How to defend black rifles?

[brnmuenchow]

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.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

They must have been using those secret evil 7.62X39mm explosive rounds.

I remember hearing that also many years ago, and I have no comment for the people that actually believed that even back then. Common sense people... .30-06 Spfld. or even a 7.62X54Rmm to my knowledge or experience has never made a deer "explode" yet this 7.62X39mm round that is not even in the same power/ velocity ballpark can. I smell a conspiracy here somewhere.

My father I remember years ago said that if the anti's can't go after the guns themselves than they will go after the ammunition that those evil guns fire. The only problem I see with even that statement now is that even for the anti's to do that, the AR platform itself would be impossible to restrict the ammo due to all the different types of ammo the AR can now fire.

 

[holdencm9]

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.

If they try telling my that my inalienable and constitutionally-protected human right (note: not "constitutional right" but "constitutionally-protected") is not a right, then I just say, well, agree to disagree, another beer sir?

Or if I am feeling like getting into it (and this is something you don't do with a F-I-L but maybe some acquaintance at a party, who you don't mind stirring the pot a bit) I will say (using the previous example) I don't think big gulps, or any size caffeinated-sugary drink for that matter, is a right. If they ask why, I say, they are terrible for you, they are addictive, they pose a national health risk, and are not even mentioned in the constitution! They then say "soda didn't exist in the 1700's, and millions of people enjoy those drinks all the time without them hurting anyone!" To which I respond "you mean like those so-called "assault weapons?"

Bazinga!

Perhaps they may be puzzled. Perhaps they may say "well that is different, people ENJOY soft drinks, and their sole purpose isn't to KILL" at this point it is just too easy. I could respond by saying people ENJOY their rifles, and the purpose is what you make it. The person on the receiving end of a bludgeoning doesn't really care that the bat was designed to hit baseballs and not crush skulls, do they?

Usually then it tapers off into a discussion of what is "best for society" and then you can hit them with the FBI stats, and that really just about everything kills more than rifles. Including: bare hands, knives, swimming pools, obesity (ie fast food and soft drinks), prescription drugs, doctors, cars, ladders, and poisons.

But that's usually only if I am in a mood and need to cheer myself up

 

[Owen Sparks]

Here is something that might be of help.

http://www.survivalblog.com/2012/09/guest-article-to-arms-by-william-crosby-prentice.html

The gist of this article is that man has a natural right to defend himself and that weapons are only tools suitable to that end.

 

[k_dawg]

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.

I have to disagree.
Bigots rarely listen to factual reason.

 

[KAS1981]

I've got an uncle who is a gun nut. The guy can't pass one up for a good deal. He even owns a *gasp* Glock.

He told me that if I wanted to play with rifles like my AR, go enlist. When I pointed out it was no different than any of his semi-auto hunting rifles (except for magazine capacity), he was unfazed.

My brother is also a gun owner. Couple shotguns, rifles, semi-auto pistols, etc etc. Likes guns, not what I'd call a gun nut. Calls AR's & AK's "assault weapons", disapproves of civilian ownership. Also has no solid basis for his opinion, other than the rare instance of some evil-doer doing evil with one.

I don't get it.

 

[pockets]

They then say "soda didn't exist in the 1700's, and millions of people enjoy those drinks all the time without them hurting anyone!"

To which you should reply that they are entirely incorrect. 'Soda' certainly did exist in the 1700's.
Carbonated drinks were not invented by Pepsi & Coke. As far back as 1676, the Compagnie de Limonadiers of Paris were granted a monopoly for the sale of lemonade soft drinks (lemon & honey in carbonated spring water). By 1767, Doctor Joseph Priestley created the first drinkable man-made carbonated water. In 1798 The term "soda water" was originally coined. I think Thomas, George and the gang may have enjoyed a soda or two.
But only a 16 ounce soda.....32oz would have been excessive.
.

 

[Blackstone]

They must have been using those secret evil 7.62X39mm explosive rounds.

