Banning AR-15's Doesn't Make Sense To Me

[M14 Shooter]

Let’s see if we can have a civil, logical discussion on banning high-powered weapons such as AR-15’s.

I do NOT support banning these weapons and here’s why. We’re always going to have these high-powered guns in existence

We'll always have weapons grade plutonium in existence, too.

Irrelevamt - but then you knew that.
More evidence that anti-gun loons can only argue from emotion, ignorance and/or dishonesty.

 

[Uncensored2008]

I'm sure this has been pointed out in this thread, but the AR-15 is NOT a high powered rifle. It shoots a .223 round which is popular with the military because it isn't high powered.

Tests in the 1950's showed that soldiers firing an M-14 flinched before firing, awaiting the recoil of the .30-06 round. This threw off accuracy. The Army went looking for a lower powered round - which initially was delivered with a modified M-14 called the "Mini 14," and then the M-16, both chambered for .223 rounds. It's because the .223 is lower power - and doesn't kick like a mule, that it became so popular. The Nato 5.56 mm round is the same size as a .223 and has replaced it in the M-4, which can fire either round.

 

[JWBooth]

I'm sure this has been pointed out in this thread, but the AR-15 is NOT a high powered rifle. It shoots a .223 round which is popular with the military because it isn't high powered.

Tests in the 1950's showed that soldiers firing an M-14 flinched before firing, awaiting the recoil of the .30-06 round. This threw off accuracy. The Army went looking for a lower powered round - which initially was delivered with a modified M-14 called the "Mini 14," and then the M-16, both chambered for .223 rounds. It's because the .223 is lower power - and doesn't kick like a mule, that it became so popular. The Nato 5.56 mm round is the same size as a .223 and has replaced it in the M-4, which can fire either round.

Hmmmmm the M-14 I used fired a .308/7.65 round.

EDIT: 7.62...thats what I get for not looking at the keypad when I type....

 

[M14 Shooter]

I'm sure this has been pointed out in this thread, but the AR-15 is NOT a high powered rifle. It shoots a .223 round which is popular with the military because it isn't high powered.

Tests in the 1950's showed that soldiers firing an M-14 flinched before firing, awaiting the recoil of the .30-06 round. This threw off accuracy. The Army went looking for a lower powered round - which initially was delivered with a modified M-14 called the "Mini 14," and then the M-16, both chambered for .223 rounds. It's because the .223 is lower power - and doesn't kick like a mule, that it became so popular. The Nato 5.56 mm round is the same size as a .223 and has replaced it in the M-4, which can fire either round.

Hmmmmm the M-14 I used fired a .308/7.65 round.

.308/7.62x51

 

[Uncensored2008]

Hmmmmm the M-14 I used fired a .308/7.65 round.

{The T25 was designed to use the T65 service cartridge, a Frankford Arsenal design based upon .30-06 cartridge case used in the M1 service rifle, but shortened to the length of the .300 Savage case.[8] Although shorter than the .30-06, with less powder capacity, the T65 cartridge retained the ballistics and energy of the .30-06 due to the use of a recently developed ball powder made by Olin Industries.[8][9] After experimenting with several bullet designs, the T65 was finalized for adoption as the 7.62×51mm NATO cartridge}

M14 rifle - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Skull Pilot]

Well I kinda am for banning assault weapons.

But since you guys think it's a right..lets go with that a bit. Let's say it's a right.

You can't buy and sell your rights, you are sorta married to them. You are also sort of responsible for what you do with them.

What might be cool is if the same thing happened with guns. Say you buy a gun..you are married to it for life. What ever happens with that gun..is on the owner. The owner is completely liable for the actions of the gun..as long as it exists.

Wonder how many gun owners would go for that.

How many times do you have to be told that an AR15 that shoots a .223 round is functionally no different than any other semiautomatic rifle that shoots a .223 round.

So tell me what's the difference between this .223 Ar 15

and this .223 semiauto?

I'll give you a hint:

THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Well I kinda am for banning assault weapons.

But since you guys think it's a right..lets go with that a bit. Let's say it's a right.

You can't buy and sell your rights, you are sorta married to them. You are also sort of responsible for what you do with them.

