Many hunters use AR15s...

[bgrouse]

You just made an argument against them yourself. Why buy an AR-15 then if you are handicapped while hunting to have to use it in a similar fashion to normal hunting rifle?

Because I can use an AR15 in dual roles...home protection and hunting.

And it is modular, I can keep the lower and buy an upper in 300 blackout for deer hunting. (we have pretty good sized deer in Missouri)

Plus, I learned the platform inside and out when I was in the Army, including repair. I have a lever action 45 Colt that I would never consider repairing myself...driving out rolled pins to disassemble would be the first of many hindrances. But my AR, I can have it disassembled in minutes with the bare firing pin laying in my hand.

And, it is far easier to customize. The problem with discussing these things with you is you don't know the unfathomable depth of the knowledge you do not possess. You think one just grabs a rifle off the shelf, puts any old bullet in it and it's good to go. I would have to explain length of pull, maximum point blank range, bullet types and weights, charge throws, rifling turn rates and why a 1 in 8 might be better than a 1 in 9 or even 1 in 12 for an AR.

Suffice it to say, anything you can do yourself saves you a pile of money, and when it comes to length of pull, you used to be forced to permanently alter the stock to adjust to a shorter LOP meaning my 5'2" wife and I couldn't share a firearm...or fathers and sons/daughters..prior to the adjustable six position stock.

You don't need an AR-15 to protect your home, and the right to bear arms doesn't say an AR-15 is covered.

The first amendment doesn't specificlly mention your name...

It doesn't have to. I'm a citizen of the United States.

Like it doesn't have to name an AR-15.

 

[bgrouse]

The first amendment doesn't specificlly mention your name...

It doesn't have to. I'm a citizen of the United States.

And the 2nd doesn't specifically mention ANY guns by type or name so stfu

Your analogy is totally off.

A better analogy would be that the first Amendment protects free speech, EXCEPT certain types like yelling fire in a crowded theater. So the second Amendment covers the right to bear arms... but it doesn't cover ALL firearms.

Wouldn't it be more apt to say "but it doesn't cover aberrant usage of arms...shooting in town (pick your irresponsible usage)". It's a verb / action .... yelling fire... shooting inside building... etc. not a 'passive' thing such as ownership / possession (loose interpretation of "bearing arms".... IMHO

No because they are both items. The first Amendment allows for free speech, however there are some types of speech not included. It's not just about yelling fire in a crowded theater. You also can't threaten people like the President. So the Second Amendment protects the right to bear arms, but it doesn't cover all types of arms, and as I said earlier in the thread, that was even backed by Justice Scalia who was one of the greatest proponents of fire arm ownership to ever serve on the Supreme Court.

Why do you believe the second amendment wouldn't cover an AR-15?

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

hope you aren't planning on using that in Nov. hunting season... even with an 80 grain A-max out of a 6 twist that AR-15 is a sheity deer rifle & illegal in most states as it is deemed less than humanely lethal for 100 pound whitetails....

Not most. Well less than half:

Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware (fucking limited to muzzle loaders and shotguns...commies)
Illinois (Shotgun/Muzzle/pistol only--commies)
Iowa
Kansas
Massachusetts (shotgun/muzzle -- goose-stepping commies)
Minnesota
New Jersey (shotgun only --- fucking Bolsheviks)
Ohio (Shotgun/Muzzle -- Maoists)
Rhode Island (shotgun/muzzle -- Red Army Bastards)
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wyoming

 

[KeiserC]

hope you aren't planning on using that in Nov. hunting season... even with an 80 grain A-max out of a 6 twist that AR-15 is a sheity deer rifle & illegal in most states as it is deemed less than humanely lethal for 100 pound whitetails....

Not most. Well less than half:

Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware (fucking limited to muzzle loaders and shotguns...commies)
Illinois (Shotgun/Muzzle/pistol only--commies)
Iowa
Kansas
Massachusetts (shotgun/muzzle -- goose-stepping commies)
Minnesota
New Jersey (shotgun only --- fucking Bolsheviks)
Ohio (Shotgun/Muzzle -- Maoists)
Rhode Island (shotgun/muzzle -- Red Army Bastards)
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wyoming

lol... I stand corrected, I like the side notes... most would not recommend the .224" bullet for deer hunting.. though poachers do quite well here locally with their .22 LR rim fire's...