I remember hearing that also many years ago, and I have no comment for the people that actually believed that even back then. Common sense people... .30-06 Spfld. or even a 7.62X54Rmm to my knowledge or experience has never made a deer "explode" yet this 7.62X39mm round that is not even in the same power/ velocity ballpark can. I smell a conspiracy here somewhere.

My father I remember years ago said that if the anti's can't go after the guns themselves than they will go after the ammunition that those evil guns fire. The only problem I see with even that statement now is that even for the anti's to do that, the AR platform itself would be impossible to restrict the ammo due to all the different types of ammo the AR can now fire.

Sounds like the same drivel that a 50 cal doesn't even have to hit you to kill you

 

[holdencm9]

To which you should reply that they are entirely incorrect. 'Soda' certainly did exist in the 1700's.

Haha pockets. Yes you are definitely correct, and that would be a great way to change the subject at least! Apparently my soda pop history knowledge is lacking.

I've got an uncle who is a gun nut. The guy can't pass one up for a good deal. He even owns a *gasp* Glock.

He told me that if I wanted to play with rifles like my AR, go enlist. When I pointed out it was no different than any of his semi-auto hunting rifles (except for magazine capacity), he was unfazed.

My brother is also a gun owner. Couple shotguns, rifles, semi-auto pistols, etc etc. Likes guns, not what I'd call a gun nut. Calls AR's & AK's "assault weapons", disapproves of civilian ownership. Also has no solid basis for his opinion, other than the rare instance of some evil-doer doing evil with one.

I don't get it.

I have known a lot of these kinds of people. I like to call them "wood-n-blue" folks. Since the only guns they seem to "approve of" are wood stock, blued barrel long guns. Lol. I have converted a couple. One in particular was against handguns and AR/AK's but now loves to shoot my AR's and is hoping to get a handgun himself.

 

[brnmuenchow]

Sounds like the same drivel that a 50 cal doesn't even have to hit you to kill you

I have heard that one too.

 

[ATLDave]

I have to disagree.
Bigots rarely listen to factual reason.

If you start out calling them bigots that cannot understand reason, your expectations will usually be confirmed.

There are some people whose minds are made up so firmly that nothing could ever change their minds. But you generally don't know who those people are in advance.

And, there are lots of people who have the facts on their side but are just lousy persuaders. Just because someone didn't buy the arguments you were making doesn't mean they can't be persuaded. It just means YOU didn't persuade them that time. Be nice. Don't get indignant. You'll just entrench them. People with anti-gun views assume that gun owners/enthusiasts are quick-tempered souls who resemble political radio talk-show personalities. Don't confirm that bias; it just makes them want to get guns away from you faster!

 

[ATLDave]

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".

Great, great post.

 

[HoosierQ]

That's the biggest problem in American today...the polarization of "Liberals" vs "Conservatives". As it applies to guns, there is this wrong headed notion that Liberals are anti-gun. There will, obviously, be some trending in that direction...more now than in the past...but there are lots of Liberal Democrats with an NRA A rating and lots of Conservative Republicans with an F rating...a current prominent candidate for high office among them.

I defend AR-15 ownership with a story. I wanted a Winchester my whole life. Wanted to be a trapper, hunter, mountain man...wanted to be Jerimiah Johnson basically...live among Indians...kid stuff...but good kid stuff.

So 10 years ago I got one. Gave up hunting and trapping years ago and now just do varmint control as needed. Don't need a 30-30 for anything but wanted it.

So got my Winchester for a range gun...a fun gun. Well it kicks like a mule because it's so light and the butt is so narrow. Jamming rounds into the loading gate hurt like hell on my big fingers and was slow and tedious (you never see John Wayne loading a Winchester I don't think). And after about 10 rounds, the darn thing was so hot, and the forend so small that there was practically no place metal you could touch. All in all, a thoroughly unpleasant gun to shoot for fun. Now this was a new one, with that awful cross-bolt safety, not very well made, and not of any sentimental value. Sold it. Had it been an old one I'd've kept it.

AR-15s. 100% different story. Fun to shoot. Easy to load, get's hot but all the hot parts are shielded. Ammo is cheap. Sights are good. So I still have a good servicable rifle that, in point of fact, is gonna be way better at varmint control that the Winchester, is light, and is just plain fun to shoot for sport. I would rely on it for defense if the going got very tough but I have handguns for that purpose.

