# Nobody doubts the M4 is an assault weapon. Are there any material differences between an M4 and an AR15?



## BULLDOG (May 14, 2021)

The M4 is the main rifle used by the US military, and no one could question that it is an assault rifle.  The M4 is capable of full automatic fire, and 3 round burst, and the AR15 is not. Of course, it would be illegal, but the AR15 can easily be converted to allow those types of fire. Other than that difference, what makes an M4 an assault weapon, and an AR15 not?


----------



## daveman (May 14, 2021)

This GOTCHA attempt is so lame, we need to call in a veterinarian and have it put down.


----------



## BULLDOG (May 14, 2021)

daveman said:


> This GOTCHA attempt is so lame, we need to call in a veterinarian and have it put down.


It's an honest question. All I want is an honest answer.


----------



## Jarlaxle (May 14, 2021)

Well, no, it cannot be "easily" converted-the receiver is different.


----------



## BULLDOG (May 14, 2021)

Jarlaxle said:


> Well, no, it cannot be "easily" converted-the receiver is different.


Most people could make an auto sear in their garage with a grinder and a vice. It wouldn't be legal, but it could be done pretty easily. However, the question was other than full auto, what are the material differences between the two rifles.


----------



## Polishprince (May 14, 2021)

"assault weapon" isn't a valid description of anything.  M4 isn't an "assault weapon" either.

Any weapon can be used in an assault.  So I guess they are all "assault weapons" from a bb gun to a machine gun.


----------



## BULLDOG (May 14, 2021)

Aren't there any smart gun enthusiasts that can answer my question?


----------



## BULLDOG (May 14, 2021)

Polishprince said:


> "assault weapon" isn't a valid description of anything.  M4 isn't an "assault weapon" either.
> 
> Any weapon can be used in an assault.  So I guess they are all "assault weapons" from a bb gun to a machine gun.


Whether assault rifles exist is a really dumb discussion. Our military has a definition of Assault Rifle, and the M4 certainly meets that definition. I'm asking how the M4 differs from an ar15, other than being full auto capable. I've already shown that the AR15 can be easily converted to full auto in #5.


----------



## Rambunctious (May 14, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> Jarlaxle said:
> 
> 
> > Well, no, it cannot be "easily" converted-the receiver is different.
> ...


Then what makes you think the government can ban them?....if everything can be made in a garage all that will be left with these guns are bad people...and you will be defenseless....why is that so hard for dumb libs to grasp?....


----------



## BULLDOG (May 14, 2021)

Rambunctious said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> > Jarlaxle said:
> ...


You are certainly free to start a thread on all of that if you want to. This thread is about the differences between two rifles. Try to stay on subject.


----------



## the other mike (May 14, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> The M4 is the main rifle used by the US military, and no one could question that it is an assault rifle.  The M4 is capable of full automatic fire, and 3 round burst, and the AR15 is not. Of course, it would be illegal, but the AR15 can easily be converted to allow those types of fire. Other than that difference, what makes an M4 an assault weapon, and an AR15 not?


Depends how many hand grenades I'm carrying.


----------



## Rambunctious (May 14, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> Rambunctious said:
> 
> 
> > BULLDOG said:
> ...


I thought this thread was about the ease in making automatic weapons out of semi auto....and how it can be done in a garage....am I wrong...


----------



## the other mike (May 14, 2021)

Rambunctious said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> > Rambunctious said:
> ...


I have a giant sling shot between 2 trees that can shoot a bowling ball 327 yards. They said I had to stop doing it over the Interstate for some reason.


----------



## BULLDOG (May 14, 2021)

Rambunctious said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> > Rambunctious said:
> ...


Yes, you are wrong. Reread the OP. Whether conversion can easily be done was questioned, and I showed that it could be easily done. Unless you question how hard it is to drop in an easily made piece or how hard it is to replace a few readily available parts, the question is what are the material differences.


----------



## BULLDOG (May 15, 2021)

Angelo said:


> Rambunctious said:
> 
> 
> > BULLDOG said:
> ...


I tried that with the neighbor's cat. The bastard scratched me up pretty bad, but that has nothing to do with material differences between the two rifles.


----------



## the other mike (May 15, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> Angelo said:
> 
> 
> > Rambunctious said:
> ...


Kitten darts.
Lean a mattress against the wall and paint a target on it ....the kids love tossing them.


----------



## westwall (May 15, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> The M4 is the main rifle used by the US military, and no one could question that it is an assault rifle.  The M4 is capable of full automatic fire, and 3 round burst, and the AR15 is not. Of course, it would be illegal, but the AR15 can easily be converted to allow those types of fire. Other than that difference, what makes an M4 an assault weapon, and an AR15 not?







Who cares.  The 2nd Amendment specifically protects military arms.

Your argument is moot.


----------



## BULLDOG (May 15, 2021)

Ok.  I guess nobody can tell of any material differences, other than full auto/ 3 round burst, between the two rifles. In a heads up comparison, the AR shows to be better in a wide range of tactical shooting tests.


----------



## 9thIDdoc (May 15, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> The M4 is the main rifle used by the US military, and no one could question that it is an assault rifle.  The M4 is capable of full automatic fire, and 3 round burst, and the AR15 is not. Of course, it would be illegal, but the AR15 can easily be converted to allow those types of fire. Other than that difference, what makes an M4 an assault weapon, and an AR15 not?


Part of the actual definition of an assault rifle is that it is able to fire in fully automatic mode. AR-15s are simi-automatic and incapable of fully automatic fire. Weapons 101. A very high percentage of all firearms are simi-automatic and not assault anything. This is basic knowledge and essential for any rational discussion of firearms use.


----------



## BULLDOG (May 15, 2021)

westwall said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> > The M4 is the main rifle used by the US military, and no one could question that it is an assault rifle.  The M4 is capable of full automatic fire, and 3 round burst, and the AR15 is not. Of course, it would be illegal, but the AR15 can easily be converted to allow those types of fire. Other than that difference, what makes an M4 an assault weapon, and an AR15 not?
> ...


I understand you would prefer a different type of thread that would allow all your memorized talking points, but this thread is about what might be materially different between two rifles.  This thread has nothing to do with the 2nd amendment. I asked a question which you either can't or choose not to answer. Not surprising.


----------



## 9thIDdoc (May 15, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> Polishprince said:
> 
> 
> > "assault weapon" isn't a valid description of anything.  M4 isn't an "assault weapon" either.
> ...


What gives you the idea that any other difference is needed or necessary?


----------



## BULLDOG (May 15, 2021)

9thIDdoc said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> > The M4 is the main rifle used by the US military, and no one could question that it is an assault rifle.  The M4 is capable of full automatic fire, and 3 round burst, and the AR15 is not. Of course, it would be illegal, but the AR15 can easily be converted to allow those types of fire. Other than that difference, what makes an M4 an assault weapon, and an AR15 not?
> ...


You are absolutely right. That is why I specifically excluded that capability from the discussion in the OP. Are you saying that the M4 and the AR15 are equivalent in everything but the multi-fire capability?


----------



## BULLDOG (May 15, 2021)

9thIDdoc said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> > Polishprince said:
> ...


I never said other differences were needed or necessary. I only asked if other material differences exist. Do they?


----------



## Concerned American (May 15, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> The M4 is the main rifle used by the US military, and no one could question that it is an assault rifle.  The M4 is capable of full automatic fire, and 3 round burst, and the AR15 is not. Of course, it would be illegal, but the AR15 can easily be converted to allow those types of fire. Other than that difference, what makes an M4 an assault weapon, and an AR15 not?


The same reason an M-16 is and an AR15 is not.


----------



## Missourian (May 15, 2021)

I'm not seeing your point.

What is the material difference between this military issue M24 sniper rifle...




...and this extremely popular Remington 700 deer rifle...?












						Remington Model 700 - Wikipedia
					






					en.m.wikipedia.org


----------



## Concerned American (May 15, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> > BULLDOG said:
> ...


Well if you exclude the ammo then an M-4 is just a spoon.  Don't be ridiculous.


----------



## BULLDOG (May 15, 2021)

Concerned American said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> > The M4 is the main rifle used by the US military, and no one could question that it is an assault rifle.  The M4 is capable of full automatic fire, and 3 round burst, and the AR15 is not. Of course, it would be illegal, but the AR15 can easily be converted to allow those types of fire. Other than that difference, what makes an M4 an assault weapon, and an AR15 not?
> ...


Now we're getting somewhere. Of course, I didn't ask about the M16, and that is not what this thread is about, but It would be nice to know what the material differences are between an M16 and an AR15, other than the multi-fire capability, of course. Please tell.


----------



## BULLDOG (May 15, 2021)

Concerned American said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> > 9thIDdoc said:
> ...


Got it. You don't know the answer, so you think a dumb remark will cover up your ignorance.


----------



## BULLDOG (May 15, 2021)

Missourian said:


> I'm not seeing your point.
> 
> What is the material difference between this military issue M24 sniper rifle...
> 
> ...


You should start a thread if you are looking for that answer. This thread is about the M4 and the AR15.


----------



## Concerned American (May 15, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> Concerned American said:
> 
> 
> > BULLDOG said:
> ...


Not playing your troll game tonight.  Run along.


----------



## Concerned American (May 15, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> Missourian said:
> 
> 
> > I'm not seeing your point.
> ...


Figure it out, Einstein









						AR-15 Vs. M4: Which Weapon Is More Formidable? AR-15 vs M4
					

AR-15 vs. M4 are two varying rifles with striking similarities. AR-15 is easily accessible to civilians. Whereas, the M4 is fully automatic.




					www.custom-ar15.com


----------



## BULLDOG (May 15, 2021)

Concerned American said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> > Concerned American said:
> ...


I understand. You can' answer a simple question so you'll run away. Run Forest Run.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (May 15, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> > BULLDOG said:
> ...


is there any difference s stated by you between an m4 and any semi auto rifle with detachable magazine? I mean if you get to ignore the automatic fire part


----------



## Missourian (May 15, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> should start a thread if you are looking for that answer. This thread is about the M4 and the AR15.


Sorry...I thought you had a point....

...one that is negated by the M24 military sniper rifle /  Remington 700 being basically identical.

Since I know nothing about the M4... the M-16A2 was the military rifle of my service time...please carry on with your inquiry.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (May 15, 2021)

Missourian said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> > should start a thread if you are looking for that answer. This thread is about the M4 and the AR15.
> ...


the m4 is a shortened version with a few minor differences.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (May 15, 2021)

The M16 is usually identified by a *longer barrel* than it’s counterpart, the M4. The M16 has a standard barrel length of 16 inches, while the M4 comes in with a barrel length of 14.5 inches standard. This shorter barrel length made the rifle lighter (among other things), and led to the adoption of the M4 over the M16 in the mid 90’s.


----------



## 9thIDdoc (May 15, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> > BULLDOG said:
> ...


Some history. Nearing the end of WWII the Germans developed a weapon capable of firing ammunition less powerful than a standard military rifle round but able to fire in automatic mode. Fully automatic machineguns (firing full power military ammo but requiring a crew of men to be effective) and sub-machine guns that fired pistol ammo and could be used as effectively by a single person but was really only effective at relatively short (pistol) ranges had been around for years. This weapon is known as "Storm rifle" (except in German that I am too lazy to look up) because it was envisioned to be used by troops assaulting an enemy position using auto fire against the enemy while charging them to make enemy fire less effective. Hard to duck and shoot accurately at the same time. It was also found that the smaller lighter ammo was lighter and easier to transport and store. The Russians who encountered it on the battlefield were impressed and developed their own copy and called it an "assault rifle" which is known today as the AK. The American version that was developed is known as M-16. The M4 is a fiddled with version of the M-16. The term "assault weapon" is a civilian perversion invented for propaganda purposes in the attempt to include any and all weapons the speaker doesn't like.


----------



## BULLDOG (May 15, 2021)

Concerned American said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> > Missourian said:
> ...


That is the only attempt at an answer in the entire thread.
1. Barrel - The M4 has a shorter  barrel, and is shaped to receive a grenade launcher.
2 Ammo. - The Ar15 can be chambered for several different shells, but the M4 is only capable of 5.56.
3 Automation - Until 1986, both rifles were legally capable of full automatic fire, but the AR15 was modified in 1986. Conversion back to auto fire is neither hard or expensive, but is illegal. ------------this was noted in the OP.
4 manufacturer  
5. legality. This has been discussed, but is not a material difference in the guns, or the way they work. other than the already mentioned full auto capability.
6 Category. This is how they are referred to on paper, and has nothing to do with material differences between the rifles, other than the auto capability.

You did point out that the barrel is shaped a little different, but the purpose of that was to attach grenade launcher. Hardly a material difference in the accuracy, speed, or capability of long term continuous use. You got anything else to add to your list? The rest of the differences in your link are really just distinctions without any real differences.


----------



## 2aguy (May 15, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> The M4 is the main rifle used by the US military, and no one could question that it is an assault rifle.  The M4 is capable of full automatic fire, and 3 round burst, and the AR15 is not. Of course, it would be illegal, but the AR15 can easily be converted to allow those types of fire. Other than that difference, what makes an M4 an assault weapon, and an AR15 not?




The fact that the AR-15 is a semi-automatic weapon only......

Big difference.   

The AR-15 is not a military weapon, the M4 is......but under the Miller ruling by the Supreme Court the M4 is a weapon protected by the 2nd Amendment....as is the AR-15.


----------



## fncceo (May 15, 2021)

If it is easy enough for any gun owner to convert his AR to full automatic with the tools in his garage, why are we not seeing fully automatic ARs everywhere?

What is preventing all the gals at the old folks home from pimping their ARs and heading down to shoot up the Bingo Parlor?


----------



## BULLDOG (May 15, 2021)

9thIDdoc said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> > 9thIDdoc said:
> ...


The term assault rifle is a military term. I would edit the OP if  knew how. If you want to hinge the entire discussion on one misused term while ignoring the body and purpose of the entire conversation, I suppose you can, but we both know the information I was asking for. Your post is interesting, but doesn't shed much light on the question.


----------



## 2aguy (May 15, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> Concerned American said:
> 
> 
> > BULLDOG said:
> ...




Yeah...other rifles are also convertible to full automatic fire....

See the North Hollywood shootout where the rifles were converted to fully automatic fire...yet, in the shootout...the two robbers, firing fully automatic at the police didn't manage to kill anyone.....both, however, were killed by police using semi-automatic weapons...

So again, it isn't the weapon, it is the target location...in the North Hollywood shootout, the people they shot at were in the open, not in a building, and were behind cover.....so no one was killed by the fully automatic rifle fire.....however, again, both perps, even with their fully automatic rifles, were killed by police with semi-automatic weapons....

It isn't the weapon, it is the target location that makes all the difference....

Case in point...the 1984 FBI shooting, the two criminals had a mini-14 rifle, a semi-automatic rifle, and a pump action shotgun.....they  managed to kill 2 FBI agents and wounded 5 others......

Again, it isn't the weapon, it is the target location.....in this case, the shooters were good shots.......the FBI weren't so good...

I am curious as to your point...where you would like to go with this....


----------



## RetiredGySgt (May 15, 2021)

what is the difference between the ar15 and any other semiauto rifle with detachable magazine?


----------



## 2aguy (May 15, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> > BULLDOG said:
> ...




There are currently 20 million AR-15 rifles in private hands.....how many are used in mass public shootings.....maybe 2 a year, if that, since handguns are the preferred weapon for mass public shooters.....and fully automatic weapons in crime are more rare than the same person getting hit by lightning multiple times....


----------



## BULLDOG (May 15, 2021)

2aguy said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> > Concerned American said:
> ...


The point is to find the material differences between the two rifles. In this thread I have learned the M4 has a shorter barrel, and is shaped so a grenade launcher can attach to it. Other than the auto capability, that is the only difference anybody has been able to mention.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (May 15, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> > BULLDOG said:
> ...


well and the whole auto fire thing that you keep ignoring


----------



## BULLDOG (May 15, 2021)

2aguy said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> > 9thIDdoc said:
> ...


And none of that has anything to do with the OP.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (May 15, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> > BULLDOG said:
> ...


then why ask the question?


----------



## 2aguy (May 15, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > This GOTCHA attempt is so lame, we need to call in a veterinarian and have it put down.
> ...




Differences?

In the North Hollywood bank robbery shootout the criminals had converted, fully automatic rifles....killed no one as they sprayed the police with gun fire.

The police started out the shooting with revolvers, semi-automatic pistols and shotguns, then officers went to gun stores and picked up semi-automatic AR-15 rifles...

The semi-automatic rifles were then used to kill the attackers....while the attackers, again, with fully automatic  rifles, killed no one...









						North Hollywood shootout - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org


----------



## 2aguy (May 15, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> > BULLDOG said:
> ...




You are wrong.......pointing out that there are 20 million AR-15 rifles in private hands is  difference from the military M4 rifle....with very few in civilian hands.  That too is a difference.


----------



## 2aguy (May 15, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> > BULLDOG said:
> ...




Okay....in 3 pages we answered your question...now what?


----------



## BULLDOG (May 15, 2021)

RetiredGySgt said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> > 2aguy said:
> ...


I's not hard or expensive to convert an AR15 to full auto capability. It's illegal as hell, and you should be ready to spend a lot of time in prison, but it's not that hard to do.


----------



## BULLDOG (May 15, 2021)

2aguy said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> > 2aguy said:
> ...


It is a difference, but not a material difference in the way the rifles work.


----------



## 2aguy (May 15, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> > BULLDOG said:
> ...




And?  What is your point?  Where are you going with this?

20 million AR-15s in private hands.....more people are killed by knives, clubs and bare hands...so what is your point?


----------



## 2aguy (May 15, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> > BULLDOG said:
> ...




True....but the information is enlightening.......and does reflect on the two rifles....


----------



## RetiredGySgt (May 15, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> > BULLDOG said:
> ...


which has nothing to do wit your question but this assumption has everything to with the fact that it simply doesn't happen and that no crimes are committed with these weapons or virtually no crime.


----------



## BULLDOG (May 15, 2021)

RetiredGySgt said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> > 2aguy said:
> ...


That was not an answer to the question asked.


----------



## there4eyeM (May 15, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> > BULLDOG said:
> ...


Assault rifle is a term born from the world wars. For instance, to storm trenches, special weapons were developed, one being the Thompson 'submachine gun', referred to as a trench broom at the time. It was primarily made for assaulting a specific area by giving out a stream of fire. WWII continued this, when most soldiers had bolt action rifles and certain units trained for assault had light automatic weapons/assault rifles. The MP 38 & 40 were 9mm versions the Germans used and are often seen in movies. Essentially, the AK 47 came from this evolution. The American Army developed very light auto-fire rifles about the time of Vietnam and, though warfare was not like WWII, the AR 15 and its offspring M14 fit the category that assault rifles were in. Like may terms, it is not precise, but referring to light, compact, auto-fire arm such as the AR ab ab assault weapon is not an exaggeration. It is precisely because certain individuals know it is what it is that it appeals to them.


----------



## 2aguy (May 15, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> > BULLDOG said:
> ...




Again....3 pages, you have your answer.....what now?


----------



## RetiredGySgt (May 15, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> > BULLDOG said:
> ...


the question you ask is an effort to paint the ar15 as a dangerous weapon for civilians to own. the fact is almost no crime is committed with an ar15 and that every automatic rifle is and has the same capabilities of the evil black ar15


----------



## BULLDOG (May 15, 2021)

2aguy said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> > 2aguy said:
> ...



It's not a material difference in the way the guns work, as in a head to head comparison.


----------



## 2aguy (May 15, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> > BULLDOG said:
> ...




Again, you question has been answered, it isn't complicated........now what?


----------



## BULLDOG (May 15, 2021)

there4eyeM said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> > 9thIDdoc said:
> ...


It might be seen as a generic term, but the military uses it to define a specific type of rifle.


----------



## 2aguy (May 15, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> there4eyeM said:
> 
> 
> > BULLDOG said:
> ...



Ok.......so, what now?  Your question has been answered.......what now?


----------



## BULLDOG (May 15, 2021)

RetiredGySgt said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> > RetiredGySgt said:
> ...


Did I say any rifle was a dangerous weapon for civilians to own?


----------



## 2aguy (May 15, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> > BULLDOG said:
> ...




Your question has been answered......so....now what?


----------



## 9thIDdoc (May 15, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> Concerned American said:
> 
> 
> > BULLDOG said:
> ...


I thought you wanted material differences.

_*1. Barrel - The M4 has a shorter  barrel, and is shaped to receive a grenade launcher.*_
Wrong. Having a shorter barrel is one of the reasons it is known as the M-4. Simply a matter of nomenclature. It is a variation of the M-16 as is the AR-15 which is a copy of M-16 in simi-auto form intended for legal sale to civilians. 

_*2 Ammo. - The Ar15 can be chambered for several different shells, but the M4 is only capable of 5.56.*_
Again, sematics. The M-16  and many of it's many variants including the AR-15 and the M-4 all fire the same basic 5.56 NATO round and will also fire the civilian made version of the round known as the .223 Rem. there is also a quick and simple conversion that will allow the M-16 to fire the .22LR. The AR-15 was originally made by Armalite but their patent ran out and what we call AR-15s today are made by a host of different companies and fire several different cartridges. 

_*3 Automation - Until 1986, both rifles were legally capable of full automatic fire, but the AR15 was modified in 1986. Conversion back to auto fire is neither hard or expensive, but is illegal. ------------this was noted in the OP.*_
Untrue. Conversion could be made but it was by no means simple or easy and the same remains true today. In fact pretty much any simi-automatic firearm (including police pistols) can be made to fire full auto. 
_*4 manufacturer 
5. legality. This has been discussed, but is not a material difference in the guns, or the way they work. other than the already mentioned full auto capability.*_
*6 Category. This is how they are referred to on paper, and has nothing to do with material differences between the rifles, other than the auto capability.*
Exactly. The material difference is auto/simi-auto fire.


----------



## westwall (May 15, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> Missourian said:
> 
> 
> > I'm not seeing your point.
> ...








And, once again, who cares.


----------



## westwall (May 15, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > BULLDOG said:
> ...







No, I am saying the premise of your thread is irrelevant.   The only reason why you began it is to launch an attack on the 2nd amendment.   You're not very smart so your motives are obvious, which is why I pointed out your logic fail.


----------



## BULLDOG (May 15, 2021)

9thIDdoc said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> > Concerned American said:
> ...


Yes, Concerned American posted that link, and I responded to it in #38. Barrel shape and Semi/auto fire seem to be the only material differences.


----------



## fncceo (May 15, 2021)

What, if anything, is the fundamental between an M4 and this?





They both operate on the same principle.  They both contain approximately the same amount of steel. The flintlock uses wood where the M4 uses plastic (making the M4 more environmentally friendly).

With simple machine tools, the flintlock could be converted to a fully automatic rifle.


----------



## 2aguy (May 15, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> > BULLDOG said:
> ...




OK....now what?


----------



## BULLDOG (May 15, 2021)

westwall said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> > Missourian said:
> ...


I hate to tell you this, but I really don't give a shit what you might care about.


----------



## 2aguy (May 15, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > BULLDOG said:
> ...




Good for you...now what?


----------



## BULLDOG (May 15, 2021)

westwall said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...


Still think you are a mind reader, don't you? Can you tell me what I'm thinking about you right now?


----------



## BULLDOG (May 15, 2021)

fncceo said:


> What, if anything, is the fundamental between an M4 and this?
> 
> View attachment 489706
> 
> ...


Funny. Dumb but funny.


----------



## 2aguy (May 15, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > BULLDOG said:
> ...




Now what?


----------



## westwall (May 15, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > BULLDOG said:
> ...






Likewise, so your mental masturbation is a waste of everyone's time.


----------



## westwall (May 15, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > BULLDOG said:
> ...






Don't care.


----------



## Blues Man (May 15, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> The M4 is the main rifle used by the US military, and no one could question that it is an assault rifle.  The M4 is capable of full automatic fire, and 3 round burst, and the AR15 is not. Of course, it would be illegal, but the AR15 can easily be converted to allow those types of fire. Other than that difference, what makes an M4 an assault weapon, and an AR15 not?


If it was so easy to convert an AR 15 to fully automatic then why isn't it done ?

When was the last tinme you saw any mass shootings where a stock AR 15 had been converted to a fully automatic rifle?


----------



## whitehall (May 15, 2021)

What's the definition of an assault rifle? Ugly and black? The AR 15 could be converted to fire fully automatic with some gunsmith and as a matter of fact you can convert just about any gas operated rifle to fire fully automatic (some easier than others) but it is illegal.  The M4 is equipped to fire 3 round bursts so it would properly be an assault rifle.


----------



## Flash (May 15, 2021)

It is called a Happy Switch, Vern.


----------



## whitehall (May 15, 2021)

Typical of gun grabbers to make an outrageous comment (AR-15's are easily converted to full automatic) and then move on without comment as if it is fact. The fact is that it's not easy and some AR's could blow up and the biggest thing is that no gunsmith would touch one because it could get you substantial time in the slammer. To my knowledge there is no account of a "converted" AR used in a crime.


----------



## Concerned American (May 15, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> > BULLDOG said:
> ...


If you have a file, pretty much any double action gun can be made full auto.  The trouble is you can't stop it after you pull the trigger.  AR's are simple to convert if you have the selector.


----------



## Concerned American (May 15, 2021)

there4eyeM said:


> the AR 15 and its offspring M14


I think you must mean the M4, the M14 was around a long time before the AR15 or the M16.  I also think you skipped over the M1 carbine.  It is a small, light, semi-auto 30 cal. that was in use long before the AR platform.


----------



## Flash (May 15, 2021)

whitehall said:


> Typical of gun grabbers to make an outrageous comment (AR-15's are easily converted to full automatic) and then move on without comment as if it is fact. The fact is that it's not easy and some AR's could blow up and the biggest thing is that no gunsmith would touch one because it could get you substantial time in the slammer. To my knowledge there is no account of a "converted" AR used in a crime.




Not only are converted ARs not used in crime but neither are legal Class III machine guns.  If I remember correctly  only one Class III has ever been used in a crime and that is when an off duty policeman found his wife in bed with another guy and grabbed his privately owned M-16 and shot the SOB.  A crime of passion.

 ARs and what these stupid Moon Bats call "assault weapons" are not the weapon of choice for criminals.  Not by a long shot.  The weapons of choice are cheap handguns that can be easily concealed.

Only about 400 long guns are used for crime in a year and ARs are only a subset of that category.  There are more shotguns used in crime than ARs.  Didn't Joe Dufus tell us to arm ourselves with shotguns?


----------



## 2aguy (May 15, 2021)

Flash said:


> whitehall said:
> 
> 
> > Typical of gun grabbers to make an outrageous comment (AR-15's are easily converted to full automatic) and then move on without comment as if it is fact. The fact is that it's not easy and some AR's could blow up and the biggest thing is that no gunsmith would touch one because it could get you substantial time in the slammer. To my knowledge there is no account of a "converted" AR used in a crime.
> ...




They want the shotguns too........but to get those, they first have to get the ARs...


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (May 15, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> The M4 is the main rifle used by the US military, and no one could question that it is an assault rifle.  The M4 is capable of full automatic fire, and 3 round burst, and the AR15 is not. Of course, it would be illegal, but the AR15 can easily be converted to allow those types of fire. Other than that difference, what makes an M4 an assault weapon, and an AR15 not?


An assault weapon is whatever a given lawmaking body determines it to be – not the military, not gun manufacturers, and not message board posters.


----------



## 2aguy (May 15, 2021)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> > The M4 is the main rifle used by the US military, and no one could question that it is an assault rifle.  The M4 is capable of full automatic fire, and 3 round burst, and the AR15 is not. Of course, it would be illegal, but the AR15 can easily be converted to allow those types of fire. Other than that difference, what makes an M4 an assault weapon, and an AR15 not?
> ...




You mean just like jim crow laws?   The ability to vote is whatever a given lawmaking body determines it to be?  So democrat party poll taxes and literacy tests are good with you?


----------



## Concerned American (May 15, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> Concerned American said:
> 
> 
> > BULLDOG said:
> ...


There are more differences between those two guns than you choose to accept, so why should I bother.  You don't mention the differences in hand guard length, nor the length of the gas return tube to name just two.  You also chose to throw out the auto capabilities in the beginning.  The M4 can be easily set up for multiple calibers while the AR cannot.  I gave you the info so you got the info you asked for--so just STFU and come up with another useless thread.


----------



## 2aguy (May 15, 2021)

Okay....5 pages of answers.....soooo.....now what?


----------



## Flash (May 15, 2021)

whitehall said:


> What's the definition of an assault rifle? Ugly and black? The AR 15 could be converted to fire fully automatic with some gunsmith and as a matter of fact you can convert just about any gas operated rifle to fire fully automatic (some easier than others) but it is illegal.  The M4 is equipped to fire 3 round bursts so it would properly be an assault rifle.




Most AR lowers are not M-16 cut.  In order to make them like M-16s the lower receiver needs to be milled out on the inside and the shelf lowered.  Then a hole drilled in the exact right place and a M-16 FCG put in.

It is possible to do if you have the right equipment and know what you are doing.  However, the fact that it is illegal as hell to do it dissuades any law abiding citizen from doing it.  Only those with criminal intentions would do it.

Having used a M-16 in a war and decades of range time with an AR as a civilian in my opinion the F-A function is fun thing to have but is not necessary.

My son who was in combat in Iraq said they never used the Burst function on their M-4s.  He said their fire discipline was to use the machine guns for F-A suppression fire and the semi auto M-4s for more directed fire.

Of course that was different for us in Vietnam.  We hardly ever clearly saw the little sonofabitches so we used F-A for pray and spray.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (May 15, 2021)

2aguy said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> > BULLDOG said:
> ...


Assault weapon or assault rife is a legal definition for the purpose of regulating firearms so designated; an AR 15 is in fact an assault weapon if a lawmaking body makes that determination – regardless its components, functionality, or configuration.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (May 15, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> The M4 is the main rifle used by the US military, and no one could question that it is an assault rifle.  The M4 is capable of full automatic fire, and 3 round burst, and the AR15 is not. Of course, it would be illegal, but the AR15 can easily be converted to allow those types of fire. Other than that difference, what makes an M4 an assault weapon, and an AR15 not?



We need a "Pointless OP" forum


----------



## Concerned American (May 15, 2021)

Flash said:


> whitehall said:
> 
> 
> > Typical of gun grabbers to make an outrageous comment (AR-15's are easily converted to full automatic) and then move on without comment as if it is fact. The fact is that it's not easy and some AR's could blow up and the biggest thing is that no gunsmith would touch one because it could get you substantial time in the slammer. To my knowledge there is no account of a "converted" AR used in a crime.
> ...


People who use the term "assault" weapons fail to realize the definition of the word.  Are we to change the name of a chef's knife used to 'attack' or 'assault' someone to an, heaven forbid, ASSAULT KNIFE.  The left is great at throwing incendiary terms around such as calling a protest an insurrection.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (May 15, 2021)

Concerned American said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> > Concerned American said:
> ...


Conservatives are such children – which explains a lot. 

Moving away from the OP’s deft approach to the topic, let’s be more direct: 

Conservatives try to advance the ignorant, wrongheaded, and failed ‘argument’ that because an AR 15 is not designated as an assault weapon, rifle, or carbine by the military – or is not configured or capable of functioning as an assault weapon – that state AWBs are ‘invalid.’ 

This rightwing sophistry is as ridiculous as it is wrong; again, an assault weapon is whatever a lawmaking body determines it to be – a determination that is perfectly valid, enforceable, and Constitutional.


----------



## Anathema (May 15, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> The M4 is the main rifle used by the US military, and no one could question that it is an assault rifle. The M4 is capable of full automatic fire, and 3 round burst, and the AR15 is not. Of course, it would be illegal, but the AR15 can easily be converted to allow those types of fire. Other than that difference, what makes an M4 an assault weapon, and an AR15 not?


I’ve got nothing else to do so I’ll be your huckleberry.

Other than a slew of cosmetic differences and the selective fire options on the M-4, there really isn’t a major difference. The only one of note is barrel length. Long guns sold to civilians must have a minimum barrel length of 18” (generally 18.5” or longer) without a Federal license.

Which is why I question the ban on the sale of M-4 style firearms to the public. I do not believe, and will never be convinced that ANY firearm or weapon available to the US Military and/or LEOs should be restricted from possession or use by the US Citizenry.


----------



## BULLDOG (May 15, 2021)

Concerned American said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> > Concerned American said:
> ...


You might note that I'm only asking what the differences are between the rifles. I didn't really put forward any differences, myself.

Yes, the hand guard length is different, as well as the gas return tube length. I suspect that is a function of  the already noted barrel length difference, Don't you agree? If not, please explain why.  You might be mistaken about what calibers are available. This excerpt from your earlier link says the M4 is only built in one caliber, but the AR15 has a wide range of calibers it can be built in.








						AR-15 Vs. M4: Which Weapon Is More Formidable? AR-15 vs M4
					

AR-15 vs. M4 are two varying rifles with striking similarities. AR-15 is easily accessible to civilians. Whereas, the M4 is fully automatic.




					www.custom-ar15.com
				


Caliber​M4’s caliber is 5.56x45mm NATO (.223 in) while the civilian AR-15s varies by the manufacturer. However, the AR-15 can be anywhere from .22LR to .50 Beowulf due to its high customization adaptability. The upper part can easily be replaced to enhance the chambering capability of different rounds.


----------



## Paulie (May 15, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > This GOTCHA attempt is so lame, we need to call in a veterinarian and have it put down.
> ...


It’s not an honest question because the term “assault weapon” is not honest to begin with. There’s no such thing as an assault weapon. It’s literally the same thing as saying a butter knife is just a knife but a butcher’s cleaver is an assault knife. It’s just stupid.


----------



## BULLDOG (May 15, 2021)

CrusaderFrank said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> > The M4 is the main rifle used by the US military, and no one could question that it is an assault rifle.  The M4 is capable of full automatic fire, and 3 round burst, and the AR15 is not. Of course, it would be illegal, but the AR15 can easily be converted to allow those types of fire. Other than that difference, what makes an M4 an assault weapon, and an AR15 not?
> ...


If there were only some way for you to avoid joining threads you see as pointless. If someone is forcing you to read and respond to any part of this thread, against your will. please report them to the mods immediately.


----------



## BULLDOG (May 15, 2021)

Concerned American said:


> Flash said:
> 
> 
> > whitehall said:
> ...


Misuse of words does tend to become a problem. I find the use of the term communist to describe anything the poster doesn't particularly care for to be extremely funny.


----------



## BULLDOG (May 15, 2021)

Anathema said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> > The M4 is the main rifle used by the US military, and no one could question that it is an assault rifle. The M4 is capable of full automatic fire, and 3 round burst, and the AR15 is not. Of course, it would be illegal, but the AR15 can easily be converted to allow those types of fire. Other than that difference, what makes an M4 an assault weapon, and an AR15 not?
> ...


While I disagree with you about whether all guns available to the military should be available to civilians, yours is the first unambiguous and strait forward answer from a right winger in the entire thread. Thank you.


----------



## Concerned American (May 15, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> Concerned American said:
> 
> 
> > Flash said:
> ...


Or like calling a riot a peaceful protest, eh?  Portland, Seattle, Minneapolis, St. Louis, Marxist/Communist BLM, 2020.


----------



## Concerned American (May 15, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> first unambiguous


The premise of the OP is ambiguous, moron.  BTW, unless you are speaking of a narrow waterway, the word is STRAIGHT.


----------



## BULLDOG (May 15, 2021)

Paulie said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> > daveman said:
> ...


I already acknowledged my mistake in using the term "assault weapon" instead of "assault rifle" earlier in this thread. Does the use of "assault rifle" make the question any more palatable to you?


----------



## BULLDOG (May 15, 2021)

Concerned American said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> > first unambiguous
> ...


Thank you for the correction. I didn't notice your shiny little Grammar Police badge there on your chest. You seem to be quite proud of it.


----------



## Paulie (May 15, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> Paulie said:
> 
> 
> > BULLDOG said:
> ...


No, it’s the same damn thing. And it’s the reason you’re not getting the answers you’re looking for. The same round the AR15 fires can also be fired from a much less scary looking brown hunting rifle. These are the kinds of details you clearly don’t understand, which make your position on this entire debate weak.


----------



## Concerned American (May 15, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> Concerned American said:
> 
> 
> > BULLDOG said:
> ...


Run puppy run.


----------



## westwall (May 15, 2021)

Concerned American said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> > RetiredGySgt said:
> ...







No, they aren't.  As someone who actually HAS, legally converted an AR-15 into a M-16 it is actually quite easy if you have a full machine shop.  Quite the opposite if you don't.  And you need much more than just the selector lever, you need a disconnector, you need to drill the hole for the safety sear in EXACTLY the right position, if you're off by more than a couple of thousandths you're SOL.  You have to change the bolt carrier, you have to change the firing pin, and, if you want it to work well, you'll need to upgrade the buffer, and buffer spring.

So, no.  If you don't have access to a machine shop, it ain't easy.


----------



## Concerned American (May 15, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> Paulie said:
> 
> 
> > BULLDOG said:
> ...


Any long gun used to assault another living organism could be termed an assault weapon,  I submit, if I shoot a turkey with a black powder rifle, has that turkey been assaulted?  I know--ambiguous--just like this useless thread.  A waste of time.


----------



## westwall (May 15, 2021)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> > The M4 is the main rifle used by the US military, and no one could question that it is an assault rifle.  The M4 is capable of full automatic fire, and 3 round burst, and the AR15 is not. Of course, it would be illegal, but the AR15 can easily be converted to allow those types of fire. Other than that difference, what makes an M4 an assault weapon, and an AR15 not?
> ...







Wrong again, as usual, from the Boards pseudo intellectual jack ass.  ANY firearm is defined very precisely by the sum of its parts.  Parts that have been designed, and perfected over decades of use.


----------



## westwall (May 15, 2021)

Flash said:


> whitehall said:
> 
> 
> > What's the definition of an assault rifle? Ugly and black? The AR 15 could be converted to fire fully automatic with some gunsmith and as a matter of fact you can convert just about any gas operated rifle to fire fully automatic (some easier than others) but it is illegal.  The M4 is equipped to fire 3 round bursts so it would properly be an assault rifle.
> ...







NO AR-15 lower is cut like an M-16.  If they were, they are automatically ILLEGAL.


----------



## Concerned American (May 15, 2021)

westwall said:


> Concerned American said:
> 
> 
> > BULLDOG said:
> ...


Nothing is easy without the proper tools,  I wasn't suggesting it could be converted with a hammer and a screwdriver.  SMH.


----------



## BULLDOG (May 15, 2021)

Paulie said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> > Paulie said:
> ...


Of course, there are several different types of guns that fire the same caliber as others. What makes you think I'm unaware of that? I acknowledged the difference between assault weapon and assault rifle, because assault rifle is a specific term used by the military, and assault weapon is not. Real and verifiable answers  to the material differences between those two rifles is pretty specific. If you are unable to offer any of those, or just want to whine about what you imagine my purpose for this thread might be, then you are free to go elsewhere. This thread is not a debate. I made no claims about the differences between the two rifles, other than to discuss claims by others.


----------



## westwall (May 15, 2021)

Concerned American said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Concerned American said:
> ...







