Jump to content
AVB-AMG

I Appreciate Assault Weapons. And I Support a Ban

Recommended Posts

What's wrong with driving your kids to soccer?

Nothing. I have girls and enjoy taking them to and watching them play soccer. I think he was just making a point of calling AVB a soccer Mom, or a Pansy.

 

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk

 

 

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, AVB-AMG said:

GunsnFreedom:

Do your really believe that all of us gun owners in the United States have a realistic chance to use those guns to be the "armed citizenry to keep the state, these United States, free from tyranny..."?  Really...???  Not a chance.  If we were to forcefully rebel using our guns, we would be crushed, killed or imprisoned by LEO, National Guard and the Military.  Time for you and anyone else who believes that to come back to reality.

AVB-AMG
 

Damn, you really are a beta male.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
"Most nights in Afghanistan, I wielded an M4 carbine and a .40-caliber pistol. The total barrel length of my M4 was approximately 14 inches with Trijicon ACOG sights, as well as an infrared laser. I usually carried 10 magazines stacked with 20 rounds of 5.56-millimeter ammunition each."
Can someone with prior or current military service explain the following?
*Why is his sidearm a .40 cal and not a 9mm?
*Does the Army use 20 round magazines or is he downloading 30 round magazines by 10?
Regards,
TokenEntry
Calling@Griz why was he carrying (20) 20 round mags and a .40?

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, 1LtCAP said:

yaknow? i thought the .40 cal seemed odd......

as for 20 rounders, a former cap cadet is a marine.....and according to him, they had 20 rounders......

Looking at his bio on his government webpage it states that he was a combat engineer . . . 

*Why would one not use a 30 round magazines in a combat zone? Seems impractical to be carry more mags with less ammo in them.

As far as the .40 cal sidearm being carried . . . 

*He would have to have been an operator in order to have permission to use a sidearm other than what is normally government issued, right?

*Carrying a .45 is more plausible as the Beretta M9 was not adopted by the military until 1985. However, at the start of his service it would have been well past this transitional period.

Regards,

TokenEntry

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You cant appreciate something, and then tell us how it needs to be banned. That's pretty oxyMoronic. 

Also, the entire argument...well, there isn't really a single reason statistically it should be a preffered gun to ban, or further regulate. 

Also, i really don't care how much AVB distracts around here. Trump says ones thing and the liberals lose their freaking minds for days on end. He's actually good practice for sourcing information and shutting down the hard lefts ridiculous arguments. If anything he is a great reminder of what we stand to lose. 

 

Notice, how yet again, we have a post by AVB with no substance in objectivity. Just a liberal rant, followed by an liberal opinion of a liberal rant.

 

The truth is, AVB. You are here in a counter productive form. Tell us one Pro gun thing you have done around here? 

What are your thoughts on the .50 cal ban? you know, a gun that statistics don't even exist for because its not used to kill? The agenda is clear, so excuse us all for calling out your bullshit, and don't complain about that, you are free to leave if you don't like our responses. 

You are quite the no show when someone proposes a counter argument or even asks you to source your content, again a clear indication of your troll like behavior and purpose. 

Take note of the posts AVB refuses to answer, they are probably good shut down points for liberal arguments. 

 

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What would you propose if the AR 15 was banned but the next nut case used a " FDE not black " FN Scar or a "wood stock not black " Ruger mini 14 or a etc etc.....so on and so forth....Let me guess you would support a ban on them too which could lead to a ban on all semi autos to take away a right from good law abiding citizens who exercise that right for home defense, competitions, hunting etc....but you are a 2A supporter, really ?

 

You can't ban every firearm for some delusional pretend it will do a damn thing to save a life legislation.... IT IS A MENTAL HEALTH PROBLEM THAT NEEDS TO BE ADDRESSED NOT A FIREARM PROBLEM

 

Oh and an AR is not an "assault weapon " I would post the definition of an assault weapon for you but since your a 2A supporter you should already know that.

 

 

 

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, capt14k said:

Calling@Griz why was he carrying (20) 20 round mags and a .40?

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk
 

@capt14k there was plenty of 20 Rd magazines in the inventory 10 years ago and probably still is.  The question of why he carried 20s is easy.  A 30 makes you get about 2" or so higher if you're in the prone.  Being 2" lower can be more important than having 10 more rounds.

I got through one war with only 20 Rd mags so I guess I did okay.  Later on I'd carry a mix of 20s and 30s.  When I explained why to younger troops I found many of them started doing the same.

