AR-15 Builders

#201
#201
BigOrangeD said:
I agree with that. Your home is your castle, but people do need to be responsible with Alcohol if they may need to use a firearm. My belief is if you are going to carry a gun on your person or handle a firearm, stay away from the drugs and alcohol.
Click to expand...

Tennessee carry permit holders can't drink while carrying.
 
#202
#202
TNsnyper20 said:
Tennessee carry permit holders can't drink while carrying.
Click to expand...

I believe it's that way in most states. Unfortunately many states will not allow concealed carry in a bar\restaurant bar area, to sporting events, in any type of elected officials meeting, near a school, etc. I believe there should be no restrictions on concealed carry if you are of age and not a criminal except for alcohol use or drug use or mentally ill. That was my point.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#203
#203
BigOrangeD said:
I believe it's that way in most states. Unfortunately many states will not allow concealed carry in a bar\restaurant bar area, to sporting events, in any type of elected officials meeting, near a school, etc. I believe there should be no restrictions on concealed carry if you are of age and not a criminal except for alcohol use or drug use or mentally ill. That was my point.
Click to expand...

Just wait for the inevitable attempt to classify your political beliefs as "mental illness." Think I'm exaggerating? Politicians are already attempting to criminalize disbelief in global warming. Someone WILL make a proposal at some point to deem the desire to freely keep and bear arms as a mental illness.

And the definitions of "mental illness" are also constantly evolving. Case in point, the changes between the DSM-IV and DSM-V, which drastically changed mental illness standards, for what many doctors called political reasons.

My point is that slippery slopes DO exist, and it's very dangerous to allow infringement of guaranteed natural rights, because someone will always be trying to take that infringement a step farther.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#204
#204
UTVolinExile said:
Just wait for the inevitable attempt to classify your political beliefs as "mental illness." Think I'm exaggerating? Politicians are already attempting to criminalize disbelief in global warming. Someone WILL make a proposal at some point to deem the desire to freely keep and bear arms as a mental illness.

And the definitions of "mental illness" are also constantly evolving. Case in point, the changes between the DSM-IV and DSM-V, which drastically changed mental illness standards, for what many doctors called political reasons.

My point is that slippery slopes DO exist, and it's very dangerous to allow infringement of guaranteed natural rights, because someone will always be trying to take that infringement a step farther.
Click to expand...

Good point.
 
#205
#205
As I've mentioned before I'm thinking suppressor for my AR15. I've spoken with many folks and some on here. After all that I think I'm going with a .30 cal. The main reason is how awesome it works with the .300 blackout. I am told it will work on the .223 as well so that will be a more versatile solution. I'll need to purchase another upper.

What y'all think?
 
#206
#206
GoDucks349 said:
Have I suggested taking anyone's guns away? No. Have I suggested that the right to keep and bear arms should be stopped? No.

Analogies to cars and computers, as well as statistics associated with those items, just aren't the same. However, the concept that you must be of a certain age, complete training and carry a current photo ID that shows you are authorized to use a car might not be a bad idea, plus license renewal and restrictions on future use for those that for one reason or another are no longer capable of using them safely. In addition, would you be open to arrest or ticketing for those who use fire arms in conjunction with alcohol be ok? There goes a whole lot of hunting and target practice.
Click to expand...

Every firearm owner should know and obey these simple rules-
 

Attachments

  • image.jpeg
    image.jpeg
    58 KB · Views: 71
#207
#207
I learned them when I was 10 playing 2 sports, going to school, my 10 yo niece knows and passed her hunter safety course, safety should be taught to all kids, whether they will ever intend to use a firearm or not, accidents happen to curious kids and turn tragic, my dad pounded safety in my head But accidents do happen and no one is impervious.

Training and safety work.
 
#208
#208
InVOLuntary said:
As I've mentioned before I'm thinking suppressor for my AR15. I've spoken with many folks and some on here. After all that I think I'm going with a .30 cal. The main reason is how awesome it works with the .300 blackout. I am told it will work on the .223 as well so that will be a more versatile solution. I'll need to purchase another upper.

What y'all think?
Click to expand...

