It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

AR-15's are NOT designed to kill

page: 15
16
<< 12  13  14    16  17  18 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 26 2016 @ 11:35 AM
link   

originally posted by: Thecakeisalie
a reply to: 00018GE

Wow...just wow.

A gun is a gun, and guns kill. Forget the rhetoric, this is a weapon that has no place in any civilians home IMO. A personal pistol or rifle for protection or hunting? sure. but a weapon like this? There is no need for the public to own military grade weapons, yes there is a inherent need to protect ones family but assault rifles? Do some of these "enthusiasts" expect the Spetsnaz to burst through their door? or maybe it could be a dozen North Korean sleeper agents!

Weapons like these belong on the battlefield, not in the home.
First, it is NOT a military grade weapon. Fact.
Second, pistols are used to kill far more people. Fact
Third, It IS a rifle just like any other rifle. Fact.
Fourth, It is NOT an assault rifle. Fact.

If you don't want to own one then don't.
Oh, and FYI, I DON'T own one.






posted on Jun, 26 2016 @ 11:46 AM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Mirthful Me




That's no accident.

Apparently MadMac was not an officer.

But can I refer my leading question to you? Do military officers have the authority to interpret the Constitution or are they required to follow the interpretation of the Court?


Lulz... Interpret... The only reason one would "interpret" the Constitution is if one didn't agree with what it clearly and plainly states. Interpretation is a ploy by the liberal/progressive/statist/Marxists that wish subvert this once great nation. There is no need to interpret the Constitution in general terms, and there is no reason for a military officer (or enlisted) to concern themselves with the "interpreting" the Constitution in the execution of their military duties.



posted on Jun, 26 2016 @ 11:46 AM
link   

originally posted by: Bybyots
a reply to: VivreLibre

No true American is anti-gun, but any reasonable American must be against military weapons being available to civilians.

Military weapons and ammunition should be segregated from civilian life.




They ARE!



posted on Jun, 26 2016 @ 11:49 AM
link   
a reply to: 00018GE




AR-15's never were on the battle field. They are NOT select fire weapons.


not true, the first rifles in Vietnam were AR's, it was sometime before they received the M-16 designation.


Many of the U.S. advisors in Vietnam were equipped with the new AR-15 rifle. Rifles began to surface throughout Vietnam, totally outside the normal small arms procurement process. The first troops using the AR-15 under combat conditions were very enthusiastic, preferring it to all other weapons. The South Vietnamese were impressed with the rifle, as well. In December 1961, Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara authorized a purchase of 1,000 AR-15s.
AR-15/M16: The Rifle That Was Never Supposed to Be


Colt sold many AR's to many other countries and it wasn't until that they Colt finaily won the contract with the U.S. that the designation M-16 given.

here is the wiki,

In 1959, ArmaLite sold its rights to the AR-10 and AR-15 to Colt. After a tour by Colt of the Far East, the first sale of AR-15s was made to Malaya on September 30, 1959. Colt manufactured their first 300 AR-15s in December 1959.[13] Colt marketed the AR-15 rifle to various military services around the world. After modifications (most notably the relocation of the charging handle from under the carrying handle to the rear of the receiver), the redesigned rifle was adopted by the United States military as the M16 rifle.[14]
AR-15


it helps to know a little something.






edit on 26-6-2016 by hounddoghowlie because: (no reason given)

edit on 26-6-2016 by hounddoghowlie because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 26 2016 @ 12:05 PM
link   
For those willing to casually dismiss the God given rights of all Americans from the "safety" of their mother's basement, ponder this:

“And how we burned in the camps later, thinking: What would things have been like if every Security operative, when he went out at night to make an arrest, had been uncertain whether he would return alive and had to say good-bye to his family? Or if, during periods of mass arrests, as for example in Leningrad, when they arrested a quarter of the entire city, people had not simply sat there in their lairs, paling with terror at every bang of the downstairs door and at every step on the staircase, but had understood they had nothing left to lose and had boldly set up in the downstairs hall an ambush of half a dozen people with axes, hammers, pokers, or whatever else was at hand? After all, you knew ahead of time that those bluecaps were out at night for no good purpose. And you could be sure ahead of time that you’d be cracking the skull of a cutthroat. Or what about the Black Maria sitting out there on the street with one lonely chauffeur — what if it had been driven off or its tires spiked? The Organs would very quickly have suffered a shortage of officers and transport and, notwithstanding all of Stalin’s thirst, the cursed machine would have ground to a halt!”

