Do you own an AR15?

[Anonymous]

What’s wrong with a law abiding citizen owning an ordinary gun like an ar15 ?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No. We own a handgun and a rifle.

We don't plan to mass murder anyone, and can aim a rifle while hunting, so no need to own an AR15.

The mechanical accuracy of the AR15 platform is widely accepted as extremely high.

Whoa. This is horrendously not true.

Whoa, it’s the absolutely dominant platform in organized high power rifle competition, where participants routinely place their rounds inside a 3 inch circle at 600 yards, using iron sights.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No. We own a handgun and a rifle.

We don't plan to mass murder anyone, and can aim a rifle while hunting, so no need to own an AR15.

The mechanical accuracy of the AR15 platform is widely accepted as extremely high.

Whoa. This is horrendously not true.

Whoa, it’s the absolutely dominant platform in organized high power rifle competition, where participants routinely place their rounds inside a 3 inch circle at 600 yards, using iron sights.

No one needs a gun capable of such extreme accuracy at distances like that. That’s only of benefit to snipers. No one needs a sniper rifle to hunt a deer. Settle down, Rambo. Your nra talking points are busted here

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:No. We're a hunting family and we do not approve of such a class of weapons. They should not be available to civilians or retired law enforcement.

I disagree. I guess what applies here is the theory I tend to apply to everything going on today;

I just apply the Let Them theory, based on the book by Mel Robbins

You should try it too.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No, and why would anyone need an AR 15? That is the question, actually.

Philosophically speaking, why does anyone need anything other than water, food, air and whatever clothing/protection for their environment. I mean if you want to get philosophical those are the only basic neccessary needs.

This is a good point.

No, it's no point at all. You need shoes to cover your feet, clothes and shelter due to the elements, food to survive, transportation of some sort to engage in commerce and social activities, buildings for a lot of things, a form of currency to have an economy and engage in trade. You need various services and service providers for an individualistic connection to niche requirements most likely. Beyond that, there are varying levels of need based upon lifestyle, income production and health requirements, which, in turn, connect and extrapolate to other contingencies to do what needs to be done.

And yet- there's not one need, not one at all, that would assume the ownership of an AR15. Nada.

No you don't. You are spoiled and "want". Read "A Theory of Human Motivation" and then strip it down further.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No. We're a hunting family and we do not approve of such a class of weapons. They should not be available to civilians or retired law enforcement.

A government of the people, by the people and for the people should never have special rights beyond the people.

So you should be able to have your own nuclear weapon and an airfield in your backyard?

GTFOOH

Ummm, people can if they have the money.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:DH and I are former military and not anti-gun. That said, we both strongly believe nobody outside the military (and a few specialized police units) should own a weapon like that. Ever.

Curious, because you and your husband were in the military, do you think it gives more substance to your opinion? If so, why? I don't see any other reason to start your reply with that info, yet, I can't see anyone being that ... dumb ... that they would think it made their opinion stronger.

Not PP but it means they’ve shot a lot of rounds. Being in the military you get to go to the range and shoot a shit ton of ammo for free (and it’s even your job to do it). Us civilians have to pay for the bullets we use, which makes shooting an AR15 very, very expensive and few people can do it regularly. Generally I respect the opinions of people more when they know something about the subject matter at hand.

Ammunition isn’t the same price as tic-tacs, but it’s hardly prohibitively expensive, particularly in an area like this, populated with well-compensated professionals. There are plenty of AR15 owners who regularly go out to the range for an hour, or two, or three, to practice and enjoy their hobby. There is an entire area of organized “service rifle” competition where hobbyists engage in marksmanship with amazing skill (iron sights at 600 yards, anyone), using discretionary income.

Well three hours of shooting an AR-15 with regularity would be prohibitively expensive! I don’t know about you, but I rarely go spend a couple thousand dollars on a Saturday afternoon activity.

Practice ammunition in the relevant caliber is as low as .25/round, and widely available for less than .40/round. Using the higher price would yield 2,500 rounds for $1,000, and at least 5,000 rounds to reach “a couple thousand dollars.”

An organized service rifle match typically requires only 50 rounds. Even using the best match ammunition at $1.50/round, that would cost only $75. So for $150, plus any entry fees, etc., a sportsman could shoot two matches a weekend.

Where the heck are you finding .223 for .25 cpr???

Online. In about 10 seconds.

I can find a few places listing it for under 25 cents but those are the sites that charge $150 for shipping

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No. We're a hunting family and we do not approve of such a class of weapons. They should not be available to civilians or retired law enforcement.

A government of the people, by the people and for the people should never have special rights beyond the people.

The scary thing is, Democrat or Republican, the government has plenty of special rights over the people. With AI, holy cow. Just wait until they incorporate AI into war robots, such as those robot dogs with weapons mounted on the shoulders.

If we don't demand worldwide restrictions on AI and robots, it's gonna be game over. Worse than nuclear power.

Ukraine has used off-the-shelf DGI brand drones, carrying a simple grenade, to decimate Russia’s tank corps, fly into bunkers, chase down and kill soldiers on motorcycles, etc.

Rumors are our own military has or soon will have military drones with facial-recognition ability.

These small drones can fly down any hallway, recognize the target out of hundreds of troops, and kill just that one person.

Plus, with AI, we will have independent drone-swarms of hundreds or even thousands of small but deadly drones.

Remember over a decade ago drones being developed at one of the mil bases that were the size of a mosquito, no fooling.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No. We own a handgun and a rifle.

We don't plan to mass murder anyone, and can aim a rifle while hunting, so no need to own an AR15.

If AR15’s are for mass murdering people without needing to aim, why does every police officer in the country have one in their police car?

Who are all these people we want our cops mass murdering? Can you explain this to me?

Always a good point.

If they are too dangerous for citizens to have, then they shouldn't be in the hands of the police, military, and government either.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No. We're a hunting family and we do not approve of such a class of weapons. They should not be available to civilians or retired law enforcement.

A government of the people, by the people and for the people should never have special rights beyond the people.

The scary thing is, Democrat or Republican, the government has plenty of special rights over the people. With AI, holy cow. Just wait until they incorporate AI into war robots, such as those robot dogs with weapons mounted on the shoulders.

If we don't demand worldwide restrictions on AI and robots, it's gonna be game over. Worse than nuclear power.

Oh yeah, what are they gonna do? Release the dogs? Or the bees? Or the dogs with bees in their mouths and when they bark, they shoot bees at you?

*In evil Mr. Burns voice.... "Release the Richard Simmon's bot!"

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No. We own a handgun and a rifle.

We don't plan to mass murder anyone, and can aim a rifle while hunting, so no need to own an AR15.

The mechanical accuracy of the AR15 platform is widely accepted as extremely high.

Whoa. This is horrendously not true.

Whoa, it’s the absolutely dominant platform in organized high power rifle competition, where participants routinely place their rounds inside a 3 inch circle at 600 yards, using iron sights.

No one needs a gun capable of such extreme accuracy at distances like that. That’s only of benefit to snipers. No one needs a sniper rifle to hunt a deer. Settle down, Rambo. Your nra talking points are busted here

Don’t most anti gun idiots claim the AR15 is inaccurate and only good for spray fire? Now it’s TOO accurate? I’m confused how accuracy is even relevant

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No. We own a handgun and a rifle.

We don't plan to mass murder anyone, and can aim a rifle while hunting, so no need to own an AR15.

The mechanical accuracy of the AR15 platform is widely accepted as extremely high.

Whoa. This is horrendously not true.

Never attended Camp Perry and HP competition in the day eh?