The "NEED"

[Guest Frightful1]

I keep hearing about whether someone "NEEDS" an AR platform or semi-automatic weapon.  The last time I checked, this was still AMERICA.  It is not a matter of what I "NEED", it is a matter of the freedom to be able to have what I want and can afford within reason.  So granted, maybe I do not "need" a semi-automatic military style weapon.  Is that any reason to ban them?  Why not ban automobiles which kill more people in a day than guns to in a month.  Or ban cigarettes which kill thousands every year.  Or alcoholic beverages which kiil many thousands.  (Oh, they tried that once, didn't they?)  Clubs, knives, archery equipment, and many hundreds of things we do not "need" kill more people than these "evil" guns. 

 

I was listening to a PBS radio program this morning during which the speaker was trying to make the point that "these" (military style) weapons had only one purpose.  "To kill people".  I disagree.  I participate in the sport of recreational shooting.  My weapons were purchased for the following reasons:  

 

Sport or recreational shooting.

Hunting.

Self Defense.

 

I feel that the vast majority of individuals have the same priorities for their weapons.  Maybe Hunting comes first with some, but the point is that we do not obtain these weapons with the intent of shooting people.  I am sick and tired of the media and the left wing(?) people who spout these words when they have not even taken the time to investigate what purpose these weapons serve.

 

Finally, I agree with the "need" for background checks when obtaining weapons.  I agree with the "need" for upgrading the lists of people with a criminal history, or with past mental problems to prevent them from obtaining weapons.  We have many gun control laws on the books, I keep hearing the number 20,000+. We have the "need" enforce those laws instead of punishing the many for the transgressions of the few.

 

Yes, I know, I am rehashing the same old retoric once again, but I feel that our basic freedoms are under attack.  Am I wrong?

[zgunbear]

Amen Brother.

I am tired of being demonized because I choose to excercise my natural rights that the founders recognized under the bill of rights.

I pocess mine for similar reasons. Too many people in the US do not understand the rights we have anymore

I keep hearing about whether someone "NEEDS" an AR platform or semi-automatic weapon.  The last time I checked, this was still AMERICA.  It is not a matter of what I "NEED", it is a matter of the freedom to be able to have what I want and can afford within reason.  So granted, maybe I do not "need" a semi-automatic military style weapon.  Is that any reason to ban them?  Why not ban automobiles which kill more people in a day than guns to in a month.  Or ban cigarettes which kill thousands every year.  Or alcoholic beverages which kiil many thousands.  (Oh, they tried that once, didn't they?)  Clubs, knives, archery equipment, and many hundreds of things we do not "need" kill more people than these "evil" guns. 

 

I was listening to a PBS radio program this morning during which the speaker was trying to make the point that "these" (military style) weapons had only one purpose.  "To kill people".  I disagree.  I participate in the sport of recreational shooting.  My weapons were purchased for the following reasons:  

 

Sport or recreational shooting.

Hunting.

Self Defense.

 

I feel that the vast majority of individuals have the same priorities for their weapons.  Maybe Hunting comes first with some, but the point is that we do not obtain these weapons with the intent of shooting people.  I am sick and tired of the media and the left wing(?) people who spout these words when they have not even taken the time to investigate what purpose these weapons serve.

 

Finally, I agree with the "need" for background checks when obtaining weapons.  I agree with the "need" for upgrading the lists of people with a criminal history, or with past mental problems to prevent them from obtaining weapons.  We have many gun control laws on the books, I keep hearing the number 20,000+. We have the "need" enforce those laws instead of punishing the many for the transgressions of the few.

 

Yes, I know, I am rehashing the same old retoric once again, but I feel that our basic freedoms are under attack.  Am I wrong?

[Guest CigarGuy]

It's the RIGHT to bear arms, not the NEED!

[daddyo]

As one who does not believe that I should have to have the government's permission to have and/or carry a firearm, I disagree with the notion that background checks are a crime deterrent.

 

Criminals who want guns will get them regardless of any type of required background check, so a system that requires the average law-abiding citizen to obtain the state and/or Feds' permission is simply a waste of time and money. It surely does provide the gubmit with some good revenue, however.

Edited January 13, 2013 by daddyo

[Guest 6.8 AR]

The only thing I disagree with is the "need" to prove your ability to purchase a weapon. Wrong premise. No need for a background check if the gun shop had a database of people with past criminal history. If you're not on it you should be able to buy any type of weapon there is for sale. We have been made into criminals until we submit to a background check and prove our innocence, but I'm sure this will get some rejection from a few who pray to the almighty altar of the government. I know I may sound like I'm splitting hairs on this, but I resent it in any law that presumes anyone is guilty until proven innocent. Anyone else ever think about it like that? That's the most subtle abuse your government can do to you without you realizing it. And I think it is what makes me sick about all the alphabet agencies and their powers and abilities for worse types of abuse.

