Home > The Main Room > The Okie Corral > Why do they want to ban AR's??

Why do they want to ban AR's??

  1. I think of things as I drive and I thought of this one today.

    On Youtube as well as national TV you see videos of people shooting/using M4's/M16's/AR's. They break down into groups as the public sees them.

    1. Military- they are OK. They are tools being handled by professionals.

    2. LE- They are OK. They are tools being handled by professionals.

    3. Competitive top ranked shooters like Jerry, Jessie, Taran etc. as well as some of us lowly B/C/D class shooters. They are OK. They are tools being handled by professionals.

    4. People demonstrating their AR.- This gun is so evil and dangerous. Why? because these videos are usually some guy holding an AR and we get to watch how quick he can empty a 30 round magazine as the camera focuses on his trigger finger. We never see his target. It is some guy throwing a box/can/piece of garbage 20 feet out or into the water where we get to watch how quickly he can empty a 30 round magazine at it. They are dangerous because they are toys being handled by overgrown kids.

    When the general public thinks of people with AR's which group do they think of as the normal AR owner?

    Now contrast this with the average "hunter" video. We see a guy taking his time. He squeezes off a shot, checks his scope, settles in for his next shot. We see 1 shot every 10 to 15 seconds, and when he is done we see a great close up of the beautiful 3 shot group he produced at 100 yards.

    Who comes to mind when the general public thinks of a gun owner and how dangerous their guns are. It is not the hunter because he is so slow and careful. There is no way he could shoot quickly enough to cause any actual damage. There should be no problem with restricting magazines to 10 rounds. That is way more than any hunter needs.

    So how do we as the gun culture change peoples attitudes towards guns like AR's? I think one way is to educate more shooters to be responsible when they post videos to places like Youtube. Seeing a someone shoot an AR at a reactive ball and make it dance across the range with a shot every second or so suggests skill. Hearing rapid fire but seeing a nice tight group appear on the target/targets suggests skill. Seeing the shooter pop up and down into various positions and placing the shots all on target suggests skill. More videos of skilled, safe, responsible gun handling that demonstrates the AR as a functional and useful tool and not the dangerous toy/weapon it is portrayed to be by the media.

    What are your thoughts? Are we our own worst enemy by demonstrating how quickly we can put rounds down range without regard to how the general public might perceive it?
  2. i think it doesnt matter to the lefties , anything to get their agenda going . half of them prolly dont even know what an AR is . there are powers at work to reach one common goal and its to disarm citizens and make rules they think is right .

    but you can bet your ass once foot is in the door , it will one thing after another, we are heading to a bad spot in this country , and time will tell
  3. Stop trying to use logic. Nothing is real in the game of emotions.

    With a strong enough campaign people could be convinced that water is should be banned

    For example:


    Yet, people get into cars everyday, with their kids and go places....and there are few things the average person does more dangerous than that.

    Most people only care how they feel. Their feelings and what they see (think they see) are the only things that are real to them. If you dont truly understand that, you are, to some degree like that as well.
  4. I honestly believe the politicos want to get rid of them because you can't lay down effective cover fire or any of the other things necessary for an effective modern insurgency without a relatively high rate of accurate fire and decent ammo capacity.

    Being able to keep people's heads down while you pull back is a handy thing when staying alive.
  5. It been said clear as day on MSNBC why they want to ban these death machines.


    Even though military style semiautomatic rifles account for 1% of all firearms deaths in America. Cant you see the passion and anger when they scream this mantra against the back drop of an AR15 being shot on your TV screen? What is wrong with you people?

  6. IMO, if you look at the militarization of the police over the last 35 or so years with the "War on Drugs" and the action by states to legalize pot you can kinda see the writing on the wall.

    Pretty soon you're going to have a bunch of SWAT teams without a mission. The Prison industry is largely privatized so they need a fresh supply of Felons to keep them profitable.

    This should create another juicy black market and even more violence. Win Win for the big Crime industry.
  7. I don't think that's it... there was no youtube when the last AWB was passed. There has always been people who dislike them. They feel we don't need them.

    But as we know, it's not about need but want, and freedom, ect ect.
  8. Rabbi I know that logic is the wrong thing to use. People do not care about the facts or the evidence. it is all about how it is spun.
  9. You are giving our enemies too much of the benefit of doubt. You are assuming those people are misguided, but otherwise reasonable. They are not.

