Be a Supporter!

Ar-15 ban??

  • 2,969 Views
  • 67 Replies
New Topic Respond to this Topic
919CDS
919CDS
  • Member since: May. 20, 2011
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 07
Audiophile
Response to Ar-15 ban?? 2012-12-26 20:32:22 Reply

At 12/26/12 04:24 AM, Ceratisa wrote: 9mm handgun > AR-15
in terms of lethality just sayin..

yea pretty much

a round from an ar-15 will go through you the 9mm will fragment and just tear your insides alll to hell


I always come with a good plan, when that dont work I switch out to the hood plan

,.l.. >_< ..l.,

BBS Signature
919CDS
919CDS
  • Member since: May. 20, 2011
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 07
Audiophile
Response to Ar-15 ban?? 2012-12-27 23:06:13 Reply

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0ufkwTM82e4&feature=g-high-f&
list=FLvB3solmhqtgDeLpD-yTtfg

oh look what i found.... ANOTHER good video

GUNS are not the problem


I always come with a good plan, when that dont work I switch out to the hood plan

,.l.. >_< ..l.,

BBS Signature
LemonCrush
LemonCrush
  • Member since: Sep. 9, 2012
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 01
Blank Slate
Response to Ar-15 ban?? 2012-12-28 00:33:34 Reply

At 12/21/12 03:31 PM, 919CDS wrote: ok so basically the guy says that the ar-15 is no deadlier than a handgun at close range which is true and that an ar that a civilian can buy is in NO WAY a millitary rifle it just LOOKS like a millitary rifle and people dont want these "assault rifles" around because of the way they look

Pretty much.

Rational-Delirium
Rational-Delirium
  • Member since: Mar. 21, 2007
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Supporter
Level 15
Melancholy
Response to Ar-15 ban?? 2012-12-28 20:57:39 Reply

At 12/23/12 01:11 AM, TheMason wrote:
why do you need to propell all that weight down the road at highway speeds? Especially if you're not needing it to make a living.

Are you saying that the majority of people don't need cars to make a living? You're crazy


You can't know what you don't know if you can only use yourself as a reference point.

LemonCrush
LemonCrush
  • Member since: Sep. 9, 2012
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 01
Blank Slate
Response to Ar-15 ban?? 2012-12-29 16:29:06 Reply

At 12/28/12 08:57 PM, Rational-Delirium wrote:
Are you saying that the majority of people don't need cars to make a living? You're crazy

According to liberals, all cars should top out at 65. After all, according to the arbiters of "Who needs what" you don't need to go above that speed.

RacistBassist
RacistBassist
  • Member since: Jun. 14, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 16
Melancholy
Response to Ar-15 ban?? 2012-12-29 16:54:14 Reply

At 12/28/12 08:57 PM, Rational-Delirium wrote: Are you saying that the majority of people don't need cars to make a living? You're crazy

There are perfectly viable alternatives to owning a personal vehicle, the average American does not need to own assault vehicles with high capacity speeds that kill so many Americans every year


All the cool kids have signature text

BBS Signature
919CDS
919CDS
  • Member since: May. 20, 2011
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 07
Audiophile
Response to Ar-15 ban?? 2012-12-29 22:26:08 Reply

At 12/29/12 04:54 PM, RacistBassist wrote:

There are perfectly viable alternatives to owning a personal vehicle, the average American does not need to own assault vehicles with high capacity speeds that kill so many Americans every year

I need an assault vehicle....dont ask why lol


I always come with a good plan, when that dont work I switch out to the hood plan

,.l.. >_< ..l.,

BBS Signature
thegarbear14
thegarbear14
  • Member since: Jul. 6, 2011
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 05
Blank Slate
Response to Ar-15 ban?? 2012-12-29 23:48:38 Reply

At 12/29/12 10:26 PM, 919CDS wrote:
At 12/29/12 04:54 PM, RacistBassist wrote:

