94AGBQ said:

---

I dont own one but I've shot my friends and family's occasionally. I will probably get one eventually though. My accuracy with it is excellent. Took me all of three shots to center in and hit my targets consistently. Easy to handle and fun as well. So that's why I'd recommend one.

But like everyone else has said, why does the op care? It isn't the law abiding sane people with ARs that are the problem. It's the nutters that need to be handled and dealt with. Not the inanimate object they have abused.

---

Had to re-read this a couple times.

The National Firearms Act which restricted machine guns and other weapons of war was birthed out of gangland violence. It is something that has not been countered for almost a century. The basic premise being there are weapons that should not be generally available to the public due to safety interests and if so they will be registered under the provisions of the law.

Should AR-15s be put into this category in the best interest of the public? Some would be if classified as a SBR versus pistol, I don't think it to far a jump legally to put all AR-15s and other magazine feed weapons in this category for the safety of the public at large. Interesting dilemma of individual rights versus those of the public at large.

GMaster0 said:

---

The National Firearms Act which restricted machine guns and other weapons of war was birthed out of gangland violence. It is something that has not been countered for almost a century. The basic premise being there are weapons that should not be generally available to the public due to safety interests and if so they will be registered under the provisions of the law.

Should AR-15s be put into this category in the best interest of the public? Some would be if classified as a SBR versus pistol, I don't think it to far a jump legally to put all AR-15s and other magazine feed weapons in this category for the safety of the public at large. Interesting dilemma of individual rights versus those of the public at large.

---

Then there goes semi-auto handguns…………..that's the plan.

GMaster0 said:

---

The National Firearms Act which restricted machine guns and other weapons of war was birthed out of gangland violence. It is something that has not been countered for almost a century. The basic premise being there are weapons that should not be generally available to the public due to safety interests and if so they will be registered under the provisions of the law.

Should AR-15s be put into this category in the best interest of the public? Some would be if classified as a SBR versus pistol, I don't think it to far a jump legally to put all AR-15s and other magazine feed weapons in this category for the safety of the public at large. Interesting dilemma of individual rights versus those of the public at large.

---

The NFA should finally be ruled unconstitutional, and/or repealed.

I don't know why a box with a spring scares so many people. It is relatively ancient technology.

No one should have to justify exercising a natural right with a stamp/feeling/tax payment/reason to someone else.

The obvious corruption at the FBI, and failures of law enforcement far and wide this month (including Uvalde) should make it obvious we need more good guys/gals with guns among us and to get rid of 'gun free zones' as they are very dangerous, still. Fortunately, SCOTUS seems poised to expand carry rights shortly.

More Americans live in a home with a firearm than voted, supposedly(*) for Biden. I don't think the radicals dreams of a massively empowered ATF are going to happen any time soon.

If I trusted the federal government I might sell mine. Our current one is supported by those who want to take what you have by government action, support government ownership of business, don't want to work for a living, prefer other countries to our own, have no respect for our military, police, or other first responders, want to re-write history for their benefit, prefer Islam or atheism to Christianity, detest the constitution and freedom of speech, and hate those more successful than themselves.

Yeah, I'm gonna keep my AR-15.

I don't see the NFA ending as bump stocks were made illegal and defined as machine guns. The case in point, the federal government does not want you to own weapons of war and has consistently upheld this law.

I think the intent of the NFA needs modernization, but that is for the politicians to decide.

If the NFA falls then gays will lose marriage; the domino effect again.

That's your choice !! Many of us choose to go further!! Don't limit what we want!!

Yep, my 03A3 in full issue livery is definitely a 'weapon of war".

Was thinking more along the line of 'jawbone of an ass", Judges 15:16.

laavispa said:

---

Was thinking more along the line of 'jawbone of an ass", Judges 15:16.

---

That's for Democrats.

25 morons starred the OP

cevans_40 said:

---

25 morons starred the OP

---

26

I own 2 sawed off but legal shotguns, you add 00buck and it will cut a 2X6 in 2. Should they be outlawed?

Nope

I use mine to hunt pigs and my young son prefers to use it because my hunting rifle is too big for him.

Because it's my right.

Also, realize the 2nd amendment has nothing to do with hunting.

Freedom

Shoefly! said:

---

I own 2 sawed off but legal shotguns, you add 00buck and it will cut a 2X6 in 2. Should they be outlawed?

---

Wood. Wood. Wood.

No idea why I came back to this thread, but I started buying AR's when I realized how much the leftists didn't want me to. Then started building them myself.