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

TOW systems

Are those the anti-tank missiles? I am clueless when it comes to ordnance and the like.

 

[Rustic]

Bigfoot...

Overkill.

But at least it's an assault weapon. It's the 8x64mm. I screwed up the description because for years I called it an 8mm because of the bullet size on the first number of recognition..Anyhow, my oldest son collects rifles from the past one hundred years also like I did....................he just has more Soviet era stuff...

You need to educate yourself

 

[Missourian]

Interesting article...Why You Should Use an AR-15 as a Deer Rifle

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

If the 15 is like the 16 then the bullet tumbles on impact tearing more of the edible part of the animal...

Tumble doesn't occur until about 750 yards, to my knowledge. The downside of the AR is that, at really close range, it goes through the animal without doing enough damage.

Unless of course you use hollow points.

 

[Rustic]

To would be laughed right out of our hunting cabin rail tucked....until you returned with an actual hunting rifle.

Lol
Top 10 AR-15 Rifles for the Money

I would take anyone of these over a bolt gun for hunting, of course that’s a personal thing.

You obviously don’t know jack shit about hunting

hope you aren't planning on using that in Nov. hunting season... even with an 80 grain A-max out of a 6 twist that AR-15 is a sheity deer rifle & illegal in most states as it is deemed less than humanely lethal for 100 pound whitetails....

Here in SD anything that is 1000 pounds or over at the muzzle is legal for deer hunting, a .204 ruger is legal for 300+ Pound muleys, I know someone who had quad bypass surgery that could not have a high recoil rifle because of it might damage where his sternum was cut open. So he bought a .204 Ruger and has dropped muleys in their tracks.
I really like 6.8spc in an ar platform. There several other cartridges that are great in an ar platform

 

[Rustic]

It doesn't have to. I'm a citizen of the United States.

And the 2nd doesn't specifically mention ANY guns by type or name so stfu

Your analogy is totally off.

A better analogy would be that the first Amendment protects free speech, EXCEPT certain types like yelling fire in a crowded theater. So the second Amendment covers the right to bear arms... but it doesn't cover ALL firearms.

Wouldn't it be more apt to say "but it doesn't cover aberrant usage of arms...shooting in town (pick your irresponsible usage)". It's a verb / action .... yelling fire... shooting inside building... etc. not a 'passive' thing such as ownership / possession (loose interpretation of "bearing arms".... IMHO

No because they are both items. The first Amendment allows for free speech, however there are some types of speech not included. It's not just about yelling fire in a crowded theater. You also can't threaten people like the President. So the Second Amendment protects the right to bear arms, but it doesn't cover all types of arms, and as I said earlier in the thread, that was even backed by Justice Scalia who was one of the greatest proponents of fire arm ownership to ever serve on the Supreme Court.

Why do you believe the second amendment wouldn't cover an AR-15?

Don’t mind him, he’s a dumbass

 

[BULLDOG]

I keep hearing this talking point...AR15s aren't good for hunting. This talking point is patently false. It is advanced by people who know nothing about guns or hunting. AR15s are accurate, in a hunting caliber, easy to work on, and simple to customize. They will eventually supplant the bolt action rifle in the same way the bolt action rifle supplanted the lever action rifle and the lever action rifle supplanted the single shot.

Link to list of Youtube AR-15 Hunting Videos

Yes, and many people used cocaine for tooth aches when it was legal to do that.

It's not illegal to hunt with an AR.

I'm sure most gun nuts NEED 30 shots to kill a deer.

Do you NEED a fast gasoline car? Maybe they should pass a law saying you can only use a small electric car capped at 65 mph. You up for that?

This is about guns, not cars.

 

[KeiserC]

To would be laughed right out of our hunting cabin rail tucked....until you returned with an actual hunting rifle.

Lol
Top 10 AR-15 Rifles for the Money

I would take anyone of these over a bolt gun for hunting, of course that’s a personal thing.

You obviously don’t know jack shit about hunting

hope you aren't planning on using that in Nov. hunting season... even with an 80 grain A-max out of a 6 twist that AR-15 is a sheity deer rifle & illegal in most states as it is deemed less than humanely lethal for 100 pound whitetails....