Mast was an EOD guy attached to JSOC. There are some 40s floating around in the system and you'd probably find most of them in JSOC.  They issued what they had on hand.  Or it could be he "acquired" it over there.

@TokenEntry to be fair his bio says he was a EOD guy attached to Joint Special Operations Command.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Since this thread seems home to walls of txt, here is another:

 

 

Why are we allowing the liberal left to determine the narrative and course of action in protecting our children? In today’s society we clearly accept armed protection in many facets of our daily life. We pay men to carry guns to protect pennies, nickels, dimes and quarters being transported from stores to banks as well as deposits. We accept armed guards in banks. We accept armed guards to protect famous people and politicians. We accept high police presence in major events. We accept armed security in jewelry stores. Yet public schools that are clearly suffering from being targeted remain largely unprotected. Why is that? I have had a number of police officers relay stories to me on how they were picking up or dropping off their kids to school in uniform and were in some cases asked, in others told, they were not welcome on school grounds while in uniform and carrying a weapon as it made some staff members uncomfortable. Add all the gun free school zone rhetoric and all the resistance to police and armed security in schools and it becomes clear that the liberal left bias is what is keeping our schools from being properly protected. Why are we tolerating the least qualified group to assess and mitigate the risk to our children?

Is it better if our kids are stabbed to death or blown up instead of being shot? Countries like Japan and China have suffered school killing sprees at the hands of evil men with knives that rival the number dead in American school shootings. Many are completely unaware that Columbine was planned as a bombing. Those two perpetrators had planned to bomb the cafeteria at lunch and then detonate a line of explosives out front specifically directed at the police, fire and ems first responders. So that would indicate to me that focusing all this energy on gun control is a complete waste of time and effort. See something say something? Clearly that isn’t working either! Case after case reveals everyone said something to include to the top Law Enforcement agency in the country! The evidence is already in front of everyone. People and systems will fail. Other people will never trigger the system to begin with! Look up John David LaDue for a case study of a threat that could have easily went undetected if it weren’t for a timely glance out of a window.

Is arming teachers and faculty the answer? In my opinion it is not. To me it is a half measure. I believe that people should have the right to defend themselves. However, armed faculty are not going to have a duty to run towards the sound of gunfire! There may be a few that think that way but I don’t think that will be the vast majority. Why are we exploring half measures instead of embracing the fact that the only way to protect unarmed people is with armed people assigned to their protection! This is evident everywhere else in our society. I would think that every town in America has the ability to add to its police force and assign them to their schools. This might actually help with the drug problems that seem to be affecting just about every school in America as well. But Im not talking about adding 1 person for 3700 students. Clearly no risk and response analysis went on there! But this would cost money. Is that an issue? Are we going to spend money to protect money and valuables but we as a society are unwilling to spend money to protect children? I don’t think that’s the case. My conclusion is that we have fallen short of putting the correct response in place because we cant get past hurting the feelings of the liberal left that have infested the school systems. I don’t want to hear their cries about creating a police state in schools. I don’t want to hear one more stupid plan to have all the kids throw books or soup cans at an assailant! I don’t want to hear about teachers having a session in school with nerf guns to work out their own strategies. I hate to inform the faculty but the fact of the matter is that every kid with an X-Box has more tactical prowess than the vast majority of teachers at any school. I want to hear from experts that have a proven track record of providing actual security. Does it sit right with everyone that all of congress operates in a armed protected environment but its unthinkable by many of these politicians to provide any armed security for our children? In my opinion, this is why NOTHING has changed. The evidence is overwhelming that banning anything never solves anything or actually protects anyone. You CAN’T ban evil determination. I will be just as heartbroken for every child killed by a gun, a bomb, a knife, a sword, or a gallon of gas. I want them protected from as many threats as possible with someone capable of providing that protection. The time for allowing the liberal left to determine the protection for everyone’s children needs to end! We need to counter the bleating of the liberal left with a solid, loud voice of logic, reason and something that will certainly be more effective than passing feel good legislation and being shocked its still happening.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[mention=8404]capt14k[/mention] there was plenty of 20 Rd magazines in the inventory 10 years ago and probably still is.  The question of why he carried 20s is easy.  A 30 makes you get about 2" or so higher if you're in the prone.  Being 2" lower can be more important than having 10 more rounds.
I got through one war with only 20 Rd mags so I guess I did okay.  Later on I'd carry a mix of 20s and 30s.  When I explained why to younger troops I found many of them started doing the same.
Mast was an EOD guy attached to JSOC. There are some 40s floating around in the system and you'd probably find most of them in JSOC.  They issued what they had on hand.  Or it could be he "acquired" it over there.
[mention=7378]TokenEntry[/mention] to be fair his bio says he was a EOD guy attached to Joint Special Operations Command.


