Let Everyone shoot an AK~47...
 

If you want to shoot an AK~47,then you go to a Special compound where all thay shoot is semi Automatic weapons,so everyone there has a AK~47 and you shoot targets,,,But then you watch these AK~47 shooters will be wondering if the person shooting NEXT to them is crazzzzy,,,You watch how fast these guys want gun control...

Lol what? I have shot around a bunch of guys like that, wasn't skeered.

But Did you wonder,what If???

They don't think it be like it is, but it do.

Not at all. When are are driving down the highway with cars coming at you and ever think "What if one of these people are craaaazy and intentionally hit me head on"? Ever been in a plane and look around thinking "wonder if anyone plans on meeting 40 virgins tonight"

I have shot an AK with a bunch of dudes and did think, How is this legal oh and it is a lot of fun.

Smoothie ,I have had a Driver jump the center divider and hit me @ 70 MPH,That is why I've been hurt for 32 years ...I can see how Shooting an AK~47 can be FUNNNN,But besides that,WHAT is it good for ,do you hunt with an AK~47???its made for per destruction,So why should the general population be able to buy this Toy???Nobody should be able to buy this toy ,its a military Tool...

I have hunted deer with it, and believe it or not is a smaller round than a popular 308 or 270 hunting rifle.

An AR 15 can't be used to hunt deer here because it isn't powerful enough.

I'm not a fan of it, but some give their youngsters the AR or a bolt action variant of .223 for taking deer. a well place shot with a .22 will kill one.

What's with all the AK hate? don't even need a special stock to bump fire one

Have you ever been in a McDonalds and wondered how many people around are you going to die from diabetes?

The people dying for Diabetes walked into the McDonalds of their own free will knowing that their "food" isn't good for you. It's not even close to comparable.

As for the argument that there are lots of other guns that are as powerful as an AK.. Fine we shouldn't be allowed to have those either.

You can speak for yourself. Everyone has freedom of speech. I for one would choose to keep my constitutional right to bear arms. I own an AR15 as well a a bolt action .223. The same damage could be done with both rifles. I also own several semi automatic handguns which could do more damage in less time than either rifle. Evil people are the problem not guns. Guns are for your personal protection,hunting and competitive as well as recreational shooting. It's already against the law to murder someone. All these nuts broke those laws , what makes you think just because they can't buy a gun legally they won't find a way. Drugs are illegal and that doesn't stop drug addicts. Driving drunk is illegal but it still happens.

you should read the thread. It's a bit outlandish, but OP lays out a specific scenario

It is made for destruction. It's a military grade weapon and we have them because of the 2cd amendment. The 2cd amendment exists so that the people can fight the government if needed. How are the people going to fight if they don't have serious weapons?

The AR-15 is a suitable hunting rifle. The .223 round comes in hunting, bolt action platforms. You would use a heavier grain round.

Maybe 200 years ago, you may have had a valid argument. People need to give up this archaic idea. It makes you sound stupid.

So why don't we scrap the laws against drunk driving?

It would happen a lot less if there were no commercial establishments with vehicle parking that served alcohol.

So being defenseless and "protected" by someone else is the noble thing to do???

LMFAO. Yeap lets ban bars!!!!!!!

The AR also comes in a 308 called the AR 10. I have one and use it for deer hunting.

Kinda like the people in Afghanistan? Oh wait......

That argument is such a bunch of I've watched "red dawn" too many times horse crap.
You and your personal stockpile of weapons isn't going to do Jack against the Government. They have drones, they have ballistic sniper, they can kill you from space. Your personal arsenal is as usefull as my daughters teddy bear. It makes you feel good so you can sleep better. You certainly are NOT the last line of defense against a tyrannical government, because the government will kick your militarily puny A$$.

I see. So you're in the camp of "they'll kick my ass anyway, why put up a fight" ??

Fighting the gub'ment is what made the 2nd so important, but I don't think it applies any less to anyone else. As Americans, we reserve the right to defend ourselves. Against anyone.

Are you disagreeing with my statement or just pretending I said something I didn't say?

Dont ban bars...just eliminate parking spaces.;)

I understand most states allow it, and that it is capable of killing a deer. It does not have the terminal shock of a larger round and is therefore not allowed in Colorado, Connecticut, Illinois, Iowa, Massachusetts, Virginia, Ohio, New Jersey, Washington, and West Virginia. Those states require a larger round.

I have an AR in 223, bolt action 223, AR in 7.62x39, and AR in 308. My go to hunting round is 7.62x39

Oh yeah? Well, you know there were also amendments that declared blacks as 2/3 citizens and barring women to vote.