What might be cool is if the same thing happened with guns. Say you buy a gun..you are married to it for life. What ever happens with that gun..is on the owner. The owner is completely liable for the actions of the gun..as long as it exists.

Wonder how many gun owners would go for that.

How many times do you have to be told that an AR15 that shoots a .223 round is functionally no different than any other semiautomatic rifle that shoots a .223 round.

So tell me what's the difference between this .223 Ar 15

and this .223 semiauto?

I'll give you a hint:

THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE.

You shoud know by now that Sallow cannot argue from anything other than emotion, ignorance and/or dishonesty.

 

[Spoonman]

Well I kinda am for banning assault weapons.

But since you guys think it's a right..lets go with that a bit. Let's say it's a right.

You can't buy and sell your rights, you are sorta married to them. You are also sort of responsible for what you do with them.

What might be cool is if the same thing happened with guns. Say you buy a gun..you are married to it for life. What ever happens with that gun..is on the owner. The owner is completely liable for the actions of the gun..as long as it exists.

Wonder how many gun owners would go for that.

are you married to your vote? If so you fuckers owe me bigtime for the mess obama has made in this country.

 

[Spoonman]

Well I kinda am for banning assault weapons.

But since you guys think it's a right..lets go with that a bit. Let's say it's a right.

You can't buy and sell your rights, you are sorta married to them. You are also sort of responsible for what you do with them.

What might be cool is if the same thing happened with guns. Say you buy a gun..you are married to it for life. What ever happens with that gun..is on the owner. The owner is completely liable for the actions of the gun..as long as it exists.

Wonder how many gun owners would go for that.

How many times do you have to be told that an AR15 that shoots a .223 round is functionally no different than any other semiautomatic rifle that shoots a .223 round.

So tell me what's the difference between this .223 Ar 15

and this .223 semiauto?

I'll give you a hint:

THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE.

an m1 carbine is leagal and it even shoots a larger round. there is no logic to their weapons bans

 

[Spoonman]

I'm sure this has been pointed out in this thread, but the AR-15 is NOT a high powered rifle. It shoots a .223 round which is popular with the military because it isn't high powered.

Tests in the 1950's showed that soldiers firing an M-14 flinched before firing, awaiting the recoil of the .30-06 round. This threw off accuracy. The Army went looking for a lower powered round - which initially was delivered with a modified M-14 called the "Mini 14," and then the M-16, both chambered for .223 rounds. It's because the .223 is lower power - and doesn't kick like a mule, that it became so popular. The Nato 5.56 mm round is the same size as a .223 and has replaced it in the M-4, which can fire either round.

shoot 100 rounds from a 30 -06 and you have a sore shoulder. shoot 100 rounds from a 223 and you don't even notice it.

 

[Uncensored2008]

shoot 100 rounds from a 30 -06 and you have a sore shoulder. shoot 100 rounds from a 223 and you don't even notice it.

The .30-06 always gave me a sore shoulder, but as I've gotten older, it has a more disturbing effect on me; it throws my whole skeletal frame out of whack. The impact is so great that I feel it in my hips and back the next day.

As you say, the .223 doesn't bother me.

 

[pinqy]

Well I kinda am for banning assault weapons.

But since you guys think it's a right..lets go with that a bit. Let's say it's a right.

You can't buy and sell your rights, you are sorta married to them. You are also sort of responsible for what you do with them.

What might be cool is if the same thing happened with guns. Say you buy a gun..you are married to it for life. What ever happens with that gun..is on the owner. The owner is completely liable for the actions of the gun..as long as it exists.

Wonder how many gun owners would go for that.

How many times do you have to be told that an AR15 that shoots a .223 round is functionally no different than any other semiautomatic rifle that shoots a .223 round.

So tell me what's the difference between this .223 Ar 15

and this .223 semiauto?

I'll give you a hint:

THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE.

But, but, but....the AR-15 is scarier looking.

 

[PaulS1950]

It is not worth the time to offer evidence that is contrary to anyone who is determined that their view on guns is correct.

To pro-gunners any restriction of the right to keep and bear arms is too much - as it should be for any right.

To anti-gunners no law restricting the availability to get and bear arms is enough - to make them feel safe.

