White House: Reinstating 'Assault' Weapons Ban to Prevent Terrorism is Common Sense

a reply to: neo96

Your same source:

The AR-15 was first built in 1959 by ArmaLite as a small arms rifle for the United States armed forces.

originally posted by: CellDamage420
a reply to: introvert

Name those differences? I'll hold my breath while I wait.

Sure.

The two main differences that anti-gun people will latch-on to is the pistol grip and the flash suppression on the AR style rifle. I assume that is a flash suppressor, but it could be cosmetic. If it's cosmetic, it's a cheap AR. The AR also has, it appears, an interchangeable stock that could be fitted with a telescopic or adjustable stock.

Those are among the specific changes that were made to firearms after WW2 when the battlefield evolved from the typical battle rifle to the newer, more effective assault rifle style. The Germans pioneered that style and it spread accordingly.

The AR style rifle cannot be considered an assault rifle, though, because it does not have selective-fire capabilities. If it did, it would most definitely be classified as an assault rifle.

Also, the AR rifle is designed to be effecting at intermediate range with an intermediate-powered round. It's addition of a pistol grip and flash suppression lends to it's effectiveness in a fight.

The .223 hunting rifle does not have any of those qualities. It's design does not help it's effectiveness in a battle situation, it does not have the power of what a battle rifle should have and it is not a good choice for hunting either. The .223 round itself was designed for intermediate range/power firefights and does not have the power needed for effective hunting, as say a 30-06 or a .270.

Also, the AR platform allows for the addition of extra accessories that can be useful in military and law enforcement applications. The hunting rifle does not.

originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: Badgered1

The AR style rifle was designed as a military weapon. It has a rapid fire capability, a pistol grip, and a large magazine.

No it wasn't.

No military in the world would carry and AR.

The Ar-15 was specifically designed for the civilian market, and as such was never designed with Mil=Spec standards.

Literally they are apples to oranges.

The AR was, in fact, designed for military use to get away from the traditional battle rifles and the M1 series.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

A fully automatic AR-15.

Not the semi auto Colt gave us.

blog.modernmechanix.com...

They are not even close to being the same kind of weapons.

originally posted by: neo96
They are not even close to being the same kind of weapons.

I understand that, however the original AR was a military weapon. When ArmaLite sold the property to Colt they rebranded both the automatic and semi-automatic.

a reply to: NateTheAnimator

My apology for my mistake on what you meant. Like I said the loss of rights has been on going and to get our politicians to admit they made a poor law is nearly impossible. I agree with you about "band-aid legislation". Sadly what needs to be done is a review of the laws already in place and eliminate redundant laws and out-dated laws. We have a better chance of seeing all the politicians being abducted by aliens then seeing that happen. Way too many laws are made in the aftermath of a event, hastily written and basically made to pander to emotion instead of being researched for the most effective method. That's what happens when politicians are not held accountable for the laws they pass.

a reply to: neo96

OK.
Let's ban the guns that really enable a "terrorist act".
I think we would then ban all guns with the likely exception of the double barreled 12 ga. shotgun.
Almost every other gun has been demonized in one way or another because of they can be used by terrorist.

Come to think of it, this is probably the best all around gun to have any way. Maybe we should all be required to carry one.
As an offensive weapon, you can get anything you ask for; as a defensive weapon, no one will argue with you.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Its' basically trying to compare a modern jet to the Wright Brothers first plane.

One goes faster. The other went slower.

originally posted by: TheBulk

originally posted by: introvert
I'm confused. In the other thread, which you quickly left after being exposed, you were ok with gun confiscation for Muslims and mosques, but now you get upset at the White House suggesting an assault weapons ban?

You're not very consistent.

You guys prattle on about not demonize mostly peaceful Muslims, but you demonize mostly peaceful guns owners and think nothing of it.

I am a peaceful gun owner and I'm only trying to hold people to account for their beliefs. Neo was all for gun confiscation under an AWB when it happened in France to Muslims, but opposes it here in the US.

I oppose an AWB no matter what, not just when it takes guns from Muslims.

That is one of the reasons I dislike most pro-2nd people standing up for my 2nd amendment right because most don't understand their right and only apply it in a way that benefits those they agree with.

a reply to: introvert

I am a peaceful gun owner and I'm only trying to hold people to account for their beliefs. Neo was all for gun confiscation under an AWB when it happened in France to Muslims, but opposes it here in the US.

What was said:

Three mosques shut down in anti-terror raids as officers seize 330 war weapons That's something Americans will never hear being done here. Cause it would be 'racist'. Vivre France!

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Followed up with this:

I really wish people would bother to READ. So 3 mosque's raided- places of worship and seize 330 weapons. People come up with 'Neo supports gun confiscation'. Just quit while you all are behind.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Neither comment is germane to this topic.

