Hixter

I was just wondering if this gun isn't great for hunting how it is the most popular? Is it just good for target practice?

I'm not trying to bring up the gun debate again, I just don't personally know anyone who owns one so was wondering.

Partially because 1/4 of adult American males have served in the military and are familiar with the operation and maintenance of the AR-15 style of weapon. Partially because it's lightweight and fairly cheap. Partially because surplus ammunition is rather cheap and plentiful. Partially because it's extremely customizable and there are a million accessories available for it. 

An AR-15 in .223 is fine for hunting deer; I've done it. My friend killed a large axis (species of deer native to India) buck 2 weeks ago with an AR at a range of 300 yards. But since it's not a very powerful round it's typically used to take close shots -- often to the head. Note that there are AR-15s manufactured in many different calibers, including the much more powerful .308.

Damn people......guns like you describe are only used for hunting people not animals.

See above. I'll guarantee you that more deer were killed with AR-15s last week than will be killed all year by the same type of weapon.

Executing gays is not law in the US, but there are people who would like the christian version of Sharia law

Let me know when the American government begins executing gays and uses the Bible for justification. 

So after a good discussion today I have learned that the only solution to gun violence in the US is more proliferation of weapons, no other solution is possible. 

I, for one, never said that.

I've also learned that in order to defeat ISIS or any Jihadist we just need to bomb the shit out of them and kill them all.  No other solution is possible.  

Nor that, although it's probably very close to being true. Didn't someone else post an article about it being impossible to eliminate terrorism?

I've also learned that killing them all coupled with the unfortunate collateral damage of our bombing does not cause more people to join their ranks

Nor did I say that. 

It might all deescalate, but with an election on the horizon and danger in the air things could get real stupid real fast.

If something serious happens, it'll likely involve the Russians, Chinese and/or the Iranians. And it won't be because they haven't given us plenty of warning.

dude, really?

Yes, really. If you'd like to prepare an accounting of the numbers of gay people executed under Christianity and Islam over the last few decades, be my guest. 

The United States government doesn't execute citizens for being gay, but several Islamic countries do. And guess which book they cite to justify their executions?

do you think there are more of these types now, as compared to 20 years ago?

I can't say yes or no, but I've been watching this sort of thing unfold for at least 45 years of my life. The only person I've known who died at the hands of terrorists was killed more than 30 years ago, long before George W. Bush arrived on the scene.

Terrorists will always have an excuse for their behavior and it typically comes straight from the Koran. We can blame ourselves if it makes us feel better, but I'll blame the poisonous teachings of their religious leaders. (and many times those religious leaders are indistinguishable from the political leaders who stand to benefit from the jihad.)

This is where my "so I'm the problem" quote comes from.  I guess the dots must be connected.

I said that there's more to the jihadi issue than those meddling Americans, someone said "I didn't say that" so I explained that that part of the response was to your post. I still don't understand how that could be construed as saying that you're the problem, but it certainly wasn't my intention.

It would be convenient and naive to believe that our policies dedicated to keeping cheap oil flowing out of the middle east haven't hardened attitudes toward the U.S. and the western world in general.

It would also be convenient and naive to believe that our oil policy is what is driving the jihadi movement throughout the world. It doesn't explain why terror groups kill a hundred fellow Muslims for every westerner they slaughter.

This is a fight for power, wealth, territory and religious dominance. Their goals are clearly stated and their fights are beginning to infringe on friends and allies. We will continue to fight because there is no other option, with the exception of surrender and that wouldn't end well for us or our allies.

But here what remains it seems like the GOP is more concerned with Syrian refugees entering this country then it is with actual terrorists getting guns.  

They are concerned about terrorists on our shores and about non-terrorist Americans being wrongfully disarmed.

So what you are saying is that I am the problem?

Huh?

Also you of all people say you're too lazy to do the multi quote thing? Interesting response.

It's a pain in the ass on some of my devices. 

So do not attempt to change their minds...check

Bomb the shit out of them...check

Is there actually anyone who thinks that we can change the minds of people who gleefully saw off the heads of innocent civilians and systematically rape women and children before selling them into slavery? 

Jihadism is not a country.  It is not a fixed number.  You can not conquer that country and then pretend that everything is cool.

