My point with this is how "peaceful" do you want to the protest to be when you march with an AR-15 style rifle slung across your back? You're are not presenting the image of "peaceful" doing this. You are presenting the image of going to war.
Absolutely! As I just responded to the other comment you don't present the image of peacefulness while carrying an assault rifle. Why would you need to carry an assault rifle with you during a peaceful rally? IMO you present the image of going to war, or the need to defend yourself when there should be nothing to defend yourself from.
Open carry advocates have "peaceful" open carry rallies all the time while being strapped with enough weapons to invade a small country.
What else do you use that style of rifle for? I spent 6 years in the Army and carried and M-16 A4 for all six. Hunting rifles don't need a 30 round magazines. Those "style" of rifles were made for one thing, war and killing people, not hunting. Don't get me wrong, I like them. They're fun to shoot, play with and if you want to defend yourself, it would probably be the first weapon I'd choose to have. But they weren't designed for hunting.
I agree in the basic concept of a firearm yes; you pull the trigger and the round goes down range. What I don't agree with is classifying all firearms in the same category. Firearms, just like bows, are designed with specific purposes in mind. There are target bows, hunting bows, recurve bows and so on. Firearms are the same way. There are shotguns for hunting birds, hunting rifles in different calibers for the size of your game. The M-16, M-4, AK-47, AR-15, etc. were designed for soldiers in war.
You do realize you contradicted and answered your own question at the same time in the second half of your comment? That is exactly why a lot of people own them, they are a sporting rifle. They are also a preferred rifle for varmint and predator hunting. All guns are deadly and designed to kill. It's the person holding it that decides what to kill. This will not end with an evil black gun and magazine ban. Everytime it is brought up thousands more get sold. When the ban doesn't work, again, is when they will attempt the ban on posession and the only way to implement that is confiscation. That is a step they are striving for, if they ever reach that point the sky is their limit and hello Australia in the lower 48. Go vote for Hillary, you may get your wish via SCOTUS
Every weapon we have has basically been designed for War. Remington 700 was the preferred sniper rifle for the military for ages. We had model 870 shotguns and .45 semi-auto pistols. Is there really a difference between one 30 round mag and two 15 rounders or 3 10 rounders? Difference is a handful of seconds. Do I need 30 round magazine. No, I also don't need to assemble in protest, or need to be able to speak freely. Take a shotgun into an enclosed space like Orlando and you can kill just as many people with fewer rounds. People ask, why do you need 30 rounds. Answer is easy. 1 for the bad guy. 29 for fun.
So a target bow is not as deadly as a hunting bow in the wrong hands? That comparison really makes no sense.
It all comes down to the 2nd.. and no matter if its more dangerous or less or if you want to call it an "assault" rifle or a "sporting" rifle. The 2nd wasnt intended for hunting and its our right to own it.
As far as mass shooting go remmett70 is correct imo.. it makes little to no difference if you have 10 round mags or 30. Remember the worst mass shooting was Virginia tech until Orlando and he used a 9mm handgun and a .22 cal handgun.
The comparison was made about the purpose the bow was designed for. Not the lethality of a target bow vs. a hunting bow.
I hope all those people who were out there protesting and badmouthing police take a real deep look inside themselves. Because one thing I noticed. There was a ton of them, running towards those very police officers they were protesting, looking for protection once the shooting started. Shows the character of the police who get yelled and spit at and still stand up and protect the very people who were a moment ago spitting on them. Hope it never happens, but should anything like these protest happen by me, I will be there. Standing next to or behind those police and doing anything I can to support them.
Tell me where I said the rifles should be banned. I've never said that. My point is this.... In 1955, Stoner completed initial design work on the revolutionary AR-10, a lightweight (7.25 lbs.) selective-fire infantry rifle in 7.62×51mm NATO caliber. The AR-10 was submitted for rifle evaluation trials to the US Army's Aberdeen Proving Ground late in 1956. And yes I copied and pasted this from Wiki. My point is the "AR" style of rifle was not invented to be a sporting or varmint rifle. Yes is has been adopted to do such and works very well. I've never said this type of rifle or any gun for that matter should be banned and am highly opposed to any rifle being banned. My argument was never about the banning of weapons. My argument was what certain weapons were initially designed for. Nothing more. The person behind the gun pulls the trigger and determines what it will be used for.
But your point is also everyone's excuse to try to ban them.. I mean lots of guns and other things were created or made for military use, the jeep being one. An all terrain "assault" vehicle! Ban them QUICK! lol
I see what you mean Pitman in my point also being the reason people want to ban the rifles. I didn't quite realize it before so thanks for pointing it out. In all of my posts, I wasn't trying to support a ban for those rifles. I see how that looks now so if anyone had that thought, it wasn't what I intended. And no, let's not start banning Jeeps and Hummers! We'll leave that for the EPA when gas goes back to $4 a gallon! LOL
When Pitman said you were using politcally induced terminology "assault rifle", you responded back with, "what else do you use that style of rifle for" and inferred it was not a hunting rifle. To me that is akin to the always popular, "I support the 2nd amendment and hunters rights, but.... common sense....." typical gun ban talk. I thought you were implying they should not be in the hands of civilians. I apologize if that was not your intent. As far as the 2nd amendment goes, it does not give me the right to own guns. It ensures that right that I have shall always be my right and not subject to interpretation by a tyranical government. Guns were used for far more than hunting when it was written, and I'm sure even for ill intended purposes like we see today by those with mental imbalances or just plain bad intentions. That all said, we are pretty much government conditioned anymore. Rather than this being about 5 officers murdered in cold blood and racially incited interactions becoming the norm of our country we are talking about the gun, and not the issues at hand.