Makes sense. I had read 20 round mags today are getting scarce, but a few years ago obviously was different. The .40 I was unsure of but also makes sense. So much for my theory someone else wrote the Op-ed and he accepted money to lend his name to it.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In a gun-free zone such as a school campus, where everyone is helpless, an AR-15 is not necessary - a madman armed with something as archaic as a lever action Winchester rifle from 1866 and a bag full of shells to reload from could shoot just as many people.

https://www.uberti-usa.com/1866-yellowboy-rifle

Pretty much anybody with pretty much any gun capable of being reloaded by hand can shoot up and scatter a mass of people who have nothing to defend themselves with, which is pretty much every school in the country since we are too cheap to provide armed guards, the willingness of police and guards to run toward the sound of gunfire cannot be taken for granted (they usually, but not always, take cover until the shooting stops), and teachers who would be willing to carry concealed to defend themselves and the students under them are not allowed to.

So getting rid of the AR-15 or so-called "assault weapons" wouldn't do a thing to make anyone safer.  Handguns and hunting rifles work just as well when nobody is shooting back.  How about getting rid of all guns then?  That doesn't work either, as we saw in France in recent times, where for all practical purposes they have a complete ban on arms:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charlie_Hebdo_shooting  12 Killed, 11 Injured

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/November_2015_Paris_attacks   130 Killed, 413 Injured

Somehow people hell-bent on killing find a way to get one gun, and one is all they need.  If someone tries hard enough, no matter where they are, they will be able to acquire one, legal or not.

There will always be professional purveyors of contraband that you can't get rid of, who deal in drugs and guns and, where banned, alcohol, and pretty much anything else in demand that legitimate merchants are barred from selling.  We banned drugs, we banned alcohol, the stated aim was to rid society of these substances, all failures.  People who want contraband to do bad things will find it.

And if all guns were magically disappeared, which has never happened anywhere in the world, a madman with a gallon of gasoline could kill and maim just as many people.

"Happy Land Fire" in New York City - 1 Madman, 1 jug of gasoline, 87 people killed:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Happy_Land_fire

And if gasoline were banned, a madman could kill and maim just as many people using something else. 

Truck attack in Nice, France - 86 Dead, 458 Injured

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_Nice_attack

Truck attack in Berlin - 12 Dead, 56 Injured

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_Berlin_attack

Note that insane people going on killing sprees happens just about everywhere in the world, for all sorts of awful reasons, using all sorts of things besides guns.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_rampage_killers

Fundamentally, you can't make the world safe by banning things.  The world is always going to be a dangerous place.  You can try to make the world safer by making changes, but you have to watch that you don't make things worse with unintended consequences when you seek to change things.  Historically, governments have been, by far, the largest killers of human beings.  This is why people who advocate for private ownership of arms do so not because they are mean, but because they do care very much about the well being of everyone. 

People in Venezuela have no arms, and are literally being starved to death while their government destroys their economy to the point that they cannot even buy FOOD.  They sure could use AR-15s to rid themselves of their corrupt government.  But the country had "common sense gun control" in place to protect the government from the people, so the government, being of course well armed, has nothing to worry about, and the helpless people can starve.  It can happen anywhere at any time, if the people have no way to prevent it.  Kim Jong-Un is also a big proponent of "common sense gun control" (his government having guns and the people having none) because if the starving population of his country had AR-15s he and his corrupt, evil government would not last a day. 

Generally, when you compare the two, the people in any given place are nicer, more tolerant, and more moral than their government.  On the other hand, the higher the government position, the more immoral and corrupt the person occupying the office gets.  And if you happen to create a government staffed by saints, it could disappear in a second and be replaced by devils, as so many populations found in Europe, 1939-1945 as Germany and the Soviet Union just rolled over country after country, replacing their governments and running roughshod over the citizens.  And historically, this has happened so many times you cannot even count.  One day, you have a nice government, the next day, it has been invaded and the head of your government is replaced by a foreign power.  So I would by default trust the people to be armed, and hold whatever government they find themselves underneath in check.  That is they only way for decent people to be safe and secure.

