Do the legitimate uses of semiautomatic rifles like the Bushmaster 223 outweigh

1. 80

   tipstoretireearlyposted 7 years ago

   Do the legitimate uses of semiautomatic rifles like the Bushmaster 223 outweigh their horrific uses?
   
   The Bushmaster .223 semiautomatic rifle can be purchased for $699.99 from Gander Mountain.  That price includes a 30-round .223 Remington magazine.  Do the legitimate uses of such semiautomatic rifles outweigh their horrific uses?
   
   

   replyreport
2. 82

   Jack Burtonposted 7 years ago

   Does the legitimate use of a 12 pack of beer outweigh the horrific uses of people who get drunk and kill people on the road after drinking one?

   replyreport
   1. 60

      eternals3ptemberposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      Cars aren't designed to kill people. Guns sorta have an intented purpose: poking holes in people.

      replyreport
   2. 82

      Jack Burtonposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      Sometimes people legitimately and legally need holes poked in them. Even lots of holes. Sometimes lots of people. It's not up to you to decide what a person uses to best accomplish that.

      replyreport
   3. 83

      junksellerposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      Sure it is. It's called a vote.

      replyreport
   4. 82

      Jack Burtonposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      Good luck with that thinking that you can vote away the rifles from the hands of the people.

      replyreport
3. 61

   nightwork4posted 7 years ago

   what is the legitimate use? this has me confused because to me the only use for semi's and full autos is to blow holes in people.

   replyreport
   1. 82

      Jack Burtonposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      check out my hub on "assault rifles" and then get back to us.

      replyreport
   2. 61

      nightwork4posted 7 years agoin reply to this

      no that's ok. you asked a question and when i asked you the purpose, you try to promote your hub. that isn't happening . a simple answer would have sufficed but thanks anyway, you just gave me the answer.

      replyreport
4. 0

   Justsilvieposted 7 years ago

   Sure for the paranoid who think we will be invaded by a foreign power or who fear our government. I guess most don’t realize we are more afraid of them then the other two scenarios.

   replyreport
   1. 82

      Jack Burtonposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      The 2nd Amendment is not because the people fear the government. It is to make the government fear the people.

      replyreport
   2. 81

      Sarah Christinaposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      Exactly. The reason bearing arms is a constitutional right is so that we the people have the ability to overthrow the government if it ever becomes a tyrant. It has nothing to do with paranoia, it's called logic.

      replyreport
5. 83

   junksellerposted 7 years ago

   That's cheaper than penis enlargement surgery.

   replyreport
   1. 82

      Jack Burtonposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      How odd only people like junk mention penises in connection with firearms. I've know tens of thousands of gunowners and have never heard them mention it outside medical discussions. Yet, give people like junk five minutes and it comes up. Yucky, eh.

      replyreport
   2. 83

      junksellerposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      Actually lots of people mention the connection between firearms and penises it's just not usually by people who are at the moment stroking their Bushmaster.

      replyreport
   3. 82

      Jack Burtonposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      Double yucky. But he is the reason why the pro-firearms side is winning in the courts, the public opinion and legislatures. Who really in their hearts wants to stand next to a person who's first thought when seeing a gun is "penis."?

      replyreport
   4. 83

      junksellerposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      The pro-firearms side is winning because I mentioned the word penis? Wow, I had no idea my schlong was so far-reaching. Go Woody!

      replyreport
   5. 82

      Jack Burtonposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      Best you can do, eh, Junk.
      
