Assault Weapons

[DaddyO]

Well that proves my point Wayne. Greedy wealthy landowners. Not common people necessarily. And even If what you say is true, what relevance does that have to us in 2013? It's not like we're going to attempt armed revolt against the US government.

Wait! What??? We're not gonna revolt???

That's it, I'm going home! Never mind, I think I'll go fishing instead.

[Al Agnew]

What if you are hunting multiple animals? While prarie dog hunting, it is common to go thru several hundred rounds a day. That is where the AR and a 30 round mag comes in handy.

For deer and other animals, 10 rounds in both the AR and my 10-22. Deer usually only take 1 shot most of the time, unless I decide to fill multiple tags, buck and doe, 2 does. Squirrels sometimes fall several at a time from the 10-22.

Jd, you're reaching there. Is it of paramount importance to kill as many prairie dogs as fast as you possibly can? (Just my opinion, but I don't have much respect for ANYBODY who kills critters just to see how many they can kill, but that's another issue.) Is it going to be a horrible thing if you miss one prairie dog while you're reloading?

[Feathers and Fins]

Al, I was at one time with you on killing just for killing ( when it came to P-dogs ) but then i went out to see what it was all about and talked to some of the ranchers in the area and was shown pictures of Horses and cattle that had fallen into a dog hole or run, I could see there point. I questioned them on other methods and quickly found out shooting was the best method for control.

I think you have seen me post enough to know I beleive in conservation highly and they were able to sway my opinion. But I dont think a 30rnd mag would be my choice due to barrel heating if fire a lot in a short time causing it to be inaccurate, A Bolt action bullbarrel would be far more effective. The 30rnd mags are more for people who do compition shoots or people who just want to bang off alot of money fast. But its there money I put more value on accuracy than I do blowing off ammo.

Here is the thing though I hear and see on the net so many people that think AR stands for Automatic Rifle or Assault Rifle, most are against them and the high cap mags, They want to ban them and do not even know what they are, how stupid is that!? I saw a picture of an AIRSOFT rifle painted black on one website and people said they wanted to ban it when the OP shared what it was SILENCE followed from all the big mouth internet badasses.

These are the kind of people wanting to ban things and they do not even know what they are.

I do like this thread and the civility everyone is talking maybe washington should take a lesson from it, heck put 10 people in washington with common since and i bet we could solve alot of the nations problems. First thing that really needs to be banned is the Purple Dinosaur though.

[Wayne SW/MO]

Well that proves my point Wayne. Greedy wealthy landowners. Not common people necessarily. And even If what you say is true, what relevance does that have to us in 2013? It's not like we're going to attempt armed revolt against the US government.

That is nothing more than the latest attempt to lessen the value of the amendments. Now they want to say it was only to protect slavery, but the problem is slavery was legal and any rebellions would have been put down by the army. Do you think some land owner could have put down a rebellion with a musket? Maybe we should start one about Dred Scott and the 14th? There is no doubt it muddies the immigration problem extensively. Do you want to look at statistics about how many legal gun owners are involved in homicides? If the number is extremely low then more laws aren't likely to make any difference. On the other hand if mental illness is not addressed, and it is central to mass homicides, then maybe that is where the emphasis should be applied. If guns are confiscated and no one but LEO's have them, will you feel safer?

F&F you're are talking laws and they can be changed. The only question might be if an individual can be deprived of the amendment privilege and the answer is yes they can under certain circumstances. Criminals are routinely deprived of them if they constitute a perceived risk to the general population. There is no reason a psychiatrist can't be allowed to alert authorities about an individual who is a threat and be protected from a lawsuit..

If some sort of license was implemented and it replaced recording what weapons were possessed the average gun owner would probably except it.

JD I have to chuckle over your prairie dog shoot with an AR15. I've hunted them and that wouldn't be the weapon of choice.

Then there are drugs like heroin, etc that cause some deaths, maybe we should eliminate them. If we eliminate dangerous drugs only outlaws will have them. Of course we have and they are the only ones with them.