You implied that all you needed was the selector lever.  You don't know anything about AR's if that is your level of knowledge.


----------



## BlackSand (May 15, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> The M4 is the main rifle used by the US military, and no one could question that it is an assault rifle.  The M4 is capable of full automatic fire, and 3 round burst, and the AR15 is not. Of course, it would be illegal, but the AR15 can easily be converted to allow those types of fire. Other than that difference, what makes an M4 an assault weapon, and an AR15 not?


.

You missed the boat on all this garbage.

You can fight about the M4 and the AR-15 until the cows come home.
You will never succeed with a gun control effort that attempts to identify firearms by names, types, or parts.
Adaptation an innovation always trumps the effort ... And they should have learned that with past Assault Weapons Ban.

The only way you can stop that is if you ban ... Shoots a bullet ... Which isn't going to happen ... 

You are really just pissing in the wind and arguing about the irrelevant, no matter what side of the argument you are on.
You can get a custom made semi-automatic weapon that fires anywhere from a .223 to a 7.62 round for $1000.
It doesn't matter what the fuck they call it, or what it looks like.

.​


----------



## BULLDOG (May 15, 2021)

westwall said:


> Concerned American said:
> 
> 
> > BULLDOG said:
> ...


How many of those parts are easily and legally available for purchase? How much of that list can be found on the shelf of any large gun shop? Next, please list any parts that aren't easily purchased.


----------



## Concerned American (May 15, 2021)

westwall said:


> Concerned American said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...


How far do you want to nit pick this ridiculous shit?  I didn't see any prints or dimensions with your post either.  C'mon man, the thread is stupid.


----------



## westwall (May 15, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Concerned American said:
> ...








All of them are legal.  Except for in the state of californication.  As far as availability goes, they aren't very available.  When you can find them, they are expensive.  And, because they are hard working parts, you can't just make them in a cheap 3D printer either.


----------



## Missourian (May 15, 2021)

Concerned American said:


> Nothing is easy without the proper tools, I wasn't suggesting it could be converted with a hammer and a screwdriver. SMH.


I'd say if you had the skill and equipment to perform the conversion...you also have the skill and equipment to mill the aluminum receiver...which makes the thread pointless.


----------



## BULLDOG (May 15, 2021)

BlackSand said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> > The M4 is the main rifle used by the US military, and no one could question that it is an assault rifle.  The M4 is capable of full automatic fire, and 3 round burst, and the AR15 is not. Of course, it would be illegal, but the AR15 can easily be converted to allow those types of fire. Other than that difference, what makes an M4 an assault weapon, and an AR15 not?
> ...


Please point out where I brought up gun control, or any of the other things you mentioned.  I asked  simple question. You aren't obligated to come up with an answer if you don't know.


----------



## westwall (May 15, 2021)

Concerned American said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Concerned American said:
> ...







I agree the thread is stupid, but spreading misinformation about AR's is likewise STUPID.  So knock it off.  There are MANY people here who know what we are talking about, we get pissed off when some idiot, of whatever political persuasion comes here and spreads misinformation.


----------



## westwall (May 15, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> BlackSand said:
> 
> 
> > BULLDOG said:
> ...







Like I said, your whole premise is to attack the AR platform which is a direct violation of the 2nd Amendment.  You might be stupid (and you are), but we aren't.


----------



## HereWeGoAgain (May 15, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> The M4 is the main rifle used by the US military, and no one could question that it is an assault rifle.  The M4 is capable of full automatic fire, and 3 round burst, and the AR15 is not. Of course, it would be illegal, but the AR15 can easily be converted to allow those types of fire. Other than that difference, what makes an M4 an assault weapon, and an AR15 not?



  First of all the M4 comes with three round burst and single shot.
The M4a1 comes with single shot and full auto.
  At least do a little research before posting.


----------



## Concerned American (May 15, 2021)

westwall said:


> Concerned American said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...


There was no misinformation spread.   It is not difficult to convert.  Nor is it all that difficult to obtain and M-16.  It is also not illegal to own one if you have an FFL.


----------



## BlackSand (May 15, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> BlackSand said:
> 
> 
> > .​
> ...


.

The question is irrelevant in any other context ... Because it doesn't make a damn bit difference what identifier you want to use.
It doesn't matter if you call it a M4, AR-15, or Micky's Boar Destroyer 1006.

It's quite possible that would go a long ways towards answering your retarded question, and whatever might have anything to do with it ... 
However you may want to identify a firearm by what exists, is irrelevant to whatever someone can develop to do the same thing.

.​


----------



## BULLDOG (May 15, 2021)

westwall said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...


Interesting, but not very specific. I'll go at it from a different angle. which of those parts can't be easily purchased without some sort of special license, permit, or other special permission. The ones that Joe Blow, on the street couldn't easily purchase.


----------



## BULLDOG (May 15, 2021)

westwall said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> > BlackSand said:
> ...


So I'm attacking the AR platform, and that somehow puts me in direct violation of the 2nd amendment? Those are some pretty strong accusations, and require some sort of proof. Please provide links to prove either of your claims.


----------



## westwall (May 15, 2021)

Concerned American said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Concerned American said:
> ...







Once again, you show you know nothing about the subject.  ANY person, who is legal to own firearms may legally own a TRANSFERABLE M-16.  They just cost a lot.  I see one up for offer at 55,000 bucks right now.  A little high, but hey, they can ask whatever they want.  But, the point is you don't need to have an FFL to own a legal machine gun.  You are simply talking out your ass.  

So yes, you are indeed spreading misinformation.


----------



## westwall (May 15, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > BULLDOG said:
> ...








Actually, I was VERY specific.  No special permission is required to buy ANY of those parts.  They are just difficult to find because there is no demand, so why make something that has low demand?


----------



## westwall (May 15, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > BULLDOG said:
> ...







Yes, you are trying to say that the civilian AR is the same as the military M4, and then you claim that military arms have no place in civilized society.  Thus you are trying to lay the groundwork for agreement with your fallacious assumption.


----------



## Paulie (May 15, 2021)

westwall said:


> Concerned American said:
> 
> 
> > BULLDOG said:
> ...


It’s a stupid point anyway.


BULLDOG said:


> Paulie said:
> 
> 
> > BULLDOG said:
> ...


We all know your purpose here is to demonize the scary looking black rifles.


----------



## westwall (May 15, 2021)

Paulie said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Concerned American said:
> ...






Yup.  We all know it, bulldoggy thinks she is smart.  But she's not.


----------



## BULLDOG (May 15, 2021)

HereWeGoAgain said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> > The M4 is the main rifle used by the US military, and no one could question that it is an assault rifle.  The M4 is capable of full automatic fire, and 3 round burst, and the AR15 is not. Of course, it would be illegal, but the AR15 can easily be converted to allow those types of fire. Other than that difference, what makes an M4 an assault weapon, and an AR15 not?
> ...


No. I didn't list every sub category of the M4. There are a few.


----------



## BULLDOG (May 15, 2021)

BlackSand said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> > BlackSand said:
> ...


If it is irrelevant to you, why are you here?


----------



## BlackSand (May 15, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> No. I didn't list every sub category of the M4. There are a few.
> View attachment 489860


.

And ... You can get a Custom firearm that does anything any of the M4's will do, that isn't a M4, or made with any part an M4 uses ... From a local gunsmith ...   

.​


----------



## BlackSand (May 15, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> BlackSand said:
> 
> 
> > BULLDOG said:
> ...


.

Your question is irrelevant ... My attempts to help you understand why, may or may not be ... Your choice ... 

.​


----------



## Esdraelon (May 15, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> Aren't there any smart gun enthusiasts that can answer my question?


The select-fire option is the basic difference.  You seem to be trying to make the case that the average AR-owner is capable of the gunsmithing necessary to create a full-auto weapon.  The truth is that these rifles are used in fewer killings than hammers or knives, or fists and feet, for that matter.

Here's a question right back atcha -
Is THIS an "assault weapon"?



It's a Ruger mini-14.  It fires the same rounds as the AR and just as rapidly - one round for every pull of the trigger.  The gaslighting bullshit about AR or AK-styled weapons is just that.  When the government comes for the guns, they won't be stupid enough to try to grab them all at once.  They take the AR/AK platform first, wait a while then come for all semi-autos of a certain caliber range, THEN they'll get around to the serious business of collecting the true tool of slaughter - semi-auto handguns. 
*SPOILER ALERT*  IT DOESN'T END WELL FOR THE DOOR KICKERS.


----------



## Esdraelon (May 15, 2021)

BlackSand said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> > No. I didn't list every sub category of the M4. There are a few.
> ...


Yes, but if you don't go through the government hoops to make it legal they can put you in jail for many years.  The average citizen who can AFFORD to buy a full-auto as a toy CAN get one IF they pass the proctological exam by the ATF and have roughly 20K to spend on a rifle they can buy for 1500.


----------



## BULLDOG (May 15, 2021)

westwall said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...


Just to be clear, you are saying that there is no real difference between an ordinary Ar15 and a fully automatic AR15, other than a few easily changed parts, right?


----------



## BULLDOG (May 15, 2021)

westwall said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...


Please link to where I said all military weapons have no place in civilized society, in this thread, or any other.


----------



## Jarlaxle (May 15, 2021)

westwall said:


> Flash said:
> 
> 
> > whitehall said:
> ...


The first batch of AR-15s actually did use M-16 lowers. They're quite rare and highly prized by collectors now.


----------



## BULLDOG (May 15, 2021)

Paulie said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Concerned American said:
> ...


Please link to anything that might imply any desire I might have to demonize any rifle, scary or not.


----------



## BlackSand (May 15, 2021)

ESDRAELON said:


> Yes, but if you don't go through the government hoops to make it legal they can put you in jail for many years.  The average citizen who can AFFORD to buy a full-auto as a toy CAN get one IF they pass the proctological exam by the ATF and have roughly 20K to spend on a rifle they can buy for 1500.


.

Thanks for the heads up, but I kind of know that.
The best take away from what you mentioned, is that the Powers that be will never give up their rights.
However ... They may try to make it too expensive/difficult for as many others as they can to exercise their Constitutionally protected rights.

There will also be some idiots doing their best to help them accomplish that every chance they get ... 

.​


----------



## Missourian (May 15, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> It is a difference, but not a material difference in the way the rifles work.


Did you know...

...there is a fully automatic Glock?

...and a drop in auto-sear is available for any Glock?

If your point...which you are emphatically avoiding disclosing...is any firearm capable of conversion is ripe for a government ban...then you're talking about banning every semiautomatic firearm.

Don't think that's going to fly.


----------



## BULLDOG (May 15, 2021)

westwall said:


> Paulie said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...


I'm sure you have unassailable proof to back up your claim, but it would be nice to see your actual link.


----------



## Jarlaxle (May 15, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > BULLDOG said:
> ...


No, he's not. Clean the wax out of your ears.


----------



## BULLDOG (May 15, 2021)

BlackSand said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> > No. I didn't list every sub category of the M4. There are a few.
> ...


I have no doubt that is true. I'm not sure what that has to do with this thread, but I don't question your claim.


----------



## Missourian (May 15, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> Please link to anything that might imply any desire I might have to demonize any rifle, scary or not.


I'm beginning to believe you don't have a point...


----------



## daveman (May 15, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > This GOTCHA attempt is so lame, we need to call in a veterinarian and have it put down.
> ...


No, it isn't, and no, you don't.


----------



## BULLDOG (May 15, 2021)

BlackSand said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> > BlackSand said:
> ...


It is relevant to me, or I would not have asked. You are free to choose if it is relevant to you.


----------



## daveman (May 15, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> Concerned American said:
> 
> 
> > BULLDOG said:
> ...


So you know what the answer is, and you lied when you said you wanted honest debate.

Just like I said.  A lame GOTCHA.


----------



## westwall (May 15, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > BULLDOG said:
> ...







Not what I said at all.  But hey, lying is about the only thing you are good at.


----------



## 9thIDdoc (May 15, 2021)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> > The M4 is the main rifle used by the US military, and no one could question that it is an assault rifle.  The M4 is capable of full automatic fire, and 3 round burst, and the AR15 is not. Of course, it would be illegal, but the AR15 can easily be converted to allow those types of fire. Other than that difference, what makes an M4 an assault weapon, and an AR15 not?
> ...


That would (if not struck down by the courts) apply but only as a legal definition and only in that jurisdiction. Pretty much every attempt to create a legal definition has used different criteria for their determination and (sooner or later) been struck down by the courts for violation of the 2nd Amendment.


----------



## BULLDOG (May 15, 2021)

ESDRAELON said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> > Aren't there any smart gun enthusiasts that can answer my question?
> ...


Yes, I know about the select fire option. That is why I excluded that from the discussion. I'm trying to find out differences other than the obviously main difference. 
I have specifically refrained from making any case for anything. I just asked the question, and perhaps lightly discussed some of the answers.
I've shot a mini-14. but don't know enough about it to comment.
I see you have concerns about the government taking our guns, but that  has nothing to do with my question.


----------



## westwall (May 15, 2021)

Jarlaxle said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Flash said:
> ...







No, they didn't.  The very first selectfire M-16's were actually marked AR-15 Model 614, I had one.  They were sold to the USAF Security Police Forces.  When the Army adopted them, the nomenclature was changed to M-16, while the civilian models remained AR-15's.  There is a huuuuuuge difference between the two.  A M-16 has a selectfire disconnector, while the AR-15 is manufactured so that it may NOT accept the disconnector.  There are other manufacturing differences as well, but that's the big one.  If a receiver is capable of accepting a selectfire disconnector it is AUTOMATICALLY CLASSIFIED AS A MACHINEGUN, and illegal as a result.


----------



## HereWeGoAgain (May 15, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> > BULLDOG said:
> ...



  The rifle you described doesnt exist.
This is why we dont take you anti gunners seriously.


----------



## westwall (May 15, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Paulie said:
> ...








My unassailable proof is your stupid thread here.


----------



## daveman (May 15, 2021)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> > The M4 is the main rifle used by the US military, and no one could question that it is an assault rifle.  The M4 is capable of full automatic fire, and 3 round burst, and the AR15 is not. Of course, it would be illegal, but the AR15 can easily be converted to allow those types of fire. Other than that difference, what makes an M4 an assault weapon, and an AR15 not?
> ...


The problem is when lawmakers are utterly ignorant about guns and still make laws about them.


----------



## daveman (May 15, 2021)

2aguy said:


> Okay....5 pages of answers.....soooo.....now what?


He's waiting for someone to say OMG THERES NO SIGNIFICANT DIFFSRENSE SO AR15S SHOULD BE BANNED HA CHECKMAET GUN NUTS


----------



## BULLDOG (May 15, 2021)

Missourian said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> > Please link to anything that might imply any desire I might have to demonize any rifle, scary or not.
> ...


I've said several times in this thread that I am not attempting to make any point. I just asked a question. Seems the people responding aren't capable of understanding that. I don't blame them. They were probably home schooled.


----------



## WinterBorn (May 15, 2021)

The difference between the AR15 and the M4 is the full auto/3 shot burst feature and the shorter barrel.   To change the AR15 into full auto or shorten the barrel is an offense that will land you in prison for 10 years, at least.

But the actual definition of an assault rifle includes the ability to fire in full auto mode.    So as long as the AR15 is not modified, it is not an assault rifle.

And the comparison is much like comparing a stock car and a NASCAR race car.     The biggest difference is the engine.   But the engine makes all the difference.


----------



## HereWeGoAgain (May 15, 2021)

daveman said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> > BULLDOG said:
> ...



  My favorite stupid politician when it comes to firearms......
     3:00 minute mark.


----------



## BULLDOG (May 15, 2021)

daveman said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> > Concerned American said:
> ...


Not sure where I said I was looking for any kind of debate in this thread. Please link


----------



## HereWeGoAgain (May 15, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> ESDRAELON said:
> 
> 
> > BULLDOG said:
> ...




   These are the words we should be focusing on......

"I've shot a mini-14. but don't know enough about it to comment."


----------



## BULLDOG (May 15, 2021)

westwall said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...


Then it's a good thing I asked the question, then, isn't it? Please restate the differences, other than the completely legal, untracked parts we have already mentioned.


----------



## daveman (May 15, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> Missourian said:
> 
> 
> > BULLDOG said:
> ...


You should give up trying to be condescending.  You're not good at it.


----------



## BULLDOG (May 15, 2021)

HereWeGoAgain said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> > HereWeGoAgain said:
> ...


Don't be silly.


----------



## daveman (May 15, 2021)

HereWeGoAgain said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > C_Clayton_Jones said:
> ...


Do you agree with her, Jones?  Once high-capacity magazine clips, which are bullets, are fired, they will no longer be available?

Remember, she's a lawmaker.


----------



## daveman (May 15, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > BULLDOG said:
> ...


Okay, so you didn't want debate.  You just wanted someone to parrot your own opinion, which is that AR rifles should be banned.


----------



## daveman (May 15, 2021)

HereWeGoAgain said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> > ESDRAELON said:
> ...


It gave him PTSD.


----------



## BULLDOG (May 15, 2021)

westwall said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...


Good job. I'm sure that was your best effort.


----------



## HereWeGoAgain (May 15, 2021)

daveman said:


> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> > daveman said:
> ...



 I think we can all agree that she's a first class moron.


----------



## BULLDOG (May 15, 2021)

daveman said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> > Okay....5 pages of answers.....soooo.....now what?
> ...


Sounds exciting. but no. I just asked a question.


----------



## Flash (May 15, 2021)

westwall said:


> Flash said:
> 
> 
> > whitehall said:
> ...




Actually you can have a M-16 cut lower or you can legally cut one yourself.  It only becomes illegal if you drill the sear hole.

Not common but there are several companies (like DSA) that sells AR-15 lower receivers with the straight walls and lower shelf.  I have several of them and they are perfectly legal.  Just like having a M-16 BCG is legal.

A M-16 cut lower and an AR-15 both function the same as semi.  Unless you drill that hole and put in the sear then you only have semi.


----------



## westwall (May 15, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > BULLDOG said:
> ...






Reread the thread, moron.


----------



## BULLDOG (May 15, 2021)

WinterBorn said:


> The difference between the AR15 and the M4 is the full auto/3 shot burst feature and the shorter barrel.   To change the AR15 into full auto or shorten the barrel is an offense that will land you in prison for 10 years, at least.
> 
> But the actual definition of an assault rifle includes the ability to fire in full auto mode.    So as long as the AR15 is not modified, it is not an assault rifle.
> 
> And the comparison is much like comparing a stock car and a NASCAR race car.     The biggest difference is the engine.   But the engine makes all the difference.


The engine is far from the only difference between a stock car and a NASCAR car, but if it makes it easier, then consider my question as one that asks the difference between those two types of race cars. We know the engines are different. but you couldn't put A NASCAR engine in a stock car and join the NASCAR circuit. I'm not so sure swapping parts would leave the same limitations for guns. That's why I asked.


----------



## Flash (May 15, 2021)

I have a class III M-16.  I very seldom shoot it F-A.  In fact my main SHTF weapons is a semi auto Colt Model 6920.


----------



## BULLDOG (May 15, 2021)

HereWeGoAgain said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> > ESDRAELON said:
> ...


And?


----------



## westwall (May 15, 2021)

Flash said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Flash said:
> ...







That is true, to a point.  but, like I said, there are other minor variations between the two receiver types.


----------



## westwall (May 15, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > BULLDOG said:
> ...







Not even close.  But you aren't worth much effort.


----------



## BULLDOG (May 15, 2021)

daveman said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> > Missourian said:
> ...


Asking for proof of an accusation is not condescension.


----------



## BULLDOG (May 15, 2021)

daveman said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> > daveman said:
> ...


Wrong again. I just asked a simple question. Don't worry about it if you don't know the answer.


----------



## BULLDOG (May 15, 2021)

westwall said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...


Doesn't bother me if you want your remarks to remain unclear.


----------



## westwall (May 15, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > BULLDOG said:
> ...







My remarks are very clear.  You have to be dishonest, or a moron, to not understand them.  Hello moronic liar!


----------



## HereWeGoAgain (May 15, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> > BULLDOG said:
> ...



  And you dont know shit about firearms.


----------



## BlackSand (May 15, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> Just to be clear, you are saying that there is no real difference between an ordinary Ar15 and a fully automatic AR15, other than a few easily changed parts, right?



.

He should have added something like the example that an untraceable barrel cannot be used for anything other than a club until it is added to a traceable receiver.
So it basically doesn't matter if all the parts are traceable.

I am just saying that you overestimate what is necessary to achieve a goal or function.
The government banned bump stocks because of a condition of fire they gave access to.
With the proper knowledge you can manufacture something that will create the same condition from a bicycle tire.

Splitting hairs about traceable parts and model numbers won't stop that.
.​


----------



## WinterBorn (May 15, 2021)

HereWeGoAgain said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > C_Clayton_Jones said:
> ...



Wow.   That is a special kind of stupid.


----------



## daveman (May 15, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > 2aguy said:
> ...


Painfully transparent.  You can stop pretending now.


----------



## daveman (May 15, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > BULLDOG said:
> ...


"They were probably home schooled."

_That_ is.  

But since you brought up the subject, you're wrong about that, too.  Homeschooled kids outperform public schooled kids.  
Homeschoolers were seen to have an average standardized test score of 87th percentile as per the National Home Education Research Institute’s study. Compared to this, the score of those going to public school was only 50th percentile in certain subjects. Generally, standardized tests are not the best method of gauging a student’s academic performance. 

A study related to the data obtained from the 2007-2008 school year by Home School Legal Defense Association (HSLDA) shows a difference of 34 percentile – 39 percentile points excess in case of homeschoolers as compared to others, in all subjects. The College degree of parents or the time spent by them doesn’t make any notable difference in the results of homeschoolers. In such a scenario, some parents found teaching math a challenging task, and hence, their children could not excel in it like those in public schools.

*Academic Performance of Homeschooled Students*​A study led by Michael Cogan by the University of St. Thomas revealed the homeschool graduation statistics that homeschooled students graduated college at a rate of 66.7%, which is 10% higher than the students from public schools.

The reports from The National Home Education Research Institute in 2015 show that they get 15%-30% more than the students of public schools in the standardized academic achievement exams. It has been seen that irrespective of the parent’s educational level and financial level, homeschoolers can score well.


----------



## daveman (May 15, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > BULLDOG said:
> ...


You asked a question, then did not accept any answer offered.  

Dishonest.


----------



## the other mike (May 15, 2021)

Angelo said:


> I have a giant sling shot between 2 trees that can shoot a bowling ball 327 yards. They said I had to stop doing it over the Interstate for some reason.


Stoned kids on the freeway....
"Dude ! Was that a bowling ball ? "


----------



## whitehall (May 15, 2021)

If an "assault" weapon is defined as a weapon that can be converted to something illegal they can confiscate everything from shotguns to .22 rifles.


----------



## Oddball (May 15, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> Aren't there any smart gun enthusiasts that can answer my question?


Smart gun enthusiasts don't buy into stupid liberoidal premises.


----------



## the other mike (May 15, 2021)

whitehall said:


> If an "assault" weapon is defined as a weapon that can be converted to something illegal they can confiscate everything from shotguns to .22 rifles.


Btw. If you know martial arts, never register yourself as a black belt or any equivalent....if you kill someone in a one on one scuffle with no witnesses, even in self defense, you can be charged with murder and that will come up in trial. Best to learn the art of fighting without fighting.


----------



## BlackSand (May 15, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> Whether assault rifles exist is a really dumb discussion. Our military has a definition of Assault Rifle, and the M4 certainly meets that definition. I'm asking how the M4 differs from an ar15, other than being full auto capable. I've already shown that the AR15 can be easily converted to full auto in #5.


.

You can convert diesel fuel into a bomb, but that won't ever make it C4.
I would say you might want to pass a law that makes converting an AR-15 to full auto illegal ... But there already is one ... 

.​


----------



## BULLDOG (May 15, 2021)

westwall said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...


If you say so. I'm pretty sure you knew exactly what you meant, but it wasn't so clear to someone trying to decipher your list of words.   That's why I asked.


----------



## Jarlaxle (May 15, 2021)

westwall said:


> Jarlaxle said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...


No, that is not correct. The first batch (only) of AR-15s actually used the M-16/614 receiver. They are 100% legal, not considered "machine guns", quite rare, and as I noted, highly prized by collectors.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (May 15, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> The M4 is the main rifle used by the US military, and no one could question that it is an assault rifle.  The M4 is capable of full automatic fire, and 3 round burst, and the AR15 is not. Of course, it would be illegal, but the AR15 can easily be converted to allow those types of fire. Other than that difference, what makes an M4 an assault weapon, and an AR15 not?


So if it's so easy to convert an Armalite Rifle 15 into an automatic Rifle explain how it's done?


----------



## Jarlaxle (May 15, 2021)

whitehall said:


> If an "assault" weapon is defined as a weapon that can be converted to something illegal they can confiscate everything from shotguns to .22 rifles.


At least one .22 can be made FA with a toothpick.


----------



## BULLDOG (May 15, 2021)

HereWeGoAgain said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> > HereWeGoAgain said:
> ...


I'm no expert, but it's not hard to know at least as much as many here who portray themselves as experts.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (May 15, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> Ok.  I guess nobody can tell of any material differences, other than full auto/ 3 round burst, between the two rifles. In a heads up comparison, the AR shows to be better in a wide range of tactical shooting tests.


FYI the supreme court has already ruled that a weapon must be of use to a militia in order for it to be protected by the second amendment.


----------



## BULLDOG (May 15, 2021)

BlackSand said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> > Just to be clear, you are saying that there is no real difference between an ordinary Ar15 and a fully automatic AR15, other than a few easily changed parts, right?
> ...


My question didn't foresee any discussion about bicycle tires, but if bicycle tires are used on one, but not the other I would be interested in hearing about it.


----------



## 2aguy (May 15, 2021)

WinterBorn said:


> The difference between the AR15 and the M4 is the full auto/3 shot burst feature and the shorter barrel.   To change the AR15 into full auto or shorten the barrel is an offense that will land you in prison for 10 years, at least.
> 
> But the actual definition of an assault rifle includes the ability to fire in full auto mode.    So as long as the AR15 is not modified, it is not an assault rifle.
> 
> And the comparison is much like comparing a stock car and a NASCAR race car.     The biggest difference is the engine.   But the engine makes all the difference.




Yep....you can take the body of a NASCAR race car and replace it's engine with that of a Smart Car....the NASCAR isn't a NASCAR anymore...that is the same with the AR-15...it has the body of an M4 but the "engine" is completely different.....


----------



## BULLDOG (May 15, 2021)

WinterBorn said:


> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> > daveman said:
> ...


No doubt someone will explain her misunderstanding to her. Not much chance of any laws being passed based on her erroneous remark.


----------



## HereWeGoAgain (May 15, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> > BULLDOG said:
> ...



  I'm no expert either but I know far more than you.
My knowledge comes from shooting for the last 48 years.


----------



## BULLDOG (May 15, 2021)

daveman said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> > daveman said:
> ...



Seems I forgot the republican superpower that allows them to spout unsupported crap and expect people to believe it.


----------



## BULLDOG (May 15, 2021)

daveman said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> > daveman said:
> ...


Wow. You  forgot to throw a couple of "but Clinton's" in there too, didn't you?


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (May 15, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > BULLDOG said:
> ...


So how many of those guns have been used in a commission of a crime?
According to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF), as of 2017, there were 630,000 machine guns in the U.S.


----------



## BULLDOG (May 15, 2021)

daveman said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> > daveman said:
> ...


Sure I did. The Barrels are different. Is there any other material difference other than the multi-fire capability? Legality doesn't present much difference in a hands on comparison in a combat or shooting range, or any other shooting comparison.


----------



## BULLDOG (May 15, 2021)

BlackSand said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> > Whether assault rifles exist is a really dumb discussion. Our military has a definition of Assault Rifle, and the M4 certainly meets that definition. I'm asking how the M4 differs from an ar15, other than being full auto capable. I've already shown that the AR15 can be easily converted to full auto in #5.
> ...


Not  sure what that has to do with this thread, or the question in the OP, but thank you for sharing.


----------



## westwall (May 15, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > BULLDOG said:
> ...







Um, that's the dem establishment with big tech support.  Dumbass.


----------



## BlackSand (May 15, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> Sure I did. The Barrels are different. Is there any other material difference other than the multi-fire capability? Legality doesn't present much difference in a hands on comparison in a combat or shooting range, or any other shooting comparison.


.

There's not much significant difference in the M4 and AR-15 other than the full-auto multi-fire capabilities.
I think what a lot of people are trying to suggest, is that there is not much difference between any semi-automatic rifle and the M4 other than the multi-fire capabilities ...
no matter what it looks like or what you call it.

I mean if you want to get technical about performance issues or fancy tactical attachments, there are differences.
But if you are just talking about putting 6 big bullets downrange in a certain amount of time, there are a shitload of firearms that can do that.

.


----------



## BULLDOG (May 15, 2021)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> > The M4 is the main rifle used by the US military, and no one could question that it is an assault rifle.  The M4 is capable of full automatic fire, and 3 round burst, and the AR15 is not. Of course, it would be illegal, but the AR15 can easily be converted to allow those types of fire. Other than that difference, what makes an M4 an assault weapon, and an AR15 not?
> ...


Most information on conversion has been removed from the internet, but I believe a lightning link is the quickest and easiest way.  An auto sear is pretty straight forward too, but a little harder to make in your garage.








						Full Auto for Any AR: How a Lightning Link Works -
					

Commonly known as the “Lightning Link” the S.W.D., Inc. Auto Connector is a rarity to see these days. With fewer than 900 manufactured and registered in the NFA registry, the Lightning Links are a novel way to convert a semi-automatic AR-15 into a fully-automatic firearm. While the conversion is...




					www.thefirearmblog.com


----------



## BULLDOG (May 15, 2021)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> > Ok.  I guess nobody can tell of any material differences, other than full auto/ 3 round burst, between the two rifles. In a heads up comparison, the AR shows to be better in a wide range of tactical shooting tests.
> ...


True, but as I have said many times, this thread has nothing to do with the 2nd amendment.


----------



## daveman (May 15, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > BULLDOG said:
> ...


Uh huh.  Tell me again how the sun rises in the west.


----------



## daveman (May 15, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > BULLDOG said:
> ...


Immaterial.  You brought up the subject, and you were wrong about it.  Own it.


----------



## BULLDOG (May 15, 2021)

HereWeGoAgain said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> > HereWeGoAgain said:
> ...


Cool. 48 years ago I was spending as much time as possible at my families deer camp, getting it ready for the season.  We had owned it about ten years at that time if I remember right. Might have been 9 years instead.


----------



## daveman (May 15, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > BULLDOG said:
> ...


"The barrels are different."

Whoopty-shit.


----------



## BULLDOG (May 15, 2021)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> > daveman said:
> ...


Cool. If I ever start a thread on that, I'll keep that bit of information in mind.


----------



## Anomalism (May 15, 2021)

RetiredGySgt said:


> The M16 is usually identified by a *longer barrel*


That's how I can be identified too.


----------



## BULLDOG (May 15, 2021)

BlackSand said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> > Sure I did. The Barrels are different. Is there any other material difference other than the multi-fire capability? Legality doesn't present much difference in a hands on comparison in a combat or shooting range, or any other shooting comparison.
> ...


Yes, and when it comes to technical differences, the AR15 seems to be a little better in several categories. Significant differences are exactly what my question was about.  Most here can't come up with many significant differences, and prefer to go off on some tangent like the 2nd amendment, or how many guns are in use. If there were any significant differences, other than multi-fire capability, and of course barrel length (the only difference anyone here could come up with),  I'm sure at least one of the self proclaimed gun experts here would have mentioned it.


----------



## daveman (May 15, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> BlackSand said:
> 
> 
> > BULLDOG said:
> ...


So what answer were you expecting?


----------



## BlackSand (May 15, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> Yes, and when it comes to technical differences, the AR15 seems to be a little better in several categories. Significant differences are exactly what my question was about.  Most here can't come up with many significant differences, and prefer to go off on some tangent like the 2nd amendment, or how many guns are in use. If there were any significant differences, other than multi-fire capability, and of course barrel length (the only difference anyone here could come up with),  I'm sure at least one of the self proclaimed gun experts here would have mentioned it.


.

Well yeah ... And the AR-10 was better than the AR-15 in some categories, and the Springfield M1-1A Scout was better than both of those in some categories.

Then we get back to ... So What ... 
They all do what you buy them to do, and unless you were looking for a reason to buy one or the other, what difference does it make?

If you are wondering which one you might want to buy ... 
The bigger question might be whether or not you want to go with Creedmoor 6.5 or Russian 7.62 rounds (bullets)?
If you have someone build you an AR-15 style in the Russian 7.62 x 39 round...
You are going to want them to use the Russian springs to avoid the occasional 9 of 10 shots fired.

.​


----------



## BULLDOG (May 15, 2021)

daveman said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> > BlackSand said:
> ...


I was hoping for information I didn't already have.


----------



## daveman (May 15, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > BULLDOG said:
> ...


Uh huh.


----------



## BULLDOG (May 15, 2021)

BlackSand said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> > Yes, and when it comes to technical differences, the AR15 seems to be a little better in several categories. Significant differences are exactly what my question was about.  Most here can't come up with many significant differences, and prefer to go off on some tangent like the 2nd amendment, or how many guns are in use. If there were any significant differences, other than multi-fire capability, and of course barrel length (the only difference anyone here could come up with),  I'm sure at least one of the self proclaimed gun experts here would have mentioned it.
> ...


I have plenty of rifles and shotguns for hunting and a couple of pistols. I'm good.


----------



## Paulie (May 15, 2021)

I mean your thread title alone is a logical fallacy. “Nobody doubts” lol. Everyone who actually understands firearms doubts that.


----------



## Paulie (May 15, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> BlackSand said:
> 
> 
> > BULLDOG said:
> ...


If this is even remotely true then it’s totally possible you own a rifle that’s the exact same thing as an AR 15 and you don’t even know it because it wasn’t designed the same way


----------



## BlackSand (May 15, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> I have plenty of rifles and shotguns for hunting and a couple of pistols. I'm good.


.

Shit ... I'll hunt deer with a Patriot-Vortex .308 bolt action, but the Custom AR-15 style 7.62 x 39 with a infa-red  scope is a hell of a lot better for hunting hogs.
Not to mention I wouldn't want to be on the bleeding end of either one of them in a tactical combat situation.

But screw it ... If you are happy with what you have, and don't have any concerns about what I have, then we are good to go ...  

.​


----------



## BULLDOG (May 15, 2021)

Paulie said:


> I mean your thread title alone is a logical fallacy. “Nobody doubts” lol. Everyone who actually understands firearms doubts that.


I assumed most would agree that the M4 was an assault rifle. The military does.


----------



## BULLDOG (May 15, 2021)

BlackSand said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> > I have plenty of rifles and shotguns for hunting and a couple of pistols. I'm good.
> ...


I live in east Texas, so I usually use a Winchester 30-30, but I have a .270 for the few times I have been able to go to west Texas. Deer meat is waaaaaay too expensive on those hunting leases. A 12 gauge 870 Remington, and an 8gauge that was my grandfathers with a barrel that looks to be about 5 ft long for geese (really 36"), and a 410 that I got for Christmas when I was about 8 or 9. A 32 pistol that I am afraid to shoot, and a 38 snub nose Rossi. 
I don't have a problem with guns. I have a problem with idiots that oppose reasonable regulation of guns.


----------



## BlackSand (May 15, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> I live in east Texas, so I usually use a Winchester 30-30, but I have a .270 for the few times I have been able to go to west Texas. Deer meat is waaaaaay too expensive on those hunting leases. A 12 gauge 870 Remington, and an 8gauge that was my grandfathers with a barrel that looks to be about 5 ft long for geese (really 36"), and a 410 that I got for Christmas when I was about 8 or 9. A 32 pistol that I am afraid to shoot, and a 38 snub nose Rossi.
> I don't have a problem with guns. I have a problem with idiots that oppose reasonable regulation of guns.


.

My first Deer rifle was a Winchester 30/30 ... Excellent firearm, I had the bush rifle, it was loud as hell and it would rock my world when it fired.
The .270 isn't a bad round, and they have new .245 round that just a screamer when it come to velocity and distance
I also have a Remington 870 Wingmaster that is my primary duck and dove gun.
I have a Mossberg 10 gauge for geese, that my hunting friends jokingly call "The Meat Cleaver".
I have a Charter Arms Undercover .38 revolver 5-Shot with a hammer.

So I would say we have a lot of the same things ... I have a shitload more guns than the ones listed though.
I don't have a problem with firearms, I have a problem with idiots who think they are going to define or try to regulate what is reasonable for me ...  

.​


----------



## BULLDOG (May 15, 2021)

BlackSand said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> > I live in east Texas, so I usually use a Winchester 30-30, but I have a .270 for the few times I have been able to go to west Texas. Deer meat is waaaaaay too expensive on those hunting leases. A 12 gauge 870 Remington, and an 8gauge that was my grandfathers with a barrel that looks to be about 5 ft long for geese (really 36"), and a 410 that I got for Christmas when I was about 8 or 9. A 32 pistol that I am afraid to shoot, and a 38 snub nose Rossi.
> ...


Background checks? Do you oppose them?


----------



## 9thIDdoc (May 15, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > BULLDOG said:
> ...


Link? Barrel length is not a material difference unless the weapons in question can only accept a particular length. Legality *is *the difference especially if changes in the law are the issue. If potential change in the law is not the reason you ask your question why not inform us what it is?
I have in fact used assault rifles in combat. The full auto feature is an advantage only in very particular instances and for any but an experienced shooter is likely to leave one without ammo in the middle of a firefight. This is a definite fax pas especially if you are far away from resupply. Full auto was known by the troops as "spray and pray" or "rock 'n roll" because you made lots of noise but had to get very very lucky to actually hit a target. The usual goal is to get the enemy more interested in taking cover than in shooting back.


----------



## BULLDOG (May 15, 2021)

9thIDdoc said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> > daveman said:
> ...


I didn't see it as much difference either, but it was much closer to a substantial difference than anybody else came up with. I had hoped that letting that pass might encourage others to come up with something. Up to that point, all that was offered was unrelated things like how many were in use, or what the 2nd amendment says. 
I shot a full auto once. The car I shot at was pretty shot up before I started, so I have no idea if I even hit it, but I think I did. Fun though.


----------



## BlackSand (May 15, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> Background checks? Do you oppose them?


.

I have an NICS Number ... I don't give a rat's ass about Background Checks,
Nor do I have a problem handing any dealer money for a firearm and walking out the door with it as soon as ...
They scan my ID, I answer a few questions on the computer, and they give me change if necessary.

You see ... The assclowns on the Beltway are never going to make it so they cannot get whatever they want. whenever they want.
They may try to make it more expensive and cumbersome for the law-abiding American Citizen to exercise their Constitutionally Protected Rights ...
But they are never going to stop a criminal from utilizing straw purchases or breaking the law.

Those folks in the Banana Republic on Capitol Hill will tell you they are doing something good ...
When all they are really ever accomplishing is selling more guns.
Look up the numbers ... The ATF is approving over 3 million Federal Background Checks for new firearm purchases a month ...
And you think that makes a damn bit of difference as to where those guns are going, and who ends up with what?

