This is why I NEED an AR-15 with 30rd mags

chadwick

how about stick to your little office desk jobs & type on your keyboards for a living. someone somewhere else will be the cop or sheriff deputy or prison guard. i'll be golden over here at the office making a pot of weak ass coffee

rgambs

cops, sherriff deputies, prison guards = inevitable power trips...

chadwick

yeah power trips

jmuscatello

rival. said:

so while i am against a civilian owning a high powered assault rifle, i am not against a civilian owning a hand gun of sorts for home protection.

would everyone still have jumped on unsung if the title of this thread was: "This is why I NEED a handgun" or "This is why I NEED a shotgun"?

for curiousity's sake. not getting involved in a gun argument with you folks :ar!

For curiosity's sake.... I would still have been on unsung for the machismo "wall of lead" type verbage, but less so if he was talking about a handgun. Just really don't see any need for anyone to own an assault rifle and 30 round magazines, and if his link was supposed to illustrate that need, it was lost on me. And to me, admittedly a total non-gun person, I associate the admiration of assault rifles with power trips - I just do. I know there are those with military backgrounds etc. whose interests are more technical, I know there are those that grew up around guns for a variety of reasons... I try to keep that in mind. But in all honesty, if I hear someone singing the praises of assault weapons in particular, I automatically feel offended by it. Gut reaction. Too much carnage, too easy.

jmuscatello

.

Halifax2TheMax

chadwick said:

how about stick to your little office desk jobs & type on your keyboards for a living. someone somewhere else will be the cop or sheriff deputy or prison guard. i'll be golden over here at the office making a pot of weak ass coffee

Huh? I like my coffee real strong, mud like. It makes my Red Bull and Rock Star Energy Drink taste better.

Peace.

Cosmo

rival. said:

so while i am against a civilian owning a high powered assault rifle, i am not against a civilian owning a hand gun of sorts for home protection.

would everyone still have jumped on unsung if the title of this thread was: "This is why I NEED a handgun" or "This is why I NEED a shotgun"?

for curiousity's sake. not getting involved in a gun argument with you folks :ar!

...
Most of us are okay with gun ownership in America.. as long as the owner takes on the responsibility and accountability that comes along with it. Part of that responsibility is knowing when you should not own a weapon... such as the responsible gun owner gets dementia as he ages... or the gun owner that is placed on heart medication that makes him irratible and prone to violent mood swings. Or when he becomes Unibomber crazy about the government and other authorities.
...
As for the initial messages, stating the 'Need an AR-15 and 30 round magazines'... I can't speak for others, but I.. personally... found the justification he proposed for the need of a semi-automatic military style weapon on the side of ridiculous.
Namely... do you know how difficult it is the be suddenly awoken from a sound sleep and level a rifle in the limited confines of a bedroom and only hit the intended targets... BEFORE they can get a shot off? The scenario he presented is almost indefensable. Multiple intruders, some aremed with weapons, who are wide awake and on alert are going to have the advanntage, no matter what weapon you own.
To defend yourself, you would need an early alarm system to let you know someone was on your property and take up defensive positions BEFORE they enter your home. Or, you could stand post duty and sit up all night, with your AR at the ready, to use deadly force against all intruders.
...
I understand... we can ALL fall victim to violence. But, the odds are against our ever facing a situation as presented in that new item. By inserting guns as variables into the equation, we add the risks that come along with that decision. We may be careful, but accidents do occur. And we cannot be in full control of the actions and whereabouts of everyone living in our households. That gun owner also needs to be resoponsible for keeping that gun out of the hands of his son, who was coereced by his friends to show it to them so they can go out shooting with it.
...
So, in a nutshell... i think Mr. Unsung should own a hand gun and a shot gun for home protection if he chooses. The only thing he (or anyone else) NEEDS and AR-15 and 1,000 rounds of ammo for is when there are 60 cops surrounding his home or he goes out on a shooting spree are the Liberalpolooza Festival. Those are the a couple of times when an AR-15 comes in handy.

jmuscatello

So recently a moron Republican CO legislator went to a hearing at the State Capitol re: magazine size limits (which were passed here last year), and this guy actually said in front of the families of the victims of the Aurora theatre shooting "it's actually a good thing Holmes's gun had a 100rd magazine, because since it was bigger it was more likely to jam until the good guys with guns could get there"..... I'm paraphrasing, but what an insensitive prick of a human being. Still advancing the agenda - no limits! Of course his good guys with guns line was his pathetic little nod to the NRA who supported his campaign, so original.

Cosmo

jmuscatello said:

So recently a moron Republican CO legislator went to a hearing at the State Capitol re: magazine size limits (which were passed here last year), and this guy actually said in front of the families of the victims of the Aurora theatre shooting "it's actually a good thing Holmes's gun had a 100rd magazine, because since it was bigger it was more likely to jam until the good guys with guns could get there"..... I'm paraphrasing, but what an insensitive prick of a human being. Still advancing the agenda - no limits! Of course his good guys with guns line was his pathetic little nod to the NRA who supported his campaign, so original.