Edited January 14, 2013 by 6.8 AR

[Guest 6.8 AR]

That was good timing, daddyo. :D

[daddyo]

That was good timing, daddyo. :D

 

:up:

 

I am on board with the whole "need" thing, however. The left is so proud of their ability to "think for themselves", yet how many times have you heard the "Why do you need an AR-15?" argument? I'm to the point that if I hear it again, I'm going to stick needles in my eyes.

 

The gun haters are like a bunch of parrots.  :rofl:

[Guest 6.8 AR]

I've thought about the needles thing, also, but my wife keeps holding me back. :D

 

I sure don't need anyone telling me what I do or don't need. Everyone of those fools using that need argument needs to be smacked,

and hard.

[plank white]

I was involved in a home invasion a little over 2 years ago during which I had only a .380 and 7 rounds to fire at multiple armed Intruders I know I hit one of them for certain and was still being fired at . My front door faced the drive way and when it was kicked in I faced not only BGs in my home when I went into the living room to investigate but also once I entered into the gun fight with one of them in my living room and hit him not only was he still firing back as he ducked outside my home, but I was also having to deal with atleast one other BG outside .

 

I can with 1,000 percent certainty tell you that when in a gun fight the worst feeling in the world is not only being outgunned in terms of gun size / caliber etc. but also being out gunned in terms of ammo, once my 7 shots were fired that was it Luckily the BGs had no clue I was out of the fight and continued to flee however if they had continued to push the fight once I stopped Firing I would be dead 

 

I will never be in that situation again period ! 

 

I now OC because Im a skinny fella and though I have a shirt over my firearm you can definatly see it 

an XD 45 full size with two spare mags when Im out of my home,  my AR is accessible in my home now and it will be put to use if Im ever in that situation again 

 

Why really on 7 or 10 round shotguns and pistols at your home ? 

 

a BG could have 30 rounds or there could be more than one BG.

 

I will do my best to outgun a BG completely in the future especially at my home 

 

I have lost all sense of security at my castle and even two years later I feel Naked without my AR nearby 

Sorry for the long Post and grammer errors fellas just my 2 cents

[Guest Frightful1]

I agree that background checks will not do much if anything to stop the "criminals" from obtaining weapons.  The only thing it will do is to provide the opportunity to prevent (if properly updated and applied) the person with a history of mental problems from getting their hands on guns.  Looking back at some of the mass shootings in recent years, it was obvious that some of the perpertrators had serious problems early on.  If we had had a operative screening process in place at that time could we have prevented those trageties from taking place?  I really do not know.  Food for thought.

[daddyo]

Adam Lanza took his mother's weapons after he killed her. He completely bypassed the current background check system.

[Guest sL1k]

I was involved in a home invasion a little over 2 years ago during which I had only a .380 and 7 rounds to fire at multiple armed Intruders I know I hit one of them for certain and was still being fired at . My front door faced the drive way and when it was kicked in I faced not only BGs in my home when I went into the living room to investigate but also once I entered into the gun fight with one of them in my living room and hit him not only was he still firing back as he ducked outside my home, but I was also having to deal with atleast one other BG outside .

I can with 1,000 percent certainty tell you that when in a gun fight the worst feeling in the world is not only being outgunned in terms of gun size / caliber etc. but also being out gunned in terms of ammo, once my 7 shots were fired that was it Luckily the BGs had no clue I was out of the fight and continued to flee however if they had continued to push the fight once I stopped Firing I would be dead

I will never be in that situation again period !

I now OC because Im a skinny fella and though I have a shirt over my firearm you can definatly see it
an XD 45 full size with two spare mags when Im out of my home, my AR is accessible in my home now and it will be put to use if Im ever in that situation again

Why really on 7 or 10 round shotguns and pistols at your home ?

a BG could have 30 rounds or there could be more than one BG.

I will do my best to outgun a BG completely in the future especially at my home

I have lost all sense of security at my castle and even two years later I feel Naked without my AR nearby
Sorry for the long Post and grammer errors fellas just my 2 cents

I always leave my spare mag for my EDC in the car.... No longer after reading this post.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

I was involved in a home invasion a little over 2 years ago during which I had only a .380 and 7 rounds to fire at multiple armed Intruders I know I hit one of them for certain and was still being fired at . My front door faced the drive way and when it was kicked in I faced not only BGs in my home when I went into the living room to investigate but also once I entered into the gun fight with one of them in my living room and hit him not only was he still firing back as he ducked outside my home, but I was also having to deal with atleast one other BG outside .

