Nobody has the stones to say it

[nvshooter]

The AR15 was designed to kill people. All of you are drawn to it because of its lethality.

I'm not sure the AR-type rifle was designed for killing people. If I could remember where I read it, I'd cite the source in which I read the AR-type rifle was originally a civilian weapon. It was designed a few years before 1958. Look at it: Lightweight, plastic furniture, easy to disassemble and clean, low recoil and inexpensive ammunition. Sounds to me like it was designed to be a sporting rifle. If you recall during that time, the United States was consumed with anything having to do with space exploration. For 1958, the AR-type rifle looks like something right out of Buck Rogers. I'd imagine its looks had something to do with its popularity.

To say that every person who owns an AR-type rifle is "drawn to it because of its lethality" is pure bullschumer. It's brain-dead sophistry and an insult to AR owners. I have never purchased an AR rifle "because of its lethality." I have never purchased any firearm "because of its lethality." Your all-encompassing statement paints every man and every woman who owns an AR-type rifle to be two seconds from committing a heinous crime with it. Every person I know who has one would never use it for anything illegal-- and neither would the overwhelmingly massive numbers of Americans who I have not met. Over 100 million Americans own over 300 million guns, and probably have close to a billion or two rounds of ammunition. If the everyday American gun owner was the problem, we'd certainly all know it.

The M1 Garand was definitely designed to kill the enemy. The US military was using bolt-action rifles with five-round stripper clips to load it during the insanity of combat. My contention is that you have no problem with the Garand-- because of its appearance. It looks like your father's hunting rifle. The lack of a protruding pistol grip exponentially reduces the looks of its lethality. The Garand has a bayonet lug but instead, its wood stock goes a country mile to reduce the looks of its lethality. The .30-06 Springfield round for which it is chambered is several times more powerful than the 5.56mm NATO round but the '06 is a fine hunting round, so it has to be less lethal than the NATO round. You're consumed with the appearance-- the cosmetics-- of the AR rifle just as were the brain-damaged dingbats who gave us that idiotic Sick Willy Klantoon weapons ban of 1994. The rifle "looks scary," so in no way can it have any positive attributes.

 

[1988c4]

If you are

I'm not sure the AR-type rifle was designed for killing people. If I could remember where I read it, I'd cite the source in which I read the AR-type rifle was originally a civilian weapon. It was designed a few years before 1958. Look at it: Lightweight, plastic furniture, easy to disassemble and clean, low recoil and inexpensive ammunition. Sounds to me like it was designed to be a sporting rifle. If you recall during that time, the United States was consumed with anything having to do with space exploration. For 1958, the AR-type rifle looks like something right out of Buck Rogers. I'd imagine its looks had something to do with its popularity.

To say that every person who owns an AR-type rifle is "drawn to it because of its lethality" is pure bullschumer. It's brain-dead sophistry and an insult to AR owners. I have never purchased an AR rifle "because of its lethality." I have never purchased any firearm "because of its lethality." Your all-encompassing statement paints every man and every woman who owns an AR-type rifle to be two seconds from committing a heinous crime with it. Every person I know who has one would never use it for anything illegal-- and neither would the overwhelmingly massive numbers of Americans who I have not met. Over 100 million Americans own over 300 million guns, and probably have close to a billion or two rounds of ammunition. If the everyday American gun owner was the problem, we'd certainly all know it.

The M1 Garand was definitely designed to kill the enemy. The US military was using bolt-action rifles with five-round stripper clips to load it during the insanity of combat. My contention is that you have no problem with the Garand-- because of its appearance. It looks like your father's hunting rifle. The lack of a protruding pistol grip exponentially reduces the looks of its lethality. The Garand has a bayonet lug but instead, its wood stock goes a country mile to reduce the looks of its lethality. The .30-06 Springfield round for which it is chambered is several times more powerful than the 5.56mm NATO round but the '06 is a fine hunting round, so it has to be less lethal than the NATO round. You're consumed with the appearance-- the cosmetics-- of the AR rifle just as were the brain-damaged dingbats who gave us that idiotic Sick Willy Klantoon weapons ban of 1994. The rifle "looks scary," so in no way can it have any positive attributes.

Asking

 

[1988c4]

The AR15 a full auto machine gun was designed and based off the Armalite Rifle 10. A machine gun buddy. Then came along the Armalite rifle 15 another machine gun.
Please don't involve yourself in this conversation when you think the AR15 was designed for sporting use.

 

[nvshooter]

The AR15, a full-auto machine gun, was designed and based off the Armalite Rifle 10. A machine-gun, buddy. Then came along the Armalite rifle 15, another machine gun. Please don't involve yourself in this conversation when you think the AR15 was designed for sporting use.

Are you Adam1182, come back under this new username? Your surly, irrational posts would seem to indicate such...

 

[joefoam]

The AR15 a full auto machine gun was designed and based off the Armalite Rifle 10. A machine gun buddy. Then came along the Armalite rifle 15 another machine gun.
Please don't involve yourself in this conversation when you think the AR15 was designed for sporting use.

