It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.


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


Best 7 Minutes On Gun Control you will ever see...

page: 1
<<   2 >>

log in

+14 more 
posted on Mar, 13 2013 @ 11:36 AM
The Truth about assault rifles - The AR-15 is not an assault rifle. It is a semi-auto rifle made to look like a mil-spec weapon. It is not full auto. They do NOT use them in the military. It is a hunting rifle with a different body. What difference does it make if it is an AR-15 or a Hunting rifle. In the hands of the right person it does not matter

8,583 firearms deaths each year and less than 325 caused by rifles. Less than 3% killed by rifles...not just AR-15 type but all rifles. The government wants all guns and they are coming for them.

Know what happens when they disarm the citizens? Ask Germany, Russia, China, Cuba...etc...


posted on Mar, 13 2013 @ 11:39 AM
There's been a certain segment of the population that's always gone after guns.

Its nothing new.

There's always been a certain segment that wants them all protected.

Its nothing new.

Here's a link that shows all the gun control measures and anti-gun control measures in American history.
edit on 13-3-2013 by Hopechest because: (no reason given)

posted on Mar, 13 2013 @ 11:58 AM
the AR in AR-15 stands for "Armalite Rifles"
assault rifle.

the ar-15 was a civilian rifle sold to the public before the military picked up the m-16.

posted on Mar, 13 2013 @ 12:17 PM
I'm curious on something....and first, let me say I have no problem with Full automatic M-4 rifles available to the public ..under the Class III permit system we have in place for that today.

However, you say the AR-15 is a civilian rifle simply made to look like the M-4 rifle of military issue? How so? I mean, specifically, what is different? I know from reading the specific wish lists and reports of them being filled that U.S. Army Soldiers have ordered AR-15 upper units from U.S. civilian outlets to replace their M-16/M-4 uppers when needed. (The reason I recall from one which stands out was the guy bending the barrel after rolling down some stairs in a house search ...and logistics being too slow and sloppy to replace it with what he wanted in the time he wanted...Soldier of Fortune carried that story).

Lowers are different for select fire...but HOW different? Prior to the Clinton ban and the physical alteration of receivers to prevent it, one could swap parts and make a couple VERY minor changes to turn a Colt AR-15 into a fully functional M-16 Rifle. It's why TRUE Pre-Ban Colt AR-15's are worth Gold, as I've been told. I say one well before the CT shooting for $3,500 on a table...and it was nothing but the stock looking Vietnam style M-16 with solid stock and everything.

So...when we're differentiating between AR-15 and M-16 rifles, aside from the select fire modes and internal pieces which allow that (to stay non-technical), what are the differences?

posted on Mar, 13 2013 @ 12:18 PM
Disarming a populace is a major step towards tightening the noose of absolute control over that population.

Think it wont happen here? Registration is an important step.

For example:

In South Africa – Gun Registration Has Led to Gun Confiscation in Two Short Years

In 2010 the ruling ANC regime passed legislation demanding all firearms be re-registered with the state. Then they turned down half of those registrations and forced farmers to turn in their guns.

But politicians here in the states say they only want a little bit of gun control. Then just a tiny bit more, no big deal. Okay, now they just want a little more, no one is trying to disarm you!

Trust them!

Like Chuck Schumer: Schumer’s Gun Bill: Making Felons Out of Legal Gun Owners

You won’t be able to hand a gun to someone for five minutes without them having an FFL and an NCIS – instant background check. Shooting ranges are an exception if they are for hunting or sports purposes and the gun is being used at a state-approved shooting range and/or a range used for conservation purposes (p.12) In other words, if you and a friend are taking turns shooting and using the same gun, you can’t do it unless it’s at one of these Big Brother facilities.

And let's not forget how Jan Schakowsky let the cat out of the bag:

Rep. Jan Schakowsky: Assault Weapons ban 'Just the Beginning'

Politicians are well aware of the ridiculousness of banning a rifle because it is "Scary Looking". That's not the point. The point is, if they can ban the scary looking ones, just because they are scary looking, what can't they ban?