There are perfectly viable alternatives to owning a personal vehicle, the average American does not need to own assault vehicles with high capacity speeds that kill so many Americans every year
I need an assault vehicle....dont ask why lol

the characteristics of an assault vehicle.
has trailer lugs.
has cd changer.
has a stick shift.
it's red.
has a high cap gas tank.
has a folding or collapsed roof.

lol


BBS Signature
919CDS
919CDS
  • Member since: May. 20, 2011
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 07
Audiophile
Response to Ar-15 ban?? 2012-12-30 17:48:20 Reply

http://www.wral.com/two-teens-killed-in-wreck-near-hillsboro ugh/11926660/

happened last night... I didnt know these 2 kids but you see how common vehicle wrecks are

RIP to those 2, TOO YOUNG


I always come with a good plan, when that dont work I switch out to the hood plan

,.l.. >_< ..l.,

BBS Signature
morefngdbs
morefngdbs
  • Member since: Mar. 7, 2005
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 49
Art Lover
Response to Ar-15 ban?? 2012-12-30 19:01:31 Reply

http://www.examiner.com/article/department-of-homeland-secur ity-buys-even-more-hollow-point-rounds

You want to make sure you do as much damage as possible when you shoot your own citizens.... I mean terroists ~;p


Those who have only the religious opinions of others in their head & worship them. Have no room for their own thoughts & no room to contemplate anyone elses ideas either-More

kakalxlax
kakalxlax
  • Member since: Jun. 2, 2010
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 14
Blank Slate
Response to Ar-15 ban?? 2012-12-30 19:02:08 Reply

all fire guns should be replaced with stunguns


Its only rape if you say no.

Say no to rape.

LemonCrush
LemonCrush
  • Member since: Sep. 9, 2012
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 01
Blank Slate
Response to Ar-15 ban?? 2012-12-31 00:11:45 Reply

At 12/30/12 05:48 PM, 919CDS wrote: http://www.wral.com/two-teens-killed-in-wreck-near-hillsboro ugh/11926660/

happened last night... I didnt know these 2 kids but you see how common vehicle wrecks are

RIP to those 2, TOO YOUNG

Better ban fast cars.

Warforger
Warforger
  • Member since: Mar. 8, 2009
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 06
Blank Slate
Response to Ar-15 ban?? 2012-12-31 01:08:45 Reply

At 12/30/12 05:48 PM, 919CDS wrote: http://www.wral.com/two-teens-killed-in-wreck-near-hillsboro ugh/11926660/

happened last night... I didnt know these 2 kids but you see how common vehicle wrecks are

RIP to those 2, TOO YOUNG

I remember this, this was one of the main logical fallacies like say "nuclear disarmament is a risk, but if you walk on the street you're taking the risk of being mugged, therefore if you walk on the street you should also support nuclear disarmament". There's a big difference here, the primary purpose of cars is transportation, the primary purpose of guns is to kill. Gun rights activists seem to forget that.


"If you don't mind smelling like peanut butter for two or three days, peanut butter is darn good shaving cream.
" - Barry Goldwater.

BBS Signature
N1HangMan-4Life
N1HangMan-4Life
  • Member since: Sep. 7, 2012
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 04
Gamer
Response to Ar-15 ban?? 2012-12-31 12:23:36 Reply

At 12/21/12 02:52 PM, 919CDS wrote: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tm-bfquZGaI

so apparently a bunch of places are no longer sellin g ar-15 style rifles.......WHAT THE FUCK!?!?!?! Ive never really thought about getting one anytime soon because of the price but come on now

that video basically says all that needs to be said

The govornment wants to completley disarm the american so it can completely manipulate and activly control them. They are now demonizeing gun owners and moveing for complete disarmorment of the american people so the only ones allowed to have guns will be the govornment and government forces. If you want the whole story plese go to www.Infowars.com and spread the word about the site.