Maybe when the government and citizens had the same arsenal, your argument may be valid but when the US Navy could launch a tomahawk up your ass from a 1000 miles away, I'd say "fighting the gub'ment" is no longer a viable argument. But if that's what you need to keep you comfortable at night, keep on keepin' on.

Comparing the US to Afghanistan? That's rich.

No, the second amendment was put in place because the US didn't have a standing military and needed to have a way to defend itself against foreign invaders. I know how NRA people like to ignore the whole "A well regulated Militia" part of the 2nd.

Turns out its not about arming every idiot for fun, it was about having an armed coast guard.

No. I was pointing out how the Afgans have kicked Russia out of their country and have made it a living hell for the US and our superior Army with just their AKs and small munitions. but I assumed that would go right over your head.

Why are we spending over a 1/2 trillion a year on a military budget when all we need to do is give everyone a gun? Just like Afghanistan.

So if that does happen and half the military sides against the government, the other side has good weapons too.

It has everything to do with the terrain in Afghanistan. It is a harsh rocky environment that is littered with interconnecting caves. Additionally, the Russians and the US don't really care in a significant way. If we actually cared about Afghanistan (like a tyrannical government coming to get you would) we would wipe them off the map. Both the Russians and the US are tried to take control of Afganistan to hand over to the Afgani people while not taking undue risk of US lives. So again, sleep tight with your teddy bear/gun in your arms because it makes you feel secure but doesn't do a damn thing.

Republicans can't give the military enough money, while at the same time they claim they need to weapons to defend themselves from the govt.:rolleyes: I guess that's the same logic republicans use when they claim they are deficit hawks while at the same time raising deficit spending.

Lol.

I don't have guns to feel safe. I have guns for sport.

If we wanted Afghanistan, you can trust their piddly guns would be no match.

Why is this no longer a valid argument? No need for insults. Try to have a rational conversation.

American gun owners represent the largest army in the world. Man to man, weapon to weapon, american gun owners are very powerful. Another part of the argument is....what would our brothers and sisters in the military actually do if it came down to the people going to war with the government? People serving in law enforcement and the military are typically conservatives that value and believe in the purpose of the 2cd amendment. So would they side with their families and become "the people" and fight the government, or would they fight for the politicians?

To your comment about my guns being as useful as your daughters teddy bears.....I'm not sure what to say about that, except that you seem like the type to exaggerate a lot and make pretty outlandish examples. It's difficult to take you seriously.

I have my beliefs and you have yours. The purpose of the 2cd amendment is what it is, whether you believe in it or not, it's there for the reason I stated and that's a fact. I believe in the purpose, and I'm the type to fight back for the principal. Maybe you aren't that type and that's okay.

I'm aware. Thank you. Personally I hunt big game with a Remington 700 7Mag. But a .223 can still be used where appropriate (and legal).

No it is not a fact. If it was there wouldn't be the "Well regulated Militia" part of the 2nd.

If my kid hits another kid with a stick I don't blame the stick but I do take the stick away.

But do you then run around the neighborhood taking all of the sticks away from the well behaved kids?

I do if the "well behaved" kids refuse to let me take away the stick from my kid.

Good luck with that

LOVE the 7mag. got the ruger M77

Dear FBI
Please add everyone who posted in this thread to the people who can’t or should NOT own a gun because clearly they are mentally unstable. If you were not smart enough to avoid the libral idiots trolling then you are clearly not smart enough to own any fire arm. Infact please include sharp instruments to list of things you should all not be able to pick up and use. This include kitchen silverware. Sporks from now on boys.

No one is stopping you from taking the sticks away from your kid buddy but your democratic logic is pretty typical.

Just don't try to take the sticks away from the kids in the red neighborhood. They believe in protecting themselves.

Grant - Haven't you figured out how to add spell and grammar check to your browser yet? The government won't listen to anyone that thinks "infact" is a compound word.

^^ Good point. You can keep your Ar’s LOL LOL

Curious, from what?

If the US wanted, they could leave Afghanistan as a giant crater in the Earth. The two sides are using two different sets of rules. I can assure you that those rules would not be in effect if the citizens of the US turned on the government. That is the only reason. Plus, you do know that the Afghans are using more than just firearms? They have explosives, anti-aircraft missiles, anti-tank missiles, etc. The US supplied the Afghans with Stinger missiles during the war with the USSR.

While your narrative sounds really cool, it's not close to accurate.