What I dislike is my thread getting trolled because someone doesn't want to discuss the current topic.

That was about closing gun show loopholes, and instituting gun bans cause it's common sense.

a reply to: Edumakated
I was hoping the response wouldn't be conspiracy related. Have they not issued a statement for the reasons or is it just the usual non sensical statements.

originally posted by: neo96
Its' basically trying to compare a modern jet to the Wright Brothers first plane.

The difference between the Armalite AR-15 and the Colt AR-15 are not nearly that dramatic.

originally posted by: rossacus
a reply to: forkedtongue
Well when people normally kick and scream their rights are being violated, it's normally for a need. You are very right you have the right to one, because that is the mentality.

It normally stems from a need or desire. If you have neither than why would you come to that opinion. I ask these questions cos I genuinely want to know. I try to understand but am often met with constitutional rights as a justification for these opinions.

I appreciate your genuine search for knowledge, so I will try and give you my answer. I am a libertarian and believe in the non-aggression principle and the notion of 'live and let live'. The essence of the 2nd Amendment, and the underlying foundation of why I choose to own firearms, is that even if things seem ok now, the only thing protecting you from aggression is a firearm or weapon.

That could be from a burglar / mugger, it could be from an abusive ex-spouse, it could be from a tyrannical government. It could be from terrorism, or a mass shooter. All of these things I mentioned are statistically rare to be involved in as an individual, but - because they all are possible I choose to exercise a means to defend myself from aggression.

Believe it or not, I own guns because I value my life and the lives of those I love so much. Firearms are the way that I protect myself (or at least have a chance of protecting myself) and those I love, from various forms of aggression.

originally posted by: rossacus
a reply to: forkedtongue
Well when people normally kick and scream their rights are being violated, it's normally for a need. You are very right you have the right to one, because that is the mentality.

It normally stems from a need or desire. If you have neither than why would you come to that opinion. I ask these questions cos I genuinely want to know. I try to understand but am often met with constitutional rights as a justification for these opinions.

You asked why people need one.

I explained, need plays no part, or matters.

Sure some folks have a need, but that is besides the point.

No need is required.

You asked a question, I just aswered it honestly, both from my view, and a legal standpoint.

Asking why we need, necessitates a justification.

When no justification is necessary.

I can, therefore I do.

Simple as that.

a reply to: hangedman13

Sadly what needs to be done is a review of the laws already in place and eliminate redundant laws and out-dated laws.

Yes I concur! I believe only a 40 laws out of god knows how many have been repealed. I think of the outdated pieces of legislation that should actually be considered at the very least for an update should be the constitution. Not to remove any amendments but to re amend it to fit the modern times like I said previously.

The unfortunate thing is that no one is putting any serious accountability on these politicians to take responsibility for the crappy laws they enact. To highlight something that BrianFlanders said earlier in this thread, is essentially that the politicians prey on our ignorance to enact such laws and count on our ignorance when they flop.

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: forkedtongue

originally posted by: CellDamage420

On the left a .223 hunting rifle, on the right an AR-15 "assault" rifle. Both chambered in .223. Both fire the same round, the same number of rounds, at the same muzzle velocity, with the same ballistic characteristics. Functionally identical weapons in every way, yet under the AWB one is legal one is not. Stupidity at its utmost.

And not one gun grabber will understand your point, because the black one is a full auto machine gun meant exclusively for use on a battle field, CNN told them, and everyone knows, they wouldnt lie.

There are also some very distinct differences between the two that make them two complete different firearms. Under military standards, they are not comparable.

The only difference between the 2 in functionality or end result is look, period.

What military standards?

Neither is a military grade weapon.

Both are civilian models.

Both shoot the same round at the same rate and same rate.

Besides looks they are the exact same gun.

I wonder what Obama will go after for banning if is another terrorist attack in our soil.

originally posted by: rossacus
a reply to: Edumakated
You are correct. My premise was based on a definition provided in another thread and based off the responses I was clearly wrong.

If everything you say is true, and it is merely a cosmetic affect, why is there an initiative to get rid of them. Is it for the "terror it can incite" or can they be easily modified beyond there stock capabilities. There has to be a reason no? I understand now why people are so "enraged " if this is the case but what is the justification for this initiative by Obama?

Trying to undrstand...please be gentle.lol

Because, like most gun grabbers, he knows nothing about guns, and thinks the black one looks scary.

That is the truth of it.

a reply to: neo96

Ok, snowflake. I'll stop asking for you to be consistent on gun rights. It's quite telling that you still have not addressed the specific accusations.

Anyway, good day.

a reply to: forkedtongue

I already addressed this above.

Take a look if you wish.