RacistBassist
RacistBassist
  • Member since: Jun. 14, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 16
Melancholy
Response to Ar-15 ban?? 2012-12-31 15:20:58 Reply

At 12/31/12 01:08 AM, Warforger wrote: I remember this, this was one of the main logical fallacies like say "nuclear disarmament is a risk, but if you walk on the street you're taking the risk of being mugged, therefore if you walk on the street you should also support nuclear disarmament". There's a big difference here, the primary purpose of cars is transportation, the primary purpose of guns is to kill. Gun rights activists seem to forget that.

Who gives a damn about primary purpose, especially when something that has a primary purpose not to kill has a much higher death count then something that has a primary purpose to kill, with very comparable amounts being in circulation in the US. Anti-freedom activists seem to forget that killing is not always a negative action. Ever have a knife pulled on you when you're confronted by 3 people? Ever have somebody break into your house with the intent of rape? Ever been cornered in an alley by some drunk looking for some ass? Ever have 3 armed men attempt to break into your house while you're only a teenager with your little siblings with you? These events happen every single day, a gun is the great equalizer for them. Take that away, and all of a sudden it comes down to who is the bigger fish in the pond. Sure, you can hope the police get there in time, or that somebody can help you, but I don't like putting my life or my loved ones into the hands of third parties.


All the cool kids have signature text

BBS Signature
jack-be-nimble-69
jack-be-nimble-69
  • Member since: Oct. 17, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 04
Blank Slate
Response to Ar-15 ban?? 2012-12-31 23:36:57 Reply

At 12/23/12 01:11 AM, TheMason wrote: Assault rifles are not designed to kill either.

So.....what are they designed for? Baking cakes? Perming hair? Giving you a handjob while you watch Grey's Anatomy?

Personally I don't like guns, in terms of "protection" I'm more of a hands on kind of guy, fisticuffs n shit. However, seeing as though it is your "right" as a US citizen to have them, then so be it, but I still don't see the point in having to protect yourself with anything more than a small handgun. I mean, what the fuck would you need an assault rifle for? Mowing down the massive hoards of zombies that knock at your door every night at 6:30? Killing 7 deer at once, just to save time?

LemonCrush
LemonCrush
  • Member since: Sep. 9, 2012
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 01
Blank Slate
Response to Ar-15 ban?? 2013-01-01 01:53:11 Reply

At 12/31/12 11:36 PM, jack-be-nimble-69 wrote: So.....what are they designed for? Baking cakes? Perming hair? Giving you a handjob while you watch Grey's Anatomy?

Assault rifles, as the President wants to define them, are usually owned in either a collecting or competitive shooting capacity.

jack-be-nimble-69
jack-be-nimble-69
  • Member since: Oct. 17, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 04
Blank Slate
Response to Ar-15 ban?? 2013-01-01 02:44:58 Reply

At 1/1/13 01:53 AM, LemonCrush wrote: Assault rifles, as the President wants to define them, are usually owned in either a collecting or competitive shooting capacity.

Defining them is one thing, explaining what they are actually designed for is completely different

919CDS
919CDS
  • Member since: May. 20, 2011
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 07
Audiophile
Response to Ar-15 ban?? 2013-01-01 02:51:51 Reply

At 12/31/12 11:36 PM, jack-be-nimble-69 wrote:
At 12/23/12 01:11 AM, TheMason wrote: Assault rifles are not designed to kill either.
So.....what are they designed for? Baking cakes? Perming hair? Giving you a handjob while you watch Grey's Anatomy?

Personally I don't like guns, in terms of "protection" I'm more of a hands on kind of guy, fisticuffs n shit. However, seeing as though it is your "right" as a US citizen to have them, then so be it, but I still don't see the point in having to protect yourself with anything more than a small handgun. I mean, what the fuck would you need an assault rifle for? Mowing down the massive hoards of zombies that knock at your door every night at 6:30? Killing 7 deer at once, just to save time?

why do you need a truck that can go 107 mph when most average people wont know what to do when you lose control, and end up dieing, killing a friend, and putting the otehr 2 in a hosptial....you dont NEED it, but I dont want a car that can only go 70, that ASSAULT RIFLE is actually less deadly than a "Small Handgun", I can buy a compact .45 and say oh its just a small handgun but its actually more deadly than an ar-15


I always come with a good plan, when that dont work I switch out to the hood plan

,.l.. >_< ..l.,

BBS Signature
morefngdbs
morefngdbs
  • Member since: Mar. 7, 2005
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 49
Art Lover
Response to Ar-15 ban?? 2013-01-01 10:19:41 Reply

At 12/31/12 12:11 AM, LemonCrush wrote:
At 12/30/12 05:48 PM, 919CDS wrote: happened last night... I didnt know these 2 kids but you see how common vehicle wrecks are
Better ban fast cars.

