I’m a military man and I think we should ban assault weapons

1. Remove firearms from criminals.

2. Discuss whether law abiding citizens should disarm.

My money says step 1 will never be competed.

originally posted by: nwtrucker
a reply to: Willtell

It is these days. When's the last time you've been to a shooting range?

THE commonest weapon is the AR-15. Period.

Yeah sure, just go ask the doctors who see the damage they do to human flesh and particularly children.


Just because something is common only goes to show us stupidity is common or the lack of common sense is rampant

originally posted by: Willtell

originally posted by: Krakatoa
a reply to: Willtell

So, Will, tell me. If we remove these guns from the citizens, including myself and family, who do I depend upon to protect us? I am honestly curious about YOUR answer, not a group, but you, personally.


I await your answer.

Thanks

He never suggested to ban all guns.

From the article

But I believe, on moral, practical and constitutional grounds, that no private citizen should own an automatic weapon or a semi-automatic weapon that can easily be modified for automatic effects. These are military weapons. Their purpose is to kill human beings. They’re not used for hunting (unless you want to destroy the animal’s meat). They’re lousy for target shooting. But they’re excellent tools for mass murder.

I didn't ask for his opinion. I asked for YOUR opinion. I asked you, personally. What is the answer Willtell has for that question?

I still await YOUR answer (not anyone else's answer or opinion).

It really does no good to try to have a reasonable conversation when one side continuously lies.

They claim the AR-15 is not an "assault" rifle because "it cant fire on full auto".

"It's only semi auto" they bleat.

All that changes is the cyclic rate of the weapon ie: how fast it can fire bullets.
Everything else is the same, the ballistics the penetration the damage designed to be done, they are the same damn weapon.
Even the mil spec M16 A2 & A4 which is the standard weapon issued to Americas military primarily come without "full auto" function.

Safe, semi & 3rnd burst that's the standard.
I guess those aren't "assault" weapons because they cant fire "full auto"

Sure there are variants still capable of full auto but someone in the mil finally figured out that the spray & pray method of enemy engagement was just a waste of ammo for most.

So don't believe the lie that the AR-15 is not an assault weapon.

K~

a reply to: Willtell

The way I see it is they're a last resort when all else has failed. We are not at that point...nor do I believe we are close to exhausting all avenues to reign in a corrupt government. However if we as a citizenry had no recourse left I do think people would take action. That action doesn't mean go attack anyone but it sure would mean actually removing the problem from power...to do that one can not be defenseless. To presume to know me or citizens in general as you posted is beyond idiotic. Speak for yourself... You have no place speaking for others.

a reply to: aethertek

The entire reason people call them assault rifles is sheer ignorance. It comes from idiots who think AR stands for Assault Rifle...and the term itself is made up and meaningless...heres a test whats the definition of assault rifle?

Its stands for Armalite Rifle by the way.

a reply to: RickyD

I know whats its called, I also know its a lightened version of the AR-10 which was a bigger cal. than they wanted to carry.

I also know the "ARs" M16 ver.1 sucked because they were machined too well.

So don't try passing off that BS post as truth.

Test?

Here's a test, describe to me the effective or functional difference, besides the cyclic rate, of a civilian model AR-15 & a military issued "M-16"

Detachable grenade launchers don't count.

K~

originally posted by: Willtell

originally posted by: The GUT
Appeal to authority. I'm a vet too and disagree. He totally leaves out the main reason for the 2nd.

Plus, we'd have a few excellent militias if they weren't targeted by Cointelpro over the years.

When did you start totally trusting the government, Will?

I hope you, my good friend, do not believe a small group of malcontents with AR 15 can stop any government antics.

Ask the little men in black pj's from south east asia.. armed people with the will to fight can stop even the most technologically advanced military in the world, or how about Nepal when the british empire tried to conquer it, Afghanistan, with the soviets or the section we cant tame now, just a couple examples off the top of my head.

