ESAD, Roland Martin. And everyone else who thinks like you.
Posted on 07/29/2012 8:40:38 PM PDT by redreno
But my counter-point to my buddy is that someday we will need to encounter at least some part of our own military head-to-head... and having a few matching personal arms would be very important at that time.
I’m of two minds where it comes to explosives, personally. There are a LOT of people I wouldn’t trust to have tanks, mines, bombs, etc. But I haven’t reasoned out yet whether it makes sense to restrict them, constitutionally.
As far as firearms, I believe that ownership and safe use should be free - but unsafe use (including criminal use) should carry restriction. If I were to have an automatic weapon, and don’t put any other person in danger when I use it (excluding self defense use), then it should be legal, IMO. (And FUN!)
ESAD, Roland Martin. And everyone else who thinks like you.
Cite a source to the AR jamming please.
It's The Bill of RIGHTS, not the bill of needs.
Guess I shoulda used my sarcasm tag ;)
“Cite a source to the AR jamming please.”
Me. One year of Vietnam service using the M-16 which is just the full-automatic version of the AR. That ought to count for something.
Maybe the the jamming problems are fixed now, I can’t say. On the other hand, you could drag an AK through mud and cow dung, bake it in the oven, and chances are it’ll still fire. /s
“...And it’s great that I can still buy one, when I do think it will be necessary...”
Certainly it is your personal choice. But remember, by the time you think it’s necessary, it may be too late. When they’re kicking in your front door, it’s not the time to be reaching for the yellow pages.
Bingo. Odd how few notice this.
The scenario is in-home defense. If a stranger is coming up the stairs at oh-dark-thirty, all questions are answered about why he’s there and what should be done.
I’ve decided on an AR15 SBR.
Why wouldn’t I want more rounds in-mag than I’d need? Running out in a firefight is a Bad Thing(TM).
Why wouldn’t I want powerful rounds? The goal is assured incapacitation, not annoyance.
Why wouldn’t I want a compact platform? Not a lot of room to move indoors; the longer the harder & slower.
Why wouldn’t I want a suppressor? Can’t put muffs on everyone before proceeding.
Why wouldn’t I want fragmenting rounds? Punching thru something is vital; punching thru the next layer of sheetrock must be minimized.
Why wouldn’t I want rapid fire? Think about what the target is trying to do.
I realize “AK47” is a generic, albeit improper, term.
His declaration that I don’t need one comes with no explanation why, nor even with a suggestion that something less capable would be enough, nor even a hint of his consideration of the scenarios involved.
And that’s what’s wonderful about a free country: the whims of the ignorant do not obviate the rights of the informed.
The Constitution’s “Letters of Marque and Reprisal” clause presumes the private possession of battleships and cannons.
Fareed Zakaria? WTF would you know about what is or isn’t American, you piece of camel dung!
Sorry, I think I misunderstood your request. I got the info about the jamming during the crime from one of the news reports. I thought you were asking about the jamming history of the weapon itself.
Of course none of this is going to make one of those jam-o-matic drum contraptions work...and they don't magically work because they are plugged into AKs either.
I’m liking your logic so far...what caliber have you chosen for this?
For now, just until they get THIS piece bitten off the Second Amendment. Next time they will take bites off your Glock!
In point of fact, AK-47s and AR-15s are too large and too expensive for criminal use and maniacs are never deterred by laws anyway.
Further, the Second Amendment is all about MILITARY style weaponry, NOT hunting. Fully automatic weapons are currently HIGHLY regulated and unavailable to the average user.
These jackasses are so transparent. Do anything you can to get one type of weapon out of citizen hands, then proceed to the NEXT subject. And on, and on, and on, until you create a society of helpless unarmed sheep as, for instance, in England and Norway.
Its ESSENTIAL to fight this battle in the Congress, the Courts and anywhere else we need to. Scalia’s comments are indicative of the fact that even our friends can be swayed by maniac who kill with guns, and maniacs in the news media.
Chris (Are you a flake?) Wallace's interview and Scalia’s chilling response indicates that all the logic initially thrown out after the Colorado massacre by Lott and others on the realities of gun control’s failures, just evaporated in the wake of Michael Bloomberg’s comments and those who think emote like him.
Heavy cannelured (crimped) 5.56 rounds from an 11.5” barrel. Seems it has lowest wall penetration while retaining the still-effective incapacitation rate prior to hitting that wall; fragments upon first penetration (sheetrock or perp), minimal effect upon hitting second layer of sheetrock. Best option short of reinforcing/armoring key walls.
Yeah, 5.56 doesn’t have a good reputation, but given the scenario there’s an important tradeoff between doing the job and not doing it “too well”.
To the point of the thread: given a viable application and cold analysis of the problem, average Americans DO need AWs.
The FAL is a nice rifle reliable & real hard hitting. 8*)
Glad I bought one when I did, couldn’t afford one now.
“Certainly it is your personal choice. But remember, by the time you think it’s necessary, it may be too late. When they’re kicking in your front door, it’s not the time to be reaching for the yellow pages.”
I know what you’re saying...I’m just making the point regarding that it isn’t just gun-owning whackos (in the eyes of the media) that benefit from a gun-owning society.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.