That would be a bit of a Polly-Anna view of how effective gun control actually is.
You're really just pissing off the people who obey the law anyway ...  

.​


----------



## westwall (May 15, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> BlackSand said:
> 
> 
> > BULLDOG said:
> ...








Suuuure you do.


----------



## BULLDOG (May 15, 2021)

BlackSand said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> > Background checks? Do you oppose them?
> ...


You don't think increased gun sales are mostly because all the hysterics about everybody's guns being confiscated, or for the hard core crazies, the hope for a real civil war?


----------



## 9thIDdoc (May 15, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> BlackSand said:
> 
> 
> > BULLDOG said:
> ...


Wonderful. But many have a problem with those idiots who do not understand enough to know what is/is not reasonable regulation of guns. I imagine everyone here has no problem with reasonable regulation such as restrictions on violent felons. But many have a very substantial problem giving up civil rights because of the paranoia of those who are unwilling to inform themselves. In my opinion Your rifles and shotguns are every bit as deadly as any assault rifle ever made.


----------



## BULLDOG (May 15, 2021)

9thIDdoc said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> > BlackSand said:
> ...


Are background checks reasonable? Do you think you should be able to sell a gun to a stranger without a background check, and not even know his name, much less whether he can legally own a gun?


----------



## BlackSand (May 15, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> Are background checks reasonable? Do you think you should be able to sell a gun to a stranger without a background check, and not even know his name, much less whether he can legally own a gun?


.

I told you ... I don't give a rat's as about background checks.
That means I don't care if you or anyone else thinks they are reasonable, because they are irrelevant in regards to straw purchases.

Anyone with criminal intent can have someone else that can pass a Background Check purchase them a firearm.
If they have the intent to break the law, it doesn't matter if you write a fucking law.

It's *unreasonable* to think someone who is going to break the law, cannot find a way to circumvent any law they pass.
I am just going to grumble, do everything I can legally do to ensure I have whatever I want, and shake my head at the ignorance people believe.

Edit:
I am not trying to be ugly, but you may begin to see why it is so frustrating.


.​


----------



## progressive hunter (May 15, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> The M4 is the main rifle used by the US military, and no one could question that it is an assault rifle.  The M4 is capable of full automatic fire, and 3 round burst, and the AR15 is not. Of course, it would be illegal, but the AR15 can easily be converted to allow those types of fire. Other than that difference, what makes an M4 an assault weapon, and an AR15 not?


dont worry yourself,,
the 2nd A was specific for weapons of war so the M-4 is perfectly fine for personal ownership,,


----------



## 9thIDdoc (May 15, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> > BULLDOG said:
> ...


I'm all for background checks if they are accurate, conducted in a timely manner, and do not disqualify people without good reason. Also they provide no deterrent if those who attempt to fraudulently buy guns are not prosecuted and that is often lacking. The only problem I have with background checks is that they can disqualify people without good cause if they are allowed to do so and that must not be allowed.


----------



## BlackSand (May 15, 2021)

9thIDdoc said:


> I'm all for background checks if they are accurate, conducted in a timely manner, and do not disqualify people without good reason. Also they provide no deterrent if those who attempt to fraudulently buy guns are not prosecuted and that is often lacking. The only problem I have with background checks is that they can disqualify people without good cause if they are allowed to do so and that must not be allowed.


.

I only got a NICS Number because someone with a similar (not identical) name in the region had a felony conviction for hot checks.
Every time I would go to purchase a firearm, the computer would kick it back with a Hold ... Not a Denial.
Then I would have to wait up to two weeks for the ATF to do a more accurate search, and tell me I was Clear.

I got sick and tired of that ... And paid the extra money necessary to never worry about that shit again.

.​


----------



## AZrailwhale (May 15, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> The M4 is the main rifle used by the US military, and no one could question that it is an assault rifle.  The M4 is capable of full automatic fire, and 3 round burst, and the AR15 is not. Of course, it would be illegal, but the AR15 can easily be converted to allow those types of fire. Other than that difference, what makes an M4 an assault weapon, and an AR15 not?
> 
> 
> BULLDOG said:
> ...


The lower receiver on the AR15 is designed to NOT be easily converted to full auto or burst.  It takes a skilled machinist With a good shop to do the job.


----------



## BULLDOG (May 15, 2021)

9thIDdoc said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> > 9thIDdoc said:
> ...


Do you think background checks from FFL sellers are mostly accurate, conducted in a timely manner? We both know there will be an occasional fuck up, but lets not nit pick it.


----------



## BlackSand (May 15, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> Do you think background checks from FFL sellers are mostly accurate, conducted in a timely manner? We both know there will be an occasional fuck up, but lets not nit pick it.


.

When you are prepared to spend a bunch of money to get a National Citizenship Number ...
Scan your ID, fill out a questionnaire, and punch in your number, every time, before they hand you a ballot so you can exercise your Right to Vote  ...
Then we can talk about what you may or may not think is reasonable or agree with in regards to a Background Check.

If you're not interested in the hassle and cost of that ... Go Pound Sand ... 

.​


----------



## BULLDOG (May 15, 2021)

AZrailwhale said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> > The M4 is the main rifle used by the US military, and no one could question that it is an assault rifle.  The M4 is capable of full automatic fire, and 3 round burst, and the AR15 is not. Of course, it would be illegal, but the AR15 can easily be converted to allow those types of fire. Other than that difference, what makes an M4 an assault weapon, and an AR15 not?
> ...


This guy seems to be able to do a pretty good job with a vice, a jig and a hand router. It would take a different jig, and it probably wouldn't be as pretty as a good machine shop, but it works.


----------



## 9thIDdoc (May 15, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> > BULLDOG said:
> ...


It's my understanding that the FFL sellers do not do the actual check but that it is done using a government database by government for a fee. I am OK with it as it stands in my area. But there is nothing to stop government from suddenly demanding a hugh increase in fee that the average person could not afford. Or disqualifying people for frivolous reasons.


----------



## BULLDOG (May 15, 2021)

BlackSand said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> > Do you think background checks from FFL sellers are mostly accurate, conducted in a timely manner? We both know there will be an occasional fuck up, but lets not nit pick it.
> ...


National Citizenship Number? You know that's nuts, right? No problem. I got it. You're through with a rational discussion, and are headed back to conspiracy theory land. Have a nice trip.


----------



## BULLDOG (May 15, 2021)

9thIDdoc said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> > 9thIDdoc said:
> ...


You are correct. Dealers don't do the actual check. 
There's not a lot to prevent a lot of bad stuff that we might think of, but there is no reason to believe those things will actually happen.  
If you are OK with the way background checks work, why wouldn't you think background checks conducted through licensed dealers for individual sales would be OK?  Same checks conducted the same way.


----------



## BlackSand (May 15, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> National Citizenship Number? You know that's nuts, right? No problem. I got it. You're through with a rational discussion, and are headed back to conspiracy theory land. Have a nice trip.


.

Well if you pay the extra money you can get a National Instant Criminal Background Check System Number  (NICS Number) ...
Scan your ID, fill out a questionnaire, and punch in your number before they hand you a firearm so you can exercise your Right to Bear Arms.

If you aren't willing to apply the same standard towards your Right to Vote ... You are dismissed, and you can Go Pound Sand.
I knew you couldn't find a *rational* response you would be satisfied with in response to that ... 

The Rights listed in the Bill of Rights aren't granted by the Federal Government.
If the Federal Government has the ability to regulate those Rights, then it would still be rational if you applied similar regulations to all your Rights.
No one would be telling you who you could vote for, or denying your Right to Vote in a timely manner.

.​


----------



## 9thIDdoc (May 16, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> > BULLDOG said:
> ...


Also no reason to assume they won't. 
If a person or establishment is selling a gun they are getting paid. Guns purchased out of state are required to be shipped to a FFL holder who charges a fee for their time and trouble. I have no doubt they would charge a fee for signing off on a background check. I have wished to buy guns for parts to use to enhance guns I already have or am working on. I have intended to buy a parts gun for $20 but was told I would have to pay an additional $20 for the background check despite the fact I had just had a background check for another gun. I have run into hard times and pawned guns then was required to pay for a background check to recover each gun even though they already belonged to me. Why should I have to pay someone else to be allowed to give a friend or relative a gift? Sometimes it is about the money and inconvenience. If a gun is worth $20 it may not be worth $40.


----------



## westwall (May 16, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> BlackSand said:
> 
> 
> > BULLDOG said:
> ...






No, it's mainly Democrats who are scared to death after watching their leadership turn their cities over to the mob.

We all have everything we need, and have for decades.


----------



## westwall (May 16, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> > BULLDOG said:
> ...







I have no problem with a background check so long as there is no gun information involved.  Want to make it happen. Pass a law that absolves any seller of any crime done with a weapon they sell so long as a background check is done.


----------



## westwall (May 16, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> > BULLDOG said:
> ...






No, they aren't.


----------



## BlackSand (May 16, 2021)

westwall said:


> I have no problem with a background check so long as there is no gun information involved.  Want to make it happen. Pass a law that absolves any seller of any crime done with a weapon they sell so long as a background check is done.


.

Where I may not agree with everything you posted, I can at least give you credit for thinking about things rationally.
I also have to thank you for actually thinking of a compromise where the gun control advocates would actually have something to bring to table in a compromise.
It's usually difficult to discuss things with gun control advocates, because they hardly ever have anything worthwhile to barter with in a compromise.

Good job ...   

.​


----------



## BlackSand (May 16, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> You don't think increased gun sales are mostly because all the hysterics about everybody's guns being confiscated, or for the hard core crazies, the hope for a real civil war?


.

I think increased gun sales are the combination of a few things.

They reflect the desire for gun owners to purchase what they can before that opportunity may disappear.
They reflect the desire of Citizens to take advantage of more popular and easily available training opportunities.
They reflect both the rise in discretionary spending per household, and lower prices with better availability and a broader selection.
They reflect the desire of Citizens to feel more confident with their own ability to defend themselves from possible threats.

.​


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (May 16, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > BULLDOG said:
> ...


you didn't read your source, did you?
"With fewer than 900 manufactured and registered in the NFA registry"
I posted that there are over 600 thousand automatic firearms in the public just like this they are all registered and limited access. So what is your gripe now?


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (May 16, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > BULLDOG said:
> ...


that is your permiss, isn't it?  and yes t's the topic 
So answer the question how many of those 630,000 automatic firearms have been used in the commission of a crime?


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (May 16, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > BULLDOG said:
> ...


AR15'S are protected by the second amendment


----------



## BULLDOG (May 16, 2021)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...


Legality hasn't been part of the conversation from the start. Of course it's illegal to modify to fully automatic except under specific conditions with specific permissions. Ignoring legal concerns, the lightning link is nothing more than a couple of  small pieces of relatively thin plate that could be shaped with a Dremel in a couple of hours at your kitchen table. I would call that an easy conversion.


----------



## BULLDOG (May 16, 2021)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...


Don't know. Don't care. That's not what this thread is about.


----------



## BULLDOG (May 16, 2021)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...


OK.


----------



## westwall (May 16, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > BULLDOG said:
> ...








And that results in a slam fire which will eventually blow you, and your rifle to hell.


----------



## Flash (May 16, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > BULLDOG said:
> ...




So how many people use F-A weapons in the commission of a crime?  The number comes close to zero.  If anybody does it would be the gang bangers or drug cartel members and they would do it regardless of any law.

The weapon of choice for the great majority of crime in this country are cheap (often stolen) handguns.  These handguns are often in possession of people that would denied under Federal, State or Local regulations already on the books.


----------



## Flash (May 16, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> BlackSand said:
> 
> 
> > BULLDOG said:
> ...



Those are rookie numbers and Fudd guns.

What we all know is that you can't trust Liberals with the definition of "reasonable".  Liberals are never reasonable by any definition and besides their agenda is not to be reasonable but to do away the right to keep and bear arms because they perceive it to be an impediment to making the US a Socialist shithole.  They don't want White Conservatives to have the ability to oppose their Socialist agenda.


----------



## Flash (May 16, 2021)

9thIDdoc said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> > 9thIDdoc said:
> ...




I agree with you on almost everything but I respectively disagree with you on this.  I am against all background checks for the following three reasons:

1.  They simply don't work.  Past behavior doesn't predict future behavior.  For instance, several of the more recent mass shooters have passed background checks.  

2.  The background check only becomes a burden for law abiding citizens.  People wanting to use  a firearm for crime will simply ignore the background check process and get a firearm through other means.  The more strict the background check the more back market in firearms.

3.  (Most important) Having background checks circumvents the Bill of Rights.  Americans should not have to get government permission to enjoy a right that is guaranteed in the Bill of Rights and clearly says that the right cannot be infringed. A background check is nothing more than getting government permission and it is wrong.   If you have to get government permission to enjoy a right that is guaranteed in the Bill of Rights then the BOR isn't worth the parchment it is written on.


----------



## Blues Man (May 16, 2021)

Blues Man said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> > The M4 is the main rifle used by the US military, and no one could question that it is an assault rifle.  The M4 is capable of full automatic fire, and 3 round burst, and the AR15 is not. Of course, it would be illegal, but the AR15 can easily be converted to allow those types of fire. Other than that difference, what makes an M4 an assault weapon, and an AR15 not?
> ...


I notice you haven't answered my question yet.

Why is that?


----------



## 2aguy (May 16, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> BlackSand said:
> 
> 
> > BULLDOG said:
> ...




I oppose Universal Background Checks.  They are the trojan horse for gun registration.   There is no rational reason to have them...


----------



## 2aguy (May 16, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> BlackSand said:
> 
> 
> > BULLDOG said:
> ...




The current increase in gun sales came from 7 months of blm and antifa burning and looting cities, and murdering 30 Americans.......but the biggest part of that driving the increased gun buying, especially among blacks, hispanics and women?  Blm and antifa went into suburbs to march and vandalize as well.......and that scared a lot of people who hadn't thought to own a gun to go out and get one......

There are no hysterics about gun confiscation...the democrat party leadership has stated they want to ban and confiscate guns....they have stated they want to remove the protection from harassment lawsuits for gun makers and gun stores, beto o'rourke stated he wants to go house to house to confiscate AR-15s, the very gun we are talking about here......

They appoint anti-gun judges to the bench, they support gun and magazine bans at the state level.......

So don't tell us it is hysterics....we have seen human history and people like you push for gun control, and you don't stop ...


----------



## 2aguy (May 16, 2021)

9thIDdoc said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> > 9thIDdoc said:
> ...




Background checks, in particular universal background checks for private sales, are nothing more than a trojan horse to get to gun registration.....and before that, they will never stop criminals or mass shooters from getting guns.


----------



## 2aguy (May 16, 2021)

BlackSand said:


> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> > I'm all for background checks if they are accurate, conducted in a timely manner, and do not disqualify people without good reason. Also they provide no deterrent if those who attempt to fraudulently buy guns are not prosecuted and that is often lacking. The only problem I have with background checks is that they can disqualify people without good cause if they are allowed to do so and that must not be allowed.
> ...




John Lott did research on the background check system and the majority of initial denials are due to names that are similar to the names of criminals...they don't use the same background check information they look at when you apply for a job.....the system isn't meant to work properly.....it is merely a layer of red tape to frustrate law abiding gun owners.


----------



## 2aguy (May 16, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> > BULLDOG said:
> ...




And here he moves into his real agenda.......


----------



## 2aguy (May 16, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> > BULLDOG said:
> ...




The Fuck ups aren't occasional...they make up the majority of initial denials.


----------



## 2aguy (May 16, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> > BULLDOG said:
> ...



And here we go.....what you really want to discuss....

Background checks for individual sales are simply a way to get to gun registration..

The anti-gun extremists tell uninformed Americans....we need universal background checks to keep guns out of the hands of criminals....

UBCs do not do this...criminals steal their guns, or they use straw buyers, people with clean records who can pass any background check.

Mass public shooters can typically pass any background check as well because they have no prior criminal record.

So the actual people doing all of the shooting on our streets are not effected by universal background checks.

Once the gang shootings continue, and mass public shootings continue to happen, people like bulldog will be back.....they will say......well, the reason we still have gang shootings and mass public shootings...is that the Universal Background Checks you let us install won't actually work unless we know who has guns.....they will then start with their democrat party media pushing gun registration...pushing the lie that they need gun registration in order for Universal background checks to work in order to keep guns out of the hands of criminals and mass public shooters....

See....it isn't about stopping criminals or mass public shooters..since Universal Background checks won't do that.....it is about getting the location of guns and who owns them so that when bulldog and the anti-gun extremists get the power, they will be able to ban and confiscate guns without the owners hiding them....

That, and all the other things they will sneak into any Bill they pass...for example...

Textual analysis of HR8, bill to "To require a background check for every firearm sale"

Summary

HR8 requires that loans, gifts, and sales of firearms be processed by a gun store. The same fees, paperwork, and permanent record-keeping apply as to buying a new gun from the store.
*If you loan a gun to a friend without going to the gun store, the penalty is the same as for knowingly selling a gun to a convicted violent felon.*

Likewise, when the friend returns the gun, another trip to the gun store is necessary, upon pain of felony.

A clever trick in HR8 effectively bans handguns for persons 18-to20.

The bill has some narrow exemptions. The minuscule exemption for self-defense does not cover stalking victims. None of the exemptions cover farming and ranching, sharing guns on almost all public and private lands, or storing guns with friends while on vacation. The limited exemption for family excludes first cousins and in-laws.
And this......they love this...

*The bill authorizes unlimited fees to be imposed by
regulation.*
*-----*
The narrowness of the self-defense exemption endangers domestic violence victims. For example, a former domestic partner threatens a woman and her children. An attack might come in the next hour, or the next month, or never. The victim and her children cannot know. Because the attack is uncertain—and is certainly not "immediate"—the woman cannot borrow a handgun from a neighbor for her defense. Many domestic violence victims do not have several hundred spare dollars so that they can buy their own gun. Sometimes, threats are manifested at night, when gun stores are not open.
-------

HR8 requires almost all firearms sales and loans to be conducted by a federally-licensed dealer. Because federal law prohibits licensed dealers from transferring handguns to persons under 21 years, HR8 prevents young adults from acquiring handguns. This is a clever way to enact a handgun ban indirectly.

*HR8 would prohibit a 20-year-old woman who lives on her own from acquiring a handgun for self-defense in her home, such as by buying it from a relative or borrowing it from a friend.
-----*

Exorbitant fees may be imposed by regulation

"(3)(A) Notwithstanding any other provision of this chapter, the Attorney General may implement this sub-section with regulations."

"(D) Regulations promulgated under this paragraph may not include any provision placing a cap on the fee licensees may charge to facilitate transfers in accordance with paragraph (1)."

Regulators may set a minimum fee, but not "a cap on a fee." The Attorney General is allowed to require that every gun store charge a fee of $30, $50, $150, or more. Even a $20 fee can be a hard burden to a poor person.

------
Family members

You can make a "a loan or bona fide gift" to some family members. In-laws and cousins are excluded.

The family exemption vanishes if one family member pays the other in any way. If a brother trades an extra shotgun to his sister in exchange for her extra television, both of them have to go to a gun store. Their exchange will have all the fees and paperwork as if she were buying a gun from


----------



## 2aguy (May 16, 2021)

9thIDdoc said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> > 9thIDdoc said:
> ...




And that is all part of the plan...bulldog knows this.......supports this.......


----------



## 2aguy (May 16, 2021)

westwall said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> > 9thIDdoc said:
> ...




Have to disagree........this is what they will do when you let them get Universal Background Checks...this is in their actual Bills.......

The democrats tell the uniformed Americans they want background checks to keep crimnals from getting guns....but then they do this...

Textual analysis of HR8, bill to "To require a background check for every firearm sale"

Summary

HR8 requires that loans, gifts, and sales of firearms be processed by a gun store. The same fees, paperwork, and permanent record-keeping apply as to buying a new gun from the store.
*If you loan a gun to a friend without going to the gun store, the penalty is the same as for knowingly selling a gun to a convicted violent felon.*

Likewise, when the friend returns the gun, another trip to the gun store is necessary, upon pain of felony.

A clever trick in HR8 effectively bans handguns for persons 18-to20.

The bill has some narrow exemptions. The minuscule exemption for self-defense does not cover stalking victims. None of the exemptions cover farming and ranching, sharing guns on almost all public and private lands, or storing guns with friends while on vacation. The limited exemption for family excludes first cousins and in-laws.
And this......they love this...

*The bill authorizes unlimited fees to be imposed by
regulation.*
*-----*
The narrowness of the self-defense exemption endangers domestic violence victims. For example, a former domestic partner threatens a woman and her children. An attack might come in the next hour, or the next month, or never. The victim and her children cannot know. Because the attack is uncertain—and is certainly not "immediate"—the woman cannot borrow a handgun from a neighbor for her defense. Many domestic violence victims do not have several hundred spare dollars so that they can buy their own gun. Sometimes, threats are manifested at night, when gun stores are not open.
-------

HR8 requires almost all firearms sales and loans to be conducted by a federally-licensed dealer. Because federal law prohibits licensed dealers from transferring handguns to persons under 21 years, HR8 prevents young adults from acquiring handguns. This is a clever way to enact a handgun ban indirectly.

*HR8 would prohibit a 20-year-old woman who lives on her own from acquiring a handgun for self-defense in her home, such as by buying it from a relative or borrowing it from a friend.
-----*

Exorbitant fees may be imposed by regulation

"(3)(A) Notwithstanding any other provision of this chapter, the Attorney General may implement this sub-section with regulations."

"(D) *Regulations promulgated under this paragraph may not include any provision placing a cap on the fee licensees may charge to facilitate transfers in accordance with paragraph (1)."*

Regulators may set a minimum fee, but not "a cap on a fee." The Attorney General is allowed to require that every gun store charge a fee of $30, $50, $150, or more. Even a $20 fee can be a hard burden to a poor person.

------
Family members

You can make a "a loan or bona fide gift" to some family members. In-laws and cousins are excluded.

The family exemption vanishes if one family member pays the other in any way. If a brother trades an extra shotgun to his sister in exchange for her extra television, both of them have to go to a gun store. Their exchange will have all the fees and paperwork as if she were buying a gun from


----------



## 2aguy (May 16, 2021)

westwall said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> > 9thIDdoc said:
> ...




This is one of their goals with background checks.....

"(D) *Regulations promulgated under this paragraph may not include any provision placing a cap on the fee licensees may charge to facilitate transfers in accordance with paragraph (1)."*


----------



## 2aguy (May 16, 2021)

westwall said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> > 9thIDdoc said:
> ...




There is a simple solution....open up the background check system to private citizens.....gun dealers, stores, the average gun owner.....then, all they have to do is go on to  their IPhone, laptop, punch in the name and birthday of a potential gun buyer and see if they have any of the categories that ban them from owning a gun...

Easy Peazy, lemon squeezee.........

Have a buyer....get their name, birthday, punch it in, and just like a cop at a vehicle stop, any convictions or outstanding warrants would pop up....and you can deny a sale without any record keeping and in seconds...not hours, or days..

But bulldog and the other anti-gun extremists don't want that.....they want the red tape, fees and penalties...and in particular....the punishment and destruction of normal gun owners when they don't cross the "T" or dot the "i"............


----------



## 2aguy (May 16, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> > BULLDOG said:
> ...




Hey....Bulldog...Let's play...

All we need to do is open the background check system to civilians..instead of just government agencies...

Allow gun stores, gun dealters, and private citizens to use the same data base and system as law enforcement...where they can punch in the name and birthday of a person, and their entire history pops up......any arrests, warrants or other criminal information pops up...in seconds....

You don't need anything else....

If I have a gun, and you want to buy it...you give me your Drivers License, with your name and birthday....I punch it into my Iphone, laptop, and if you have felonies, or warrants, it will simply pop up.....

No felonies or warrants and I can sell you the gun.

If you are a criminal...no gun for you.

That is all we need.......

No records kept, no need to register guns, no need to license owners...no fees, no taxes...........easy peasy...

You in for that?


----------



## 2aguy (May 16, 2021)

BlackSand said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > I have no problem with a background check so long as there is no gun information involved.  Want to make it happen. Pass a law that absolves any seller of any crime done with a weapon they sell so long as a background check is done.
> ...



Watch how bulldog reacts to this idea.....

Hey....Bulldog...Let's play...

All we need to do is open the background check system to civilians..instead of just government agencies...

Allow gun stores, gun dealters, and private citizens to use the same data base and system as law enforcement...where they can punch in the name and birthday of a person, and their entire history pops up......any arrests, warrants or other criminal information pops up...in seconds....

You don't need anything else....

If I have a gun, and you want to buy it...you give me your Drivers License, with your name and birthday....I punch it into my Iphone, laptop, and if you have felonies, or warrants, it will simply pop up.....

No felonies or warrants and I can sell you the gun.

If you are a criminal...no gun for you.

That is all we need.......

No records kept, no need to register guns, no need to license owners...no fees, no taxes...........easy peasy...

You in for that?


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (May 16, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > BULLDOG said:
> ...


they are already registered that's what you wanted 
other than that pound sand


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (May 16, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > BULLDOG said:
> ...


and your false pretenses is over 
STOP WITH THE GASLIGHTING


----------



## BlackSand (May 16, 2021)

2aguy said:


> There is a simple solution....open up the background check system to private citizens.....gun dealers, stores, the average gun owner.....then, all they have to do is go on to  their IPhone, laptop, punch in the name and birthday of a potential gun buyer and see if they have any of the categories that ban them from owning a gun...
> 
> Easy Peazy, lemon squeezee.........
> 
> ...


.

Pfft ... Bulldog doesn't understand that although he posted a link to a video of someone doing it ...
A lower receiver is nothing more than a chunk of metal someone can send you in the mail.
With the proper tools and knowledge, anyone can tool it into a part that will work.

It doesn't make a damn bit of difference what law anyone writes, because people are smart and can figure out how to make what they want without breaking the law.
It's like suggesting you can get rid of outlaw drag racing if you ban tires or put a traceable serial number on every fucking lug nut or screw.

As I told him earlier ... They cannot stop us from making whatever they are scared of until they ban *anything that shoots a bullet*.
All they can accomplish is pissing off and making it harder for people who want to obey the law, and exercise their Constitutionally Protected Rights to start with.

Firearms are nothing more than an assortment of parts, assembled in a configuration that will effectively fire a bullet.
It just doesn't matter how freaking scary someone may think they are ... The pile of parts doesn't give a shit about that.

.​


----------



## 2aguy (May 16, 2021)

BlackSand said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> > There is a simple solution....open up the background check system to private citizens.....gun dealers, stores, the average gun owner.....then, all they have to do is go on to  their IPhone, laptop, punch in the name and birthday of a potential gun buyer and see if they have any of the categories that ban them from owning a gun...
> ...




Bulldog knows this......he doesn't care because the focus isn't on stopping criminals, but in turning law abiding Americans into criminals if they own guns..........create red tape, fees, taxes.....and at any step when a normal American fails to cross the "T" or dot the " i " then bulldog and the anti-gun extremists can crush them........scaring others into not taking on the liability of owning guns....


----------



## 9thIDdoc (May 16, 2021)

Flash said:


> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> > BULLDOG said:
> ...


We agree on all the points you mentioned. I am only OK with background checks *at present* because they are usually conducted in a timely manner and replace a system that could and often did require waiting weeks for the County sheriff to sign off on the deal before you could pick up the handgun you had just purchased and paid for. Yes, I agree it is a system that could easily be used in a tyrannical fashion and criminals can easily circumvent it but should that happen I have no problem becoming a criminal myself. I know no allegiance to any government that stands in violation of the Constitution. Governments exist to serve the People; not the other way round.


----------



## HereWeGoAgain (May 16, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> > BULLDOG said:
> ...



  And you haven't shot a gun since.....


----------



## daveman (May 16, 2021)

HereWeGoAgain said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> > HereWeGoAgain said:
> ...


You don't have to shoot guns to get a deer camp ready.


----------



## ding (May 16, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> the AR15 can easily be converted to allow those types of fire


Actually, no.  It can't be easily converted to allow 3 round bursts and full auto.  

Where did you hear that it could?


----------



## ding (May 16, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> Jarlaxle said:
> 
> 
> > Well, no, it cannot be "easily" converted-the receiver is different.
> ...


That's a machined part.  You think you can manufacture a machined part in your garage with a grinder and a vice?  Seriously?


----------



## ding (May 16, 2021)

Jarlaxle said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...


It's almost like bulldog is a moron.


----------



## BULLDOG (May 16, 2021)

ding said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> > Jarlaxle said:
> ...


Of course I could. It wouldn't be nearly as pretty, but it doesn't have to be pretty to work. It just has to make contact in the right places at  the right time. Doesn't take pretty to do that


----------



## ding (May 16, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > BULLDOG said:
> ...


No.  You couldn't.  The fact that you think you could just proves you don't know jack shit about anything especially machining precision parts.  That is seriously one of the stupidest claim you could make.  I could write a book on the reasons you can't do it.  But go ahead and prove me wrong.  Make that part.


----------



## BULLDOG (May 16, 2021)

ding said:


> Jarlaxle said:
> 
> 
> > BULLDOG said:
> ...


I'm not sure you are the best person to make that judgement. You are certainly entitled to your opinion though, for what that is worth.


----------



## ding (May 16, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > BULLDOG said:
> ...



Here you go dumb ass.


----------



## ding (May 16, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > Jarlaxle said:
> ...


You mean besides the fact that I have shit built at machine shops?  

What's your experience in machining.  Besides I just posted a smyth buster video on why you are full of shit.  You'd believe anything that confirmed your bias.  Next time though you might want to do a little research before you get your pants pulled down in front of everyone.


----------



## BULLDOG (May 16, 2021)

ding said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


No need to prove anything to you. Perhaps reading a ruler and grinding along a straight line is an unsurmountable chore for you. Perhaps you have never done any fabrication.


----------



## ding (May 16, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > BULLDOG said:
> ...


You don't machine precision parts with a grinder and a vice, dumb ass.  Not to mention the other components you forgot to mention that are needed for full auto.

The government does not allow receiver designs which can be converted to full auto.   If you don't believe me call the ATF.


----------



## BULLDOG (May 17, 2021)

ding said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


The M16 Trigger, Disconnector, Hammer, Selector, and Bolt Carrier are all readily available, and non regulated. It's still highly illegal to assemble them to produce a fully auto rifle, and the ATF will have a running shit fit. It can be done though.


----------



## ding (May 17, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > BULLDOG said:
> ...


Readily available?  Prove it.

Cause I think we have different definitions of readily available.


----------



## westwall (May 17, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> Jarlaxle said:
> 
> 
> > Well, no, it cannot be "easily" converted-the receiver is different.
> ...






Have the tolerances off by three thousandths and your AR is a ticking time bomb.

Suuuure you can do that with a Dremel.

What a 'tard.


----------



## westwall (May 17, 2021)

2aguy said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > BULLDOG said:
> ...







Pretty much what I was suggesting.


----------



## ding (May 17, 2021)

westwall said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> > Jarlaxle said:
> ...


He probably didn't even watch his own video.


----------



## 2aguy (May 17, 2021)

ding said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...




Research?  Research isn't something anti-gun extremists do....emotion is what they do...


----------



## Blues Man (May 17, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > BULLDOG said:
> ...


And yet no one does it.

So I''ll ask the same question again

If it's so easy to convert an AR 15 to a fully automatic rifle how come we don't see people using converted AR 15s used in crimes?


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth (May 17, 2021)

Polishprince said:


> "assault weapon" isn't a valid description of anything.  M4 isn't an "assault weapon" either.
> 
> Any weapon can be used in an assault.  So I guess they are all "assault weapons" from a bb gun to a machine gun.


"Assault Weapon" is a bullshit, made up term to equate military rifles with sporting rifles so they can gun-grab at will.

The term "Assault Rifle" is a legitimate term of art.

It originated with the Sturmgewehr 44 (literally translates as "Storm Rifle" but means "Assault Rifle").






The problem the German Wehrmacht was trying to solve in creating the Strumgewehr 44 was the need for two different primary weapons.  One for open-field combat, and another for close quarters combat (CQC) in cities and building-to-building.  

Germany had the MP40:






Which fired 9mm Luger (the common 9mm pistol round used today) which is a small round, great for CQC.  It was great for close quarters combat because it was small, light, easy to carry and maneuver in building-to-building combat, and was full-auto to allow suppressive fire without the need for machine guns.  

The alternative primary weapon was the Karabiner 98k:






It was an excellent weapon for open-field combat at distances and very accurate because it fired one round at a time, but its bolt action, large cartage (big bullets), and length made it nearly useless in CQC.


The solution was to make a rifle that would serve both roles, so they wouldn't need mixed units.  Everyone would carry the same weapon for both open-field and CQC.  Germany developed a rifle that had a mid-sized round (not a pistol round, but also not a full rifle round), the ability to shoot one round at a time (semi-auto) and the ability to shoot full-auto for suppressive fire in CQC situations.

Behold, the Assault Rifle (Storm Rifle)....TADAAAAA:







And, who copied the Strumgewehr 44?  

THE FUCKING SOVIETS:







Followed a few years later by the ArmaLite AR10 Rifle, which had too big a cartage for assault rifle purposes, so it was followed by the AR-15 chambered in 5.56:






The original AR15 had selective fire (both semi-auto and full-auto modes) which became the M16A1, but today's civilian variants are semi-auto only and cannot be converted to full-auto without a complete change of the receiver.

So, in sum, although the term "Assault Weapon" is a bullshit, made up term designed to empower gun-grabbers with scary-sounding words, the term "Assault Rifle" is a legitimate term for a military-grade weapon that most civilians cannot purchase.

Anybody who calls a civilian sporting rifle "assault" anything is a gun-grabbing POS who should be executed.


----------



## 2aguy (May 17, 2021)

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> Polishprince said:
> 
> 
> > "assault weapon" isn't a valid description of anything.  M4 isn't an "assault weapon" either.
> ...




Allow me to help.

Assault Rifle:

A combination of two words placed together to create fear among uninformed Americans, so that those uninformed Americans can be stampeded into granting anti-gun extremists the power to ban and confiscate any gun those same extremists call "Assault Weapons."


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (May 17, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > BULLDOG said:
> ...


No you can't 
But if you think you can try it I DARE YOU


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (May 17, 2021)

ding said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


Don't forget about the BGC you can't use a BCG designed for an AR in an M4 because the AR BGC is not cut for automatic function


----------



## BULLDOG (May 17, 2021)

ding said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...





bigrebnc1775 said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > BULLDOG said:
> ...


but you can use an M16 BCG  on an AR15. Not too expensive either.


----------



## ding (May 17, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > BULLDOG said:
> ...


$300 IF you can find one.  Which is a big if.  But you still need that $15,000 auto sear that you ain't machining in your garage with a ruler, vise and grinder from drawings/specifications that you don't have.  

Bottom line this is not the simple or easy conversion you seem to think it is.  But if you diagree you should take it up with ATF as they are the ones tasked with not allowing simple or easy conversions from semi-automatic to full-automatic.


----------



## BULLDOG (May 17, 2021)

ding said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


An internet search shows them for as little as $79.00. The hammer, and other parts needed run about $50.00 or less. That shouldn't be a problem for gun nuts who have already spent much more than that preparing for the civil war they so desperately want.


----------



## ding (May 17, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > BULLDOG said:
> ...


And not in stock.


----------



## BULLDOG (May 17, 2021)

ding said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


So you have to have fully auto capability right this minute? I guess your civil war will just have to wait a week or two. I buy stuff from Amazon all the time that is out of stock. Patience grasshopper. Your instant gratification .demands can't always be fulfilled. Pay a little more and get it sooner if it's that important to you.


----------



## ding (May 17, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > BULLDOG said:
> ...


I don't need one at all.  Semi-automatic is all I would ever want and probably more than you will ever own.

But can't you just manufacture one in your garage with a ruler, vise and grinding wheel?


----------



## westwall (May 18, 2021)

ding said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...








Don't forget the Emory board for the fine polishing!


----------



## SavannahMann (May 18, 2021)

Actually. There are. The alloys used in construction of military grade weapons are restricted. So the weapon is in fact. Stronger.

Another example of that is concrete. Yes. Concrete. The mix they use to construct Prisons is rated at 80k pounds per square inch. That is far more than you can manage with civilian concrete. The mix is restricted to official government use.

Take a civilian weapon. The PS-90. That original weapon was the P-90. Designed to use special ammunition to defeat soft body armor. The weapon was wildly successful at that. Today you can buy a PS-90 or a pistol to fire the 5.7 MM ammo. But the actual armor piercing ammo is restricted. The penetrating ammo is available for LEO’s or Military only.

The civilian ammo is good. But it is not nearly as good as the restricted.

Now you say it is easy to replace the sea. Well. Yes and no. First. Controlling a fully automatic rifle is a lot harder than it appears in Hollywood. Truth be told after the third round you aren’t hitting where you were aiming. At full cyclic rate you can dump a thirty round magazine in about three seconds.

This causes problems. Ammo gets heavy. And dumping a mag heats up the barrel. Here is where those special alloys come in. Your six hundred dollar cheap knockoff is going to melt down a lot sooner than a military rifle.

Even the military rifles have a problem with heat. You can cook off the rounds from the heat.

Modifying or filing the sear isn’t the solution you think it is. The AR-15 platform has an unusual bolt carrier for a reason. The back closed section is designed to trip the hammer release. What happens without that part properly aligned a good probability one of two equally undesirable results. First the weapon could fire early. The hammer hits the firing pin before the bolt is locked in position. Your fully automatic rifle jams. Potentially blowing up the upper receiver.

The other possibility is FTF. Or fail to fire. The firing pin is brushed forward but it does not have sufficient force to ignite the primer.

Your filed or modified sear that seems so simple probably fires full auto. But it is also very likely to have malfunctions. 

But let’s get back to that fully auto rifle that has you worried. That spray and pray is used more for suppressive fire. The idea is to get the other guy to duck and keep his head down so he can’t shoot you. This is used when you are trying to fix an enemy in a location for either a flanking move or some sort of support fire. Say artillery or air strike.

The Las Vegas Shooter was thankfully an idiot. He fired a thousand rounds. He managed to kill 60 and wound 411. That is spray and pray into a crowd. A crowd where you almost couldn’t miss. And he managed a kill rate of one for every sixteen rounds fired. His hit rate in a densely packed crowd was not even 50%. 

He like you thought the AR’s just looked scary. If he was educated he could have gotten those kills off of a true long range rifle much more efficiently. And probably made his escape to Mexico before they identified his location.


----------



## BULLDOG (May 18, 2021)

SavannahMann said:


> Actually. There are. The alloys used in construction of military grade weapons are restricted. So the weapon is in fact. Stronger.
> 
> Another example of that is concrete. Yes. Concrete. The mix they use to construct Prisons is rated at 80k pounds per square inch. That is far more than you can manage with civilian concrete. The mix is restricted to official government use.
> 
> ...


I got as far as your remarks about concrete.  Obviously, you never heard about rebar.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (May 18, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > BULLDOG said:
> ...


