# I Should Have an AR-15, but not YOU!  Gun grabber speaks honestly



## Seymour Flops (Jun 17, 2022)

Opinion: Here's the reason people tell me they want to buy an AR-15. And it's simply ludicrous | CNN
					

No weapon has been more in the public eye than the AR-15, in large part because of the tragic role it has played in some of this country's deadliest shootings, former DC police officer Michael Fanone writes. Fanone, who owns one of the weapons, writes that the AR-15 has the dubious distinction...




					www.cnn.com
				




Here it is:  the government elitist mentality spelled out baldly by a true believer:

*The AR-15 has the dubious distinction of being America's most popular semi-automatic rifle. I'm more familiar with the gun than most people: I own one. And one thing I know for sure is that this weapon doesn't belong in the hands of the average civilian.*

He is more familiar with the gun than most people because he owns one?  The AR15, as he mentions, is the most popular rifle in the United States.  It is also a civilian version of the weapon that nearly all U.S. military veterans trained with.  He's not exactly in a tiny minority for being familiar with it.

He goes on:

*I purchased my AR-15 because I was assigned one as part of my police duties. But officers weren't allowed to take our department-issued weapons home. I felt it was my responsibility to become proficient with any weapon I'd been assigned, so I bought one. And I've spent hundreds of hours training so that I could properly use it.*

Bull!  He could have had plenty of time on the po-lice range to become proficient.  One of the benefits of that rifle is how easy it is to learn to use.  We were trained and qualified for the M16A1 during my second week of basic training, when we barely knew how to march in a straight line.  It wasn't hard, and nearly everyone qualified.

No, his reason for buying an AR15 is the same as the one that he ridicules others for:  he wanted one.

First, though, he ridicules the most important reason that every free American should own a semi-auto rifle with detachable magazine:

*Some members of the tinfoil hat brigade have come up with the reply, "We need these weapons because we want to be effective against the government if it becomes tyrannical. That's part of our Second Amendment right." Personally, I think that's ludicrous, but it has become an increasingly popular justification for purchasing a semi-automatic rifle.*

That is not just "part" of our second amendment right, as his fictitious tinfoil hatters supposedly say.  It is the stated purpose of our second amendment right.  The second amendment is not for hunting birds, nor for biathlon training.  It is to maintain a well-regulated militia as it explicitly states.

He goes to great lengths to explain why an AR15 is not the best weapon for home defense against an single intruder, not at all needed since I know of no one who thinks it is. 

His enforcement solution is pretty optimistic:

*And outlawing these AR-15s would not require confiscating them from people who already have them. Once you've made these weapons illegal, anyone found with one would be subject to arrest, since possession of these weapons would be a crime. I think it's likely that you would see a lot of people opting to turn them in.*

So, it would be another law passed by the left, which would be unenforced or selectively enforced.  People won't "turn them in," after having spent around a thousand dollars on rifle and ammo.  The only people targeted for enforcement would be people at gun shows.  Real criminals who use guns are now being released by liberal judges and liberal "prosecutors," so why are real criminals going to get an extra penalty if they use an AR in their crimes?  Would that Ramos guy serve more than the several life sentences he has coming, if this proposed law were in effect?  Nope.  We will be lucky if he doesn't get found not guilty by reason of insanity, placed in a mental home for a few years and released.

Not to mention that of course, the law can't just say, "Models designated as 'AR15" by their manufacturer, because the manufacturers could just change the name.  They will have to define "assault weapon," which the last two nominees for head of ATF have been at a loss to do.  Here's what you get when liberals who know nothing about guns try to regulate them:







I feel safer already! /sarcasm


----------



## johngaltshrugged (Jun 17, 2022)

They have never made a compelling argument that would make me turn over a single weapon I own, let alone the type we would need if we did have to exercise our 2A rights once the fed become overbearing tyrants.

Disarming or criminalizing law abiding citizens will never make a country safer, but they know this already.
It has never been about making us safer, it has always been about them feeling safer from consequences as they strip our rights & implode our country


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth (Jun 17, 2022)

What a self-important twat. 

My response:  No bitch, if we have to lose ours, we will fucking blow your goddamn head off and take yours.

I hope this miserable piece of cocksucking shit is one who volunteers to go round them up.


----------



## Ringtone (Jun 17, 2022)

You write:

He goes to great lengths to explain why an AR15 is not the best weapon for home defense against an single intruder, not at all needed since I know of no one who thinks it is.​

On the other hand, it depends on the shooter.  Most are going to be more comfortable taking a defensive posture than taking an active engagement posture in home defense.  My HK45 or either one of my 9mms (S&W Classic 59 or Berreta M9A3) are perfect for home defense, especially when taking an active engagement posture for which I have the training.  He's thinking like a seasoned combatant, not like your average shooter.  In my experience, many if not most female shooters are more comfortable handling and controlling an AR-15 and taking a defensive posture when possible.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Jun 17, 2022)

Seymour Flops said:


> Opinion: Here's the reason people tell me they want to buy an AR-15. And it's simply ludicrous | CNN
> 
> 
> No weapon has been more in the public eye than the AR-15, in large part because of the tragic role it has played in some of this country's deadliest shootings, former DC police officer Michael Fanone writes. Fanone, who owns one of the weapons, writes that the AR-15 has the dubious distinction...
> ...


This is lie.

Nowhere does the article’s author advocate for ‘grabbing guns.’


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Jun 17, 2022)

‘Some members of the tinfoil hat brigade have come up with the reply, “We need these weapons because we want to be effective against the government if it becomes tyrannical. That’s part of our Second Amendment right.” Personally, I think that’s ludicrous, but it has become an increasingly popular justification for purchasing a semi-automatic rifle.’ _ibid_

Correct.

It is tinfoil hat _Red Dawn_ nonsense.

There’s nothing in the history, text, or case law of the Second Amendment that authorizes insurrectionist dogma.

No one ‘needs’ an AR 15, it’s a want – and that’s fine; if someone wants to possess an AR 15, he should be allowed to do to.

But don’t try to ‘justify’ possessing an AR 15 as some sort of a ‘need’ – it’s not.


----------



## Seymour Flops (Jun 17, 2022)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> This is lie.
> 
> Nowhere does the article’s author advocate for ‘grabbing guns.’


Really?

So, after his proposed ban on AR15s is passed and he - as a police officer sees someone open carrying an AR15 (many states are much more lenient about carrying rifles than handguns), what will he do?


----------



## AZrailwhale (Jun 17, 2022)

Seymour Flops said:


> Really?
> 
> So, after his proposed ban on AR15s is passed and he - as a police officer sees someone open carrying an AR15 (many states are much more lenient about carrying rifles than handguns), what will he do?


He will not only seize the rifle but arrest the person as well.


----------



## Seymour Flops (Jun 17, 2022)

Ringtone said:


> You write:
> 
> He goes to great lengths to explain why an AR15 is not the best weapon for home defense against an single intruder, not at all needed since I know of no one who thinks it is.​
> 
> On the other hand, it depends on the shooter.  Most are going to be more comfortable taking a defensive posture than taking an active engagement posture in home defense.  My HK45 or either one of my 9mms (S&W Classic 59 or Berreta M9A3) are perfect for home defense, especially when taking an active engagement posture for which I have the training.  He's thinking like a seasoned combatant, not like your average shooter.  In my experience, many if not most female shooters are more comfortable handling and controlling an AR-15 and taking a defensive posture when possible.


Yes, very true.  

The author of that article was talking about AR15s being likely to penetrate walls and harm a family member or apartment neighbor, which people who actually understand guns are well aware of.  Alone in an isolated house, I would prefer a short barreled AR15 with collapsing stock for home defense.  In the 'burbs, I have a shotgun with a pistol holster on the butt for home defense.  

I use a .380 for carry, having switched from a J-frame .38.  I've seen studies showing that this is the most likely caliber to fully disable an attacker, to which I attribute the relative ease of a double tap.

I actually don't have an AR15 yet.  I need to get one.  A liberal poster convinced me (without meaning to) that I have a duty to have a semi-auto rifle with detachable magazine, in case the government goes full on authoritarian.


----------



## Jarlaxle (Jun 21, 2022)

AZrailwhale said:


> He will not only seize the rifle but arrest the person as well.


Or murder the person in cold blood.


----------



## 2aguy (Jun 21, 2022)

Seymour Flops said:


> Opinion: Here's the reason people tell me they want to buy an AR-15. And it's simply ludicrous | CNN
> 
> 
> No weapon has been more in the public eye than the AR-15, in large part because of the tragic role it has played in some of this country's deadliest shootings, former DC police officer Michael Fanone writes. Fanone, who owns one of the weapons, writes that the AR-15 has the dubious distinction...
> ...






Massad Ayoob is both an expert in firearms, a master instructor and he is also an expert witness for self defense cases...


----------



## Flash (Jun 21, 2022)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> This is lie.
> 
> Nowhere does the article’s author advocate for ‘grabbing guns.’


No he is just saying that the Bill of Rights apply to him but not to you.

I suspect I know a lot more about ARs than he does.

I used the military version of an AR in a war.  I have been shooting ARs and M-16s for about 55 years.  I am a certified firearms instructor and range officer.  A few years ago I worked a contract with the Sheriff's office to train deputies on the AR.  I shoot ARs almost every week and own 29 ARs and a M-16 myself.

That guy don't know jackshit about what he is talking about.


----------



## Flash (Jun 21, 2022)




----------



## miketx (Jun 27, 2022)

He should have got an ar 10. They are 5 Ar's safer.  Guy sounds like a real nice nazi cop.


----------



## miketx (Jun 27, 2022)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> ‘Some members of the tinfoil hat brigade have come up with the reply, “We need these weapons because we want to be effective against the government if it becomes tyrannical. That’s part of our Second Amendment right.” Personally, I think that’s ludicrous, but it has become an increasingly popular justification for purchasing a semi-automatic rifle.’ _ibid_
> 
> Correct.
> 
> ...


Liar.


----------



## Mac-7 (Jun 27, 2022)

Seymour Flops said:


> Opinion: Here's the reason people tell me they want to buy an AR-15. And it's simply ludicrous | CNN
> 
> 
> No weapon has been more in the public eye than the AR-15, in large part because of the tragic role it has played in some of this country's deadliest shootings, former DC police officer Michael Fanone writes. Fanone, who owns one of the weapons, writes that the AR-15 has the dubious distinction...
> ...


He’s a democrat appointed police chief in waiting


----------



## Batcat (Jun 27, 2022)

Seymour Flops said:


> Yes, very true.
> 
> The author of that article was talking about AR15s being likely to penetrate walls and harm a family member or apartment neighbor, which people who actually understand guns are well aware of.  Alone in an isolated house, I would prefer a short barreled AR15 with collapsing stock for home defense.  In the 'burbs, I have a shotgun with a pistol holster on the butt for home defense.
> 
> ...


A rifle is not the best choice for self defense in an urban environment or in the suburbs.


----------



## marvin martian (Jun 27, 2022)

Seymour Flops said:


> Opinion: Here's the reason people tell me they want to buy an AR-15. And it's simply ludicrous | CNN
> 
> 
> No weapon has been more in the public eye than the AR-15, in large part because of the tragic role it has played in some of this country's deadliest shootings, former DC police officer Michael Fanone writes. Fanone, who owns one of the weapons, writes that the AR-15 has the dubious distinction...
> ...



Fuck this fascist piece of shit. He's the reason we need these weapons.


----------



## 2aguy (Jun 27, 2022)

Batcat said:


> A rifle is not the best choice for self defense in an urban environment or in the suburbs.



That depends….,,,,,against what, when?


----------



## woodwork201 (Jul 3, 2022)

Seymour Flops said:


> Yes, very true.
> 
> The author of that article was talking about AR15s being likely to penetrate walls and harm a family member or apartment neighbor, which people who actually understand guns are well aware of.  Alone in an isolated house, I would prefer a short barreled AR15 with collapsing stock for home defense.  In the 'burbs, I have a shotgun with a pistol holster on the butt for home defense.
> 
> ...


Can you quote/link those studies that you've seen that said a .380 is the most likely caliber to fully disable an attacker?  I'd like to get that forwarded to people who need to know; you know, like the SEALs, the Army and the Marines, the FBI, every police department in America, etc.  

Seriously, I'm not challenging your choice, every one should make their own choices on what tools they use for which job, but that's a new one on me so I would like to see the links.


----------



## woodwork201 (Jul 3, 2022)

2aguy said:


> That depends….,,,,,against what, when?


An AR-15, or a similar weapon, is the best choice when a gang of home invaders crash your front door.

When it's just one attacker, as in the case the DC cop mentions, it is certainly a suitable weapon but much of the advantage becomes excess. 

So all we need is for bad guys to line up when they come in so we can count them and choose the exactly correct weapon based on count, size, clothing, etc..... Or we could, as I would, grab our AR-15.


----------



## 2aguy (Jul 3, 2022)

woodwork201 said:


> Can you quote/link those studies that you've seen that said a .380 is the most likely caliber to fully disable an attacker?  I'd like to get that forwarded to people who need to know; you know, like the SEALs, the Army and the Marines, the FBI, every police department in America, etc.
> 
> Seriously, I'm not challenging your choice, every one should make their own choices on what tools they use for which job, but that's a new one on me so I would like to see the links.




Likely since it used to be one of the more popular ammunitions, they simply had more people shooting people with it......that is why they can't provide a link..


----------



## AZrailwhale (Jul 3, 2022)

woodwork201 said:


> Can you quote/link those studies that you've seen that said a .380 is the most likely caliber to fully disable an attacker?  I'd like to get that forwarded to people who need to know; you know, like the SEALs, the Army and the Marines, the FBI, every police department in America, etc.
> 
> Seriously, I'm not challenging your choice, every one should make their own choices on what tools they use for which job, but that's a new one on me so I would like to see the links.


A .380 is a pretty anemic cartridge.  I wouldn't trust it for stopping power unless loaded with something like Glaser safety slugs that transfer a lot of energy to the target. Even then I'd prefer a full powered 9mm.


----------



## Seymour Flops (Jul 3, 2022)

woodwork201 said:


> Can you quote/link those studies that you've seen that said a .380 is the most likely caliber to fully disable an attacker?  I'd like to get that forwarded to people who need to know; you know, like the SEALs, the Army and the Marines, the FBI, every police department in America, etc.
> 
> Seriously, I'm not challenging your choice, every one should make their own choices on what tools they use for which job, but that's a new one on me so I would like to see the links.


