I would like to have a intelligent discussion about the horrible shooting that occurred today in Boulder, Co. No politics allowed.
- Thread starter Freddie.B.Cocky
- Start date
- Status
Quite true. A lot of troops in Vietnam, especially early on, would use their M16s on “rock and roll”. It didn’t take too much experience with that, to figure out that was mostly a waste of ammunition; as one infantryman put it, "you can’t hit anything with it that way”. You want suppressive fire? That’s what an M60 (and now the M249) is for. I’ve had no experience with the 3 round burst version, so I don’t know how well that might work, but the typical grunt doesn’t need a full-auto weapon. A couple of M60s will put a lot of lead downrange in a hurry (as I imagine a couple M249s will). You need more than that, you need a crew served weapon, and/or indirect fire support, not individual automatic weapons fire.
True, if memory serves, armalite tried to sell the ar15 to the military, who said no.
Colt then bought out armalite, or just the rights to that design. After that colt
made a fully auto rifle (m16) that was adopted by the military. When it was adopted by the miltary, colt used that popularity to sell the ar to police and the public as a civilian version.
Fun fact...2 cases of voter fraud, let’s make voting more difficult
38,000 gun deaths a year, let’s make buying guns easier
What great leaders we have...
38,000 gun deaths a year, let’s make buying guns easier
What great leaders we have...
Meanwhile, guns save millions of lives per year, and you want to reduce their ability to do so.
How so? Any facts to back that up? Take the military and police out of the equation how do guns save lives?
From the CDC:
Estimates of defensive gun use vary depending on the questions asked, populations studied, timeframe, and other factors related to the design of studies. The report Priorities for Research to Reduce the Threat of Firearm-Related Violenceexternal icon indicates a range of 60,000 to 2.5 million defensive gun uses each year.
Fast Facts: Firearm Violence Prevention |Violence Prevention|Injury Center|CDC
What is a firearm injury? Learn fast facts of firearm violence from the CDC Injury Center.
www.cdc.gov
All very true, but the trigger for the rebellion was the British moving to disarm the colonist.
It all has kind of a familiar ring doesn't it?
Yes, and America has a huge number of battle tested veterans. Also, it would be foolish to belive all active duty, reservist, and LEO would support a tyrannical government.
Have some more soy.
Fun fact.
When voters have to pass a background check come back and we'll talk some more.
You and I are the same age and I share many of your views. I own a 40 caliber Glock (no bullets in the house) and a mini-14 (used for target shooting when I used to target shoot). Used to own a couple of shotguns but sold them. The point I am trying to make is that I am in favor of responsible gun ownership for recreation, hunting, and protection. I don't see the need for civilians to own AR-15's or magazines in excess of 20 rounds. I have no trouble obeying the laws currently on the books along with longer wait periods before you can buy a gun. There just are no easy answers.
Well oddly enough a segment of the population does seem to believe that active duty, reservists and LEO were going to install a tyrannical government which they supported.
While I know it makes a good drinking story we aren’t at the same point when the militia and the continental army or even the British army had almost the exact same weaponry. It’s fine that some of the rifles people have are close to the equivalent and yes some people may have military training but all those ARs won’t mean anything when a tank or a Blackhawk rolls through. At that point all of the playtime in the woods with your buddies would be moot.
I’m not against guns just the stupidity of people believing that they are somehow going to overthrow the government with their pea shooters. At this point the ones still dreaming about that aren’t concerned about a tyrannical government just one they don’t like.
What about in times of civil war, civil unrest, or the power grid goes down, or supply chains are interrupted. At that point guns become your lifeline as well as valuable commodities. Nobody is pretending a 22 caliber rifle is going to bring down a Blackhawk. An AR 15 is the perfect rifle for personal self defense and sustained living during catastrophe.
yes he bought an assault rifle 4 days after the ban was lifted and attacked the store with said rifle and body armour on.
I am sure it was coincidental timing- as all of the 2nd amendment “experts” will tell you; having easy access to assault rifles has no impact on the frequency, efficacy or lethality of these attacks! 🙄
Oh I gotcha! Man I was merely giving a very brief reply to the op in reference from my android!!
Its all good, and I concur with every word you said!!
