Debate user Saint Agustin on why you need an AR-15? - Why you need a long ass rifle? Are you gay or you lack dick?

Destacado
How many of you nerds even own one gun IRL?
Gun owners; post pics with ur username and today's date or GTFO. (No air rifles and paintball guns.)

The rest of youse:
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Presiona para expandir...
What part of the current gun culture is well regulated or serving the state? None but the police and the armed forces.

Guns are for killing and destroying things, but there's a prevailing culture to act as if they're like collectibles. Those who buy them because they worry about a ban and they think they need one are inviting a killing tool to live in their house. I don't see a culture of safety; I see a macho culture that wants to treat guns like collectibles, and gun makers encouraging them.

The guns end up getting used. We all know that gun accident injuries/fatalities (toddler kills sister etc.) suicides, and other unfortunate happenings are possible if you own a gun. We also all know that these fatal accidents are fairly common, enough that I could shit the thread with examples if I need to. And what about when all these surplus, basically-new guns end up falling into the wrong hands? My cousin's house was burglarized last week while she was on vacation, and that pro took everything he could steal. If they owned a AR-15, that assault rifle could now be in the hands of a practiced criminal. It's dumb edgy white guys who buy a gun for a hobby who are most likely to have the same gun taken from them and used against them. Locks and lights deter and prevent burglaries much more effectively and safely than firing a gun down your hallway at a presumed assailant will end them. (Edit to add: Just ask Oscar Pistorius.)

Hopefully, the stupid gun hobbyists have theirs in a drawer or safe somewhere 95% of the time and theorize about increasingly silly scenarios in which they would need a gun designed to kill herds of wild hogs in Africa. But the guns aren't staying in the trophy case. Adam Lanza's mom was a hobbyist: her son was a monster who murdered her with her own gun. Criminals who steal these surplus guns from normies can use them later. Collections get sold and end up god knows where. I couldn't get into a hobby that causes so much unintended downstream murder; it's like breeding fighting dogs 'for self defense' because you think it'll rustle the PETA people's jimmies. You're asking for problems.

That said I do think people who need guns to to their jobs (security, hunting, defense from wild animals) should be able to get the kind of gun they need, but they have to be vetted and permitted. In my utopia, you would need to prove to the licensing board you're a hunter, and keep certifying you are actively hunting from year to year to keep your gun. If you want to play target practice with guns, you use guns provided by the range. If you're a rancher in Montana whose cattle keep getting killed by wolves, you apply to Fish+Wildlife and the sheriff for a permit to buy a rifle. No more stupid overpowered COD guns would be sold to random dickheads whose only reason to buy one is wanting one.

The gun makers are the people who profit from all of this 2A sperging anyway, you saps are just the ones getting killed.
 
Última edición:
Stan dijo:
How many of you nerds even own one gun IRL?
Gun owners; post pics with ur username and today's date or GTFO. (No air rifles and paintball guns.)

The rest of youse:

What part of the current gun culture is well regulated or serving the state? None but the police and the armed forces.

Guns are for killing and destroying things, but there's a prevailing culture to act as if they're like collectibles. Those who buy them because they worry about a ban and they think they need one are inviting a killing tool to live in their house. I don't see a culture of safety; I see a macho culture that wants to treat guns like collectibles, and gun makers encouraging them.

The guns end up getting used. We all know that gun accident injuries/fatalities (toddler kills sister etc.) suicides, and other unfortunate happenings are possible if you own a gun. We also all know that these fatal accidents are fairly common, enough that I could shit the thread with examples if I need to. And what about when all these surplus, basically-new guns end up falling into the wrong hands? My cousin's house was burglarized last week while she was on vacation, and that pro took everything he could steal. If they owned a gun, that gun could now be in the hands of a practiced criminal. It's dumb edgy white guys who buy a gun for a hobby who are most likely to have the same gun taken from them and used against them. Locks and lights deter and prevent burglaries much more effectively and safely than firing a gun down your hallway at a presumed assailant will end them. (Edit to add: Just ask Oscar Pistorius.)

Hopefully, the stupid gun hobbyists have theirs in a drawer or safe somewhere 95% of the time and theorize about increasingly silly scenarios in which they would need a gun designed to kill herds of wild hogs in Africa. But the guns aren't staying in the trophy case. Adam Lanza's mom was a hobbyist: her son was a monster who murdered her with her own gun. Criminals who steal these surplus guns from normies can use them later. Collections get sold and end up god knows where. I couldn't get into a hobby that causes so much unintended downstream murder; it's like breeding fighting dogs 'for self defense' because you think it'll rustle the PETA people's jimmies. You're asking for problems.

That said I do think people who need guns to to their jobs (security, hunting, defense from wild animals) should be able to get the kind of gun they need, but they have to be vetted and permitted. In my utopia, you would need to prove to the licensing board you're a hunter, and keep certifying you are actively hunting from year to year to keep your gun. If you want to play target practice with guns, you use guns provided by the range. If you're a rancher in Montana whose cattle keep getting killed by wolves, you apply to Fish+Wildlife and the sheriff for a permit to buy a rifle. No more stupid overpowered COD guns would be sold to random dickheads whose only reason to buy one is wanting one.

The gun makers are the people who profit from all of this 2A sperging anyway, you saps are just the ones getting killed.
Presiona para expandir...
Couldn't have put it better. Asspats and updoots to you.
 
Sport and leisure shooting. But for practical purposes, be practical.