 

I can with 1,000 percent certainty tell you that when in a gun fight the worst feeling in the world is not only being outgunned in terms of gun size / caliber etc. but also being out gunned in terms of ammo, once my 7 shots were fired that was it Luckily the BGs had no clue I was out of the fight and continued to flee however if they had continued to push the fight once I stopped Firing I would be dead 

 

I will never be in that situation again period ! 

 

I now OC because Im a skinny fella and though I have a shirt over my firearm you can definatly see it 

an XD 45 full size with two spare mags when Im out of my home,  my AR is accessible in my home now and it will be put to use if Im ever in that situation again 

 

Why really on 7 or 10 round shotguns and pistols at your home ? 

 

a BG could have 30 rounds or there could be more than one BG.

 

I will do my best to outgun a BG completely in the future especially at my home 

 

I have lost all sense of security at my castle and even two years later I feel Naked without my AR nearby 

Sorry for the long Post and grammer errors fellas just my 2 cents

You realized what the government realized a long time ago. The only reason for that gun control is, the government doesn't want to be out-

gunned by people like you and I. The only reason. The little slobberers who pose the question of why we need such guns don't care. They

are only slaves-in-training. Glad it turned out in your favor.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

I agree that background checks will not do much if anything to stop the "criminals" from obtaining weapons.  The only thing it will do is to provide the opportunity to prevent (if properly updated and applied) the person with a history of mental problems from getting their hands on guns.  Looking back at some of the mass shootings in recent years, it was obvious that some of the perpertrators had serious problems early on.  If we had had a operative screening process in place at that time could we have prevented those trageties from taking place?  I really do not know.  Food for thought.

You will never see those kinds of atrocities prevented by a background check or any other type of government scheme. There have been shrinks who knew of several of these people's mental conditions who either, did nothing, or didn't have reason to believe they would do something like that. Common sense security measures and responsible and moral people educating the public, and people shooting back will help fix the problem. That old gun free zone thing is killing people more than any gun law is restricting crime.

 

In other words, laws are only creating criminals in waiting. Wiping a number of laws off the books would prevent more crime. It would allow for people to be more responsible for their own actions.

Edited January 14, 2013 by 6.8 AR

[Moped]

You know, I don't get real upset when I hear a liberal say "You don't need an AR or AK to hunt <animal of choice>."  Figure that just goes with being a Liberal and fairly ignorant and mostly stupid.  The ones that piss me off and I mean REALLY PISS ME OFF, are the small minority of hunters that post that garbage online or stand up in front of a microphone and spout that nonsense!!!  They are so moronic that they think nothing will happen to their firearms.  They think they will never be next, which I think is a bunch of hogwash!  They tried back in the 1960's to have rifle scopes declared illegal after after that nutcase shot all those people down in Texas with a hunting rifle.  And the Libs are always going after the hunting rounds because of lead.  These people better wake up!  Cause they are next!!!

Edited January 14, 2013 by Moped

[Guest Frightful1]

You will never see those kinds of atrocities prevented by a background check or any other type of government scheme. There have been shrinks who knew

of several of these people's mental conditions who either, did nothing, or didn't have reason to believe they would do something like that. Common sense

security measures and responsible and moral people educating the public, and people shooting back will help fix the problem. That old gun free zone

thing is killing people more than any gun law is restricting crime.

 

In other words, laws are only creating criminals in waiting. Wiping a number of laws off the books would prevent more crime. It would

allow for people to be more responsible for their own actions.

Unfortunatly you are probably correct.

[DaveS]

  The ones that piss me off and I mean REALLY PISS ME OFF, are the damned hunters that post that garbage online or stand up in front of a microphone and spout that nonsense!!!  They are so moronic that they think nothing will happen to their firearms.  They think they will never be next, which I think is a bunch of hogwash. These people better wake up!  Cause they are next!!!

Man, that's kinda harsh ain't it? I'm a hunter and far from being a moron, and I've never posted that "garbage" online.  WOW! I realy wish you would retract that statement!

 

Dave S

Edited January 14, 2013 by DaveS

[daddyo]

Man, that's kinda harsh ain't it? I'm a hunter and far from being a moron, and I've never posted that "garbage" online.  WOW! I realy wish you would retract that statement!

 

Dave S

 

Dave, if you'll read his post again, you can see that he was referring only to hunters who post "You don't need an AR15 to hunt" and say it publicly. 

 

He was not talking about ALL hunters.

[DaveS]

Dave, if you'll read his post again, you can see that he was referring only to hunters who post "You don't need an AR15 to hunt" and say it publicly. 