Last edited:
It’s not quite so simple. Consider the following. First of all, the kind of government action that would provoke the kind of insurgency we’re talking about would have to be egregiously atrocious, enough so as to create considerable popular support for the insurgents. (That situation did occur with both the American Revolution, where the Crown’s disregard for the colonists’ rights as Englishmen ultimately accomplished that, and In Vietnam, where the minority Catholic RVN government never had real legitimacy with the mostly Buddhist people out in the countryside) This is the kind of situation in which an insurgency grows and is difficult to eliminate. Second, the very studiously apolitical nature of the U.S. military mitigates against that; one thing that makes the U.S. Military one of our more trusted institutions is its tradition of refusing to be used as a political tool of any party or faction; in fact, avoiding even the appearance of such. The Oath after all is specifically to the Constitution. The Armed Forces could refuse to get involved, or turn against clearly unconstitutional government, or even splinter, depending on circumstance. Even IF the military almost totally threw in with the government in power, there are other problems. When fighting in your own territory, a lot of your overwhelming advantage in heavy firepower (air superiority, heavy artillery, armor, etc. ) often cannot be totally brought to bear in many situations, since the collateral damage and casualties will cost you dearly in terms of the support of the noncombatant population. This was in fact a problem in Vietnam, and would be even more so on American soil. Even with precision munitions, that’s a very real problem for the conventional force. Just to make matter worse, remember the insurgents probably know exactly how to repair and operate captured equipment, since at least some already have considerable experience with it, and can train others. Now they’re armed with a lot more than “peashooters”. In addition, unexploded ordinance (there will always be some) can be converted to extremely effective IEDs. These guys will do what insurgents do; hide and fight among the sympathetic civil population. This can make identifying the enemy quite difficult. Ask the Brits about their difficulties operating in NI during the “troubles”, which were considerable at times. In theory, the British Army (very high quality if lacking in numbers) should have been able to virtually eliminate the various IRA groups; in fact, they largely failed to do so, even when utilizing a level of brutality not typically allowed among American troops. In addition, the conventional force has a big logistics tail supporting it, and that itself is vulnerable to insurgent attacks (meaning more captured supplies). None of these problems are necessarily impossible to manage, but it is definitely a formidable challenge. In short, it might not be as easy as it looks, and again, remember, the insurgents can win, simply by not losing. Of course, this isn’t a likely situation; in fact, I’d consider it highly unlikely for the reasons outlined above. Still, a lot of miscalculations which led to tragic, even disastrous conflicts, have resulted from a stubborn refusal to imagine the unthinkable...until it happened.
Any weapon that can hurt you. Guns, rifles, knives, scissors, sticks, and bullets... Yep bullets... You know you can put an eye out by throwing a hand full of bullets at people.
you left out assault baseball bats and assault slingshots...
How 'bout we just work hard to avoid such dire and dramatic scenarios as you describe and live peaceful and productive lives without the doomsday drama.
I see there are 15 pages of replies, so I’m probably repeating someone. The use of the term Assault Rifle is so bogus. Assault rifles are already illegal. By definition, an assault rifle has a fully automatic setting. You can not buy a fully automatic gun without a special license. The media loves using the term AR as they think it stands for assault rifle. It doesn’t. It means Armalite Rifle, a brand. Just because a gun looks like a scary machine gun doesn’t make it an assault rifle.
You should probably share your concerns with the manufacturer of.the AR 15, who promotes that weapon as an assault rifle, or at least has in the recent past.
I heard the Liberal ass WSOC channel nine report that a shooter used a "Semi Automatic Assault Pistol" once.. Cant remember the exact time or situation, but will never forget it..
The Liberal media just drolls over mass shootings..
I'll bet you need an i.d. to buy a gun.
Agreed. But I would use the safe driving and seatbelts analogy to answer that.
I would find it funny, but odd if they did that. The term "assault rifle" has been a point of contention for a couple decades. Was it tongue in cheek or real?
Wouldn't any weapon that is used to assault someone be considered an assault weapon?
Seatbelts save lives. And I 'm guessing that you and your loved ones use them, but like me didn't use.one.until required by law back in the '60s.
Any weapon used to assault someone is an assault weapon, but AR stands for ArmaLite rifle. Not assault rifle
Appears to me that we tried your insurgency thingee with a "well regulated militia" back at Ft.Sumter about 150 years ago, with disastrous consequences. Starts to lose all its glamour when the other side starts shooting back.
No one in this thread that I have seen is advocating for the overthrow of the government.
Many have expressed the understanding that the 2A is a right and have attempted to explain to the unenlightened why we have it.
Your silly little scenario and insults about pea shooters vs M1A1s and Blackhawks is just that, silly.
- Status
