JImbothefiveth
Member
That's not always the case.
For some, a rifle might be better.
Own an AR15 or AK? This guy thinks you shouldn't
- Thread starter RockyMtnTactical
- Start date
- Status
For some, a rifle might be better.
Frog48
Member
Uh huh, sure buddy.
misANTHrope
Member
RockyMtnTactical said:
You and I must have read different articles, because the one I read most certainly did not call EBR owners sickos, nor did it insinuate they were potential murderers.
The article I read repeated the common assertion by us that "assault rifles" differ only from semiauto hunting guns in their looks. The author then asserted that part of the bad rap EBRs get is due to certain sickos apparently gravitating towards them, thus feeding the public perception that they're "bad."
At no point did I see he author support the banning of EBRs. About as far as he went was to express an apparent personal dislike for them. I sure didn't get the idea that, as you said, he thinks we shouldn't own them.
I just don't see anything in there worth getting upset about, except for the apparent lack of a real point in the article.
hankdatank1362
Member
Heck, I'd be impressed if he could do it at 1000 feet.
General Geoff
Member
Sounds to me like he's advocating for the ban of 125 year old black powder buffalo rifles. After all, they're far more lethal than those icky AR-15s and AKs.
Turnyourback, definitely not goth and you do look fine and at ease with you AK. A woman, hell anyone, can learn a helluva lot once you know that when the SHTF you won't be cowering and pleading for your life. Can't happen in America? I guess the author has missed all of the news reports about looting after hurricanes, floods, fires and gangs.
Yeah the Mumbai attacks just put it all the more in perspective. What would have happened if 30% of the "victims" the terrorists encountered would have been armed and ready to fight instead of running or being led to slaughter like sheep?
The author also doesn't understand that they have and they will confiscate your "hunting" and "target" firearms. He never heard of DC, Chicago, NYC, California?
He also doesn't understand that the 2nd Amendment isn't about hunting and if you don't get that...
Yeah the Mumbai attacks just put it all the more in perspective. What would have happened if 30% of the "victims" the terrorists encountered would have been armed and ready to fight instead of running or being led to slaughter like sheep?
The author also doesn't understand that they have and they will confiscate your "hunting" and "target" firearms. He never heard of DC, Chicago, NYC, California?
He also doesn't understand that the 2nd Amendment isn't about hunting and if you don't get that...
BCRider
Member
We all seem to be reading different articles here. Other than his opinion that black gun owners are trying to compensate he's actually on the side of continuing the status quo. Some of you need to re-read the article with a bit more objectivity.
turnyourback
Member
response:
Lauren,
You're right that the primary purpose of the Second Amendment was to create state defense forces at a time when most people in the United States did not want a standing army.
And fortunately for us gun owners, the Supreme Court has decided that the introductory clause, "A well regulated militia being necessary for the security of a free state," doesn't mean that we have to be members of a recognized state militia to own a firearm.
But that doesn't mean that states can't impose reasonable gun controls, such as limiting the types of weapons that can be owned and requiring that guns be registered. We do that for the same reasons that we don't allow people to drive open-wheeled formula race cars on state highways or let your neighbor open a small chemical plant in his back yard. We recognized that some things in our society pose enough of a risk that we need to impose limits on them.
The state can also impose reasonable limits on who is allowed to do certain things. I think you'd agree that people who have been adjudged mentally ill or have committed certain felonies should be barred from owning a gun of any kind. It's interesting that since Michigan allowed concealed weapons permits for nearly anyone who wants one, only a small percentage of the people eligible have bothered to get a CCW permit. It's even more interesting that the number of firearms crimes committed by people who have CCW permits can be counted on your two hands.
Sincerely,
Eric Sharp
Detroit Free Press
Lauren,
You're right that the primary purpose of the Second Amendment was to create state defense forces at a time when most people in the United States did not want a standing army.
And fortunately for us gun owners, the Supreme Court has decided that the introductory clause, "A well regulated militia being necessary for the security of a free state," doesn't mean that we have to be members of a recognized state militia to own a firearm.
But that doesn't mean that states can't impose reasonable gun controls, such as limiting the types of weapons that can be owned and requiring that guns be registered. We do that for the same reasons that we don't allow people to drive open-wheeled formula race cars on state highways or let your neighbor open a small chemical plant in his back yard. We recognized that some things in our society pose enough of a risk that we need to impose limits on them.