~~Alexander Solzhenitsyn

To ignore the painful reality of a helpless population, to believe that it can't happen here, that it can't happen to "me;" is the simplest demonstration of ignorance possible. I won't sit in some camp "burning" at the thought of what I might have been able to do to preserve my freedom and liberty.



posted on Jun, 26 2016 @ 12:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: CaDreamer

originally posted by: VivreLibre
a reply to: Bybyots

Oh I wasn't aware that normal civilians can just go out and buy military grade hardware

Do you have a link to where I can go and buy those?
i do its called texas....you can buy any gun there even a tank


So you just walk into the local walmart and ask for a grenade launcher?



posted on Jun, 26 2016 @ 12:23 PM
link   
a reply to: VivreLibre

yes you can buy a M203, but not at walmart. can't buy ammunition for them except flares.

here is colts version.
Colt M203 40mm Grenade Launcher

edit on 26-6-2016 by hounddoghowlie because: (no reason given)


i should have been motr clear
from the wiki,

In the United States, M203 grenade launcher attachments fitted with the standard rifled 40mm barrel are classified as "Destructive Devices" under the National Firearms Act part 26 U.S.C. 5845, 27 CFR 479.11,[28] because they are a "non-sporting" firearm with a bore greater than one-half inch in diameter. M203s are on the civilian NFA market but are limited as most manufacturers have quit selling to the civilian markets. New M203 Launchers sell for approximately $2,000 plus a $200 transfer tax, and new manufacture 40mm training ammunition is available for $5 to $10 per cartridge, as of March 2011. High explosive 40mm grenades are available for $400 to $500 per cartridge; however, they are exceedingly rare on the civilian market, as each grenade constitutes a Destructive Device on its own, and must be registered with the Federal government, requiring payment of a $200 tax and compliance with storage regulations for high explosives. There are also sub-caliber adapters available for the 40mm M203 (and M79) grenade launchers, which will allow the use of standard 12 gauge shotgun shells[29] and .22 Rimfire ammo.
Civilian ownership in the United States
[30]

edit on 26-6-2016 by hounddoghowlie because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 26 2016 @ 12:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: Soloprotocol

My bad, so AR does not stand for Assault Rifle, easy mistake to make for someone who lives in a nation where fire arms are generally prohibited(short of being on a range or for farmers using them for pest control purpose).

Still a rifle that has 20 or 30 rounds in the magazine. IMHO That's still a killing machine.

And if that's not the case, what about all the hunters that favor the weapon in question? Whats there deal, are they just out to wound and mame the poor animals as apposed to kill the beasts? I think not!

Not forgetting that the weapon is also rather easily convertible to fully automatic.

My apologizes all the same for assuming that A.R stood for Assault Rifle.


No Worries mate, I was just bouncing in before the Yanks did...Scotland here mate..
I couldn't give a rats arse what the AR stands for or if it's classed as a Assault weapon or not.



posted on Jun, 26 2016 @ 12:38 PM
link   

originally posted by: 00018GE
I get tired of hearing the news media talking heads saying that AR-15's are designed to kill. AR-15's and the like AND military rounds in general are designed to wound NOT kill. Wounding an enemy soldier takes more soldiers off the battlefield than killing enemy soldiers. These kinds of weapons are designed to wound. I don't understand why no one calls them on this more often.


I can't believe this stupid urban myth is still getting passed around. This was floating around in the 80s when the SA80 was first issued in the UK. SAA instructors didn't know the answer when the troops asked why they had smaller rounds than the 7.62 so made some crap up which sounded reasonable.

I have seen the original research for the swap to a smaller calibre. It was estimated that most firefights were at ranges under 300m with most within 100m. The 7.62 NATO was optimised out to 600m+. This was seen as overkill and had too many disadvantages (size, weight, recoil, slower follow up shots etc). 5.56x45 was seen to produce lethal hits and penetrate CRISAT targets within realistic combat ranges (sub 300m) without the disadvantages.

Anyone who says that 5.56 is designed to wound has not seen what it does to the body. I've been firing it professionally for 26 years and have instructed in it's use for most of that. I have seen the effects of the bullet when it hits where it should. It kills.

Trust me, if it is designed to wound it was a bloody poor design.



posted on Jun, 26 2016 @ 01:18 PM
link   
a reply to: Mirthful Me

Mirthful Me?

I left because I can't start the loop up again with you beginning at "We need them 'cause "they" have them and we will someday have to kill "them" with them (military assault weapons)".

I don't have the capacity, emotionally or mentally, to argue with someone that does not understand the difference between a weapon and a weapons-system (especially when they should know better).

So you get Vincent.

I have watched paranoid gun-nuts over the years from very close up as they scrabble about assembling their little collection of "tree-watering" supplies.

They make me nervous, and I can skin a cat with the best of them.

So..............

Have a better Sunday.

Coward?

Okay.



Enjoy your basement full toys.

ETA: I'll keep going till you get back:

So, listen. It dawned on me this morning as I lay in bed that this argument about the assault rifles, the one that you and I and everyone else is engaged in is especially pernicious and poisonous.