;;;;
I read a news story about how an American on average dies every 13 minutes from a car accidents every day of the year.
http://www.car-accidents.com/

You compare that to gun deaths ....& your chances of dying is way better by motor vehicle than guns !
But .... " AUTO'S ARE USEFUL & NECESSARY " all the gun control nuts will scream , so useful that losing 110+ people a day to auto deaths is " WORTH IT ! " they claim

We don't need better controls & changes who can drive ... just on GUN OWNERS

L O L


Those who have only the religious opinions of others in their head & worship them. Have no room for their own thoughts & no room to contemplate anyone elses ideas either-More

RacistBassist
RacistBassist
  • Member since: Jun. 14, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 16
Melancholy
Response to Ar-15 ban?? 2013-01-01 14:02:33 Reply

At 12/31/12 11:36 PM, jack-be-nimble-69 wrote: So.....what are they designed for? Baking cakes? Perming hair? Giving you a handjob while you watch Grey's Anatomy?

To injure, or at the least be less lethal then other firearms relatively speaking

Personally I don't like guns, in terms of "protection" I'm more of a hands on kind of guy, fisticuffs n shit. However, seeing as though it is your "right" as a US citizen to have them, then so be it, but I still don't see the point in having to protect yourself with anything more than a small handgun. I mean, what the fuck would you need an assault rifle for? Mowing down the massive hoards of zombies that knock at your door every night at 6:30? Killing 7 deer at once, just to save time?

No (Well, there are a very small amount) civilian has access to an assault rifle though.


All the cool kids have signature text

BBS Signature
LemonCrush
LemonCrush
  • Member since: Sep. 9, 2012
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 01
Blank Slate
Response to Ar-15 ban?? 2013-01-01 15:43:31 Reply

At 1/1/13 02:02 PM, RacistBassist wrote: No (Well, there are a very small amount) civilian has access to an assault rifle though.

I'm am utterly shocked at how many people do not know this. Like, really. Ironically, these people who evidently know nothing about firearms, are usually the first to say guns should be banned.

LemonCrush
LemonCrush
  • Member since: Sep. 9, 2012
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 01
Blank Slate
Response to Ar-15 ban?? 2013-01-01 16:45:17 Reply

At 1/1/13 02:44 AM, jack-be-nimble-69 wrote: Defining them is one thing, explaining what they are actually designed for is completely different

Well, by logical definition, I'd say an assault weapon, is a weapon meant to assault somebody...right? Like maybe something military grade? Newsflash, military grade weapons are already banned for civilians.

919CDS
919CDS
  • Member since: May. 20, 2011
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 07
Audiophile
Response to Ar-15 ban?? 2013-01-01 18:35:05 Reply

At 1/1/13 03:43 PM, LemonCrush wrote:
At 1/1/13 02:02 PM, RacistBassist wrote: No (Well, there are a very small amount) civilian has access to an assault rifle though.
I'm am utterly shocked at how many people do not know this. Like, really. Ironically, these people who evidently know nothing about firearms, are usually the first to say guns should be banned.