And it's not that practical for home defense unless your home is in a warzone or something. Which I guess can be tied in with joining a local militia and stocking for potential Troubles-style street warfare. It's mostly good for tactical combat that requires more than just defending your home unless you have a lot of armed men coming to kill you like in a movie, and you probably aren't interesting enough to have that happen, so what else is it good for? Terrorism, North Hollywood style robberies, generally aggressive criminal activities in which you actually plan to get into heavy combat or kill a lot of people. It's an assault rifle, man. It's made for suppressive fire and overtaking military positions. If your idea is that you want to do that in real life, go do paint ball with some people. You can do that year after year and not die while you're at it.

Am I saying you shouldn't have one? Nah, go ahead. I'd like lots of guns I'll never need. I'd like an M1921 Thompson and a LeMat revolver for fun times. Shoot some dynamic targets. But you're never really going to need an AR-15 unless for the reasons as stated above. I mean, if it's just the angry power fantasy and you don't even care about the sport shooting, my advice is to go play a video game and save yourself the cash. Otherwise, it's so much more cost effective to buy some buckshot for your bird rifle and call it a day. If you really need something more than that for personal defense, then get a sidearm which can function as a carry weapon, as well.
 
Última edición:
No desire for an AR-15. I pine more for one of these bad boys
 

Archivos adjuntos

  • 1657053658545.png
    1657053658545.png
    323.1 KB · Vistas: 38
Stan dijo:
What part of the current gun culture is well regulated or serving the state? None but the police and the armed forces.
Presiona para expandir...
It's the regulated militia being a necessary evil for the existence of the state that justifies the right of the civilian population to own guns in response, to prevent being oppressed by that militia, not that we have that right in service of creating a well regulated militia.
 
Absolutego dijo:
It's the regulated militia being a necessary evil for the existence of the state that justifies the right of the civilian population to own guns in response, to prevent being oppressed by that militia, not that we have that right in service of creating a well regulated militia.
Presiona para expandir...
OK, but the problem with this is that if you let anyone buy a gun who wants one, while also espousing the rhetoric that they're "watching the watchmen", so to speak, is that plenty of those people will decide at some point that some law or another isn't to their liking, and they have a right to break it and defend their position with force of arms.

The result of those conflicts are incidents like the illegal occupation of Malheur National Park. Automatic weapons do nothing to solve conflicts like this, but they do lead to increased casualties to both sides. If the government thinks you're packing serious heat then they pack some too, and you get situations like the Waco siege. Those holding guns because they think there's a use case where they will need to defend themselves against a rogue state militia with an AR-15 are SovCit and prepper lunatics. I also don't think owning / open carrying an AR-15 is an effective deterrent to being hassled by the police, wont they just start more spurious investigations and incursions cause you have this BFG ?
 
If learning to fight was really the purpose, and not fantasy consooomerism, the militias would learn things like artillery and mortar handling, drone surveillance and reconnaissance, vehicle warfare and a whole lot of political activism against encroachment. But the average gunfaggioli just buys the rifle, the ammo and with some trips a year to the range he's done. He's fulfilled his sacred duty against tyranny in his tiny skull.
 
The idea that your average gun toting patriot isn't going to just get Waco'd by the ATF is a fantasy. Much like the left, the right doesn't have the cohesion to "rise up" in enough numbers, and would just lead to random innocent people getting shot outside a burger king until the ATF skullfucks them.
 
Speaking as someone without any guns...

Guns are cool and funny and if you don't like them you're per definition a little sissyboy faggot
 
Absolutego dijo:
It's the regulated militia being a necessary evil for the existence of the state that justifies the right of the civilian population to own guns in response, to prevent being oppressed by that militia, not that we have that right in service of creating a well regulated militia.
Presiona para expandir...

The second amendment was meant to deter the standing federal army, which was very, very different than a militia. It was an amendment that restricted the powers of the federal government.

States were intended by the founders to have the right to regulate weapons and carry how they saw fit. If they wanted to disarm their populace and take it up the ass from the feds, that was on them.

edit:
In 2008 the supreme court ruled the 14th amendment applied to the 2nd. Technically this power was removed from the states in 1866 but the supreme court didn't get around to it until then.
 
Unironically civilians should be allowed to own miniature nukes, tanks, and anti air missiles.

There is no reason why the state should have a monopoly on modern arms, or arms at all. Any arguments to this effect are inherently specious, as they come down to "nah nah nah, you can't but I can!"
 
Justtocheck dijo:
As a civilian, If you can't get the job done with a glock 19 and an extra mag, then you failed already. Either in training or in judgement of the situation.
Presiona para expandir...
Most of the literature and studies on the topic indicates that you don't really need more than five rounds, so why carry the extra mag? Just in case right, for that situation that needs more than five rounds or even the whole magazine. The same logic can and should be applied to owning and training with a rifle.

Good training is going to tell you to have a number of tools in your arsenal to meet situations appropriately. A Glock 19 isn't going to be able to shoot though barriers as well or have the the range of a 5.56mm rifle.

You can say that's a judgement issue but there was probably at lest one situation today where your Glock 19 wasn't the best tool for a problem if it where to arise. If we could give people perfect judgement then nobody would need a gun but isn't how the world works. The world can't really be prepared for 100% in a reasonable manner, but it's unreasonable to ignore a tool and instead insist in using the wrong tool for the wrong job.
 
Destacado
Debes iniciar sesión o registrarte para responder aquí.
Atrás
Top Abajo