The thing that is sad is gun owners are being portrayed as mean, heartless people.  In fact, gun owners care just as much as those who are screaming for a gun ban.  NRA members care very much about safety and security of the people.  It is just that they know that fundamental security means that the good and decent people in the population must be allowed to be armed and be knowledgeable about arms, and pass that knowledge and skill down to the next generation.  When it is only the scoundrels, criminals and corrupt officials that are armed, and the good and decent people are defenseless, you have no security whatsoever.  This describes the situation in much of the world, and we do not want to live there.  It is extremely easy to get on the gun control bandwagon because it is popular and everyone is doing it.  It takes courage to refuse to get on this bandwagon and stand for what is right because it is right and because you truly do care about keeping people safe.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@AVB-AMG


"Rep. Mast provides his reasonable analysis followed by sharing his experiences, then opinion and good faith recommendations regarding the AR-15 rifle.  Rep. Mast has more credibility than some of his fellow Congressmen due to his former military service in the U.S. Army and actual combat experience.  I find it refreshing to hear a Republican legislator offering more than his “heartfelt condolences, as well as thoughts and prayers to the victims’ families…”.  He is making some very reasonable and sensible recommendations that I believe is a very good starting point for further discussion and consideration by his Congressional colleagues, in an effort to possibly reach a bi-partisan agreement for legislation.   I hope he is able to influence additional Republican members of the House to join him in his efforts to actually introduce legislation that will reach the floor to be voted on.

You find that Brian Mast to be credible because of his military service and that he is a Republican?

Brian Mast military service had earned him The Bronze Star Medal, The Army Commendation Medal for Valor, The Purple Heart Medal, and The Defense Meritorious Service Medal. Those medals and the credibility of his character is lost when one is being dishonest, disingenuous, and have become compromised due to possible monetary gains like most politicians do when they come into office. In this case, I find him to be disingenuous. In the NYT article he states that the military provided him with the most effective tool for killing enemies. Is it not obvious being a soldier in the military that is their purpose? If US military had adopted another platform and provided training for it would there still be a ban for the civilian version of that rifle? 

Also, it doesn't really matter what political party one is affiliated with. Very rarely can you align with someone 100% all the time. RINO's like John McCain and Paul Ryan demonstrates this.

Most importantly he states that he would not support any version of a ban that results in confiscating existing legally owned firearms.  But I do think that since he is proposing a ban on the FUTURE sale of all AR-15 rifles, that in order to be effective, the federal government would most likely need to also institute a buy-back program for those who want to rid themselves of those rifles and possibly purchase some other firearm. Those of us who want to keep what we have would do so.

The banning of future AR-15 sales will do nothing to stop gun shootings. This is a very dishonest attempt to appeal to existing AR-15 owners to make them feel like an entitled elitist in Hollywood. The AR-15 should be available to own by any law abiding citizen. If someone wants to turn in their AR-15 in a gun buy-back program, that is their decision.

Realistically, I am convinced and believe that most attempts at gun control will always be subject to our limitations as humans who make mistakes, including human error; lack of or incorrect information entry into databases; paralyzing fear (security guard), lack of appropriate action or follow up (FBI), etc.  But unless we try to do something different now, then the regular occurrences of these mass shootings will most likely continue unabated. I think that Rep. Mast’s recommendations, if ultimately result in passed legislation, enacted and enforced, would save many lives and those of us gun owner’s 2nd Amendment rights would be respected and preserved."

You want to entrust the federal government with gun control legislation when they have failed in the past and most recent FL shooting? If Brian Mast wanted to preserve gun owner's 2nd Amendment rights, he wouldn't be breaking his oath to office by adding these so called reasonable exclusions. It is very underhanded to say "gun owner’s 2nd Amendment rights" while excluding non gun owners. The purpose of the 2nd Amendment is there for those who wish to exercise their right to purchase a firearm for self preservation.

Regards,

TokenEntry

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

voyager9, Shane45 & kman:

Thank you for posting the lengthy articles and opinions that you did in this thread.
I found them all to be very interesting and informative and ultimately helps me form my opinion on whether or not any firearms ban makes sense

AVB-AMG

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Poor Shilly-Poo AVB, now plainly exposed as a troll (Russian paid, in my opinion) to float trial balloon gun bans under the guise of a "2A supporter". This is certainly in line with the supposed Russian MO of using internet Troll farms to play both sides and get people riled up. Of course, this would be through a US front Liberal group like ShareBlue or OFA or whatever the Clinton crime family money laundering operation is these days.