Oh and the AR-15 is not an assault rifle.

a reply to: aethertek

That is the only difference that matters...and you didn't even attempt to define that silly made up term because there is none. Everything I said was factual in regards to where the term comes from and what AR actually stands for...whats BS about it other than you not having a good rebuttle and letting that frustrate you. Also if I am not mistaken the AR-10 came after...could be wrong though and will admit without a Google search I can't say I am right there. What's the difference between an AR-15 and any other .223/5.56 rifle? Does a pictenny rail scare you that much...or is it lasers, flashlights, scopes, or bipod that are freightening? You know Ruger rifles as well as many many other popular hunting rifles allow for 20-50rnd magazines too. But its always the AR-15 everyone goes for. With every post you show you're ignorance...

It's all about racism they hate the black rifle

a reply to: Willtell

a reply to: aethertek

So why are they legal in the UK?

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
He is preaching at a wall.

Very, very few automatic weapons exist in the US compared to what people seem to think. Off the top of my head, i can't think of the last time automatic weapons were used. Maybe that bank robbery in LA back in the 90's?

"Assault weapons" do not exist in civilian hands. We have watered down rifles known as AR 15's.

How does a prior "military person" not know the difference between a military level weapon and one that is not? Plus the assumption that AR even means assault weapon... As they want to ban 270 guns another 2000 do the same thing, but doesn't look so mean...lol

a reply to: RickyD

You are wrong about everything.

& as far as all that "whatever" about accessories, I don't care what Barbie doll accessory you dress your weapon up with.

Describe to me the effective or functional difference, besides the cyclic rate, of a civilian model AR-15 & a military issued "M-16".
Detachable grenade launchers don't count. K~

K~

originally posted by: Willtell

originally posted by: nwtrucker
a reply to: Willtell

It is these days. When's the last time you've been to a shooting range?

THE commonest weapon is the AR-15. Period.

Yeah sure, just go ask the doctors who see the damage they do to human flesh and particularly children.


Just because something is common only goes to show us stupidity is common or the lack of common sense is rampant

That why I prefer the AR-10. Straight to the morgue without pit-stops in the ER.

a reply to: Xtrozero

I have no idea. He is probably shilling for whatever political figure is feeding his pig.

I've decided im getting an AR built. We are going to order the upper reciever once i get down to austin. Im thinking of an ar10. Don't particularly want one...but if they get banned i don't want my current indecisiveness to be a problem if i change my mind.

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
He is preaching at a wall.

Very, very few automatic weapons exist in the US compared to what people seem to think. Off the top of my head, i can't think of the last time automatic weapons were used. Maybe that bank robbery in LA back in the 90's?

"Assault weapons" do not exist in civilian hands. We have watered down rifles known as AR 15's.

How does a prior "military person" not know the difference between a military level weapon and one that is not? Plus the assumption that AR even means assault weapon... As they want to ban 270 guns another 2000 do the same thing, but doesn't look so mean...lol

Describe to me the effective or functional difference, besides the cyclic rate, of a civilian model AR-15 & a military issued "M-16". Detachable grenade launchers don't count.

K~

a reply to: aethertek

Rate of fire (for the most part...you can also change out pins and whatnot) is the only difference between the standard issue M4/M16 and AR15.

And that is all that matters. Beyond rate of fire, all you have are cosmetic differences between a Mini14 and AR15. No one complains about the Mini14, though...because it doesn't appear to look like an M4.

Rate of fire. That is the problem. Otherwise, you are just wanting to discuss bullets, and maybe rifling/barrel length (which varies in the world of AR's)

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: Xtrozero

I have no idea. He is probably shilling for whatever political figure is feeding his pig.

I've decided im getting an AR built. We are going to order the upper reciever once i get down to austin. Im thinking of an ar10. Don't particularly want one...but if they get banned i don't want my current indecisiveness to be a problem if i change my mind.

I personally like Danial Defense, I run multiple uppers on one lower and every one of them fits perfectly. They are not cheap though.

originally posted by: aethertek

Describe to me the effective or functional difference, besides the cyclic rate, of a civilian model AR-15 & a military issued "M-16". Detachable grenade launchers don't count.

K~

The AR15 is like all other non military level guns...you pull the trigger once and it fires once. The kicker is the 3 round burst you have with M16 and the more popular M4. Full auto isn't even used anymore and the M4 which is a lighter short M16 doesn't even have full auto. Full auto is really for heavy machine guns.

So the big difference is that a military weapon fires 3 times per trigger pull, not once. Doesn't seem like much of a difference but it is.