THE ULTIMATE AR-15

page: 5
9
<< 2  3  4    6  7 >>

log in

join

posted on Dec, 27 2012 @ 10:40 PM
link   
people who are saying "why does a civilian need a weapon like that?" don't know much about guns. this hulking behemoth is completely useless in a tactical situation. 4 flashlights, and 3 red dot sights with 9 mags? a total of 26lbs?

lining up shots with this would be cumbersome, and the 7 magazines on the bottom are a very inefficient way to store and reload ammo, not to mention trying to transport it anywhere without it being obvious. you could hardly get the thing in a duffel bag.

these people obviously just decked the gun out with every accessory that could fit because it looks cool in the same way that people will spend thousands of dollars on speaker systems for their vehicles that are loud enough to shatter glass. do you really think they're going to use them at max volume?

if what i've said isn't enough of an answer and you still think this gun is practical and all powerful, why do you think swat and the military don't use it? it's completely worthless beyond it's attraction as a spectacle.

america was built on the idea of inalienable rights, and restricting what people can own simply because they don't have a practical use for the item is a one way ticket to the chopping block for freedom.
edit on 27-12-2012 by Bob Sholtz because: (no reason given)
edit on 27-12-2012 by Bob Sholtz because: (no reason given)




posted on Dec, 27 2012 @ 10:54 PM
link   
post removed for serious violation of ATS Terms & Conditions



posted on Dec, 27 2012 @ 11:26 PM
link   
READ IT AND WEEP


www.feinstein.senate.gov...




Summary of 2013 legislation


Summary of 2013 legislation
Following is a summary of the 2013 legislation:

Bans the sale, transfer, importation, or manufacturing of:
120 specifically-named firearms;
Certain other semiautomatic rifles, handguns, shotguns that can accept a detachable magazine and have one or more military characteristics; and
Semiautomatic rifles and handguns with a fixed magazine that can accept more than 10 rounds.
Strengthens the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban and various state bans by:
Moving from a 2-characteristic test to a 1-characteristic test;
Eliminating the easy-to-remove bayonet mounts and flash suppressors from the characteristics test; and
Banning firearms with “thumbhole stocks” and “bullet buttons” to address attempts to “work around” prior bans.
Bans large-capacity ammunition feeding devices capable of accepting more than 10 rounds.
Protects legitimate hunters and the rights of existing gun owners by:
Grandfathering weapons legally possessed on the date of enactment;
Exempting over 900 specifically-named weapons used for hunting or sporting purposes; and
Exempting antique, manually-operated, and permanently disabled weapons.
Requires that grandfathered weapons be registered under the National Firearms Act, to include:
Background check of owner and any transferee;
Type and serial number of the firearm;
Positive identification, including photograph and fingerprint;
Certification from local law enforcement of identity and that possession would not violate State or local law; and
Dedicated funding for ATF to implement registration.


I can hear it now...." Duh, it aint gonna happen"

Oh but it will my sweet little yankydoodledandys it will xx

Love Capt x
edit on 27-12-2012 by CaptainBeno because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 27 2012 @ 11:49 PM
link   
reply to post by CaptainBeno
 


I hear you, but consider the forum you are posting in, "Weaponry and Tactics" many diverse forums on the internet have a sections like this. ATS is no different. I am sad some posters decided they had to politicize this. We have threads for that. The replies where people are saying how impractical that would be, kind of show this is a hyperbolic gun and video.



posted on Dec, 28 2012 @ 12:51 AM
link   
reply to post by CaptainBeno
 



Why the heck does a civilian need a weapon like that? allowing something like that into the public domain is pretty reckless for a government, seriously some nut job could use it and go on rampages...


why yes, yes i do.

"read it and weep" really? this troubles me so much that i would never even think to say "i told you so" after americans are living in a completely controlled society.

i don't like what the necessity of guns means (that there are very evil people out there who want to hurt and kill others), but i cannot deny their necessity for defense now that they exist.

did you know that a gun in the hands of any given civilian is 80 times more likely to be used to prevent crime than commit it? true statistic. in 2008, civilians outdid cops nationwide in taking out baddies with much less friendly fire. did you know that practically all mass shootings, and most gun related crime takes place in "gun free" zones, and so you believe the answer is to create MORE gun free zones?

please don't take my comments as angry. frustrated maybe, but the position is so completely illogical. pro-personal gun arguments are constitutionally supported, logically sound, AND obviously effective evidenced by statistics.

i have no doubt the ban will pass, and usher in the darkest age america will ever see. her death. i'm not even being melodramatic.

i will, however, take you up on your offer, send the money
edit on 28-12-2012 by Bob Sholtz because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 28 2012 @ 01:22 AM
link   
reply to post by Bob Sholtz
 


Good Morning! Have a good sleep?

I would never wish you harm my friend, the money part was only a joke! Although, if you put it to good use (Beer) I will oblige!

Hey, I'm gonna cut straight to the chase. I hate guns, I don't live in a gun loving society. No one I know owns a gun. I have been lucky enough to travel the world and no one I have ever met has owned a gun. I have never come across trouble apart from in my home town where I was given a "good kicking" one night and even then it was sorted out with fists! I have never seen the need for one, never wished for one, never thought "Gee I wish I had a gun" when I was in any form of danger or in a seedy area?