I also point out that "the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" and that an AR-15 is a very common civilian arm just like a bolt action rifle was in most of the 20th century, the Winchester was in the 19th, and the Kentucky rifle was in the 18th.

 

[hang fire]

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

I would never attempt to defend any firearm to those who oppose them, for they will never accept one's argument.

 

[Guy de Loimbard]

Ask him why those are bad things?
Long range accuracy - is there anyone who does not want this? Are there people who shop for inaccurate guns? I see "How can I make "x rifle" more accurate" all the time. But one thing I don't usually see is "how do I destroy my gun's accuracy?". IMO whether you're shooting at paper targets or the thugs that just broke into your house at 0 dark 30, more accuracy is better.

Capacity - why would you intentionally handicap yourself? It's more convenient at the shooting range not to have to reload every 10 rounds, and that's not the only place.
I live fairly close to Jonesboro, AR. So far this month (and it's only the 19th!) there have been three home invasions involving two armed perps - the last one resulted in the occupant of the dwelling receiving 4 gunshot wounds. If I were the victim in any of those situations I do believe I would be much better served with an AR or AK than with what most non-gun people consider "sporting" rifles.

 

[Ryanxia]

A friend of mine actually had a good point if you want to use something other than 'because this is America' (my favorite).

He stated that semi-auto rifles are great for shooting prairie dogs which is important because cows/horses break their legs a lot in the prairie dog holes.
And as we all know AR-15's are just regular semi-auto rifles made to look like their military counterpart assault rifles.

 

[Shadow 7D]

I would start by CHANGING THE TOPIC
to something fun, like NY NY banning 'large' soda's and 'other' drinks sweetened by sugar...

then ask them what's the difference between a 16 oz, and a Big Gulp??
why is one OK and the other not

then I'd use their words and ask them the same question about the guns.

 

[ArfinGreebly]

Oh, by the way, for the "sporting purposes" crowd, have I posted this lately?




Let's not forget, "AR" stands for "Armalite," the company that owned the design, not "Assault Rifle" or even "Automatic Rifle."

 

[Ryanxia]

Nice find Arfin. Wish the price was still the same

 

[Baba Louie]

Tools are gadgets. People are weapons. (shamelessly stolen from a Michael Z Williamson book, I forget which... maybe Rogue?)

 

[PT92]

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

Show him this (it's even of his era which enhances credibility):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vgr3kTU68uw

 

[Roadking Rider]

I explained it was for sporting purposes.
You didn't really say that did you?
As an older man that sounds like BS to me,and I'm sure it did to him to. If you like the idea that your AR is tacticool and you like the idea that it puts a lot of ammo down range in a hurry at least be up front about it and admit to it. When I was younger the one thing my FIL liked about me was I talked to him straight up with no BS, and it didn't make any difference if we agreed on anything. We did however respect and liked each other as men with just a different point of view. When he died he left me a Colt 1911 the other suckup BS'n SIL got a JC Higgins bolt action 22.

 

[JustinJ]

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

No offense but if you hold an opinion should you not already have good reasons for it?

 

[crossrhodes]

Sporting Purpose

Sporting purpose is a slippery slope if you classify it as "for hunting" only, which it's not. I would like to see someone run a 3G match with only a 3 round magazine. I think the term sporting purpose needs to also include that which requires high cap mags and semi auto firearms too.
Question for an anti firearm person...can you name any Olympic sport that requires the consumption of alcohol? it kills more people then firearms.

 

[Owen Sparks]

Ryanxia said"

Nice find Arfin. Wish the price was still the same.

It is if you factor in inflation.

A new AR now is worth about the same number of gallons of milk or loaves of bread as it was then. What did an ounce of gold cost in 1969?

 

[sleepercaprice1]

Any time someone tells me that semi-auto firearms with large capacity magazines are only for killing lots of people quickly, I ask them why we would furnish them to law enforcement officers. Why would we want our police to kill lots of people quickly?