Uh, excuse me. the AR-15 is not a full automatic weapon, so you have exposed your ignorance about the subject and should be ignored.

 

[Ura-Ki]

The AR15 a full auto machine gun was designed and based off the Armalite Rifle 10. A machine gun buddy. Then came along the Armalite rifle 15 another machine gun.
Please don't involve yourself in this conversation when you think the AR15 was designed for sporting use.

AR is a Machine gun, not even close, doesn't meet any of the requirements of such, so your argument is arrogant, obtuse, and baseless.
A S.A.W. , or a B.A.R., those are machine guns, not an AR or even the newer SCAR 16/17 not the TAVOR, or the FAL or the AK!
Nope, none are Machine guns!
How do I know this? For one, I spent several months doing advanced special weapons training in the Military, learning about every single small arm made after the smokeless revolution, all the sub types and differences within, I had to qualify on each and every type as Rifleman or better, and I had to show expert level knowledge of each and every one! Second, the U.S Military defined the exact set of requirements any and all firearms fall under, wether its a S.M.G ( MP-5 or P-90) a battle Rifle ( M-16/M-4) , and Assault Rifle (M 1923, M-1 Carbine) Not currently used except in very rare, specific cases since Vietnam), or a Machine Gun, light ( S.A.W) medium, ( M-1919) or heavy (M-2) so, exactly where do you think the AR fits in these specs, and note, i posted before the exact requirements for an "Assault Weapon" so it doesn't fit the bill there!

The M-16/M-4 Was selected as an augment to and ultimately replacement for the M-14, as such it was accepted as a BATTLE RIFLE, not an S.M.G. or "Assault Rifle" Same as the Russian's and their satellites with the AK and the SKS, They are in fact also Battle Rifles!
No current Military operating in the world currently operates a "Assault Rifle" under the specific terms laid out for them!

The Original Armalite WAS designed as a sporting rifle first, and when the U.S. Mil, first looked at it, they didn't like it and they didn't want it or it's chambering, both of which were bench rest and varmint rifles and ammo. It was Robert McNamara and some dumbarse Army general in charge of armaments procurement who insisted on adopting something no body wanted! Ultimately it was the Air Force who accepted it as a light aircrew weapon only, and not intended to be a Battle Rifle, same as the other branches. The Army kept moving the goal posts in the effective range requirements in hopes that this new plastic fantastic would never meet those requirements, and only through a lot of back door political maneuvering was it forced through and adopted as a BATTLE RIFLE!

 

[Ura-Ki]

For your information! Feel free to copy and print this so you can use against the anti 2nd sheeple!

An assault rifle must meet the following 4 criteria:
1)Detachable magazine fed. (so not a belt fed firearm, like a medium machine gun)
2) Shoulder fired. ie a rifle…(well, that's pretty obvious in hindsight)
3) Select fire (shooter can choose between semi-auto and burst/auto fire.) If a firearm is incapable of burst/full-auto, it's not an assault rifle. If it's only capable of full auto/burst fire, it's not an assault rifle either.
4) Intermediate calibre (Between a full power round like a battle rifle and a pistol round) So even something like a select fire FN FAL doesn't count, because the rounds it's firing are too darn big.
Tools of all sorts, including firearms, have specific categories. A jackhammer has a similar shaped end to it as a flat bladed screwdriver, but they're not the same thing. Think of it this way. You can use a butter knife to unscrew something, but it doesn't then define it as a screwdriver.
An assault rifle is a sub-set of all rifles. Rifles are largely defined by the firing action, the calibre, and size.
An assault rifle is not a machine gun. It's a rifle.
It's also not a sub-machinegun. An SMG is an automatic, shoulder fired firearm that fires pistol calibre rounds. It's historically close to an assault rifle, and their limitations (predominately in range) drove both the Germans and the Soviets to come up with successful assault rifle designs.
It's not a battle rifle. A battle rifle fires full-power rounds, such as .303, 7.62x 51 NATO, etc. These rifles have greater recoil, and can fire round much further, and with more power than an assault rifle. Further than is needed in 99% of fights. That 1% is coming back to bite in Afghanistan at the moment, where big open areas are leading to engagement ranges further than an assault rifle can properly engage. (The Soviets, armed with AKM's and AK-74's had the same problem in the early 1980's as they were shot at with old Lee-Enfield bolt-action rifles.)
Assault rifles are not defined by their looks, or their colours, or their size. The size of the magazine isn't part of the definition either.

 

[11Charlie]

AR-15 a MACHINE GUN?!!!!

 

[DB is Here]

If the AR-15 is a machine gun, then mine is broken and I demand a refund.

 

[11Charlie]

Meet the M60 and Ma Deuce!!! In case your wondering these are machine guns!!!

 

[DB is Here]

The AR15 was designed to kill people. All of you are drawn to it because of it's lethality.