A surprise encounter with a criminal attempting to rob you as a civilian is not the same as the situations that military people arm themselves for.  As for police, of course they are going to want the most expensive and powerful weapons they can carry on the taxpayer dime.  Doesn't mean that it is the wise choice.

I remember reading the studies, but I did not bookmark them or save the links.

Here is one article about it, admittedly not particularly scientific:





__





						An Alternate Look at Handgun Stopping Power | Buckeye Firearms Association
					

by Greg Ellifritz I've been interested in firearm stopping power for a very long time. I remember reading Handguns magazine back in the late 1980s when Evan Marshall was writing articles about his stopping power studies. When Marshall's first book came out in 1992, I ordered it immediately...




					www.buckeyefirearms.org
				




From that study:





The .380 performed above the handgun average across calibers in one stop incapacitation.

The article goes on to list percentages of incapacitation, and in particular, percent of people not incapacitated.  In that stat the .380 is on par with the others.

If you're interested, I encourage you to research it, but I have no need to convince you.  Carry what you like, while it is still a relatively free country.


----------



## woodwork201 (Jul 3, 2022)

Seymour Flops said:


> A surprise encounter with a criminal attempting to rob you as a civilian is not the same as the situations that military people arm themselves for.  As for police, of course they are going to want the most expensive and powerful weapons they can carry on the taxpayer dime.  Doesn't mean that it is the wise choice.
> 
> I remember reading the studies, but I did not bookmark them or save the links.
> 
> ...



Interesting article and findings.  I don't quite believe the conclusion but I don't question that the conclusion is what his data supported.    It just doesn't make sense that a .380 is more deadly than a 9mm, .40 S&W, or .45 ACP. 

The article doesn't differentiate between types of rounds, for instance.  If all of the larger rounds were FMJ and the .380 was some high quality hollow point or frangible round, across many or all of these separate incidents (doesn't seem likely) then the conclusion would make more sense to me.

Anyway, this is an interesting off-topic diversion; you can have the last word if you want,  I'll get back to on topic.  But thanks for the  info; it was interesting and I do believe that the author was honest in his study.


----------



## 2aguy (Jul 3, 2022)

woodwork201 said:


> Interesting article and findings.  I don't quite believe the conclusion but I don't question that the conclusion is what his data supported.    It just doesn't make sense that a .380 is more deadly than a 9mm, .40 S&W, or .45 ACP.
> 
> The article doesn't differentiate between types of rounds, for instance.  If all of the larger rounds were FMJ and the .380 was some high quality hollow point or frangible round, across many or all of these separate incidents (doesn't seem likely) then the conclusion would make more sense to me.
> 
> Anyway, this is an interesting off-topic diversion; you can have the last word if you want,  I'll get back to on topic.  But thanks for the  info; it was interesting and I do believe that the author was honest in his study.




To be more accurate?   He would have to list the years of the shootings....remember, .380 had been around a long time........


----------



## Seymour Flops (Jul 3, 2022)

2aguy said:


> To be more accurate?   He would have to list the years of the shootings....remember, .380 had been around a long time........


Yes, I said that the article was not particularly scientific.  I guess if the goal was to show that .380 is the most successful ammo in self-defense situations, the data could be manipulated.  But, I've seen enough to believe that the .380 is at least in the same league with .38 Spl and 9mm.

So, I fall back on common sense and personal preference.  After years of carrying a J-Frame .38 Special, I read what I read a few years ago, and checked the .380 out.  It has less recoil than my wheelgun, and carries two rounds more.  The trigger pull is a little lighter, and I find double tapping much easier.  Also, the S&W bodyguard is slimmer, so more comfortable to carry, and easier to draw, plus has a laser so I can point and shoot with confidence.

The drawback is that I don't trust hollow points in a semi-automatic after the first round.  Plus I don't know how effective a hollow point would be in a weaker round like .380.  I was never sure that the .38 hollow points would do any good, either.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth (Jul 4, 2022)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> ‘Some members of the tinfoil hat brigade have come up with the reply, “We need these weapons because we want to be effective against the government if it becomes tyrannical. That’s part of our Second Amendment right.” Personally, I think that’s ludicrous, but it has become an increasingly popular justification for purchasing a semi-automatic rifle.’ _ibid_
> 
> Correct.
> 
> ...


Right.

I need belt-fed squad weapons.

Machine guns or Valhalla!!


----------



## badbob85037 (Jul 7, 2022)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> ‘Some members of the tinfoil hat brigade have come up with the reply, “We need these weapons because we want to be effective against the government if it becomes tyrannical. That’s part of our Second Amendment right.” Personally, I think that’s ludicrous, but it has become an increasingly popular justification for purchasing a semi-automatic rifle.’ _ibid_
> 
> Correct.
> 
> ...


Here's an idea. How bout an AR-10. It's more fun and will reach out a lot farther? Of course then you will need a spotting scope and a good range finder with a ballistic calculator cause nothing is more fun than putting a piece of lead in the center of a target from 3 feet out to a mile. Anyone who don't think  it is so has never done it.


----------



## there4eyeM (Jul 16, 2022)

If it were offered, I'd gladly accept an AR15. It is very well made for its intended use. My knowledge and skill level are at its level or above. My safety obsession around firearms, entrained at an early age by a cop father, is adequate. I know what the arm can do and the range of its power. 
I have zero confidence that these minimums are met, as they reasonably must be, by enough of those who possess them. 
It is N.R.A. people who should be absolutely demanding that the seriousness of these weapons be taken seriously.


----------



## woodwork201 (Jul 17, 2022)

there4eyeM said:


> If it were offered, I'd gladly accept an AR15. It is very well made for its intended use. My knowledge and skill level are at its level or above. My safety obsession around firearms, entrained at an early age by a cop father, is adequate. I know what the arm can do and the range of its power.
> I have zero confidence that these minimums are met, as they reasonably must be, by enough of those who possess them.
> It is N.R.A. people who should be absolutely demanding that the seriousness of these weapons be taken seriously.


Offered by whom?  If you want an AR-15, go buy one.  They're readily available.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Jul 17, 2022)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> This is lie.
> 
> Nowhere does the article’s author advocate for ‘grabbing guns.’


It's called incremental steps dumbass.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Jul 20, 2022)

AZrailwhale said:


> He will not only seize the rifle but arrest the person as well.



Unless he dies trying - which would be the preferred outcome.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Jul 20, 2022)

Seymour Flops said:


> A surprise encounter with a criminal attempting to rob you as a civilian is not the same as the situations that military people arm themselves for.  As for police, of course they are going to want the most expensive and powerful weapons they can carry on the taxpayer dime.  Doesn't mean that it is the wise choice.
> 
> I remember reading the studies, but I did not bookmark them or save the links.
> 
> ...



Yet a .22 was equal and a .32 outperformed it significantly.

Reading that chart I would say that a .22 was the most effective, since it's the most easy to handle..


----------



## miketx (Jul 22, 2022)

badbob85037 said:


> Here's an idea. How bout an AR-10. It's more fun and will reach out a lot farther? Of course then you will need a spotting scope and a good range finder with a ballistic calculator cause nothing is more fun than putting a piece of lead in the center of a target from 3 feet out to a mile. Anyone who don't think  it is so has never done it.


No way, an AR-10 is 5 ars less!


----------



## Dagosa (Jul 23, 2022)

woodwork201 said:


> An AR-15, or a similar weapon, is the best choice when a gang of home invaders crash your front door.
> 
> When it's just one attacker, as in the case the DC cop mentions, it is certainly a suitable weapon but much of the advantage becomes excess.
> 
> So all we need is for bad guys to line up when they come in so we can count them and choose the exactly correct weapon based on count, size, clothing, etc..... Or we could, as I would, grab our AR-15.


Hilarious. Preparing for a home invasion so gun a holics can what, shoot through the walls and kill innocents in the house next door and penetrate steel plates and be lethal up to 500 yards away ?

Geese’s, people who prefer the AR must love to be sued. These guys are mass murderers best friend. 

These weapons now more and more in the hands of criminals because of easy access , are driving no police into armored vehicles and swat teams.


----------



## Dagosa (Jul 23, 2022)

miketx said:


> No way, an AR-10 is 5 ars less!


I see you jump in another thread and pretend you know more about the AR then you really did....


----------



## Dagosa (Jul 23, 2022)

woodwork201 said:


> Offered by whom?  If you want an AR-15, go buy one.  They're readily available.


Yup, they are the gun maker’s best friend......it seems there a lot of toy soldier wannabes


----------



## Dagosa (Jul 23, 2022)

there4eyeM said:


> If it were offered, I'd gladly accept an AR15. It is very well made for its intended use. My knowledge and skill level are at its level or above. My safety obsession around firearms, entrained at an early age by a cop father, is adequate. I know what the arm can do and the range of its power.
> I have zero confidence that these minimums are met, as they reasonably must be, by enough of those who possess them.
> It is N.R.A. people who should be absolutely demanding that the seriousness of these weapons be taken seriously.


It’s intended use was as a military weapon. Stoner would be flabbergasted that they are now in the hands of civilians. We ought to start suing companies that knowingly make them so available, they ultimately  get  placed  in the hands of mass murderer s and are the choice for those intent on  killing children and shooting into crowds.


----------



## Dagosa (Jul 23, 2022)

badbob85037 said:


> Here's an idea. How bout an AR-10. It's more fun and will reach out a lot farther? Of course then you will need a spotting scope and a good range finder with a ballistic calculator cause nothing is more fun than putting a piece of lead in the center of a target from 3 feet out to a mile. Anyone who don't think  it is so has never done it.


The AR 10 would never be as popular. Sissy boys find the recoil too much to handle. That’s why the. .223 variant is so much more popular. It extends the popularity to under 21 year old juveniles and other sissy boys too afraid to actually enlist.


----------



## Dagosa (Jul 23, 2022)

Seymour Flops said:


> Opinion: Here's the reason people tell me they want to buy an AR-15. And it's simply ludicrous | CNN
> 
> 
> No weapon has been more in the public eye than the AR-15, in large part because of the tragic role it has played in some of this country's deadliest shootings, former DC police officer Michael Fanone writes. Fanone, who owns one of the weapons, writes that the AR-15 has the dubious distinction...
> ...


*“The AR-15 was developed specifically as a military weapon to replace the M-14. It was probably one of the first major weapons systems to be privately developed following the DOD's decision to privatize the design and development function. This function had heretofore been carried out by publicly funded government operations, most notably, in the case of military small arms, the Springield Arsenal.”*
It was  never intended for the AR15 to be used by civilians. Article of former Colt engineer ....








						Why the AR-15 Was Never Meant to be in Civilians' Hands
					

A former Colt Firearms engineer explains the origin of the semi-automatic rifle.




					www.theatlantic.com


----------



## Dagosa (Jul 23, 2022)

marvin martian said:


> Fuck this fascist piece of shit. He's the reason we need these weapons.


History of the .223 Remington as a military assault weapon cartridge.








						History of the .223 Remington Cartridge
					

A detailed history of the .223 Remington cartridge including an analysis of its performance against small to medium-sized game, brought to you by Terminal Ballistics Research




					fenixammo.com


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Jul 23, 2022)

Dagosa said:


> It’s intended use was as a military weapon.



Oh look, another lying leftist.

No, the AR15 has never been a military weapon.

Do you have a check list of lies to tell?

That's it's an "automatic" rifle, perhaps?



Dagosa said:


> Stoner would be flabbergasted that they are now in the hands of civilians. We ought to start suing companies that knowingly make them so available, they ultimately  get  placed  in the hands of mass murderer s and are the choice for those intent on  killing children and shooting into crowds.



They do?

Oh, this is on your check list...


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Jul 23, 2022)

Dagosa said:


> The AR 10 would never be as popular. Sissy boys find the recoil too much to handle. That’s why the. .223 variant is so much more popular. It extends the popularity to under 21 year old juveniles and other sissy boys too afraid to actually enlist.



Were you in the North Korean army?

Did you have a choice in enlisting?


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Jul 23, 2022)

Dagosa said:


> *“The AR-15 was developed specifically as a military weapon to replace the M-14. It was probably one of the first major weapons systems to be privately developed following the DOD's decision to privatize the design and development function. This function had heretofore been carried out by publicly funded government operations, most notably, in the case of military small arms, the Springield Arsenal.”*
> It was  never intended for the AR15 to be used by civilians. Article of former Colt engineer ....
> 
> 
> ...



That's a lie.

Military weapons ALWAYS have an "M-" designator.

AR15 (no dash) is the designator of the manufacturer, Armalite.

You Nazi lie, about everything, always.


----------



## miketx (Jul 23, 2022)

Dagosa said:


> I see you jump in another thread and pretend you know more about the AR then you really did....


Shut up crap head.


----------



## Dagosa (Jul 23, 2022)

miketx said:


> Shut up crap head.


Whaaa


----------



## there4eyeM (Jul 23, 2022)

The only reason AR 15s are bought in the quantities they are is that they are identical in look to the "real thing" and, indeed, are the "real thing" save for minor details. 
Rights are directly tied to responsibilities. Too many irresponsible people own extremely powerful weapons (and other things, such as cars, for that matter) based on having a "right" without any assurance of being responsible. That has to be addressed.


----------



## miketx (Jul 23, 2022)

there4eyeM said:


> The only reason AR 15s are bought in the quantities they are is that they are identical in look to the "real thing" and, indeed, are the "real thing" save for minor details.
> Rights are directly tied to responsibilities. Too many irresponsible people own extremely powerful weapons (and other things, such as cars, for that matter) based on having a "right" without any assurance of being responsible. That has to be addressed.


Come get them commie. Only thing needing to be addressed is you vermin.


----------



## AMart (Jul 23, 2022)

LOL leftist losers.

AR-15 and AK-47 rifle sales surge to 24 million, more than Ford F-150s​The most popular firearm in America continues to roll out of gun stores in record numbers.

According to new data released on the day a House committee is considering a ban on the gun, the number of AR-15 and AK-47-style "modern sporting rifles" has surged to 24.4 million.

The industry trade group National Shooting Sports Foundation said that is more than all the Ford F-150s on the road. The pickup is America's most popular.

The group said that there have been 4.5 million sold since 2020, when President Joe Biden won in part with a promise to ban the guns, which he and liberals call "assault weapons" because they look — but don't operate — like military rifles.

The semi-automatic guns have been in the media's eye because they have been used in recent mass shootings, and critics believe banning new sales of the guns will somehow end shootings.