You still need a registered sear


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (May 18, 2021)

SavannahMann said:


> Actually. There are. The alloys used in construction of military grade weapons are restricted. So the weapon is in fact. Stronger.
> 
> Another example of that is concrete. Yes. Concrete. The mix they use to construct Prisons is rated at 80k pounds per square inch. That is far more than you can manage with civilian concrete. The mix is restricted to official government use.
> 
> ...


mil-spec doesn't make it better


----------



## BULLDOG (May 18, 2021)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


Yes, to be legal, you need a registered sear. For it to work, it doesn't have to be legal. A DIAS isn't that intricate or complicated.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (May 18, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > BULLDOG said:
> ...







__





						Standard Mass 5.56 x 45(223) M16 BCG Complete w/ Adjustable Gas Key – Welcome to Rubber City Armory
					





					rubbercityarmory.com


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (May 18, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > BULLDOG said:
> ...





BULLDOG said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > BULLDOG said:
> ...


you can't build one without the proper tools
If it was so simple to do why haven't criminals done it?


----------



## BULLDOG (May 18, 2021)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


What is your point? You can find cheap ones, and some that are not so cheap. Still, $215 wouldn't be so bad if you were a nutbag gearing up for an armed civil war.


----------



## BULLDOG (May 18, 2021)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...


No doubt some have.


----------



## marvin martian (May 18, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> The M4 is the main rifle used by the US military, and no one could question that it is an assault rifle.  The M4 is capable of full automatic fire, and 3 round burst, and the AR15 is not. Of course, it would be illegal, but the AR15 can easily be converted to allow those types of fire. Other than that difference, what makes an M4 an assault weapon, and an AR15 not?



There's SO much ignorance in your post it's really embarrassing.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (May 18, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > BULLDOG said:
> ...


if they have it would have been recovered in a crime so how many have been used in a crime?
Your thread is falling apart when facts are brought up against it.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (May 18, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > BULLDOG said:
> ...


and you would be a nutbag to press the war


----------



## ding (May 18, 2021)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...


I'd say him posting that he could build one using a ruler, a vise and a grinder qualifies him for nutbag of the year.


----------



## Canon Shooter (May 18, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> The M4 is the main rifle used by the US military, and no one could question that it is an assault rifle.  The M4 is capable of full automatic fire, and 3 round burst, and the AR15 is not. Of course, it would be illegal, but the AR15 can easily be converted to allow those types of fire. Other than that difference, what makes an M4 an assault weapon, and an AR15 not?


Define "assault weapon".

Your eagerness to dismiss the primary difference between the two clearly exposes you and your liberal, anti-gun agenda...


----------



## daveman (May 18, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> SavannahMann said:
> 
> 
> > Actually. There are. The alloys used in construction of military grade weapons are restricted. So the weapon is in fact. Stronger.
> ...


You know as much about construction as you do about firearms.


----------



## BULLDOG (May 18, 2021)

ding said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > BULLDOG said:
> ...


You can say what you want, and I suppose it is partially my fault for letting the thread get misdirected, but the point is that there is very little difference between the use of the two guns.


----------



## westwall (May 18, 2021)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...









Converting civilian semi auto's into real life machineguns is very difficult to do correctly.  That's why they are almost never used in a crime.  The last major usage was the North Hollywood shootout.  And....the converted weapons were 2 AK's (Chinese Type 56's, a Bushmaster XM15 E2S and an HK-91 that was converted to full auto.  I believe their handguns weren't modified, though I could be wrong on that.


----------



## BULLDOG (May 18, 2021)

Canon Shooter said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> > The M4 is the main rifle used by the US military, and no one could question that it is an assault rifle.  The M4 is capable of full automatic fire, and 3 round burst, and the AR15 is not. Of course, it would be illegal, but the AR15 can easily be converted to allow those types of fire. Other than that difference, what makes an M4 an assault weapon, and an AR15 not?
> ...


I acknowledged the primary difference in the OP. The point was that there is very little difference other than select fire capability. Even in a combat situation, single fire is usually preferred for the military rifle, making them virtually the same in most situations.


----------



## progressive hunter (May 18, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...


since the 2nd A was specifically for weapons of war it really doesnt matter does it,,


----------



## BULLDOG (May 18, 2021)

daveman said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> > SavannahMann said:
> ...


Please tell me more about this heavily regulated concrete that is only allowed to be used in prisons.


----------



## TroglocratsRdumb (May 19, 2021)

marxist, fascist, criminals and terrorist always want their victims to be defenseless


----------



## LuckyDuck (May 19, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> The M4 is the main rifle used by the US military, and no one could question that it is an assault rifle.  The M4 is capable of full automatic fire, and 3 round burst, and the AR15 is not. Of course, it would be illegal, but the AR15 can easily be converted to allow those types of fire. Other than that difference, what makes an M4 an assault weapon, and an AR15 not?


To be accurate, any item you use to physically assault an individual or group with, IS AN ASSAULT WEAPON!
There's the ever popular "Assault Knife."
The handy "Assault Bat."
The readily available "Assault Hammer."
The always available "Assault Fists."
The left tries to assign a "scary" title to a rifle, to make it sound very, very dangerous, as opposed to your average handgun, which is the actual weapon used in almost all cases.  In 2014, the numbers of "killings" in which an AK or AR style rifle was used, was a little over 3 per 1,000 and some of those were actually caused by SWAT teams doing their jobs.  Yet, the anti-gun left would have the ignorant public believe that they are the most dangerous weapon owned by civilians.  
In fact, they're not very concealable and definitely, not the first choice of CRIMINALS.  I capitalize the word, "CRIMINAL," because whether it's someone who actually uses one of those style rifles or a pistol/revolver in a crime, they are the ones causing the victims, NOT the millions and millions of law-abiding gun owners, regardless of what weapons they own.


----------



## marvin martian (May 19, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...



You're VERY ignorant about both firearms and the law.  It would be better if you didn't comment on either until you get some education.


----------



## Muhammed (May 19, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> The M4 is the main rifle used by the US military, and no one could question that it is an assault rifle.  The M4 is capable of full automatic fire, and 3 round burst, and the AR15 is not. Of course, it would be illegal, but the AR15 can easily be converted to allow those types of fire. Other than that difference, what makes an M4 an assault weapon, and an AR15 not?



Another Democrat spewing Hitler's propaganda.

The M4 is a carbine rifle, not an "assault rifle". "Assault rifle" is just a ridiculous term that the Nazi's made up out of thin air when they renamed the MP 43 to make it sound scary for propaganda purposes.

Only Nazis call any rifle an "assault rifle".


----------



## BULLDOG (May 19, 2021)

marvin martian said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


No. I am very different from the rhetoric you see as gospel, though.


----------



## BULLDOG (May 19, 2021)

Muhammed said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> > The M4 is the main rifle used by the US military, and no one could question that it is an assault rifle.  The M4 is capable of full automatic fire, and 3 round burst, and the AR15 is not. Of course, it would be illegal, but the AR15 can easily be converted to allow those types of fire. Other than that difference, what makes an M4 an assault weapon, and an AR15 not?
> ...


Our military and the NRA disagree with you








						NRA-ILA | Glossary
					

For definitions of key words related to firearms and the 2nd amendment check out this page.




					www.nraila.org


----------



## daveman (May 19, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > BULLDOG said:
> ...


I don't know anything about that, but I'm not pretending the inclusion of rebar into concrete makes it infinitely strong.


----------



## daveman (May 19, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> Muhammed said:
> 
> 
> > BULLDOG said:
> ...


You didn't read far enough.


Assault Rifle
By U.S. Army definition, a selective-fire rifle chambered for a cartridge of intermediate power. *If applied to any semi-automatic firearm regardless of its cosmetic similarity to a true assault rifle, the term is incorrect*.


----------



## BULLDOG (May 19, 2021)

daveman said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> > daveman said:
> ...


I'm not either. Tell me more about that super duper concrete that is only allowed in prisons.


----------



## BULLDOG (May 19, 2021)

daveman said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> > Muhammed said:
> ...


I read the entire thing. You agree the M4 is an assault rifle though, like I said in the OP --- right?


----------



## daveman (May 19, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > BULLDOG said:
> ...


I have no obligation to defend a claim I didn't make.


----------



## daveman (May 19, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > BULLDOG said:
> ...


Yes.  But the AR-15 is not.  By the definition you cited.

Looks like this thread is over.


----------



## BULLDOG (May 19, 2021)

daveman said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> > daveman said:
> ...


Fair enough. It was a batshit crazy claim anyway. Typical  coming from a batshit crazy right winger.


----------



## BULLDOG (May 19, 2021)

daveman said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> > daveman said:
> ...


I never said the AR was. I did say that other than the multi-fire capability, there were no substantial differences in the two. That is, unless you can name those substantial differences.


----------



## daveman (May 19, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > BULLDOG said:
> ...


Ever find a source for that Limbaugh quote?  

Or is that just some typical batshit crazy left-winger shit?


----------



## daveman (May 19, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > BULLDOG said:
> ...


Again -- I have no obligation to defend a claim I didn't make.

I don't know what's so hard about that to understand.


----------



## BULLDOG (May 19, 2021)

daveman said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> > daveman said:
> ...


If you're interested in another thread, I suggest you go to that thread.


----------



## BULLDOG (May 19, 2021)

daveman said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> > daveman said:
> ...


OK. Since you can't point out any fault in this OP, I assume we are in agreement.


----------



## daveman (May 19, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > BULLDOG said:
> ...


Are you still trying to hide that you want the AR banned because "there's no substantial differences between the two"?

Because the semi-auto and full-auto thing is a substantial difference.


----------



## daveman (May 19, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > BULLDOG said:
> ...


Why?  You haven't responded to it.


----------



## BULLDOG (May 19, 2021)

daveman said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> > daveman said:
> ...


Yes, it is a substantial difference that everybody is aware of. That's why I excluded it from the discussion. I'm trying to find any other substantial differences that might exist. You know of any?.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (May 20, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> ding said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...


again there are over 600,000 automatic firearms in the hands of the general public it's irrelevant if you think the AR and m16 have very little difference 
It's irrelevant because they are constitutionally protected


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (May 20, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> Canon Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > BULLDOG said:
> ...


still irrelevant


----------



## Canon Shooter (May 20, 2021)

progressive hunter said:


> since the 2nd A was specifically for weapons of war it really doesnt matter does it,



Where does the Constitution state that?

I just read the 2nd Amendment four times and the words "weapons of war" aren't included...


----------



## Canon Shooter (May 20, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> The point was that there is very little difference other than select fire capability.



And that difference is profound.

As for your comments about what is preferable in war, I doubt you've any real-world experience on which to make such a statement...


----------



## BULLDOG (May 20, 2021)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> > ding said:
> ...


So I'll just put you down as not able to come up with any substantial differences, other than multi-fire capability. You realize that even in combat, the military avoids using that multi-fire capability as much as possible, don't you?  Thanks for participating.


----------



## progressive hunter (May 20, 2021)

Canon Shooter said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> > since the 2nd A was specifically for weapons of war it really doesnt matter does it,
> ...


are you saying its for hunting???

you may want to read the first part of the 2nd A,, cause its pretty clear what its for,,

be tough defending the country from a rogue government foreign or domestic of you are not properly armed,,


----------



## BULLDOG (May 20, 2021)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> > Canon Shooter said:
> ...


Then you shouldn't worry yourself about the question then, should you?


----------



## Canon Shooter (May 20, 2021)

progressive hunter said:


> Canon Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > progressive hunter said:
> ...



The inarguable fact is that your statement is false. The 2nd Amendment says nothing about "weapons of war".

Not a single fucking word...


----------



## progressive hunter (May 20, 2021)

Canon Shooter said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> > Canon Shooter said:
> ...


then whats it for??

hunting rifles??

I take from your lack of reasonable answer to what is intended you know you have nothing but emotional complaining about others,,


----------



## Canon Shooter (May 20, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > BULLDOG said:
> ...



So, exactly how ignorant are you?

No one except an ignorant liberal moron bed-wetter would refer to it as "multi-fire".

Just admit that you don't know what the fuck you're talking about and we can move on...


----------



## BULLDOG (May 20, 2021)

Canon Shooter said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> > The point was that there is very little difference other than select fire capability.
> ...


You are right. I have never had to use a rifle in a combat situation, but I can evaluate what those that have have to say about it.  Most say auto fire rarely hits what they want to hit, and it's the best way to run out of ammo in the middle of a fight. Most say they avoid that. I'll take their word for that.


----------



## Canon Shooter (May 20, 2021)

progressive hunter said:


> Canon Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > progressive hunter said:
> ...



It's non-specific, you stupid fuck, and for good cause. Idiots like you want to rid the world of anything anything you find to be scary. Might I suggest that, when the shootin' starts, you simply duck your candy-ass behind closed doors and let brave men do what's necessary...


----------



## Canon Shooter (May 20, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> Canon Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > BULLDOG said:
> ...



Got a source for that, or are you going to rely on what "most" of "those" have allegedly said to convince others of your uneducated argument?


----------



## progressive hunter (May 20, 2021)

Canon Shooter said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> > Canon Shooter said:
> ...


hey dumbfuck,, a militia is a civilian military and it would be stupid to not have them armed like a military,,
I know its hard for stupid fucks like you to do critical thinking stuff like this but please try,, cause youre exposing your idiocy and making people wonder how you manage to put your pants on in the morning


----------



## westwall (May 20, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > BULLDOG said:
> ...







Typical progressive, you lose, so you lie.


----------



## BULLDOG (May 20, 2021)

Canon Shooter said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...


Really? That's the only thing you can think of? Unless you can come up with something else, I'll put you on the same list as that other idiot who has no answers to the question.


----------



## westwall (May 20, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> Canon Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > BULLDOG said:
> ...








Good!  I am happy to see you place yourself on the idiots list.  FINALLY!


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (May 20, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> Canon Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > BULLDOG said:
> ...


your thread died a long time ago any question you have are irrelevant 
But you seem to avoid questions asked of you.


----------



## BULLDOG (May 20, 2021)

Canon Shooter said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> > Canon Shooter said:
> ...


I assume these people know more about armed combat, and have more access to the best practices than either you or I do. 




__





						Full Auto: Battlefield Necessity or A Waste of Ammo?
					

Even if the Army does nothing more to improve the M4, the service should be applauded for its decision to dump the three-round burst setting. It's ineffective, never used and hinders accuracy with its inconsistent trigger pull.




					www.military.com


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (May 20, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> Canon Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > BULLDOG said:
> ...


from your source
 can't really see a downside to it. Back in the mid-1980s -- before the shift to the M16A2 and the three-round burst -- active-duty infantry units kept to a strict rule that rifleman only fired their M16A1s on semi auto. Today's combat-experienced infantrymen are even more disciplined.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (May 20, 2021)

Auto fire from rifleman is for final fire in an emergency usually when being assaulted and the enemy has closed to danger close, as in in threat of being over run.


----------



## daveman (May 20, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > BULLDOG said:
> ...


Yes.  AR-15s are substantially cheaper to own for people who want one.  Owning one (or a hundred) isn't regulated like owning a select-fire weapon is.

Thread's over.  You need to accept it.


----------



## BULLDOG (May 20, 2021)

westwall said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> > daveman said:
> ...


I'm sorry you think that. I have no intention to lie. Perhaps , if you can show where you or anybody else has shown any substantial difference between how the two rifles are used, except as noted in the OP,  I can understand where the confusion might be, and I will understand why you think I am lying. As always, I'm willing to admit that I am wrong when shown proof.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (May 20, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > BULLDOG said:
> ...


it's irrelevant they are constitutionally protected 
THE END


----------



## Canon Shooter (May 20, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> Really? That's the only thing you can think of? Unless you can come up with something else, I'll put you on the same list as that other idiot who has no answers to the question.


I've answered your question, you ignorant fuck. You just don't like the answer because your only counter to it is to suggest that the ability to toggle from semi-auto fire (or what liberal dipshits call "multi fire") is a minor one when in fact, it's a *monumental* difference. I've fired both, little boy. I know the difference. You don't.

Look, it's not my fault that you're ignorant and stupid. I wish you were smarter, I really do. But you're not, so all that's left for intelligent people to do is mock your idiocy...


----------



## BULLDOG (May 20, 2021)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> > Canon Shooter said:
> ...


I had hoped at least one of the gun nuts here could come up with at least some example of substantial differences between the two guns, except as noted in the OP. So far, I haven't seen any. If I missed a specific example, then please point it out. I'm sorry if you think I haven't answered any questions relating to the OP.  Ask again, and I will try to answer. I'm not going to bother with unrelated questions.


----------



## Canon Shooter (May 20, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > BULLDOG said:
> ...


This is why you're ignorant. You're apparently too goddamn stupid to comprehend that the substantial difference in the OP is the only substantial difference required.

No further discussion is necessary. The M4 and the AR-15 are drastically different weapons...


----------



## Canon Shooter (May 20, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > BULLDOG said:
> ...



You're fucking pig-headed.

What's the point of your question? Apparently, you hope to demonstrate that the two weapons share enough characteristics that they can be considered, essentially, the same. But what you really need to wrap your pointed little head around is that the difference noted in the OP is _more_ than sufficient to nullify every single one of the similar characteristics in a comparison of the two guns...


----------



## BULLDOG (May 20, 2021)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> > Canon Shooter said:
> ...


Yes. More disciplined. Only using that capability in the very few situations called for.


----------



## Canon Shooter (May 20, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > BULLDOG said:
> ...



Define "assault weapon"...


----------



## BULLDOG (May 20, 2021)

RetiredGySgt said:


> Auto fire from rifleman is for final fire in an emergency usually when being assaulted and the enemy has closed to danger close, as in in threat of being over run.


Yes. Rarely used.


----------



## daveman (May 20, 2021)

Will somebody just go ahead and agree with Bulldog's stupid idea that AR's should be banned?


----------



## BULLDOG (May 20, 2021)

daveman said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> > daveman said:
> ...


Yes.  Do you have anything other than auto-fire capability, which was noted in the OP (post #1)  to add?


----------



## BULLDOG (May 20, 2021)

Canon Shooter said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> > Really? That's the only thing you can think of? Unless you can come up with something else, I'll put you on the same list as that other idiot who has no answers to the question.
> ...


Of course it is a notable difference. That's why it was addressed in the OP, and excluded from the thread. I'm looking for differences other than the one main one. If you don't know of any other differences, then you are like every other poster here who had nothing else to add.


----------



## progressive hunter (May 20, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> Canon Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > BULLDOG said:
> ...


why does it matter??


----------



## BULLDOG (May 20, 2021)

Canon Shooter said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...


Good. Now we are getting somewhere. Please list those drastic differences. What ways are those two rifles substantially different, other than the one difference noted in the OP?


----------



## progressive hunter (May 20, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> Canon Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > BULLDOG said:
> ...


why does it matter???


----------



## BULLDOG (May 20, 2021)

Canon Shooter said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...


So you have no differences to add other than the one main one listed in the OP?


----------



## westwall (May 20, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > BULLDOG said:
> ...








Yes, you did have intent to lie.  You couldn't make the point that you wanted, because it is erroneous, so you misrepresented what another poster said.  That is called a LIE.  You might be an unethical, lying piece of crap, but we aren't.


----------



## westwall (May 20, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> Canon Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > BULLDOG said:
> ...








Why does it matter?


----------



## RetiredGySgt (May 20, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> > Auto fire from rifleman is for final fire in an emergency usually when being assaulted and the enemy has closed to danger close, as in in threat of being over run.
> ...


which has nothing to do with the fact it has the ability and the AR15 does not making them critically different, there is no difference between an AR15 and any other semi automatic rifle especially those with detachable magazines.


----------



## BULLDOG (May 20, 2021)

Canon Shooter said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...


I already acknowledged my mistake in using the term Assault weapon instead of assault rifle in the OP, and would have edited the title if I knew how. I have used the term assault rifle since then (see #41)


----------



## BULLDOG (May 20, 2021)

daveman said:


> Will somebody just go ahead and agree with Bulldog's stupid idea that AR's should be banned?


Please show where I said anything about banning AR15s.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (May 20, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> Canon Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > BULLDOG said:
> ...


There is no difference between an AR15 and any other civilian semi auto rifle. The difference between them and an M4 is massive and can not be ignored.


----------



## BULLDOG (May 20, 2021)

progressive hunter said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> > Canon Shooter said:
> ...


Obviously it matters to you, or you wouldn't have such a high post count in this thread. It matters to me because I'm really curious as to what more differences there might be. So far, you as a group have nothing.


----------



## progressive hunter (May 20, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> > BULLDOG said:
> ...


so you cant explain why it matters to you??

the differences have been explained to you so many times it boring to read,,,


----------



## themirrorthief (May 20, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> The M4 is the main rifle used by the US military, and no one could question that it is an assault rifle.  The M4 is capable of full automatic fire, and 3 round burst, and the AR15 is not. Of course, it would be illegal, but the AR15 can easily be converted to allow those types of fire. Other than that difference, what makes an M4 an assault weapon, and an AR15 not?


while the democrats main weapon is bullshit


----------



## themirrorthief (May 20, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > BULLDOG said:
> ...


send me a check and I will answer


----------



## BlackSand (May 20, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> I already acknowledged my mistake in using the term Assault weapon instead of assault rifle in the OP, and would have edited the title if I knew how. I have used the term assault rifle since then (see #41)


.

If it helps, in the current *Federal* firearms statute, an AR-15 would be referred to as a Long-Arm.
Would it surprise you that there is no age requirement in the* Federal* statutes regarding the *owning* or* possessing* of a Long-Arm and Ammunition?

You see ... If there was, that would be a violation of the Second Amendment, because we are born with our Constitutionally Protected Rights.

.​
.


----------



## Canon Shooter (May 20, 2021)

daveman said:


> Will somebody just go ahead and agree with Bulldog's stupid idea that AR's should be banned?


I think Bulldog should be banned...


BULLDOG said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> > BULLDOG said:
> ...



It's been explained to you.

You're just too fucking stupid to comprehend it. The one difference you mentioned in the OP is sufficient enough to render the two weapons dissimilar...


----------



## BULLDOG (May 20, 2021)

westwall said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...


I misrepresented nothing


westwall said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...


He agreed the M4 was an assault rifle, but the AR15 wasn't. That is exactly what I  have said from the first. Where was the misrepresentation?


----------



## Canon Shooter (May 20, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > BULLDOG said:
> ...



You can't even define what an "assault rifle" is...


----------



## BULLDOG (May 20, 2021)

westwall said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> > Canon Shooter said:
> ...


It matters because that is the purpose of the thread. You don't get that?


----------



## RetiredGySgt (May 20, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > BULLDOG said:
> ...


Assault rifle as defined by Germany was a weapon that allowed use in close quarters and long range. The M4 is not an assault rifle since it can not reach long range. The AR15 is not an assault rifle because it doesn't have any auto fire capability.


----------



## BULLDOG (May 20, 2021)

RetiredGySgt said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> > RetiredGySgt said:
> ...


Amusing but not surprising that after 400 posts, so many are struggling with the question in the OP, and the purpose of the thread. I'll type slowly so it will be easier for you to understand. 

*We all know the M4 is capable of select fire. We also know the AR15 is not.
Are there any other significant **(that means big)**  differences between the two rifles?*


----------



## progressive hunter (May 20, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> > BULLDOG said:
> ...


I guess youre to stupid to know thats the only difference,,

now why did it matter??


----------



## BULLDOG (May 20, 2021)

RetiredGySgt said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> > Canon Shooter said:
> ...


Please list those differences. We already know about the select fire.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (May 20, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> > BULLDOG said:
> ...


there doesn't have to be just like with ak47 semi auto rip offs.


----------



## BULLDOG (May 20, 2021)

progressive hunter said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> > progressive hunter said:
> ...


Nobody has explained any differences other than select fire, which was noted in the OP.


----------



## progressive hunter (May 20, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> > BULLDOG said:
> ...


because there isnt any real differences,,

of course the military version is made with better materials but you cant see those,,

now why does it matter??


----------



## BlackSand (May 20, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> Please list those differences. We already know about the select fire.


.

It is a website where we discuss the issues and our ideas.

That being understood, how many people need to give you the same answer before you are satisfied?
How many times do you need to hear the same answer before you are willing to discuss anything even vaguely associated with the question or the answer given?

.​


----------



## RetiredGySgt (May 20, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> > BULLDOG said:
> ...


so what? that is a CRITICAL and MASSIVE difference,


----------



## BULLDOG (May 20, 2021)

BlackSand said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> > I already acknowledged my mistake in using the term Assault weapon instead of assault rifle in the OP, and would have edited the title if I knew how. I have used the term assault rifle since then (see #41)
> ...


Interesting, but hardly relevant in a hands on, head to head comparison between the two rifles, is it?


----------



## BULLDOG (May 20, 2021)

Canon Shooter said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > Will somebody just go ahead and agree with Bulldog's stupid idea that AR's should be banned?
> ...


Yes. That's why it was mentioned in the OP. Obviously, there are no other differences. At least after more than 400 posts, nobody could come up with any more differences.


----------



## BlackSand (May 20, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> BlackSand said:
> 
> 
> > BULLDOG said:
> ...


.

Well ... Considering that question has already been asked, comparisons made, and pretty much universally answered ...
If there is something you may actually want to discuss ... Get to it ... 

.​


----------



## progressive hunter (May 20, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> Canon Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > daveman said:
> ...


now that youve come to that conclusion,, why does it matter??


----------



## BULLDOG (May 20, 2021)

Canon Shooter said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...


I don't have to. The military took care of that for me.


----------



## BULLDOG (May 20, 2021)

RetiredGySgt said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...


Interesting. Now check how the Us military defines it.


----------



## BlackSand (May 20, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> I don't have to. The military took care of that for me.


.

Well ... If you were in the military, that might make a difference.
As far as the current Federal Statute (that's a law), the AR-15 is referred to as a Long-Arm.

.​


----------



## Death Angel (May 20, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> The M4 is the main rifle used by the US military, and no one could question that it is an assault rifle


I dont even know what an "assault weapon" is. Define this liberal term please


----------



## BULLDOG (May 20, 2021)

progressive hunter said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> > RetiredGySgt said:
> ...


I assumed as much from the beginning. I just wanted to know how gun nuts would respond to the question.


----------



## progressive hunter (May 20, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> > BULLDOG said:
> ...


so this whole thread was a troll and should have been in the rubber room,,


----------



## RetiredGySgt (May 20, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> > BULLDOG said:
> ...


If all you wanted was a simple answer while ignoring the glaring difference congratulations you succeed. If that was all you wanted why are you still here?


----------



## BULLDOG (May 20, 2021)

RetiredGySgt said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> > RetiredGySgt said:
> ...


Never said there had to be. I just asked if there were any.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (May 20, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> > BULLDOG said:
> ...


and we answered numerous times and you ignored it why is that?


----------



## BULLDOG (May 20, 2021)

progressive hunter said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> > progressive hunter said:
> ...


It matters because I wanted to know if there were any other differences. Seems we all agree that there aren't.


----------



## progressive hunter (May 20, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> > BULLDOG said:
> ...


and now???

keep in mind the 2nd is specific for military weapons so choose your next words wisely,,


----------



## progressive hunter (May 20, 2021)




----------



## BULLDOG (May 20, 2021)

BlackSand said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> > Please list those differences. We already know about the select fire.
> ...


I didn't receive any answers. Everybody kept repeating what was already noted in the OP. Did you expect me to not respond to so many posts directed directly to me? I didn't keep this thread going. Gun nuts who were too stupid to understand the OP did. I had one question, and didn't intend the thread to degenerate to unrelated crap. That's the way it's supposed to be, isn't it? I think we have finally determined that there are no substantial differences between the M4 and the AR15 other than select fire capability, unless someone cares to add something. Agreed?


----------



## progressive hunter (May 20, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> BlackSand said:
> 
> 
> > BULLDOG said:
> ...


youre the one thats been slow to conclude that,,,


----------



## BULLDOG (May 20, 2021)

RetiredGySgt said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> > progressive hunter said:
> ...


Not sure those are terms I brought into the conversation, but substantial is pretty much explanatory. The 2nd amendment poses no substantial difference between the two any more than what the stock is made of. Are you gonna start trying to nit pick now?


----------



## BlackSand (May 20, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> I didn't receive any answers. Everybody kept repeating what was already noted in the OP. Did you expect me to not respond to so many posts directed directly to me? I didn't keep this thread going. Gun nuts who were too stupid to understand the OP did. I had one question, and didn't intend the thread to degenerate to unrelated crap. That's the way it's supposed to be, isn't it? I think we have finally determined that there are no substantial differences between the M4 and the AR15 other than select fire capability, unless someone cares to add something. Agreed?


.

We answered your question, and the answer never changed ... And you aren't going to get another accurate answer.
If there isn't anything else you would like to discuss, we will discuss whatever we may think is relevant.

We aren't asking for permission.

.​


----------



## BULLDOG (May 20, 2021)

BlackSand said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> > BlackSand said:
> ...


If I care to discuss something else, then I will find a thread on that or start another. Again, I never pushed this thread beyond the first day. I only responded to the gun nuts trying to change the subject after that.


----------



## BlackSand (May 20, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> BlackSand said:
> 
> 
> > BULLDOG said:
> ...


.

Is there anything you would like to discuss, other that what you don't want to discuss ...  

.​


----------



## BULLDOG (May 20, 2021)

BlackSand said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> > I don't have to. The military took care of that for me.
> ...


Interesting, but I was being asked about the definition of an assault rifle. See what I mean when I say gun nuts keep trying to change the subject? Federal statutes have nothing to do with the definition of assault rifle


----------



## BULLDOG (May 20, 2021)

progressive hunter said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> > progressive hunter said:
> ...


It was a straight forward question. I didn't make you look like fools by babbling about everything but the subject. You did that all on your own.


----------



## BULLDOG (May 20, 2021)

RetiredGySgt said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> > progressive hunter said:
> ...


I didn't ignore the main difference. I noted it in the OP. You didn't notice that?
I'm still here to respond to your  confusion.


----------



## BlackSand (May 20, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> Interesting, but I was being asked about the definition of an assault rifle. See what I mean when I say gun nuts keep trying to change the subject? Federal statutes have nothing to do with the definition of assault rifle


.

Oh ... I am fully aware you were approached about the definition of an Assault Rifle, and any misconceptions you may have there.

In fact there were a lot of people that gave you a plethora of answers that don't seem to always match.
I even went as far as telling you how insignificant anyone's definition may be within the context of the existing law.

But you see ... You weren't even interested in discussing that.
You just wanted to tell everyone you were satisfied with a definition that doesn't mean shit in the actual context of the existing law.

We can continue to discuss irrelevant crap, as you crawfish all over the place, if you feel like it.
But I have to admit ... I pretty much said that is what you were doing, in the first post I made in this thread.

_._​


----------



## RetiredGySgt (May 20, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> > BULLDOG said:
> ...


the law makes a difference between the M4 and the AR15 a law that I believe has been approved by the supreme court. So the law determines that while the AR15 is fine for civilian use the M4 requires a special license to own and keep and use. WHY, you ask? Because auto fire is covered by that law but NOT semiauto fire. Again there is NO difference between the functioning of the AR15 and any other semiauto rifle in civilian hands.


----------



## BULLDOG (May 20, 2021)

RetiredGySgt said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> > RetiredGySgt said:
> ...


No. You didn't. As a group, you often mentioned select fire, to which I responded that was explicitly mentioned and excluded from the conversation in the OP. Many wanted to bring in the 2nd amendment, or state rulings, but that has nothing to do with the guns or their practical use. One even mentioned barrel length, and I was going to give that to you until another said it wasn't a substantial difference. You can get just about any barrel length for just about any rifle.  Not sure why it was so hard for you to admit there are no substantial differences between the two rifles other than select fire, but that's for you to figure out.


----------



## BULLDOG (May 20, 2021)

RetiredGySgt said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> > RetiredGySgt said:
> ...


I never ignored anything. I asked for other differences, and you kept claiming that. I didn't ignore your claim. I just said it wasn't a valid answer to the question, and explained why.


----------



## BULLDOG (May 20, 2021)

progressive hunter said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> > progressive hunter said:
> ...


And now what? Are you still so confused that you think the 2nd has anything to do with this thread or the OP?


----------



## BlackSand (May 20, 2021)

RetiredGySgt said:


> the law makes a difference between the M4 and the AR15 a law that I believe has been approved by the supreme court. So the law determines that while the AR15 is fine for civilian use the M4 requires a special license to own and keep and use. WHY, you ask? Because auto fire is covered by that law but NOT semiauto fire. Again there is NO difference between the functioning of the AR15 and any other semiauto rifle in civilian hands.


.

The Law limits the M4 by function, not necessarily nomenclature.
Any firearm with the full auto function is prohibited  without a specific license, regardless of nomenclature, but civilians can still own them.

The Powers that Be, wouldn't give up their ability to own one if they wanted one.
Law-abiding citizens that can afford the cost of the license, and don't mind going through the hassle, can have them under current law.
Kind of like a Noble, with a horse and a decent sword in the olden days ...  

.​
.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (May 20, 2021)

BlackSand said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> > the law makes a difference between the M4 and the AR15 a law that I believe has been approved by the supreme court. So the law determines that while the AR15 is fine for civilian use the M4 requires a special license to own and keep and use. WHY, you ask? Because auto fire is covered by that law but NOT semiauto fire. Again there is NO difference between the functioning of the AR15 and any other semiauto rifle in civilian hands.
> ...


I believe that there are 13 States that outright ban automatic weapons


----------



## BULLDOG (May 20, 2021)

progressive hunter said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> > BlackSand said:
> ...


Really? Please point to all the places where anybody said there were no other differences. There was one that I noticed, but several other posters kept offering different opinions.


----------



## BULLDOG (May 20, 2021)

BlackSand said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> > I didn't receive any answers. Everybody kept repeating what was already noted in the OP. Did you expect me to not respond to so many posts directed directly to me? I didn't keep this thread going. Gun nuts who were too stupid to understand the OP did. I had one question, and didn't intend the thread to degenerate to unrelated crap. That's the way it's supposed to be, isn't it? I think we have finally determined that there are no substantial differences between the M4 and the AR15 other than select fire capability, unless someone cares to add something. Agreed?
> ...


Ok. Do you want me to salute now?


----------



## BULLDOG (May 20, 2021)

BlackSand said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> > BlackSand said:
> ...


Sure, but I don't think you would want to go make me a sammich and bring me a beer.


----------



## BULLDOG (May 20, 2021)

BlackSand said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> > Interesting, but I was being asked about the definition of an assault rifle. See what I mean when I say gun nuts keep trying to change the subject? Federal statutes have nothing to do with the definition of assault rifle
> ...


I don't think I saw those answers, but if you care to list them.


----------



## BlackSand (May 20, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> BlackSand said:
> 
> 
> > BULLDOG said:
> ...


.

Shit, I could work out a cold duck or lamb sandwich and a warn beer ... But that's another story ... Next.

.​


----------



## BULLDOG (May 20, 2021)

RetiredGySgt said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> > RetiredGySgt said:
> ...


Not sure what the law has to do with the actual functioning of any gun. That's more of a mechanical thing.


----------



## BlackSand (May 20, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> I don't think I saw those answers, but if you care to list them.


.

They're in the tread, and I don't care if your lazy worthless ass looks them up ... Next.

.​


----------



## BULLDOG (May 20, 2021)

BlackSand said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> > the law makes a difference between the M4 and the AR15 a law that I believe has been approved by the supreme court. So the law determines that while the AR15 is fine for civilian use the M4 requires a special license to own and keep and use. WHY, you ask? Because auto fire is covered by that law but NOT semiauto fire. Again there is NO difference between the functioning of the AR15 and any other semiauto rifle in civilian hands.
> ...


All true, but doesn't make much difference in a direct functional comparison between the two.


----------



## BULLDOG (May 20, 2021)

BlackSand said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> > BlackSand said:
> ...


Mmmmm  Belgian Dubbels 55 degrees 
Sounds good.


----------



## BlackSand (May 20, 2021)

RetiredGySgt said:


> I believe that there are 13 States that outright ban automatic weapons


.

State Law isn't Federal Law, and doesn't concern me.

The State where I live, has it's own protections against the desire to infringe upon the Right to Bear Arms in our State Constitution.
That Amendment prevents our State Legislature from totally banning automatic weapons, or screwing with our Right to Bear Arms.

Not my problem if other people decided to piss their rights away.
The US Constitution has a Tenth Amendment, and they can do that if you let them.

.​


----------



## BlackSand (May 20, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> BlackSand said:
> 
> 
> > BULLDOG said:
> ...


.

Pretty sure it's a bottle of Belikin, but it could be Wadadli ... Not sure, the label faded in the sun over the years ... Next.

.​


----------



## RetiredGySgt (May 20, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> > BULLDOG said:
> ...


the point is the only difference between a rifle with auto fire and semiauto fire is just that EVERY single semiauto functions EXACTLY the same. there is nothing other then looks that differentiate the AR15 from any other semiauto rifle.


----------



## Canon Shooter (May 21, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> BlackSand said:
> 
> 
> > RetiredGySgt said:
> ...



You're a fucking retard...


----------



## Rigby5 (May 21, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> The M4 is the main rifle used by the US military, and no one could question that it is an assault rifle.  The M4 is capable of full automatic fire, and 3 round burst, and the AR15 is not. Of course, it would be illegal, but the AR15 can easily be converted to allow those types of fire. Other than that difference, what makes an M4 an assault weapon, and an AR15 not?



Conversion from AR-15 to M-4 is VERY difficult.
You have to add things like a sear to be activated by the bolt closing and allowing the trigger mechanism to toggle.
It takes a machine shop.


----------



## Rigby5 (May 21, 2021)

RetiredGySgt said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> > RetiredGySgt said:
> ...



Full auto fire requires lots of machining so that the firing pin is not released until the bolt is fully closed.
Or else the gun will blow up.
Full auto is very hard to do in some guns, like the ARs.


----------



## justinacolmena (May 21, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> I's not hard or expensive to convert an AR15 to full auto capability. It's illegal as hell, and you should be ready to spend a lot of time in prison, but it's not that hard to do.


Why should you go to prison for that? Unless your finger is on the trigger, and you shoot and kill someone, you should be allowed to do whatever you want with your own gun, same as everyone else outside of prison.


----------



## Rigby5 (May 21, 2021)

Full auto is very expensive, like $4k, and allows the BATF access to your storage location whenever they want.


----------



## Rigby5 (May 21, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> > BULLDOG said:
> ...



It is not at all easy.
Making an AR full auto take incredible expertise, time, machining, and more components.
And it is not at all illegal, as along as you are willing to pay.


----------



## justinacolmena (May 21, 2021)

Rigby5 said:


> It takes a machine shop.


No it doesn't.
It may require machinery, power metalworking tools such as a milling machine or lathe, but that professional-ass labor union closed shop attitude won't work for anything when it comes to guns.


----------



## justinacolmena (May 21, 2021)

Rigby5 said:


> Full auto is very expensive, like $4k, and allows the BATF access to your storage location whenever they want.


How much BATF is CIA? I keep thinking of a guy around the corner with some sort of concealed weapon in a trench coat smoking a Cuban cigar and acting as an enforcer for Fidel Castro or Raúl Castro's Communist Party Gun control regime in America.


