Do you own an AR15?

[Anonymous]

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.

Ah, I see you didn't serve.

They may have. However, if you are shooting a shit ton of ammo, you aren't passing the qualification course and you need the practice.

[Anonymous]

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.

Ah, I see you didn't serve.

They may have. However, if you are shooting a shit ton of ammo, you aren't passing the qualification course and you need the practice.

We’ve already covered this above, thanks!

[Anonymous]

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.

[Anonymous]

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???

[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.

And yet, I want to actually use skill while hunting instead of just going out there murdering animals.in the most efficient way. What's the skill in that?

Nothing about the design of the AR15 obviates the use of skill. It is the leading competition platform. As for “murdering animals in the most efficient way,” there is a lot more air around them than there is meat on them, and efficient use of any firearm requires skill.

[Anonymous]

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.

[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.

Link please

[Anonymous]

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.

That’s your right.

[Anonymous]

No
I don’t own any weapons and have no desire to.
I fully support everyone else’s right to, if they choose.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It’s the most popular rifle in the US with about 24 million being built. Wondering if any of my fellow educated urban elites happen to own one.

Yes and I converted fully automatic.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s the most popular rifle in the US with about 24 million being built. Wondering if any of my fellow educated urban elites happen to own one.

Yes and I converted fully automatic.

Nice job admitting to a felony unless you have an 07 SOT.

[Anonymous]

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

[Anonymous]

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.

[Anonymous]

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???

Seriously. Must be reloading.

[Anonymous]

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.

I’m really glad it doesn’t work that way. I don’t want to trust you not to start a war with Russia with your personal back-yard ICBM. Weapons of war should be left to states that have been granted the power to declare war by the consent of the people they govern.

I actually don’t believe in taking ALL guns away, but do think they, their owners, their manufacturers and sellers, etc. should be thoroughly regulated. While there’s obviously a lot of gray area between no guns and personal ICBMs, that simply means that we need to do the hard (virtually impossible for politicians and bureaucracies) thing and actually think about the subject. Blanket statements like PP’s, citing absolutes like “never”, preclude thinking and could lead us to blindly allow incredibly stupid and dangerous policies.