However, banning sales clearly will do nothing about the millions of guns already used by people to plink, target shoot, and hunt.

"This is a truly significant figure that demonstrates – again – the popularity of this commonly-owned style of rifle," said NSSF President and CEO Joe Bartozzi. "The firearm industry responds to market demand and this shows that during the elevated period of firearm sales that began in 2020, this particular style of rifle is the top choice for law-abiding citizens for hunting, recreational shooting and self-defense."

According to NSSF, the gun is popular in part due to its "accuracy, reliability, modularity and low recoil."

Some in the media have shifted their focus away from guns to the mental problems many mass shooters suffer from. Even the _Associated Press_ has urged the media to stop calling the rifles "assault weapons," though major outlets, including the _Washington Post_ and _USA Today,_ continue to use the phrase.








						AR-15 and AK-47 rifle sales surge to 24 million, more than Ford F-150s
					

The most popular firearm in America continues to roll out of gun stores in record numbers.




					www.washingtonexaminer.com


----------



## miketx (Jul 23, 2022)




----------



## Dagosa (Jul 23, 2022)

miketx said:


> Come get them commie. Only thing needing to be addressed is you vermin.


The only thing keeping anyone from taking you up on your offer, is catching your disease.


----------



## miketx (Jul 23, 2022)

Dagosa said:


> The only thing keeping anyone from taking you up on your offer, is catching your disease.


How come you won't answer the question, communist?


----------



## Dagosa (Jul 23, 2022)

miketx said:


> How come you won't answer the question, communist?


It’s difficult to take idiots seriously.


----------



## Dagosa (Jul 23, 2022)

AMart said:


> However, banning sales clearly will do nothing about the millions of guns already used by people to plink, target shoot, and hunt.


Doesn’t have to. There are tens of thousands of full autos out there too. Few if any are used in crimes each year. Well written Regulation  stopped their frequent use cold.


----------



## miketx (Jul 23, 2022)

Dagosa said:


> It’s difficult to take idiots seriously.


I take you seriously, communist. You are an evil America hating enemy of the state. You should be dealt with accordingly.


----------



## Dagosa (Jul 23, 2022)

miketx said:


> I take you seriously, communist. You are an evil America hating enemy of the state. You should be dealt with accordingly.


Did yo mama let you on the computer today ?


----------



## miketx (Jul 23, 2022)

Dagosa said:


> Doesn’t have to. There are tens of thousands of full autos out there too. Few if any are used in crimes each year. Well written Regulation  stopped their frequent use cold.


No liar, making them prohibitively expensive did that. Stop lying ya commie enemy of the state.


----------



## miketx (Jul 23, 2022)

Dagosa said:


> Did yo mama let you on the computer today ?


Why won't you answer the question communist?


----------



## Dagosa (Jul 23, 2022)

miketx said:


> Why won't you answer the question communist?


After you answer mine. Why are you such a dip shit ?


----------



## Dagosa (Jul 23, 2022)

miketx said:


> No liar, making them prohibitively expensive did that. Stop lying ya commie enemy of the state.


Let’s do the same with assault weapons then.


----------



## AMart (Jul 23, 2022)

Dagosa said:


> Let’s do the same with assault weapons then.


The law banning full auto is unconstitutional and trying to do that with semi auto ARs would be the same.


----------



## 2aguy (Jul 23, 2022)

Dagosa said:


> It’s intended use was as a military weapon. Stoner would be flabbergasted that they are now in the hands of civilians. We ought to start suing companies that knowingly make them so available, they ultimately  get  placed  in the hands of mass murderer s and are the choice for those intent on  killing children and shooting into crowds.




Moron......

*The FOIA request itself was prompted from a Nov. 2017 article in The Atlantic in which the magazine, unsurprisingly to anyone familiar with its anti-gun bent, attempted to bolster a claim that “these rifles were meant for the military, not civilians.”*

*“Colt sent a pilot model rifle (serial no. GX4968) to the BATF for civilian sale approval on Oct. 23, 1963. It was approved on Dec. 10, 1963, and sales of the ‘Model R6000 Colt AR-15 SP1 Sporter Rifle’ began on Jan 2, 1964,”  

one critic of the article contended. “The M16 wasn’t issued to infantry units until 1965 (as the XM16E1), wasn’t standardized as the M16A1 until 1967, and didn’t officially replace the M14 until 1969.”*





Original ATF AR-15 Classification Refutes Claim that Rifle ‘Not Meant’ for Civilians


----------



## 2aguy (Jul 23, 2022)

Dagosa said:


> *“The AR-15 was developed specifically as a military weapon to replace the M-14. It was probably one of the first major weapons systems to be privately developed following the DOD's decision to privatize the design and development function. This function had heretofore been carried out by publicly funded government operations, most notably, in the case of military small arms, the Springield Arsenal.”*
> It was  never intended for the AR15 to be used by civilians. Article of former Colt engineer ....
> 
> 
> ...




Then why was it put on the civilian market....you dumb ass....years before being adopted, first changed, for the military....?

*“Colt sent a pilot model rifle (serial no. GX4968) to the BATF for civilian sale approval on Oct. 23, 1963. It was approved on Dec. 10, 1963, and sales of the ‘Model R6000 Colt AR-15 SP1 Sporter Rifle’ began on Jan 2, 1964,”

 one critic of the article contended. “The M16 wasn’t issued to infantry units until 1965 (as the XM16E1), wasn’t standardized as the M16A1 until 1967, and didn’t officially replace the M14 until 1969.”

Original ATF AR-15 Classification Refutes Claim that Rifle ‘Not Meant’ for Civilians*


----------



## Dagosa (Jul 23, 2022)

AMart said:


> The law banning full auto is unconstitutional and trying to do that with semi auto ARs would be the same.


Another expert, 80 years too late. You “ experts” are hilarious.


----------



## AMart (Jul 23, 2022)

2aguy said:


> Then why was it put on the civilian market....you dumb ass....years before being adopted, first changed, for the military....?
> 
> *“Colt sent a pilot model rifle (serial no. GX4968) to the BATF for civilian sale approval on Oct. 23, 1963. It was approved on Dec. 10, 1963, and sales of the ‘Model R6000 Colt AR-15 SP1 Sporter Rifle’ began on Jan 2, 1964,”
> 
> ...


That guy Dagosa Ragu Raviloli is an idiot. Just because something might have been designed for military purposes doesn't make it illegal. If that were the case you couldn't have a 4 wheel Jeep, MREs or BDU Camo pants.


----------



## 2aguy (Jul 23, 2022)

AMart said:


> That guy Dagosa Ragu Raviloli is an idiot. Just because something might have been designed for military purposes doesn't make it illegal. If that were the case you couldn't have a 4 wheel Jeep, MREs or BDU Camo pants.




And as I point out....there are 24 million of them in private hands and only a few are used for crime each year........and if the criminals didn't use those few rifles, they would use different rifles or shotguns........and even then, knives are still used to murder more people than all rifles combined...


----------



## miketx (Jul 23, 2022)

AMart said:


> That guy Dagosa Ragu Raviloli is an idiot. Just because something might have been designed for military purposes doesn't make it illegal. If that were the case you couldn't have a 4 wheel Jeep, MREs or BDU Camo pants.


An America hating gun banning lying idiot! I nailed his sorry hide when I posted several images of rifles that do the same thing an AR does and asked him what about all those?  Nothing but spin lies and deflection after that! Typical left actions. Hell these guns do the same thing an ar does:


----------



## Dagosa (Jul 23, 2022)

AMart said:


> That guy Dagosa Ragu Raviloli is an idiot. Just because something might have been designed for military purposes doesn't make it illegal. If that were the case you couldn't have a 4 wheel Jeep, MREs or BDU Camo pants.


Oh, so now you acknowledge it was designed for military purposes. Cause if you ever bothered to read anthing, that’s what the posts were about. One of your uninformed claimed it (AR15) was first designed as a civilian firearm. So you all are wrong. Stoner and company at Armorlite designed it specifically as a military firearm and as my later references dictated, a primary engineer thinks it should never have been put in the civilian market.


----------



## Dagosa (Jul 23, 2022)

miketx said:


> An America hating gun banning lying idiot! I nailed his sorry hide when I posted several images of rifles that do the same thing an AR does and asked him what about all those?  Nothing but spin lies and deflection after that? Typical left actions. Hell these guns do the same thing an ar doesl


So your own kind has abandon you. They concede the AR15 was designed to be a military firearm. Even your buds know you’re FOS.


----------



## Dagosa (Jul 23, 2022)

miketx said:


> Come get them commie. Only thing needing to be addressed is you vermin.


You tell’m Texass hole.


----------



## AMart (Jul 23, 2022)

Dagosa said:


> Oh, so now you acknowledge it was designed for military purposes. Cause if you ever bothered to read anthing, that’s what the posts were about. One of your uninformed claimed it (AR15) was first designed as a civilian firearm. So you all are wrong. Stoner and company at Armorlite designed it specifically as a military firearm and as my later references dictated, a primary engineer thinks it should never have been put in the civilian market.


Nope. Armalite was founded and designed the first ARs before they sold out to Colt, who then got the first contract to supply the military


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Jul 23, 2022)

Dagosa said:


> It’s difficult to take idiots seriously.



That's why no one takes you seriously.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Jul 23, 2022)

Dagosa said:


> Let’s do the same with assault weapons then.


Assault Weapon and full auto mean the same thing.

You're not the sharpest marshmallow in the bag.


----------



## there4eyeM (Jul 23, 2022)

The AR 15 is an assault weapon without auto-fire feature.


----------



## there4eyeM (Jul 23, 2022)

Not all auto-fire weapons are assault rifles.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Jul 23, 2022)

there4eyeM said:


> Not all auto-fire weapons are assault rifles.



What is an "auto-fire" weapon? One that shoots itself without human intervention?


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Jul 23, 2022)

there4eyeM said:


> The AR 15 is an assault weapon without auto-fire feature.



Like a donkey cart is a Ferrari without an engine feature.

I mean, a donkey cart has wheels..


----------



## 2aguy (Jul 23, 2022)

there4eyeM said:


> The AR 15 is an assault weapon without auto-fire feature.



Wrong…..assault weapon is a term created
By anti-gun fanatics to push gun control


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Jul 23, 2022)

2aguy said:


> Wrong…..assault weapon is a term created
> By anti-gun fanatics to push gun control



The attempt is to dissuade the view that guns are generally a defensive weapon.


----------



## AMart (Jul 23, 2022)

there4eyeM said:


> The AR 15 is an assault weapon without auto-fire feature.


Hey fag my auto is an assault auto if I want it so.


----------



## Dagosa (Jul 23, 2022)

AMart said:


> Nope. Armalite was founded and designed the first ARs before they sold out to Colt, who then got the first contract to supply the military


Wrong again. You’re not doing any research. . Colt took over the contract to supply the AR15 now M16 for the MILITARY IN 1964 Prior to that, 8500 AR15s by Armorlite were contracted and issued to the air force for testing. The positive experiences  with the AR15 by Armorlite as a military weapon led to the rights being sold to Colt because of their superior production capability…..The m16 was then born. Colt then  sold the civilian version under the AR15 / name.


----------



## AMart (Jul 23, 2022)

Dagosa said:


> Wrong again. You’re not doing any research. . Colt took over the contract to supply the AR15 now M16 for the MILITARY IN 1964 Prior to that, 8500 AR15s by Armorlite were contracted and issued to the air force for testing. The positive experiences  with the AR15 by Armorlite as a military weapon led to the rights being sold to Colt because of their superior production capability…..The m16 was then born. Colt then  sold the civilian version under the AR15 / name.


The first armalite ARs were designed and built with no military contracts and input. And it doesn't matter anyway. You leftist fag.


----------



## Dagosa (Jul 24, 2022)

AMart said:


> The first armalite ARs were designed and built with no military contracts and input. And it doesn't matter anyway. You leftist fag.


Hey dufus. Armorlite  provided at least 8500 to the military under contract to be used by the Airforce dumbo. The govt requirements are the input dumbo. You can’t fking read can you ? The govt had no input ? Boy, you are feckless. 
Contractors do R and D under govt contracts, from small to big. How are you this stupid ?
When the supply requirements got big, Colt took over….The govt funds everything. They ( Armorlite and Colt) aren’t called “ contractors” for nothing idiot.


----------



## Blues Man (Jul 24, 2022)

there4eyeM said:


> The only reason AR 15s are bought in the quantities they are is that they are identical in look to the "real thing" and, indeed, are the "real thing" save for minor details.
> Rights are directly tied to responsibilities. Too many irresponsible people own extremely powerful weapons (and other things, such as cars, for that matter) based on having a "right" without any assurance of being responsible. That has to be addressed.


An AR 15 is not an "extremely powerful" rifle

I own 3 rifles that are more powerful than that small caliber varmint gun


----------



## Blues Man (Jul 24, 2022)

Dagosa said:


> Doesn’t have to. There are tens of thousands of full autos out there too. Few if any are used in crimes each year. Well written Regulation  stopped their frequent use cold.


How many of the tens of millions of AR platform rifles chambered for the 5.56 NATO round that are currently owned by civilians are used in crimes annually?


----------



## Dagosa (Jul 24, 2022)

Blues Man said:


> How many of the tens of millions of AR platform rifles chambered for the 5.56 NATO round that are currently owned by civilians are used in crimes annually?


Not that many full autos were ever used in crimes number wise before legislation. But as soon as they started to involved  the slaughter of the most vulnerable, including our children and began to put law enforcement  at risk, dumbo, THEY WERE REGULATED.

The high cap 9mm handgun also needs more regulation, especially from you gunners.


----------



## Dagosa (Jul 24, 2022)

Blues Man said:


> An AR 15 is not an "extremely powerful" rifle
> 
> I own 3 rifles that are more powerful than that small caliber varmint gun


Red Herring. You are a military illiterate. The AR15 was designed to kill people more efficiently with small arms. It has NOTHING TO DO WITH HUNTING BEAR VS varmint.  The same dumb arguments from the right


----------



## Blues Man (Jul 24, 2022)

Dagosa said:


> Not that many full autos were ever used in crimes number wise before legislation. But as soon as they started to involved  the slaughter of the most vulnerable, including our children and began to put law enforcement  at risk, dumbo, THEY WERE REGULATED.
> 
> The high cap 9mm handgun also needs more regulation, especially from you gunners.


How many is "not that many"?