Is it just me? I don't think so .....i really don't honest.

I have also lived in some of the worst areas you would care to imagine, really I have. Look up Halls Creek or Kununurra. These places make some of the worst parts of the US look like toy town. I still didn't need a gun.

I have always viewed USA as a bit kooky because you have 235 million people that have firearms and only a population of 311 million! That's so far out there it's spooky! 235 million people prepared to plug you if THEY consider thenselves threatend? Ouch! Many of these people have pistols or handguns.

Here in Aus we don't have them except for sporting / shooting clubs where you fire at a target. Most of the guns here are single shot 22 or shotguns and most of these are for Wild Bores or farm use. Not "The street" where you guys carry them.

You can't even take your guns with you when you leave the country to visit mine or the rest of the world for that matter, do you feel more relaxed when you come here or visit the world or just threatend in your own country, if that is the case, you're better of without them mate, no guns no problems.

It might take a while but the police will get a grip on the bad lads with guns eventually.

No China does not have any interest invading you're country, so you won't have to worry about that AR -15.

The change will be a good one

No Hate.

Capt



posted on Dec, 28 2012 @ 03:27 AM
link   
all it needs is propellers and it can fly with the side mags put in



posted on Dec, 28 2012 @ 03:55 AM
link   
reply to post by angrysniper
 


"The 2nd amendment isn't a person, and isn't capable of understanding anything."

Neither is the current US goverment capable of understanding anything or a person!

"It is up to people to have a clear understanding of history and the intention of the people who wrote the bill of rights."

Some people in both your country and my own are barley literate. You want them to understand History and the intentions behind the bill of rights? Thats not happening im afraid of that you can be sure.

"Progress is not disarming or neutering the protection of any of our fundamental rights. That is moving towards tyranny. Free people are not debarred the use of arms."

People should only be given fundamental rights like the right to bare arms if they have the ability to understand said rights IMHO. Allowing just about anyone to own a firearm is just asking for trouble. I think we need to ask ourselves is the second amendment in its present form worth all the dead children!

The nutters are not defending anyone or anything! They are killing babys! And this AR-15 Mod would just allow them to do it more efficiently.
edit on 28-12-2012 by andy06shake because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 28 2012 @ 11:21 AM
link   
reply to post by CaptainBeno
 

i would like you to not beat around the bush, as it were, and address the statistics.

guns are the great equalizer. they stop women from being raped by men who they can't fend of physically, they stop robberies and murders, and they keep kids safe, so long as they're allowed to be used.

freedom will not exist in america if guns are taken. the only check and balance that exists anymore is through the people, and only with guns.

at this link you will find a list of the worst mass murders and genocides in history, along with the dates of when they banned guns vs. when the killings started. a clear pattern emerges.

that's what happens when you ban guns from citizens. now, lets look at what happens when you give them guns:



In March 1982, 25 years ago, the small town of Kennesaw – responding to a handgun ban in Morton Grove, Ill. – unanimously passed an ordinance requiring each head of household to own and maintain a gun. Since then, despite dire predictions of “Wild West” showdowns and increased violence and accidents, not a single resident has been involved in a fatal shooting – as a victim, attacker or defender.



Prior to enactment of the law, Kennesaw had a population of just 5,242 but a crime rate significantly higher (4,332 per 100,000) than the national average (3,899 per 100,000). The latest statistics available – for the year 2005 – show the rate at 2,027 per 100,000. Meanwhile, the population has skyrocketed to 28,189.



By comparison, the population of Morton Grove, the first city in Illinois to adopt a gun ban for anyone other than police officers, has actually dropped slightly and stands at 22,202, according to 2005 statistics. More significantly, perhaps, the city’s crime rate increased by 15.7 percent immediately after the gun ban.

www.wnd.com...

so, you take guns away, and you get mass genocide EVERY TIME. it may take a few years, but corruption always grows if it isn't killed. in the mean time, crime rates increase. you give guns to people, and crime plummets dramatically, zero murders are committed, and everyone lives happily ever after.



posted on Dec, 28 2012 @ 12:50 PM
link   
reply to post by Bob Sholtz
 


"freedom will not exist in america if guns are taken. the only check and balance that exists anymore is through the people, and only with guns."

