearly skyrocketed. This doesn't necessarily indicate that having them reduces crime, but it clearly shows that having them is not increasing crime.

- Increased media coverage does not indicate an "epidemic". We have fewer incidents, with substantially more press, because drama drives ratings. This is verifiable by actually studying violent crime trends, and confirming that crime is down.

- banning them does not reduce crime. Banning "assault weapons" simply displaces statistics. This is why the Brady Campaign reported that, "the AWB resulted in assault weapons being used in 66% less gun crime". Actual result: among crimes in which firearms were used (diminishing the total count to inflate the following percentages), "assault weapons" went from being used in 4.5% of instances, to 1.5%. Big picture: they hadn't killed more than 300 people in a year, in the first place. Millions of dollars were spent to shuffle statistics.

- If the GAO had determined that the AWB had actually had any impact, that would have been reported, and it would repeatedly be cited by gun control advocates. Instead, the Brady Campaign's best go-to was the 4.5% to 1.5% figure, with no corresponding translation into actual count, as the count was so insignificant.

 

[2DREZQ]

According to JPFO (Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership)
conservative estimate, 280 Million people killed by their own governments in the past century (1900-2000). What more reason do you need?

This.

I don't argue any more. I've only ever made ONE liberal even waver on the subject. You can shoot down every reason they have, and it makes no difference.

The one argument I haven't tried is: Since you want to change the constitution, I should not have to justify my perfectly legal ownership of anything. The burden of proof of the need for change rest with you, so let's hear your reasons why we should repeal or ignore 10% of the bill of rights to give some people what I can prove is a false sense of security.

 

[Bhi curamach]

Having an AR with a 5 round mag. is like going to the woods with a dull knife, or drinking whiskey in church: you can do it, but it's ill advised.

There's a place for battles and wars-with in-laws is not one of them. I am far to the right on RKBA from them, and they are far to the right from me on social issues. Keep the peace.

No sir, this could only make church more interesting. I might actually consider going back....

 

[RBid]

2DREZO,

Please refrain from interchanging "anti" with "liberal". Oregon and Washington residents, among others, owe great gun laws in our states to legislation passed or killed by "liberals".

The simple fact is that not all "liberals" are anti-gun. Many are what I have heard referred to as "2nd Amendment liberals".


Also, by being patient, rational, and willing, I have managed to convert at least a dozen antis to pro-gun*. All of them are "liberals".


Thank you, sir.


*pro responsible ownership.

 

[Arp32]

Ditto what RBid said

 

[2DREZQ]

2DREZO,

Please refrain from interchanging "anti" with "liberal". Oregon and Washington residents, among others, owe great gun laws in our states to legislation passed or killed by "liberals".

The simple fact is that not all "liberals" are anti-gun. Many are what I have heard referred to as "2nd Amendment liberals".


Also, by being patient, rational, and willing, I have managed to convert at least a dozen antis to pro-gun*. All of them are "liberals".


Thank you, sir.


*pro responsible ownership.

My apologies.

I do that sometimes. I think it is mainly that all the "liberals" I count as friends and associates are the only even marginally anti-people I communicate with, and none of my "conservative" friends are "that way".

I never intentionally refer to rabidly anti's as anything else, and I don't spend much time around them either.

 

[Kynoch]

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.

I'm not sure how you define "potent", but both the AR and the AK are capable of producing FAR more firepower than the 30-30.

Both the AR and AK can be loaded/reloaded with 30+ plus rounds in 2-3 seconds. Try that with a 30-30 lever gun. Both the 5.56x45 and the 7.62x39 rounds are far more deadly than the 30-30. They're flatter shooting, greater trajectory and far more likely to tumble upon impact.

 

[Inebriated]

^ Don't forget, the AK and AR both are also capable of firing full-powered cartridges (.308, for example), and retaining that same effectiveness as far as capacity and reload speed are concerned.

I think comparing them to any other gun further alienates them to the public, or is more fuel for an anti. "Oh, the .30-30 lever is more powerful? BAN THAT TOO!"

 

[nazshooter]

Imho these arguments always end up being about magazine capacity. The other features of black rifles such as light weight, low recoil, and adjustable stocks are easy to explain, even to non shooters.

Sent from my ADR6425LVW using Tapatalk 2

 

[Kynoch]

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

That's not why those weapons were originally designed and produced. While you might have bought such weapons for "sporting purposes" that need not be the reason that anyone else in the USA buys them. We have the Second Amendment and our access to firearms is not limited to those designed to be used for sporting purposes.