What about alcohol, why not eliminate it? It causes about as many traffic deaths as guns do homicides?

[jdmidwest]

JD I have to chuckle over your prairie dog shoot with an AR15. I've hunted them and that wouldn't be the weapon of choice.

Why not? With a nice bull barrel and a good scope, you can nail a bunch of them. I have several friends that use them when they go out. I personally have not had the opportunity.

Cheap brass, cheap to reload = cheap shooting. Or you can swap uppers and start in with 22lr.

[Wayne SW/MO]

Why not? With a nice bull barrel and a good scope, you can nail a bunch of them. I have several friends that use them when they go out. I personally have not had the opportunity.

Cheap brass, cheap to reload = cheap shooting. Or you can swap uppers and start in with 22lr.

Well when I shot on a town aiming and squeezing off a shot that could hit a target that was about 3" by 6" at 200 to 300+ yards real consistently was important. The 223 was a good round, but not beyond about 200 yards and often not after the wind came up. My favorite 223 was Ruger #3, a single shot.

For all who have a problem with shooting them, they are a hazard on pasture land and controlling them by poison, the only option to shooting, all but wiped out the Black Footed Ferret.

[Feathers and Fins]

Wayne i guess my point is more this,

Who will go to see one if they fear that their rights might be taken away?

How many Parents now maynot take kids to see one because they fear their rights and their kids future rights might be taken away?

And then finally there are those saying we should have to have a mental check-up before we buy a gun, this one is Dangerous AND I have explained why before.

[Wayne SW/MO]

Wayne i guess my point is more this,

Who will go to see one if they fear that their rights might be taken away? I'm not following you here?

How many Parents now maynot take kids to see one because they fear their rights and their kids future rights might be taken away? This one either, see what?

And then finally there are those saying we should have to have a mental check-up before we buy a gun, this one is Dangerous AND I have explained why before. There are a lot of crazies out there, but they are still allowed to vote and run off about things they have no knowledge of.

As far as mental checks, I'm not in favor of it being a requirement. It doesn't however stop congress from allowing and requiring psychiatrist to report people who have dangerous tendencies. The old BS that someone sane might be deprived of owning a gun doesn't cut it in light of passing laws that restrict all law abiding citizens, but do nothing to stop criminals and nuts. The point is if someone wants to own a weapon that isn't dangerous in and of itself to own and fire, why not? A vehicle doesn't kill, but a driver does, yet we are suppose to believe that a gun will laying on a table.

They, the powers that be, need to worry about causes and that starts in the mind of the assassin. Without assault weapons they can believe that 2 of the last events wouldn't have happened, but with intervention and control of the last 4 individuals because of mental problems we can assume all of them would have been avoided.

The reason we keep seeing these and having gun debates is because it's the simplest knee jerk reaction. Let the crazies with dangerous anti social tendencies alone, just believe that we can take all dangerous things out of their reach so they can't hurt anyone, in other words treat everyone like they're crazy and no one will notice.

[Feathers and Fins]

Wayne let me try to explain what you do not understand.

If we have shrinks who can report people they feel are to dangerous to have guns then what is next, to dangerous to drive, possible child abusers or maybe robbers or whatever else the goverment starts labeling people as. Say someone is goes to one to help with grief because a drunk killed his family and expresses views that he wishes the person was dead or someone whould kill him. Words spoken in anger and greif yet now the shrink reports it and the man cannot own a gun. I see this as a stepping tool for goverment to have doctors and even possibly lawyers to be compelled to become snitches on clients.

Now lets take it to Kids with ADHD ADD or you name it. Goverment needs to stay out people private lives and privacy. You ever hear of the Spanish Inquisition or Salem Witch Trials. to me the idea of shrinks saying who gets to do what is just as bad as those.

[Wayne SW/MO]

So it might be more realistic to take gun control to the point where few if any have guns? You're also assuming that someone could be diagnosed by one person, but what if it required a second opinion by someone neutral? Still better to assume all gun owners are suspect?