----------



## justinacolmena (May 21, 2021)

whitehall said:


> substantial time in the slammer


Well gee whiz, motherfuckrrs! If you can't tinker with, improve it, do whatever you want with it as long as you don't kill anybody else with it, -- guns are banned and it never was yours to begin with. Get our handcuffs off. Get us out of prison. Stop bullshitting us in a court of law. Give us our guns back, or you're all a bunch of liars and thieves to boot.


----------



## BULLDOG (May 21, 2021)

justinacolmena said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> > I's not hard or expensive to convert an AR15 to full auto capability. It's illegal as hell, and you should be ready to spend a lot of time in prison, but it's not that hard to do.
> ...


Because that is the law.


----------



## justinacolmena (May 21, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> Because that is the law


Not without the Second Amendment, it isn't law in the U.S.

It's mob rule, enforced by drug cartels, MS-13 gangsters, corrupt cops, and bribed judges in a collective bargaining plea-deal system of crime and punishment without justice.


----------



## 2aguy (May 21, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> BlackSand said:
> 
> 
> > BULLDOG said:
> ...




Your question was answered by page 2......


----------



## 2aguy (May 21, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> > BULLDOG said:
> ...




Select fire is the difference that makes them 2 completely different rifles.


----------



## Canon Shooter (May 21, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> Not sure why it was so hard for you to admit there are no substantial differences between the two rifles other than select fire, but that's for you to figure out.



You ignorant, brainless fuck.

How many differences need there be?

Your position seems to be that, since that's the only difference, then both should be banned because no one can come up with other differences.

That is, and you are, stupid...


----------



## Jarlaxle (May 21, 2021)

> @Rigby5
> It is not at all easy.
> Making an AR full auto take incredible expertise, time, machining, and more components.
> And it is not at all illegal, as along as you are willing to pay.



Yes, it is...Hughes Amendment, 1986. It's illegal unless you can build it yourself.


----------



## Remodeling Maidiac (May 21, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > This GOTCHA attempt is so lame, we need to call in a veterinarian and have it put down.
> ...


Lots of people doubt its an assault rifle so the entire thread is pointless.


----------



## progressive hunter (May 21, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> justinacolmena said:
> 
> 
> > BULLDOG said:
> ...


the 2nd A says different,,


----------



## BULLDOG (May 21, 2021)

Grampa Murked U said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> > daveman said:
> ...


There are always people who live in their own little world, but if disagree with our military's definition, you're pretty much an idiot.


----------



## progressive hunter (May 21, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> There are always people who live in their own little world, but if disagree with our military's definition, you're pretty much an idiot.


who cares?? the 2nd was meant for military grade weapons,,


----------



## Remodeling Maidiac (May 21, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> Grampa Murked U said:
> 
> 
> > BULLDOG said:
> ...


The military definition of a weapon is irrelevant. The military did not write the 2nd amendment nor do they enforce it.

Tard


----------



## justinacolmena (May 21, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> are always people who live in their own little world, but if disagree with our military's definition, you're pretty much an idiot.


That's a lot of boyfriends to have in the U.S. Military. Not really the right sort of rank, either.


----------



## BULLDOG (May 21, 2021)

progressive hunter said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> > There are always people who live in their own little world, but if disagree with our military's definition, you're pretty much an idiot.
> ...


You're exactly the type person I'm talking about. The type that thinks the 2nd is the answer to every question, even if it has nothing to do with the subject. I have no doubt that if I asked you if it was raining, your answer would be the 2nd amendment.


----------



## BULLDOG (May 21, 2021)

Grampa Murked U said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> > Grampa Murked U said:
> ...


I wasn't aware that the 2nd defined assault rifle.


----------



## progressive hunter (May 21, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> > BULLDOG said:
> ...


it took you all this time to come up with that?? youre dumber than we thought,,


----------



## progressive hunter (May 21, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> Grampa Murked U said:
> 
> 
> > BULLDOG said:
> ...


it covers all weapons,,


----------



## BlackSand (May 21, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> There are always people who live in their own little world, but if disagree with our military's definition, you're pretty much an idiot.


.

So do you call your bathroom the Latrine or the Head, or are you an idiot?

.​


----------



## BULLDOG (May 21, 2021)

BlackSand said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> > There are always people who live in their own little world, but if disagree with our military's definition, you're pretty much an idiot.
> ...


It's amusing to see how hard you are trying. No, I don't call my bathroom the Latrine or the Head, but I am aware that those are accepted terms that generally share the same definition. If someone does use those terms, I know what they are talking about. Does this have anything to do with the absurd claim that the term Assault Rifle is undefined?


----------



## Blues Man (May 21, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> Grampa Murked U said:
> 
> 
> > BULLDOG said:
> ...


Like you who thinks that it's soooooo easy to modify an AR 15 into a fully automatic weapon even though no one ever seems to use modified AR 15s to commit crimes


----------



## BlackSand (May 21, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> It's amusing to see how hard you are trying. No, I don't call my bathroom the Latrine or the Head, but I am aware that those are accepted terms that generally share the same definition. If someone does use those terms, I know what they are talking about. Does this have anything to do with the absurd claim that the term Assault Rifle is undefined?


.

You must be an idiot then, because it wasn't that hard to start with.
You are also the one saying that "we can all agree" what you want to call something is what it is, because the military calls it that.

But what we are talking about isn't an assault weapon as it is defined under current law.
I just like watching you crawfish all over the place acting like you might know what the fuck you are talking about.

You can call it whatever you want, but no one should be compelled to agree with your ass.

.​


----------



## Remodeling Maidiac (May 21, 2021)

BlackSand said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> > There are always people who live in their own little world, but if disagree with our military's definition, you're pretty much an idiot.
> ...


I call mine the water closet


----------



## BULLDOG (May 21, 2021)

Blues Man said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> > Grampa Murked U said:
> ...


Perhaps it would be beyond your ability to fabricate one small part, and purchase the rest. That wouldn't be a big hurdle for many.


----------



## progressive hunter (May 21, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> > BULLDOG said:
> ...


it takes more to convert it than that,,


----------



## Likkmee (May 21, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> Angelo said:
> 
> 
> > Rambunctious said:
> ...


----------



## BULLDOG (May 21, 2021)

BlackSand said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> > It's amusing to see how hard you are trying. No, I don't call my bathroom the Latrine or the Head, but I am aware that those are accepted terms that generally share the same definition. If someone does use those terms, I know what they are talking about. Does this have anything to do with the absurd claim that the term Assault Rifle is undefined?
> ...


The M4 most certainly is an assault rifle. It was unfortunate that I used the wrong term in the title. That is a mistake that I acknowledged early in the conversation. (somewhere around #40 or #41) I should have used assault rifle, but as I noted in the acknowledgment I didn't know how to edit the title at that point. 

According to the Defense Intelligence Agency, “*assault rifles*” are “short, compact, selective-fire *weapons* that fire a cartridge intermediate in power between a submachine gun and *rifle* cartridges.” All *assault rifles* are capable of automatic fire.

You are certainly free to use your own definitions if you would like, but your definition might not be as widely accepted  as the military Defense Intelligence Agency definitions. You can call a squirrel a fluffy tail tree rat if you want to. I don't care.


----------



## progressive hunter (May 21, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> BlackSand said:
> 
> 
> > BULLDOG said:
> ...


it doesnt matter cause that type of weapon is covered by the 2nd A,,


----------



## BULLDOG (May 21, 2021)

progressive hunter said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> > Blues Man said:
> ...


There are many ways to make the conversion. A DIAS, which is made to drop in without any machining of the rifle and a few off the shelf, readily available, unregulated parts might be the best combination of ease of conversion, and dependability of the rifle in use. If you want to get really easy then look at the "lightning link". Super easy, but subject to hang up.


----------



## progressive hunter (May 21, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> > BULLDOG said:
> ...


so simple and yet not a single case of it happening,,

doesnt matter anyway cause the 2nd allows it,,


----------



## BULLDOG (May 21, 2021)

Likkmee said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> > Angelo said:
> ...


Great idea. I felt sorry for a feral cat, and started feeding him, until he invited a gazillion of his friends to join him. I might get one of those.


----------



## BULLDOG (May 21, 2021)

progressive hunter said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> > BlackSand said:
> ...


That's nice. I guess. Still has nothing to do with this thread though.


----------



## progressive hunter (May 21, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> > BULLDOG said:
> ...


we still dont know what this thread is about,,,


----------



## BULLDOG (May 21, 2021)

progressive hunter said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> > progressive hunter said:
> ...


I understand. Stupid people often have trouble with all but the simplest threads. Keep trying though.


----------



## progressive hunter (May 21, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> > BULLDOG said:
> ...


if its so simple why do yu keep asking the same question after its been answered so many times,,


----------



## Rambunctious (May 21, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> Likkmee said:
> 
> 
> > BULLDOG said:
> ...


Same thing happened to me....ended up spending a fortune at the vet....


----------



## the other mike (May 21, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> Likkmee said:
> 
> 
> > BULLDOG said:
> ...


Before you know it you'll be like the raccoon guy up in Canada.


----------



## daveman (May 21, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > BULLDOG said:
> ...


Oh, look.  You're not accepting that this thread is over.  Imagine my surprise.


----------



## progressive hunter (May 21, 2021)

daveman said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> > daveman said:
> ...


she hasnt got to do her,,
AR's are just like M4's and should be banned from civilian ownership rant yet,,


----------



## daveman (May 21, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > Will somebody just go ahead and agree with Bulldog's stupid idea that AR's should be banned?
> ...


You are not a Second Amendment proponent.  

Meanwhile, you keep being asked why the differences matter.

As of page 21, you have not answered.


----------



## daveman (May 21, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> BlackSand said:
> 
> 
> > BULLDOG said:
> ...


You dishonest piece of shit.


----------



## daveman (May 21, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> > BULLDOG said:
> ...


IM GONNA ASK A QUESTION AND I WILL ONLY ACCEPT ONE ANWSER AND IF U DONT GIVE IT TO ME UR DUMB


----------



## daveman (May 21, 2021)

progressive hunter said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > BULLDOG said:
> ...


Doesn't have to.  It's insanely obvious that's his intention.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (May 22, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> > BULLDOG said:
> ...


here's the deal you stop making ignorant trollish threads and you will not be viewed as stupid.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (May 22, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> > BULLDOG said:
> ...


if it's so easy why don't you try it and make one?


----------



## BULLDOG (May 22, 2021)

daveman said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> > daveman said:
> ...


It would have been over long ago if you idiots hadn't kept it going. Is someone forcing you to keep posting?


----------



## BULLDOG (May 22, 2021)

daveman said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> > daveman said:
> ...


They matter because I wanted to know if any exist. Evidently, they don't.


----------



## BULLDOG (May 22, 2021)

daveman said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> > progressive hunter said:
> ...


That's funny. The closest thing I got to an answer to the question was barrel length, but you can get just about any barrel length for both of them. The 2nd isn't an answer to the question, and state laws isn't an answer either.


----------



## BULLDOG (May 22, 2021)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> > progressive hunter said:
> ...


Here's the deal. Fuck you.


----------



## Blues Man (May 22, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> > BULLDOG said:
> ...


Then tell me why we don't see people using modified Ar 15s to commit crimes.

You say all this shit but you have no proof that people are actually modifying their ARs


----------



## RetiredGySgt (May 22, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > BULLDOG said:
> ...


An Actual M4 has a set barrel length and it is shorter then the M16A2 it is also shorter then the AR-15, there are of course special builds but then they are custom and not normal BUT an M4 or M16A2 by definition has a set barrel length other wise they would not call the M4 the M4 it would just be a shorter length M16A2.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (May 22, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > BULLDOG said:
> ...


dude your thread was dead before you were born 1792


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (May 22, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > BULLDOG said:
> ...


Your thread was created to troll do I hear trigger galloping in?


----------



## Canon Shooter (May 22, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > BULLDOG said:
> ...


Thank you for proving you've nothing intelligent to say...


----------



## Canon Shooter (May 22, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > BULLDOG said:
> ...



The one primary difference you acknowledged in your OP is a significant enough difference that the two weapons being discussed are  simply not in the same category. Saying a gun should be banned because another gun is banned is just silly.

I don't know how I can be any plainer than that...


----------



## BULLDOG (May 22, 2021)

Blues Man said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> > Blues Man said:
> ...


I never said they do, even though I believe some do. I just said it was possible, and not that hard to do.


----------



## BULLDOG (May 22, 2021)

RetiredGySgt said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> > daveman said:
> ...


Ok, but whether you change the barrel or not, you can still get a matching barrel length for an AR15. The outside of the barrel is slightly different to allow for mounting a grenade launcher, or so I've been told.


----------



## progressive hunter (May 22, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> > BULLDOG said:
> ...


OMG!!
a grenade launcher?? thats funny my stepdad has a grenade launcher for his AR,,, its so cool,,


----------



## BULLDOG (May 22, 2021)

Canon Shooter said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> > daveman said:
> ...


Thanks for the input, but I haven't mentioned banning any kind of rifle.


----------



## BULLDOG (May 22, 2021)

progressive hunter said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> > RetiredGySgt said:
> ...


Not something I have dealt with. Just something I heard.


----------



## daveman (May 22, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > BULLDOG said:
> ...


Not at all.  You just want to be able to tell your lies and not be called out for them.

How's that working out for you?


----------



## daveman (May 22, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > BULLDOG said:
> ...


Still lying.  

But, I'll play your silly little game.

There is no difference between the two rifles beyond select fire.

Now what?


----------



## progressive hunter (May 22, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> Canon Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > BULLDOG said:
> ...


not yet you havent,,


----------



## daveman (May 22, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > BULLDOG said:
> ...


Still pretending you didn't get any answers just because you don't like them.

How is it you expect to be taken seriously?


----------



## daveman (May 22, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> > BULLDOG said:
> ...


And that assertion was proven wrong by people with gunsmithing experience.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (May 22, 2021)

daveman said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> > daveman said:
> ...


true that


----------



## Canon Shooter (May 22, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> > BULLDOG said:
> ...


Dude, seriously... just stop...


----------



## BULLDOG (May 22, 2021)

daveman said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> > daveman said:
> ...


You aren;t a serious person, your opinion doesn't matter.


----------



## BULLDOG (May 22, 2021)

daveman said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> > Blues Man said:
> ...


I must have missed that. Link?


----------



## progressive hunter (May 22, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > BULLDOG said:
> ...


you missed a lot more than that,,


----------



## Blues Man (May 23, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> > BULLDOG said:
> ...



Like I said if it was as easy as you say that we would see criminals , especially gangs, use them and it just doesn't happen.

Lots of things are possible but aren't probable


----------



## Blues Man (May 23, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > BULLDOG said:
> ...


pot meet kettle


----------



## daveman (May 23, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > BULLDOG said:
> ...


No, you smarmy little shit, you are NOT entitled to unquestioning agreement and endorsement.

If that's what you want, I suggest USMB is not the venue for you.


----------



## daveman (May 23, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > BULLDOG said:
> ...


You didn't miss it.  You lying about what's been presented is a "you" problem.


----------



## daveman (May 23, 2021)

Blues Man said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> > Blues Man said:
> ...


BUT ALL YOU NEED IS A FILE AND A PIECE OF STEEL CMON MAN ITS SO EASY


----------



## BULLDOG (May 23, 2021)

daveman said:


> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> > BULLDOG said:
> ...


I never said just a file and piece of steel, but I get your point. I never explicitly said it would also require some sort of easily built jig and some sort of easily built bracket to hold the grinder steady. I regularly use those types of things, and don't see them as anything other than just normal use of the tool. I still stand by my claim that it is possible to cut a few non-complex notches out of a 1/2 by 3/4 by 1 1/4 inch piece  of steel with nothing more than a grinder, a vice, and perhaps a file to smooth up the rough cuts, and a cheap set of Harbor Freight calipers to check your work. Oh look, I added a file and a way of measuring. I didn't mention a pencil to mark where to cut either. Does that mean my claim that a DIAS is easily built is a lie?


----------



## RetiredGySgt (May 23, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > Blues Man said:
> ...


Did you bother to read the facts on this claim? The fact is the generic lower assembly for the ar15 is not built for auto fire and if you add a sear you will blow the weapon up. The fact is that the bolt assembly group of the generic ar15 is not designed for auto fire and will not allow auto fire at all sear or no sear.


----------



## BULLDOG (May 23, 2021)

RetiredGySgt said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> > daveman said:
> ...


Yes, I read the information. From the first part of this discussion, I have said the conversion requires a few additional non restricted, easily obtainable parts other than the DIAS. The bolt assembly group from an M16 is easily obtainable, and non restricted, and works perfectly in a converted rifle..


----------



## BULLDOG (May 23, 2021)




----------



## progressive hunter (May 23, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> View attachment 492902


thanks for the info,,


----------



## BULLDOG (May 23, 2021)

progressive hunter said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> > View attachment 492902
> ...


You're welcome. If you were planning to buy one, I doubt you were waiting on me to tell you where.


----------



## progressive hunter (May 23, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> > BULLDOG said:
> ...


I can just make my own,,


----------



## BULLDOG (May 23, 2021)

progressive hunter said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> > progressive hunter said:
> ...


Cool. If you can do that, a simple little DIAS should be no problem.


----------



## progressive hunter (May 23, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> > BULLDOG said:
> ...


necessity is the mother of invention,,


----------



## RetiredGySgt (May 23, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> View attachment 492902


You also need a modified lower assembly group unless they sell M16 lower assembly too.


----------



## BULLDOG (May 24, 2021)

RetiredGySgt said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> > View attachment 492902
> ...


I hadn't considered the high shelf vs low shelf problem. I guess you would have to make sure your lower is low shelf before you start. Both styles are pretty common. In the worst case scenario where your lower is high shelf, I guess you would have to spend a few more bucks and buy a low shelf lower. They are perfectly legal. Another hundred bucks shouldn't be a problem for a hard core gun nut. Still not a hard job to convert to full auto. Illegal as hell, but still pretty easy to do.
Here, you can find a list of manufacturers who mostly only sell low shelf versions of the AR 15 lower.




__





						High and low shelf? - Page 1 - AR15.COM
					

Firearm Discussion and Resources from AR-15, AK-47, Handguns and more! Buy, Sell, and Trade your Firearms and Gear.




					www.ar15.com
				



And here is another interesting site you might enjoy.




__





						Drop In Auto Sear
					

Welcome to my Drop In Auto Sear (DIAS) Page!



					www.quarterbore.com


----------



## BULLDOG (May 24, 2021)

So it seems most finally agree that full auto is really the only material difference between the two rifles, and the only question now, to find what I was looking for in the OP, is whether the conversion is fairly easy. Buying the needed parts, other than the DIAS, seems easy enough since they are for sale at damn near every gun store, and none of them require any special permit or approval for anyone to buy. A couple hundred bucks should cover the bolt carrier group, a M16 hammer and any other non regulated trigger parts needed.  It comes down to whether the DIAS is pretty easy to build.  Is that a fair assessment?


----------



## bravoactual (May 24, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> The M4 is the main rifle used by the US military, and no one could question that it is an assault rifle.  The M4 is capable of full automatic fire, and 3 round burst, and the AR15 is not. Of course, it would be illegal, but the AR15 can easily be converted to allow those types of fire. Other than that difference, what makes an M4 an assault weapon, and an AR15 not?



That is the rifle I qualified (sharp shooter) on in Basic Training.  In I carried the Mattie Mattel Nightmare (M-16) and hated it.


----------



## Blues Man (May 24, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> So it seems most finally agree that full auto is really the only material difference between the two rifles, and the only question now, to find what I was looking for in the OP, is whether the conversion is fairly easy. Buying the needed parts, other than the DIAS, seems easy enough since they are for sale at damn near every gun store, and none of them require any special permit or approval for anyone to buy. A couple hundred bucks should cover the bolt carrier group, a M16 hammer and any other non regulated trigger parts needed.  It comes down to whether the DIAS is pretty easy to build.  Is that a fair assessment?


Semiautomatic rifles have been available to the public for over 100 years.

Get over it already


----------



## BULLDOG (May 24, 2021)

Blues Man said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> > So it seems most finally agree that full auto is really the only material difference between the two rifles, and the only question now, to find what I was looking for in the OP, is whether the conversion is fairly easy. Buying the needed parts, other than the DIAS, seems easy enough since they are for sale at damn near every gun store, and none of them require any special permit or approval for anyone to buy. A couple hundred bucks should cover the bolt carrier group, a M16 hammer and any other non regulated trigger parts needed.  It comes down to whether the DIAS is pretty easy to build.  Is that a fair assessment?
> ...


Of course they have. I'm not sure why you would think I didn't know that. It doesn't have much to do with this discussion though. I assume you read my last post. Does that cover the discussion thus far? If not, what pertinent info did I leave out?


----------



## BULLDOG (May 24, 2021)

RetiredGySgt said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> > daveman said:
> ...


I just reread your post, and looked at the drawings again. A Drop In Auto Sear can be made to fit Any Ar15 without modifying the lower. All the dimensions  might not be exactly  the same as a factory built DIAS, but the areas that matter, where the sear contacts the hammer, and where it interacts with the bolt and the selector will be the same.  All I'm asking right now is if you agree the ease of fabricating a DIAS is the only question still to be answered. I can show a way to produce a dependable, working  DIAS that is not hard to build.


----------



## daveman (May 24, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > Blues Man said:
> ...


Make one.  Show us how easy it is.  

Hop to it.


----------



## daveman (May 24, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> So it seems most finally agree that full auto is really the only material difference between the two rifles, and the only question now, to find what I was looking for in the OP, is whether the conversion is fairly easy. Buying the needed parts, other than the DIAS, seems easy enough since they are for sale at damn near every gun store, and none of them require any special permit or approval for anyone to buy. A couple hundred bucks should cover the bolt carrier group, a M16 hammer and any other non regulated trigger parts needed.  It comes down to whether the DIAS is pretty easy to build.  Is that a fair assessment?


So what do you think the government should do about it?

You keep running away from this question.


----------



## BULLDOG (May 24, 2021)

daveman said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> > So it seems most finally agree that full auto is really the only material difference between the two rifles, and the only question now, to find what I was looking for in the OP, is whether the conversion is fairly easy. Buying the needed parts, other than the DIAS, seems easy enough since they are for sale at damn near every gun store, and none of them require any special permit or approval for anyone to buy. A couple hundred bucks should cover the bolt carrier group, a M16 hammer and any other non regulated trigger parts needed.  It comes down to whether the DIAS is pretty easy to build.  Is that a fair assessment?
> ...


What the government should do has nothing to do with this thread. It has no bearing on whether those rifles are essentially the same other than the auto fire capability,(I think we are agreed that is true) or if the AR can be easily converted. As far as the conversion, I think we are agreed that all the parts required can be easily sourced, except for the DIAS. 
Even though it has nothing to do with this thread, I'm sure many already know I believe we need common sense gun laws.


----------



## BULLDOG (May 24, 2021)

daveman said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> > daveman said:
> ...


Making one would put me in prison. I said I could show how to make one. but I want to make sure the other questions about the ease of conversion are answered first.


----------



## Blues Man (May 25, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> > BULLDOG said:
> ...


All an AR is is just another semiauto.


----------



## BULLDOG (May 25, 2021)

Blues Man said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> > Blues Man said:
> ...


Ok. You can leave it at that, or I can show you how an AR15 can "EASILY"  become a machine gun. I just don't want to bother doing that and then you come up with a million "but whatabouts"  I believe the only real hurdle is coming up with working a DIAS. Do you agree?


----------



## daveman (May 25, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > BULLDOG said:
> ...


AND THERE IT IS, just as I've said all along.

You want to ban AR-15s.

Hint:  No.  Cry some more about it.


----------



## daveman (May 25, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > BULLDOG said:
> ...


So you've been posting instructions on how to commit an illegal act.

Question:  Should I notify the FBI or the ATF?


----------



## BULLDOG (May 25, 2021)

daveman said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> > daveman said:
> ...


You are nuts, aren't you. I oppose banning the AR15. Nothing I have written says any different. Common sense regulation and banning the AR15 are not the same thing dumb ass.


----------



## BULLDOG (May 25, 2021)

daveman said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> > daveman said:
> ...


Call anyone you like. Hell, you can call the president, or Santa Clause to tell him I've been a bad boy. I never gave instructions  to anyone about committing an illegal act. I  just said I could show how it could easily be done. Perhaps you don't see the difference in those two statements, but it is there.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (May 25, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > BULLDOG said:
> ...


Democrats don't want reasonable restrictions and for the slow and stupid laws mean nothing to criminals.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (May 25, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > BULLDOG said:
> ...


I don't believe even showing how is a crime just actually making it is.


----------



## BULLDOG (May 25, 2021)

RetiredGySgt said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> > daveman said:
> ...


But I have and will do neither. I only said I would show how it could easily be done.


----------



## BULLDOG (May 25, 2021)

RetiredGySgt said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> > daveman said:
> ...


Are you very sure about that?


----------



## RetiredGySgt (May 26, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> > BULLDOG said:
> ...


Yes I am very sure the problems of shootings are mostly restricted to cities and gang shootings or career criminals that dem judges refuse to lock up no matter how many times they break the law.


----------



## BULLDOG (May 26, 2021)

RetiredGySgt said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> > RetiredGySgt said:
> ...


So, as several have already asked here, why don't crooks convert their AR15s to full automatic? It's not hard, and even if it was, there are plenty of small shops who wouldn't mind taking hundreds of dollars to make a little piece about the size of a watch fob. You think there aren't any machinists who are crooks? What stops them from doing that?


----------



## RetiredGySgt (May 26, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> > BULLDOG said:
> ...


it isn't easy and most crooks prefer pistols and gangs prefer small submachine guns easily hidden.


----------



## BULLDOG (May 26, 2021)

RetiredGySgt said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> > RetiredGySgt said:
> ...


You're telling me that gangs and other crooks wouldn't want fully auto AR15s? really? We both know better than that


----------



## RetiredGySgt (May 26, 2021)

Gangs dont use long guns much at all


----------



## daveman (May 26, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > BULLDOG said:
> ...


Why do you want to regulate a weapon that's been used so rarely in crimes?

Do you really expect anyone to believe you don't want them banned?


----------



## daveman (May 26, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > BULLDOG said:
> ...


Don't get angry wit me.  YOU fucked up.


----------



## daveman (May 26, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> > BULLDOG said:
> ...


So, you want a weapon even more regulated because people MIGHT use them in crimes.

You're a special kind of stupid.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (May 26, 2021)

The man selected by Biden to run ATF just described in the hearings on his appointment that his opinion is that all assault weapons should be banned and licensed like Machine guns for those already out there, then when pressed to define an assault weapon he said any semi auto with detachable magazine and bigger then 22 caliber.


----------



## BULLDOG (May 26, 2021)

daveman said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> > daveman said:
> ...


I really don't care what you believe. Any devise whose only purpose is to kill needs regulation. Only an idiot would believe otherwise. You still haven't said what, other than a DIAS would make conversion hard. At least try to stay near the subject, or I'll just scroll past your responses.


----------



## BULLDOG (May 26, 2021)

daveman said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> > daveman said:
> ...


You aren't capable of making me angry.


----------



## daveman (May 27, 2021)

RetiredGySgt said:


> The man selected by Biden to run ATF just described in the hearings on his appointment that his opinion is that all assault weapons should be banned and licensed like Machine guns for those already out there, then when pressed to define an assault weapon he said any semi auto with detachable magazine and bigger then 22 caliber.


Leftists hate the Second Amendment because it prevents the government from taking away from people the tools with which to defend themselves from leftist tyranny.  

They don't want you safe.  They want you disarmed.

And then they want you to get on the cattle car.


----------



## daveman (May 27, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > BULLDOG said:
> ...


Then scroll away, you fascist bastard.


----------



## BULLDOG (May 28, 2021)

daveman said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> > The man selected by Biden to run ATF just described in the hearings on his appointment that his opinion is that all assault weapons should be banned and licensed like Machine guns for those already out there, then when pressed to define an assault weapon he said any semi auto with detachable magazine and bigger then 22 caliber.
> ...


Just out of curiosity, Since a rifle seems to be such an important tool for defense, but you claim bad guys rarely use a rifle, what is the tactical difference between a crook and a homeowner? Why is a pistol preferred by one, and a rifle preferred by the other? Just because isn't a good answer.


----------



## BULLDOG (May 28, 2021)

daveman said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> > daveman said:
> ...


Not yet bitch. You're still entertaining me. It's obvious that you can't come up with a rational answer to the first question.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (May 28, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > RetiredGySgt said:
> ...


crooks prefer a cheap easy to hide weapon except for very specific jobs seldom done.


----------



## BULLDOG (May 28, 2021)

RetiredGySgt said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> > daveman said:
> ...


You seem to think all or most crooks are dirt poor, and can't afford anything but junk guns. That isn't the case.


----------



## Batcat (May 28, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > RetiredGySgt said:
> ...


Much depends on where you live. If you live in a crowded urban area or especially a mobile home park a rifle may be a terrible choice for home defense. Far too much penetration. In a mobile home park I would consider something like a snub nosed revolver loaded with Glaser Safety Slugs. In an urban area with houses a shotgun, revolver or pistol. 

In a rural area I can see definite advantages to a semi-automatic or lever action rifle. Handguns or shotguns could also be good choices. 

I personally prefer a revolver as a home defense weapon but also own a double barreled coach gun. I recently moved from an urban area to a rural area. I may buy a lever action rifle. 

Double action revolvers are simple to use in an emergency where you are under attack from someone who wants to severely injure or kill you and has the means to do so. You point your weapon and pull the trigger. No safety to worry about and if your weapon does not make a loud noise you just pull the trigger again. Less chances for Murphy’s Law to make an appearance.


----------



## westwall (May 28, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > BULLDOG said:
> ...







Talking to someone about it is Conspiracy to Commit.

Conversion isn't easy.  I have built them legally, I had a full machine shop at my beck and call.


----------



## BULLDOG (May 28, 2021)

westwall said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> > daveman said:
> ...


No . Talking about it is no conspiracy. There is no intent to build one. Yes, it is easy. Are you saying you aren't capable of swapping a few easily bought parts?


----------



## westwall (May 28, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > BULLDOG said:
> ...








If you talk to someone about the procedure to modify a semi to a full auto firearm, THAT is indeed conspiracy to commit.

You should look up the ATF regulations.   You'll get your dumbass arrested otherwise.

On second thought, don't look them up.  We would all be better off if you were in jail.


----------



## BULLDOG (May 28, 2021)

westwall said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...


So saying that a drop in auto sear is the only non off the shelf part needed to convert a gun is conspiracy? Really?  Even beyond that,  you think saying it can be built with a grinder is conspiracy?


----------



## westwall (May 28, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > BULLDOG said:
> ...







No, talking about the methods to make the drop in auto sear work, IS.


----------



## BULLDOG (May 28, 2021)

westwall said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...


Oh, I get it. Saying you need a fully equipped machine shop is not conspiracy, but saying using common techniques with a grinder will do those types of things is conspiracy. You bet.


----------



## westwall (May 28, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > BULLDOG said:
> ...







No, dumbass, just dropping in a drop in auto sear won't make the weapon function.  Talking about what needs to be done to MAKE it work is where the crime occurs.  Stop spewing about subject matter you are clueless about.


----------



## BULLDOG (May 28, 2021)

westwall said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...


The internet is full of sites that tell what it takes to make the conversion. They all say what parts need to be changed. No state secrets involved there.  All the changes they list are easy. The only hard part is acquiring a $20,000 DIAS.  Agreed?








						Turning Your AR-15 into an M-16
					

Read: Turning Your AR-15 into an M-16 from Mike Searson on June 5, 2019 for Recoil.




					www.recoilweb.com


----------



## westwall (May 28, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > BULLDOG said:
> ...







Nope, acquiring the DIAS is easy.  Just expensive.  The rest of it is the hard part.

Of course,  if you're smart, you just buy a weapon that has already been converted from a dealer. 

Only morons, like you, do it the hard way.


----------



## BULLDOG (May 28, 2021)

westwall said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...


Perhaps changing the bolt, hammer, and selector is more than you are capable of, but most wouldn't see it as a problem. Of course, it would be as illegal as hell, but the actual swap wouldn't be a big problem. I said from the first that the conversion would put you in the pen for a long time, and I don't advise that, but I'm only considering how hard the actual conversion is.


----------



## westwall (May 28, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > BULLDOG said:
> ...






There's these things called tolerances....off by two thousandths, and you have a bomb next to your face.  Any idiot can swap parts in and out, making sure they are the RIGHT parts is the trick.


----------



## miketx (May 28, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> The M4 is the main rifle used by the US military, and no one could question that it is an assault rifle.  The M4 is capable of full automatic fire, and 3 round burst, and the AR15 is not. Of course, it would be illegal, but the AR15 can easily be converted to allow those types of fire. Other than that difference, what makes an M4 an assault weapon, and an AR15 not?


If it's so easy to convert tell us how, liar!


----------



## BULLDOG (May 28, 2021)

westwall said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...


The right parts are an M16 hammer, bolt, and selector. All standardized and easily delivered to your front door. You have to time a DIAS for it to work right. that's where those thousandths matter. This isn't verboten information either.


----------



## BULLDOG (May 28, 2021)

miketx said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> > The M4 is the main rifle used by the US military, and no one could question that it is an assault rifle.  The M4 is capable of full automatic fire, and 3 round burst, and the AR15 is not. Of course, it would be illegal, but the AR15 can easily be converted to allow those types of fire. Other than that difference, what makes an M4 an assault weapon, and an AR15 not?
> ...


I already did. Swap the bolt, hammer, selector, all readily available and easy to change. Then put in and time a DIAS. Which of the steps would you have a problem with?


----------



## daveman (May 28, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > RetiredGySgt said:
> ...


This has been explained to you, too, but you like to pretend things you don't like don't exist.  

Bad guys want weapons they can conceal easily.  

But it says a lot that you equate homeowners and criminals.  And it's not complimentary.


----------



## daveman (May 28, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > BULLDOG said:
> ...


Many answers have been given you.  Your little bitch-fit proves nothing.


----------



## BULLDOG (May 28, 2021)

daveman said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> > daveman said:
> ...


I didn't equate them. I compared them. The tactical goal of a homeowner and a crook breaking in the homeowner's home, concerning the use of a gun,  is the same. To disable, kill, or otherwise stop your opponent from their goal.


----------



## daveman (May 28, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > BULLDOG said:
> ...


Not conspiracy.  Solicitation.

"A person is guilty of solicitation to commit a crime if, with the purpose of promoting or facilitating its commission, he commands, encourages or requests another person to engage in specific conduct which would constitute such crime..."

You're encouraging people to break the law.  Tsk, tsk.


----------



## progressive hunter (May 28, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > BULLDOG said:
> ...


why dont you just go ahead and say what youre trying to avoid saying,,
AR's need to be banned,,,


----------



## daveman (May 28, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > BULLDOG said:
> ...


Actually, you have advised and encouraged people to break the law.


----------



## daveman (May 28, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > BULLDOG said:
> ...


Yes, you're equating them.

That's because you want semi-automatic rifles banned.


----------



## westwall (May 28, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > BULLDOG said:
> ...






Not nearly as cut and dried as you think.  I have been shooting machine guns for decades.  I own several legal ones,


BULLDOG said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > BULLDOG said:
> ...







Yup, put the wrong parts in and you have a bomb.  Enjoy.  BTW, MOST of the M-16 parts that are for sale are rejects.  Just a heads up.


----------



## daveman (May 28, 2021)

progressive hunter said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> > daveman said:
> ...


He has a little hissy fit when you point that out.


----------



## BULLDOG (May 28, 2021)

daveman said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> > daveman said:
> ...


Yep, but most of those answers didn't have anything to do with how hard it is to convert an AR15 to full auto capability. Do you think you could swap out a bolt, hammer, and selector on an AR 15? Please give a straight answer. I didn't ask about legality, or the 2nd amendment, or how many AR15s are in use right now, or where you would get those parts (they are all easily purchased) . Could you swap those parts?


----------



## progressive hunter (May 28, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > BULLDOG said:
> ...


----------



## Remodeling Maidiac (May 28, 2021)

Fuck this stupid thread. Break the God Damn chain and stop quoting me.


----------



## BULLDOG (May 28, 2021)

daveman said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...


Several times I said conversion was illegal and would put you in prison for a long time. I've specifically said I don't advise it. This thread is about why most people don't do it. The gun nut mantra is that crooks don't obey laws anyway, so why don't more crooks convert their AR15s. Is it because it is too complicated? Is there some secret procedure that they can't figure out?


----------



## daveman (May 28, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > BULLDOG said:
> ...


I doubt it.  I've only ever disassembled weapons for cleaning, and despite your repeated insistence that it's easy, I wouldn't attempt it because I know nothing about the mechanics of firearms or of gunsmithing.  

That, and you're full of horseshit.


----------



## daveman (May 28, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > BULLDOG said:
> ...


Damn, you're a fucking idiot.

_Every single question you've asked has been answered_.  

And you do keep soliciting people to break the law.


----------



## BULLDOG (May 28, 2021)

daveman said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...


You gotta point to the specific post where I did that. Discussing readily available information is not encouraging anything.


----------



## BULLDOG (May 28, 2021)

daveman said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> > daveman said:
> ...


I've specifically said I don't.


----------



## progressive hunter (May 28, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > BULLDOG said:
> ...


actions speak louder than words,, and you actions say these words are a lie,,


----------



## BULLDOG (May 28, 2021)

westwall said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...


Well, no. Depending on which manufacturer you choose, many new bolts bought for an AR are interchangeable with an M16. They even advertise them as M16/AR15 bolts


----------



## 9thIDdoc (May 28, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > BULLDOG said:
> ...


Aside from difficulty and expense or trouble, full auto or burst capability is only an improvement in rare and unlikely circumstances even for criminals. Certainly not worth the risk of massive additional prison time for essentially no gain and for simple possession rather than actual use in a possibly profitable crime. Criminals aren't necessarily stupid.


----------



## progressive hunter (May 28, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > BULLDOG said:
> ...


what are you going to say after the next mass shooting and they use a full auto and the shooter  says bulldog on the USMB forum taught me how to convert my AR to full auto??


----------



## daveman (May 28, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > BULLDOG said:
> ...


Post #597.
"Yes, it is easy. Are you saying you aren't capable of swapping a few easily bought parts?"

No different than saying to a guy in a bar, "Kicking that's dude's ass would be easy.  Are you saying you can't do it?"


----------



## daveman (May 28, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > BULLDOG said:
> ...


Thing is, though -- you're lying.


----------



## BULLDOG (May 28, 2021)

daveman said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> > daveman said:
> ...


Thank you. That is a straight answer to a straight question. Not sure, but it might have been the first one in this thread. I'm sure there are many people who wouldn't want to disassemble and then reassemble their rifle with the knowledge they currently have. Do you think you are capable of learning how to do that with the proper instructional material? Keep in mind that every soldier is required to learn how to disassemble and reassemble the weapon they are issued. Even though you might not be comfortable doing it yourself, does it sound like a particularly hard task?


----------



## francoHFW (May 28, 2021)

Polishprince said:


> "assault weapon" isn't a valid description of anything.  M4 isn't an "assault weapon" either.
> 
> Any weapon can be used in an assault.  So I guess they are all "assault weapons" from a bb gun to a machine gun.


