Gun Control & RKBA
Related: About this forumThe good guy with a gun saying is just leading us into more madness.
Might as well make cannons or tanks legal, their ammunition legal and as easy to get as bullets and then talk about a good guy with a cannon or a good guy with a tank. Its insanity and will lead us to death and destruction as anyone with critical thinking can plainly see.
AkFemDem
(2,176 posts)Every time I see a good guy with a gun story, theyre stopping a bad guy with an assault rifle with a small handgun. One could make the argument that this is proof no one needs an AR for self defense, and these examples prove it.
Banning assault style rifles is the obvious first step.
discntnt_irny_srcsm
(18,576 posts)Many folks, especially those with a larger property and multiple structures, in suburban to rural areas may have regular use for a "ranch rifle" or a shotgun. A good example of ranch rifle is a Ruger mini-14 which looks different than an AR but functions pretty much identically. I'm inferring a bit here but those folks may not have the time to practice with 2 different guns and may not be able to afford 2 different sets of ammo and such. Also, some folks enjoy shooting as a hobby and an AR is like a computer that you can somewhat customize them for your particular circumstances and uses.
Many states now have no license requirement to carry in public but most (I think) require you to carry concealed. Concealing an AR is probably impossible. I don't like open carry especially with a rifle. Those folks are mostly just trying to be provocative.
yagotme
(3,816 posts)and not willing/allowed to carry a rifle for defensive purposes. According to your logic, all our troops need are 9mm pistols, as the "AR-15" isn't a good defensive firearm. Curiously, what exactly is your definition of an "assault style rifle"? We need to know the exact details before any can be banned.
Response to Eko (Original post)
MarineCombatEngineer This message was self-deleted by its author.
Eko
(8,489 posts)MarineCombatEngineer
(14,322 posts)Eko
(8,489 posts)and the ammunition as easily as an AR style rifle and 5.56 ammunition even if money is not a problem? No. So you understand what the post meant you just wanted to show the exception to the rule, like there is not always an exception to every rule.
thatdemguy
(522 posts)You can buy a cannon and a tank with not even having to show id. That is if the cannon is muzzle loading and the tank does not have an active gun.
Eko
(8,489 posts)thatdemguy
(522 posts)Then you walk into a store and buy black powder and use nails or ball bearings for bullets. Or just buy the mold to cast your own from lead. Heck you can buy and make your own black powder from stuff sold at walmart.
The ammo for a tank cannon if just a heavy bullet you can buy as well, they would just be very expensive. They really just have a lot of powder and big heavy bullet. Same requirements as a 22lr bullet, show your id to prove your old enough and pay for it.
Eko
(8,489 posts)And if so wouldn't that make it different from getting an AR style rifle?
Eko
(8,489 posts)I guess I have to make it clear I mean a modern cannon and a modern tank that work and have ammunition. Not sure why anyone would think I was comparing a defunct 17th and 18th century cannon or a tank without a workable main gun but I guess with some people you have to be crystal clear since they cant understand the comparison in the post. And not this tank.
ManiacJoe
(10,136 posts)It is a steel ball and separate gun power. All is legal.
The tank ammo will be a problem for the general public since it is all highly restricted. Need the proper licenses and need the deep pockets for the purchases.
Getting ammo for a Tank requires much more than getting it for an AR15, as you said. And for a modern cannon same thing. Thanks.
ManiacJoe
(10,136 posts)Small arms ammo has legit purposes for civilians, be it hunting or target shooting or self defense.
Bombs, explosive warheads, and similar "tank" rounds do not have any legit purposes for general civilians due to their indiscriminate nature.
Eko
(8,489 posts)https://ca-times.brightspotcdn.com/dims4/default/6e1c7c5/2147483647/strip/true/crop/5586x3628+0+0/resize/840x546!/quality/90/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fcalifornia-times-brightspot.s3.amazonaws.com%2F7e%2Fb8%2F3cf0a78743da8ed910023d5f9fd5%2F964102-na-0526-school-shooting13-wjs.jpg
But, whatever, got to kill them varmints or protect yourself from something that has a chance of happening to you as about the same as winning the mega millions!!
ManiacJoe
(10,136 posts)Criminal use is never part of the definition of legitimate, but you already knew that.
Eko
(8,489 posts)and no bombs while I am talking about people everywhere getting fully functional saw's with all the ammo with no permits required.
ManiacJoe
(10,136 posts)Perfectly legal without the guns.
Fighter planes are very popular with racing.
Lots of folks love their MIG 19s and other "vintage" jets. (No guns allowed.)
If you can afford to purchase and maintain a WW2 bomber, more power to you. Obviously, you cannot have the bombs or machine guns.
In general, no civilians are getting SAWs. Machine guns are heavily restricted at the federal level and in many states. There is nothing special about their ammo. Military spec rifle ammo is great for the gun range and target shooting, and it used to be quite cheap to purchase.
Eko
(8,489 posts)ManiacJoe
(10,136 posts)Apparently, the face value of the asked questions was not your intention.
MarineCombatEngineer
(14,322 posts)Here, to show no ill will towards your thread, I'll delete my post.
Eko
(8,489 posts)I have no ill will towards you either.