I've been wondering the same thing, I'm looking to just build 2 uppers 5.56 and .300blk for my at pistol and getting a modular suppressor ,
I still have lots of questions about which gas system would be more beneficial for either suppressed caliber.
 
#209
#209
InVOLuntary said:
As I've mentioned before I'm thinking suppressor for my AR15. I've spoken with many folks and some on here. After all that I think I'm going with a .30 cal. The main reason is how awesome it works with the .300 blackout. I am told it will work on the .223 as well so that will be a more versatile solution. I'll need to purchase another upper.

What y'all think?
Click to expand...
It will work with both. It will be slightly louder than a .223 silencer due to the increased hole size.
 
#211
#211
UTVolinExile said:
Actually, what you suggested was that the right to keep and bear arms should be put in the hands of some nameless entity who decides what use you can make of a particular firearm (defense? Target practice? Hunting?) and when/whether you are permitted to use said firearm (pre-approval for use). The 2nd Amendment says the right to keep and bear arms "shall not be infringed." It does NOT say "shall be permitted as regulated by the Congress." So yes, your proposal does suggest that the 2nd Amendment as written should stop.

By definition, analogies are between concepts that are not the same. Analogy is comparison between similar things for purpose of explanation or clarification. You have not offered any reason why the analogy between the protected right of bearing arms in the 2nd amendment and the protected right of speech in the 1st amendment is not applicable to guns/computer posting.

I will offer an explanation for why YOUR analogy to cars does not hold water. There is no constitutional right protecting/guaranteeing a right to means of transportation. So your example of government restriction on the ability to drive is NOT comparable to your suggested restrictions on the 2nd amendment.
Click to expand...

I did not say anything about "pre-approval" it's just a notification that you are checking the weapon out for a period of time.

I wasn't the one that used the car analogy. Do you think that the current laws pertaining to guns are good enough? What do you think would help protect people from guns being used on people in this country?

I think the second amendment intent is fine, I also think after a few hundred years things have changed a bit, and we need to find some solutions for crimes committed with guns.
 
#212
#212
TNsnyper20 said:
Would you be ok with having to give a three day notice to user your car? As involuntary said it's easy for you to create these rules as you don't have a use for a gun. I do. So those laws or rules you are wanting infringe upon my gun ownership. If I'm obeying the laws... Leave me alone and put your focus on those who are not law abiding.
Click to expand...

Cars are designed to transport people and goods. Guns are designed to kill. Completely different products. Comparing them is an apples and oranges comparison.

I'm not the one that started the car comparison. However, I see no reason why the right to use a product designed to kill should be less restrictive than the laws governing a product designed to transport people and goods.
 
#213
#213
GoDucks349 said:
Cars are designed to transport people and goods. Guns are designed to kill. Completely different products. Comparing them is an apples and oranges comparison.

I'm not the one that started the car comparison. However, I see no reason why the right to use a product designed to kill should be less restrictive than the laws governing a product designed to transport people and goods.
Click to expand...
You really need to educate yourself on how guns are bought and sold and how carry permit requirements are applied before you opine about them. In wake if the France terrorist attack where a truck mowed down close to 100 people (fatalities) I think the car analogy carries quite a bit of weight.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#214
#214
GoDucks349 said:
I did not say anything about "pre-approval" it's just a notification that you are checking the weapon out for a period of time.

I wasn't the one that used the car analogy. Do you think that the current laws pertaining to guns are good enough? What do you think would help protect people from guns being used on people in this country?

I think the second amendment intent is fine, I also think after a few hundred years things have changed a bit, and we need to find some solutions for crimes committed with guns.
Click to expand...

A notification to whom? Who is entitled to know when I'm using my firearm? Are they also entitled to know when you are using your TV, microwave, power tools, etc? And on what basis are they entitled to know this? And we don't have Pre-crime yet in this country, so you don't get to argue that this is to prevent potential crimes. For the government to know what I'm doing in the privacy of my home, they have to have probable cause that a crime is being committed. Now your proposal is running afoul of the 4th and 5th amendments as well as the 2nd.