I don't really even like them, as even in the service I thought it was a pain to clean, but I enjoy owning them.

"Need" isn't mentioned anywhere in either the 1st, or 2nd Amendments, fyi. Pretty sure it's not anywhere in the bill of rights.

Boy that really pisses me off. Do you have night vision or thermal?

Quote:

---

"Need" isn't mentioned anywhere in either the 1st, or 2nd Amendments, fyi. Pretty sure it's not anywhere in the bill of rights.

---

No, but "necessary" is - as in, ". . . being necessary to the security of a free State, . . . "

nortex97 said:

---

No idea why I came back to this thread, but I started buying AR's when I realized how much the leftists didn't want me to. Then started building them myself.

I don't really even like them, as even in the service I thought it was a pain to clean, but I enjoy owning them.

"Need" isn't mentioned anywhere in either the 1st, or 2nd Amendments, fyi. Pretty sure it's not anywhere in the bill of rights.

---

Also it's none of the OPs damn business either on why I would decide to own a gun.

I'm not sure it was OP's intent, but this thread has very much encouraged me to go get an AR!

tree91 said:

---

I'm not reading this whole thread, but I'll tell you why I have one. I live on a ranch and have problems with wild dogs who like to kill cows. The dogs pack up and run cows until they can't run anymore. Then they eat them starting at their arse and working their way in. Thus, I try to kill as many as I can when I see packs. That means that I need a lot of shots in a short amount of time. The AR is what I reach for 91% of the time. The other times, I need iron sights and go for my SKS.

The problem with most libtards is that you think that just because you don't need something, then others don't need it either. Wrong.

---

How many of them feel that this is just part of you doing business and probably side with the dogs?

Just one?

cctexagMD
1:05a, 5/28/22

AG



Because if an AR-15 is enough to keep 19 "trained" cowards with bulletproof vests and guns standing in a hallway for an hour while children are being slaughtered by an untrained 18 year old, then maybe it's enough to keep my home safe from any other evil *******s out there, so I don't have to rely on 19 cowards with bulletproof vests to do jack plop while I am potentially being slaughtered inside my own home. "

Of course with these 19 idiot cowards, all you have to do is lock the door…

Not a gun owner but understand the rationale. There are hunting and protection reasons - I can also respect 'they are fun to have and fun to shoot'.

The one I struggle with is the one that the 2nd is based on - protection from a tyrannical government. This isn't Joe Biden storming your house or Nanci P abducting your kids that you would be exited to take some pot-shots. The government will pass laws and either LEO or military will be the ones enforcing it.

Are all these people on the board saying you have guns in case you need to shoot at LEO or military? Like - the cop who lives in the neighborhood or somebody's son who joined the marines out of high school?

LEO and military don't go into fights on even ground either. So if you are shooting out your front door - there are probably 100 guys on the other side shooting back. Plus all the technology those guys have vs the two dozen rifles you have at home. The Branch Davidians were nuts - but that seems to be the model and it didn't end well.

Is there another scenario that protection from a tyrannical government doesn't mean starting a war with local LEO or military?

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EZZnbRLU0AAaw27?format=jpg

cevans_40 said:

---

25 morons starred the OP

---

There is no deficit of morons here. There was a thread yesterday where people were upvoting comments that stated US citizens should be able to purchase nukes. Awesome.

dude95 said:

---

Not a gun owner but understand the rationale. There are hunting and protection reasons - I can also respect 'they are fun to have and fun to shoot'.

The one I struggle with is the one that the 2nd is based on - protection from a tyrannical government. This isn't Joe Biden storming your house or Nanci P abducting your kids that you would be exited to take some pot-shots. The government will pass laws and either LEO or military will be the ones enforcing it.

Are all these people on the board saying you have guns in case you need to shoot at LEO or military? Like - the cop who lives in the neighborhood or somebody's son who joined the marines out of high school?

LEO and military don't go into fights on even ground either. So if you are shooting out your front door - there are probably 100 guys on the other side shooting back. Plus all the technology those guys have vs the two dozen rifles you have at home. The Branch Davidians were nuts - but that seems to be the model and it didn't end well.

Is there another scenario that protection from a tyrannical government doesn't mean starting a war with local LEO or military?

---

If they are following orders to come shoot me - then yes. What a dumb question.

I don't care if it's Biden or the kid down the street that enlisted to be a Marine. If any of them don't uphold their oath to protect and defend the Constitution and instead obey tyrannical orders to violate that very same Constitution, well, they made their choices and will suffer whatever the consequences may be.