Oh and the 9mm handgun is once again just the most popular handgun in the country so of course you want to ban that too


----------



## Blues Man (Jul 24, 2022)

Dagosa said:


> Red Herring. You are a military illiterate. The AR15 was designed to kill people more efficiently with small arms. It has NOTHING TO DO WITH HUNTING BEAR VS varmint.  The same dumb arguments from the right


Not it wasn't.

In fact the the military knows that a wounded combatant is more costly to the enemy than a dead one.

The 5.56 round was a compromise between power and quantity of fire.  It was decide that a smaller LESS LETHAL caliber round that could be carried in higher quantities by soldiers was the best compromise.

Before the 5.56 round was adopted the US used both 7.62 and 6.8 mm rounds

In fact the 5.56 mm round is going to be phased out and most likely replaced with the 6.8 or the 7.62









						This is why the U.S. military uses 5.56mm ammo instead of 7.62mm
					

A common debate among veterans and gun enthusiasts revolves around why the United States chose to implement the 5.56mm N.A.T.O. round into service instead of the 7.62mm.




					www.wearethemighty.com


----------



## Dagosa (Jul 24, 2022)

Blues Man said:


> Not it wasn't.
> 
> In fact the the military knows that a wounded combatant is more costly to the enemy than a dead one.
> 
> ...


You’re reaching.
Only because the military is facing more heavily body armored enemy . Sissy boys like you will not buy a heavier recoil firearm. The 5.56 will still dominate with you sissy boys, few of whom have ever served in the military or been under fire or been a cop facing mass shooters  armed with AR15 platform rifles. Geesus, the AR10 didn’t make it because sissy boy draftees and Air force peoples  didn’t have to carry and shoot a higher recoil firearm.


----------



## Blues Man (Jul 24, 2022)

Dagosa said:


> You’re reaching.
> Only because the military is facing more heavily body armored enemy . Sissy boys like you will not buy a heavier recoil firearm. The 5.56 will still dominate with you sissy boys, few of whom have ever served in the military or been under fire or been a cop facing mass shooters  armed with AR15 platform rifles. Geesus, the AR10 didn’t make it because sissy boy draftees and Air force peoples  didn’t have to carry and shoot a higher recoil firearm.



The 5.56 was not chosen for its lethality.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Jul 24, 2022)

Dagosa said:


> Wrong again. You’re not doing any research. . Colt took over the contract to supply the AR15 now M16 for the MILITARY IN 1964 Prior to that, 8500 AR15s by Armorlite were contracted and issued to the air force for testing. The positive experiences  with the AR15 by Armorlite as a military weapon led to the rights being sold to Colt because of their superior production capability…..The m16 was then born. Colt then  sold the civilian version under the AR15 / name.



The M-16 and AR15 are two distinctly different rifles.

That you have to lie to make your point shows that you have no valid point.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Jul 24, 2022)

Dagosa said:


> Hey dufus. Armorlite  provided at least 8500 to the military under contract to be used by the Airforce dumbo. The govt requirements are the input dumbo. You can’t fking read can you ? The govt had no input ? Boy, you are feckless.
> Contractors do R and D under govt contracts, from small to big. How are you this stupid ?
> When the supply requirements got big, Colt took over….The govt funds everything. They ( Armorlite and Colt) aren’t called “ contractors” for nothing idiot.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Jul 24, 2022)

there4eyeM said:


> The only reason AR 15s are bought in the quantities they are is that they are identical in look to the "real thing" and, indeed, are the "real thing" save for minor details.
> Rights are directly tied to responsibilities. Too many irresponsible people own extremely powerful weapons (and other things, such as cars, for that matter) based on having a "right" without any assurance of being responsible. That has to be addressed.



Wait, your earlier claim was that the M-16 was developed because people couldn't handle the power of the .30-06 M-14

Now you claim it's an "extremely powerful weapon"

You can't keep your story straight - a sure sign when someone is bullshitting.


----------



## Dagosa (Jul 24, 2022)

Blues Man said:


> The 5.56 was not chosen for its lethality.


Totally ignorant statement. It was chosen for the same reason the state police went from .40 cal back to 9mm. It’s sufficient for the task while still allowing sissy boys like you not to “suffer” the felt recoil and still carry more ammo.  You obviously know very little about this cartridge and the AR15 in general.  Before you keep making dumb statements, do some research or man up and join the military.


----------



## AMart (Jul 24, 2022)

Dagosa said:


> Hey dufus. Armorlite  provided at least 8500 to the military under contract to be used by the Airforce dumbo. The govt requirements are the input dumbo. You can’t fking read can you ? The govt had no input ? Boy, you are feckless.
> Contractors do R and D under govt contracts, from small to big. How are you this stupid ?
> When the supply requirements got big, Colt took over….The govt funds everything. They ( Armorlite and Colt) aren’t called “ contractors” for nothing idiot.


They went after government contracts because they were not selling anything in the domestic markets. The company nor the original models were created with hey lets build this to sell our rifles to governments. The first government program/contest they entered was to supply pilots/air crews a smaller rifle they could use in case they got shot down.  You stupid fuck face.


----------



## Dagosa (Jul 24, 2022)

AMart said:


> They went after government contracts because they were not selling anything in the domestic markets. The company nor the original models were created with hey lets build this to sell our rifles to governments. The first government program/contest they entered was to supply pilots/air crews a smaller rifle they could use in case they got shot down.  You stupid fuck face.


You claim the AR15 was built with no gov input. The spec requirements from the govt is gov input,  feckless sissy boy.


----------



## Dagosa (Jul 24, 2022)

AMart said:


> They went after government contracts because they were not selling anything in the domestic markets. The company nor the original models were created with hey lets build this to sell our rifles to governments. The first government program/contest they entered was to supply pilots/air crews a smaller rifle they could use in case they got shot down.  You stupid fuck face.


“…no govt. input…“ That’s you.

Govt requirements used by Armorlite in developing the AR15
From a history of the AR15.
THE GOVT HAD INPUT.

“Though it fired a .30 caliber round, the M14 was difficult to control, especially in full-auto, and its wooden stock did not fare well in the humid environs of Vietnam. Conversely, the North Vietnamese were equipped with the then-new AK-47, which had a faster cyclic rate, a larger magazine, and was comparatively robust and lightweight.

Thus, the military issued a requirement for something better. The new weapon had to meet certain requirements:


Lightweight
Select-fire
Chambered in a lighter caliber so a soldier could carry more ammunition
Larger magazine than the M14
Able to defeat a standard M1 helmet at 500 meters”


----------



## there4eyeM (Jul 24, 2022)

Uncensored2008 said:


> Wait, your earlier claim was that the M-16 was developed because people couldn't handle the power of the .30-06 M-14
> 
> Now you claim it's an "extremely powerful weapon"
> 
> You can't keep your story straight - a sure sign when someone is bullshitting.


Keep your posters straight.


----------



## 2aguy (Jul 24, 2022)

Dagosa said:


> Not that many full autos were ever used in crimes number wise before legislation. But as soon as they started to involved  the slaughter of the most vulnerable, including our children and began to put law enforcement  at risk, dumbo, THEY WERE REGULATED.
> 
> The high cap 9mm handgun also needs more regulation, especially from you gunners.




Yep....you fascists are not going to stop at the AR-15....it is simply your gun control gateway gun...it gives you more power to demand banning the other guns, that are also semi-automatic weapons, if you can get the AR-15 banned when a handful are used illegally...vs. the other 24 million that are not....


----------



## Dagosa (Jul 24, 2022)

Blues Man said:


> How many is "not that many"?
> 
> Oh and the 9mm handgun is once again just the most popular handgun in the country so of course you want to ban that too


What I want is immaterial. I’m not a proponent of any ban. But then, I think everyone of you feckless sissy boys should serve our country with a national draft. Then, only those who do should be licensed to carry.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Jul 24, 2022)

there4eyeM said:


> Keep your posters straight.



In the Reich propaganda you spout, is there a difference between .223 and 5.56mm weapons?

Why is the AR15 a .223 caliber rifle but the M-16 a 5.56?


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Jul 24, 2022)

Dagosa said:


> “…no govt. input…“ That’s you.
> 
> Govt requirements used by Armorlite in developing the AR15
> From a history of the AR15.
> ...



Herr Comrade,

Doesn't the AK-47 have a wood stock?  Why did it fare well in the humid environs of Vietnam?

Oh, because you're full of shit?

The M-14 chambered to 7.62x.51 has a 30 round magazine. Granted, the .30-06 version has a smaller capacity.

But the common use was the .308 with 30 round. Isn't that the same capacity as an M-16?





__





						M14 rifle - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org
				




Oh, I get it - you're full of shit.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Jul 24, 2022)

Dagosa said:


> What I want is immaterial. I’m not a proponent of any ban. But then, I think everyone of you feckless sissy boys should serve our country with a national draft. Then, only those who do should be licensed to carry.



So, like Mussolini, only those who were military are citizens and allowed to vote?

Well, you ARE a fascist after all...


----------



## Blues Man (Jul 24, 2022)

Dagosa said:


> Totally ignorant statement. It was chosen for the same reason the state police went from .40 cal back to 9mm. It’s sufficient for the task while still allowing sissy boys like you not to “suffer” the felt recoil and still carry more ammo.  You obviously know very little about this cartridge and the AR15 in general.  Before you keep making dumb statements, do some research or man up and join the military.


Wrong again


----------



## Blues Man (Jul 24, 2022)

Dagosa said:


> What I want is immaterial. I’m not a proponent of any ban. But then, I think everyone of you feckless sissy boys should serve our country with a national draft. Then, only those who do should be licensed to carry.


You are finally right about something.

What you want is immaterial and also fucking irrelevant


----------



## Dagosa (Jul 24, 2022)

Blues Man said:


> Wrong again


I won that one Loser.


----------



## 2aguy (Jul 24, 2022)

Uncensored2008 said:


> Herr Comrade,
> 
> Doesn't the AK-47 have a wood stock?  Why did it fare well in the humid environs of Vietnam?
> 
> ...



Not to forget the jungle fighting in World War 2.


----------



## Blues Man (Jul 25, 2022)

Dagosa said:


> I won that one Loser.


I know that your life is so small that you think claiming victory on the internet means something.

It's funny and sad


----------



## Dagosa (Jul 25, 2022)

Blues Man said:


> I know that your life is so small that you think claiming victory on the internet means something.
> 
> It's funny and sad


Say that to all your pigeon logic friends who do it all the time….just admit, you’re wrong. Geesus, as liberals go, I’m not that bright. I admit it. Just like Biden who kills Trump, we can still beat the shit out of you non readers.


----------



## Dagosa (Jul 25, 2022)

Blues Man said:


> You are finally right about something.
> 
> What you want is immaterial and also fucking irrelevant


Btw, so many wrong headed ideas are from people who never been there.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Jul 25, 2022)

2aguy said:


> Not to forget the jungle fighting in World War 2.



I've been pretty open about preferring the Mini-14 to the AR15. Part of the reason for that is that the Mini-14 has a wooden stock, which adds weight and reduces recoil. Despite the lies of morons like Dagosa, who has never fired a live round and thinks video games make him an expert, a 5.56 does have recoil. A wood stock helps tame it.


----------



## flan327 (Jul 25, 2022)

johngaltshrugged said:


> They have never made a compelling argument that would make me turn over a single weapon I own, let alone the type we would need if we did have to exercise our 2A rights once the fed become overbearing tyrants.
> 
> Disarming or criminalizing law abiding citizens will never make a country safer, but they know this already.
> It has never been about making us safer, it has always been about them feeling safer from consequences as they strip our rights & implode our country


So you own a TANK?
Rocket launcher?


----------



## Blues Man (Jul 25, 2022)

Dagosa said:


> Say that to all your pigeon logic friends who do it all the time….just admit, you’re wrong. Geesus, as liberals go, I’m not that bright. I admit it. Just like Biden who kills Trump, we can still beat the shit out of you non readers.




The 5.56 round was not chosen because it was more lethal than the 7.62 round it replaced

I am not wrong about that


----------



## Blues Man (Jul 25, 2022)

Dagosa said:


> Btw, so many wrong headed ideas are from people who never been there.


Been where?

Because if it's someplace you're going to be I'll avoid it like the plague


----------



## johngaltshrugged (Jul 25, 2022)

flan327 said:


> So you own a TANK?
> Rocket launcher?


Why, are you selling? How much?

I also don't own a nuke. Does this mean I'd have to surrender no matter what the govt does?
You progbots are funny klan. Not an ounce of backbone among you so you assume everybody else is a bed wetter too.


----------



## Dagosa (Jul 25, 2022)

Blues Man said:


> Been where?
> 
> Because if it's someplace you're going to be I'll avoid it like the plague


Yup, figured you want to avoid the service.


----------



## Blues Man (Jul 26, 2022)

Dagosa said:


> Yup, figured you want to avoid the service.



Yeah I can't stand stupid people telling me what to do unlike you.


----------



## Dagosa (Jul 26, 2022)

Blues Man said:


> Yeah I can't stand stupid people telling me what to do unlike you.


Ha ha. Fix News, the NRA, Trump and Wayne tell you how to dress in the morning. You’re a puppet.


----------



## Blues Man (Jul 26, 2022)

Dagosa said:


> Ha ha. Fix News, the NRA, Trump and Wayne tell you how to dress in the morning. You’re a puppet.


Not a member of the NRA
Don't watch Fox News
Didn't vote for Trump

I'll stand back now and watch your tiny little brain explode


----------



## Peace (Jul 26, 2022)

The AR-15 can be moved to a restricted list like other firearms have moved to which mean you need to do more before you can obtain one and then that will limit who buys one.

It can be done on any firearm seeing we have already established it can be done on fully automatic weapons like the Uzi…


----------



## Blues Man (Jul 26, 2022)

Peace said:


> The AR-15 can be moved to a restricted list like other firearms have moved to which mean you need to do more before you can obtain one and then that will limit who buys one.
> 
> It can be done on any firearm seeing we have already established it can be done on fully automatic weapons like the Uzi…


Why?

It's just another semiautomatic rifle no different than any other semiautomatic rifle.

If you want to restrict one why not just go after all semiautomatic rifles?


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Jul 26, 2022)

Blues Man said:


> Why?
> 
> It's just another semiautomatic rifle no different than any other semiautomatic rifle.
> 
> If you want to restrict one *why not just go after all semiautomatic rifles?*



That's the plan.


----------



## Blues Man (Jul 26, 2022)

Uncensored2008 said:


> That's the plan.