I think the problem is the styling, military styling to be exact. Which seems to drive right wing nut jobs even crazier.


----------



## daveman (May 28, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > BULLDOG said:
> ...


Ummm...this is why I say you don't listen.  

You said, "Keep in mind that every soldier is required to learn how to disassemble and reassemble the weapon they are issued. Even though you might not be comfortable doing it yourself, does it sound like a particularly hard task?"

..._when I'd just told you I'd done exactly that_.  "I've only ever disassembled weapons for cleaning..."

I'm tired of your bullshit.


----------



## BULLDOG (May 28, 2021)

9thIDdoc said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> > daveman said:
> ...


Criminals aren't necessarily stupid, but gun nuts claim that criminals don't care about the law. Gun laws only limit legal users is the often made claim. Are you gonna change your mind now?


----------



## Eyepublius (May 28, 2021)

Simply put, the *difference* between the two is the *M4* has either a full-auto or burst fire mode while the *AR-15* does not. There are also minor *differences* such as barrel length and attachments, but these do not fundamentally affect the rifle.

*More here - FYI >>>*


----------



## francoHFW (May 28, 2021)

9thIDdoc said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> > daveman said:
> ...


But right wing gun nuts definitely are...


----------



## BULLDOG (May 28, 2021)

progressive hunter said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...


I'm not worried about that happening. If someone is going to convert an AR15 to full auto, I haven't given as much information as is available in much greater detail in 10 minutes of internet use. I'm just wondering why more crooks don't do it. It's not because it's a hard thing to do.


----------



## progressive hunter (May 28, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> > BULLDOG said:
> ...


famous last words,,,


----------



## Eyepublius (May 28, 2021)

*Final note: *The debate between the AR15 and the M4 is a fairly simple argument. 

When you look at the evolution of these weapons, you can see that the M4 is more evolved than the AR15. 

There is a reason why the military has adopted this weapon over their M16. 

It is smaller, lighter, and just as effective. While there is normally a heated debate when comparing these types of weapons, this one is pretty obvious. 

The clear winner is the M4.


----------



## progressive hunter (May 28, 2021)

Eyepublius said:


> *Final note: *The debate between the AR15 and the M4 is a fairly simple argument.
> 
> When you look at the evolution of these weapons, you can see that the M4 is more evolved than the AR15.
> 
> ...


doesnt matter anyway cause the 2nd A was specific for weapons of war,, so the task at hand is to get the private citizen to get their constitutional right back to own an M4


----------



## BULLDOG (May 28, 2021)

daveman said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> > daveman said:
> ...


It's more like saying "You are bigger, stronger, and faster than that guy. If you don't want to kick his ass, I think that is a good choice,  but don't tell me it's because you think you can't. I'm just asking the real reason why you don't want to."


----------



## BULLDOG (May 28, 2021)

Eyepublius said:


> *Final note: *The debate between the AR15 and the M4 is a fairly simple argument.
> 
> When you look at the evolution of these weapons, you can see that the M4 is more evolved than the AR15.
> 
> ...


Interesting post, but hardly a final note on the questions asked. You are free to tuck your tail and run if you want to.


----------



## BULLDOG (May 28, 2021)

Westwall, If you think I'm breaking the law in any way then you should see #573


----------



## 9thIDdoc (May 28, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> > BULLDOG said:
> ...


Not at all, what I wrote is not in conflict with that claim. You don't have to care about the law to understand cation or to want possible gain to outweigh the risk. My point is that having full auto weapons is simply of no great importance to the vast majority of gun owners. Few-criminal or otherwise-would consider it worth the trouble expense or risk. There is almost nothing that a full auto weapon will do that a simi-auto won't do just as well so why bother?


----------



## Remodeling Maidiac (May 28, 2021)

9thIDdoc said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> > 9thIDdoc said:
> ...


Listen you stupid fucks!

Break the God damn QUOTE chain. There is no fucking reason I need to be notified every fucking time you shit your pants on this RETARDED FUCKING SUBJECT


----------



## Remodeling Maidiac (May 28, 2021)

QUOTE me and I'm gonna spam the fucking thread with music videos until I get banned

BREAK THE FUCKING CHAIN


----------



## Remodeling Maidiac (May 28, 2021)

You think I'm kidding?

Try me faggots



50 fucking notifications because a bunch of retards can't figure out the quote function


----------



## 9thIDdoc (May 28, 2021)

Grampa Murked U said:


> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> > BULLDOG said:
> ...


Watch your mouth mental midget. You just quoted me and I had no part of notifying you of anything. Find an adult to explain how this stuff works.


----------



## Remodeling Maidiac (May 28, 2021)

9thIDdoc said:


> Grampa Murked U said:
> 
> 
> > 9thIDdoc said:
> ...


My left nut... your pointless response...

Congrats.


----------



## BULLDOG (May 28, 2021)

9thIDdoc said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> > 9thIDdoc said:
> ...


Bullshit. Everybody, especially gun nuts would love to have a fully automatic rifle. I've paid my money to shoot one at a gun show, just like thousands of others have. Criminals don't care about what is legal, isn't that what NRA types say every day? If they were legal, I would have one, and you probably would too. They are FUN!!


----------



## Remodeling Maidiac (May 28, 2021)

Bunch of fucking morons. You've ALL said the same fucking shit 10 times over.

But hey! Let's cover the same ground again.....and I'm the mental midget


----------



## BULLDOG (May 28, 2021)

Grampa Murked U said:


> Bunch of fucking morons. You've ALL said the same fucking shit 10 times over.
> 
> But hey! Let's cover the same ground again.....and I'm the mental midget


Ok gramps. I get your point. I didn't think about you being notified so often. Sorry.


----------



## westwall (May 29, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> > BULLDOG said:
> ...








You lying sack of shit, with ONE exception, they don't shoot guns at gunshows!

Name the exception.


----------



## Remodeling Maidiac (May 29, 2021)

westwall said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> > 9thIDdoc said:
> ...


It took me THREE FUCKING HOURS to scroll to the end of this shit just to troll....you owe me


----------



## 9thIDdoc (May 29, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> > BULLDOG said:
> ...


You're dreaming and not paying attention. The M-16 A-1 was issued to me and served as my primary weapon throughout my tour of duty in Vietnam. I was also issued M-60's and M-2 50 cal. BMGs at times. I qualified "expert" with the M-16. I am more than a little familiar with automatic weapons as well as most other weapon types. Any one who knows me considers me the proto-typical gun nut. I have no desire to own a full-auto weapon. The sad truth is ammo is expensive and can become hard to find at any price,  I could not afford the care and feeding of a full auto weapon and still shoot it enough to shoot it as well as I would like. Besides if there is ever a time I would need a full auto weapon I feel there will be unneeded ones lying around.


----------



## BULLDOG (May 29, 2021)

westwall said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> > 9thIDdoc said:
> ...


You should google Knob Creek


----------



## BULLDOG (May 29, 2021)

9thIDdoc said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> > 9thIDdoc said:
> ...


But you could easily swap the bolt, hammer, and selector, couldn't you?


----------



## westwall (May 29, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > BULLDOG said:
> ...









That's the one exception.   I have been there many times.

You claim to have been there.  Describe it.


----------



## Flash (May 29, 2021)

9thIDdoc said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> > 9thIDdoc said:
> ...




Like you I am Vietnam Veteran with decades of experience shooting M-16s and ARs.

I own a Class III M-16.  I bought it in the 1970s.  I paid $379 plus the $200 tax for it.  That was a lot of money back then but it is worth about $25K now. 

The novelty of shooting F-A wore off a long time ago.  I don't even have the Colt Model 601 in the original configuration.  All I really use is the stripped lower with more modern components.  .The original upper and lower components are stored safely away.

During the times when ammo was cheap I would occasionally take it out and bast away for a few mag dumps.  I wore out a couple of barrels doing that.  I have a great ammo fort but even now knowing that the replacement cost of every round is close to a dollar I am not shooting it.

F-A is fine for suppressive fire.  As you know in Vietnam we very seldom got a clear view of the little SOBs so the "spray and pray"  method was used on F-A. However, in any kind of civilian self defense or SHTF I would never use F-A.  You can eat up ammo at an alarming rate with F-A.   

My son was a Cav Scout in Iraq.  Saw combat.  He carried a M-4.  He told me that he never shot his M-4 on burst.  Only on semi.


----------



## 2aguy (May 29, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> > BULLDOG said:
> ...



Like all anti-gun extremists, you don't know anything about gun owners...... you hate them for owning guns and you have to make up things about them to justify your hatred of them.

I have no interest in owning or shooting automatic weapons or guns in general....my focus is in keeping asshats like you from taking guns away from Americans...

Criminals in the U.S. use guns that they can conceal...that they can hide in cars, that they can hide in their baby momma's purses when the police show up....

Drug Cartels, and the Drug gangs in Europe like to use fully automatic military rifles.......the Drug cartels get their guns from the Mexican military who gives them the guns supplied to them by the U.S. military, they also get them from South American militaries, China, Europe.....and now some of the Cartel killers are trained Mexican military who take their military weapons with them when they join the cartels.......

Different criminal cultures use different types of weapons........


----------



## 2aguy (May 29, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > BULLDOG said:
> ...




Crooks don't use AR-15 rifles in the US., that's why.  They use handguns because they are easier to carry in public and hide in cars, and their baby momma's purses when the police show up.....

If the criminals wanted AR-15s or M4s or anything else, they would get them....

The criminals in Europe prefer to use fully automatic military rifles...mainly AK-47s...From France to Sweden this is the weapon of choice for 3rd world drug gangs in European countries...they also like to use hand grenades..

Do you think fully automatic military weapons are illegal in France and Sweden?  Or how about hand grenades?  Do you think they are illegal in France and Sweden.....

Why don't American criminals use AK-47s like the criminals in Europe...why don't they use grenades like the criminals in Europe?

Different preferences for different purposes....

The drug gangs in Mexico and South America use military rifles...because they fight actual battles against rival drug cartels, the Mexican drug police and the Mexican military.......they also use grenade launchers and rockets......

You don't understand this topic.....you should really do some research...


----------



## 2aguy (May 29, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> > BULLDOG said:
> ...




If criminals wanted AR-15 rifles they would get AR-15 rifles...they don't care about them....they want concealable handguns......European criminals, Mexican drug cartels, Central and South American drug cartels want fully automatic military rifles as well as grenade launchers, .50 caliber rifles, and actual crew served machine guns....


----------



## 2aguy (May 29, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> > BULLDOG said:
> ...




They want concealable handguns......not rifles, which is why a ban on rifles is stupid....and doesn't do anything ......


----------



## 9thIDdoc (May 29, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> > BULLDOG said:
> ...


Don't know or care. I could easily set myself on fire but have never had the urge to do so.


----------



## BULLDOG (May 29, 2021)

2aguy said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> > daveman said:
> ...


Interesting that you don't think anyone is interested in having a fully automatic weapon. We both know that if they suddenly became legal, they couldn't keep them on the shelves.


----------



## daveman (May 29, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > BULLDOG said:
> ...


Horseshit.


----------



## BULLDOG (May 29, 2021)

9thIDdoc said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> > 9thIDdoc said:
> ...


What a silly comparison.  Setting yourself on fire is not the same as owning a fully automatic rifle. Whether you personally would want a fully auto rifle is not the point anyway. We all know many would want one.


----------



## daveman (May 29, 2021)

westwall said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...


He's seen Knob Creek on video...when ABC News broadcast video of it claiming it was slaughter in Syria.


----------



## daveman (May 29, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> > BULLDOG said:
> ...


"We all know..."

A_rgumentum ad populum. _ Dismissed.


----------



## 9thIDdoc (May 29, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> > BULLDOG said:
> ...


Maybe so maybe not. I don't care. Why should I care if law abiding citizens have full auto weapons? I would rather criminal types didn't have them but anyone who is paying attention knows that the laws we have don't stop anyone who is really determined to get one from doing so and there is absolutely no reason to believe there are any new laws that could do so. But it's also obvious that criminals don't really want them anyway. The only thing that repressive gun laws accomplishes is to increase the numbers of criminals by definition. Pass a law that violates my Constitutional rights and I'll ignore it and some will consider me a criminal. I'm okay with that.


----------



## BULLDOG (May 29, 2021)

9thIDdoc said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> > 9thIDdoc said:
> ...


You think fully auto weapons should not be regulated? Thankfully, most disagree with you.


----------



## Canon Shooter (May 29, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> So it seems most finally agree that full auto is really the only material difference between the two rifles, and the only question now, to find what I was looking for in the OP, is whether the conversion is fairly easy. Buying the needed parts, other than the DIAS, seems easy enough since they are for sale at damn near every gun store, and none of them require any special permit or approval for anyone to buy. A couple hundred bucks should cover the bolt carrier group, a M16 hammer and any other non regulated trigger parts needed.  It comes down to whether the DIAS is pretty easy to build.  Is that a fair assessment?


No, it's not...


----------



## westwall (May 29, 2021)

daveman said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > BULLDOG said:
> ...









That's why I asked him to describe the gunshow part.  That has not been broadcast to any great degree.


----------



## 9thIDdoc (May 29, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> > BULLDOG said:
> ...


Didn't say that. I said I don't care. And that anyone who really wants one can get one regardless. But I do care very much that the blind drive to regulate automatic weapons doesn't spill over into attempts to further regulate other types of weapons including simi-automatic weapons. I would consider that unconstitutional and therefore illegal.


----------



## BULLDOG (May 29, 2021)

9thIDdoc said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> > 9thIDdoc said:
> ...


Many people agree with you. That has nothing to do with the OP, but sure, lots of people agree with you.


----------



## 9thIDdoc (May 29, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> > BULLDOG said:
> ...


Then why not tell us all exactly what the purpose of the OP is? Why are you being all coy about that? Why ask others what you claim to already know?


----------



## BULLDOG (May 30, 2021)

9thIDdoc said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> > 9thIDdoc said:
> ...


Just wondering what made an AR15 different from a military defined assault rifle. Of course that one difference (F/A capability) shrinks when you consider how easy it is to make an AR fully automatic. During the course of the thread, it became interesting to see how hard many were trying to pretend that conversion is all but impossible, or that nobody would ever even be interested in making the conversion.


----------



## westwall (May 30, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> > BULLDOG said:
> ...








And, Ultimately the question remains.

Who cares.

The 2nd Amendment is Specifically about weapons that are usable by the military so your point is moot. 

In US v Miller,  the SCOTUS held that a sawed off shotgun could be regulated because it had no forseeable military purpose..

Which makes this entire thread irrelevant.


----------



## BULLDOG (May 30, 2021)

westwall said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> > 9thIDdoc said:
> ...


Nope. the 2nd and Miller have nothing to do with my question. Either you are too stupid to see that, or some RWNJ defect is making you constantly repeat the only thing you are capable of repeating. I suspect it's a little of both.


----------



## 2aguy (May 30, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > BULLDOG said:
> ...




Your question was answered on page 1 or 2.


----------



## daveman (May 30, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> > BULLDOG said:
> ...


And yet, oddly, you have not proven your assertion that the conversion is easy, nor highly sought-after.

No.  You may NOT ban semi-automatic weapons because there's a remote possibility someone might convert them to fully-automatic.  Give it up.


----------



## daveman (May 30, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > BULLDOG said:
> ...


You're so dishonest.


----------



## daveman (May 30, 2021)

2aguy said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...


But he didn't get the answer he wanted -- "You're right!  There's no difference!  We must ban the AR!!" -- so he pretends the question was never answered.


----------



## westwall (May 30, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > BULLDOG said:
> ...








Sure they do.  You're so dishonest, and stupid, you think you can make us say something that will legitimize your desire to ban the single most popular rifle type in the USA.


----------



## BlackSand (May 30, 2021)

.

Hey BULLDOG ... The ATF has started to identify an Assault Rifle.

In their internal documents, they refer to an Assault Rifle as ...
Any semi-auto rifle with a detachable magazine, that chambers a round greater than ,22 caliber.

So ... Basically by their current definition, any modern rifle that isn't bolt-action or single breech loaded ... Is an Assault Rifle ... 

.​


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (May 30, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > BULLDOG said:
> ...


again your question is irrelevant since they are constitutionally protected and protected by the OWNER


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (May 30, 2021)

BlackSand said:


> .
> 
> Hey BULLDOG ... The ATF has started to identify an Assault Rifle.
> 
> ...


actually, Chipman couldn't identify what an assault weapon was.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (May 30, 2021)

daveman said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> > BULLDOG said:
> ...


Didn't Chipman say he had a AR 15 at Waco?


----------



## daveman (May 30, 2021)

BlackSand said:


> .
> 
> Hey BULLDOG ... The ATF has started to identify an Assault Rifle.
> 
> ...


Bulldog will love that.  He gets to pretend his irrational hatred of scary black rifles is legitimate.


----------



## westwall (May 30, 2021)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> BlackSand said:
> 
> 
> > .
> ...








Chipman is a disgusting piece of shit.  He got four good agents killed due to his incompetence.


----------



## daveman (May 30, 2021)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > 2aguy said:
> ...


Dunno.  But like all Democrat elitists, he thinks he's entitled to what he would deny you.


----------



## BlackSand (May 30, 2021)

daveman said:


> BlackSand said:
> 
> 
> > ​
> ...


.

*Scary Indeed ... 
This Nerf Gun is a semi-auto rifle with a detachable magazine that chambers a round greater than a .22 caliber.*





.​


----------



## daveman (May 30, 2021)

BlackSand said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > BlackSand said:
> ...


Maybe this one won't scare Bulldog so much:


----------



## BULLDOG (May 30, 2021)

westwall said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...


I already said I have no desire to ban the AR. I really don't give a fuck if you believe that or not. I'm well aware that you won't deviate from your memorized talking points. That's obvious by the efforts that you gun nuts went to great lengths to divert the subject here. I found what I was looking for.


----------



## BULLDOG (May 30, 2021)

BlackSand said:


> .
> 
> Hey BULLDOG ... The ATF has started to identify an Assault Rifle.
> 
> ...


I'll double check, but I'm pretty sure that ATF definition is of an assault weapon. I'm not aware of an ATF definition of an assault rifle. The military does define assault rifle though, and it is different than the definition you gave.


----------



## BULLDOG (May 30, 2021)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...


Awww Ain't that cute. I'll bet that if someone asked you if it was raining, your answer would be "your question is irrelevant since they are constitutionally protected"


----------



## RetiredGySgt (May 30, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> BlackSand said:
> 
> 
> > .
> ...


The person nominated to head the ATF said that was the definition according to him.


----------



## BULLDOG (May 30, 2021)

RetiredGySgt said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> > BlackSand said:
> ...


Weapon or rifle? A link would clear up any question. Of course, if he was only nominated at the time, there is no way he could determine the definition for the ATF anyway, could he?


----------



## BlackSand (May 30, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> BlackSand said:
> 
> 
> > ​
> ...


.

I would try to help you out ... But I was listening to a Congressional hearing while driving.
They mentioned the specific name and origins of the documents, but I obviously couldn't grab a pen and write it down.

However ... They covered the definition back and forth several times.
With a decent understanding of firearms, it wasn't hard to remember.

Sorry I couldn't provide a better location.
If I knew exactly where it was, I would have told you.

I would be more concerned about the way the ATF defines it than the Military.
The ATF will be responsible for enforcing the law should one be written.
.​


----------



## BULLDOG (May 30, 2021)

BlackSand said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> > BlackSand said:
> ...


Thanks for a reasoned reply. I even made the mistake in the OP, but within the first few posts I acknowledged that mistake, and made it clear that I was using the military definition of assault rifle throughout the thread.


----------



## 9thIDdoc (May 30, 2021)

The only important definition is the legal one. The President doesn't make law. The ATF doesn't make law. The Constitution is very specific about how laws are passed and then they still can be overturned by the supreme court if they are not Constitutional.


----------



## BULLDOG (May 30, 2021)

9thIDdoc said:


> The only important definition is the legal one. The President doesn't make law. The ATF doesn't make law. The Constitution is very specific about how laws are passed and then they still can be overturned by the supreme court if they are not Constitutional.


All true, but that has nothing to do with the OP. It still will not have anything to do with the OP the next several times you post that too.


----------



## BlackSand (May 30, 2021)

9thIDdoc said:


> The only important definition is the legal one. The President doesn't make law. The ATF doesn't make law. The Constitution is very specific about how laws are passed and then they still can be overturned by the supreme court if they are not Constitutional.


.

Still the only reason I would be concerned about the ATF's definition,
Is that I am fairly certain they will be consulted by lawmakers should the question arise,
And they will be responsible for enforcing whatever law is created should the definition be required.

That's not saying it should be one way or the other,
just the ability to understand what will probably happen.

I am also not prepared to pretend that the Federal Government won't try, and hasn't already been successful ...
In regards to infringing upon our Constitutionally Protected Rights.

.​


----------



## BULLDOG (May 30, 2021)

BlackSand said:


> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> > The only important definition is the legal one. The President doesn't make law. The ATF doesn't make law. The Constitution is very specific about how laws are passed and then they still can be overturned by the supreme court if they are not Constitutional.
> ...


A large majority of Americans want universal background checks,


----------



## BlackSand (May 30, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> A large majority of Americans want universal background checks,


.

Yeah, and?

The ATF is currently approving upwards of 3 million Background Checks for new firearms purchases a month ...
And has been for quite some time ... They know what we have.

There are more firearms than people in the United States at this point.
It seems as though a lot of armed American Citizens also want to exercise their Constitutionally Protected Rights.

.​


----------



## 2aguy (May 30, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> BlackSand said:
> 
> 
> > 9thIDdoc said:
> ...




No......they don't know what universal background checks are or why people like you actually want them.

If they knew that the only reason people like you want universal background checks is so that you can then demand universal gun registration, so that you can then ban and confiscate guns, they would not support universal background checks....

But you guys lie to them and don't tell them why you want universal background checks....

Then you have this on top of what you guys want...........and if they knew this, they would doubly oppose universal background checks.....but you won't tell them about this...

Textual analysis of HR8, bill to "To require a background check for every firearm sale"

Summary

HR8 requires that loans, gifts, and sales of firearms be processed by a gun store. The same fees, paperwork, and permanent record-keeping apply as to buying a new gun from the store.
*If you loan a gun to a friend without going to the gun store, the penalty is the same as for knowingly selling a gun to a convicted violent felon.*

Likewise, when the friend returns the gun, another trip to the gun store is necessary, upon pain of felony.

A clever trick in HR8 effectively bans handguns for persons 18-to20.

The bill has some narrow exemptions. The minuscule exemption for self-defense does not cover stalking victims. None of the exemptions cover farming and ranching, sharing guns on almost all public and private lands, or storing guns with friends while on vacation. The limited exemption for family excludes first cousins and in-laws.
And this......they love this...

*The bill authorizes unlimited fees to be imposed by
regulation.
-----*
The narrowness of the self-defense exemption endangers domestic violence victims. For example, a former domestic partner threatens a woman and her children. An attack might come in the next hour, or the next month, or never. The victim and her children cannot know. Because the attack is uncertain—and is certainly not "immediate"—the woman cannot borrow a handgun from a neighbor for her defense. Many domestic violence victims do not have several hundred spare dollars so that they can buy their own gun. Sometimes, threats are manifested at night, when gun stores are not open.
-------

HR8 requires almost all firearms sales and loans to be conducted by a federally-licensed dealer. Because federal law prohibits licensed dealers from transferring handguns to persons under 21 years, HR8 prevents young adults from acquiring handguns. This is a clever way to enact a handgun ban indirectly.

*HR8 would prohibit a 20-year-old woman who lives on her own from acquiring a handgun for self-defense in her home, such as by buying it from a relative or borrowing it from a friend.
-----*

Exorbitant fees may be imposed by regulation

"(3)(A) Notwithstanding any other provision of this chapter, the Attorney General may implement this sub-section with regulations."

"(D) Regulations promulgated under this paragraph may not include any provision placing a cap on the fee licensees may charge to facilitate transfers in accordance with paragraph (1)."

Regulators may set a minimum fee, but not "a cap on a fee." The Attorney General is allowed to require that every gun store charge a fee of $30, $50, $150, or more. Even a $20 fee can be a hard burden to a poor person.

------
Family members

You can make a "a loan or bona fide gift" to some family members. In-laws and cousins are excluded.

The family exemption vanishes if one family member pays the other in any way. If a brother trades an extra shotgun to his sister in exchange for her extra television, both of them have to go to a gun store. Their exchange will have all the fees and paperwork as if she were buying a gun from the store.


----------



## 2aguy (May 30, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> BlackSand said:
> 
> 
> > 9thIDdoc said:
> ...




And you don't tell them this.....

Gun Control Won't Stop Crime

*“Universal” Background Checks**
Part of the genius of the Bloomberg gun control system is how it creates prohibitions indirectly. Bloomberg’s so-called “universal” background check scheme is a prime example. These bills are never just about having background checks on the private sales of firearms. That aspect is the part that the public is told about. Yet when you read the Bloomberg laws, you find that checks on private sales are the tip of a very large iceberg of gun prohibition.

First, the bills criminalize a vast amount of innocent activity. Suppose you are an nra Certified Instructor teaching an introductory safety class. Under your supervision, students will handle a variety of unloaded firearms. They will learn how different guns have different safeties, and they will learn the safe way to hand a firearm to another person. But thanks to Bloomberg, these classroom firearm lessons are now illegal in Washington state, unless the class takes place at a shooting range.

It’s now also illegal to lend a gun to your friend, so that you can shoot together at a range on your own property. Or to lend a firearm for a week to your neighbor who is being stalked.

Under the Bloomberg system, gun loans are generally forbidden, unless the gun owner and the borrower both go to a gun store first. The store must process the loan as if the store were selling the gun out of its inventory.

Then, when your friend wants to return your gun to you, both of you must go to the gun store again. This time, the store will process that transaction as if you were buying the gun from the store’s inventory. For both the loan and the return of the gun, you will have to pay whatever fees the store charges, and whatever fees the government might charge. The gun store will have to keep a permanent record of you, your friend and the gun, including the gun’s serial number. Depending on the state or city, the government might also keep a permanent record.

In other words, the “background check” law is really a law to expand gun registration—and registration lists are used for confiscation. Consider New York City. In 1967, violent crime in the city was out of control. So the City Council and Mayor John Lindsay required registration of all long guns. The criminals, obviously, did not comply. Thanks to the 1911 Sullivan Act, New York City already had established registration lists for handgun owners.

Then, in 1991, the City Council decided that many lawfully registered firearms were now illegal “assault weapons.” The New York Police Department used the registration lists to ensure that the guns were either surrendered to the government or moved out of the city. When he was mayor of New York City, Bloomberg did the same, after the “assault weapon” law was expanded to cover any rifle or shotgun with an ammunition capacity greater than five rounds.

In Australia and Great Britain—which are often cited as models for the U.S. to follow—registration lists were used for gun confiscation. In Great Britain, this included all handguns; in Australia, handguns over .38 caliber. Both countries banned all semi-automatic or pump-action long guns.
*
*Most American jurisdictions don’t have a comprehensive gun registration system. But even if your state legislature has outlawed gun registration, firearm stores must keep records. Those records could be harvested for future confiscations. Under the Bloomberg system, the store’s list would include not just the guns that the store actually sold, but all the guns (and their owners) that the store processed, for friends or relatives borrowing guns.*


----------



## 2aguy (May 30, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> BlackSand said:
> 
> 
> > 9thIDdoc said:
> ...




You guys don't care about Universal Background checks...but you need them to get gun registration...

Hearing In Vermont To Be Held On Universal Background Checks

While Baruth can say his bill works without a registry, anyone with half a brain knows that what you put down on paper in the form of a bill and what actually happens aren’t necessarily the same. Prohibition was supposed to stop people from drinking, for example. How did that work?

Saying the bill works without registration is an easy statement to make, but it’s also bull.

If I have a gun in Vermont, and it’s not registered, but I sell it to my buddy in a face-to-face sale, how is the state supposed to know that? Even if he’s found with that gun, how does anyone know I didn’t sell that to him prior to the law going into effect? You don’t.

While many will follow even the dumbest laws, those who are inclined to break the law simply won’t. If someone wants to arm their buddy the felon, they’ll still sell him a gun without going through the background check. No one will know.

Without a registration, the state of Vermont won’t know who owns what when the law takes effect. That means people can continue to sell and trade firearms without background checks and the state will be oblivious. They simply won’t have the information to know otherwise.

And that, I think, is the point. I think people like Baruth know this. I think they know it and are counting on it so they can push through registration which really is the Holy Grail for gun grabbers.


----------



## 9thIDdoc (May 30, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> BlackSand said:
> 
> 
> > 9thIDdoc said:
> ...


That also has nothing to do with the OP. Do as I say; not as I do?


----------



## CremeBrulee (May 30, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> BlackSand said:
> 
> 
> > 9thIDdoc said:
> ...


That's because the term "universal background check" is incredibly broad and vague.  Most likely support plummets when you drill down on what that means in terms of policy.  Much like abortion, universal healthcare,  anti-racism, etc...


----------



## BULLDOG (May 30, 2021)

BlackSand said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> > A large majority of Americans want universal background checks,
> ...


Yes, lots of new guns are being sold. Lots of used guns being sold too. No obligation for a used seller to even care if the purchaser is a felon, or otherwise not legal to even be near a gun. You got the money, you get the gun. Don't tell me bad guys only steal guns or have a straw buyer. No need to steal or have a straw buyer, when they can buy them themselves.


----------



## BULLDOG (May 30, 2021)

9thIDdoc said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> > BlackSand said:
> ...


True. I'm the only one who even attempted to stay on subject anyway, so fuck it. I found what I expected to find. All  you are going to do is spout a handful of gun nut quotes anyway.


----------



## BULLDOG (May 30, 2021)

2aguy said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> > BlackSand said:
> ...


You should number your gun nut rants. That way, you could just post a number, and save all that cutting and pasting. If you ever come up with something other than your same old rants, you could just add another number.


----------



## BULLDOG (May 30, 2021)

CremeBrulee said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> > BlackSand said:
> ...


What is so complicated? You sell a gun, you do a background check, just like dealers do now. Of course, you would have to go to a dealer to do it, and it might cost 3 or 4 dollars. Do you prefer felons buying guns without even having to tell the seller their name, or even caring if the purchaser can legally have a gun?


----------



## progressive hunter (May 30, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> CremeBrulee said:
> 
> 
> > BULLDOG said:
> ...


what makes you think thats going to stop a felon from getting a gun??


----------



## BULLDOG (May 30, 2021)

progressive hunter said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> > CremeBrulee said:
> ...


It won't stop all of them any more than wearing a seat belt stops all car deaths. You can't get 100% success from any program.


----------



## progressive hunter (May 30, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> > BULLDOG said:
> ...


I wont give up my rights for something that is a guaranteed failure,,


----------



## BlackSand (May 30, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> Yes, lots of new guns are being sold. Lots of used guns being sold too. No obligation for a used seller to even care if the purchaser is a felon, or otherwise not legal to even be near a gun. You got the money, you get the gun. Don't tell me bad guys only steal guns or have a straw buyer. No need to steal or have a straw buyer, when they can buy them themselves.


.

Well, that's not at all what I said, nor is it the point I was trying to make.
Forgive me for being a poor communicator, and I'll take the opportunity to clarify ...

I couldn't care less about Universal Background Checks, and there is no need to even discuss the issue with me.
I have no desire whatsoever to convince you whether or not Universal Background Checks are Constitutional,
Reasonable, or even who buys what for whatever reasons.

However ... I will discuss other matters with you,
but we really don't need to beat each other over the head with something as useless as Universal Background Checks.

.​


----------



## 9thIDdoc (May 30, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> > BULLDOG said:
> ...


If you aren't willing to consider an honest response why ask the question?


----------



## RetiredGySgt (May 30, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> BlackSand said:
> 
> 
> > 9thIDdoc said:
> ...


that won't happen because you retards add stuff like it being required to loan a firearm to friend or family member.


----------



## BlackSand (May 30, 2021)

progressive hunter said:


> I wont give up my rights for something that is a guaranteed failure,,


.

Universal Background Checks are a wall-to-wall con-job from the assclowns on Capitol Hill ... Republican and Democrat.

Republicans get to pretend they are protecting your Rights.
Democrats get to pretend they are accomplishing something.

It's a greater hassle and inconvenience for law abiding citizens, but doesn't stop them from acquiring what they want.
It's a greater hassle and inconvenience for criminals, but doesn't stop them from acquiring what they want.

It allows people to identify who they are within their communities, and on social media,
so they can fuck with each other some more over a complete con-job, and simply shore up the base in both parties.

.​


----------



## 9thIDdoc (May 31, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> > BULLDOG said:
> ...


The problem is crime; not guns and always has been. You want to stop crime? Everybody wants to stop crime (except criminals and the hopelessly insane) more gun laws are not the answer because:
You can't disinvent technology. Guns, and the knowledge to make them exist, are plentiful and here to stay. As far as crime is concerned that is actually a good thing because it can help even the odds between vulnerable potential victims and attackers. People never had much problem murdering each other before guns were invented and if every one of them disappeared it is doubtful that it would have much effect on murder rates. So you're stabbed to death or blown up instead of shot; is that  somehow an improvement? 
We had an "assault weapon ban" for ten years that had absolutely no effect except to inflate gun prices and increase sales. That ban was implemented as a trial. It received support from some gun owners because it was to settle the question of whether more restrictive gun laws would improve the situation or not. It didn't and so the question was answered. Unfortunately that hasn't stopped some of the sheep from continuing to bleet about the already settled issue. There are already laws intended stop everything the gun grabbers claim to want to stop and they can present no reasonable rationale to believe that new repressive laws will work any better. I have heard that the definition of insanity is continuing to do the same thing over and over and expecting a different outcome. You don't curb crime by creating new criminals which is exactly the risk being run. Maybe it's past time to address the actual issues instead of continuing our wheels in the same rut and creating damage instead of progress.


----------



## 2aguy (May 31, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> BlackSand said:
> 
> 
> > BULLDOG said:
> ...



Bad guys use straw buyers.....they do not use private sellers because they are afraid they are ATF, or the police.....if you did some basic research you would know this.....they use friends and family with clean records to buy the guns.....prosecutors don't want to prosecute baby momma's and grandmothers, the typical gang straw buyer because juries don't like to convict these women because they often claim the gang threatens them if they don't buy the guns.....

America Should Be Prosecuting Straw Purchasers, Not Gun Dealers | National Review

*Wisconsin isn’t alone in its nonchalance. California normally treats straw purchases as misdemeanors or minor infractions. Even as the people of Baltimore suffer horrific levels of violence, Maryland classifies the crime as a misdemeanor, too. Straw buying is a felony in progressive Connecticut, albeit one in the second-least-serious order of felonies. It is classified as a serious crime in Illinois (Class 2 felony), but police rarely (meaning “almost never”) go after the nephews and girlfriends with clean records who provide Chicago’s diverse and sundry gangsters with their weapons. In Delaware, it’s a Class F felony, like forging a check. In Oregon, it’s a misdemeanor.*
*
--------
*
*I visited Chicago a few years back to write about the city’s gang-driven murder problem, and a retired police official told me that the nature of the people making straw purchases — young relatives, girlfriends who may or may not have been facing the threat of physical violence, grandmothers, etc. — made prosecuting those cases unattractive. 


In most of those cases, the authorities emphatically should put the straw purchasers in prison for as long as possible. Throw a few gangsters’ grandmothers behind bars for 20 years and see if that gets anybody’s attention. In the case of the young women suborned into breaking the law, that should be just another charge to put on the main offender.*

Read more at: America Should Be Prosecuting Straw Purchasers, Not Gun Dealers | National Review


Convicted Murderers Admit: Gun Laws Are a Joke

To gain insight into why and how, one local news station decided to go right to the source of the problem.

To get our data, we sent surveys to every killer who used a gun to murder someone in Harris County since 2014. We wanted to know how they got their gun, what they paid, and how often, if ever, they went through a background check.

The information from the inmates tells a story most of us already know:

90 percent of those surveyed received their gun on the black market. They either traded goods for the firearm or a friend gave them the gun.
63 percent of the guns were stolen and the majority of them were given to the perpetrator for free.
90 percent of the surveyors weren’t eligible to legally buy a gun because of past criminal convictions.
100 percent of the surveyors concealed carry despite failing to have a CCW permit.







In Texas, a felon in possession of a firearm can serve 2 to 1- years in prison.
*But in Harris County, the average jail sentence for the offense is 3-and-a-half months.*

It should be no surprise that criminals are buying guns on the unregulated market.

*But when asked, the convicted killers abc13 interviewed were all well aware of the gun laws. 

Many were previously convicted and knew they wouldn’t pass federally mandated background checks. *

Others suggested they would never put a family member in a position to buy a gun for them since the penalty for that so-called ‘straw purchase’ is severe.

*Despite gun control laws that focus on expanded background checks and banning “assault weapons,” the survey results prove neither one of would have prevented these murderers from committing their crime.*

When asked what can be done to keep guns off the streets, each criminal had different views.

“I feel guns is not the problem. People just need to respect each other, and stop been [sic] disrespectfully [sic]. Youngster in the hood need to listen when older people tellin them something. Guns WILL always be in the streets of H-town! Sorry to say that 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




,” said 44-year-old Cedric Jones.


----------



## 2aguy (May 31, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> BlackSand said:
> 
> 
> > BULLDOG said:
> ...




This is the thing.....if you really wanted universal background checks for legitimate crime fighting, versus just as a way to get gun registration...here is how you do it.....

You make the Background Check system open to every citizen........that way, if you want to sell your private gun, you take the name, birthday, of the person who wants to buy the gun, use your phone, punch in the info. and if they have a criminal record, mental health blocks on gun buying, or outstanding warrants, it simply pops up on your phone.....and you can keep from selling the gun......

No Fee, a free app for you computer or phone......

That is how you actually do it......

But that isn't how you want to do it because that doesn't give you gun registration.......you wouldn't be able to push gun registration with a free app that anyone can use for free with no registration required....

But you don't want universal background checks to keep guns away from criminals, because you know they don't keep guns away from criminals.....they steal guns, or use straw buyers who can pass any background check.

You want universal background checks because you know they are a tool to get gullible Americans to give you gun registration...which is your real goal...because you need gun registration to know who has what guns when you get the power to ban and confiscate those guns.....


----------



## 2aguy (May 31, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> CremeBrulee said:
> 
> 
> > BULLDOG said:
> ...




It doesn't cost 3 or 4 dollars, it can cost up to 250 dollars.......

Universal Background checks don't stop criminals from getting guns....they steal them or use straw buyers.   The straw buyers can pass any background check . 


 Mass public shooters have no criminal record before they attack and so can pass any background check....

So you don't care about this issue........you just want to fool uninformed Americans into giving you Universal Background checks so you can come back.....after criminals and mass shooters still get guns because universal background checks don't stop them........and demand gun registration...which is your true goal.....


----------



## BULLDOG (May 31, 2021)

9thIDdoc said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> > 9thIDdoc said:
> ...


"The sky is blue" is an honest answer, but if the question is "what is 2+2" it's  hardly a valid answer.


----------



## BULLDOG (May 31, 2021)

RetiredGySgt said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> > BlackSand said:
> ...


