An honest question on assault rifles.

Taichiliberal said:
So it's a better, more effective killing machine...given it's ammo capacity and higher impact ammo used?
Click to expand...

"higher impact ammo" appears to be another bit of ignorance. The 5.56 NATO round is a medium power round. The military adopted it because it was lower recoil, thus easier for a soldier to control when firing full-auto. It is also less lethal than the 7.62 NATO round that was the previous standard, the theory there being that the enemy would have to divert resources into caring for their wounded. And, in many states, it's legally not powerful enough to use to hunt deer.
 
rjhenn said:
"higher impact ammo" appears to be another bit of ignorance. The 5.56 NATO round is a medium power round. The military adopted it because it was lower recoil, thus easier for a soldier to control when firing full-auto. It is also less lethal than the 7.62 NATO round that was the previous standard, the theory there being that the enemy would have to divert resources into caring for their wounded. And, in many states, it's legally not powerful enough to use to hunt deer.
Click to expand...
Which 7.62 are you referring to? 51?
 
rjhenn said:
"higher impact ammo" appears to be another bit of ignorance. The 5.56 NATO round is a medium power round. The military adopted it because it was lower recoil, thus easier for a soldier to control when firing full-auto. It is also less lethal than the 7.62 NATO round that was the previous standard, the theory there being that the enemy would have to divert resources into caring for their wounded. And, in many states, it's legally not powerful enough to use to hunt deer.
Click to expand...

True but there are variables. I used to hate shooting my m-14 because of the recoil.
 
Cypress said:
There you have it, folks. A full on admission of what I have been saying for weeks.
These assault rifles are for dudes who want to Play Rambo, need a penis extender, want to play solider, or just generally want to have the toys to make them seem like a bad ass.

I had to put up with howls of protest from the reich wing, but I have to commend you for the honest admission of the real and actual reason a lot of dudes want an assault rifle.
Click to expand...
You appear to be just as biased and ignorant as the other hoplophobic idiots here. That's not what he said. And the AR15 is not an assault rifle. It is a semi-automatic rifle that looks like an M-16, which is an assault rifle.
 
Taichiliberal said:
So with the supposition of what could have done a better job at Sandy Hook aside ( I deal with the historical fact, not what might have been) essentially, the AR-15 (style) weapons are indeed assault weapons by your descriptions...they are NOT hunting rifles, and as you point out a hand gun does the job of self defense (usually for the home) quite adequately. Your response is apropos to this:

https://www.csgv.org/issues-archive/assault-weapons-faq/

Thanks for the honest response.
Click to expand...
The AWB was more ignorance and paranoia. Your own source indicates that it did nothing to interrupt the supply of so-called "assault weapons".
 
Last edited:
Taichiliberal said:
No shit sherlock....thanks for providing proof that a hunting rifle, or a shotgun or a handgun could have done the exact same thing! Or are you saying different? History would school you better, my little bigot.
Click to expand...

Where's there any proof? Isn't that just the conjecture that you object to?
 
Taichiliberal said:
My, but you dance well in your own bullshit. Where did I say that I didn't believe in the 2nd Amendment? And since by LAW you can't have weapons that select to fully automatic, your comparison to the the AR15 is interesting, given that you gunners swear up and down that it's NOT a military style weapon. But as usual, historical facts make a fool of you https://www.justplainpolitics.com/s...stion-on-assault-rifles&p=2311903#post2311903
Click to expand...
It is a military style weapon. That basically just means that it looks like an M-16. It does not function like an M-16. Up until NFA '34 anyone could own an automatic weapon. It was the illegal use of them by Prohibition-era criminals that led to their restriction. Yet another unintended consequence of government stupidity, just as with the War on Drugs.
 
domer76 said:
Is it a right to keep ANY firearm? I'll spare you your inevitable stupid shit response.

No.
Click to expand...
It was up until the Civil War, then the racists began trimming back the 2nd so they could restrict the 2nd Amendment rights of blacks. You could even own cannon.
 
Cypress said:
I have handled firearms, but I am no weapons expert.
But this forum's self-appointed weapons experts really do not seem like they really know what they are talking about. An AR15 is a fair to middling self defense weapon. It is actually useless as a carry and conceal, and when you are in in your house a shotgun is the best weapon known to mankind for overwhelming close quarters firepower. And I know this shit without even being a true professional expert on firearms.

p.s., I commend you for starting this thread, because I have seen some overt and tacit admissions here of the actual reasons a lot of gun humpers actually want to have assault rifles -- nothing of which have to do with any of the traditional reasons for having a firearm. And I really do not think these Rambo wannabes are actually part of a "well regulated militia" tasked with defending the country. Really, their pea shooters would be inconsequential and utterly ineffective against an invading army with modern equipment. Wolverines!!
Click to expand...
You need to tell that to the Taliban.
 
countryboy said:
Lol, long guns are one of the worst weapons for close quarters defense.
Click to expand...

The AR-15 is not a "long gun". A true "long gun" has a longer barrel and stock than the AR-15, which is designed for more maneuverability in close quarters than your typical long gun.
 
rjhenn said:
The AR-15 is not a "long gun". A true "long gun" has a longer barrel and stock than the AR-15, which is designed for more maneuverability in close quarters than your typical long gun.
Click to expand...

"A long gun is a category of firearms with longer barrels than other classes. In small arms, a long gun is generally designed to be held by both hands and braced against the shoulder, in contrast to a handgun, which can be fired being held with a single hand.
Long gun - Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long_gun

I believe the AR-15 meets this definition.
 
"The Constitution preserves "the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation...(where) the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms." (James Madison of Virginia, The Federalist, No. 46)
 
Taichiliberal said:
No, it's about the almighty dollar and the gun manufacturers making money off of a model that they initially couldn't sell very well to the military. It's about feeding off the paranoia of the average citizen. When you talk about "parity" you should remember that the NRA propaganda just 20 years ago was swearing that ANY gun control was a slippery slope to total gun confiscation and ban to the civilian population. By that take, you state that weapons of ANY caliber are a threat of resistance to the potential totalitarian/fascist/communist state. Any soldier worth his weight will tell you that they would rather NOT face a population armed with hunting rifles, rifles, handguns and shotguns of various caliber.

The militia is the "parity"....and that today is the National Guard and various state recognized & sanctioned militia. Other than that, the average citizen does have a right to a weapon....not a military grade one.

Well we know that the NRA blather NEVER had a chance of happening and was NEVER part of any proposal. The AWB of 1994 was an attempt to keep para-military weapons out of the general population and thus subsequently off the black market and out of the hands of potential nut jobs and terrorists.
Click to expand...
As usual, a little bit of truth and a lot of blather. The paranoia belongs to the gun control fanatics. The National Guard is not "the militia". That's according to federal law. The National Guard is "the organized militia". The rest of us are "the unorganized militia". The AWB was a half-assed attempt to ban firearms that some found particularly scary. GCA'68 was an attempt to keep guns out of the hands of "potential nut jobs and terrorists". It was a failure, too. Gun control in this country started as an attempt to restrict blacks and has progressed to restricting everybody, with attempts made to ban certain classes of firearms. It looks like the NRA's "slippery slope" argument is coming true. If you think otherwise, you're ignoring what your 'side' is saying. The AR-15 is not a "military grade" weapon. That's just more of your ignorance and paranoia. And the gun manufacturers never tried to sell the AR-15 to the military. Yhat was the M-16, which the AR is a civilian copy of.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top