I can't believe what I am hearing from some of my own family members and I realized that if I weren't careful that I might find myself on the nasty-end of an estranged relationship with one or more of them if I didn't just shut up.

Which is, again, why you got Vincent.

I mean, it's not like you haven't seen me around here forever, I was just trying to be funny and then you were all serious and called me a coward.

So....I've decided to just lose you, instead of any family members. I'll just hack it out here with you in simulation instead of taking the show on the road.

Because if I did, I would find that the only argument that folks like you have is: "But we needs them because "theys" have them.

You have no goddamned argument.

All you have is an emotional plea directed at a document that no longer properly serves the people that have depended on its mandates.

P.S. How's that basement? (do you really think I live in my Mom's basement?)


???

P.S. How was Church? Did you nervously "joke" about assault rifles with your cronies?
edit on 26-6-2016 by Bybyots because:




posted on Jun, 26 2016 @ 01:55 PM
link   
Mom's Basement vs Retired Amnesiac: Take 1

So what's worse than being driven in to Mom's basement due to heavy change in America?

Being a retiree of some sort that doesn't have to continue struggling to make their lives relevant and economically viable in the American workplace. They have no idea what's going on. They only get "out" on a careful schedule and haven't a goddamned clue as to how the world has changed and why.

These folks collectively have a deep memory and nostalgia problem that is holding this country back; I am pretty sure it is the first warning signs of early group-Alzheimer's disease.

These folks are usually baby-boomers that worked as some sort of civil servant or engineer, and who got on the last boat to a pension-check that America will ever see.

Meanwhile, my generation, Gen X, has had to actually re-manufacture themselves professionally, over and over again to keep up.

So, personally? While the amnesiac baby-boomers, have been spending their long, work-free days clinging to their guns and imagining some fantastical long-lost America that only a Trump can return them to. The rest of us have been suffering through the long process of actually spending the time and money to re-tool themselves so that they can rejoin the American workforce more powerfully and continue to make America the greatest country on earth (I should have my student loan debt relieved due to this post).

...
edit on 26-6-2016 by Bybyots because:




posted on Jun, 26 2016 @ 02:01 PM
link   
a reply to: 00018GE



They ARE!


Explain.




posted on Jun, 26 2016 @ 02:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: CharlesT
May I refer you to Article VI.

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any state to the Contrary notwithstanding.


It was late and I had been partaking in just a little George Dickel last night so I was not in the proper atmosphere for Constitutional debate with you but I thought I would re-lick that calf just now. You said the Fed has authority to legislate all law governing citizens and I said Hogwash. You quoted Article VI. I'll quote Article 1 Section 7-8. Section 7.

All bills for raising revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with amendments as on other Bills.

Every bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a law, be presented to the President of the United States; if he approve he shall sign it, but if not he shall return it, with his objections to that House in which it shall have originated, who shall enter the objections at large on their journal, and proceed to reconsider it. If after such reconsideration two thirds of that House shall agree to pass the bill, it shall be sent, together with the objections, to the other House, by which it shall likewise be reconsidered, and if approved by two thirds of that House, it shall become a law. But in all such cases the votes of both Houses shall be determined by yeas and nays, and the names of the persons voting for and against the bill shall be entered on the journal of each House respectively. If any bill shall not be returned by the President within ten days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to him, the same shall be a law, in like manner as if he had signed it, unless the Congress by their adjournment prevent its return, in which case it shall not be a law.

Every order, resolution, or vote to which the concurrence of the Senate and House of Representatives may be necessary (except on a question of adjournment) shall be presented to the President of the United States; and before the same shall take effect, shall be approved by him, or being disapproved by him, shall be repassed by two thirds of the Senate and House of Representatives, according to the rules and limitations prescribed in the case of a bill.
Section 8.

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

To borrow money on the credit of the United States;

To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes;

To establish a uniform rule of naturalization, and uniform laws on the subject of bankruptcies throughout the United States;

To coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin, and fix the standard of weights and measures;

To provide for the punishment of counterfeiting the securities and current coin of the United States;

To establish post offices and post roads;

To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries;

To constitute tribunals inferior to the Supreme Court;

To define and punish piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, and offenses against the law of nations;

To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water;

To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years;

To provide and maintain a navy;

To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces;

To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

To exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten miles square) as may, by cession of particular states, and the acceptance of Congress, become the seat of the government of the United States, and to exercise like authority over all places purchased by the consent of the legislature of the state in which the same shall be, for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards, and other needful buildings;--And

To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.

Also, the bill of Rights

Amendment IX

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Amendment X

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

The Federal government was granted certain authority but certainly not exclusive authority over all legal affairs.