Even though the facts are that 1.5 to 3 million people use guns each year to prevent crime successfully and most often without firing a shot. People fail to understand that if you remove guns from those people you make 1.5 to 3 million more victims of violent crime. Even though the records kept by the US government and the AMA tell us that violent crimes and especially gun crimes are dropping while 3 million new guns are added to the population. The fastest growing population of gun owners are women who have never owned a gun before show that people are going to guns to feel safer.
It doesn't even matter that it is a civil right to keep and bear guns because anti-gunners are fixed on the belief that guns are bad and anyone who owns or wants to own a gun is somehow a threat to them - personally.

The study mandated by Obama to the CDC shows that 1.5 to 3 million people use guns to prevent crime.
The ATF records show that women are the fastest growing population of new gun owners.
The US supreme court ruled that the right to keep and bear arms is a civil right just as much as the right to free speech.

 

[R.C. Christian]

Well I kinda am for banning assault weapons.

But since you guys think it's a right..lets go with that a bit. Let's say it's a right.

You can't buy and sell your rights, you are sorta married to them. You are also sort of responsible for what you do with them.

What might be cool is if the same thing happened with guns. Say you buy a gun..you are married to it for life. What ever happens with that gun..is on the owner. The owner is completely liable for the actions of the gun..as long as it exists.

Wonder how many gun owners would go for that.

How many times do you have to be told that an AR15 that shoots a .223 round is functionally no different than any other semiautomatic rifle that shoots a .223 round.

So tell me what's the difference between this .223 Ar 15

and this .223 semiauto?

I'll give you a hint:

THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE.

From the standpoint of functionality there is little. I own both of those rifles. The gas systems are different and the mini is made from steel while the AR is made of aluminum. Both have the same ability but if push came to shove I'd grab the AR due to the plethora of stuff available for them. The magazines are also unreliable unless you buy straight from Ruger. I know this has nothing to do with the point you're trying to make but I just offer it as an anecdote.

I also on an M1A1 or an M-14 as you call them. That weapon is a killer, and very, very good at it.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Well I kinda am for banning assault weapons.

But since you guys think it's a right..lets go with that a bit. Let's say it's a right.

You can't buy and sell your rights, you are sorta married to them. You are also sort of responsible for what you do with them.

What might be cool is if the same thing happened with guns. Say you buy a gun..you are married to it for life. What ever happens with that gun..is on the owner. The owner is completely liable for the actions of the gun..as long as it exists.

Wonder how many gun owners would go for that.

How many times do you have to be told that an AR15 that shoots a .223 round is functionally no different than any other semiautomatic rifle that shoots a .223 round.

So tell me what's the difference between this .223 Ar 15

and this .223 semiauto?

I'll give you a hint:

THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE.

From the standpoint of functionality there is little. I own both of those rifles. The gas systems are different and the mini is made from steel while the AR is made of aluminum. Both have the same ability but if push came to shove I'd grab the AR due to the plethora of stuff available for them. The magazines are also unreliable unless you buy straight from Ruger. I know this has nothing to do with the point you're trying to make but I just offer it as an anecdote.

I also on an M1A1 or an M-14 as you call them. That weapon is a killer, and very, very good at it.

I have a mini 14 and a mini 30 I must say I am very pleased with both.

 

[Survivalist]

I would agree that bans haven't always worked (although it certainly has in some cases).

But mandatory gun locks and background checks could do some good and won't take anything away from anyone. So why on earth would any gun owner be against them?

And for the record, I own 5 guns at the moment.

What law do want imposed about gun locks? Do you mean all guns must be sold with one (as most are now), or do you mean that all gun owners must have trigger locks placed on them except at the gun range?

How fast would anyone be able to take the trigger lock off a gun after an aggressive thug busts into their house? Background checks don't stop criminals from using the stolen and illegally obtained guns they use in virtually all their crimes anymore than it stops them from selling narcotics because they are against the law.

Besides Sallow, are there any other anti-gunners in this thread?

 

[Uncensored2008]

I have a mini 14 and a mini 30 I must say I am very pleased with both.

I have two Mini-14's - the Ranch Rifle and the standard. Love them both.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

Let’s see if we can have a civil, logical discussion on banning high-powered weapons such as AR-15’s.