    The AR and similar semi-auto rifles gives us a little small arms parity of force with the govt. The enemy understands that. THAT is why they want them gone. They hate us and they hate our freedom. It is in the way of their Marxist goals.
  10. It's symbolism over substance and the left loves symbols. It represents what the left hates about the "bitter clingers".
  11. So the same argument can be made for the real AWB aka the GCA 1934.
    Prohibition came to an end in 1933 and with nothing to do FedGov had to come up with some other prohibited thing to send the Tax agents after.
  12. Even more confusing to me is the bayonet lug issue. How many times has a bayonet been attached to a weapon and used to commit a crime? How many people that own AR's even have a bayonet? I personally have one that has been attached to my rifle twice just to snap some pics of my M16A4 clone.
  13. I couldn't have said it better myself.

  14. I just have to point out that the militarization of police is a bunch of bs that dates back to when we were a British colony. Hell the lawmen of the old west were often armed with better weapons then the army, they used lever actions before the army and so on. They used Thompson submachine guns before the army thought of it. Just had to point out the fallacy of the argument.
  15. Progressives want to eliminate guns in the hands of citizens for obvious reasons. ARs are a good target of opportunity to further their agenda. They are sick enough to use dead children as props.

    No doubt unless the people take back control of the country, legislators will eventually continue down the road from partial bans to registration to total bans and confiscation.
  16. OP, your first problem is actually worrying as to how the anti-gun crowd think we "appear" as gun owners.

    News flash, folks....ANTI-gun is ANTI-gun. I am sick and tired of so many of you so-called "gun owners" trying to persuade the Left that we are responsible individuals.

    To those of you who think that appeasing the Left has any postive benefits, all I can say is give it a break, "McCain" and quit trying to somehow soften the view of others with some foolish "reaching across the aisle" bullzhit.

    For every single "We need to show gun owners in a postive light" I see truly misinformed people who are completely clueless to the Left's agenda.

    Wake up, call & write your elected officials, join the NRA (or some similar organization) and for GOD'S SAKE, quit appearing to look like a bunch of spineless APOLOGISTS!
  17. Because they're an easy target to start banning guns with.

    The end result wanted is a ban on firearms in civilian hands, make no mistake.
  18. For the same reason they want to ban Big Gulps and candy cigarettes...

    because we let them.
  19. I am fairly certain that especially in the urban areas, even with no new gun laws and even if marijuana were to be decriminalized about everywhere, that the police departments and SWAT/SRT/ESU/HRT guys will continue to have far to do than they can keep up with. One tidbit I would use to bolster that idea is the types of calls some agencies no longer even respond to because of manpower issues or calls that they put on a list to respond to "maybe tomorrow."

    Is there only the gun rights side and the Left's agenda side? Are there no people in the middle? None who may not be ambivalent but might be swayed by someone who appears not to different from themselves?
  20. That is where I stand to. I look at it as my duty to inform those in the middle with facts and not spin. As the saying goes "You can lead a horse to water, but you cannot make him drink"

    I like to lead them into making their own decision. I had a discussion not to long ago about teachers having guns. The other party was just adamant that teachers not have guns. I asked them if someone came into the building with the intent of harming the students if they felt safer if I had a gun. Their response was "Yes, but you are different". I then asked them if they had any teachers in their school that they would trust with a firearm. Again the answer was yes, but they felt that ALL teachers should not be armed. It took a couple of minutes but I got them to finally realize that the discussion was NEVER about arming ALL of the teachers, but rather arming those with the desire and ability to handle firearms in a safe manner, AND will to use that firearm to protect the kids in their school. Oh, in that case I do not have a problem with it.

    I look at the AWB in the same light. Educate those in the middle because they are the ones that will decide who gets re-elected. They are the ones that will tell their peers that they felt the same way until they had a chance to learn the issues without having it spun to them.
  21. They want to ban all guns. AR's are just the easiest target right now. They won't be satisfied if and when it happens. Just a stepping stone.
  22. +1 this is it.

    For the majority of people (sheeple), it's an emotional thing.
  23. ARs and such are just the beginning. The antis consider ALL guns to be "assault weapons" and their ultimate goal is their complete elimination. But they have to do it in small steps and ARs are a good starting point in their twisted minds.
  24. As was stated, you're assuming these people are 'reasonable' and have a reasonable/logical intent with this ban.

    They are not and they do not.

    The Bayo Lug concept simply comes from them taking a wide range of guns they don't want in civilian hands and looking for something they all have in common so that they can say 'that' particular feature/characteristic is 'Evil' and should not be allowed.

    It's just a simple, or more PC, way to say they don't want you to have any of a number of specific rifles because 'they' feel safer if 'you' don't have them.

    Simple as that.
  25. I would also propose that a good number of people, perhaps close to a majority, want or need to be told WHAT to think.

    So, whatever they hear their favorite newscaster say -- or educator -- they will echo.