      :-)

      replyreport
6. 87

   justthemessengerposted 7 years ago

   Can anyone provide an example of a "legitimate" use of a semiautomatic rifle in the hands of a citizen who is not licensed security or police?

   replyreport
   1. 82

      Jack Burtonposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      You really don't know what a semiautomatic rifle is, do you? Without googling or looking at any other reference why don't you tell us just what you think one is, and why it's use by citizens would be "illegitimate". Should be fun to read.

      replyreport
   2. 87

      justthemessengerposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      I suppose that a semiautomatic weapon is one that can fire multiple rounds of ammunition at the same time. So, again what would I need  with that?

      replyreport
   3. 83

      junksellerposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      Automatic is one trigger pull, many bullets. Semi-automatic is one trigger pull, one bullet. Automatic weapons are mostly illegal. Semi-automatic weapons include most of the legally available rifles and handguns, including hunting rifles.

      replyreport
   4. 82

      Jack Burtonposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      Since you're wrong in your definition that makes your question invalid on the face. Kinda like asking why unicorns are so mistreated down at the circus. But you can read my hub "Assault Weapons: Evil Black Rifles " and become really knowledgeable.

      replyreport
   5. 83

      junksellerposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      I would not recommend Jack's hub. He is not in anyway interested in an honest discussion about the relative capabilities of different weapon platforms. I am sure you can judge by his condescending tone how sincere he is in his 'educational' efforts.

      replyreport
   6. 82

      Jack Burtonposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      junk can't actually point to anything in my hub that is wrong. He just would prefer that others remain in ignorance. The very fact that he would prefer people to not learn something speaks all we need to know.

      replyreport
7. 0

   ahorsebackposted 7 years ago

   As a matter of fact ,Yes . Thousands perhaps millions of Americans own them , only one though, doing negative will bring out all the people who think that owning a gun is  pure evil!   40,000 is a  great number right ? Thats how many people die a year from highway deaths . Is speeding on the  highways illegal? , DWI ?  17.000 , die each year in America from illicit drug use . are drugs illegal ?........The blindness of our culture in America is the problem .  The shallowness of understanding human nature ,   This idiot used his mommy's guns .........Right !, theres something wrong here people  !But it ain't the guns !

   replyreport
   1. 87

      justthemessengerposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      I'm not trying to argue. I asked someone to provide a legitimate reason to own this type of weapon for the non-military,non-police,non- security non-collectors among us. And, still no answer.

      replyreport
   2. 82

      Jack Burtonposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      You got a perfectly good answer. Everyone who reads this thread sees that. Why do you claim to be a Christian on your bio yet you're willing to fudge the truth right here in front of God and the whole 'net?  What kind of "message" is that sending?

      replyreport
8. 74

   chefsrefposted 7 years ago

   I'm still waiting for anyone to tell us what the "legitimate" use of an assault rifle might be?
   ANyone who thinks they need these rifles is paranoid and should not have them. Who are you so afraid of that you need 30 or 60 rounds to take them out?
   And no, I am not an anti-gun nut, I have a collection of shotguns and hand guns, most of them inherited.

   replyreport
   1. 82

      Jack Burtonposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      ...you can read my hub "Assault Weapons: Evil Black Rifles " and become really knowledgeable about the issue, including an answer to your question.

      replyreport
9. 76

   junkoposted 7 years ago

   The problem isn't the second amendment, it is State's Rights. It was state's rights that caused the civil war.  Some states felt the government was taking away their constitutionals rights to own people. They had a right to be wrong. Most people don't understand the power of Little government (State Government). they think Big Government (federal Government) is the enemy as they did during the civil war. Today places like Michigan,Wisconsin, Ohio and now, maybe Connecticut are finding out that their problems are not with the Federal Government but with the State Governments.

   replyreport
10. 60

    lostdogrwdposted 7 years ago

    you have very evil people in this world and evil people do evil thing. it against the law now to use these kind of weapon on other people now but the only use for these kind of weapons is if our government turn on the people and it did with The National Authorization Defense Act  or foreign invasion. that it. if a person buy this kind of weapon it should never be allow out in public. and people who don't want to have guns have the RIGHT TO NEVER BE THREATEN BY ANYONE WITH ANY TYPE OF GUNS.eye for an eye. when a person murder someone with a gun they should be executed with a gun or same type of weapon

    replyreport
    1. 0

       ahorsebackposted 7 years agoin reply to this

       I actually can't believe this origional question is list as one of the "best " because these answers are the absolute worst ! THIS GUN pictured above is but one design of a gun , in that design it only functions as the same as any semi -auto gun !

       replyreport