It is none of the governments business how many guns I own. I will not run a background check on my children when I give them a gun, or leave them my guns in my will. I know my friends, I will not run a background check on them before I give or sell a gun to them.

They are responsible people. This means, they are responsible for their own actions.

You will not make me justify to you what kinds of guns I think I "need". That's my decision, not yours. I choose to be at least as well armed as criminals who are unaffected by gun laws that aim to disarm law abiding citizens. Period.

posted on Mar, 13 2013 @ 12:30 PM
Lets just say they accomplish taking everyones guns away.
Lets say criminals are using gasoline to commit crimes and murder people.
You think they would follow the same path of these gun laws on the gasoline?

posted on Mar, 13 2013 @ 12:47 PM
reply to post by esdad71

Here's the vid.

He makes a lot of salient points.

If it's on LiveLeak, it's usually on YouTube as well.
edit on 13-3-2013 by TDawgRex because: added line

posted on Mar, 13 2013 @ 12:56 PM
reply to post by Wrabbit2000

the m4 is a shortened version of the m16.

shorter barrel
telescoping stock

not much difference between military and civilian, other than materials used, like hardened steel, and some other small differences.
the trigger assembly is not the same.
the bolt carrier assembly is beefier.
the bolt itself is a specific kind of steel.
mostly better quality materials, and tighter tolerances on military.

the lower on a civilian ar is not milled out to accept a sear.
and it is illegal to machine that part of the lower, to accept a sear.
the lower "is" the gun.

as far as i know the uppers are the same, and are not regulated at all.
some m4 s have a direct impingement system, instead of gas piston.
i'am no expert but the uppers would probably be a little different for direct impingement.

edit on 13-3-2013 by bjax9er because: (no reason given)


posted on Mar, 13 2013 @ 01:07 PM
reply to post by esdad71

Thank you for posting this video, i thought it was excellent.

Starred and flagged.


posted on Mar, 13 2013 @ 01:12 PM
reply to post by Wrabbit2000

I've always been biased against full-auto weapons, with the exception of squad support types (M249, M240B, M60, etc). The three round burst on the M16A2 and beyond series was a attempt to stop the spray and pray attitudes that many Servicemembers adopt when in a firefight. That didn't work out so well.

As far as I am concerned, proper gun control is being able to hit your target.

posted on Mar, 13 2013 @ 02:23 PM
reply to post by Wrabbit2000

The difference between an AR-15 and an M-16 lower is just a little bit of milling in the lower receiver.
The AR cannot accept the different bits that an M-16 can nowadays.
An AR can be milled however, but I'm sure that would be on par with scratching off serial numbers, it'll get you a brand new roomate named Bubba!

posted on Mar, 13 2013 @ 03:22 PM
reply to post by TDawgRex

I tend to agree on what you're saying. I've never had the opportunity to fire full automatic myself but have fired burst and that's enough by itself. As you note, aside from pure suppression shooting, what's it good for, anyway? Single shots take focus to HIT and not just make noise from my perspective of things.


Sorry, I didn't mean to be taken so literal on the AR vs. M-4/M-16 thing. When I'd gotten my AR-, I'd stumbled across a literal treasure trove where the U.S. Army had online courses for just about everything and without login or restriction. My link for that doesn't work anymore so I assume they took it down, but part of that was the full course of topics on the M-16. The two are so similar, it covered everything I needed. I was being half there being no real difference between them except for those lower internals.

I'd figured metallurgy was the biggest difference between Colt's issue rifles and the Olympic or other mass produced $500 AR-15's. (Well, now $2500, thanks to Obama). Thanks for the replies tho!

posted on Mar, 13 2013 @ 03:28 PM
reply to post by esdad71

Actually, I took my neighbor's AK (full auto on demand) and my SKS and locked them in a room with a case of beer once. There were left alone for several weeks... until my neighbor said that he wanted his rifle back, lol.