Which is why I said that we will have to continue killing them in their nations as long as they keep trying to kill us in ours. This war will last a hundred years or more and just because we don't want to fight it doesn't mean that we won't have to fight it.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/donald-trump-muslim-immigration-us_5665f75de4b072e9d1c7252b

 

Seriously?

 

This moron has to be stopped.  

He will be stopped by his own mouth.

I just wonder where he got the information.

As far as I recall, I read about it on someone's Facebook page. Today I Googled a few keywords like Syrian refugees ISIS poll and found the original publication which had been linked on Facebook.

How someone receives their news is unimportant as long as it's factual. HuffPo also linked to the report and that's fine, too. Discrediting a news item because it appeared in a right or left-leaning news source is wrong.

Please point out where I blamed American for all the world's problems. I believe I was pretty specific (as was John Smith).

 

John Smith's post was what I was referring to. I was too lazy to hit the MultiQuote button.

the answer is simple. kill all the terrorists!

That would be nice, especially since their primary victims are fellow Muslims. Blame America for all the world's problems, but it's much more an internal problem for people in in the Middle East region than it is an external one. 

Or maybe you don't give them a reason to want to kill you?

They want to kill Americans. They want to kill Europeans. They want to kill Asians. They want to kill Christians. They want to kill Jews. They want to kill atheists. They want to kill gays. They want to kill sexually active unmarried women. They want to kill children.

They want to kill anyone who isn't a compliant Muslim. 

so you are cool w/ the collateral, and have no solutions to stopping terrorism other than using the established means that makes more of them?

 

 

ok. you sound like a republican. good work here.

Then President Obama must be a republican, too. He killed more terrorists than I ever will and they even gave him a Nobel Peace Prize.

If someone is intent on killing you, you try to kill them first. Or you die. Simple.

the entire premise is so quixotic and just plays to revenge fantasies. kinda like how most of the concealed carry permit holders feel, like their own little version of Charles Bronson. 

Like it or not, the United States will continue to kill foreigners who are bent on attacking us and our allies. Nothing new there...

And like it or not, every day Americans use firearms to protect themselves. Nothing new there, either.

on the last point, it sounds a lot like you would have been a staunch proponent of the jap-am internment camps in WWII

Nope. I clearly stated: "If they have joined a foreign entity to fight against their home country."

I would certainly have supported the arrest of Japanese-Americans who fought against the United States or stated their intention to do so. That's called treason and it warrants arrest.

Actually we screen the shit out of refugees, but let in tourists, students, future spouses and spouses with little screening. 

I read an article which said that the spouse went through an extensive background check.

 

What's the problem with closing gun show loop-holes, better background checks, and other common sense measures (are these available under the current gun laws, if so let's do it).

The terrorist in San Bernardino underwent a background check. How could it have been improved? He and his wife weren't on any terror watch lists and he had no criminal history.

so how do you define 'not losing'?

The United States, its citizens and its territories remain unconquered.

i didn't realize that Madison authorized drone strikes. 

 There was that whole War of 1812 thing against outside forces...

do 'outside forces' include US citizens?

If they have joined a foreign entity to fight against their home country? Sure, why not.

But if you cherry pick that one graphic out of the article and extrapolate like the far right new outlet Gateway Pundit did you are going to be shocked and scared.

I did not learn about that graphic via Gateway Pundit (whatever that is) and I am neither shocked nor scared. I responded to your assertion that Syrian refugees are a non-existent problem. I posted a poll which shows that 13% of Syrian refugees have a positive view of ISIS, but I could have just as easily reminded you that at least one of the Paris attackers entered the country via the wave of Syrian refugees.

I have little faith in the government's vetting capabilities and the fact that one of the California terrorists had recently been granted entry to the United States proves that my lack of faith is entirely reasonable.

it's a game of whack-a-mole with zero possibility of winning.

You don't have to win. All you have to do is make sure that you don't lose.

The United States can't solve the world's problems. But it's a president's responsibility to protect the nation from outside forces. And if that means a never ending campaign of drone strikes and small military actions overseas, then so be it. It's been going on since long before our nation was founded.

but a better question is, what is the strategy that will work?