Of course there are details to be worked out, but with a blanket refusal, there isn't much chance of that. I assume most would know if a  family member can legally posses a gun. That isn't necessarily true of your friends. Is your friend a recent friend you met last week, or a lifelong friend from childhood? All things to be considered and worked out. Most sellers wouldn't sell to a felon if they knew it. Without an obligation for them to find out, nobody will even check. Of course, there will be unethical sellers who will sell guns and claim they were just loaning them to a friend, but I doubt it will be a large percentage of sellers.  That is something else to figure out, but in the mean time, you will keep lots of disallowed felons and gang members from an easy source for guns.


----------



## 2aguy (May 31, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> > BULLDOG said:
> ...




And again, the actual solution?

Allow anyone to access the background check system for free......put the app on your phone, get the name and birthdate of the buyer, punch it in, and see if he has a criminal record, a mental health block for buying guns or outstanding warrants.

Done.

But the problem for bulldog.....that would mean you don't need to register guns....and registering guns is  the whole point for pushing universal background checks.


----------



## BULLDOG (May 31, 2021)

BlackSand said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> > I wont give up my rights for something that is a guaranteed failure,,
> ...


No program will stop criminals from getting guns 100%, but it would eliminate one large source for them. More than 90% of Americans, and that includes about 75% of NRA members want background checks. The American people don't see it as much of an inconvenience.


----------



## 2aguy (May 31, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> BlackSand said:
> 
> 
> > progressive hunter said:
> ...




And you have been told that those supporting universal background checks have been lied to about them.....you don't tell them what they really mean or what the real goal is for universal background checks...if you did that, they wouldn't support them.


----------



## iamwhatiseem (May 31, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> Polishprince said:
> 
> 
> > "assault weapon" isn't a valid description of anything.  M4 isn't an "assault weapon" either.
> ...


  How many people in the U.S. were killed in 2020 by assault weapons??
And how many were killed by hand guns?
   Why the hell are you concerned about assault weapons?


----------



## progressive hunter (May 31, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> BlackSand said:
> 
> 
> > progressive hunter said:
> ...


if its such a large source maybe you could show us with a link where a criminal got a gun through a private sale??

and your percentages are wrong,, most people are against universal background checks,,


----------



## BULLDOG (May 31, 2021)

9thIDdoc said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> > progressive hunter said:
> ...


Yes, crime is the problem. Crime caused by criminals with guns is a really big part of that. 90% of Americans, including 75% of NRA members say your oppressive law claim is bullshit. Why are you so fanatic about keeping an easy source of guns available to felons?


----------



## 2aguy (May 31, 2021)

iamwhatiseem said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> > Polishprince said:
> ...




AR-15s give them the ability to ban handguns......AR-15s work the same way as semi-auto rifles, pistols and shotguns....if they get gullible Americans to agree that AR-15s should be banned then they can come back and say that all those other rifles, pistols and shotguns need to be banned too since, again, they all operate the same way....


----------



## 2aguy (May 31, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> > BULLDOG said:
> ...




1.1 million Americans use guns to save lives each year according to the Centers for Disease control..

Meanwhile, criminals using illegal guns murdered 10,235 people in 2019, but over 70-80% of the victims were other criminals, not normal Americans.  And of the rest, the majority of the victims were friends and family of the criminals, hit by mistake...

You want to ban and confiscate guns for the owners of 600 million guns to target criminals who murder other criminals and who will get illegal guns no matter how many laws you pass....

When the simple solution to gun crime and murder is to simply keep violent criminals in prison...but you don't care about gun crime...you want to ban guns.


----------



## iamwhatiseem (May 31, 2021)

Boggles the mind how dumb people like the OP is.
 People killed by assault rifles in 2020 is less than 100.
Handguns?... over 20,000.
   People murdered by law abiding citizens with a legal permit??.... not even on the map.
People murdered by career criminals who, they themselves, are also career criminals that won't pay one iota attention a gun ban 20.000


----------



## 2aguy (May 31, 2021)

iamwhatiseem said:


> Boggles the mind how dumb people like the OP is.
> People killed by assault rifles in 2020 is less than 100.
> Handguns?... over 20,000.
> People murdered by law abiding citizens with a legal permit??.... not even on the map.
> People murdered by career criminals who, they themselves, are also career criminals that won't pay one iota attention a gun ban 20.000




More people die from falling off ladders....


----------



## BULLDOG (May 31, 2021)

2aguy said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> > BlackSand said:
> ...


I will be happy to read your entire remark as soon as you post something other than  your handful of memorized bumper sticker statements and your massive store of cut and paste crap.


----------



## BULLDOG (May 31, 2021)

2aguy said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> > BlackSand said:
> ...


We have background checks now that don't require gun registration. Quit whining about goofy crap.


----------



## 2aguy (May 31, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> > BULLDOG said:
> ...




Actual links to actual information on straw buyers and how criminals get guns....but because it shows that universal background checks are dumb, and pointless....and that you really don't care about universal background checks....that what you really want is gun registration...you post what you just posted.....to hide what you really care about....

*Wisconsin isn’t alone in its nonchalance. California normally treats straw purchases as misdemeanors or minor infractions. Even as the people of Baltimore suffer horrific levels of violence, Maryland classifies the crime as a misdemeanor, too. Straw buying is a felony in progressive Connecticut, albeit one in the second-least-serious order of felonies. It is classified as a serious crime in Illinois (Class 2 felony), but police rarely (meaning “almost never”) go after the nephews and girlfriends with clean records who provide Chicago’s diverse and sundry gangsters with their weapons. In Delaware, it’s a Class F felony, like forging a check. In Oregon, it’s a misdemeanor.*

*--------*

*I visited Chicago a few years back to write about the city’s gang-driven murder problem, and a retired police official told me that the nature of the people making straw purchases — young relatives, girlfriends who may or may not have been facing the threat of physical violence, grandmothers, etc. — made prosecuting those cases unattractive. 


In most of those cases, the authorities emphatically should put the straw purchasers in prison for as long as possible. Throw a few gangsters’ grandmothers behind bars for 20 years and see if that gets anybody’s attention. In the case of the young women suborned into breaking the law, that should be just another charge to put on the main offender.*

Read more at: America Should Be Prosecuting Straw Purchasers, Not Gun Dealers | National Review


----------



## 2aguy (May 31, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> > BULLDOG said:
> ...




Yes....which is why you want universal background checks....you need them to be able to demand gun registration......

if you get universal gun registration, criminals will still get guns, and mass public shooters will still get guns, since criminals ignore any background checks by stealing their guns or by using straw buyers who can pass any background check....and again, mass public shooters can also pass any background check because they do not have prior criminal records...

So...criminals get guns, mass public shooters get guns....

You then come back and say....well......universal background checks can't be effective the way we said they would if we don't have gun registration.....after all, we need to know who owns the guns to know if a background check was actually done in the private sale......

And then you will start lying again about guns and criminals...


----------



## BULLDOG (May 31, 2021)

2aguy said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> > CremeBrulee said:
> ...


The FBI doesn't charge for NCIS  background checks. States determine how much can be charged. If you have a problem with the cost, you should whine about it to your state.


----------



## 2aguy (May 31, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> > BULLDOG said:
> ...




Yes.....it isn't NCIS, that is the Naval Crime Investigation Service.....

The NICS background check system can't be accessed by citizens.....that is the only way to keep guys like you from getting gun registration....

An app on your phone, no fee, no record, seconds to check for criminal record, mental health block, or outstanding warrants....

But you don't want that......you want gun registration.


----------



## BULLDOG (May 31, 2021)

2aguy said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> > RetiredGySgt said:
> ...


We have background checks now, and no gun registry. Quit whining about your imagined bullshit.


----------



## BULLDOG (May 31, 2021)

2aguy said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> > BlackSand said:
> ...


Yes, you have said a lot of silly crap. You can never seem to prove it though. Any bills proposing universal background checks have been made public, and no registry was mentioned. Quit making shit up.


----------



## BULLDOG (May 31, 2021)

2aguy said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> > 2aguy said:
> ...


Oh my. I  am guilty of a typo. You get a cookie for your sharp eye. Quit whining. When you see gun registration in a universal background check bill, then you won't sound crazy for complaining about it. Until then -----


----------



## progressive hunter (May 31, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> > BULLDOG said:
> ...


a universal background check is a registration,, your lies wont change that,,


----------



## 2aguy (May 31, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> > BULLDOG said:
> ...




Again.....that is what drives you nuts....you don't have gun registration....you want gun registration and you plan on using universal background checks to fool uninformed Americans into giving you gun registration.


----------



## 2aguy (May 31, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> > BULLDOG said:
> ...




No, dipshit........you reminded me of an episode of NCIS the show.......they go to a halloween party with their NCIS and someone says...hey you spelled it wrong...meaning they spelled CSI wrong.....the CSI t.v. show.....

You moron....I had a funny moment because of you...thanks...


----------



## BlackSand (May 31, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> No program will stop criminals from getting guns 100%, but it would eliminate one large source for them. More than 90% of Americans, and that includes about 75% of NRA members want background checks. The American people don't see it as much of an inconvenience.


.

It doesn't matter who wants Universal Background Checks.
That doesn't make it Constitutional nor effective.

But I already told you, you and I don't even have to discuss it ... You aren't interested in anything other than what you want.
You believe the con-job from the asshats on Capitol Hill ... And will do everything they want you to. 

You are doing it now ... And are a prime example of exactly what I have stated on the matter.

.​


----------



## 2aguy (May 31, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> > BULLDOG said:
> ...




You  aren't going to say anything about the need for the gun registration till after  you get universal background checks........one step at a time....


----------



## BlackSand (May 31, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> We have background checks now that don't require gun registration. Quit whining about goofy crap.


.

Absolutely 100% Incorret

Pick up a firearm purchased with a background check, and call the ATF.
They can tell you what was bought, who bought it, when and where they bought it, including the actual physical location ...
and whether or not they even bought it for someone else as a gift.

Shit ... In some States, you wouldn't even have to call the ATF, you could call the local Sheriff's Department ... I know that as a fact.
I don't care what anyone tells you ... I have been sitting there when they have done it.

.​


----------



## daveman (May 31, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> BlackSand said:
> 
> 
> > BULLDOG said:
> ...


Everything you say is nothing but fear-mongering.

The problem is you're trying to make afraid people who think rationally and know you're full of shit.

You may be cementing the fear-based views of your fellow irrational gun-haters, but you're not going to convince normal people of anything.


----------



## daveman (May 31, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> > BULLDOG said:
> ...


Good Gaea, will someone kiss Bulldog's ass already?  He's been expecting it for 800 posts but nobody's delivered.


----------



## 9thIDdoc (May 31, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> > BULLDOG said:
> ...


*Crime caused by criminals with guns is a really big part of that.*
True but it is also true that the crimes they are committing are already illegal (against current law) and nobody has yet propose a law that criminals cannot or will not break just as easily as the ones currently in place. No improvement. 

*90% of Americans, including 75% of NRA members say your oppressive law claim is bullshit.*
No, I say that your statement is bullshit. Care to provide a link or other supporting evidence? 

*Why are you so fanatic about keeping an easy source of guns available to felons?*
If they are so easy to get and oh so deadly why are they rarely used for criminal purposes? 
From this side of the question it appears that you and your associates are the criminal friendly crowd. Why else work so hard to disarm potential victims if not to make things easier and safer for the criminals?


----------



## daveman (May 31, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> CremeBrulee said:
> 
> 
> > BULLDOG said:
> ...


So, you really believe criminals will obey the universal background check law.

What a moron!


----------



## daveman (May 31, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> > BULLDOG said:
> ...


Yet more fear-mongering.

It's all you've got.  You don't have facts, logic, or reason on your side -- but you got a boatload of emotion.

Typical leftist.


----------



## daveman (May 31, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> > BULLDOG said:
> ...


Chickenshit.


----------



## daveman (May 31, 2021)

2aguy said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> > 2aguy said:
> ...


BUT THATS RACIST!!!!!

There, covered that for you, Bulldog.


----------



## Colin norris (May 31, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> The M4 is the main rifle used by the US military, and no one could question that it is an assault rifle.  The M4 is capable of full automatic fire, and 3 round burst, and the AR15 is not. Of course, it would be illegal, but the AR15 can easily be converted to allow those types of fire. Other than that difference, what makes an M4 an assault weapon, and an AR15 not?



I dont dispute what you say. The weaponry should be exclusive for the military and never allowed for the public use.  There is no valid reason for other than an ego builder and a power play by testosterone filled Rambos. 
There are so many slaughtered by these that that itself should be prove they should be banned.  But no, that 250 year old 2nd amendment says we have a right. 
So let the mass murders continue. When it reaches your children or close family, get back to me.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (May 31, 2021)

daveman said:


> BlackSand said:
> 
> 
> > daveman said:
> ...


a glock 19 and a  22-caliber Walther semi-automatic pistol was used at Virginia Tech to kill 33 people
And look how CBS lies 








						Va. Tech Killer Bought 2nd Gun Online
					

Gun Control Group Says Cho Seung-Hui's Purchases Should Have Been Blocked




					www.cbsnews.com


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (May 31, 2021)

Colin norris said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> > The M4 is the main rifle used by the US military, and no one could question that it is an assault rifle.  The M4 is capable of full automatic fire, and 3 round burst, and the AR15 is not. Of course, it would be illegal, but the AR15 can easily be converted to allow those types of fire. Other than that difference, what makes an M4 an assault weapon, and an AR15 not?
> ...


Show me where the bill of needs is at?this is the most ignorant position gun stupid people are 
Fucking antirights fascist


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (May 31, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> > BULLDOG said:
> ...


he was asked at his hearing and said any semiautomatic weapon is an assault weapon maybe you should watch the hearing instead of being on this website


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (May 31, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > BULLDOG said:
> ...


and your opinion is still irrelevant because firearms are constitutionally protected and protected by the OWNER


----------



## BlackSand (May 31, 2021)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Show me where the bill of needs is at?this is the most ignorant position gun stupid people are
> Fucking antirights fascist


.

Anti-Rights Fascists ... I wouldn't give them that much credit

They just don't give a shit about your rights, and they aren't even thinking about taking them away.
They will tell you they are not trying to take your rights away ... While they are trying to.

They just want the Federal Government to save them ...
No matter the fact it continually fails them in everything it tries to fix.

.​


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (May 31, 2021)

BlackSand said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > Show me where the bill of needs is at?this is the most ignorant position gun stupid people are
> ...


they are of course antirights fascist and will at one point and time in their life beg for the right to be able to defend themselves when they realize they were just useful idiots.


----------



## daveman (May 31, 2021)

Colin norris said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> > The M4 is the main rifle used by the US military, and no one could question that it is an assault rifle.  The M4 is capable of full automatic fire, and 3 round burst, and the AR15 is not. Of course, it would be illegal, but the AR15 can easily be converted to allow those types of fire. Other than that difference, what makes an M4 an assault weapon, and an AR15 not?
> ...


How many people have been murdered with AR-15-style weapons the last 10 years?

Show your work.  Citations.  Get busy.


----------



## 2aguy (May 31, 2021)

Colin norris said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> > The M4 is the main rifle used by the US military, and no one could question that it is an assault rifle.  The M4 is capable of full automatic fire, and 3 round burst, and the AR15 is not. Of course, it would be illegal, but the AR15 can easily be converted to allow those types of fire. Other than that difference, what makes an M4 an assault weapon, and an AR15 not?
> ...




more people are killed every single year by knives, by clubs, and by bare hands than by all rifle types let alone just the AR-15 rifle.....

More people die each year falling off ladders than are killed by mass public shooters in general and by mass public shooters with rifles...

What are you talking about?

The AR-15 is not a military weapon....do you understand that?

There is only one mass public shooting where the rifle had an advantage in the shooting, and that was Las Vegas, where the range was over 200 yards......but he was also firing into a tightly packed crowd of over 22,000 people, at night, from a concealed and fortified position.......with his initial shooting masked by the concert.



And if the crowed wasn't  trapped in that concert arena, he wouldn't have been able to kill as many since they would have run away or found cover.....since shooting at moving targets at hundreds of yards is almost impossible for all but expertly trained shooters...



At the range of every other mass public shooting a rifle has no advantage over pistols or shotguns.......



again.....at the range of a mass public shooting the AR-15 is no better than a pump action shotgun....as are 2 handguns......you idiot...



Boulder....used an AR-15 with magazines that held more than 10 bullets..  10 killed.....



Virginia Tech...2 pistols, one with 10 round magazine..... 32 killed.



Do you see that the AR-15 killed fewer people than the 2 pistols?



Boulder...10 killed with an AR-15 rifle and regular magazines ( holding more than 10 bullets)



Luby's Cafe..... 2 pistols....24 killed.



Do you see that the 2 pistols killed more than the AR-15?



Do you know what the difference was between these attacks?



The cops immediately responded and shot at the attacker in boulder, causing him to stop shooting unarmed victims, and then he shot himself....



Virginia Tech and Luby's Cafe, the police didn't get there, and at Luby's Cafe, the one woman who could have shot and killed the attacker had to leave her gun in her car because of stupid gun free zone laws....



Boulder AR-15 with magazines that hold more than 10 bullets...you know, regular magazines..... 10 killed...



Kerch, Russia, Polytechnic school shooting.... 5 shot, pump action shotgun...which means it had 5 shells which is 5 less than 10........20 killed 70 wounded.



Do you see that the AR-15 killed fewer people than the 5 shot, pump action shotgun?



The difference?   The Russian police station was 100 yards away from the school...and it still took them 10 minutes to get to the school...and he managed to kill 20 people with a 5 shot, pump action shotgun....10 more than the Boulder shooter with a rifle and a regular sized magazine...





So again.......in a mass public shooting the number of bullets in the gun magazine don't mean anything......the gun doesn't make the difference....



What makes the difference?



1) if the target is a gun free zone, more people get killed.



2)  if someone starts shooting at the attacker, they commit suicide, or surrender, or runaway....



That is what you don't understand and don't care to understand since you simply have a mental issue when it comes to the AR-15 rifle.

That rifle had no special advantage in a mass public shooting.


----------



## 2aguy (May 31, 2021)

Colin norris said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> > The M4 is the main rifle used by the US military, and no one could question that it is an assault rifle.  The M4 is capable of full automatic fire, and 3 round burst, and the AR15 is not. Of course, it would be illegal, but the AR15 can easily be converted to allow those types of fire. Other than that difference, what makes an M4 an assault weapon, and an AR15 not?
> ...




You don't understand anything, you obviously don't know anything about this issue, you are just responding to what you feel about this issue...

Expanded Homicide Data Table 8



Knives...1,476

Clubs....397

Bare hands....600

Rifles...364


----------



## struth (May 31, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> The M4 is the main rifle used by the US military, and no one could question that it is an assault rifle.  The M4 is capable of full automatic fire, and 3 round burst, and the AR15 is not. Of course, it would be illegal, but the AR15 can easily be converted to allow those types of fire. Other than that difference, what makes an M4 an assault weapon, and an AR15 not?


i think you answered your question one is automatic the other is not.


----------



## theHawk (May 31, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> The M4 is the main rifle used by the US military, and no one could question that it is an assault rifle.  The M4 is capable of full automatic fire, and 3 round burst, and the AR15 is not. Of course, it would be illegal, but the AR15 can easily be converted to allow those types of fire. Other than that difference, what makes an M4 an assault weapon, and an AR15 not?


Aren’t all weapons “assault weapons”?  Aren’t all rifles capable of being used in an assault?

What is your point?


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (May 31, 2021)

2aguy said:


> Colin norris said:
> 
> 
> > BULLDOG said:
> ...


We're going to have to face one fact the AR 15 may not be used by the military but it is a weapon of war that's what makes it constitutionally protected according to U.S. v. Miller 1939


----------



## BULLDOG (May 31, 2021)

daveman said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> > BlackSand said:
> ...


Would you point out which part of that post you think is untrue?


----------



## 2aguy (May 31, 2021)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> > Colin norris said:
> ...




Heller also states it is protected then Scalia named it, specifically in his opinion in Friedman v Highland Park....


----------



## 2aguy (May 31, 2021)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> > Colin norris said:
> ...




It was never used by the military....it therefore has never been a weapon of war....the pump action shotgun is a weapon of war, as is the bolt action rifle..........


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (May 31, 2021)

2aguy said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > 2aguy said:
> ...


What makes a firearm constitutionally protected?


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (May 31, 2021)

2aguy said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > 2aguy said:
> ...


Scalia quoted U.S. V. Miller


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (May 31, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > BULLDOG said:
> ...


there is no way you can make a law that will stop private sells 
It's already illegal to sell to anyone that can't legally purchase a firearm


----------



## BULLDOG (May 31, 2021)

9thIDdoc said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> > 9thIDdoc said:
> ...


1. Crimes are already against the law. That's why they are called crimes. The use of a gun in those crimes puts them in a separate category. I'm still not clear on why you don't want to make it harder for known criminals to get guns.

2.   You are correct. 68% of NRA members, not 75% as stated and 78% of gun owners not members of the NRA support  requiring background checks for all firearm purchases.








						Poll: Most NRA members support comprehensive background checks
					

Most National Rifle Association (NRA) members support comprehensive background checks for those purchasing a firearm, according to a new poll.




					thehill.com
				




3. Universal background checks are for all guns. Buying a gun from an individual is extremely easy. You give them the money, you get the gun. No background check. The seller doesn't even have to know your name. If you think guns are rarely used for criminal purposes, you're nuts.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (May 31, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> > BULLDOG said:
> ...


again it's already illegal to sell a firearm to someone who can't legally purchase a firearm 
and there is no way you can stop a private sell of a firearm 
Universal background checks do not stop shootings. how many states already have Universal background checks on all firearms?


----------



## BULLDOG (May 31, 2021)

daveman said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> > 2aguy said:
> ...


That's exactly what I consider the reams of the same cut and past propaganda the previous poster constantly supplies to be. Chickenshit.
He hasn't posted anything original since his 2nd day here.


----------



## BULLDOG (May 31, 2021)

Colin norris said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> > The M4 is the main rifle used by the US military, and no one could question that it is an assault rifle.  The M4 is capable of full automatic fire, and 3 round burst, and the AR15 is not. Of course, it would be illegal, but the AR15 can easily be converted to allow those types of fire. Other than that difference, what makes an M4 an assault weapon, and an AR15 not?
> ...


I don't advocate banning anything, even though it might not hurt my feelings if some were at least regulated a little more. I do think all gun sales should be only after a background check of the buyer, though.


----------



## BULLDOG (May 31, 2021)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> > RetiredGySgt said:
> ...


So get back with me after he is confirmed, and your fears have come true. As far as I can tell, your fears of having your guns confiscated have had your panties in a knot for a decade or more. Confiscation any day now?


----------



## BULLDOG (May 31, 2021)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...


See? I knew you were going to say that.


----------



## BULLDOG (May 31, 2021)

2aguy said:


> Colin norris said:
> 
> 
> > BULLDOG said:
> ...


----------



## BULLDOG (May 31, 2021)

struth said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> > The M4 is the main rifle used by the US military, and no one could question that it is an assault rifle.  The M4 is capable of full automatic fire, and 3 round burst, and the AR15 is not. Of course, it would be illegal, but the AR15 can easily be converted to allow those types of fire. Other than that difference, what makes an M4 an assault weapon, and an AR15 not?
> ...


There was more to the question, but don't let that bother you.


----------



## BULLDOG (May 31, 2021)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> > Colin norris said:
> ...


So you admit it is a weapon of war. Was that so hard?


----------



## struth (May 31, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> struth said:
> 
> 
> > BULLDOG said:
> ...


Nobody doubts the M4 is an assault weapon. Are there any material differences between an M4 and an AR15?​


----------



## BULLDOG (May 31, 2021)

2aguy said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > 2aguy said:
> ...


Heller and Scalia notwithstanding, you agree with bigreb that it is a weapon of war?


----------



## progressive hunter (May 31, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > 2aguy said:
> ...


we've been telling you that for days,,


----------



## progressive hunter (May 31, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...


sweetie,, rocks are weapons of war,,


----------



## BULLDOG (May 31, 2021)

2aguy said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > 2aguy said:
> ...


In  1961  the military commissioned 8500 AR15s for the Air Force, and later a few were sent to Viet Nam. The first M16 wasn't issued until March of 1965.




__





						The Complete History of the AR-15 Rifle | Small Wars Journal
					

The history of this iconic American weapon, from its inception in 1959 to the present day.




					smallwarsjournal.com


----------



## BULLDOG (May 31, 2021)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> > daveman said:
> ...


True, but the seller has no obligation to know or even care if he is selling to someone who is not allowed a gun. You expect a crook to tell the seller he isn't allowed?


----------



## BULLDOG (May 31, 2021)

struth said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> > struth said:
> ...


Go back and reread the OP.


----------



## BULLDOG (May 31, 2021)

progressive hunter said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...


OK. Then show the post where that was clearly stated, other than when bigreb did.


----------



## progressive hunter (May 31, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> > BULLDOG said:
> ...


just check my comments and then show some that proved it wrong,,

or you could prove it wrong,,


----------



## BULLDOG (May 31, 2021)

progressive hunter said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> > 2aguy said:
> ...


I'm pretty sure rocks weren't specifically designed for war.


----------



## progressive hunter (May 31, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> > BULLDOG said:
> ...


doesnt matter what they are designed for,, if thats all you have and wars what faces you you use it,,
a good deer rifle wasnt designed for war, but some of them make a hell of a good sniper rifle,,


----------



## struth (May 31, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> struth said:
> 
> 
> > BULLDOG said:
> ...


Did I misquote the title?


----------



## BULLDOG (May 31, 2021)

progressive hunter said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> > progressive hunter said:
> ...


You made a statement, "We've been telling you that for days" ( that an AR15 is a weapon of war) , and you want me to find your remark that says it is not? You know that's nuts, right?


----------



## westwall (May 31, 2021)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...







If it is useable for military purpose it is Constitutionally protected.


----------



## BULLDOG (May 31, 2021)

progressive hunter said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> > progressive hunter said:
> ...


You're stretching now Boo Boo


----------



## Colin norris (May 31, 2021)

2aguy said:


> Colin norris said:
> 
> 
> > QUOTE="BULLDOG, post: 27101429, member: 49372"]
> ...




more people are killed every single year by knives, by clubs, and by bare hands than by all rifle types let alone just the AR-15 rifle.....

More people die each year falling off ladders than are killed by mass public shooters in general and by mass public shooters with rifles...

What are you talking about?

The AR-15 is not a military weapon....do you understand that?

There is only one mass public shooting where the rifle had an advantage in the shooting, and that was Las Vegas, where the range was over 200 yards......but he was also firing into a tightly packed crowd of over 22,000 people, at night, from a concealed and fortified position.......with his initial shooting masked by the concert.



And if the crowed wasn't  trapped in that concert arena, he wouldn't have been able to kill as many since they would have run away or found cover.....since shooting at moving targets at hundreds of yards is almost impossible for all but expertly trained shooters...



At the range of every other mass public shooting a rifle has no advantage over pistols or shotguns.......



again.....at the range of a mass public shooting the AR-15 is no better than a pump action shotgun....as are 2 handguns......you idiot...



Boulder....used an AR-15 with magazines that held more than 10 bullets..  10 killed.....



Virginia Tech...2 pistols, one with 10 round magazine..... 32 killed.



Do you see that the AR-15 killed fewer people than the 2 pistols?



Boulder...10 killed with an AR-15 rifle and regular magazines ( holding more than 10 bullets)



Luby's Cafe..... 2 pistols....24 killed.



Do you see that the 2 pistols killed more than the AR-15?



Do you know what the difference was between these attacks?



The cops immediately responded and shot at the attacker in boulder, causing him to stop shooting unarmed victims, and then he shot himself....



Virginia Tech and Luby's Cafe, the police didn't get there, and at Luby's Cafe, the one woman who could have shot and killed the attacker had to leave her gun in her car because of stupid gun free zone laws....



Boulder AR-15 with magazines that hold more than 10 bullets...you know, regular magazines..... 10 killed...



Kerch, Russia, Polytechnic school shooting.... 5 shot, pump action shotgun...which means it had 5 shells which is 5 less than 10........20 killed 70 wounded.



Do you see that the AR-15 killed fewer people than the 5 shot, pump action shotgun?



The difference?   The Russian police station was 100 yards away from the school...and it still took them 10 minutes to get to the school...and he managed to kill 20 people with a 5 shot, pump action shotgun....10 more than the Boulder shooter with a rifle and a regular sized magazine...





So again.......in a mass public shooting the number of bullets in the gun magazine don't mean anything......the gun doesn't make the difference....



What makes the difference?



1) if the target is a gun free zone, more people get killed.



2)  if someone starts shooting at the attacker, they commit suicide, or surrender, or runaway....



That is what you don't understand and don't care to understand since you simply have a mental issue when it comes to the AR-15 rifle.

That rifle had no special advantage in a mass public shooting.
[/QUOTE]
I don't care about your typical gun nuts justifications. There is no reason why those weapons are needed in private ownership. The same for the other weapons of mass slaughter. 

I've never seen innocent kids been killed by a pump action ladder or a fully automatic knife. 

The Quran problem is and will remain so, the gun culture and the pathetic insecure mental state of those proponents is the problem. There is no need for thise weapons other than penile extensions and ego boosters by a bunch of immature cowboys posing as protectors of freedom. What rubbish. 
You're as dumb as a stump.


----------



## progressive hunter (May 31, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> > BULLDOG said:
> ...


not as nuts as what you asked of me,,


----------



## progressive hunter (May 31, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> > BULLDOG said:
> ...


how is that a stretch?? are you saying a good 300 win mag doesnt make a good sniper rifle?? or a 30-06 either??

sounds like youre the one that doesnt know what theyre talking about,,


----------



## BULLDOG (May 31, 2021)

struth said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> > struth said:
> ...


No. The title is just a brief description of the thread, and should at least loosely agree with the OP, but the OP defines the subject of discussion.


----------



## struth (May 31, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> > BULLDOG said:
> ...


All weapons are weapons of war...from a knife to a flame thrower....in War people will use anything to defend themselves. 

So not sure your point. 

An AR15 however, is merely hunting rifle that has some cosemtics to make it look mean.    It's been around since the 60s for civilians


----------



## struth (May 31, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> struth said:
> 
> 
> > BULLDOG said:
> ...


i was just trying to answer the question presented.  There are a lot of other difference as well....the lengh of the barrel for example.


----------



## westwall (May 31, 2021)

Colin norris said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> > Colin norris said:
> ...


I don't care about your typical gun nuts justifications. There is no reason why those weapons are needed in private ownership. The same for the other weapons of mass slaughter.

I've never seen innocent kids been killed by a pump action ladder or a fully automatic knife.

The Quran problem is and will remain so, the gun culture and the pathetic insecure mental state of those proponents is the problem. There is no need for thise weapons other than penile extensions and ego boosters by a bunch of immature cowboys posing as protectors of freedom. What rubbish.
You're as dumb as a stump.
[/QUOTE]






And your opinion doesn't mean shit.  Until the COTUS is repealed (after LOTS of bloodshed) your opinion doesn't affect the gun owning community at all.


----------



## BULLDOG (May 31, 2021)

progressive hunter said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> > progressive hunter said:
> ...


You said  you've been telling me for days that an AR is a weapon of war, and I asked for one example. That's not nuts.


----------



## BlackSand (May 31, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> I'm pretty sure rocks weren't specifically designed for war.


.

*Ooops ... There It Is ...* 
That's a round rock designed specifically as a weapon of war.





.​


----------



## BULLDOG (May 31, 2021)

struth said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> > struth said:
> ...


That has all been covered.


----------



## progressive hunter (May 31, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> > BULLDOG said:
> ...


are you saying I havnt told you that at least a dozen times on this thread??


----------



## Colin norris (May 31, 2021)

westwall said:


> Colin norris said:
> 
> 
> > 2aguy said:
> ...








And your opinion doesn't mean shit.  Until the COTUS is repealed (after LOTS of bloodshed) your opinion doesn't affect the gun owning community at all.
[/QUOTE]

If course it means nothing to an intellectual cripple like you but that doesn't mean it isn't fact. Look at your reply. Exactly the dismissals and stupidity I spoke of. Youll say and do anything to protect your ego.  
Every time there is talk of gun restriction, you all go out and buy more if that will alter the conversation. Then you complain to the government you can't get ammo.  Duuuuh.  Talk about dumb. 
You take the new weapons home, kill a deer or something then put it away with the other 6 or 9 guns.  That stopped those pesky democrats.  
Then the cycle is repeated again. 
The slaughters continue and you believe it's collateral damage for the price of freedom. 

I don't care if you've got six of those slaughter machines.  My point is you have no need for them.


----------



## BULLDOG (May 31, 2021)

westwall said:


> Colin norris said:
> 
> 
> > 2aguy said:
> ...








And your opinion doesn't mean shit.  Until the COTUS is repealed (after LOTS of bloodshed) your opinion doesn't affect the gun owning community at all.
[/QUOTE]
Many in the gun owning community do want some weapons banned.  The numbers fluctuate some, but basically, much more than half of the country wants limits. No reason why Constitutional laws cant be fashioned to limit the sale of guns. I don't advocate out right banning, but if something isn't done to reduce the sales of guns to known criminals, a ban might be in our future.

Two-thirds of Americans support assault weapons ban: Fox News poll


----------



## BULLDOG (May 31, 2021)

BlackSand said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> > I'm pretty sure rocks weren't specifically designed for war.
> ...


Now that's funny. I'm not sure I've ever heard of that being used to shoot up any schools, but I would certainly want a background check for anyone openly carrying one of those.


----------



## BULLDOG (May 31, 2021)

progressive hunter said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> > progressive hunter said:
> ...


Perhaps you have, and I didn't see it. Where did you specifically  say an AR15 is a weapon of war?


----------



## BlackSand (May 31, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> Now that's funny. I'm not sure I've ever heard of that being used to shoot up any schools, but I would certainly want a background check for anyone openly carrying one of those.


.

A trebuchet is not very precise, and during bombardment didn't discriminate between targets.
Facilities of learning where never exempt from fire.


However ... It does bring up another point, in that it is not a firearm.
I have said it before ... You cannot effectively ban assault weapons, until you ban anything that shoots a projectile.

Innovation and Adaptation ... *Always* are the keys to success.
You are still there buying the con-job about Universal Background Checks ...
And someone is thinking about how they are going to produce what they want.

If for one second you think humans cannot figure out how to effectively and efficiently kill each other, then you are just stupid.

.​


----------



## progressive hunter (May 31, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> > BULLDOG said:
> ...


so you didnt see the at least a dozen times I said that,,,

kinda makes you an idiot,,


----------



## BULLDOG (May 31, 2021)

progressive hunter said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> > progressive hunter said:
> ...


If you say so, but why don't you just give the post number where you said the AR15 is a weapon of war? That would really put me in my place, wouldn't it?


----------



## 9thIDdoc (May 31, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> 9thIDdoc said:
> 
> 
> > BULLDOG said:
> ...


*1. Crimes are already against the law. That's why they are called crimes. The use of a gun in those crimes puts them in a separate category. I'm still not clear on why you don't want to make it harder for known criminals to get guns.*
I'm all for making it harder for criminals to get guns. Come up with a Constitutional new law for doing law for doing that and I'll support it. But what I keep saying and you keep ignoring is that I don't believe that that is realistically possible. And history supports that belief. Ever since 1968 we have been burdened with a host of restrictions on guns and not a single one has been shown to make it harder for criminals to get guns. Not one. And if some genius ever actually comes up with one, criminals can simply use other weapons  and murder rates remain the same. I'm still unclear as to why you seem so intent on making innocent victims more vulnerable.

_*2.   You are correct. 68% of NRA members, not 75% as stated and 78% of gun owners not members of the NRA support  requiring background checks for all firearm purchases.*_
*








						Poll: Most NRA members support comprehensive background checks
					

Most National Rifle Association (NRA) members support comprehensive background checks for those purchasing a firearm, according to a new poll.




					thehill.com
				



*As I said bullshit and bogus "polls". You can weight a poll to say pretty much anything you like by simply asking questions phrased correctly to a select group of people you know will give you the answer you wish. 
*The latest Quinnipiac poll was conducted Feb. 16–19 among 1,249 voters across the country and has a margin of error of 3.4 percentage points.*
You honestly think the attitudes of 1249 voters accurately reflect the attitudes of 300+ MILLION Americans even though we know nothing about how the people were questioned or why they were considered random? I hope not because that sounds like a special kind of stupid to me. Besides the polls all proved that Trump would never be nominated and could never be elected President. Right?

*3. Universal background checks are for all guns. Buying a gun from an individual is extremely easy. You give them the money, you get the gun. No background check. The seller doesn't even have to know your name. If you think guns are rarely used for criminal purposes, you're nuts.*
If you think passing more laws-especially ineffective laws-would make it harder for criminals to get guns you're the one who's nuts.


----------



## progressive hunter (May 31, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> > BULLDOG said:
> ...


or I could just repeat it for you,,all guns rocks and anything at hand are weapons of war,,,


----------



## BULLDOG (May 31, 2021)

9thIDdoc said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> > 9thIDdoc said:
> ...


Removing an easy source for guns from crooks will make it harder for them to get one. It won't stop them from getting one some other place, but why do you want to give  them more to choose from? It won't stop a single honest person from buying.


----------



## BlackSand (May 31, 2021)

progressive hunter said:


> or I could just repeat it for you,,all guns rocks and anything at hand are weapons of war,,,


.

Infectious diseases ... Fire, burning crops 100 miles away ... Women and children ... Thirst ... Cruelty 
All Weapons of War ... 

Fuck it ... Just outlaw everything.
I'll be the law enforcement and y'all get to go to prison.
Your prison will be wherever I am not standing, sitting or laying down at the moment.

.​


----------



## BULLDOG (May 31, 2021)

progressive hunter said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> > progressive hunter said:
> ...


That's nice, but you already said that right after bigreb did . I'm wondering about all those times over the last several days that you claim to have said it. I can't find them.


----------



## progressive hunter (May 31, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> > BULLDOG said:
> ...


well you are a fucking idiot,,


----------



## BlackSand (May 31, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> Removing an easy source for guns from crooks will make it harder for them to get one. It won't stop them from getting one some other place, but why do you want to give  them more to choose from? It won't stop a single honest person from buying.


.

There's goes the con-job.
It doesn't remove the source ... It changes the point or method of distribution.

.​


----------



## progressive hunter (May 31, 2021)

progressive hunter said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> > There are always people who live in their own little world, but if disagree with our military's definition, you're pretty much an idiot.
> ...


heres one dumbass,,


----------



## progressive hunter (May 31, 2021)

progressive hunter said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> > Grampa Murked U said:
> ...


heres another dumbass,,


----------



## progressive hunter (May 31, 2021)

progressive hunter said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> > BlackSand said:
> ...


heres another dumbass,,

would you like me to go on??


----------



## BULLDOG (May 31, 2021)

BlackSand said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> > or I could just repeat it for you,,all guns rocks and anything at hand are weapons of war,,,
> ...


Damn. You made a funny, and I laughed. All at once it looks like you turned into some sort of estrogen starved banshee. Mood swings getting you down?


----------



## BULLDOG (May 31, 2021)

progressive hunter said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> > progressive hunter said:
> ...