I just want them to admit that.  But they won't.


----------



## Jarlaxle (Jul 31, 2022)

Dagosa said:


> It’s intended use was as a military weapon. Stoner would be flabbergasted that they are now in the hands of civilians. We ought to start suing companies that knowingly make them so available, they ultimately  get  placed  in the hands of mass murderer s and are the choice for those intent on  killing children and shooting into crowds.


You are so full of shit your breath stinks.


----------



## Jarlaxle (Jul 31, 2022)

Dagosa said:


> Oh, so now you acknowledge it was designed for military purposes. Cause if you ever bothered to read anthing, that’s what the posts were about. One of your uninformed claimed it (AR15) was first designed as a civilian firearm. So you all are wrong. Stoner and company at Armorlite designed it specifically as a military firearm and as my later references dictated, a primary engineer thinks it should never have been put in the civilian market.


You are, again and still, full of shit.

News flash: LOTS of rifles began as military designs. (Offhand, the Garand.) They're little different than the ones that did not.


----------



## Jarlaxle (Jul 31, 2022)

Blues Man said:


> An AR 15 is not an "extremely powerful" rifle
> 
> I own 3 rifles that are more powerful than that small caliber varmint gun



I have three, plus a pistol. I think my uncle has...six? Seven? And two pistols.



Dagosa said:


> You’re reaching.
> Only because the military is facing more heavily body armored enemy . Sissy boys like you will not buy a heavier recoil firearm. The 5.56 will still dominate with you sissy boys, few of whom have ever served in the military or been under fire or been a cop facing mass shooters  armed with AR15 platform rifles. Geesus, the AR10 didn’t make it because sissy boy draftees and Air force peoples  didn’t have to carry and shoot a higher recoil firearm.



You are, again and still, full of shit.

The AR-10 "didn't make it" because it simply wasn't ready. The AR-10 that was tested, which was essentially a barely-complete prototype, had an untried composite (aluminum & steel) barrel, which failed. That, the fact it would be expensive to build, and the fact that ArmaLite had no production facility (it was essentially a prototype shop, with only nine employees) meant the Springfield T44 (and Springfield Armory's ability to start mass production immediately) was approved and became the M-14.


----------



## Jarlaxle (Jul 31, 2022)

Dagosa said:


> What I want is immaterial. I’m not a proponent of any ban. But then, I think everyone of you feckless sissy boys should serve our country with a national draft. Then, only those who do should be licensed to carry.


So...people who COULDN'T serve can't protect themselves? Great plan, you fucking idiot.


----------



## Dagosa (Jul 31, 2022)

Jarlaxle said:


> So...people who COULDN'T serve can't protect themselves? Great plan, you fucking idiot.



Everyone can serve in some capacity. Otherwise, fk em and you too. *Nigeria, Germany, and Denmark* have mandatory national service. Many others have national conscription. You lazy effin  ass holes should no be able to get out of service in some capacity. If you can work, you can serve.


----------



## Dagosa (Jul 31, 2022)

Jarlaxle said:


> I have three, plus a pistol. I think my uncle has...six? Seven? And two pistols.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Obviously you’re FOS. You did no research did you. The military mandated a  smaller  caliber firearm  then the A10. You’re ridiculous. You think gun makers determine what the mandatory performance capabilities  are for service weapons and hardware. Geesus, you NEVER HAVE SERVED HAVE YOU ? Chicken shit.


----------



## Dagosa (Jul 31, 2022)

Jarlaxle said:


> have three, plus a pistol. I think my uncle has...six? Seven? And two pistols.


Im not impressed. Anyone can buy them  on the street corner.


----------



## Dagosa (Jul 31, 2022)

Jarlaxle said:


> I have three, plus a pistol. I think my uncle has...six? Seven? And two pistols.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Both the M14 and the AR10 were .308, too powerful and heavy to be used for issued for sissy boy draftees at the time during the Vietnam war. The popularity of AR15 platform rifles now for civilian use lies in the light felt recoil and high capacity that you sissy boys can handle. None server military wannabes like the idea of being military, but are generally scared shitless of putting their own life on the line.


----------



## Dagosa (Jul 31, 2022)

Jarlaxle said:


> Offhand, the Garand.)


Ha ha
You’re hilarious. You’re ridiculous Garands aren’t used by topical low life sissy boy mass shooters. They’re too much firearm for them to handle.


----------



## westwall (Jul 31, 2022)

Seymour Flops said:


> Opinion: Here's the reason people tell me they want to buy an AR-15. And it's simply ludicrous | CNN
> 
> 
> No weapon has been more in the public eye than the AR-15, in large part because of the tragic role it has played in some of this country's deadliest shootings, former DC police officer Michael Fanone writes. Fanone, who owns one of the weapons, writes that the AR-15 has the dubious distinction...
> ...





Fanone is a fraud, and a coward.  He is an expert at play acting


----------



## Dagosa (Jul 31, 2022)

westwall said:


> Fanone is a fraud, and a coward.  He is an expert at play acting


You must be talking about Wayne the criminal LaPierre.


----------



## Dagosa (Jul 31, 2022)

Jarlaxle said:


> So...people who COULDN'T serve can't protect themselves? Great plan, you fucking idiot.


Only you feckless sissy boys: .


----------



## Dagosa (Jul 31, 2022)

Blues Man said:


> The 5.56 round was not chosen because it was more lethal than the 7.62 round it replaced
> 
> I am not wrong about that


It was chosen for the exact reason the military stated in its requirements. Maybe you should read them instead of making up shit.


----------



## Blues Man (Jul 31, 2022)

Dagosa said:


> It was chosen for the exact reason the military stated in its requirements. Maybe you should read them instead of making up shit.


The fact are the facts.

The round was chosen as a compromise between power and weight but as I have stated there were politics involved as well

And don't forget you're the one who said it was chosen for its lethality and you are just wrong about that


----------



## Dagosa (Jul 31, 2022)

Blues Man said:


> And don't forget you're the one who said it was chosen for its lethality and you are just wrong about that


Thats a ridiculous exaggeration.   Or course as usual, you can’t quote me so you just make up what you think or pretended  I’ve said. It would be ridiculous to chose a cartridge that was not lethal, dah. It’s lethal enough for its intended purpose. Now make up done more shit and pretend.


----------



## Blues Man (Jul 31, 2022)

Dagosa said:


> Because illiterate, the lethality of the cartridge in .223 with limited recoil is just as important to defining the AR15 as the features it has. The AR15 platform in .308 is. is no where near as plentiful on the civilian market for one reason……think of it.


The 5.56 mm round was not chosen for its lethality


----------



## Dagosa (Jul 31, 2022)

Blues Man said:


> The 5.56 mm round was not chosen for its lethality


You’re a piece of work. You just proved you miss quoted me…unbelievable.


----------



## Dagosa (Jul 31, 2022)

Blues Man said:


> The 5.56 mm round was not chosen for its lethality


Of course it was. You’re totally absurd. If it wasn’t lethal, it would not be chosen at all. You don’t even know what lethality is do you ? We’re talking about lethality to humanoids, not a killer whale.


----------



## Blues Man (Jul 31, 2022)

Dagosa said:


> You’re a piece of work. You just proved you miss quoted me…unbelievable.


The lethality of the 5.56 was not the deciding factor in it's adoption.  Everyone knows that it is a less lethal round than either the 6.8 or the 7.62.  Well everyone but you

There was more concern about weight and standardization within NATO not to mention the fact that the US at the time held a near monopoly on the manufacture of both the round and the rifles.


----------



## Blues Man (Jul 31, 2022)

Dagosa said:


> Of course it was. You’re totally absurd. If it wasn’t lethal, it would not be chosen at all. You don’t even know what lethality is do you ?


It's LESS lethal than the 7.62 that it replaced.

The compromise was more rounds fired for the same weight


----------



## Dagosa (Jul 31, 2022)

Blues Man said:


> Not a member of the NRA
> Don't watch Fox News
> Didn't vote for Trump
> 
> I'll stand back now and watch your tiny little brain explode


Why, you can claim anything, anytime on the internet.


----------



## Blues Man (Jul 31, 2022)

Dagosa said:


> Why, you can claim anything, anytime on the internet.


You mean just like you do when you ASSUME things about me?


----------



## Dagosa (Jul 31, 2022)

Blues Man said:


> The lethality of the 5.56 was not the deciding factor in it's adoption. Everyone knows that it is a less lethal round than either the 6.8 or the 7.62. Well everyone but you


Now you‘re you’re changing your tune because you know I’m right. Lethality is A DECIDING FACTOR.  Funny. The 5.56 is lethal for the task at hand as required by the military. It had to reliably penetrate a steel helmet at 500 yards…..that’s not 700 yards.

All you have to do is look at victims of mass murderers using this round. It was chosen to fulfill the military requirements….
They aren’t the same as need by anyone in the civilian world except but a mass murderer. I guess if you’re attack by a herd of rabid pigs in heat, it would be an  exception.
Because in the military, that’s what is required…..kill and incapacitate as many humanoids as efficiently as possible. That requires minimal felt recoil and lots of ammo…..just what mass killers use when they can get their hands on one…..they are AVAILABLE.


----------



## Blues Man (Jul 31, 2022)

Dagosa said:


> Now you‘re you’re changing your tune because you know I’m right. Funny. The 5.56 is lethal for the task at hand as required by the military. It had to reliably penetrate a steel helmet at 500 yards…..that’s not 700 yards.
> 
> All you have to do is look at victims of mass murderers using this round. It was chosen to fulfill the military requirements….
> They aren’t the same as need by anyone in civilian world but a mass murderer. Because in the military, that’s what is required…..kill and incapacitate as many as efficiently as possible. .


It's used in mass murders because it happens to be the round for the most popular rifle in the country.

NOT because the shooters think it's the most lethal round.

Once again your "logic" applied to drunk driving would conclude that banning the most popular beer in the country (Bud Light) would end drunk driving.


----------



## Blues Man (Jul 31, 2022)

Dagosa said:


> Now you‘re you’re changing your tune because you know I’m right. Lethality is A DECIDING FACTOR.  Funny. The 5.56 is lethal for the task at hand as required by the military. It had to reliably penetrate a steel helmet at 500 yards…..that’s not 700 yards.
> 
> All you have to do is look at victims of mass murderers using this round. It was chosen to fulfill the military requirements….
> They aren’t the same as need by anyone in the civilian world except but a mass murderer. I guess if you’re attack by a herd of rabid pigs in heat, it would be an  exception.
> Because in the military, that’s what is required…..kill and incapacitate as many humanoids as efficiently as possible. That requires minimal felt recoil and lots of ammo…..just what mass killers use when they can get their hands on one…..they are AVAILABLE.


It MIGHT penetrate a steel helmet at 500 yds with a perfect shot but that is hardly a common occurrence


----------



## Dagosa (Jul 31, 2022)

Blues Man said:


> It's used in mass murders because it happens to be the round for the most popular rifle in the country.


And it’s popularity stems from its low felt recoil, and ability to through as many rounds down range as cheaply as possible for the desired effect. 

Shit, as soon as you hear how “ fun to shoot” they are, you have a problem. A fking .22 is fun to shoot, but it doesn’t have anywhere near the lethality out to 500 yards. Let’s get real, they are for mass murder.


----------



## Blues Man (Jul 31, 2022)

Dagosa said:


> And it’s popularity stems from its low felt recoil, and ability to through as many rounds down range as cheaply as possible for the desired effect.
> 
> Shit, as soon as you hear how “ fun to shoot” they are, you have a problem. A fking .22 is fun to shoot, but it doesn’t have anywhere near the lethality out to 500 yards. Let’s get real, they are for mass murder.


The military definition of effective range isn't based on lethality it's one of 2 things

the distance at which the bullet energy falls below 58 ftlb,
 or
• the distance at which the average recruit can hit the target only 50% of the time.

And even a .22 can be lethal up to a mile away.

But you do at least imply that any close quarter mass shooting like Uvalve could have been committed with any rifle because it really doesn't matter how lethal a round is at 500 meters but how lethal it is up close and personal


----------



## Dagosa (Jul 31, 2022)

Blues Man said:


> It MIGHT penetrate a steel helmet at 500 yds with a perfect shot but that is hardly a common occurrence


Now you’re  bring a silly excepting to CYA. An idiot deranged sissy boy reject becomes a mass killer with minimal training with these firearms…easily out to 500 yards.

you know it….there just isn’t another platform out there that provides this opportunity, capacity and availability to a mass murderer.


----------



## Dagosa (Jul 31, 2022)

Blues Man said:


> The military definition of effective range isn't based on lethality it's one of 2 things


That’s ridiculous. Of course it is. Lethality is always a factor in choosing any of their common issues firearms. You’re just stroking the mule now.


----------



## Blues Man (Jul 31, 2022)

Dagosa said:


> Now you’re  bring a silly excepting to CYA. An idiot deranged sissy boy reject becomes a mass killer with minimal training with these firearms…easily out to 500 yards.
> 
> you know it….there just isn’t another platform out there that provides this opportunity, capacity and availability to a mass murderer.


Bullshit.

The 500 yd effective range is defined by the military at the distance a recruit can it a target HALF OF THE TIME. It says nothing about the likelihood of killing the target at 500 yards


----------



## Dagosa (Jul 31, 2022)

Blues Man said:


> And even a .22 can be lethal up to a mile away.


You’re into this fking one way train of thought. The military uses science. Science deals in percentages of success and failures not making all or nothing comparisons.


----------



## Dagosa (Jul 31, 2022)

Blues Man said:


> Bullshit.
> 
> The 500 yd effective range is defined by the military at the distance a recruit can it a target HALF OF THE TIME. It says nothing about the likelihood of killing the target at 500 yards


The spec requirements are what they are……


----------



## Blues Man (Jul 31, 2022)

Dagosa said:


> That’s ridiculous. Of course it is. Lethality is always a factor in choosing any of their common issues firearms. You’re just stroking the mule now.


Wrong again

All any round has to do is injure or incapacitate and that is the desired effect as  far as the military is concerned


----------



## Flash (Jul 31, 2022)

Dagosa said:


> They aren’t the same as need by anyone in the civilian world except but a mass murderer. I guess if you’re attack by a herd of rabid pigs in heat, it would be an  exception.


The great majority (like 95%+) of the people killed by gun fire in the US are killed with pistol rounds.  9mm is the most lethal round if you measure the number of people killed.


