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: 2
16
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 25 2016 @ 08:17 PM
link   
a reply to: 00018GE

So anybody who hunts with an AR-15 is an evil sadistic bastard, winging forest animals left and right only to watch them suffer?

You didn't make me like the AR-15 any better; you just made me despise hunters who use them.




posted on Jun, 25 2016 @ 08:20 PM
link   
a reply to: Abysha

GREAT you don't need one,judging by what you know of them ,stick with crying, there are enough whop MIGHT help.



posted on Jun, 25 2016 @ 08:20 PM
link   
You know what's REALLY designed not to kill and still can easily? A baseball bat. I don't see the correlation with an AR 15.



posted on Jun, 25 2016 @ 08:21 PM
link   
a reply to: intrepid
Yeah.
A three foot piece of 2" iron pipe would work pretty well too.



posted on Jun, 25 2016 @ 08:21 PM
link   
5.56 was not selected becouse it wounds instead of kill, it was selected because it had less recoil than 7.62 and therefore higher rates of fire could be achieved



posted on Jun, 25 2016 @ 08:21 PM
link   
a reply to: 00018GE

Glad to know!
Now, let's put them all back on the battlefield where they belong in the hands of a soldier and not let them get into civilian hands. Apparently, when not used on a battlefield they kill.



posted on Jun, 25 2016 @ 08:28 PM
link   
Um depends on rounds... otherwise why not use paintball guns in fact why not just use paint ball guns then score it like the Olympics and say ok game over you get nothing.

The M-16 is based off of the 22 and that thing was designed to tumble end over end and tear ass up once it hit.

Buck shot is designed to roll around the entire rib cage detaching everything inside to comes into contact with and when the animal is opened all the guts etc basically just fall into a bucket below...

Mind you not a fan of guns but its not the rifle it's the ammo.



posted on Jun, 25 2016 @ 08:29 PM
link   
a reply to: Indigent

No it wasn't it was taken up because troops could carry more than .308 (SincE the M14 was in use)
AND TO WOUND
www.onlythebestfirearms.com...



posted on Jun, 25 2016 @ 08:30 PM
link   
a reply to: desert

Bad guys already have them.



posted on Jun, 25 2016 @ 08:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: intrepid
If they are not designed to kill why do they have a killing projectile as opposed to say.... feathers?


This isn't helping the gun lobby.


Then what's the states excuse for having them?

Better yet what is the excuse of denying Americans EQUAL protection under the LAWS?



posted on Jun, 25 2016 @ 08:38 PM
link   
a reply to: neo96

What? Americans can purchase an AR.



posted on Jun, 25 2016 @ 08:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: cavtrooper7
a reply to: Abysha

GREAT you don't need one,judging by what you know of them ,stick with crying, there are enough whop MIGHT help.


I don't quite understand what you are even saying. Whop? Anyway, I was trying to point out the contradiction and it has nothing to do with my poor understanding of the rifle.

If you told me that you take your truck to work every day and then told me that trucks aren't meant for commuting, that would either mean that you are stupid for driving the truck to work or maybe you are wrong and that trucks really are meant to be driven.

Same thing. I don't think hunters are stupid for using AR-15s because I fully believe that AR-15s are meant to kill. Why would you want to wound animals?



posted on Jun, 25 2016 @ 08:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: neo96

What? Americans can purchase an AR.


WRONG.

Only some can.

Read the 14th.



posted on Jun, 25 2016 @ 08:47 PM
link   
a reply to: cavtrooper7

This is the 1952 study that concluded lower calibers where better because it had less recoil so soldiers could fire faster and kill more...

www.dtic.mil...

your link is ???



posted on Jun, 25 2016 @ 08:48 PM
link   
a reply to: neo96



Read the 14th.

Ok.
What does it have to do with what you can buy?

It does say this though:
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.

Don't you want to repeal the 14th?
www.abovetopsecret.com...
edit on 6/25/2016 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 25 2016 @ 08:52 PM
link   
a reply to: desert

Can you name a single Army that uses the AR 15 that civilians can buy...

Go ahead... take your time ill wait.
edit on 25-6-2016 by Irishhaf because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 25 2016 @ 08:54 PM
link   
to op...





a man carrying the Cal. .21 rifle would have an expectation of killing about 2-1/2 times as many targets as with the M-I rifle.


from the link I posted before, it seems clear they are indeed designed to kill, two and a half times more efficient that the 7.62



posted on Jun, 25 2016 @ 08:54 PM
link   
This is the craziest argument for accepting AR-15's I've ever heard!
You sure are not helping the pro-gun argument.



posted on Jun, 25 2016 @ 09:00 PM
link   
a reply to: WeRpeons

Jello Shots are better and they f@ck everyone up...



posted on Jun, 25 2016 @ 09:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: cavtrooper7
a reply to: radarloveguy

In the hands of a boy who couldn't use it correctly yes he killed a few.


A FEW ?!?!?!?!?

... is 3 or 4 .

NOT 50 and more.

That's called ... A LOT .

Weapon of Mass Destruction territory.

Your cold hearted , flippant attitude is part of the problem ,
not part of the solution .

Nobody needs an assault rifle ... period.
.... maybe a 22 calibre six shot pistol ...
without a magazine .

And that's being generous towards your perceived rights.
From a law that's outdated and pernicious




new topics




 
16
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join