I'm gonna disagree there, but if I was, I would be a fucking idiot that can't find what you claim to have said.


----------



## BULLDOG (May 31, 2021)

BlackSand said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> > Removing an easy source for guns from crooks will make it harder for them to get one. It won't stop them from getting one some other place, but why do you want to give  them more to choose from? It won't stop a single honest person from buying.
> ...


No con job. Those other sources are already there. If your boat is sinking, you stop up every hole you can, even if you can't get all of them.


----------



## BlackSand (May 31, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> Damn. You made a funny, and I laughed. All at once it looks like you turned into some sort of estrogen starved banshee. Mood swings getting you down?


.

Actually ... I am just about always funny in the real world.
I am talking about friends passing out laughing when we get going ... Like they cannot fucking breath.

Unfortunately USMB doesn't tend to bring out my lighter side.
It's not really mood swings, just that sometimes, y'all really suck ...    

.​


----------



## BULLDOG (May 31, 2021)

progressive hunter said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> > BULLDOG said:
> ...


So the only guns covered by the 2nd are military grade weapons? We both know you weren't saying the AR15 is a weapon of war.


----------



## progressive hunter (May 31, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> > progressive hunter said:
> ...


not what I said dumbass,,


----------



## BULLDOG (May 31, 2021)

progressive hunter said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> > BULLDOG said:
> ...


Make up your mind. The 2nd didn't define what an assault rifle is. I would ask you to prove otherwise, but you're already grabbing at straws trying to find something that might sound like "an ar15 is a weapon of war"


----------



## progressive hunter (May 31, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> > progressive hunter said:
> ...


never said it did..


----------



## BlackSand (May 31, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> No con job. Those other sources are already there. If your boat is sinking, you stop up every hole you can, even if you can't get all of them.


.

If you happen to live in the South, go to a large gun dealer (Bass Pro, Academy or whatever) the day a truck delivers new firearms and ammunition.
Stay for a little while and observe who is buying what, and how much of it.

I don't want to tell you what to look for, because it will twist your head up, and you will want to fight with me about bullshit.

If you don't have that opportunity, sorry, I am not going to explain it to you.
But if you do have the opportunity, don't try to fight what is evident if you pay attention.

It's not rocket science, and you are smart enough to pick up on it.

.​


----------



## BULLDOG (May 31, 2021)

progressive hunter said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> > BULLDOG said:
> ...


All guns are covered by the 2nd. I gotta ask again. Are all guns considered weapons of war?


----------



## progressive hunter (May 31, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> > progressive hunter said:
> ...


if you use it in a war it is,, and if a rock is all you got then that to is a weapon of war,,


----------



## BULLDOG (May 31, 2021)

BlackSand said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> > Damn. You made a funny, and I laughed. All at once it looks like you turned into some sort of estrogen starved banshee. Mood swings getting you down?
> ...


Really? .... I do? .....  If you'd just give it a chance, I'll show you just how enjoyable that might be.


----------



## BULLDOG (May 31, 2021)

progressive hunter said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> > progressive hunter said:
> ...


Well make up your mind Boo Boo.


----------



## progressive hunter (May 31, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> > BULLDOG said:
> ...


about what??


----------



## BULLDOG (May 31, 2021)

BlackSand said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> > No con job. Those other sources are already there. If your boat is sinking, you stop up every hole you can, even if you can't get all of them.
> ...


And every buyer there has a background check. Not the same thing as a individual seller, is it?


----------



## BULLDOG (May 31, 2021)

progressive hunter said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> > progressive hunter said:
> ...


You are just floundering now.


----------



## progressive hunter (May 31, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> > BULLDOG said:
> ...


not at all,, what I said is very clear,,


----------



## BlackSand (May 31, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> Really? .... I do? .....  If you'd just give it a chance, I'll show you just how enjoyable that might be.


.

Hey now ... I said "y'all" and I didn't single you out.

And in the weapons of war ... I left out fireants ... I go to war with them quite often in the yard.
Not always devastating, but those little bastards use sneak attacks, special tactics and are mean as hell.

.​


----------



## BlackSand (May 31, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> And every buyer there has a background check. Not the same thing as a individual seller, is it?


.

Oh no ... I am talking about a large licensed dealer, following the law.
Nothing you will observe will be illegal at the point of sale.

I don't want to tell you too much, I don't want to taint your ability to give it a proper chance, and you are already thinking too much about it.
Give it a honest observation, look for trends, and look at the processes in the transactions.

If I were to give you a nudge ... Look for the people that are prepared to make the purchase before they walk through the door.
I seriously think, you can figure it out, and it will make a lot of what you currently think shift more than a little ...
Just real information, not position necessarily.

You will see what is going on, and how it effects *everything *and all the issues.
.​


----------



## westwall (Jun 1, 2021)

Colin norris said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Colin norris said:
> ...



If course it means nothing to an intellectual cripple like you but that doesn't mean it isn't fact. Look at your reply. Exactly the dismissals and stupidity I spoke of. Youll say and do anything to protect your ego. 
Every time there is talk of gun restriction, you all go out and buy more if that will alter the conversation. Then you complain to the government you can't get ammo.  Duuuuh.  Talk about dumb.
You take the new weapons home, kill a deer or something then put it away with the other 6 or 9 guns.  That stopped those pesky democrats. 
Then the cycle is repeated again.
The slaughters continue and you believe it's collateral damage for the price of freedom.

I don't care if you've got six of those slaughter machines.  My point is you have no need for them.
[/QUOTE]







How do you know?  You have no idea what I need.  Nor does your opinion matter.


----------



## 2aguy (Jun 1, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> BlackSand said:
> 
> 
> > BULLDOG said:
> ...



Individuals sell their private property, and the only way to keep track would be to mandate a gun registry.......which what you actually want, because you don't care about actually stopping criminals.

You want the gun registry because you know that throughout history, past and current, gun registration is needed to keep law abiding gun owners from hiding their guns.


----------



## BULLDOG (Jun 1, 2021)

2aguy said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> > BlackSand said:
> ...


Just shut your pie hole. We do background checks for new guns without a registry, and we can do the same for used guns. As much as you whine about a gun registry, I'm beginning to think it wouldn't be such a bad idea after all.


----------



## daveman (Jun 1, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > BULLDOG said:
> ...


The part where you imply criminals will start obeying the law if we pass JUST ONE MORE.

Hint:  They won't.


----------



## daveman (Jun 1, 2021)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> > daveman said:
> ...


He wants to make it DOUBLE SECRET ILLEGAL.


----------



## daveman (Jun 1, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > BULLDOG said:
> ...


Another little bitch-fit that people are allowed to disagree with you.

Too bad.


----------



## BULLDOG (Jun 1, 2021)

daveman said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> > daveman said:
> ...


So other than the law, what is stopping more people from having fully automatic weapons?


----------



## BULLDOG (Jun 1, 2021)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> > daveman said:
> ...


I never said I want private sales to be illegal. Quit making shit up.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Jun 1, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> > progressive hunter said:
> ...


The supreme court did not rule the weapon had tto be a weapon of war just "of use" to the military


----------



## BULLDOG (Jun 1, 2021)

daveman said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> > daveman said:
> ...


Disagree all you want. Don't expect me to read pages of the same shit you posted yesterday, the day before that, and the day before that.


----------



## BULLDOG (Jun 1, 2021)

RetiredGySgt said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> > progressive hunter said:
> ...


Ok. And?


----------



## daveman (Jun 1, 2021)

Colin norris said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Colin norris said:
> ...



If course it means nothing to an intellectual cripple like you but that doesn't mean it isn't fact. Look at your reply. Exactly the dismissals and stupidity I spoke of. Youll say and do anything to protect your ego. 
Every time there is talk of gun restriction, you all go out and buy more if that will alter the conversation. Then you complain to the government you can't get ammo.  Duuuuh.  Talk about dumb.
You take the new weapons home, kill a deer or something then put it away with the other 6 or 9 guns.  That stopped those pesky democrats. 
Then the cycle is repeated again.
The slaughters continue and you believe it's collateral damage for the price of freedom.

I don't care if you've got six of those slaughter machines.  My point is you have no need for them.
[/QUOTE]
Nobody asked your permission.  Nobody needs your permission.


----------



## daveman (Jun 1, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> > BULLDOG said:
> ...


Why do you think you're fooling?  You want a registry, and you want guns confiscated.


----------



## daveman (Jun 1, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > BULLDOG said:
> ...


They're expensive, you retard.


----------



## daveman (Jun 1, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > BULLDOG said:
> ...


Yeah, no point.  It's not like you'd give any consideration to other points of view.


----------



## TeeDub (Jun 1, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> Polishprince said:
> 
> 
> > "assault weapon" isn't a valid description of anything.  M4 isn't an "assault weapon" either.
> ...


So how many people have been killed by a fully auto AR15? ZERO.  If you had a AR15 shooting in "fully auto mode" it's barrel would melt.


----------



## daveman (Jun 1, 2021)

TeeDub said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> > Polishprince said:
> ...


BUT THEY MIGHT SOMEDAY BE KILLED ITS EASY TO CONVERT IVE SAID SO SEVERAL TIMES SO ITS TRUE AND THATS WHY ARS SHOULD BE BANNED THEIR SOOOOOO DANGEROUS

-- Bulldog


----------



## westwall (Jun 1, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > Colin norris said:
> ...


Many in the gun owning community do want some weapons banned.  The numbers fluctuate some, but basically, much more than half of the country wants limits. No reason why Constitutional laws cant be fashioned to limit the sale of guns. I don't advocate out right banning, but if something isn't done to reduce the sales of guns to known criminals, a ban might be in our future.

Two-thirds of Americans support assault weapons ban: Fox News poll
[/QUOTE]






No, they don't.   Those are fake polls promulgated by propagandists.   The AR-15 is single most popular rifle type in the country.

That is a fact.


----------



## 9thIDdoc (Jun 1, 2021)

If there were a way to stop all sales to known criminals (and background checks cannot do that) it wouldn't be that much of a problem for criminals. Guns are highly durable. I have killed deer with rifles that may have been involved in the Spanish-American war or WWI or II and may still be in fine shape decades from now. What makes anyone think that criminals _need_ to buy more guns? Most have had ample opportunity to store more than they could reasonably use in several lifetimes. Those that haven't had that kind of foresight could simply steal them from legal gun owners including police and military (who have real assault rifles or whatever else they might want) or other criminals. And if the government becomes criminal what's going to stop it from buying guns? And of course not all criminals are _known_ criminals. And of course that excludes those who seem to suddenly become stark raving crazy and are probably by far the biggest percentage of mass murderers. Some folks just seem determined to continue to beat a dead horse.


----------



## BULLDOG (Jun 1, 2021)

daveman said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> > 2aguy said:
> ...


You can believe anything you want to believe, no matter how goofy and wrong it might be.


----------



## BULLDOG (Jun 1, 2021)

daveman said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> > daveman said:
> ...


You can convert an AR for about $100.


----------



## BULLDOG (Jun 1, 2021)

daveman said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> > daveman said:
> ...


But I have read all that crap, and did consider it. multiple times. If that's all he's got, repetition won't make it any more true.


----------



## BULLDOG (Jun 1, 2021)

TeeDub said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> > Polishprince said:
> ...


How many people have been killed doesn't effect the ability to convert to fully auto capability. More substantial barrels are easily available.


----------



## BULLDOG (Jun 1, 2021)

daveman said:


> TeeDub said:
> 
> 
> > BULLDOG said:
> ...


And you haven't said what part of the conversion is expensive or otherwise too hard to do. Keep in mind that every member of the military who was issued a rifle was trained to completely disassemble and reassemble the weapon they were issued. It's not like it involves some darkly held secret.


----------



## BULLDOG (Jun 1, 2021)

westwall said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...








No, they don't.   Those are fake polls promulgated by propagandists.   The AR-15 is single most popular rifle type in the country.

That is a fact.
[/QUOTE]
So fox news is now an anti-gun propagandist? Really?


----------



## westwall (Jun 1, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > BULLDOG said:
> ...


So fox news is now an anti-gun propagandist? Really?
[/QUOTE]





Fox is still MSM, so yeah.


----------



## BlackSand (Jun 1, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> So fox news is now an anti-gun propagandist? Really?


.

Sweetie ... I wouldn't care if Fox News or The New York Times published a poll that said 75% of Americans supported Slavery.

*It still wouldn't change what the Thirteenth Amendment says, means or the Rights it Protects.*
It wouldn't even matter if you felt like supporting the idea that only Government Approved Outlets could sell Slaves.

.​


----------



## JoeMoma (Jun 1, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> Jarlaxle said:
> 
> 
> > Well, no, it cannot be "easily" converted-the receiver is different.
> ...


No, most people can't make that easily in their garage with a grinder and a vice.


----------



## BULLDOG (Jun 1, 2021)

JoeMoma said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> > Jarlaxle said:
> ...


Which part do you think is impossible for the average tinkerer? Of course a simple slide table would make it much easier. The width and the location of the drilled hole are the only 2 critical measurements on it. The rest can be a few thousandths off without a problem.


----------



## JoeMoma (Jun 1, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> Which part do you think is impossible for the average tinkerer?


Now you have moved the goal posts.  Most people are not tinkerers when it comes to making metal components.


----------



## BULLDOG (Jun 2, 2021)

JoeMoma said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> > Which part do you think is impossible for the average tinkerer?
> ...


You gotta bolt a small vice on the slide to hold the metal block
You don't think you could put a piece of 1/2" x 1 1/2"  x 3/4" inch metal in the vice, adjust the height, and make a few cuts on a simple jig like this? Come on now.


----------



## westwall (Jun 2, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> JoeMoma said:
> 
> 
> > BULLDOG said:
> ...







Make one.  Show us all how handy you are.


----------



## BULLDOG (Jun 2, 2021)

westwall said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> > JoeMoma said:
> ...


I just showed you how to make one.


----------



## JoeMoma (Jun 2, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> JoeMoma said:
> 
> 
> > BULLDOG said:
> ...


I'm not saying that it can't be done or even that it is difficult to do for someone that has the tools and experience using them.  Most people don't.


----------



## BlackSand (Jun 2, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> I just showed you how to make one.


.

It's not that hard to pour kerosene in a glass bottle and stick a rag in the top.
Of course that doesn't necessarily make it legal, won't keep you out of trouble and is still dangerous.

.​


----------



## BULLDOG (Jun 2, 2021)

JoeMoma said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> > JoeMoma said:
> ...


That has been my point from the start. It's not hard to do. You are the first to admit that reality.


----------



## BULLDOG (Jun 2, 2021)

BlackSand said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> > I just showed you how to make one.
> ...


I said it was illegal in the OP, and repeated the same thing several times throughout the thread. The point was that it's not a hard thing to do.


----------



## Blues Man (Jun 2, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> JoeMoma said:
> 
> 
> > BULLDOG said:
> ...


And yet no one converts an Ar into a fully automatic weapon.

So please stop trying to tell us that they do


----------



## BlackSand (Jun 2, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> I said it was illegal in the OP, and repeated the same thing several times throughout the thread. The point was that it's not a hard thing to do.


.

I know ... I had been watching folks arguing the same thing around and around.

I tend to try to throw in something, related but different, from time to time to demonstrate the simplicity of the actual argument.
I mean, I am not always good at it, but I try to shake things up to allow someone to get out of the trenches.

.​


----------



## BULLDOG (Jun 2, 2021)

Blues Man said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> > JoeMoma said:
> ...


I've proven that it's not hard to do. We both know lots of crooks would love to have one. Why do you think so few do it? Could that be because crooks do care about at least one gun law? I  thought crooks don't care about laws.


----------



## BULLDOG (Jun 2, 2021)

BlackSand said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> > I said it was illegal in the OP, and repeated the same thing several times throughout the thread. The point was that it's not a hard thing to do.
> ...


You done good.


----------



## 2aguy (Jun 2, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > BULLDOG said:
> ...




So?


----------



## 2aguy (Jun 2, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> TeeDub said:
> 
> 
> > BULLDOG said:
> ...




And?


----------



## 2aguy (Jun 2, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> TeeDub said:
> 
> 
> > BULLDOG said:
> ...




I know....what we can do since you seemed obsessed with this tiny aspect of gun ownership?

We can make it against the law to commit a crime or murder with any rifle converted to full automatic mode.

There....

End of Thread.


----------



## Blues Man (Jun 2, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> > BULLDOG said:
> ...


I know no such thing.

Criminals like handguns you can't carry a rifle slung over your shoulder and not draw attention to yourself so your  fear that all these criminals are going to start converting ARs into full auto rifles is irrational


----------



## 2aguy (Jun 2, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> > BULLDOG said:
> ...



We both know lots of crooks would love to have one.


Actually, you haven't proven that.

*You have been shown that American criminals prefer handguns since they are easy to carry, whether by the criminal or in the baby momma's purse, easy to hide, and easy to throw away.

Why do you think so few do it? Could that be because crooks do care about at least one gun law? I  thought crooks don't care about laws.

The criminals in Europe want fully automatic military rifles and so they get them...*

You have also been shown that criminals in Europe don't have to convert AR-15s since their weapon of choice is the already fully automatic military rifle and they also use grenades......I am pretty sure hand grenades are illegal in Europe too.....

So.......what is your point?


----------



## BULLDOG (Jun 2, 2021)

Blues Man said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> > Blues Man said:
> ...


What makes you think I fear that? I never said I expected that to happen. In fact, I'm pretty sure most won't even consider it. The penalty for an illegal fully auto rifle is just too high. Looks like some gun laws aren't ignored.


----------



## Blues Man (Jun 2, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> > BULLDOG said:
> ...


You fear it because you have spent 45 pages telling people how easy it is and trying to convince people that it's only a matter of time until we have gangs roaming the streets with fully auto AR 15 rifles but in reality no one does it.


----------



## 2aguy (Jun 2, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> > BULLDOG said:
> ...




Higher than murder?  

Are you really this dumb.......


----------



## hadit (Jun 2, 2021)

Flash said:


> whitehall said:
> 
> 
> > Typical of gun grabbers to make an outrageous comment (AR-15's are easily converted to full automatic) and then move on without comment as if it is fact. The fact is that it's not easy and some AR's could blow up and the biggest thing is that no gunsmith would touch one because it could get you substantial time in the slammer. To my knowledge there is no account of a "converted" AR used in a crime.
> ...


Yes, he did, and he told us to shoot blindly through the door. Really brainy stuff there, Quid Pro.


----------



## miketx (Jun 2, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> The M4 is the main rifle used by the US military, and no one could question that it is an assault rifle.  The M4 is capable of full automatic fire, and 3 round burst, and the AR15 is not. Of course, it would be illegal, but the AR15 can easily be converted to allow those types of fire. Other than that difference, what makes an M4 an assault weapon, and an AR15 not?


----------



## BULLDOG (Jun 2, 2021)

Blues Man said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> > Blues Man said:
> ...


I'm always amazed at how much shit you make up, and then convince yourself it is real. I never gave any reason to believe I expect gangs roaming the streets with fully auto weapons. I just said the conversion wasn't so hard.


----------



## Blues Man (Jun 2, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> > BULLDOG said:
> ...



And that you just KNOW that ALL criminals want fully auto AR 15s

Don't forget that part


----------



## BULLDOG (Jun 2, 2021)

miketx said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> > The M4 is the main rifle used by the US military, and no one could question that it is an assault rifle.  The M4 is capable of full automatic fire, and 3 round burst, and the AR15 is not. Of course, it would be illegal, but the AR15 can easily be converted to allow those types of fire. Other than that difference, what makes an M4 an assault weapon, and an AR15 not?
> ...


Neat trick mikey. I never considered using overlays like that.


----------



## BULLDOG (Jun 2, 2021)

Blues Man said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> > Blues Man said:
> ...


Probably not all.


----------



## Blues Man (Jun 2, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> Blues Man said:
> 
> 
> > BULLDOG said:
> ...


Probably hardly any


----------



## miketx (Jun 2, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> miketx said:
> 
> 
> > BULLDOG said:
> ...


It's called changing the layer opacity.


----------



## BULLDOG (Jun 2, 2021)

miketx said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> > miketx said:
> ...


I know what it's called. I just never thought to use it here.


----------



## 9thIDdoc (Jun 2, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> BlackSand said:
> 
> 
> > BULLDOG said:
> ...


And the response is "Who cares? And for what rational reason?


----------



## JoeMoma (Jun 2, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> JoeMoma said:
> 
> 
> > BULLDOG said:
> ...


It's not hard for people skilled in machining or metal working.. which is not most people.


----------



## 2aguy (Jun 2, 2021)

JoeMoma said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> > JoeMoma said:
> ...




Not true.....I took some paperclips, a stapler and a toaster and just built a fully automatic AR-15 rifle from scratch......now try to tell us that criminals all over the country don't want to do that too....


----------



## BULLDOG (Jun 2, 2021)

JoeMoma said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> > JoeMoma said:
> ...


not much skill needed with that little jig. You can measure, can't you?


----------



## miketx (Jun 2, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> miketx said:
> 
> 
> > BULLDOG said:
> ...


I use Elements 2020, what do you use?


----------



## westwall (Jun 2, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > BULLDOG said:
> ...










Make it.  Show us your work.


----------



## westwall (Jun 2, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> JoeMoma said:
> 
> 
> > BULLDOG said:
> ...






So make it.   Show us your skills.


----------



## Jarlaxle (Jun 2, 2021)

Why are you telling him to commit a Federal felony?


----------



## westwall (Jun 2, 2021)

Jarlaxle said:


> Why are you telling him to commit a Federal felony?






He says it's easy.  All he has to do is make a larger version of it and it’s completely legal.  So long as it doesn't fit into a weapon it is merely a widget.  

I want to see the quality of his work. 

Also, large objects are easy to make.  Small are hard.  So if he can't do a big one, he certainly won't be able to do a small one.


----------



## miketx (Jun 2, 2021)

Jarlaxle said:


> Why are you telling him to commit a Federal felony?


He used to be a mod, he still has his powers.


----------



## Jarlaxle (Jun 2, 2021)

miketx said:


> Jarlaxle said:
> 
> 
> > Why are you telling him to commit a Federal felony?
> ...


Are you intoxicated?


----------



## miketx (Jun 2, 2021)

Jarlaxle said:


> miketx said:
> 
> 
> > Jarlaxle said:
> ...


My wife says I'm intoxicating.


----------



## BULLDOG (Jun 2, 2021)

miketx said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> > miketx said:
> ...


Blender


----------



## miketx (Jun 2, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> miketx said:
> 
> 
> > BULLDOG said:
> ...


I'll take a look at that, if you can download it I might could use it. Thanks.


----------



## BULLDOG (Jun 2, 2021)

miketx said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> > miketx said:
> ...


It's free, but you can do anything with it. The learning curve is really steep. I have 2 versions on my machine. Blendercam for 3d modeling and G Code generation for CNC, and Blender 2.77 for video editing, and animation, and game rendering, and god knows what else it will do. Check it out.


----------



## miketx (Jun 2, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> miketx said:
> 
> 
> > BULLDOG said:
> ...


I will. The learning curve with Photoshop is steep too and if it's like that or worse I'll just keep Blender for a toy.


----------



## BULLDOG (Jun 2, 2021)

miketx said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> > miketx said:
> ...


I found Photoshop easy. Blender, not so much. If you set up to do one thing, it's not so bad, but if you start changing and adding control panels, it gets a little dicey.


----------



## daveman (Jun 2, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > BULLDOG said:
> ...


You can believe you're fooling people, but you're not.


----------



## daveman (Jun 2, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > BULLDOG said:
> ...


Yeah, so you keep insisting.  It's cheap and easy.

So how come criminals aren't doing it?  You keep running from that question.


----------



## daveman (Jun 2, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > BULLDOG said:
> ...


No, you haven't.  You discarded it because it's not the answer YOU'VE dictated are correct.

This thread was over the first page.


----------



## daveman (Jun 2, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > TeeDub said:
> ...


Oh, so now the parts are readily available?  You said there was some easy machining that could be done with standard shop hand tools.

Why do you keep moving the goalposts?  Is it because even you are starting to realize you're full of shit?


----------



## daveman (Jun 2, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > BULLDOG said:
> ...


You're the one claiming it's so easy -- so you do it.


----------



## daveman (Jun 2, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> BlackSand said:
> 
> 
> > BULLDOG said:
> ...


So why are you encouraging others to break the law?

And yes, you are, so don't bother denying that again.


----------



## 2aguy (Jun 2, 2021)

daveman said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> > daveman said:
> ...




In Europe, the criminals across the continent don't convert AR-15s....because they have fully automatic military rifles and grenades.....which they are using more and more often...


----------



## 2aguy (Jun 2, 2021)

2aguy said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > BULLDOG said:
> ...




The anti-gunners don't want to see this truth......the welfare states of Europe have created fatherless homes......and now those children are turning to gangs.....and gang violence is increasing across the country.....
*
The most recent killing to shake France was that of Aymane, 15, who was shot in the troubled Seine-Saint-Denis suburbs outside Paris on February 26.*









						What is behind the increase in gang violence in France?
					

France has been alarmed over recent weeks by a spate of killings of young people in gang violence in the Paris region during the school holidays. Experts say that the role of social media and the economic…




					www.france24.com
				




*An unidentified gunman calmly shot dead a man and badly injured a woman outside a Paris hospital on Monday before fleeing the scene on a scooter, police and witnesses said.
-----*
*'Walked off with amazing calmness' *
*
The owner of a restaurant across the street from the hospital told the BFMTV television channel that he also heard shots ringing out.
*
*"I turned around and I saw a guy with a hoodie firing. **Then I saw him approach a guy lying on the ground and put two bullets in his head to finish him off," he said.*


Officials ruled out a terrorist attack, with witness statements appearing to point to a targeted killing.









						Man shot dead outside Paris hospital in apparent 'targeted killing'
					

An unidentified gunman calmly shot dead a man and badly injured a woman outside a Paris hospital on Monday before fleeing the scene on a scooter, police and witnesses said.




					www.france24.com


----------



## daveman (Jun 2, 2021)

2aguy said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > BULLDOG said:
> ...


Indeed.  However, Bulldog is having the vapors because he insists American criminals _might_ do it; therefore, we must ban the AR entirely.


----------



## BULLDOG (Jun 2, 2021)

daveman said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> > daveman said:
> ...


Don't know how? Think it's some mysterious process, and afraid to try? Who knows? Lots of certified gun nuts right here entered the thread with the idea it was so hard till it was virtually impossible


----------



## BULLDOG (Jun 2, 2021)

daveman said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> > daveman said:
> ...


yet you keep coming back to whine.


----------



## BULLDOG (Jun 2, 2021)

daveman said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> > daveman said:
> ...


That's what I said from the start. There are 3 parts that are readily available. The bolt, which might already be M16 compatible. Some manufacturers only sell one bolt to fit either rifle. A hammer, and a selector. A tiny DIAS that isn't much bigger than your thumb isn't that hard to make. I haven't moved any goal post.


----------



## BULLDOG (Jun 2, 2021)

daveman said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...


I already showed you how dumb ass.


----------



## BULLDOG (Jun 2, 2021)

daveman said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> > BlackSand said:
> ...


Ok, I won't. Feel free to call the ATF if you think I have done anything illegal.


----------



## westwall (Jun 2, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> JoeMoma said:
> 
> 
> > BULLDOG said:
> ...







And yet you don’t make one.  There's a mountain of difference between looking at a diagram, and making one.

So do it smartass.


----------



## daveman (Jun 3, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > BULLDOG said:
> ...


Still trying to get people to break the law, huh?

So.  You want to ban the AR platform because SOMEONE MIGHT SOMEDAY convert one to full automatic and commit a crime with it.

Nope.  Not gonna happen, Drama Queen.


----------



## daveman (Jun 3, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > BULLDOG said:
> ...


I'm just waiting for you to admit you want ARs banned.  I mean, it's not like nobody doesn't know it already.


----------



## daveman (Jun 3, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > BULLDOG said:
> ...


And yet, oddly, you haven't shown anyone how easy it is.  You just stamp your feet and insist it's so.   

Nope.  Not banning the AR just to assuage your butthurt.


----------



## daveman (Jun 3, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > BULLDOG said:
> ...


You haven't done it.  Hop to it, boy.


----------



## daveman (Jun 3, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > BULLDOG said:
> ...


I'm not a leftist who needs the government to take care of me.  Why would I tattle on you for breaking a law I think is unconstitutional?


----------



## BULLDOG (Jun 3, 2021)

daveman said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> > daveman said:
> ...


You keep saying the same dumb things that aren't true, don't you?


----------



## BULLDOG (Jun 3, 2021)

daveman said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> > daveman said:
> ...


Ok. You let me know how that works out for you.


----------



## daveman (Jun 3, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > BULLDOG said:
> ...


It's funny how you believe your end goal isn't plain.


----------



## daveman (Jun 3, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > BULLDOG said:
> ...


Oh, I doubt you're going to break out in a fit of honesty at this late date.


----------



## BULLDOG (Jun 3, 2021)

daveman said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> > daveman said:
> ...


Your  straw man skills are amazing.


----------



## westwall (Jun 3, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > BULLDOG said:
> ...







Still waiting for you to show your skills.

Hop to it boy!  Make one of those things double sized.  Show YOUR  work.


----------



## westwall (Jun 3, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > BULLDOG said:
> ...






Your idiocy even more so.


----------



## BULLDOG (Jun 3, 2021)

westwall said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> > daveman said:
> ...


I didn't consider that. Why should I bother though. You would just nit pick it, and claim it's not accurate. My point is that it's not that hard to do. I'm confident I have proven that.


----------



## westwall (Jun 3, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > BULLDOG said:
> ...







You claim it's easy.

Build one and show your work.   Make it double size so  that it is merely a widget and not a gun part.


You have proven nothing other than you can post a picture.  Monkeys can do that too.  

Build the thing and show us how easy it is.


----------



## daveman (Jun 4, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > BULLDOG said:
> ...


It's not me drama queening about the government must take action to prevent this thing that nobody does.


----------



## daveman (Jun 4, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > BULLDOG said:
> ...


You said it was.

You saying it is not proof.  Except to gullible morons like yourself.


----------



## BULLDOG (Jun 4, 2021)

daveman said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> > daveman said:
> ...


Can you point to anywhere in this thread where I said the government must take action on anything?


----------



## westwall (Jun 4, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > BULLDOG said:
> ...







Still waiting for you to show your work.


----------



## BULLDOG (Jun 4, 2021)

daveman said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...


Obviously there are some idiots that would never be able to figure it out.


----------



## westwall (Jun 4, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > BULLDOG said:
> ...








Still waiting.  You said it was easy.

Show your work or admit that you can't do it, and it's not easy.

Just so you know your continued inability to make even an oversize piece proves you are wrong.

It's NOT an easy part to make.

Thank you for so eloquently proving our point.


----------



## JoeMoma (Jun 4, 2021)

westwall said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> > daveman said:
> ...


It is easy to make.   Drop a blue print and a few hundred dollars off at a machine shop and they can probably have it made in a couple of weeks.


----------



## daveman (Jun 4, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > BULLDOG said:
> ...


If you don't, why all the fear-mongering?  

You want to ban ARs.  That's beyond doubt.


----------



## daveman (Jun 4, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > BULLDOG said:
> ...


You've already pathetically tried shaming people into breaking the law.  Pathetic then, pathetic now.


----------



## 2aguy (Jun 4, 2021)

JoeMoma said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > BULLDOG said:
> ...




That isn't what he is claiming......bulldog claims anyone can throw one together in their garage...


----------



## daveman (Jun 4, 2021)

2aguy said:


> JoeMoma said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...


He also claims criminals want to do it.

He says a lot of bullshit.


----------



## 2aguy (Jun 4, 2021)

daveman said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> > JoeMoma said:
> ...




If they wanted to do it it would be done.....they want handguns......Mexican drug cartels in Mexico want fully automatic military weapons....and they get them......European criminals want fully automatic military rifles, and they get them...


----------



## daveman (Jun 4, 2021)

2aguy said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > 2aguy said:
> ...


They would -- if they wanted to.

Bulldog insists they don't because _this is the one law_ they obey.


----------



## JoeMoma (Jun 4, 2021)

2aguy said:


> JoeMoma said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...


Yes, I know what he is claiming, and I disagreed with him many posts ago.


----------



## BULLDOG (Jun 4, 2021)

westwall said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> > daveman said:
> ...


You have to know you aren't going to goad me into making one and documenting it here, right?


----------



## daveman (Jun 4, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > BULLDOG said:
> ...


Why do you keep trying to goad others?


----------



## westwall (Jun 4, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > BULLDOG said:
> ...








If you make it double size it is a widget.  Not a gun part, thus completely legal.

So do it.

Show your work.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Jun 10, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > BULLDOG said:
> ...


Well then stop insinuating that's what you want.


----------



## BULLDOG (Jun 10, 2021)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...


I can't help the crazy shit you imagine in your little mind.


----------



## westwall (Jun 10, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > BULLDOG said:
> ...







Sure you can.  Just stop being a moron.

It'll work wonders for you.


----------



## BULLDOG (Jun 10, 2021)

westwall said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...


Did somebody just fart? Sounded like somebody just farted.


----------



## daveman (Jun 12, 2021)

So, this thread (which was over the first page) has gone on almost a thousand posts, because Bulldog didn't get the answer he wanted.  

And he's never said what his purpose was, although it was insanely obvious.


----------



## BULLDOG (Jun 12, 2021)

daveman said:


> So, this thread (which was over the first page) has gone on almost a thousand posts, because Bulldog didn't get the answer he wanted.
> 
> And he's never said what his purpose was, although it was insanely obvious.


Not my fault if gun nuts can't answer a direct question with an answer that actually relates to the question. 1000 posts of misdirection and diversion by gun nuts.


----------



## westwall (Jun 12, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > So, this thread (which was over the first page) has gone on almost a thousand posts, because Bulldog didn't get the answer he wanted.
> ...






Not our fault that you aren't nearly as clever as you think you are.


----------



## BULLDOG (Jun 12, 2021)

westwall said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> > daveman said:
> ...


Odd that you would think I concern myself with what you might think is clever.


----------



## westwall (Jun 12, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > BULLDOG said:
> ...







I don't care.  It's an old principle that stupid people, such as yourself, are so stupid you don't know you're stupid.  

I believe it is called Dunning Kruger Effect.

You should look it up.

Might explain things to you.


----------



## daveman (Jun 12, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > So, this thread (which was over the first page) has gone on almost a thousand posts, because Bulldog didn't get the answer he wanted.
> ...


And yet again, horseshit.

You didn't get the answer you wanted, which, though you continue to ridiculously deny it, is "AR-15s should be banned because they're virtually identical to fully-automatic military weapons!!"

Deny it again.  It's simply not believable.


----------



## daveman (Jun 12, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > BULLDOG said:
> ...


Has anyone who supports the 2nd Amendment agreed with you in this thread?

No?  You were wanting to change hearts and minds, right?

How'd that work out?


----------



## BULLDOG (Jun 12, 2021)

westwall said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...


Thank you for your suggestion. I'm always curious about what you might come up with next, but I'm rarely surprised at the quality and maturity of your missives.  This one seems to be as relevant and informative as most of the things you post. As always, I will give your suggestion all of the consideration it deserves.


----------



## daveman (Jun 12, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > BULLDOG said:
> ...


Man, you sure do get angry when people don't kiss your ass in the manner to which you believe you're entitled.


----------



## BULLDOG (Jun 12, 2021)

daveman said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...


Don't be ridiculous. I know it's impossible to change the mind of a gun nut about anything. I am amused that you think supporting the 2nd amendment is the same as being a gun nut, but I won't try to change your mind about that either.


----------



## BULLDOG (Jun 12, 2021)

daveman said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...


You aren't capable of making me angry.


----------



## daveman (Jun 12, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > BULLDOG said:
> ...


Because you're unable to make a rational argument.  This whole thread has been about your fear of automatic weapons.


----------



## daveman (Jun 12, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > BULLDOG said:
> ...


Oh, that's an outright lie.


----------



## BULLDOG (Jun 12, 2021)

daveman said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> > daveman said:
> ...


I suppose it would make you more comfortable to believe that.


----------



## BULLDOG (Jun 12, 2021)

daveman said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> > daveman said:
> ...


Nope. That won't do it either. Here's a suggestion. Quit trying the things that would aggravate you or any other childish gun nut. Those things rarely bother me.


----------



## daveman (Jun 12, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > BULLDOG said:
> ...


You're projecting your emotionalism on me.  That's a mistake; your intellectual failures are your own.  

You've been asked many times about your motive in this thread.

_You have never answered_.


----------



## daveman (Jun 12, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > BULLDOG said:
> ...


That's you, projecting yet again.  You simply can't help it.


----------



## BULLDOG (Jun 12, 2021)

daveman said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> > daveman said:
> ...


If you say so.


----------



## daveman (Jun 12, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > BULLDOG said:
> ...


You don't have to agree.  I'd be surprised if you did.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Jun 13, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > So, this thread (which was over the first page) has gone on almost a thousand posts, because Bulldog didn't get the answer he wanted.
> ...


your topic was blatantly obvious you're just too stupid to realize people can see it. and your question was answered on December 15 1792


----------



## sarahgop (Jun 13, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> The M4 is the main rifle used by the US military, and no one could question that it is an assault rifle.  The M4 is capable of full automatic fire, and 3 round burst, and the AR15 is not. Of course, it would be illegal, but the AR15 can easily be converted to allow those types of fire. Other than that difference, what makes an M4 an assault weapon, and an AR15 not?


I question that. My firearm knowlege is similar to Biden's overall brain power. In other words im lacking  in what an M4 is like  Biden lacks all living  brain cells.


----------



## daveman (Jun 13, 2021)

daveman said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> > daveman said:
> ...


Hey, Bulldog, pretending this post doesn't exist doesn't magically erase it from reality.


----------



## BULLDOG (Jun 13, 2021)

sarahgop said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> > The M4 is the main rifle used by the US military, and no one could question that it is an assault rifle.  The M4 is capable of full automatic fire, and 3 round burst, and the AR15 is not. Of course, it would be illegal, but the AR15 can easily be converted to allow those types of fire. Other than that difference, what makes an M4 an assault weapon, and an AR15 not?
> ...


Right wing play book -------- Got nothing intelligent to say? Childishly insult Biden, or Obama, or ......


----------



## BULLDOG (Jun 13, 2021)

daveman said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > BULLDOG said:
> ...


I've already stated my purpose for this thread. If you don't understand that purpose, or choose to not believe it, that's your problem, not mine.


----------



## daveman (Jun 13, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > daveman said:
> ...


Link.


----------



## daveman (Jun 14, 2021)

daveman said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> > I've already stated my purpose for this thread. If you don't understand that purpose, or choose to not believe it, that's your problem, not mine.
> ...


_Narrator:  Oddly enough, no link was forthcoming._


----------



## BULLDOG (Jun 14, 2021)

daveman said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > BULLDOG said:
> ...


I'm not going through the entire thread to show you what has already been said.


----------



## daveman (Jun 14, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > daveman said:
> ...


Oh, gosh!  You weaseled out of it!  I'm shocked -- SHOCKED, I say!

Run along, gun grabber.  You're not changing any rational people's minds.


----------