Here in SD anything that is 1000 pounds or over at the muzzle is legal for deer hunting, a .204 ruger is legal for 300+ Pound muleys, I know someone who had quad bypass surgery that could not have a high recoil rifle because of it might damage where his sternum was cut open. So he bought a .204 Ruger and has dropped muleys in their tracks.
I really like 6.8spc in an ar platform. There several other cartridges that are great in an ar platform

I hear you Rustic... it takes a hunter willing to put in the time, willing to pass up shots beyond the hardware's capacity etc... It's not recommended for all. Along the same lines, I hung up my compound bows and have been hunting 'humanely' with a re-curve bow for the last several years... I wouldn't recommend it for most hunter out there either!

 

[KeiserC]

I keep hearing this talking point...AR15s aren't good for hunting. This talking point is patently false. It is advanced by people who know nothing about guns or hunting. AR15s are accurate, in a hunting caliber, easy to work on, and simple to customize. They will eventually supplant the bolt action rifle in the same way the bolt action rifle supplanted the lever action rifle and the lever action rifle supplanted the single shot.

Link to list of Youtube AR-15 Hunting Videos

Yes, and many people used cocaine for tooth aches when it was legal to do that.

It's not illegal to hunt with an AR.

I'm sure most gun nuts NEED 30 shots to kill a deer.

Do you NEED a fast gasoline car? Maybe they should pass a law saying you can only use a small electric car capped at 65 mph. You up for that?

This is about guns, not cars.

& driving is a privilege... not a Constitutionally protected right

 

[Lewdog]

It doesn't have to. I'm a citizen of the United States.

And the 2nd doesn't specifically mention ANY guns by type or name so stfu

Your analogy is totally off.

A better analogy would be that the first Amendment protects free speech, EXCEPT certain types like yelling fire in a crowded theater. So the second Amendment covers the right to bear arms... but it doesn't cover ALL firearms.

Wouldn't it be more apt to say "but it doesn't cover aberrant usage of arms...shooting in town (pick your irresponsible usage)". It's a verb / action .... yelling fire... shooting inside building... etc. not a 'passive' thing such as ownership / possession (loose interpretation of "bearing arms".... IMHO

No because they are both items. The first Amendment allows for free speech, however there are some types of speech not included. It's not just about yelling fire in a crowded theater. You also can't threaten people like the President. So the Second Amendment protects the right to bear arms, but it doesn't cover all types of arms, and as I said earlier in the thread, that was even backed by Justice Scalia who was one of the greatest proponents of fire arm ownership to ever serve on the Supreme Court.

Why do you believe the second amendment wouldn't cover an AR-15?

Because the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that the Second Amendment isn't limitless, and as of recently the AR-15 has been ruled a weapon of war not covered under the right to bear arms.

 

[KeiserC]

And the 2nd doesn't specifically mention ANY guns by type or name so stfu

Your analogy is totally off.

A better analogy would be that the first Amendment protects free speech, EXCEPT certain types like yelling fire in a crowded theater. So the second Amendment covers the right to bear arms... but it doesn't cover ALL firearms.

Wouldn't it be more apt to say "but it doesn't cover aberrant usage of arms...shooting in town (pick your irresponsible usage)". It's a verb / action .... yelling fire... shooting inside building... etc. not a 'passive' thing such as ownership / possession (loose interpretation of "bearing arms".... IMHO

No because they are both items. The first Amendment allows for free speech, however there are some types of speech not included. It's not just about yelling fire in a crowded theater. You also can't threaten people like the President. So the Second Amendment protects the right to bear arms, but it doesn't cover all types of arms, and as I said earlier in the thread, that was even backed by Justice Scalia who was one of the greatest proponents of fire arm ownership to ever serve on the Supreme Court.

Why do you believe the second amendment wouldn't cover an AR-15?

Because the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that the Second Amendment isn't limitless, and as of recently the AR-15 has been ruled a weapon of war not covered under the right to bear arms.

Where has it (AR-15) been "ruled a weapon of war" ? Last I heard it was a civilian sporting rifle...