 

He was not talking about ALL hunters.

I see that. I guess it's the phrase "damned hunters" that kinda got to me. My bad, I didn't interprit it that way.

 

Dave S

Edited January 14, 2013 by DaveS

[Commando68]

I keep hearing about whether someone "NEEDS" an AR platform or semi-automatic weapon.  The last time I checked, this was still AMERICA.  It is not a matter of what I "NEED", it is a matter of the freedom to be able to have what I want and can afford within reason.  So granted, maybe I do not "need" a semi-automatic military style weapon.  Is that any reason to ban them?  Why not ban automobiles which kill more people in a day than guns to in a month.  Or ban cigarettes which kill thousands every year.  Or alcoholic beverages which kiil many thousands.  (Oh, they tried that once, didn't they?)  Clubs, knives, archery equipment, and many hundreds of things we do not "need" kill more people than these "evil" guns. 
 
I was listening to a PBS radio program this morning during which the speaker was trying to make the point that "these" (military style) weapons had only one purpose.  "To kill people".  I disagree.  I participate in the sport of recreational shooting.  My weapons were purchased for the following reasons:  
 
Sport or recreational shooting.
Hunting.
Self Defense.
 
I feel that the vast majority of individuals have the same priorities for their weapons.  Maybe Hunting comes first with some, but the point is that we do not obtain these weapons with the intent of shooting people.  I am sick and tired of the media and the left wing(?) people who spout these words when they have not even taken the time to investigate what purpose these weapons serve.
 
Finally, I agree with the "need" for background checks when obtaining weapons.  I agree with the "need" for upgrading the lists of people with a criminal history, or with past mental problems to prevent them from obtaining weapons.  We have many gun control laws on the books, I keep hearing the number 20,000+. We have the "need" enforce those laws instead of punishing the many for the transgressions of the few.
 
Yes, I know, I am rehashing the same old retoric once again, but I feel that our basic freedoms are under attack.  Am I wrong?

Just FYI. I had a very wise man advise me to stop calling my rifles " weapons" . Weapon has a negative vibe. Just rifle will do. We don't need to feed th propaganda machine any more than it is getting fed.

[Guest Frightful1]

Just FYI. I had a very wise man advise me to stop calling my rifles " weapons" . Weapon has a negative vibe. Just rifle will do. We don't need to feed th propaganda machine any more than it is getting fed.

Point taken.  My old military training coming to the fore.

[Guest Frightful1]

Just FYI. I had a very wise man advise me to stop calling my rifles " weapons" . Weapon has a negative vibe. Just rifle will do. We don't need to feed th propaganda machine any more than it is getting fed.

Point taken.  My old military training coming to the fore.

[m16ty]

I was listening to a PBS radio program this morning during which the speaker was trying to make the point that "these" (military style) weapons had only one purpose.  "To kill people". 

I've had several "AWs". I've done a lot of things with them but have never killed anybody with them and don't plan to.

[Wyldk2]

The "Need" issue could be asked of the gun-grabbers. " Do they feel the "need" to make the law-abiding citizen feel less safe in his or her own home by taking away a means of protection for the citizen's family?

 

Does it make it right to punish the majority of the gun owners for what an insignifigant few nut jobs have done?

 

No, the bad guys and those who intend to do harm to others will keep on, the only way to reduce crime is more guns in the good guys hands.

 

What the gun-grabbers "need" to do is leave the law-abiding gun owners alone and stop adding new laws, just enforce the laws they already have.

[Moped]

Dave, if you'll read his post again, you can see that he was referring only to hunters who post "You don't need an AR15 to hunt" and say it publicly. 

 

He was not talking about ALL hunters.

Yes, that is exactly what I meant.  Folks, I've been seeing quite a few posts like this.  There was at least one in the Knoxville News Sentinel, today!  The other side wants to divide us on the 2A.  That's why Biden met last week with hunters and sportsman groups separate from the NRA other National Firearms Organizations.  That's why you keep seeing the Administration, Diane Feinswine and her ilk keep saying they are not against hunters and hunting nor are they interested in banning hunting weapons. They are trying to divide us and when a hunter pipes up says stuff like "You don't need an AR15 to hunt deer", it damages our cause!  And it makes me see RED!!!  I'm not condemning all hunters.  I hunt myself, but I also target shoot and I have firearms to defend my family and I.  I just want the ones that say stuff like this to quit doing it.  Seriously, if they are able to implement an AWB, then scopes, multi-shot pumps and bolt actions are next folks.  Feinswine wants them all gone!  I heard her say in 1995 on 60 Minutes!  She said it and she meant it!