Yes it will, we here in the U.K dont have any guns as a rule and we still retain freedom of speech to the same degree as America. Probably more actualy.



posted on Dec, 28 2012 @ 01:21 PM
link   
reply to post by andy06shake
 

i'm not here to bash your nation and citizens, but i respectfully disagree. oh yes, you can talk, but words have no weight if they cannot be enforced. your every moves are watched by cameras, yet you are prevented from recording the recorders, and what can you do about it? you could not resist your government if it came to that.

an article on the out of hand cctv cameras in the uk: mashable.com...

and an article on the crime rate with guns since they've been banned: crime up 89% www.dailymail.co.uk...

the u.s. and u.k are both hemorrhaging rights and freedoms faster and faster, and if guns are removed, the people will lose their only option to get rid of corruption and resist oppressive governments.

what you say is akin to saying "freedom will still exist if they deprive us of our rights"


edit on 28-12-2012 by Bob Sholtz because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 28 2012 @ 03:30 PM
link   
reply to post by Bob Sholtz
 


America's only hope is that the fact its populace are armed i hate to say but the problem is is that they're armed but not yet annoyed enough to grab their guns and march to tell the politicians what to do or kick them out by gun point...perhaps slapping gas to 10 bucks a pint (1/8th of a gallon) and a 2 dollar a bullet federal charge and but no means least putting justin beiber on every radio and tv channel 24 x 7 just to ensure the misery and perhaps we'll see some sort of revolution



posted on Dec, 28 2012 @ 03:33 PM
link   
reply to post by Bob Sholtz
 


So when have U.S citizens used guns to enforce there will as of late on your own soil? I do believe you have a new definition for such an act its called terrorism!

"what you say is akin to saying "freedom will still exist if they deprive us of our rights"

Thats not what im saying at all. Im saying its time for a chance in your gun laws so that whack jobs cannot take out schools or any other innocent civilians.

What you are saying is that your nation cannot function without guns. Thats obviously incorrect as many including my own nation get by just fine and retain there freedom.

I will say that there does seem to be a CCTV camera in every nook and cranny over here. I dont agree with this either. Im not America bashing mate but enough is enough! Time for change and a lot less dead babys.
edit on 28-12-2012 by andy06shake because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 28 2012 @ 03:41 PM
link   
reply to post by andy06shake
 

our retainment of rights is evidence enough. yes, they're being encroached upon, but we have the ability to fight a police state.

eventually it will get bad enough so that americans will revolt, the government knows this, and they don't want us to have weapons.

besides, you're ignoring the fact that banning guns increases general crime. it's a fact backed with countless examples. countries boast "look, our gun crime has dropped" yeah, but now you have more murders, robberies, theft, and home invasions, not to mention the complete inability to resist the government.



posted on Dec, 28 2012 @ 03:43 PM
link   
I think the US should be flattered that people from other countries let a silly video affect their lives so much that they get emotional on a website. The gun in that video is literally useless but it's funny how upset people get about it.



posted on Dec, 28 2012 @ 03:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by Maxatoria
reply to post by Bob Sholtz
 


America's only hope is that the fact its populace are armed i hate to say but the problem is is that they're armed but not yet annoyed enough to grab their guns and march to tell the politicians what to do or kick them out by gun point...perhaps slapping gas to 10 bucks a pint (1/8th of a gallon) and a 2 dollar a bullet federal charge and but no means least putting justin beiber on every radio and tv channel 24 x 7 just to ensure the misery and perhaps we'll see some sort of revolution

you're quite right. most laugh at "conspiracy theorists" and don't want to believe the government would shoot a bunch of kids to get legislation passed. it's been happening for so long, the iran/contra sandal, 9/11, fast and furious, etc.

eventually though, they will be forced to face the reality, but until that time we must do everything we can to keep them armed so that they'll be ready.



posted on Dec, 28 2012 @ 03:47 PM
link   
reply to post by Bob Sholtz
 


Do you seriously think armed civilians could put up any kind of sustained armed conflict against your current army, even your national guard? I hope it never happens because a lot of people would die and most would be civilians. And in the end they would still lose there guns and there freedom. Not a site i would wish to behold.
edit on 28-12-2012 by andy06shake because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 28 2012 @ 03:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by andy06shake
reply to post by Bob Sholtz
 


Do you seriously think armed civilians could put up any kind of sustained armed conflict against your current army, even your national guard? I hope it never happens because a lot of people would die and most would be civilians.
edit on 28-12-2012 by andy06shake because: (no reason given)


So if it ever happened then Americans shouldn't even try? They should just lay down and accept defeat and become a nanny state?



posted on Dec, 28 2012 @ 03:56 PM
link   
reply to post by MJZoo
 


"So if it ever happened then Americans shouldn't even try? They should just lay down and accept defeat and become a nanny state?"

Sorry to break the news but America is one big nanny state these days. Guns dont change that fact they just give the illusion of control.

edit on 28-12-2012 by andy06shake because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 28 2012 @ 04:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by andy06shake
reply to post by Bob Sholtz
 


Do you seriously think armed civilians could put up any kind of sustained armed conflict against your current army, even your national guard? I hope it never happens because a lot of people would die and most would be civilians. And in the end they would still lose there guns and there freedom. Not a site i would wish to behold.
edit on 28-12-2012 by andy06shake because: (no reason given)


i don't think you realize how greatly armed civilians outnumber the military, and furthermore i have faith that many of our soldiers would join. most of the men and women in the military have their hearts in the right place with families of their own. once food becomes scarce and controlled, along with gas, they will feel it too.

so yes. armed civilians could easily resist an attempt by the government to openly subdue us by force. why do you think banning guns, specifically tactical ones, is at the top of the agenda? certainly not to protect average citizens.





new topics
top topics
 
9
<< 2  3  4    6  7 >>

log in

join