I can cut drywall with a steak knife. It was still designed to cut steak. Last time I did this I cut my thumb badly (cutting drywall with a steak knife). Seriously just don't.

Anyway you can disagree all you want. Fact is that when Stoner, et al. designed the AR-15 in the 1950s it was for the Army (via the now defunct CONARC ORO)'s concept of generating casualties through large amounts of unaimed fire. They believed that putting large numbers of rounds downrange was the solution, and a smaller cartridge made sense since if you're just going to blast away then you better bring more ammo. Now whether or not that is/was a good concept, and whether or not the 5.56 is the best round is a different discussion - the fact is that the AR-15 was designed for CONARC's requirements - semi auto/full, 20rd mag, 6lbs loaded, penetrate army helmet at 500 yards. What do you think they were trying to do?

Oh right, kill people I mean uh.. it's the Army dude. But...  I don't understand why this is such a big deal?

People don't seem to have this issue with handguns. Most handguns are designed to kill people. Oh noes!

Sure you could take a Glock and modify it to make it better for hunting. Longer barrel. Scope and what-not.
Is a Glock designed to kill people? Yes. So is the AR-15.

And that's OK.

I mean I get the "logic" behind this. Hey let's call them modern sporting rifles! Because you know.. hunting is a safe topic right? That way we get to keep our guns! Because yay hunting!

Fuck that. If you want to hunt with an AR, rock on brother. But I don't need to justify my ownership of an AR or any similar firearm for that reason anymore than an automobile enthusiast who purchases some 500bhp behemoth. My car is governed to 135mph and there's nowhere on this island I can legally drive it that fast.

It's not because I need to; it's because I have the right to.

That last line, Ladies and Gentlemen, is precisely the point.

As far as the "these guns were made to kill people" argument, they all were weapons of war to begin with. It is a progression of technology.

We have gone from muzzle loaders to single shot cartridge to lever action to bolt action to semi and full auto weapons. All of which, at some point, were the pinnacle of advanced weapons design for the military. All of which ended up in the hands of civilians and were converted for sporting usage and self defense.

Military advances of ALL types have made our lives easier, from communications to travel and navigation. The fact that weapons have followed this curve should hardly be surprising to anyone. What everyone seems to overlook is the responsibility of the user of said technology.

That, IMO, is where we really need to be working.

PS. Since I know I'll hear about it, revolvers should be included, for all the "wheelies" out there.

its like your yelling at the rain you cant do anything just frustrated

Yeah, that's pretty much how it feels.

Huh.  I'm surprised at the number of you who are agreeing with me!  Now, a few of you don't seem to realize that you're agreeing with me, but that's ok.  Surprisingly, I feel much better!

The Rem 223 was design to inflict wounds to soldiers as per the Geneva Convention . It was not designed to kill people!

While I haven't (yet) read the treaties and protocols in their entirety, I think you're wrong on this one.  The original three treaties, the three subsequent protocols, and the fourth treaty dealt (if the synopses are to be believed) with the treatment of prisoners, care of the wounded, and the rights of non-combatants.  Weapons of war were not addressed at all, but are covered by the Hauge Conventions.  And, incidentally, the US was one of the only nations which failed to ratify the section of the Hauge Convention pertaining to the use expanding or deforming projectiles.

[EDIT] Link to the appropriate section of the Hauge Convention.  I'm still looking for confirmation of the non-participation of the US.[/EDIT]

[EDIT]  Found it.  Looks like we we had some serious reservations. [/EDIT]

[EDIT] Further clarification: The US is not the only nation that did not sign, ratify, or act on this declaration of the convention. [/EDIT]

Last time I checked. All Semi and Full Auto Guns, Revolvers, Hammers, Needles, Knives, Spoons, Forks, Baseball Bats, Footballs, Baseballs, Golf Balls, Golf Clubs, Fists, Bottles, Cans, Computer Screens, Ipads & Tools
were Assault Weapons. Yup TOTAL BS

.

I'm having some difficulty following the original point of this thread.

Would someone please restate the original point, in one sentence?

Thanks!

Call a spade a spade.

.

Okay, check...now what?

You're golden!  Go forth, and should you have conversations with people who opinions of spades differ from yours, don't resort to lying about spades being spades in attempt to further your cause.  Instead, become excellent at enumerating the reasons why spades are good.

.

I like it, Tom_G.... thanks for breaking it down for me.

I have been doing what you suggest, all along, and I will continue to do so.

I will also continue to educate antis, to the degree that they are capable and willing to listen to, understand, and accept facts about firearms and responsible firearm ownership.

The danger, of course, is that the antis will not respond, in kind (i.e., with civility, respect, and reason).