----------



## Blues Man (Jul 31, 2022)

Dagosa said:


> You’re into this fking one way train of thought. The military uses science. Science deals in percentages of success and failures not making all or nothing comparisons.


And the military defines effective range as one where a recruit achieves  50% accuracy


----------



## Blues Man (Jul 31, 2022)

Dagosa said:


> The spec requirements are what they are……


So then a trained soldier can only hit a target with a 5.56 mm round 50% of the time and there is not guarantee of the target being killed


----------



## Dagosa (Jul 31, 2022)

Blues Man said:


> So then a trained soldier can only hit a target with a 5.56 mm round 50% of the time and there is not guarantee of the target being killed


You’re waddling in assumptions and taking it into minutia…..

The military performs a lot of laudable services, from search and rescue to technology that is used to help mankind in general……but it also developed through their contractors, weapons for mass killings. Artillery, nukes, and the AR15/m16 are just some of them.

Why  are you promoting and excusing their use by civilians ?


----------



## Dagosa (Jul 31, 2022)

Blues Man said:


> And the military defines effective range as one where a recruit achieves  50% accuracy


And low felt recoil is essential for the task. That’s part of the appeal of the cartridge. Every argument you make brings us back to one thing. the AR15 is a choice of mass killers.


----------



## Dagosa (Jul 31, 2022)

Flash said:


> The great majority (like 95%+) of the people killed by gun fire in the US are killed with pistol rounds.  9mm is the most lethal round if you measure the number of people killed.


Thanks for bringing  up that high cap 9mm pistols should ALSO  be included in firearm regulation.


----------



## Dagosa (Jul 31, 2022)

Blues Man said:


> Wrong again
> 
> All any round has to do is injure or incapacitate and that is the desired effect as  far as the military is concerned


You’ve come full circle. Have no idea what your point is. Look up the meaning of “lethal”.


----------



## Flash (Jul 31, 2022)

Dagosa said:


> Thanks for bringing  up that high cap 9mm pistols should ALSO  be included in firearm regulation.


The Democrat turds tried that in DC and Chicago and the Supreme Court told them that they couldn't stop Dick Heller and Otis McDonald from having them.

You know, that pesky Bill of Rights thingy that you Libtards hate so much.


----------



## Dagosa (Jul 31, 2022)

Flash said:


> The Democrat turds tried that in DC and Chicago and the Supreme Court told them that they couldn't stop Dick Heller and Otis McDonald from having them.
> 
> You know, that pesky Bill of Rights thingy that you Libtards hate so much.


Ha ha
i fully agree. Heller was told he could keep a hand gun  in his home in a ready condition, ONLY if the fire arm was registered and he was licensed. It seems the SC was satisfied Heller‘s rights were not violated  by requiring him to register his hand gun and be permitted which requires a regular back ground check for renewal.

The SC got it right. To this day, registration and licensing is required in DC, just to keep a firearm in the home and unlocked. Ha ha

regulation is the law of the land should any local govt choose to do it.


----------



## Flash (Jul 31, 2022)

Dagosa said:


> Ha ha
> i fully agree. Heller was told he could keep a hand gun  in his home in a ready condition, ONLY if the fire arm was registered and he was licensed. It seems the SC was satisfied Heller‘s rights were not violated  by requiring him to register his hand gun and be permitted which requires a regular back ground check for renewal.
> 
> The SC got it right. To this day, registration and licensing is required in DC, just to keep a firearm in the home and unlocked. Ha ha
> ...


In the Bruen case the Supreme Court also said that the fucking asshole Democrats could not have oppressive licensing requirements.  It has to be Constitutional Carry or Shall Issue.  Both things the Democrat shitheads hate.


----------



## westwall (Jul 31, 2022)

Dagosa said:


> Of course it was. You’re totally absurd. If it wasn’t lethal, it would not be chosen at all. You don’t even know what lethality is do you ? We’re talking about lethality to humanoids, not a killer whale.





No, it was chosen for its ability to WOUND, not kill.  The object in war is wounding because you take 5 men off the field instead of just one.


----------



## Dagosa (Jul 31, 2022)

Flash said:


> In the Bruen case the Supreme Court also said that the fucking asshole Democrats could not have oppressive licensing requirements.  It has to be Constitutional Carry or Shall Issue.  Both things the Democrat shitheads hate.


Regulation is the law of the land


----------



## Dagosa (Jul 31, 2022)

westwall said:


> No, it was chosen for its ability to WOUND, not kill.


Hilariously bullshit. You never served did you…..if that were the case mr uninformed we’d have a separate unit just to pick up combatants and nurse them back to health. What a bunch of bull crap. I suppose flame throwers and nukes were designed to just wound the enemy so we could what, spend trillions nursing all victims back to health. Oh, we specifically tried To what, shoot the guns out of the hands of the enemy . You need a stint in the infantry…

Find one military man who was taught to wound combatants..
geesus, you think the arms makers are trying to put our servicemen at risk with weapons that aren’t designed to be lethal ? Can you get any dumber ?


----------



## Dagosa (Jul 31, 2022)

Flash said:


> The Democrat turds tried that in DC and Chicago and the Supreme Court told them that they couldn't stop Dick Heller and Otis McDonald from having them.
> 
> You know, that pesky Bill of Rights thingy that you Libtards hate so much.


Really, you guys are the election deniers. You guys are taking away woman’s health rights.


----------



## Flash (Jul 31, 2022)

Dagosa said:


> Regulation is the law of the land


Keeping Dick Heller and Otis McDonald from owning firearms was "the law of the land" until the Supremes put an end to the oppression.

The fucking pieces of shit Democrats don't care about "the law of the land" because they continue to disregard _Heller_ and _McDonald_ and they have publicly stated they are going to disregard _Bruen._

They sure as hell don't enforce the laws against unlawful entry into the US at the US southern border, do they?  Potatohead is allowing millions of the little fuckers to flood in and a good number of them are carrying illegal drugs that kill Americans.  Not to mention the sex slavery.

They didn't not enforce the laws against  insurrection when they let the goddamn BLM Negros get away with months of destruction against Federal, State and Local property and it also included murder.

The Democrats didn't follow the voting laws when they used the scam of fraudulent unverified mail in and harvested ballots counted by Democrats to steal the 2020 election, did they?


----------



## Dagosa (Jul 31, 2022)

westwall said:


> No, it was chosen for its ability to WOUND, not kill.  The object in war is wounding because you take 5 men off the field instead of just one.


Hilarious. At 700 feet per minute plus faster then the famous mid size hunting cartridge .30-30 which is not designed to just wound but humanely kill,  the .223 produces a much greater wound channel in gelatin with much less recoil. So if a .223 is designed to just wound, it’s an utter failure.


----------



## Dagosa (Jul 31, 2022)

Flash said:


> Keeping Dick Heller and Otis McDonald from owning firearms was "the law of the land" until the Supremes put an end to the oppression.
> 
> The fucking pieces of shit Democrats don't care about "the law of the land" because they continue to disregard _Heller_ and _McDonald_ and they have publicly stated they are going to disregard _Bruen._
> 
> ...


Sorry, not reading your made up tripe.


----------



## Flash (Jul 31, 2022)

Dagosa said:


> Sorry, not reading your made up tripe.


Of course you don't want want to read it.

You stupid uneducated Moon Bats have no intentions of ever pulling your heads out of your asses, do you?


----------



## 2aguy (Jul 31, 2022)

Dagosa said:


> You’re waddling in assumptions and taking it into minutia…..
> 
> The military performs a lot of laudable services, from search and rescue to technology that is used to help mankind in general……but it also developed through their contractors, weapons for mass killings. Artillery, nukes, and the AR15/m16 are just some of them.
> 
> Why  are you promoting and excusing their use by civilians ?




Because the AR-15 rifle is just a rifle......no more, no less than any other rifle.......and the fact that idiots like you want it banned shows you don't care about anything other than banning guns.......if you get the AR-15, you will then demand all the other semi-automatic rifles, pistols and shotguns...see the latest democrat gun grab in the House.......and after that, you will come for the rest.......

Civilians have 24 million AR-15 rifles and other semi-automatic rifles modeled on the AK-47...each year a bare handful are used to commit crimes......and that, you dumb twit, is no rational reason to take guns away from normal gun owners.

Knives are used to murder over 1,500 people every year....rifles of all types barely 400.....so according to your twisted logic, we need to ban knives, since they are deadlier than AR-15 rifles.....

Right?


----------



## 2aguy (Jul 31, 2022)

Dagosa said:


> Hilarious. At 700 feet per minute plus faster then the famous mid size hunting cartridge .30-30 which is not designed to just wound but humanely kill,  the .223 produces a much greater wound channel in gelatin with much less recoil. So if a .223 is designed to just wound, it’s an utter failure.




You really don't know what you are talking about........the military is right now replacing the 5.56 round.....the one they use in the M4 rifle and used in the past AR-15 because it doesn't in fact, kill....and at longer ranges it is not doing the job they need....as shown in the mountains of Afghanistan........

You don't know what you are talking about, you spew feet per minutes to hide your ignorance....


----------



## 2aguy (Jul 31, 2022)

westwall said:


> No, it was chosen for its ability to WOUND, not kill.  The object in war is wounding because you take 5 men off the field instead of just one.




Not to forget the resources needed to treat the wounded.....a dead guy gets no medical attention....wounded get all sorts of expensive resources.......logistics and understanding logistics wins wars.....not just bullets...


----------



## Flash (Jul 31, 2022)

Dagosa said:


> White supremest at it again. Got your bed sheet holes cut out for tonight’s cross burning ?


My god you are an imbecile.  Supporting the Bill of Rights isn't racism you moron.

Of course in Moon Bat Land everything is racist, isn't it?  Even the climate.


----------



## Jarlaxle (Jul 31, 2022)

Dagosa said:


> Everyone can serve in some capacity. Otherwise, fk em and you too. *Nigeria, Germany, and Denmark* have mandatory national service. Many others have national conscription. You lazy effin  ass holes should no be able to get out of service in some capacity. If you can work, you can serve.



Well...no, that's wrong. Many people CAN'T serve. My good friend couldn't, he's diabetic. My nephew can't, he has asthma. My wife's best friend is too small. Guy I work with was sent home from navy boot camp due to a heart murmur.



Dagosa said:


> Obviously you’re FOS. You did no research did you. The military mandated a  smaller  caliber firearm  then the A10. You’re ridiculous. You think gun makers determine what the mandatory performance capabilities  are for service weapons and hardware. Geesus, you NEVER HAVE SERVED HAVE YOU ? Chicken shit.



No, that's wrong. The AR-10 was considered, but rejected...and the Springfield T44 became the *M-14*...which, you know, is a *full size battle rifle and fires THE SAME CALIBER as the AR-10*, you fucking idiot.



Dagosa said:


> Ha ha
> You’re hilarious. You’re ridiculous Garands aren’t used by topical low life sissy boy mass shooters. They’re too much firearm for them to handle.



Actually, it's more that despite 5.5 million made, they're uncommon (since aside from a few made in the early 80s, the newest is about 60 years old). And as such, they are expensive, easily 5-6x the cost of an AR-15.


----------



## westwall (Jul 31, 2022)

Dagosa said:


> Drivel……made up shit and tripe.




Describes your utterances to a T.


----------



## Jarlaxle (Jul 31, 2022)

Dagosa said:


> Now you‘re you’re changing your tune because you know I’m right. Lethality is A DECIDING FACTOR.  Funny. The 5.56 is lethal for the task at hand as required by the military. It had to reliably penetrate a steel helmet at 500 yards…..that’s not 700 yards.
> 
> All you have to do is look at victims of mass murderers using this round. It was chosen to fulfill the military requirements….
> They aren’t the same as need by anyone in the civilian world except but a mass murderer. I guess if you’re attack by a herd of rabid pigs in heat, it would be an  exception.
> Because in the military, that’s what is required…..kill and incapacitate as many humanoids as efficiently as possible. That requires minimal felt recoil and lots of ammo…..just what mass killers use when they can get their hands on one…..they are AVAILABLE.



This is a fever dream. And note: 5.56 is NOT a good choice for feral hogs, it's nowhere near strong enough. It's (barely) enough to hunt deer..



Dagosa said:


> You’re waddling in assumptions and taking it into minutia…..
> 
> The military performs a lot of laudable services, from search and rescue to technology that is used to help mankind in general……but it also developed through their contractors, weapons for mass killings. Artillery, nukes, and the AR15/m16 are just some of them.
> 
> Why  are you promoting and excusing their use by civilians ?



Probably because the AR is simply a semiautomatic rifle...little different (other than caliber-the .223 Remington was only developed in the 50s, and the .222 it was developed from in 1950) from rifles that have been in use for over a century.



Dagosa said:


> Hilariously bullshit. You never served did you…..if that were the case mr uninformed we’d have a separate unit just to pick up combatants and nurse them back to health.



You mean the...*Army Medical Corps*, which dates to 1908, you mental midget?!



> What a bunch of bull crap. I suppose flame throwers and nukes were designed to just wound the enemy so we could what, spend trillions nursing all victims back to health. Oh, we specifically tried To what, shoot the guns out of the hands of the enemy . You need a stint in the infantry…



You need 30 days observation. Or a prefrontal.



> Find one military man who was taught to wound combatants..
> geesus, you think the arms makers are trying to put our servicemen at risk with weapons that aren’t designed to be lethal ? Can you get any dumber ?



You certainly can get dumber...you prove it with every post.



Dagosa said:


> Hilarious. At 700 feet per minute plus faster then the famous mid size hunting cartridge .30-30 which is not designed to just wound but humanely kill,  the .223 produces a much greater wound channel in gelatin with much less recoil. So if a .223 is designed to just wound, it’s an utter failure.



The .30-30 is archaic. It's an early smokeless powder cartridge and dates to the 19th century-it's popularity comes from light recoil (about half that of a .30-06) and the fact that the rifles that used it (notably, the Winchester 1894) were cheap and very common-it is by far the most common caliber for smokeless-powder lever-action rifles. It's only effective to 150-200 yards. While good, it's archaic compared to the .223 Remington.


----------



## Dagosa (Jul 31, 2022)

Jarlaxle said:


> While good, it's archaic compared to the .223 Remington.


Guess you’re proving my point.


----------



## westwall (Jul 31, 2022)

Dagosa said:


> Guess you’re proving my point.





No, it proves ours.

Moron.


----------



## Dagosa (Jul 31, 2022)

Liar….


westwall said:


> No, it proves ours.
> 
> Moron.


