Why are we able to own ASSAULT RIFLES

Key word is don't argue. Provide the facts, let them decide for themselves. Many are anti from ignorance. The majority of my contacts are shocked upon knowledge of my firearm ownership, get that "Didn't realize you were violent" stare. Satisfy the curiosity, give them the facts firearms are fun and educational tools.

Refuse to have discussion, the day they come to take your firearms away they won't want to discuss it.

I've had kind of an opposite experience in my time as a gun owner. People having known me for a long time then finding out I own guns seem to get this "hmm gun owners are just regular good people" type of reaction.

Occasionally I get the
Q:eek:h you have guns? What do you do with them?
A:Take em to the gun range what else?
 
I've had people tell me a 9mm scary looking rifle should be banned or illegal. I tell them this can barely kill anything do to it being a pistol round but if you take a rifle that will knock a 5000 lb moose on it's back in 1 shot it makes it look like a pee shooter. Hunting rounds are designed to kill quickly since you don't want the animal to suffer and there are some really powerful hunting rifles out there and if you can shoot 1000 yards and still have enough energy to kill a moose in 1 shot let me ask you this. Why does the simple look of this firearm make it seem more dangerous.

Most gun owners know this fact and when they say semi auto should be banned just look at what the cowboy shooters can do with single and double barrel shotguns They don't seem to be slower then semi autos.

Now I kind of wish full auto would be legal due to the fact many people don't know how to use full auto properly. Full auto is useful in a bunker and you have a mob of people charging at you setup a field of range for each machine gun on the field to make them cover each other. Now full auto in unit against someone is used to keep the target down while someone else moves or trys to take a shot. They make allot of noise and use the ammo up extreamly fast were in semi auto you have to make the shots count more. When you pull the trigger and 20 rounds go down range in a few seconds that's allot less aimed shots your taking. I mean the police have full auto MP5 with silencers for the swat team. A criminal can have the same amount of firepower or more because they're breaking the law but average Joe 6 pack can't have it. I get the idea of trying to keep people safe but in practice you would have to ban all firearms but then only the criminals, police and military would have them at that point which is what makes it pointless. People have been saved by firearms in the past from wild animals so taking them away puts peoples lives in danger.
 
Last edited:
Jeezd with the whole assault rifle thing... even in the military we do not call our C7 and C8 assault rifles. They Are just Rifles... can we not just eraticate the description created by the media
 
Jeezd with the whole assault rifle thing... even in the military we do not call our C7 and C8 assault rifles. They Are just Rifles... can we not just eraticate the description created by the media

I wish we could.

Useful idiots will continue to use the term because it helps their agenda. Only through eduction and breaking the cycle of denial will we get through to people.
 
The speed limit on the trans Canada highway is 110 km/h in Saskatchewan. Oh and you don't own an assault rifle. If it was an assault rifle, would there be a reason you couldn't own it? No. They're just as dangerous as semis. They're not dangerous in the hands of responsible persons.
 
I wouldn't engage him in the argument that your AR is a semi-automatic rifle no different to any of the common hunting rifles that fire the same cartridge. Simply because that would be a lie, they ARE different, the difference is hard to quantify. However there's a reason the military and police tactical units are running around with C7/C8s and not ruger mini-14s or Rem 750s.

So why should we be allowed to own them? Wrong question, the question should be why should we NOT be allowed to own them. Last time I checked the onus is on the BANNER, not the BANEE to prove their case.
 
need need need need need

Why does anybody need anything? Drunk drivers kill thousands every year, why do we need beer? Over the last 10 years, 243 children have died from injuries from organized football in the US. I imagine there are similar numbers in Canada from hockey. That is approximately double the number of deaths from school shootings in that time period. These are children inflicting real violence on other children, while cheered on by their parents, yet everyone seems ok with that.

Don't let anyone preach to you about "need."
 
There is no reasoning with Libtards because no matter what factual data you present they will not listen to you. I have tried many times. Now I just laugh and tell them to jog on.

Except the guy just got finished telling you that his friend is a "right wing in most other ways", so I guess "libtard" ain't gonna pass muster this time, big guy, lol...

I tell you what ISN"T going to help with the cause of gun ownership in Canada, and that is calling people a stupid contraction of "liberal" and "retarded" (??)

They tried that crap in the US and look where it's got them...nowhere, that's where.
Time to grow up...
 
To people like the OP's "friend" who are so horrified by the thought of "civilians" having the dread power of the so-called "assault rifles" in their hands: rifles with the exact same capabilities have been in the hands of civilians throughout North America for well over 125 years now.

The first truly effective self-loading rifle was probably the Mondragon, which was invented by General Manuel Mondragon of the Mexican Army. He patented it in 1887, although he wasn't able to get it into production until 1901, the same year it went into service with the Mexican Army, which continued to use various models of it until 1949.

