Thread: AR15 pending rule changes?

Originally Posted by gimp

No one 'needs' alcohol at all and it sure as shit causes a thousand times more deaths, social and economic harm than semi auto guns do, it's literally poison, Ban alcohol.

I never thought I would agree with Gimp-but he speaks the truth! Apart from fat chicks Gimp-they 'need' alcohol!!!

Im not for banning alcohol-I enjoy it (responsibly) just like many of us enjoy semis-responsibly! But gimp has hit on a valid point.

I have a car that can travel more than 100km/h (the limit to our speed laws) but it doesn't mean im going out and speeding at 150km/h every day and causing mayhem and carnage. I see many people with Holden or Ford V8s that can travel faster than our legal speed limits but these cars are not banned or require special endorsements to own-so why are AR and other semi rifles frowned apon or facing further restrictions?

If you are a vetted, legal and law abiding citizen then why to we have to pander to enjoy our sport?

Alcohol and cars cause so many more deaths, injuries and harm to our community every year than firearms do, but its easier to walk into a bar and buy a RTD or into a auto shop and buy a turbo Skyline than it is to own a semi auto in original issue!

But what is considered the bigger evil?-firearms!!!

Its a mad mad world!

Need based arguments are terrible. Come back with a good reason why I should be assumed to be a dangerous criminal who can't be trusted with things that look slightly different to other things that I can be trusted with. Don't make me submit to interviews, safety testing and background checks, all of which should add up to say that I'm in fact not a dangerous criminal, then say 'no, you can't have 2 functionally identical items, because one of them looks like something I saw in a movie with Ahnold and I'm scared of it'.

It's an emotive subject and I hope we can discuss it rationally without getting too worked up. The problem is that the arguements to ban things are largely from an emotive standpoint, much like people wanting to ban hunting because 'think of the animals'. Show me some concrete evidence that banning lawful, licensed, vetted firearms owners from owning certain things which are cosmetic features of a firearm will achieve any net good that is worth the reduction in freedom. Bayonet lugs, pistol grips,etc.

I can't have an adjustable LOP stock on my AR, but it's okay for me to have one and pin it at the shortest position as long as it's over the legal minimum length, or have a gun with no stock at all as long as it's over legal length and not designed to be fired with one hand. It's ridiculous. Anyone who wants a short concealable gun for a crime is just going to break that law anyway, because they're already planning on breaking laws, they're not going to care if their sawed off 12g isn't over 762mm.

You can say 'that sort of gun attracts "The wrong sort of person". Well I like 'that sort of gun', (although I'm just as picky about semi-autos as I am about bolt guns, and everything else, because I'm a fussy bitch) so do a lot of others, and I'm not "the wrong sort of person", and I find it very insulting that the assumption is made, it's an intensely obnoxious and prejudiced phrase. "The wrong sort of person" shouldn't have any gun and that should be prevented in the initial licensing/vetting process. If "the wrong sort of person" gets their hands on any gun and intends to use it for nefarious purposes, they're not going to obey the laws regardless, it is just restricting the freedoms of one of the most heavily vetted to be lawful sectors of society.

And this is getting political I guess so I shouldn't even be posting this stuff. I don't know why I bother since people are very unlikely to be swayed from an opinion on an emotive subject like this by a discussion on the Internet, regardless of merit.

I think a good rebuttal to the "you don't need an AR" argument is "you don't need an AR to go on a shooting rampage", which seems to be why everybody gets hurt feelings over them. You literally don't. No point restricting them.

I'd also like to point out the fact that the ready availability of AR's to A cat holders, hasn't resulted in any increased firearms wrong doing. Think it pretty much kills the issue of cosmetic features.

all we need now is for one violent crime to be committed with an Ar15 and were all fucked

If you were the paranoid type you would be worried about the powers that be insuring that it happened so they had the ammo to push it threw

Sent from my GT-S5360T using Tapatalk 2

LOL, actually if I look at semi's then Im definately a SKS person, but purely because of the cheap fun aspect of them,



I can see them as a huge blast, just I wonder about say hunting with them.

I mean there is a huge difference from $2k for an AR10/15 v $400~800 for a chinese/russian sks to take down a range and throw lead down. If I had $2k I'd be looking at or saving more for a quality bolt like a sako 85 I can hand onto my son one day. Otherwise, yes I think an SKS should be in my gun safe...Im sure my son wouldnt let it sit there gathering dust.

Originally Posted by steven

I mean there is a huge difference from $2k for an AR10/15

WHOAH!!! An AR10 for 2k!? Where? Where?

Originally Posted by steven

LOL, actually if I look at semi's then Im definately a SKS person, but purely because of the cheap fun aspect of them,



I can see them as a huge blast, just I wonder about say hunting with them.

I mean there is a huge difference from $2k for an AR10/15 v $400~800 for a chinese/russian sks to take down a range and throw lead down. If I had $2k I'd be looking at or saving more for a quality bolt like a sako 85 I can hand onto my son one day. Otherwise, yes I think an SKS should be in my gun safe...Im sure my son wouldnt let it sit there gathering dust.

Just my 2c....ive got both an SKS and an AR15.....do i NEED either of them for hunting?, no, ive got two bolt actions for that,....then why do i own them?
because i WANT to own them....ive been interviewed and vetted by the Police, my partner also, and i have more than adequate security to keep them safe....

As a law abiding citizen of this country where i have the legal right to own these 'classes' of firearms, that is all i have to say on the subject!!!!!!!!

I agree steven. first you buy the sako hunting rifle then you buy the ar15

I suppose you can argue all day either way but at the end of the day they aren't saying you can't have them, just if you want them there is an extra level of vetting and increased security. I personally see no problem with that, I don't know what the big deal is.

You want the toys, get the endorsement, job done. I'm sure an extra level of vetting is a good thing when concerning rifles of this nature.

The car argument hardly works as they aren't used or designed to commit mass killings, personally I couldn't care less if they restricted all civilian vehicles to 110km/h, they do it with trucks at 90 and buses at 100 in Europe. There is no "need" to go faster and "wanting" to isn't a good enough reason as it endangers others including the people who have to pick up your pieces lying on the road.

In some ways I agree, ie why is it can I walk into a car showroom and buy a Porsche or a Ferrari both clearly capable of far in excess of the speed limit and no one bats an eyelid or asks you for a Cat E driving licence. Yet someone drools over a nice gun and the namby pampies think you are a nut job. Sit outside polishing one 4 wheel possesion and ppl smile, do the same with the other posession and ppl fll their undies and call the cops. I wonder how life looked 100 years ago, read a piece where ppl would walk into a park and do their target practice there...in this case it was the guy who shot the crown prince and started WW1, somethings just dont seem consistant.

Tell me the true figures of people killed by a semi AR15 type rifle in the last 10 years for all people charged with murder or manslaughter [excepting Aramoana out of the consideration]. Bet you it comes at the bottom and knives are top of the list.Bureaucrats do not like the truth much like politicians. Unfortunately we can vote out the latter but the former are a protected species in NZ. Even a noted judge Grant Hammond is appalled by the National govt proposal to legislate against bureaucrats being sued.You can see Mrs Crouch is very lucky to get any pay out and the incredibly stupid response by Anne Tolley about the case. Many many people are going to Aussie every day and for good reason.

Personally, I find that a pistol grip on a rifle is more ergonomic than a traditional grip.