Anyway, when we unlocked the shed door... the guns were exactly where we left them. No ammo was fired and both weapons were uninjured. Unfortunately, all the beer was gone...

... a few years later my son told me he and his friends found the stash, left the guns alone but hijacked the booze to the woods and had a bonfire.

Guns don't kill people... even automatics. Kids cause grey hair.

edit on 13-3-2013 by redoubt because: (no reason given)

posted on Mar, 13 2013 @ 03:53 PM
reply to post by Wrabbit2000

No problem. I was trying to be simple in my explanation. The AR platform has been around since the mid 60's I think as a civilian alt to a full auto weapon. You can buy a Rock River Arms AR-15 all tricked with every essential and non essential is still just a rifle. Not a bad thing but not the demon it is made to be in the media.

I believe that full auto weapons should not be sold just like off the showroom floor an 18 y/o kid should not be allowed to buy a GSXR...but it happens.

However, if I pay 2000 dollars and I want to customize it and do what I want with it. It is mine and it is my right to bear arms. it is not say I cannot have certain kinds but limit access as always. Worked for a long time wit no issue.

What is at issue is what is in the video....

edit on 13-3-2013 by esdad71 because: (no reason given)

posted on Mar, 13 2013 @ 03:57 PM
reply to post by redoubt

That is a good and scary story at the same time. As far as the kids know (the ones under 6)there are no guns in the house, They are in a safe. My son who is 12 has a 22 rifle that also is locked up. He cannot access it unless we shoot.

When they are old enough you introduce them so they, guns, are not a curiosity they are a "of I touch Dads guns my arse is done' feeling.

posted on Mar, 13 2013 @ 03:58 PM
reply to post by TDawgRex


posted on Mar, 13 2013 @ 04:23 PM
who is this guy? i say he should be potus in 2016! did you guys notice how many times eric holder blinked when the camera panned to him? its as if the cameraman knew who the bad guys are..i also noticed mccains face when the speaker said the 2nd is there to protect the people from politicians..i was a little disappointed.. not that i think that mccain is one of us, but i would expect a p.o.w. to "get it" a little more than E.Holder.

ooops..i just realized this speech never happened..i was wondering what "virtual" meant..i feel a little dumb now... oh well...i still say he should be president..

edit on 13-3-2013 by riffraff because: (no reason given)

posted on Mar, 14 2013 @ 01:50 AM
reply to post by esdad71

posted on Mar, 14 2013 @ 04:21 AM
That was the WORST 7 minutes ever.

Why?? Because it's not real. This guy Bill Whittle of created this video himself.

He was never giving a lecture to a bunch of politicians like this video shows. he was never there, they never heard him speak.

If this guy was a real politician and had actually delivered this speech, then it might have been something. Now he's just going to be laughed at.

posted on Mar, 15 2013 @ 02:11 AM
reply to post by JohnPhoenix

TextWARNING: This politically incorrect video may hurt the feelings of butt-hurt, anti-gun socialists. You have been warned. Dealing with real FACTS may hurt your bull# agenda. Read more at

He was never giving a lecture to a bunch of politicians like this video shows. he was never there, they never heard him speak.

You mean you weren't able to figure that out by reading the warning statement above the video? It even says this is a "politically incorrect video". I never thought for a second that he was actually talking in front of real politicians.

If this guy was a real politician and had actually delivered this speech, then it might have been something. Now he's just going to be laughed at.

People won't be laughing at the speaker; instead, they will be laughing at those who post ignorant comments.

Thanks for the laughs.

Also, even though the video was "faked", the facts sure as hell are not faked. He used facts directly from the FBI's expanded homicide tables and, if I'm not mistaken, some facts were taken from research done by criminologist Dr Gary Kleck.
edit on 3/15/13 by SmoothRhythm because: Grammar

edit on 3/15/13 by SmoothRhythm because: (no reason given)

<<   2 >>

log in