...
Don't you just hate politicians? Wouldn't it had been better if Holmes didn't have the weapon in the first place? He would have still done some servere damage with his 12 guage and 9mm, but, i'm pretty sure those 50 or so rounds he got off without reloading, before it jammed, found their marks.
Tell that to those who were on the receving end of those bullets.
The guy is such an asshole... typical polititian.

unsung

There is zero evidence he had a 100rd mag, in fact the gun recovered at the scene had a standard 30rd mag in it.

jmuscatello

Two things:
1) Cosmo - that's my thinking too - it's these politicians, you don't know what they are going to come up with. It's like I look at them now and think, what is the worst possible scenario if this one is elected... because it is often what you end up with. So after I look at the options, and finding out as much as I can about the candidates' histories and campaign funding, I'm usually voting against someone rather than actually for anyone. Kinda sad.

2) unsung - WTF????? you keep taking the cake, it's really unbelievable. Let's somehow find some shred of a remote possibility somewhere to defend those precious 100rd mags. As a society, we need 'em so badly.

Ah, but the weekend is here...

unsung

Who are you to determine what I NEED if I'm not harming anyone?

And where am I defending a 100rd mag? I'm saying the story presented doesn't line up.

oysterjar

unsung said:

Who are you to determine what I NEED if I'm not harming anyone?

Therein lies the dilemma. How do you legislate for the majority when their are such differences. By creating more legislation the 2nd amendment starts to become diminished but do you think the population should be picking up 100 rd magazines at walmart? The question is how to effectively create means for people to live by the constitution, in this case the right to bear arms, and find the line between militia arms and defense weaponry. I don't believe that any one rifle, regardless of capacity, should be banned from law abiding citizens but I am torn as to where the line should be drawn.

chadwick

a .22 kills more people in this country (& probably worldwide) than all other rounds combined. a .22 rifle has the ability to fire that small, inexpensive round down range up to 1 mile or further when conditions are right. wind would cause the little round to lose its umph. this little bity bullet sure flies though as the .22 is one fiery little beast right around 1,045 feet per second for the .22 shorts & 1240 feet per second for the .22 longs

everyone's grandmother owns a .22 & its all good

.22 handguns are fantastic, fun little shooters. home protection? it'll work.

one in the chamber, magazine filled, something like 10 rounds maybe plus the one up the pipe for a total of 11 rounds. .22 ruger's have a really nice safety button.

.22 rifles, lever action, bolt action or pump. again, great target shooters, the accuracy on these things is down to a gnats ass

a 9mm round kills a lot of people in this country & is 2nd on the list under the .22
why?
common, common & common

the .22 is not a hollywood go getter, rambo does not ever want a .22, john wayne ate .22 rounds in his chuck wagon chili & biscuits, chuck norris probably even collects spent .22 casings for kicks & denies it

jmuscatello

unsung said:

Who are you to determine what I NEED if I'm not harming anyone?

And where am I defending a 100rd mag? I'm saying the story presented doesn't line up.

If you can read, unsung, I said "society needs". I couldn't care less what your screwed up paranoid perception of YOUR NEEDS are. Based on your posts on this issue and others, I see you as nothing but a meaningless outlier, and a bit "off".

brianlux

My grandparents probably both had guns to use for hunting. I know one grandfather did because that side of the family lived on small game and wild greens during the depression. The other side of my family was Amish but they might have hunted also. But their children, my parents, both moved on into the 20th century. They never had guns. There's no need anymore. Maybe some day food will be scarce again but if 7 billion people start hunting for food there will be nothing left to hunt for but people and people are better food when processed into Soylent Green than they are when hunted so even then- no need for guns. Better to turn that steel into plows. As for target shooting- a) no thanks for all the noise and b) no thanks for all the lead out there and c) no thanks for all the trash most target shooters leave behind- at least out here in our western National Forests. I've picked up tons of that trash which is usually accompanied by many cartridge cases so I know what I'm talking about.

The bottom line in the US and what distinguishes us from most other countries that way is this:

Too many deaths by gun shot.

Too many irresponsible gun owners.

Too much trash, pollution and noise.

know1

I feel sorry for the OP for living in such fear.

That being said, people who are fanatical about guns are far worse in my mind than those who are fanatical about having them.

brianlux

know1 said:

I feel sorry for the OP for living in such fear.

That being said, people who are fanatical about guns are far worse in my mind than those who are fanatical about having them.

Can you clarify your statement, know1? Can we assume you mean, "People who are fanatically against having guns are far worse than those who are fanatical about having them"? And if so, what do you mean by worse? More fanatical? More annoying? Sick in the head? Needing a life? Anal retentive? Worse how?

chadwick

i don't believe unsung is paranoid living in fear

oysterjar

chadwick said:

i don't believe unsung is paranoid living in fear

Agreed. I don't think most people understand why the 2nd amendment was written.