So just who was cherry picking the Constitution? You maybe?



posted on Jun, 26 2016 @ 02:23 PM
link   
Agreed. I've always thought making a bullet that
that incapacitates or maimes, if that
makes one feel better about the stopping
power, should be an easy invention at our
tech level.
A Morning After Bullet
as the first clip in a regular beat LEO's
secondary side arm would save police departments
millions in legal fees. If that first clip doesn't
do the trick or the situation warrants
feel free to go with the live side arm.

Fact is unarmed intoxicated and mentally impaired people get killed
all the time "reaching " for something. If this is the case
LEO's could use the Morning After Bullet.


edit on 26-6-2016 by UnderKingsPeak because: more

edit on 26-6-2016 by UnderKingsPeak because: sp



posted on Jun, 26 2016 @ 03:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: Bybyots
a reply to: Mirthful Me

Mirthful Me?

I left because I can't start the loop up again with you beginning at "We need them 'cause "they" have them and we will someday have to kill "them" with them (military assault weapons)".

I don't have the capacity, emotionally or mentally, to argue with someone that does not understand the difference between a weapon and a weapons-system (especially when they should know better).

So you get Vincent.

I have watched paranoid gun-nuts over the years from very close up as they scrabble about assembling their little collection of "tree-watering" supplies.

They make me nervous, and I can skin a cat with the best of them.

So..............

Have a better Sunday.

Coward?

Okay.



Enjoy your basement full toys.

ETA: I'll keep going till you get back:

So, listen. It dawned on me this morning as I lay in bed that this argument about the assault rifles, the one that you and I and everyone else is engaged in is especially pernicious and poisonous.

I can't believe what I am hearing from some of my own family members and I realized that if I weren't careful that I might find myself on the nasty-end of an estranged relationship with one or more of them if I didn't just shut up.

Which is, again, why you got Vincent.

I mean, it's not like you haven't seen me around here forever, I was just trying to be funny and then you were all serious and called me a coward.

So....I've decided to just lose you, instead of any family members. I'll just hack it out here with you in simulation instead of taking the show on the road.

Because if I did, I would find that the only argument that folks like you have is: "But we needs them because "theys" have them.

You have no goddamned argument.

All you have is an emotional plea directed at a document that no longer properly serves the people that have depended on its mandates.

P.S. How's that basement? (do you really think I live in my Mom's basement?)


???

P.S. How was Church? Did you nervously "joke" about assault rifles with your cronies?


Quoited in it's (current) entirety because QP can't form a cogent thought and stick with it... You removed your entire post because it exposed your true nature, and you were embarrassed. You may view anyone who defends the Constitution (all of it, not just the Second Amendment) as the living, breathing embodiment of "Falling Down," but what you'll truly find is someone who has stuck with it, made no excuses and wants to preserve what was once the greatest experiment to ever grace this planet... These are not wretched mopes bemoaning what has been handed to them on a silver platter while they cling to their social structure via free WiFi courtesy of a latte purchase made two hours earlier. No, they are well grounded citizens, hoping to pass on to future generations what they hold so dear, a priceless gift that the rest of the world will give everything, including their lives to obtain.

That may be a "sick fantasy" to you, bleat your liberal/progressive/statist/Marxist mantra regarding firearms all you want, it will not change the course of this once great nation.

On a professional development note... You may want reexamine your need to "re-manufacture" one's self... Perhaps nothing was built in the first place; it takes little reading between your lines to know you are and unemployed basement dweller...

Your poRsts drip with angst, the schadenfreude is all mine...



posted on Jun, 26 2016 @ 03:23 PM
link   
Embarrassing this thread is 15 pages long...why is this not in skunk works or the hoax forum?



posted on Jun, 26 2016 @ 03:26 PM
link   
a reply to: game over man

Why should it be in "Skunkworks"?

?




posted on Jun, 26 2016 @ 03:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: Bybyots
a reply to: game over man

Why should it be in "Skunkworks"?

?





Are you kidding me, guns are not designed to kill?


ATS Skunk Works: This forum is dedicated to the all-important highly speculative topics that may not be substantiated by many, if any facts and span the spectrum of topics discussed on ATS. Readers and users should be aware that extreme theories without corroboration are embraced in this forum. Discussion topics and follow-up responses in this forum will likely tend to lean in favor of conspiracies, scandals, and cover-ups. Members who would seek to refute such theories should be mindful of AboveTopSecret.com's tradition of focusing on conspiracy theory, cover-ups, and scandals.



posted on Jun, 26 2016 @ 03:36 PM
link   
a reply to: game over man





Are you kidding me, guns are not designed to kill?



Just checking. Thanks!

This has been a mad thread.



(post by Bybyots removed for a manners violation)

new topics

top topics



 
16
<< 12  13  14    16  17  18 >>

log in

join