That is why they are anti gun, if I knew NOTHING about guns and I didnt grow up around guns (look at that, me or my bro have NEVER shot anyone crazy right?) id probably think guns were bad too...

anti gun people are just ignorant


I always come with a good plan, when that dont work I switch out to the hood plan

,.l.. >_< ..l.,

BBS Signature
919CDS
919CDS
  • Member since: May. 20, 2011
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 07
Audiophile
Response to Ar-15 ban?? 2013-01-01 19:12:50 Reply

At 1/1/13 04:45 PM, LemonCrush wrote:
At 1/1/13 02:44 AM, jack-be-nimble-69 wrote: Defining them is one thing, explaining what they are actually designed for is completely different
Well, by logical definition, I'd say an assault weapon, is a weapon meant to assault somebody...right? Like maybe something military grade? Newsflash, military grade weapons are already banned for civilians.

well you CAN get an automatic rifle, it's completly legal, BUT the atf has to accept your 200 dollar tax stamp...which they most likely wont, AND you have to get permission from your local sherrif...which he/she will most likely not allow it


I always come with a good plan, when that dont work I switch out to the hood plan

,.l.. >_< ..l.,

BBS Signature
LemonCrush
LemonCrush
  • Member since: Sep. 9, 2012
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 01
Blank Slate
Response to Ar-15 ban?? 2013-01-01 19:31:02 Reply

At 1/1/13 07:12 PM, 919CDS wrote: well you CAN get an automatic rifle, it's completly legal, BUT the atf has to accept your 200 dollar tax stamp...which they most likely wont, AND you have to get permission from your local sherrif...which he/she will most likely not allow it

Exactly my point.

Not to mention it can only be registered to a trust or LLC...and the weapon itself costs 10's of thousands of dollars...

Point being actual assault weapons are not readily available....not even common. Rare wouldn't even be accurate. 1 in a million would be a more accurate term.

Rational-Delirium
Rational-Delirium
  • Member since: Mar. 21, 2007
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Supporter
Level 15
Melancholy
Response to Ar-15 ban?? 2013-01-02 04:06:32 Reply

At 12/31/12 03:20 PM, RacistBassist wrote: especially when something that has a primary purpose not to kill has a much higher death count then something that has a primary purpose to kill

The ratio of time spent vs. number of lives killed is much less in cars than guns.

At 12/31/12 12:11 AM, LemonCrush wrote:
Better ban fast cars.

Better ban gun threads that diverge into transportation. Why do you do that so much?

Anyway, I agree with all the 'gun nuts' here that the government was stupid to ban gun that apparently didn't use hallow-point bullets. Specific guns were banned by the UN because of hallow-point bullets, but Americans are allowed to defend themselves by using them??? I'm not suggesting that people are uneducated/amoral and prefer to use hallow-point bullets, just that the government probably only banned the submachine gun because of its aesthetics rather than its functionality.

To address the issue of enslavement by government... civil discord through gun use - for the purpose of obtaining food in grocery stores and neighbors' houses - will be a good enough reason to enforce marshal law. The government won't enforce anything until it has created a good enough reason to do so.


You can't know what you don't know if you can only use yourself as a reference point.

919CDS
919CDS
  • Member since: May. 20, 2011
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 07
Audiophile
Response to Ar-15 ban?? 2013-01-02 14:00:33 Reply

At 1/2/13 04:06 AM, Rational-Delirium wrote:

Anyway, I agree with all the 'gun nuts' here that the government was stupid to ban gun that apparently didn't use hallow-point bullets. Specific guns were banned by the UN because of hallow-point bullets, but Americans are allowed to defend themselves by using them??? I'm not suggesting that people are uneducated/amoral and prefer to use hallow-point bullets, just that the government probably only banned the submachine gun because of its aesthetics rather than its functionality.

HOLLOW POINT you mean...not hallow

hollow points are better to defend your self with...yea it will more likley kill but also so it wont pass through the person and end up killing some innocent neighbor out side walking there dog after the bullet goes flying out your window...AYE THE SHIT CAN HAPPEN


I always come with a good plan, when that dont work I switch out to the hood plan

,.l.. >_< ..l.,

BBS Signature
TheMason
TheMason
  • Member since: Dec. 26, 2003
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 08
Blank Slate
Response to Ar-15 ban?? 2013-01-02 20:18:23 Reply

At 12/21/12 04:05 PM, EmmaVolt wrote:
At 12/21/12 03:33 PM, 919CDS wrote:
Not all semi-autos are assault rifles, but all assault rifles are semi-auto.