Trolls will of course be very nice and not at all like their paid online persona, IRL.

After all, they are paid to troll on line, not out in the real world. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, GRIZ said:

@capt14k there was plenty of 20 Rd magazines in the inventory 10 years ago and probably still is.  The question of why he carried 20s is easy.  A 30 makes you get about 2" or so higher if you're in the prone.  Being 2" lower can be more important than having 10 more rounds.

I got through one war with only 20 Rd mags so I guess I did okay.  Later on I'd carry a mix of 20s and 30s.  When I explained why to younger troops I found many of them started doing the same.

Mast was an EOD guy attached to JSOC. There are some 40s floating around in the system and you'd probably find most of them in JSOC.  They issued what they had on hand.  Or it could be he "acquired" it over there.

@TokenEntry to be fair his bio says he was a EOD guy attached to Joint Special Operations Command.

@GRIZ

Thanks for the clarification. Something I did not know which I had just looked up is that JSOC encompasses several units under it's command. It makes sense that when you are attached to JSOC, you are also entitled to it's exemptions.

Regards,

TokenEntry

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, AVB-AMG said:

voyager9, Shane45 & kman:

Thank you for posting the lengthy articles and opinions that you did in this thread.
I found them all to be very interesting and informative and ultimately helps me form my opinion on whether or not any firearms ban makes sense

AVB-AMG

Why is it, did you not consider the counter argument before posting the original article here? As an intellect, wouldn't it be prudent to do your due-diligence prior to starting a conversation?  or worse yet contribute your biased opinion?

We are all still waiting for your opinion as to why rifles should be regulated as a response to this situation? why the conversation is more important to YOU, then say a conversation about the check and balances of our system that failed so miserably. You say you want to ban Assault rifles becuase its obvious we cant rely on the government to keep them out of the hands on lunatics.... well genius wouldn't they be the ones instituting that ban? If they cant keep track of people getting background checks, DO YOU REALLY THINK THEY WILL CONTROL THE BLACK MARKET!?

I will offer up an example, Fast and Furious. THAT is the result when you entrust the government to track illegal weapons.. BRAVO! You are in support of more government failure.... BRAVO!

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I do not believe @AVB-AMG should be banned as long as he is not breaking the TOS. It would be an echo chamber if individuals like him were not on this forum. Having debates is good as it shows what the type of people we deal with when it comes to Constitution. Although what I do find funny is that he won't extend the 1st Amendment rights to an American citizen like Trump like we would to him.

Regards,

TokenEntry

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, AVB-AMG said:


I found them all to be very interesting and informative and ultimately helps me form my opinion on whether or not any firearms ban makes sense

AVB-AMG

You say that as if you hadn’t already formed your opinion when you posted the link. 

Quote

He is making some very reasonable and sensible recommendations that I believe is a very good starting point

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, JackDaWack said:

Why is it, did you not consider the counter argument before posting the original article here? As an intellect, wouldn't it be prudent to do your due-diligence prior to starting a conversation?  

We are all still waiting for your opinion as to why rifles should be regulated as a response to this situation? why the conversation is more important to YOU, then say a conversation about the check and balances of our system that failed so miserably. You say you want to ban Assault rifles becuase its obvious we cant rely on the government to keep them out of the hands on lunatics.... well genius wouldn't they be the ones instituting that ban? If they cant keep track of people getting background checks, DO YOU REALLY THINK THEY WILL CONTROL THE BLACK MARKET!?

I will offer up an example, Fast and Furious. THAT is the result when you entrust the government to track illegal weapons.. BRAVO! You are in support of more government failure.... BRAVO!

Maybe he’s looking for the counter argument?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Zeke said:

Maybe he’s looking for the counter argument?

You can't be open to discussing any issue when you speak in absolutes, like AVB. 

I don't assume he wasn't looking for the counter argument, he didn't leave room for one is his OP. This OP wasn't created to discuss any idea, it was to push an ideology already formed, that banning AR-15's will solve an issue, and that in order to do it, we will trick people by letting them keep what they already own.

That this is somehow NOT an attack on our 2@ rights.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, JackDaWack said:

You can't be open to discussing any issue when you speak in absolutes, like AVB. 

I don't assume he wasn't looking for the counter argument, he didn't leave room for one is his OP. This OP wasn't created to discuss any idea, it was to push an ideology already formed.

118+\- posts of counter arguments....

interesting

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • Create New...