The state can also impose reasonable limits on who is allowed to do certain things. I think you'd agree that people who have been adjudged mentally ill or have committed certain felonies should be barred from owning a gun of any kind. It's interesting that since Michigan allowed concealed weapons permits for nearly anyone who wants one, only a small percentage of the people eligible have bothered to get a CCW permit. It's even more interesting that the number of firearms crimes committed by people who have CCW permits can be counted on your two hands.
Sincerely,
Eric Sharp
Detroit Free Press
RockyMtnTactical
Member
- Joined
- Oct 21, 2006
- Messages
- 3,539
I agree, he is entitled to it. However, that is irrelevant to this discussion and it doesn't mean that he is exempt from being criticized for his opinion.
Wow, I built my AR to have the weapon I am the most familiar with in the house. I bought my AK because I find them interesting and historical. 1911s for the familiar-to-me factor too.
I guess my suppressed 'crazy-school-shooting' skills must be a direct derivative of the skills I learned defending this goofball's rights while in the service. I am sure I am far more unsafe with nearly the same weapon after 20 more years of maturity.
The Michigan comment cracks me up, in the most populace areas of Michigan, you can only hunt with shotgun slugs. Yeppers, no need for a .223 semi-auto.
I guess my suppressed 'crazy-school-shooting' skills must be a direct derivative of the skills I learned defending this goofball's rights while in the service. I am sure I am far more unsafe with nearly the same weapon after 20 more years of maturity.
The Michigan comment cracks me up, in the most populace areas of Michigan, you can only hunt with shotgun slugs. Yeppers, no need for a .223 semi-auto.
MD_Willington
Member
Oh man, I didn't get the memo... guess I'll go postal now... {/BARF
skeet king
member
- Joined
- Nov 14, 2008
- Messages
- 129
If this guy is right then I must be rambo
JCMAG
Member
I've learned, in my experience, that a woman can lend the ear of a man more aptly than another man can, so I ask: Do respond in kind to this fellow on my behald, Ms. turnyourback.
You sure can own high performance race cars. There is an enormous grassroots amateur racecar culture in this country. No, you can't drive them on the highway. One drives these cars on racetracks.
Kind of like you don't shoot your space-age-hyperbole sharps rifle at the local high school football field. You shoot it at a shooting range.
"Assault weapons" only pose a threat to those who have an irrational fear of weapons. They do not, by your admittance, function any differently than any other type of semi-automatic rifle. The state does not possess the right to impose arbitrary rule based upon arbitrary concerns. There is no empirical evidence that guncontrol has ever prevented or lowered violent crime within its 500 year history of occurence. What possible other reason is there to ban these weapons?
I think it is reasonable for the state to limit your right to spew outright lies and deceptions about American firearms culture. But my opinion is irrational. Then again, so is the "opinion" of anti-rights legislatures.
That is only interesting insofar as we "rambo-types" who are "attracted" to black rifles because we are mass-murdering socio-paths because enemies of the Constitution -- such as yourself -- predicted that a proliferation of carried arms would cause crime. It has not. The sooth-sayers were wrong about the capacity of the American people for righteousness and not evil, wrong like you are about "assault weapons."
There is no reason to ban semi-automatic weapons other than a total ban on all firearms. Why would the president-elect openly sponsor banning the licensed sale of semi-automatic weapons, the private sell of firearms (the "gunshow loophole" myth"), and open major firearms manufacturers to frivolous lawsuits (the Tiahrt agreement), if for no other reason to underhandedly ban all semi-automatic weapons sales, transfers, and to prevent the manufacture through bankrupting the major companies.
We've been there before. Clinton nearly eliminated Smith & Wesson (known for their revolvers through arbitrary lawsuits. He also banned assault weapons. We know what happens to violent crime instances when weapons are banned. We've been there. It increased.
But why would a supposed sportsmen stand abreast with the enemies of the Bill of Rights. To whom does your allegiance belong?
This post may need editing for grammar and conventions....
You sure can own high performance race cars. There is an enormous grassroots amateur racecar culture in this country. No, you can't drive them on the highway. One drives these cars on racetracks.
Kind of like you don't shoot your space-age-hyperbole sharps rifle at the local high school football field. You shoot it at a shooting range.