What happened in Las Vegas?

Despite what you think, a gun does not make a person "powerful". Let's be honest here, the majority of this US gun owner army you describe would not be able to pull the trigger in the heat of the moment.

Why wouldn't you punish your kid? Isn't he just going to find a bigger stick or a rock?

Wtf this doesn't even make sense. I think you are so blinded by emotion and your need to prove you are right you are really reaching here.
https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/201...3d6591e047.jpg

If alcohol serving establishments didn't have parking for vehicles they would go out of business because of lack of business. People wouldn't walk that far to get a drink. They would just drive to a grocery store or ABC store and buy their alcohol there. Still driving their cars.

Prohibition.

I wasn't making a commentary on how well their business would do. Are you trying to argue that people would go to the grocery store, get drunk in the parking lot, then drive home drunk? Because I can't figure out the purpose of that comment if you aren't.

No just pointing out the obvious. People would do what is most convenient. Drive their car to a place that sells alcohol that has parking. There would still be drunk drivers because people that don't obey the laws won't start obeying them if you make another one.

So do you disagree with the claim that not allowing alcohol being sold at establishments with parking would lower drunk driving incidents? I'm asking because you didn't directly address my claim. Instead you act like you are refuting it by presenting strawman arguments. I didn't say that there would be no drunk driving. It's a strawman argument to pretend like I did when I know that the one point I made would not completely eliminate drunk driving. And I never suggested it would.

"There would still be drunk drivers because people that don't obey the laws won't start obeying them if you make another one. "

So are you claiming that people who drive drunk want to break the law so bad that they will open their own establishments with parking lots and serve alcohol if it were illegal? I'm pretty sure most people don't drive drunk because they want to break the law as you suggested. I believe they drive drunk because they enjoy partying at bars and still have to get home.

I think they drive drunk because they like to socialize with friends or like minded people. Whether it be tailgating at a sporting event,going out boating with friends,going over someone's house that's having a party. They get wrapped up in having fun and everyone else they're with has been drinking and No one stops them from driving. I know this because i'm always the DD because I don't drink. People make choices and have habits and if they enjoy those habits they keep doing them. Changing the rules just makes them adjust their stradegy. I offer to take people home but usually the host of the party will let them spend the night to avoid driving. Still other party goers may stay longer and you fi d out later they drove home by themselves. You can't save everyone, you just try and help those that will accept help.

^good post and NOT a straw man argument. I agree 100%

You still didn't answer his question. You are trying to justify why people make the decision to drive drunk. That's not what he asked you.

Exactly. I made a simple statement that I don't think anyone could disagree with. Yet somehow he manages to keep avoiding that point apparently so he can pretend he's refuting it.

Yeah, but I was able to say it in one sentence...

"I believe they drive drunk because they enjoy partying at bars and still have to get home."

Gold star is in the mail, ETA 8-10 days.

Keep it. I can get one from Amazon Prime much sooner.

This whole thread is about people who are familiar with guns and comfortable handling them trying to reason with people who are scared of guns and not comfortable with private citizens who own them. Let's break this down real simple for everyone. If a Policeman with a gun saves your life,he's a good policeman. If a Policeman with a gun takes someone's life without a lawful reason he's a bad policeman. You don't take away all policeman's guns because you would be defenseless against criminals. If you don't think policeman are human then I can't reason with you. I personally think policeman are human first and policeman second. There are good and bad in every profession out there. We already have laws in place to control the sale of guns all we as a nation need to do is enforce them. More laws won't make bad people obey them . Good people shouldn't be penalized for obeying the laws. For all the people who say you don't need a gun. What's the first thing you would do if someone broke into your house after midnight? Call someone with a gun and hope they got there in time to save you.How many people have a fire extinguisher in their house but have never had a fire? This is no different than owning a gun and not using it till it's needed. Although I would recommend going to a shooting range and practicing with your gun so if you did need it you would be effective with it.You may ask why I use a fire extinguisher as an example? Both Guns and Fire Extinguishers are legal to own and both can be used for good and bad things. Also both can be owned and never needed. You may ask what can be bad about a fire extinguisher? A fire Extinguisher can be used to hit someone over the head or shoot into someone's eyes. Most good people would not do those things with a fire extinguisher to an innocent non threatening human being.

Wonder how long it's going to be until we have a mass fire extinguisher clubbing now that it's been revealed that their danger can be compared to guns.

Fire Extinguishers are used everyday to commit crimes. It's commonly known among thieves that fire extinguishers shot all over where the thief has been makes it nearly impossible to get fingerprints after their crimes. I learned that from the police after a break in.