In order to be a true assault rifle it must be selective fire and therefore have the capability of burst or full-auto fire. Furthermore, the rate of fire has very, very little to do with it's lethality.

That's not to say it has zero effect like flash suppressors, pistol grips, bayonet lugs, barrel shrouds, or even 'grenade' launchers (this last mostly includes 37mm flare launchers and adapters to fire impossible to get Russian hand grenades).

But it usually means a shooter hits less people and are genuinely inaccurate.


Cars, tobacco, and alcohol are not designed to kill or incapacitate.

While on the surface this is good point...it is rather irrelevent. The incidence of dying from a firearm is very, very low. If you are a law abiding citizen the chances of you being murdered are slim.

In terms of accidents, for being more prolific than cars less people die and are injured by guns than by cars. Then there are secondary effects such as air pollution.

Also, shooting/hunting are sports. Sports include some degree of risk. So then shall we also outlaw personal watercraft (about a 150 more people die in boating accidents per year than gun accidents)?

When you pull back and look at this from a big picture perspecitve and look at the trends...many of the gun-control arguments dissapate.

At 12/21/12 04:40 PM, Feoric wrote: Most of the people who die in cars are results of accidents. The key word here being "accident."

Actually...some municipalities are charging drunk drivers with murder and manslaughter. Taking this into account about 18K Americans are murdered by drunk drivers a year. About 16K-18K are murdered with firearms.

I mean really...who needs a sportscar or SUV? Especially if your job doesn't require you to have one? ;)


Debunking conspiracy theories for the New World Order since 1995...
" I hereby accuse you attempting to silence me..." --PurePress

BBS Signature
TheMason
TheMason
  • Member since: Dec. 26, 2003
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 08
Blank Slate
Response to Ar-15 ban?? 2013-01-02 20:44:24 Reply

At 1/2/13 04:06 AM, Rational-Delirium wrote: Better ban gun threads that diverge into transportation. Why do you do that so much?

At the end of the day both are consumer goods that have an impact on public health. Comparing the two is a good way to show that in fact guns are not the 'epidemic' that they are proported to be in both the media and public health journals.

Afterall, in the 1990s coverage of murders in the news increased by 600% while all crime decreased by 20% leaving the public to think crime is more of a problem than it really is.


Anyway, I agree with all the 'gun nuts' here that the government was stupid to ban gun that apparently didn't use hallow-point bullets. Specific guns were banned by the UN because of hallow-point bullets, but Americans are allowed to defend themselves by using them??? I'm not suggesting that people are uneducated/amoral and prefer to use hallow-point bullets, just that the government probably only banned the submachine gun because of its aesthetics rather than its functionality.

No...specific guns are not banned. Neither are submachine guns. Nor is it the UN but the Hague Convention and the Law Of Armed Conflict (LOAC).

See a gun that fires 9mm can fire 9mm FMJ, 9mm HP/JHP, or 9mm lead core. The only thing that matters with the bullet is how heavy it is...that is all. The shape or type doesn't effect it all that much.

Now the reason why militaries cannot use HP, JHP or lead bullets is that in the late 1800s the developed countries decided that war was getting too destructive and costly. And so at the third Hague Convention it was decided that bullets that "made death inevitable" would be illegal for use in 'civilized' warfare.

But the core of your quote is the question: why do civilians need these rounds that make death inevitable? Essentially it is hunting. See most states make the use of military rounds illegal to hunt with because it is considered to be unethical because it doesn't kill as quickly and therefore is not as humane as HP/JHP or lead bullets.

Also...it's not being a gun 'nut', it is being informed, educated and knowledgeable about the subject. Most arguments from people wanting 'rational', 'common sense', or 'reasonable' gun control make arguments from ignorance.


Debunking conspiracy theories for the New World Order since 1995...
" I hereby accuse you attempting to silence me..." --PurePress

BBS Signature