    Most people live in their 'bubble of familiarity.' Anything outside of that bubble, they're kinda lost. This is particularly true in 'first world' nations such as the United States. Particularly the United States.

    Physically, we're very isolated from the rest of the world. Most Americans have little understanding of the happenings around the world. Especially in third world countries. Even our on neighbors, sadly.

    I work in an engineering group -- one of our duties is to arrange, store, and develop reports on data. I regularly receive a request to create a set of data to support a result -- frequently given a sheet with a set of numbers. My task is to match as close to those numbers as possible and justify the reasoning behind the process.

    Point being -- you can slice large sets of data in a way that will support your agenda the majority of the time even if it's not entirely accurate given the entire scope of the data.

    I would cite the drug wars in Mexico as a GREAT example. Most Americans think that it's just a crazy hell hole in Mexico because of the drug wars. I would argue we likely have very similar drug related deaths, maybe more, in the United States. Granted, we don't generally see mass graves but it's also not uncommon for multiple bodies for be found in abandoned lots in places like Detroit.

    Once again, outside our bubble of familiarity -- must not be happening, right? So when the media (liberal and not alike) reports on homicide statistics -- it's not really fair because they're not slicing that data by drug related violence.

    If you count gang violence for what it is, drug violence - I suspect, but have no source to prove, that those numbers would be a very large majority of the homicides in the United States. The second majority would be robberies, a good portion of those - probably a majority - would be druggies looking for more cash to fund their habit.

    In fact, if you counted Mexico's drug related homicides like we count drug related homicides in the United States (the FBI does) -- Mexico would probably have LESS drug related homicides than we do. Why? Because they're not dealing the dope there -- the homicides there are turf related the vast majority of the time. Here, while the majority of our drug related homicides are probably (again, can't confirm) turf related -- the ones we count are just the ones where drug transactions are actually occurring or are in some other way directly involved.

    So yes, inside our little bubbles -- life is great.

    Or is it? Motor vehicle death statistics are something the media hides from, too. You're far more likely to die in a car crash than by a firearm. You're also far more likely to be injured in a car accident than by a firearm.

    Cars are deadly!

    And guess what, this is one I've not heard brought up at all -- there are LESS cars in the United States (that are registered) than there are firearms! There are roughly 250 million registered vehicles in the US and *estimates* put firearms (often) at more than 300 million!

    They're taboo subjects. They don't fit an agenda so we don't talk about them.

    It's like .. OMG we don't have the money going into Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid to cover all the people who are on it or need it!!!!

    But ohh God, do NOT talk about the estimated 50 MILLION babies killed since Rowe v Wade! But, guess what? Those 50 million people who were murdered legally can't pay into the system that was DESIGNED for them to pay into!

    That's a taboo subject, though. So you'll never hear that argument come up in the mainstream media.

    So what do we do about it?

    I say this over and over again, arm yourself with FACTS! Remember the sources - remember the numbers. Be prepared to defend them. And educate people who are against your ideas using those facts. Educated people generally are capable of making good decisions. If they are educated and still don't agree with you -- at least they made their own decision.

    That's the best we can hope for. Knowledge is infectious - when you arm your opponent with facts - their going to tell other people those same facts. It spreads. May not make everyone agree with you or us or whatever, but again -- it will help a number of them have the 'opportunity' to make their own educated decision.

    Hmmm.. I digress.

    That was long.
  26. DL wants to ban them, because they make great blue helmet dingers.
    The Lib minions want to ban them, because they have been systematically brain washed into thinking that guns are evil, by the giant tit they have been sucking on, for decades.
  27. Yeah, but the funding was all federal dollars which came from DEA task force money to fund training, tanks, weapons, etc.

    If you take drugs out of the equation SWAT teams really lose about 90% of their reason for existing except in a relatively few urban areas. We have a SWAT team here that does nothing but Drug Enforcement. They just bought an armored car recently for god knows what. I used to shoot with a bunch of the guys on the team.

    Give me a f-ing break dude. Until the "War on Drugs" and the associated legal travesties directed at our citizens in the name of legislating morality, we never had anything like the sort of organized paramilitary crap we have now. Practically every Sheriffs dept. in the nation has a tac team and a tank now.

    Show me where "Serve and Protect" covers no-knock warrants and possession busts.
  28. I saw a documentary on some Amish folk. A couple of them said they liked that much of their life was controlled. They described it as "freeing" and "liberating" to not have to worry about things that were decided and handled by the church.

    I could never understand that.
  29. wow thats scary .

  30. Actually, yes. There are in fact only two sides...two sides that really matter.

    Do people honestly "think" there are actually many folks on the sidelines just waiting to choose a side?