There are NO laws that say mentally ill people can't own guns. What do you have against a law like that?

The police can NOT take a gun away from someone who is on the DO NOT FLY list. What do you have against a law like that?

Why do gun people feel the need to stop reasonable gun laws. I had to pass a test to drive a car. I can't just sell it to anyone without filling out paper work. What is the problem with having the same laws for guns?

The laws in place that "control the sale of guns" have no teeth. We need to write new laws that do have teeth. Do you expect anything to change without writing new laws? Or do you think the idea that you might have to fill out some paperwork or wait a few days to get a gun to much of an inconvenience and its worth the risk of more guns in the hands of nut jobs?
The only reason to be against these kind of common sense laws is if you are a criminal, nut job, or own stock in the gun manufacturers.

No I would yell get the hell out of my house and they would run away. Burglars are not interested in fighting you they just want to grab something they can sell. Besides which the whole premis is wrong. The VAST majority of burglaries happen on weekdays between 10 and 2 in the afternoon when they think the house is unoccupied. The notion of night burglars takings hostages is as realistic as the idea of a paid assassin.

Why are gun people so afraid of the world around them?

If fire extinguishers where 10 times more likely to explode and kill a family member then ever be used to put out a fire they would be illegal.

So your point is that mass killing and covering fingerprints are in some way equivalent enough to bring up this point? Could you be any sillier with your arguments?

Deemed unconstitutional by the 2008 SC that you can't take away guns without due process.

Deemed unconstitutional by the 2008 SC that you can't take away guns without due process.

Deemed unconstitutional by the 2008 SC that you can't take away guns without due process.

[QUOTE=fly135;1976132]Deemed unconstitutional by the 2008 SC that you can't take away guns without due process.
QUOTE]

Which is why we need to change that. Its called an AMENDMENT for a reason, the founding fathers wanted us to be able to change it. Tomas Jefferson wrote a letter to James Madison where he asked to put into the constitution that all laws and constitutional AMENDMENTS expire after 18 years and the new government of 18 years in the future can decide if it is still a good idea.

The 2nd Amendment has no place in the modern world so lets get rid of it.
It doesn't make you safer, it doesn't protect you from the government coming to get you, it just kills people unnecessarily and makes small people feel bigger.

Uhhh, no it's not. I'm not "scared of guns", I own two of them. I took a hunter safety course when I was a kid, I qualified with an M-16, and I have a concealed carry permit.

My argument is there are too many guns in this country. It's really simple:

MORE GUNS IN A POPULATION = HIGHER INSTANCES OF GUN VIOLENCE IN A POPULATION

Now, yours and others solution is more guns means more safety. Guess what, it really means higher instances of gun violence.

So you can choose to do two things. Ignore it, but don't get upset or outraged when some deranged individual shoots up a school and kills innocent children. Or we can come up with something sensible and ignore the profits of gun manufacturers. That is the sole purpose of the NRA, maximizing profits.

If you could just get a SC majority that doesn't ignore the parts of the 2nd they don't like you wouldn't need another amendment. Maybe we could get a SC that ignores the part about not being infringed and only cares about the well regulated part. Wouldn't that be sweet! LOL.

So you care more about keeping your guns, than kids getting shot up in schools.
This is an honest question, do you feel that your right to bear arms outweighs the danger it poses to the kids at school?

Oh and on a personal note, talking about kids being killed is not something you should unless you want everyone else to think you're a _______________

Your statement about more guns = more gun violence doesn't hold water. Some gun shows have in excess of 10,000 weapons in a acre or so building. No reports of violence. Why? Because guns are inanimate objects. People are the problem. We need a database of people with mental health issues and violent incident arrests. Then a gun dealer can really do a background check . The law is already in place. The information to enforce the law isn't in the database.

I could try, but the fire extinguisher was the best I had without really thinking about it.:D

Pretty sure you didn't get what I was saying.

Until we close the private sales and gun show loophole, the law that is in place is ineffective.
Why are you against expanding that law so that it works?

FYI: The Vegas shooter had no history of violent incidents, or mental health issues and would have passed the database check.

Absolutely. "Its for the children". B.S.. Do you spend your weekends trying to shut down abortion clinics? What about all the kids that die from drugs, what are you doing about that? Teen car accidents?

I'm simply saying, taking guns away will NOT make kids any safer, and in fact, will make mine LESS safe. I WON'T be able to protect them either at home or out on the town without a firearm.