"Assault weapons" only pose a threat to those who have an irrational fear of weapons. They do not, by your admittance, function any differently than any other type of semi-automatic rifle. The state does not possess the right to impose arbitrary rule based upon arbitrary concerns. There is no empirical evidence that guncontrol has ever prevented or lowered violent crime within its 500 year history of occurence. What possible other reason is there to ban these weapons?
I think it is reasonable for the state to limit your right to spew outright lies and deceptions about American firearms culture. But my opinion is irrational. Then again, so is the "opinion" of anti-rights legislatures.
That is only interesting insofar as we "rambo-types" who are "attracted" to black rifles because we are mass-murdering socio-paths because enemies of the Constitution -- such as yourself -- predicted that a proliferation of carried arms would cause crime. It has not. The sooth-sayers were wrong about the capacity of the American people for righteousness and not evil, wrong like you are about "assault weapons."
There is no reason to ban semi-automatic weapons other than a total ban on all firearms. Why would the president-elect openly sponsor banning the licensed sale of semi-automatic weapons, the private sell of firearms (the "gunshow loophole" myth"), and open major firearms manufacturers to frivolous lawsuits (the Tiahrt agreement), if for no other reason to underhandedly ban all semi-automatic weapons sales, transfers, and to prevent the manufacture through bankrupting the major companies.
We've been there before. Clinton nearly eliminated Smith & Wesson (known for their revolvers through arbitrary lawsuits. He also banned assault weapons. We know what happens to violent crime instances when weapons are banned. We've been there. It increased.
But why would a supposed sportsmen stand abreast with the enemies of the Bill of Rights. To whom does your allegiance belong?
This post may need editing for grammar and conventions....
mordechaianiliewicz
Member
This guy is saying the same things most (and I hate to put it this way) MOST (not all) Democratic Party affiliated gun owners have said to me. They don't generally agree to bans because they know a total ban to be stupid. They might accept certain infringements concerning access (which he seems to be) and when pressed on the AWB issue, they say they'd be okay with it, though they no the very concept of AWBs to be stupid.
freep is partisan. There are gun owners there, no doubt. Including some who are as big a fans of guns and gun rights as many Conservatives, but, you should know what to expect going on freep.
Tow the party line... regardless of what's right. Hey look at all the Conservatives who knew the Patriot Act was bunk, and thought there were serious problems with it. Same story. The same way they could easily come to regret the consequences of supporting something they knew to be wrong over the next 4-8 years (atleast), these folks could easily find themselves regretting supporting an AWB once the "sniper rifles" add on happens.
freep is partisan. There are gun owners there, no doubt. Including some who are as big a fans of guns and gun rights as many Conservatives, but, you should know what to expect going on freep.
Tow the party line... regardless of what's right. Hey look at all the Conservatives who knew the Patriot Act was bunk, and thought there were serious problems with it. Same story. The same way they could easily come to regret the consequences of supporting something they knew to be wrong over the next 4-8 years (atleast), these folks could easily find themselves regretting supporting an AWB once the "sniper rifles" add on happens.
Double Naught Spy
Sus Venator
This is amusing. Y'all are fixating on the wrong things. Some of y'all are worried about what some stranger thinks of you and then somehow think you can change his opinion by sending him emails that are either critical of his views or emails to try to change his views. Somehow, I don't think sending him the a pic of goth-looking female is going to make him think AK owners are on the straight and narrow.
Look, Zumbo could not have given a rat's behind about what gun owners thought of his comments and basically said so...until he got canned for his words and his pocketbook was affected. Then he underwent a magical reformation of his views, repented, and gun owners welcomed him back in spite of his traitorous and damaging words. You can complain to the author, but you aren't changing his mind with reactionary emails.
Look, Zumbo could not have given a rat's behind about what gun owners thought of his comments and basically said so...until he got canned for his words and his pocketbook was affected. Then he underwent a magical reformation of his views, repented, and gun owners welcomed him back in spite of his traitorous and damaging words. You can complain to the author, but you aren't changing his mind with reactionary emails.