And the main reason for this is human nature.  When people realize they are wrong, they will grasp at straws to distract, misdirect, and otherwise confuse the issues to try and revive their dying agenda. 

Some (most?) people hate to admit defeat when they believe deeply in something.  They will fight to the bitter end even when they know they have been unable to support their positions with anything other than made up statistics and imagined violence should the "gun nuts" prevail.

It's ironic we have a large number of people in this country attacking peoples' religious beliefs as "myths."  Yet, these same people are just as religious about gun control, socialized medicine, higher taxes for the "wealthy" and all the other Liberal utopian ideological causes, even though history has shown these Liberal ideals fail, or are less effective than other ideas, every time they are tried.

Star Trek Message on Guns For Defense:

Hey Tom.

Though I do agree with your "spade" moniker, the birth of firearms were for military applications, therefore, ALL guns are derived from military versions.
I believe you should have posted this in "Drunken Posting" to get more concise opinions. 

 

Hey Tom.

Though I do agree with your "spade" moniker, the birth of firearms were for military applications, therefore, ALL guns are derived from military versions.
I believe you should have posted this in "Drunken Posting" to get more concise opinions. 

 

I was going to say the same thing, but you know you can't win an argument with a drunk!  Better to ignore and move on...   

Nah, I prefer to keep the Drunken Posting thread for matters of importance!

It is a perfect example of Tom's point.  Troll 101.  He's getting all 2Aers off the topic by spewing incorrect 'semantics', while at the same time further confusing the sheeple into believing gun people are nuts.

It makes total sense.  To me,  we can joke about this because to us it sounds totally imbecilic, however, trying to use the semantics against the antis is not helpful to the cause.  They (the non-gun public and the antis)  don't want to learn about the semantics and they don't care to, therefore, trying to make them understand is not only unfriutful, it just further confuses the public.

  And a confused pulic will be fearful, and further call for more government regulation.

Taken from https://2ahawaii.com/index.php?topic=16203.0

Quote from: Heavies on Today at 09:14:03 AM
It is a perfect example of Tom's point.  Troll 101.  He's getting all 2Aers off the topic by spewing incorrect 'semantics', while at the same time further confusing the sheeple into believing gun people are nuts.

It makes total sense.  To me,  we can joke about this because to us it sounds totally imbecilic, however, trying to use the semantics against the antis is not helpful to the cause.  They (the non-gun public and the antis)  don't want to learn about the semantics and they don't care to, therefore, trying to make them understand is not only unfriutful, it just further confuses the public.

  And a confused pulic will be fearful, and further call for more government regulation.

I disagree. Semantics are important, and using the correct terms is not antithetical to the premise Tom G is advocating. Magazines are not "clips" and "semi-automatic is different from fully automatic. As for a confused public, that is exactly what the "antis" want and we only have to look at the origins of the term "assault weapon" to realize the "war of words" is an intergral component to antigun group's messaging. The term "assault weapons" was coined by Josh Sugarman, then President of Handgun Control Inc., now the Brady Coalition, to purposefully confuse the public about the difference between semi and full-automatic firearms. The stated and desired purpose of that confusion was to make subsequent attempts at gun bans easier. We need to be clear on terms, both for clarity sake and for legislative purposes.

In my mind, the AR is an excellent modern sporting rifle. There aren't a lot of firearms that one could buy that has the ability to change calibers depending on the situation. In terms of hunting, this is an excellent selling point if the goal is to hunt multiple types of game during the different times at which it is legal to hunt those types.

I disagree. Semantics are important, and using the correct terms is not antithetical to the premise Tom G is advocating. Magazines are not "clips" and "semi-automatic is different from fully automatic. As for a confused public, that is exactly what the "antis" want and we only have to look at the origins of the term "assault weapon" to realize the "war of words" is an intergral component to antigun group's messaging. The term "assault weapons" was coined by Josh Sugarman, then President of Handgun Control Inc., now the Brady Coalition, to purposefully confuse the public about the difference between semi and full-automatic firearms. The stated and desired purpose of that confusion was to make subsequent attempts at gun bans easier. We need to be clear on terms, both for clarity sake and for legislative purposes.

I certainly agree with what you are saying.

What I wanted to point out is that getting into a protracted debate on the semantics is not fruitful.  Should suffice to point out the errors and redirect to more pertinent points, such as firearms are used to defend and protect, and to use it otherwise(criminally) is up to the person, not on the inanimate object.

In my mind, the AR is an excellent modern sporting rifle. There aren't a lot of firearms that one could buy that has the ability to change calibers depending on the situation. In terms of hunting, this is an excellent selling point if the goal is to hunt multiple types of game during the different times at which it is legal to hunt those types.

I guess you don't need more than a 5 round magazine then if you're just hunting and practicing.