It's simple: as long as they keep trying to kill us, we keep killing them. Hopefully in large numbers and in places far removed from American soil.

Hey don't forget how we have to do something about the problem that all Syrian refugees as well.  There is another non-existent problem that we definitely need a solution to.   

It's certainly is a problem when 13% of Syrian refugees are ISIS supporters.

http://english.dohainstitute.org/file/Get/40ebdf12-8960-4d18-8088-7c8a077e522e

In this country gun violence is a very real thing, yet when anyone suggests anything other than proliferation, there is a well rehearsed loud outcry against any new laws rules or even suggestions of ways to curb it. 

The outcry isn't against new laws, rules or suggestions. The outcry is against new laws, rules or suggestions that punish, demonize and/or criminalize people who currently own and operate firearms in a safe, legal manner. Californians were just murdered by radical Islamist terrorists with ties to ISIS and the president wants to take away from law-abiding citizens the most popular sporting rifle in the country.

The president wants an "assault" weapons ban. Such a ban already exists in California.

The president wants a "high-capacity" magazine ban. Such a ban already exists in California.

The president wants a "cooling off period." Such a period already exists in California.

The president wants to deny firearm sales to people on a terrorism watch list. The California killers weren't on that list.

The president's proposals would have done nothing to stop the San Bernardino terrorist attack. But they will affect the average gun owner by potentially disarming him/her and possibly even turning him/her into a felon with the stroke of a pen.

Former Carter press secretary Jody Powell said the following in a letter to the new Clinton administration in 1994:

"As much as I hate to say it, the NRA is effective primarily because it is largely right when it claims that most gun control laws inconvenience and threaten the law-abiding while have little or no impact on violent crime or criminals."

https://www.grammy.com/nominees

l would argue that it's a special kind of stupid to not realize that allowing pretty much anyone to buy weapons of war is allowing us to arm terrorists within our own borders. 

They are not weapons of war. They are relatively small-caliber rifles that look like weapons of war. They're just like any other rifle or pistol: pull the trigger once and one bullet is fired.

As I argued a couple of pages ago, the organization to which you now belong has absolutely zero interest in keeping arms out of the hands of terrorists.

Absolutely untrue.

This graphic is pretty telling.

First of all, any gun control statistics that lump in suicides are purposely misleading and their only purpose is to vastly inflate the numbers in order to frighten/shock people. I consider suicide to be an absolute right of all human beings. With suicides included, Alaska looks like the murder capital, when it actually sees on 20 or 30 murders per year. DC's murder rate is about 6x Alaska's, but the nation's capital is one of the most dangerous cities in the country.

And when you compare a state like New Hampshire and its lax gun laws to Illinois (strict gun laws and 7x the gun murder rate) it all falls apart. Demographics, not gun laws, dictate murder rates in this country. A state with a lot of guns isn't necessarily more violent, while a state with tough gun laws and a large number of gang members and drug dealers tends to be very violent.

Yeah, the NRA has gotten some bad press recently for lobbying to keep guns in the hands of people on the terrorist watch list.

The NRA doesn't want to see terrorists buying guns. The NRA wants to prevent the government from keeping law-abiding Americans from being denied their constitutional rights because of a secret, poorly maintained database.

A few days ago the New York Times chided the NRA for blocking the watch list bill. But here's what that very same newspaper had to say about the list a year ago:

Welcome to the shadowy, self-contradictory world of American terror watch lists, which operate under a veil of secrecy so thick that it is virtually impossible to pierce it when mistakes are made. A 2007 audit found that more than half of the 71,000 names then on the no-fly list were wrongly included.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/19/opinion/terror-watch-lists-run-amok.html

And another chart that we should all remember:

So about the president's speech last night

At least he finally called the Fort Hood shootings an act of terrorism.

Also nice front page op-ed by the NY Times today --- see if this gets any traction, sadly I doubt it will. And yes they do write about taking certain types of guns away from lawful owners for the "greater good". 

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/05/opinion/end-the-gun-epidemic-in-america.html?action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=opinion-c-col-top-region&region=opinion-c-col-top-region&WT.nav=opinion-c-col-top-region

It takes a special kind of stupid to react to an ISIS-affiliated terror attack with calls to disarm American civilians.

That article just prompted me to join the NRA.