GregGry
Member
He said could make, he never specified he was behind it
When I read the article, I started off offended, then I went to "wow some truth" then I went back to offended.
sturmgewehr667
member
i dont know about 6 inch groups, but those old 45-120 rifles were very accurate at 1000 yards and could consistently hit a basketball sized target if the shooter was good enough
MagnumDweeb
Member
The black powder gun doing a 1000 yards, well there are recorded events of Indian fighters using Sharps 50-70s and 45-120s to shoot stationary Indian warriors at .5 mile and 1 mile, I think it's more a matter of luck than skill, or maybe someone who lives and dies by there single shot being very disciplined about good shooting skill.
To say we are taking things out of context, well when he doesn't say there are normal folks who own AR15's and AKs for pure recreational fun of target shooting, homebuilding, and "hey it's my right as an American", it's rather easy to think he's just being an idiot and calling all of us EBR owners sicko. I'm law school student, county mediator, licensed CCW, and oh yeah I bought my first genuine EBR just over a week ago and I'm ordering parts kits and receivers because everything is getting spares, and have massively stocked up on ammo to the point that my two safes are getting rather full so as to make me disassembe my SKS, Yugo Mauser, and CETME to pack them in and get more room for the AK kits I got coming in.
This guy didn't say "It should also be remembered that there are many law-abiding professionals in both the white and blue collar segments of society that own and purchase various semi-automatic rifles. Unfortunately in so many parts of life there are those who choose to purchase products for either dishonorable or nefarious purposes such as paints cans (huffing), kitchen knives (to stab people), Pickup trucks (so they can be safer on the road in case they hit a smaller car, meaning that person in the car will suffer more than the person in the truck)." No what he did say is essentially that those who by and large buy semi-auto rifles are sickos living out twisted fantasies. Having met and talked in depth with a number of war veterans, full-auto is only good for the foot soldier when it gets real up close and personal, or they are behind a Mas Deus lighting up a human wave attack at five hundred yards (Korea).
I got my rear handed to me over a North and South comparison because I failed to clearly communicate my thoughts and questions, and I so deserved it because of that. The game of semantics may be a petty one but it, like now when our right are in all likelihood at stake, is a crucial one.
To say we are taking things out of context, well when he doesn't say there are normal folks who own AR15's and AKs for pure recreational fun of target shooting, homebuilding, and "hey it's my right as an American", it's rather easy to think he's just being an idiot and calling all of us EBR owners sicko. I'm law school student, county mediator, licensed CCW, and oh yeah I bought my first genuine EBR just over a week ago and I'm ordering parts kits and receivers because everything is getting spares, and have massively stocked up on ammo to the point that my two safes are getting rather full so as to make me disassembe my SKS, Yugo Mauser, and CETME to pack them in and get more room for the AK kits I got coming in.
This guy didn't say "It should also be remembered that there are many law-abiding professionals in both the white and blue collar segments of society that own and purchase various semi-automatic rifles. Unfortunately in so many parts of life there are those who choose to purchase products for either dishonorable or nefarious purposes such as paints cans (huffing), kitchen knives (to stab people), Pickup trucks (so they can be safer on the road in case they hit a smaller car, meaning that person in the car will suffer more than the person in the truck)." No what he did say is essentially that those who by and large buy semi-auto rifles are sickos living out twisted fantasies. Having met and talked in depth with a number of war veterans, full-auto is only good for the foot soldier when it gets real up close and personal, or they are behind a Mas Deus lighting up a human wave attack at five hundred yards (Korea).
I got my rear handed to me over a North and South comparison because I failed to clearly communicate my thoughts and questions, and I so deserved it because of that. The game of semantics may be a petty one but it, like now when our right are in all likelihood at stake, is a crucial one.
turnyourback
Member
oh, i'm not trying to change anyone's minds; i just thought it was a funny picture to send.
ccsniper
member
i actually enjoy it when they call me nuts! cause that means im more patriotic than most using my second amendment right to the fullest! just like i use my first amendment right to the fullest.
GTSteve03
Member
You say that like it's a bad thing.
David904
Member
My response to his article
I emailed him this response:
Dear sir,
I read your article regarding the concern many of us have over the probability that President Elect Obama will act to further infringe upon our 2nd amendment rights.
It seems to me that you and I view things from diametric points. You own firearms for sporting purposes. Mine are specifically for defensive purposes. I do not hunt; nor do I have any real desire to do so. This isn't a moral issue to me - I'm simply too lazy to get up that early in the morning and do what needs to be done to be an effective hunter. But rest assured, If I was to engage in hunting, I would make certain that I had the proper caliber rifle to do the job humanely.