I think current federal law on firearms as written is in violation of the 2nd amendment. I think that the data undeniably shows that MORE firearms in the hands of law abiding citizens has reduced violent crime in this country by large margins. Therefore, I believe in order to prevent more people from using guns on people, or from using them on as many people, we need less restrictive federal and state firearm laws.

If you don't like that as a solution to crimes committed with guns, how about stricter enforcement of existing sentencing guidelines for gun-related crimes?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#215
#215
GoDucks349 said:
Cars are designed to transport people and goods. Guns are designed to kill. Completely different products. Comparing them is an apples and oranges comparison.

I'm not the one that started the car comparison. However, I see no reason why the right to use a product designed to kill should be less restrictive than the laws governing a product designed to transport people and goods.
Click to expand...

The intended design of the product is not relevant to the comparison between cars and guns, in my opinion. Both can cause death. If the goal is to reduce unnecessary death, then without question automobiles are involved in far more preventable deaths in America than are firearms. It's not even close. So why is it all the rage to focus on firearms and ignore vehicles?

To be clear, I'm not suggesting we need additional regulation for cars OR firearms. Just pointing out the aptness of the analogy and the hypocrisy of gun control advocates who ignore the comparison.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#216
#216
GoDucks349 said:
Cars are designed to transport people and goods. Guns are designed to kill. Completely different products. Comparing them is an apples and oranges comparison.

I'm not the one that started the car comparison. However, I see no reason why the right to use a product designed to kill should be less restrictive than the laws governing a product designed to transport people and goods.
Click to expand...

You don't see the reason. That's the problem. Not everyone in America is a gun owner. So they, you, don't see the reasons why I want my constitutional rights infringed upon.

I'm not asking anyone to give me more freedom with my firearms. Just leave my rights alone. That's all.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#218
#218
Looking to buy my first AR, not looking to spend a fortune, so right now I'm eyeing the S and W mp15 sport 2. Reviews are good and the price is right, any other suggestions?
 
#219
#219
GahLee said:
Looking to buy my first AR, not looking to spend a fortune, so right now I'm eyeing the S and W mp15 sport 2. Reviews are good and the price is right, any other suggestions?
Click to expand...

Build your own. It's easy and fun. Requires very tools. You can build as nice of one or as budget minded as you like. If you look around you can build a mil-spec for around $400.
 
#220
#220
GahLee said:
Looking to buy my first AR, not looking to spend a fortune, so right now I'm eyeing the S and W mp15 sport 2. Reviews are good and the price is right, any other suggestions?
Click to expand...

The Sport is a fine carbine to start with and familiarize yourself with the system.
 
#222
#222
GoDucks349 said:
Cars are designed to transport people and goods. Guns are designed to kill. Completely different products. Comparing them is an apples and oranges comparison.

I'm not the one that started the car comparison. However, I see no reason why the right to use a product designed to kill should be less restrictive than the laws governing a product designed to transport people and goods.
Click to expand...

Because "the right to keep and bear arms" is a Constitutionally enumerated right subject to strict scrutiny.

There is no such right to operating a car.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
#223
#223
GoDucks349 said:
I did not say anything about "pre-approval" it's just a notification that you are checking the weapon out for a period of time.

I wasn't the one that used the car analogy. Do you think that the current laws pertaining to guns are good enough? What do you think would help protect people from guns being used on people in this country?

I think the second amendment intent is fine, I also think after a few hundred years things have changed a bit, and we need to find some solutions for crimes committed with guns.
Click to expand...

1) Current law is ineffective. Criminals don't follow the law.

2) Current law is not enforced. Quit telling me how many criminals the background check system has stopped and start showing me the prosecutions of felons trying to buy guns. Enforce the laws we have before you ask for more toothless laws.

3) The founders knew that many things would change over the years. That's why they included a very detailed amendment process in our Constitution.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#224
#224
Building another AR, this time an SBR in FDE color. Anyone currently building an SBR and waiting on NFA approval? Trying to determine lead times and what to expect. I've been told on average right now, 4 to 6 months. Some responses have said 1 year.
 
New Posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

Advertisement



Back
Top