Curious what you meant by this. Personally I find this statement offensive and beneath who the 2A community is.

 

[nvshooter]

If the AR-15 is a machine gun, then mine is broken and I demand a refund.

The line forms behind me...

I wasn't going to say it, but we've had a few members step-up and kind o' stand on my side of this thread. So here goes: I think 1988c4 is a mole. I think he's anti-Liberty and he's posting what he does in order to get us riled-up and maybe get someone to throw out a threat against him or some such verbiage. I think all of us who are on multiple boards have to be on guard for this kind of stuff. What better way to get a site closed-down than to have it declared a public threat or some sort of organ for criminality? There; I've said it. I await my punishment...

 

[Ura-Ki]

1988c4, exactly what is your intent here? You purposely miss state facts and insert incorrect terms and applications, I wonder if it's willful or if your trying to stir the pot with your insistence in using the term "Machine Gun" to depict the AR, to which we all know YOUR WRONG!

 

[nvshooter]

Colt marketed the redesigned rifle to various military services around the world and it was subsequently adopted by the U.S. military as the M16 rifle, which went into production in March 1964.[5][8]

I'm not very smart, but to me it looks like you are trying to argue that a military design has the ability to usurp a man's innate goodness and to then coerce him to commit heinous crimes because the weapon has a military heritage. Maybe you're not Adam1182. Are you Eric Swinewell? Bunghole O'Rourke? Come to think of it, I really do not care. Putting you on Ignore...

 

[joefoam]

I'm not very smart, but to me it looks like you are trying to argue that a military design has the ability to usurp a man's innate goodness and to then coerce him to commit heinous crimes because the weapon has a military heritage. Maybe you're not Adam1182. Are you Eric Swinewell? Bunghole O'Rourke? Come to think of it, I really do not care. Putting you on Ignore...

He probably owns a voodoo doll as well

 

[joefoam]

In 1959, ArmaLite sold its rights to the AR-10 and AR-15 to Colt due to financial difficulties, and limitations in terms of manpower and production capacity.[6] After modifications (most notably, the charging handle was re-located from under the carrying handle like AR-10 to the rear of the receiver),[7] Colt rebranded it the Colt ArmaLite AR-15. Colt marketed the redesigned rifle to various military services around the world and it was subsequently adopted by the U.S. military as the M16 rifle, which went into production in March 1964.[5][8]

There is your research whoever's got the degree on gun history.
The Armalite Rifle 15 is or at least was a machine gun. We only know it as the Colt AR15 not Armalite Rifle 15.
I should have written an essay so every reader would know what I was talking about and avoided confusion.

The gun makers want your money. They have convinced you that your flesh eater is intended for the gun range.
Examine bodies hit with the 5.56 round and tell me if you think that was intended for targets?
Granted the ice pic wounds do look like nothing but that pales to a big softball exit hole and a dead amigo. You are that guy who spends every dollar he can on his AR as he affectionately calls it. Laser sites so you are commando soldier. Fancy fore grips and a high power scope you are ready for the range to compete. Settle down man it's okay that lots of the mass shootings have been done with your sporting rifle. I read something about being afraid of the way it looks! I suppose if it is being pointed at me.

You are preaching to the wrong crowd here. Regulars on this site are generally well educated on firearms and are not going to buy your rants.

 

[MadDuner]

It didn't take very many posts before I put the guy on ignore....

 

[1988c4]

I thought we were talking about the 2nd amendment?
War is not about sporting events with shot guns. The current public outrage over gun laws as they are today made me wonder why nobody is willing to say out loud that the 2nd amendment is about the right to bear arms (military rifles) and form a militia.

 

[VoidShot9]

The AR15 was designed to kill people. All of you are drawn to it because of it's lethality. Yet the NRA says it defends sportsmans gun rights.

Your generalization is hyperbole. I suspect you know that to be the case and you're seeking to get a rise out of people?

Anyway, all I can say is, lethality wasn't a consideration when I bought my AR-15 style rifle. (Actually it's a Colt M4 Carbine.) I wanted a hobby platform, one that I can modify easily and try things out at the range. The fun factor is pretty high. I don't even really consider it my own personal home defense weapon, I have other guns for that purpose that don't make me worry as much about over penetration and a stray round exiting my house into a neighbors'.

That being said, you can bet your bottom dollar that I'd bring it along if I ever joined up with a citizen-formed militia. And I'm pretty sure the people on this forum feel the same about it, so I don't understand your point about folks not being willing to stand up and really state what the purpose of the 2nd Amendment is. I guess I just don't get it. Where's your complaint coming from?

 

[martytroy]

I thought we were talking about the 2nd amendment?
War is not about sporting events with shot guns. The current public outrage over gun laws as they are today made me wonder why nobody is willing to say out loud that the 2nd amendment is about the right to bear arms (military rifles) and form a militia.

Nobody's taking the bait. Have fun ;-).