Now, just for fun, let's compare the 126-year-old Mondragon rifle used as a military weapon by the Mexican Army with that quintessential terrible, evil modernday tool-of-the-devil "black rifle", the AR-15:

Modern AR-15:
The AR platform is a gas-operated self-loading rifle. It uses gas piped back from near the muzzle to unlock and open a rotating bolt. The rifle comes in both semi-auto only and selective fire versions. (Only the semi-auto versions are available to civilians in Canada). It is loaded with 20- or 30-round box magazines (and also 5-round ones in Canada, where the standard ones must also all be pinned to hold only 5 rounds for civilians.) The most common chambering for the AR (and the one that all the anti-gunners fear because it is "military") is 5.56x45mm Nato / .223. Originally a varmint cartridge and has an effective range of about 400m. The AR also is available chambered in 7.62x51mm Nato / .308 Winchester, a more powerful cartridge with a somewhat greater range.

The AR comes made with a barrel and mechanism of steel, and a stock made of the most modern composite materials in a frightening black colour with a pistol grip.

19th Century Mondragon:
The Mondragon was a gas-operated self-loading rifle. It used gas piped back from near the muzzle to drive a piston system to unlock and open a rotating bolt. The rifle came in both semi-auto and selective fire versions. It was loaded with 8- or 20-round detachable box magazines when it was first introduced into service in 1901, and after 1911, was also available with 100-round drum mags. The most common chambering for the Mondragon was the Mexican service cartridge, the 7x57mm Mauser. However, the Germans experimented with the Mondragon on the Western Front during WW1, and those rifles may have fired the standard German 8x57mm service cartridge. Both these cartridges are at least as powerful and long-ranged as 7.62mm Nato if not more so, and far more powerful than 5.56mm Nato.

The Mondragon was built with a steel barrel and mechanism and a tasteful wood stock of "traditional" appearance.

Conclusion:

In terms of function as a weapon - and in particular, as a dangerous "mass killing" weapon in civilian hands - there is no effective difference whatsoever between the scary black AR "modern sporting rifle" (or "assault rifle" if you're on that side of the fence) and the wood-stocked Mondragon, some of which have been in civilian hands for over a century now.

The Mondragon can fire as fast as the AR; the Mondragon uses detachable magazines as big if not bigger than the standard-capacity AR magazines; and the Mondragon actually fires a round considerably more powerful and longer-ranged than the one most commonly used in the AR.

The only other difference is that the Mondragon, although it was first patented 126 years ago and was used as a military weapon for 48 years, was never demonised as an "assault rifle" that was "too dangerous and too powerful to be trusted in civilian hands".

Now, let's talk about the first commercially successful self-loading hunting rifle - the Remington Autoloading Rifle, later renamed the Remington Model 8. Patented by John M. Browning in 1900, and made in various forms by Remington from 1906 to 1950. Fired various deer-calibre cartridges. Loaded either into a fixed 5-shot magazine, or else used detachable box magazines holding either 15 or 20 rounds. Sold in the thousands in the US and Canada as a hunting rifle and also sometimes as a police weapon.

Effective difference between this rifle and the AR? The modern AR has a plastic stock with a pistol grip; the 100-year-old Remington 8 has a wood stock - that's it.

Semi-auto? Check.
"Large capacity" box magazines for rapid reloading? Check.
More powerful cartridges with greater killing capacity and range than most ARs? Check.

The only other major difference between the rifles? The Remington 8 has never been demonised as an "assault rifle too dangerous to be allowed to remain in civilian hands" - even though it could do anything an AR can do if used in a shooting spree and has been in those civilian hands for over a century.

This was a great post, worthy of repeating above.

The fact is, in the US, the "ban" wasn't even ABOUT a rifle - it was on the black composite stock and the accessories made for it. Remember that congresswoman who wanted the barrel shroud BANNED! But when pressed, was unable to indentify one, lol. She finnally blurted out that is was "that foldy-up shoulder thingy!!", possibly referring to a folding or adjustable stock. Both absurd things to "ban" in a nation full of concealable handguns.

What struck me the oddest about the (failed) AW "ban" were 2 things: 1) California already HAS this "ban", and the manufacturers simply put the SAME firearm (reciever/trigger/barrel) in a different stock. They look kinda funny, but they do the same thing. and 2) 6 months ago, President Obama was ridiculing bayonets (3rd debate), and now he wanted to BAN them??

I wonder if the OP's friend can cite the last time a civilian, in peacetime, was killed by a BAYONET??
Good grief.

But I have found it to be a MUCH better policy, rather than calling anti-gunowners "stupid" and "liars", to use terms like "incorrect terminology" and "mistaken impressions" etc etc.