I do NOT support banning these weapons and here’s why. We’re always going to have these high-powered guns in existence, so we have 1 of 2 scenarios to pick from:

1.) We agree to have guns decentralized between (a) the gov't, (b) criminals and (c) law abiding citizens OR

2.) We agree to centralize gun ownership into the hands of only (a) the gov’t and (b) criminals

Not sure if people remember, but 10 years ago certain powerful individuals within the US Gov’t pushed to go to war with a country that never attacked or posed a threat to the United States. This resulted in the slaughter of close to a million human individuals (figures vary, but it's definitely over 500,000). The motivation for this war was likely tied to money and strategic gain. The point is, our Gov’t has proven itself very capable of doing some very bad things against our best interests.

With that given, why take “law abiding citizens” out of the equation above (wouldn't they be the least threatening group)?

I see many folks on the left rightfully criticizing the Gov't for killing middle easterners at will and for going rogue and bailing out the big banks, ect, but at the same time see no issues with handing over their more powerful weapons to that EXACT same entity.

Thoughts?
.





.

An AR-15 isn't any different than any other deer rifle i.e. 30.06, 270. 308...etc...except for the cosmetics. In other words, it looks scary.

 

[Jimmy_Jam]

Let’s see if we can have a civil, logical discussion on banning high-powered weapons such as AR-15’s.

I do NOT support banning these weapons and here’s why. We’re always going to have these high-powered guns in existence, so we have 1 of 2 scenarios to pick from:

1.) We agree to have guns decentralized between (a) the gov't, (b) criminals and (c) law abiding citizens OR

2.) We agree to centralize gun ownership into the hands of only (a) the gov’t and (b) criminals

Not sure if people remember, but 10 years ago certain powerful individuals within the US Gov’t pushed to go to war with a country that never attacked or posed a threat to the United States. This resulted in the slaughter of close to a million human individuals (figures vary, but it's definitely over 500,000). The motivation for this war was likely tied to money and strategic gain. The point is, our Gov’t has proven itself very capable of doing some very bad things against our best interests.

With that given, why take “law abiding citizens” out of the equation above (wouldn't they be the least threatening group)?

I see many folks on the left rightfully criticizing the Gov't for killing middle easterners at will and for going rogue and bailing out the big banks, ect, but at the same time see no issues with handing over their more powerful weapons to that EXACT same entity.

Thoughts?
.





.

An AR-15 isn't any different than any other deer rifle i.e. 30.06, 270. 308...etc...except for the cosmetics. In other words, it looks scary.

What? So, by no different you must mean that the shooters in Sandy Hook and Aurora could have pulled off the same thing with a deer rifle?

I'm in full support of our 2nd Amendment rights, but that statement makes no sense.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Let’s see if we can have a civil, logical discussion on banning high-powered weapons such as AR-15’s.

I do NOT support banning these weapons and here’s why. We’re always going to have these high-powered guns in existence, so we have 1 of 2 scenarios to pick from:

1.) We agree to have guns decentralized between (a) the gov't, (b) criminals and (c) law abiding citizens OR

2.) We agree to centralize gun ownership into the hands of only (a) the gov’t and (b) criminals

Not sure if people remember, but 10 years ago certain powerful individuals within the US Gov’t pushed to go to war with a country that never attacked or posed a threat to the United States. This resulted in the slaughter of close to a million human individuals (figures vary, but it's definitely over 500,000). The motivation for this war was likely tied to money and strategic gain. The point is, our Gov’t has proven itself very capable of doing some very bad things against our best interests.

With that given, why take “law abiding citizens” out of the equation above (wouldn't they be the least threatening group)?

I see many folks on the left rightfully criticizing the Gov't for killing middle easterners at will and for going rogue and bailing out the big banks, ect, but at the same time see no issues with handing over their more powerful weapons to that EXACT same entity.
Thoughts?

An AR-15 isn't any different than any other deer rifle i.e. 30.06, 270. 308...etc...except for the cosmetics. In other words, it looks scary.

What? So, by no different you must mean that the shooters in Sandy Hook and Aurora could have pulled off the same thing with a deer rifle?
I'm in full support of our 2nd Amendment rights, but that statement makes no sense.

Just about any rifle can be used for deer.
Product: Model M&P10 .308 WIN/ 7.62x51 CAMO