----------



## Dagosa (Jul 31, 2022)

Jarlaxle said:


> This is a fever dream. And note: 5.56 is NOT a good choice for feral hogs, it's nowhere near strong enough. It's (barely) enough to hunt deer..
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Wow, you do copy and paste irrelevant shit.


----------



## westwall (Jul 31, 2022)

Dagosa said:


> Liar….




Yeah, you are.  You don't know shit about anything.  So you try and bullshit your way along.

You are a typical fascist piece of shit.


----------



## Dagosa (Jul 31, 2022)

westwall said:


> Yeah, you are.  You don't know shit about anything.  So you try and bullshit your way along.
> 
> You are a typical fascist piece of shit.


At least I’m typical. You are an atypical POS.


----------



## westwall (Jul 31, 2022)

Dagosa said:


> At least I’m typical. You are an atypical POS.





Indeed I am.  You're just common pond scum.

And you STILL have no idea how guns work.


----------



## Dagosa (Jul 31, 2022)

westwall said:


> Indeed I am.  You're just common pond scum.
> 
> And you STILL have no idea how guns work.


How guns work ? Yah, it’s so complicated. Must keep you up at night


----------



## westwall (Jul 31, 2022)

Dagosa said:


> How guns work ? Yah, it’s so complicated. Must keep you up at night





Indeed.  I build them so I am always coming up with new designs.

A simpleton, like you, would never understand.


----------



## Jarlaxle (Aug 1, 2022)

Dagosa said:


> Wow, you do copy and paste irrelevant shit.


I didn't copy and paste anything, pisshead.


----------



## Dagosa (Aug 1, 2022)

Jarlaxle said:


> I didn't copy and paste anything, pisshead.


Liar.


----------



## Dagosa (Aug 1, 2022)

westwall said:


> Indeed.  I build them so I am always coming up with new designs.
> 
> A simpleton, like you, would never understand.


Oh, I understand. You’re breathing way too much Hoppe’s 9  fumes. You do make up shit.


----------



## Jarlaxle (Aug 1, 2022)

Dagosa said:


> Liar.


Yes, you're lying, boy.

Lay off the crack, it makes you stupider than usual.


----------



## badbob85037 (Aug 3, 2022)

Seymour Flops said:


> Opinion: Here's the reason people tell me they want to buy an AR-15. And it's simply ludicrous | CNN
> 
> 
> No weapon has been more in the public eye than the AR-15, in large part because of the tragic role it has played in some of this country's deadliest shootings, former DC police officer Michael Fanone writes. Fanone, who owns one of the weapons, writes that the AR-15 has the dubious distinction...
> ...


Let the little dick wad get his AR 15. We will meet at 900 yards. Dick wad with his AR 15 and me with my AR 10 giving him a 5 advantage.


----------



## Dagosa (Aug 3, 2022)

badbob85037 said:


> Let the little dick wad get his AR 15. We will meet at 900 yards. Dick wad with his AR 15 and me with my AR 10 giving him a 5 advantage.


Gun a holics don’t have a clue…


----------



## westwall (Aug 3, 2022)

Dagosa said:


> Gun a holics don’t have a clue…






No, it is pretty obvious that you are the clueless one.  You have no concept of the exterior ballistics of anything.


----------



## Dagosa (Aug 3, 2022)

westwall said:


> No, it is pretty obvious that you are the clueless one.  You have no concept of the *exterior* ballistics of anything.


You mean “external“ ballistics. Another fake expert.


----------



## Dagosa (Aug 3, 2022)

westwall said:


> Yeah, you are.  You don't know shit about anything.  So you try and bullshit your way along.
> 
> You are a typical fascist piece of shit.


 Sissy boy upset ?


----------



## Jarlaxle (Aug 13, 2022)

Yes, you seem upset. Time to adjust your medication again.


----------



## AZrailwhale (Aug 14, 2022)

Dagosa said:


> Ha ha
> You’re hilarious. You’re ridiculous Garands aren’t used by topical low life sissy boy mass shooters. They’re too much firearm for them to handle.


ARVNs carried Garands and the average ARVN soldier was barely five foot and weighed under a hundred twenty pounds.  I carried a Garand in high school ROTC and I was six two and only weighed one sixty.  Audie Murphy carried one on WWII and he was a real runt that was refused enlistment for being too small and underweight more than once.  A 7.62mm battle rifle is easier to use than a 30.06, .303 or 7.92mm one like those widely used in WWII.


----------



## westwall (Aug 14, 2022)

Dagosa said:


> Sissy boy upset ?




Me?  Nah.  I enjoy bitchslapping you.

It's becoming quite the hobby!


----------



## westwall (Aug 14, 2022)

Dagosa said:


> You mean “external“ ballistics. Another fake expert.






No, dumbass, I mean EXTERIOR BALLISTICS!

When you develop a brain, feel free to come back.  Till then take your lesson like a man and shut the fuck up!




A. DEFINITION OF BALLISTICS

1. The science of the motion of projectile.

B. DIVIDED INTO FOUR BRANCHES



1. Interior ballistics is the branch of the science that deals with the projectile while it is still in the gun.

2. Transitional ballistics is the branch of the science that deals with the motion of the projectile from the time it leaves the muzzle until the only forces acting upon it are due to exterior ballistics.

3. *Exterior ballistics* is the branch of the science that deals with the projectile after it clears the muzzle and throughout its time of flight.

4. Terminal ballistics is that branch of the science that deals with the impact, and force imparted on the target.



			https://man.fas.org/dod-101/navy/docs/swos/gunno/INFO6.html#:~:text=Exterior%20ballistics%20is%20the%20branch,force%20imparted%20on%20the%20target.


----------



## Dagosa (Aug 16, 2022)

westwall said:


> No, dumbass, I mean EXTERIOR BALLISTICS!
> 
> When you develop a brain, feel free to come back.  Till then take your lesson like a man and shut the fuck up!
> 
> ...


Took you forever to find someone who also delves in fake news…..”external” Ballistics








						External Ballistics - Hornady Manufacturing, Inc
					

Video Library    From Barrel to Target External ballistics deals with the performance of Hornady bullets from the moment they exit the barrel until the moment they arrive at the target. We are not concerned with internal ballistics, the province o...




					www.hornady.com
				




But continual response from an idiot make believe  authority is typical.


----------



## BothWings (Aug 16, 2022)

I don't need an AR-15. I already have one of these:


----------



## Dagosa (Aug 16, 2022)

AZrailwhale said:


> ARVNs carried Garands and the average ARVN soldier was barely five foot and weighed under a hundred twenty pounds.  I carried a Garand in high school ROTC and I was six two and only weighed one sixty.  Audie Murphy carried one on WWII and he was a real runt that was refused enlistment for being too small and underweight more than once.  A 7.62mm battle rifle is easier to use than a 30.06, .303 or 7.92mm one like those widely used in WWII.


So you’re saying AR15 devotees are  even more  a sissy boy then we thought ? I’ll buy that.


----------



## Dagosa (Aug 16, 2022)

BothWings said:


> I don't need an AR-15. I already have one of these:
> View attachment 683281


Wow, you think you can buy courage. Not impressed.


----------



## Dagosa (Aug 16, 2022)

westwall said:


> When you develop a brain, feel free to come back. Till then take your lesson like a man and shut the fuck up!


Another internet tough guy. Boo.


----------



## Dagosa (Aug 16, 2022)

westwall said:


> No, it is pretty obvious that you are the clueless one.  You have no concept of the exterior ballistics of anything.


It gets funnier every time upyou guys pretend you know shit about anything.


----------



## Dagosa (Aug 16, 2022)

westwall said:


> Me?  Nah.  I enjoy bitchslapping you.
> 
> It's becoming quite the hobby!


About the only one you have while living in yo mamma’s  basement


----------



## M14 Shooter (Aug 16, 2022)

BothWings said:


> I don't need an AR-15. I already have one of these:
> View attachment 683281


My condolences.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Aug 16, 2022)

westwall said:


> Yeah, you are.  You don't know shit about anything.  So you try and bullshit your way along.
> You are a typical fascist piece of shit.


I cannot imagine a reason why someone woulds not have him on ignore.
Even if I agrreed with him, I'd not want to see him continually embarass himself.


----------



## westwall (Aug 16, 2022)

Dagosa said:


> Took you forever to find someone who also delves in fake news…..”external” Ballistics
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Wow, I posted up a scientific treatise, written by ballisticians, and you post up a reloading manual that is written for a 5th grader.

And it took you TWO days!

DURRRRRR


----------



## Dagosa (Aug 16, 2022)

M14 Shooter said:


> I cannot imagine a reason why someone woulds not have him on ignore.
> Even if I agrreed with him, I'd not want to see him continually embarass himself.





westwall said:


> Wow, I posted up a scientific treatise, written by ballisticians, and you post up a reloading manual that is written for a 5th grader.
> 
> And it took you TWO days!
> 
> DURRRRRR


Wow, sounds  like you’re really upset. My job is done.


----------



## westwall (Aug 16, 2022)

Dagosa said:


> Wow, sounds  like you’re really upset. My job is done.




Not me.  I am laughing at you.  You got bitchslapped by me, yet again.

Like I said, slapping the piss out of you is a hobby.


----------



## Wild Bill Kelsoe (Aug 17, 2022)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> ‘Some members of the tinfoil hat brigade have come up with the reply, “We need these weapons because we want to be effective against the government if it becomes tyrannical. That’s part of our Second Amendment right.” Personally, I think that’s ludicrous, but it has become an increasingly popular justification for purchasing a semi-automatic rifle.’ _ibid_
> 
> Correct.
> 
> ...


Nobody is calling for an insurrection, either.  Stop lying.

Nowhere does the 2A say there has to be a "need".  Another lie.

The moron that wrote the op-ed also lied when he claimed that a 223 round has more penetration than a 9mm.  That's bullshit

He lied when he claimed that 223 rounds penetrate body armor like a "hot knife through butter.

The North Hollywood shooters had automatic weapons, not semi-automatics and they were wearing armored suits made out of steel plates.

And this clown was a cop?...lol


----------



## Dagosa (Aug 17, 2022)

Seymour Flops said:


> Yes, very true.
> 
> The author of that article was talking about AR15s being likely to penetrate walls and harm a family member or apartment neighbor, which people who actually understand guns are well aware of.  Alone in an isolated house, I would prefer a short barreled AR15 with collapsing stock for home defense.  In the 'burbs, I have a shotgun with a pistol holster on the butt for home defense.
> 
> ...


Really ? You think you can defend yourself vs a swat team with your AR15 ? Seriously, you have to be joking. The govt has 2 things that you and your AR15 don’t have that makes your assertions unreal…..they have support personnel and infrastructure ……plus, you can lose your freedom, job, health insurance, private insurance etc by putting up any resistance to law enforcement.

Stick with what you have, .380/.38 for personal defense. That’s all that’s necessary.


----------



## Dagosa (Aug 17, 2022)

Wild Bill Kelsoe said:


> The moron that wrote the op-ed also lied when he claimed that a 223 round has more penetration than a 9mm. That's bullshit


Irrelevant. The .223 is less stable and may not have the guaranteed penetration if tumbling  as a more stable fmj 9mm through  sheet rock….
But that argument is completely erroneous when one is traveling at three times the mv  and can reliably kill out to 4-600  hundred yards. Everything is slug dependent. The point is valid.


----------



## Wild Bill Kelsoe (Aug 17, 2022)

Dagosa said:


> Irrelevant. The .223 is less stable and may not have the guaranteed penetration if tumbling  as a more stable fmj 9mm through  sheet rock….
> But that argument is completely erroneous when one is traveling at three times the mv  and can reliably kill out to 4-600  hundred yards. Everything is slug dependent. The point is valid.


A 223 projectile isn't less stable than a 9mm and doesn't tumble.  That's an anti-gunner myth.

A 223 projectile is half, or more, the weight of a 9mm round.


----------



## westwall (Aug 17, 2022)

Dagosa said:


> Irrelevant. The .223 is less stable and may not have the guaranteed penetration if tumbling  as a more stable fmj 9mm through  sheet rock….
> But that argument is completely erroneous when one is traveling at three times the mv  and can reliably kill out to 4-600  hundred yards. Everything is slug dependent. The point is valid.






.223 Is extremely stable you ignorant 'tard.  My gosh, but your knowledge about ANYTHING gun related is derived from what you watch on TV!

What a clown you are!


----------



## Wild Bill Kelsoe (Aug 17, 2022)

westwall said:


> .223 Is extremely stable you ignorant 'tard.  My gosh, but your knowledge about ANYTHING gun related is derived from what you watch on TV!
> 
> What a clown you are!


Those myths, spread by the anti-gunners, are the reason that mass shooters choose the AR type platforms.  Ironic as fuck.  Right?


----------



## Jarlaxle (Aug 17, 2022)

Dagosa said:


> Took you forever to find someone who also delves in fake news…..”external” Ballistics
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Yes...your continual response is both typical and pathetic, idiot.



Dagosa said:


> So you’re saying AR15 devotees are  even more  a sissy boy then we thought ? I’ll buy that.


No, he's saying you're dumb as a box of hair.


----------



## Dagosa (Aug 18, 2022)

Jarlaxle said:


> Yes...your continual response is both typical and pathetic, idiot.
> 
> 
> No, he's saying you're dumb as a box of hair.


Make believe firearm expert troll. They seem to parrot the idiot lines while revealing they really don’t know shit. Keep posting. You’re hilarious.


----------



## Dagosa (Aug 18, 2022)

Wild Bill Kelsoe said:


> A 223 projectile isn't less stable than a 9mm and doesn't tumble.  That's an anti-gunner myth.
> 
> A 223 projectile is half, or more, the weight of a 9mm round.


Idiot. You never served in a shooting war have you......now you’re reduced to making up shit and plagiarizing just to seem relevant.
Fool.








						Does a .223 Tumble? Terminal Effects of 223 & 5.56 | Gun Tradition
					

When I first heard about this phenomenon, it didn’t sound right to me.  Turns out what I had heard was partially true and partially wrong.…




					guntradition.com


----------



## Dagosa (Aug 18, 2022)

westwall said:


> .223 Is extremely stable you ignorant 'tard.  My gosh, but your knowledge about ANYTHING gun related is derived from what you watch on TV!
> 
> What a clown you are!


Not during entry  stupid......you’re such a nimrod.  You can’t even remember what the topic was about, you’re a classic sicko.