I'm one of those AR15 / "Black Rifle" owning people you have labeled as a sicko or Rambo wannabe. At first I was insulted by the insinuation that I was on a par with the two socially maladjusted evil young men who perpetrated the Columbine massacre - especially since my chosen profession is the preservation of life as a Registered Nurse. However, I quickly realized that the real emotions I felt were sorrow and regret.
I felt sorrow about the divisiveness in our ranks as firearms owners. There is nothing good that can come of name-calling or factionalizing amongst ourselves. As the saying goes, "we must all hang together or we shall all surely hang alone." We are a nation of riflemen. And this is a heritage of which we should all be proud. We need to do everything we can to protect it. In point of fact, the second amendment was put in place by our founding fathers to ensure that our citizens had the means to stand up and defend our Constitution by force against our own government, should the need arise. I firmly believe that this is one of the mechanisms that has helped ensure that we have been able to maintain peaceful transitions of power between our political parties for the past 232 years. Now, whether you choose to own a rifle designed for combat or one for hunting is immaterial. What is important is the fact that we have the right to own them. And choice of firearms does not define the individual. Their actions define them. Criminals and lunatics are dealt with by the system.
I understand... There are those who slip through; but they are few and far between. Everybody on both sides of the issue mourns when these lunatics or bad people cause such terrible events. But this should not be a clarion call to curtail our civil rights. Please realize that articles and activism of the tone that you just engaged in do far more damage to our civil rights than you may understand. We need to stand as one, because once they are done banning my type of rifle, they'll soon move on to the rest of them out there. And once the 2nd amendment is "safely out out of the way," there is nothing to stop movement against the rest of our rights. You cannot parse our rights and maintain the integrity of the Constitution.
Sincerely,
David904
I emailed him this response:
Dear sir,
I read your article regarding the concern many of us have over the probability that President Elect Obama will act to further infringe upon our 2nd amendment rights.
It seems to me that you and I view things from diametric points. You own firearms for sporting purposes. Mine are specifically for defensive purposes. I do not hunt; nor do I have any real desire to do so. This isn't a moral issue to me - I'm simply too lazy to get up that early in the morning and do what needs to be done to be an effective hunter. But rest assured, If I was to engage in hunting, I would make certain that I had the proper caliber rifle to do the job humanely.
I'm one of those AR15 / "Black Rifle" owning people you have labeled as a sicko or Rambo wannabe. At first I was insulted by the insinuation that I was on a par with the two socially maladjusted evil young men who perpetrated the Columbine massacre - especially since my chosen profession is the preservation of life as a Registered Nurse. However, I quickly realized that the real emotions I felt were sorrow and regret.
I felt sorrow about the divisiveness in our ranks as firearms owners. There is nothing good that can come of name-calling or factionalizing amongst ourselves. As the saying goes, "we must all hang together or we shall all surely hang alone." We are a nation of riflemen. And this is a heritage of which we should all be proud. We need to do everything we can to protect it. In point of fact, the second amendment was put in place by our founding fathers to ensure that our citizens had the means to stand up and defend our Constitution by force against our own government, should the need arise. I firmly believe that this is one of the mechanisms that has helped ensure that we have been able to maintain peaceful transitions of power between our political parties for the past 232 years. Now, whether you choose to own a rifle designed for combat or one for hunting is immaterial. What is important is the fact that we have the right to own them. And choice of firearms does not define the individual. Their actions define them. Criminals and lunatics are dealt with by the system.
I understand... There are those who slip through; but they are few and far between. Everybody on both sides of the issue mourns when these lunatics or bad people cause such terrible events. But this should not be a clarion call to curtail our civil rights. Please realize that articles and activism of the tone that you just engaged in do far more damage to our civil rights than you may understand. We need to stand as one, because once they are done banning my type of rifle, they'll soon move on to the rest of them out there. And once the 2nd amendment is "safely out out of the way," there is nothing to stop movement against the rest of our rights. You cannot parse our rights and maintain the integrity of the Constitution.
Sincerely,
David904
ByAnyMeans
Member
"Lets really get this thread going another direction. I thought "turnyourback" was pretty damn hot!"
+1
+1
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