 

[Rustic]

And the 2nd doesn't specifically mention ANY guns by type or name so stfu

Your analogy is totally off.

A better analogy would be that the first Amendment protects free speech, EXCEPT certain types like yelling fire in a crowded theater. So the second Amendment covers the right to bear arms... but it doesn't cover ALL firearms.

Wouldn't it be more apt to say "but it doesn't cover aberrant usage of arms...shooting in town (pick your irresponsible usage)". It's a verb / action .... yelling fire... shooting inside building... etc. not a 'passive' thing such as ownership / possession (loose interpretation of "bearing arms".... IMHO

No because they are both items. The first Amendment allows for free speech, however there are some types of speech not included. It's not just about yelling fire in a crowded theater. You also can't threaten people like the President. So the Second Amendment protects the right to bear arms, but it doesn't cover all types of arms, and as I said earlier in the thread, that was even backed by Justice Scalia who was one of the greatest proponents of fire arm ownership to ever serve on the Supreme Court.

Why do you believe the second amendment wouldn't cover an AR-15?

Because the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that the Second Amendment isn't limitless, and as of recently the AR-15 has been ruled a weapon of war not covered under the right to bear arms.

Shit for brains, an ar15 is just a sporting rifle... nothing less nothing more.
You watch far too many Hollywood movies made by child molesting Hollywood types

 

[Rustic]

Your analogy is totally off.

A better analogy would be that the first Amendment protects free speech, EXCEPT certain types like yelling fire in a crowded theater. So the second Amendment covers the right to bear arms... but it doesn't cover ALL firearms.

Wouldn't it be more apt to say "but it doesn't cover aberrant usage of arms...shooting in town (pick your irresponsible usage)". It's a verb / action .... yelling fire... shooting inside building... etc. not a 'passive' thing such as ownership / possession (loose interpretation of "bearing arms".... IMHO

No because they are both items. The first Amendment allows for free speech, however there are some types of speech not included. It's not just about yelling fire in a crowded theater. You also can't threaten people like the President. So the Second Amendment protects the right to bear arms, but it doesn't cover all types of arms, and as I said earlier in the thread, that was even backed by Justice Scalia who was one of the greatest proponents of fire arm ownership to ever serve on the Supreme Court.

Why do you believe the second amendment wouldn't cover an AR-15?

Because the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that the Second Amendment isn't limitless, and as of recently the AR-15 has been ruled a weapon of war not covered under the right to bear arms.

Where has it (AR-15) been "ruled a weapon of war" ? Last I heard it was a civilian sporting rifle...

I told him that dozens of times, apparently he has shit for brains

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Because the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that the Second Amendment isn't limitless, and as of recently the AR-15 has been ruled a weapon of war not covered under the right to bear arms.

1 The limitations were on unusual weapons not in general use. ARs are in general use.
2. Bull-fucking-shit. Link me a court case where the AR 15 was deemed a "weapon of war" and "not covered under the right to bear arms." You are talking out of your ass.

 

[KeiserC]

Wouldn't it be more apt to say "but it doesn't cover aberrant usage of arms...shooting in town (pick your irresponsible usage)". It's a verb / action .... yelling fire... shooting inside building... etc. not a 'passive' thing such as ownership / possession (loose interpretation of "bearing arms".... IMHO

No because they are both items. The first Amendment allows for free speech, however there are some types of speech not included. It's not just about yelling fire in a crowded theater. You also can't threaten people like the President. So the Second Amendment protects the right to bear arms, but it doesn't cover all types of arms, and as I said earlier in the thread, that was even backed by Justice Scalia who was one of the greatest proponents of fire arm ownership to ever serve on the Supreme Court.

Why do you believe the second amendment wouldn't cover an AR-15?

Because the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that the Second Amendment isn't limitless, and as of recently the AR-15 has been ruled a weapon of war not covered under the right to bear arms.

Where has it (AR-15) been "ruled a weapon of war" ? Last I heard it was a civilian sporting rifle...

I told him that dozens of times, apparently he has shit for brains

Apparently CNN is now calling it a "fully semiautomatic assault rifle"... lol

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Apparently CNN is now calling it a "fully semiautomatic assault rifle"... lol

As opposed to a semi....semi-automatic "assault rifle"?