The BEST thing we can do for the gun "debate" is invite a non-shooting friend or two out for a nice afternoon's shooting at the range. Preferrably on a day when there's few or no other folks. And avoiding the handgun "mag dump nights", whenever THEY are, lol...

I have never taken someone shooting that didn't admit that they really enjoyed themselves...
 
Sorry gonna have to rain on your parade, as amusing as these pictures are, they contain some fundamental errors.

382388_10151616997511182_10478872_n.jpg

If both of these rifles are equally as effective someone should call up the military and police, they're wasting their money on the black one when the wood one is just as good right?


This picture's an even worse offender, the rifle on the right is a friggin bolt action FFS.

I don't think black rifles should be banned, I'm just against horridly inaccurate arguments. Just cause the anti's misrepresent the truth like it's going out of style doesn't mean we have to stoop to that level.

Instead of arguing that neither rifle is more lethal than the other since they're both semi-autos, we should be pointing out what the different features on the black rifle are for. i.e.

Collapsible stock - To better adapt to different sized shooters, to adapt the rifle to different situations like maneuvering in more confined environments, and easier to transport by folding or collapsing the stock.

Flash hider - to reduce the muzzle flash when you fire a round, easier on the eyes

Detachable magazine - quicker and more convenient reloading of the firearm to shoot more rounds down range faster

Barrel shroud (not the thing that goes up) - Something to hold on to and protects your hand from the heat of the barrel if you're firing lots of rounds, also protects the barrel from dings. You can also attach rails for whatever accessories like fore-grips, bi-pods or flashlights.

Pistol grip - Makes the rifle easier to maneuver, leave the wrist in a more natural position when firing.
 
Last edited:
Except the guy just got finished telling you that his friend is a "right wing in most other ways", so I guess "libtard" ain't gonna pass muster this time, big guy, lol...

I tell you what ISN"T going to help with the cause of gun ownership in Canada, and that is calling people a stupid contraction of "liberal" and "retarded" (??)

They tried that crap in the US and look where it's got them...nowhere, that's where.
Time to grow up...

Thanks dad;)

I have discussed this topic (in a civil fashion) off and on with people for the last 15 years, the problem with the most hardcore of anti's is they hate guns and do not want to listen to what you have to say - period.

I did manage to convince this liberal bag at a dinner once that semi vs bolt guns was about as silly as saying automatic transmissions in cars are not needed because people can just drive standard. I explained to her that during service rifle competition all that moves with a semi during a string is my index finger helping me keep the same position without having to break it by taking my right hand off the rifle and racking a bolt. It is simply an advancement in technology, amazingly she seemed to get that part.

However with most of them it just turns into a pointless argument with nobody backing down, I just find I have more important things to do during the course of my day. I don't need to be friends with everyone.
 
"If both of these rifles are equally as effective someone should call up the military and police, they're wasting their money on the black one when the wood one is just as good right?"

Sorry to rain on your parade actually buddy,
it says
NUMBNUTS this rifle is no more DANGEROUS, than this rifle.
DANGEROUS does not equal effective
It means it is no more dangerous for some one to own an AR rather than a mini 14 and that most uneducated people would say because one is wood with a standard stock its ok not taking into account that they are both semi auto and take magazine and shoot the same caliber round.

Also the military aspect is false in your bizarre argument, as NO military in world use AR15's, which is the rifle pictured..
and if you want to split hairs the full auto version of the mini 14 is used by at least one military and a huge amount of police forces.
 
Last edited:
Collapsible stock - To better adapt to different sized shooters, to adapt the rifle to different situations like maneuvering in more confined environments, and easier to transport by folding or collapsing the stock.

Flash hider - to reduce the muzzle flash when you fire a round, easier on the eyes

Detachable magazine - quicker and more convenient reloading of the firearm to shoot more rounds down range faster

Barrel shroud (not the thing that goes up) - Something to hold on to and protects your hand from the heat of the barrel if you're firing lots of rounds, also protects the barrel from dings. You can also attach rails for whatever accessories like fore-grips, bi-pods or flashlights.

Pistol grip - Makes the rifle easier to maneuver, leave the wrist in a more natural position when firing.

I think these are pretty terrible arguments actually. If I had the ear of an anti all I would hear is “easier to kill people.”

Also the important words in those poster are “Is no more dangerous” and “yeah, it’s kinda like that”
 
why is it always seem to be noobs asking these kinda questions, saying i'm on your side, my friend this my friend that. makes me wonder.
 
Barrel shroud (not the thing that goes up) - Something to hold on to and protects your hand from the heat of the barrel if you're firing lots of rounds, also protects the barrel from dings. You can also attach rails for whatever accessories like fore-grips, bi-pods or flashlights.

Ahahhhhhhh oh PB you're not quite sure what a barrel shroud is either are you?

Can we lock this thread now? It seems to be some what . . . circular
 
Back
Top Bottom