----------



## Dagosa (Aug 18, 2022)

westwall said:


> .223 Is extremely stable you ignorant 'tard.  My gosh, but your knowledge about ANYTHING gun related is derived from what you watch on TV!
> 
> What a clown you are!


Retard, it’s after penetration. Read the  Effin post instead acting like a fool. It’s not unusual for any  light high velocity round. Dufus. That’s why they make notoriously poor brush firearms. How long have you been so ignorant.....or is it your lack of reading retention. Take a reading comp class.....


----------



## Dagosa (Aug 18, 2022)

Wild Bill Kelsoe said:


> Nobody is calling for an insurrection, either.  Stop lying.
> 
> Nowhere does the 2A say there has to be a "need".  Another lie.
> 
> ...


Geesus, how poorly informed can a claimed expert be.
There are different grades of body armor.
And yes, common soft armor daily worn is no match for a .223
How long have you been this ignorant ?

“Soft armors like Level IIA, Level II, and Level IIIA are no match for .223 and 5.56.”


----------



## westwall (Aug 18, 2022)

Dagosa said:


> Retard, it’s after penetration. Read the  Effin post instead acting like a fool. It’s not unusual for any  light high velocity round. Dufus. That’s why they make notoriously poor brush firearms. How long have you been so ignorant.....or is it your lack of reading retention. Take a reading comp class.....





Dummy, you are still wrong.  Original M193 from back in the 1960's and you are correct.

This ain't the 1960's.

Dummy


----------



## Wild Bill Kelsoe (Aug 18, 2022)

Dagosa said:


> Geesus, how poorly informed can a claimed expert be.
> There are different grades of body armor.
> And yes, common soft armor daily worn is no match for a .223
> How long have you been this ignorant ?
> ...


I do know that.  But, that isn't what the op-ed implied.  He made it sound as if a 223 round could penetrate any level of body armor.


----------



## Wild Bill Kelsoe (Aug 18, 2022)

Dagosa said:


> Not during entry  stupid......you’re such a nimrod.  You can’t even remember what the topic was about, you’re a classic sicko.


No, not even upon entry...lol


----------



## Jarlaxle (Aug 18, 2022)

Dagosa said:


> Make believe firearm expert troll. They seem to parrot the idiot lines while revealing they really don’t know shit. Keep posting. You’re hilarious.



Yes, you are. You know nothing, what you think you know is wrong. Now sit down and shut up, boy, the adults are talking.



Dagosa said:


> Geesus, how poorly informed can a claimed expert be.
> There are different grades of body armor.
> And yes, common soft armor daily worn is no match for a .223
> How long have you been this ignorant ?
> ...



Common pistol-rated body armor is no match for ANY rifle. A .30-06 will also go through them like paper. Even many rifle-rated vests won't stop a Swift or a .22-250 round.


----------



## Dagosa (Aug 18, 2022)

Jarlaxle said:


> Yes, you are. You know nothing, what you think you know is wrong. Now sit down and shut up, boy, the adults are talking.
> 
> 
> 
> Common pistol-rated body armor is no match for ANY rifle. A .30-06 will also go through them like paper. Even many rifle-rated vests won't stop a Swift or a .22-250 round.


As will the .223. And that’s what the article was talkin* about. No one walks around with higher powered rifle stopping body armor. And you guys pretend you don’t  know that and wrongfully criticized it. You stepped right into it as usual. You had to be straightened out again. You’re far from being an informed adult. All you do is babble.


----------



## Dagosa (Aug 18, 2022)

westwall said:


> Dummy, you are still wrong.  Original M193 from back in the 1960's and you are correct.
> 
> This ain't the 1960's.
> 
> Dummy


I have no idea why YOU bring up the past. You can’t even refer to the actual post
 can you. Tumbling after hitting a target is what the discussion is about, not in flight idiot. Try to read next time.
“223 bullets tumble in a target at high velocities, causing jacket failure, fragmentation, and a massive shallow wound channel.”

And yes, it does easily  penetrate most soft armor meant for handguns.


----------



## Dagosa (Aug 18, 2022)

Jarlaxle said:


> Yes, you are. You know nothing, what you think you know is wrong. Now sit down and shut up, boy, the adults are talking.


No adults on your side. Just sissy boy toy soldiers.


----------



## Dagosa (Aug 18, 2022)

Jarlaxle said:


> Yes, you are. You know nothing, what you think you know is wrong. Now sit down and shut up, boy, the adults are talking.
> 
> 
> 
> Common pistol-rated body armor is no match for ANY rifle. A .30-06 will also go through them like paper. Even many rifle-rated vests won't stop a Swift or a .22-250 round.



typical AR15 owner.


			https://nypost.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2021/12/kyle-rifle-07.jpg?quality=90&strip=all


----------



## Dagosa (Aug 18, 2022)

Wild Bill Kelsoe said:


> No, not even upon entry...lol


Really….you stick by that uninformed remark.


----------



## westwall (Aug 18, 2022)

Dagosa said:


> I have no idea why YOU bring up the past. You can’t even refer to the actual post
> can you. Tumbling after hitting a target is what the discussion is about, not in flight idiot. Try to read next time.
> “223 bullets tumble in a target at high velocities, causing jacket failure, fragmentation, and a massive shallow wound channel.”
> 
> And yes, it does easily  penetrate most soft armor meant for handguns.






Yeah, I know dumbass.  The M193 ball was specifically designed to tumble after impact.  The modern ammo is not.


DURRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR


----------



## BlackSand (Aug 18, 2022)

.

*Springfield Armory
SAINT® VICTOR .308 AR-10 RIFLE*
Suggested retail price: $1497 and well worth it.






I really don't care what the cop in the OP thinks.


Make the Cartridges Myself ...   





.

.​


----------



## Natural Citizen (Aug 18, 2022)

You made those?


----------



## Natural Citizen (Aug 18, 2022)

Oh, nm, I see now that you said you made them yourself.


----------



## westwall (Aug 18, 2022)

BlackSand said:


> .
> 
> *Springfield Armory
> SAINT® VICTOR .308 AR-10 RIFLE*
> ...






I am more of an FN guy, this is my latest .308


----------



## Wild Bill Kelsoe (Aug 18, 2022)

Dagosa said:


> Really….you stick by that uninformed remark.


It's a fact...lol


----------



## Wild Bill Kelsoe (Aug 18, 2022)

westwall said:


> I am more of an FN guy, this is my latest .308


I'm an FAL guy


----------



## BlackSand (Aug 18, 2022)

Natural Citizen said:


> Oh, nm, I see now that you said you made them yourself.


.

Yes

Hornady CX 150 gr .308 Interbond Polymere Tip Bullet
Sig Sauer .308 Winchester Brass and Remington Primer

41 gr IMR 4064 smokeless power (when sighted in at 200 meters)
40 gr IMR 4895 smokeless power (when sighted in at 100 meters)

The cartridges in the ziplock baggie pictured have all been chambered in the breech once during deer season.
I will inspect and gauge them again before returning them to service.

.​


----------



## Dagosa (Aug 18, 2022)

Wild Bill Kelsoe said:


> It's a fact...lol


Ha ha 
You don’t know what a fact is do you ?


----------



## BlackSand (Aug 18, 2022)

westwall said:


> I am more of an FN guy, this is my latest .308


.

That's a fine weapon ... I like the profile on the Saint better and there is nothing wrong with it.
It shoots fine, never fails and is very accurate.

.​


----------



## Dagosa (Aug 18, 2022)

westwall said:


> I am more of an FN guy, this is my latest .308


This is my latest reply to gun a holics who brag about their new appendage. 🖕


----------



## Wild Bill Kelsoe (Aug 18, 2022)

Dagosa said:


> Ha ha
> You don’t know what a fact is do you ?


It's a fact that you're full-o-shit...lol


----------



## BlackSand (Aug 18, 2022)

Dagosa said:


> This is my latest reply to gun a holics who brag about their new appendage. 🖕


.

That's your favorite tool anyway isn't it ...  

.​


----------



## Wild Bill Kelsoe (Aug 18, 2022)

Dagosa said:


> This is my latest reply to gun a holics who brag about their new appendage. 🖕


Right back atcha...


----------



## Natural Citizen (Aug 18, 2022)

BlackSand said:


> .
> 
> Yes
> 
> ...


That's a good skillset to have. Reads like you know what you're doing.


----------



## Natural Citizen (Aug 18, 2022)

Dagosa said:


> This is my latest reply to gun a holics who brag about their new appendage. 🖕



Honestly speaking, and contrary to popular opinion, most folks don't really sit around dreaming about their weapons. The're usually locked up and just about the farthest thing from their minds.


----------



## BlackSand (Aug 18, 2022)

Natural Citizen said:


> Honestly speaking, and contrary to popular opinion, most folks don't really sit around dreaming about their weapons. The're usually locked up and just about the farthest thing from their minds.


.

That's true ... But they also like to talk to other shooters that are interested in the firearms and shooting ...
Because you generally don't get a chance to talk about it a lot without some dickhead making an ass of themselves for stupid reasons.

Some people can go to the range and get some input ... But myself, I can open the door and go shooting or hunting.
I don't go to the range often.

.​


----------



## Natural Citizen (Aug 18, 2022)

BlackSand said:


> .
> 
> That's true ... But they also like to talk to other shooters that are interested in the firearms and shooting ...
> Because you generally don't get a chance to talk about it a lot without some dickhead making an ass of themselves for stupid reasons.
> ...



Yeah. Know what you mean. That's how I grew up. Actually, the very first time I ever fired a weapon, I was standing at the front door. I was actually in the house. lol. There was nothing out there but a mountain anyway. 

We have a few ranges close by here but last time I went, I took my bow on the 3-D field course, just tinkering around. 

Platforms like this one, there's always gonna be someone with an opinion.


----------



## Natural Citizen (Aug 18, 2022)

Imagine how ascared some folks might get if they saw one of these loaded with accessories. Heh heh. 

Ah well. I'm gonna look for a movie. Have a good night, all.


----------



## BlackSand (Aug 18, 2022)

Natural Citizen said:


> That's a good skillset to have. Reads like you know what you're doing.


.

I honestly started doing it simply because I wondered whether or not I could do it.

You know me ... I will accept the challenge.
I learned a few things along the way ... Some stuff makes a difference, and you can make changes within parameters.

I still remember the first time I went to shoot some cartridges I loaded myself.
Everything went fine ... But the first time I squeezed the trigger, I was worried I was going to get a face full of shrapnel.

Since then, I have tinkered around with different loads and standard distances.
I am no pro or ate up like some technical loader junkies, that argue about shit all the time.

In the field ... The only round I made and shot that didn't go exactly where I wanted it to ...
Was at a deer, around 180 meters out, and it dropped 2" from where I intended it bullet to go.

But ... I was shooting from a tree stand, over my left shoulder, behind me, downhill and the deer was quartering towards me.
It's possible I just misjudged when he was stepping into it and punched the shot myself.
He took a step and was dead by the time he hit the ground either way.

The skillset may come in handy in a broader sense at some point ... 

.​


----------



## Dagosa (Aug 18, 2022)

Natural Citizen said:


> Honestly speaking, and contrary to popular opinion, most folks don't really sit around dreaming about their weapons. The're usually locked up and just about the farthest thing from their minds.


You’d never know it here. All they do is brag about it in their avatar and show pictures of their members.


----------



## Natural Citizen (Aug 19, 2022)

BlackSand said:


> .
> 
> I honestly started doing it simply because I wondered whether or not I could do it.
> 
> ...





BlackSand said:


> .
> 
> I honestly started doing it simply because I wondered whether or not I could do it.
> 
> ...


Those over the shoulder and behind the back shots'll come in handy for the zombie apocalypse. Practice doing it while on the run for bonus points.


----------



## BlackSand (Aug 19, 2022)

Natural Citizen said:


> Those over the shoulder and behind the back shots'll come in handy for the zombie apocalypse. Practice doing it while on the run for bonus points.


.

Shit ... I need to get some Claymores for the zombies ... 
I am not greedy for the points in style when it comes to the walking dead.

.​


----------



## Dagosa (Aug 19, 2022)

BlackSand said:


> .
> 
> That's your favorite tool anyway isn't it ...
> 
> .​


Really, you need an emoji to tell every one you’re trying to be funny ?


----------



## BlackSand (Aug 19, 2022)

Dagosa said:


> Really, you need an emoji to tell every one you’re trying to be funny ?


.

Is that what it told you ... Or better yet, why are you trying to think about what I may need?
If I want something from you, I'll ask, you ignorant twat ...  

.​


----------



## Dagosa (Aug 19, 2022)

BlackSand said:


> .
> 
> Is that what it told you ... Or better yet, why are you trying to think about what I may need.
> If I want something from you, I'll ask, you ignorant twat ...
> ...


You do get upset easily. That’s good.


----------



## BlackSand (Aug 19, 2022)

Dagosa said:


> You do get upset easily. That’s good.


.

Why would you think I am upset?
What makes you think you could make dent with your pathetic assed attempts ... 

If you just want to smack talk ... You better up your game  ... Bitch.
.​


----------



## Jarlaxle (Aug 20, 2022)

Dagosa said:


> As will the .223. And that’s what the article was talkin* about. No one walks around with higher powered rifle stopping body armor. And you guys pretend you don’t  know that and wrongfully criticized it. You stepped right into it as usual. You had to be straightened out again. You’re far from being an informed adult. All you do is babble.



Yes, you babble. You're like an annoying field-goal dog...you have no idea what's going on, but you just keep yapping.



westwall said:


> I am more of an FN guy, this is my latest .308



I still want a Garand...


----------



## BlackSand (Aug 20, 2022)

Jarlaxle said:


> Yes, you babble. You're like an annoying field-goal dog...you have no idea what's going on, but you just keep yapping.
> 
> 
> 
> I still want a Garand...


.

I had a good hunting buddy that still used a Garand for deer hunting until recently.

It was a legacy firearm passed down to him from his grandfather.
He finally bought a modern bolt action for hunting when he no longer trusted his eyes on long distances and wanted a scope.

He killed a lot of deer with that Garand though, and it still looked nice.
They had taken good care of it ... And I doubt it will ever be for sale.

.​


----------



## westwall (Aug 20, 2022)

Jarlaxle said:


> Yes, you babble. You're like an annoying field-goal dog...you have no idea what's going on, but you just keep yapping.
> 
> 
> 
> I still want a Garand...




Yeah, I have a couple of Garands.  One is a real nice Winchester made example.


----------

