Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
[
So when you read you selectively leave out anything that doesn't fit your view.
The weapon was specifically designed for warfare. Any claim to the contrary is ignorant nonsense.
See.
Over 200,000 were suicides. Banning guns doesn't cure depression nor mental illness.
About 100,000 of the remaining 200,000 were blacks killing blacks. In a nation where blacks only constitute 13.2% of the population, that reveals a shocking problem. Banning guns doesn't cure gang violence or a culture of that loves "gangstas".
The gun nuts have decided that the background check loopholes are the most important element of gun rights in this country.
Why is that?
There is no loophole, you're just lying.
The ONLY time a background check is not needed is when a PRIVATE individual sells a single weapon the he/she owns, to another private individual.
You know this, yet chose to lie.
Fucking leftists, not so much as a shred of integrity in any of you.
They also don't admit that this "loop hole" takes place 99% of the time in the urban ghettos where black market gun sales happen dozens of times a day. More black market gun sales occur in a Chicago weekend than every Illinois gun show on any given weekend.
While the M-1 Carbine was self-defense alternative to the M-14 for officers and NCOs, the picture is a Ruger Mini-14, a purely civilian rifle that would be banned under the Clinton/Obama "assault weapons" ban.Let me communicate on this: I shot that M-1 Carbine in the service...I tried to get one in Nam...that Carbine was a slick little doer though.So tell me which one of these is an "assault style" rifleGet rid of all assault style weapons. Pretty simple concept really.
Australia confiscated 650,000 guns. Murders and suicides plummeted.
Is it Rifle A
Or Rifle B
[
I see, so the fact that blacks kill more blacks than whites kill whites, and the fact that guns make suicide more effective and more tempting, lead you to say "fuck it, let the n*ggers and the mentally ill die."
And you wonder why your position is villified.
And also to be clear, you're perfectly fine with 100,000 "appropriate" violent deaths as a result of your favorite hobby since 2001.
You are free to lie and put words in my mouth just as I'm free to call you on those lies.Over 200,000 were suicides. Banning guns doesn't cure depression nor mental illness.
About 100,000 of the remaining 200,000 were blacks killing blacks. In a nation where blacks only constitute 13.2% of the population, that reveals a shocking problem. Banning guns doesn't cure gang violence or a culture of that loves "gangstas".
I see, so the fact that blacks kill more blacks than whites kill whites, and the fact that guns make suicide more effective and more tempting, lead you to say "fuck it, let the n*ggers and the mentally ill die."
And you wonder why your position is villified.
And also to be clear, you're perfectly fine with 100,000 "appropriate" violent deaths as a result of your favorite hobby since 2001.
Moron journalist Tom Brokaw called for a ban on the "AR-14" today. MSNBC morons said 2nd amendment covers guns...not "weapons of war". I can't take it anymore. My final attempt to educate them.
Guns: An AR-15 shoots a TINY bullet...a .223. That bullet is HALF THE size of a standard cops pistol bullet...a .45. Plus....pistols have big hollow point bullets...far deadlier. In fact...so deadly...they aren't allowed in war. That's right....the hollow point pistol bullet is banned from wars by the 1899 Hague Convention treaty. The .223 bullet an AR shoots? Army and Marine troops complain that they aren't deadly enough in war. They created the 6.8 round to try to fix it....which the standard AR-15 doesn't shoot.
Guns: 30 round magazines for a .223 AR??? GUESS WHAT??? They make 30 round mags for Glocks...that shoot the far larger and far deadlier hollow point bullets. AR15s are almost all semi auto...not full auto. Almost none are full auto.
**A side note: A gunman with a rifle is also FAR EASIER to disarm than one with a pistol. Imagine trying to pry away a broom from a guy vs prying away a fork. The larger gun is by far easier to grab...control...and wrestle away.
2nd Amendment: Libs are now saying the Founders meant muskets....not "Weapons of War". Hey idiots....in 1776....muskets WERE WEAPONS OF WAR
View attachment 78100
I'll add more later. Can't overwhelm the ignorant brains reading this.
You are free to lie and put words in my mouth just as I'm free to call you on those lies.Over 200,000 were suicides. Banning guns doesn't cure depression nor mental illness.
About 100,000 of the remaining 200,000 were blacks killing blacks. In a nation where blacks only constitute 13.2% of the population, that reveals a shocking problem. Banning guns doesn't cure gang violence or a culture of that loves "gangstas".
I see, so the fact that blacks kill more blacks than whites kill whites, and the fact that guns make suicide more effective and more tempting, lead you to say "fuck it, let the n*ggers and the mentally ill die."
And you wonder why your position is villified.
And also to be clear, you're perfectly fine with 100,000 "appropriate" violent deaths as a result of your favorite hobby since 2001.
I have a lot of respect for Dr. deGrasse Tyson, but disagree that banning guns will solve the issues addressed.
If you really want to save lives, instead of seeking to shred the Constitution, why not focus on improving our mental health care system and laws associated with it along with solving the problem of inner city gang violence? Then again, if you are only jumping on the Democrat "Guns are evil" band wagon, then don't worry about those 300,000+ deaths. This doesn't make the other deaths okay, but reducing the deaths by 75% is a good start.
How am I a "liar"? It's your statistic junior. If it's inaccurate - it's on you. It proves you are the liar. If it's accurate, it proves how liberalism has failed the American people. Which way do you want to go with it? I'm good with either....Thank you for illustrating how failed liberal policy of disarming the American people has resulted in catastrophic effects for the American people.
Is that's what has been happening?
Just kidding, not a real question. I know you're a liar.
Moron journalist Tom Brokaw called for a ban on the "AR-14" today. MSNBC morons said 2nd amendment covers guns...not "weapons of war". I can't take it anymore. My final attempt to educate them.
Guns: An AR-15 shoots a TINY bullet...a .223. That bullet is HALF THE size of a standard cops pistol bullet...a .45. Plus....pistols have big hollow point bullets...far deadlier. In fact...so deadly...they aren't allowed in war. That's right....the hollow point pistol bullet is banned from wars by the 1899 Hague Convention treaty. The .223 bullet an AR shoots? Army and Marine troops complain that they aren't deadly enough in war. They created the 6.8 round to try to fix it....which the standard AR-15 doesn't shoot.
Guns: 30 round magazines for a .223 AR??? GUESS WHAT??? They make 30 round mags for Glocks...that shoot the far larger and far deadlier hollow point bullets. AR15s are almost all semi auto...not full auto. Almost none are full auto.
**A side note: A gunman with a rifle is also FAR EASIER to disarm than one with a pistol. Imagine trying to pry away a broom from a guy vs prying away a fork. The larger gun is by far easier to grab...control...and wrestle away.
2nd Amendment: Libs are now saying the Founders meant muskets....not "Weapons of War". Hey idiots....in 1776....muskets WERE WEAPONS OF WAR
View attachment 78100
I'll add more later. Can't overwhelm the ignorant brains reading this.
Dude, you make claims that are either (1) factually so in your mind alone or (2) the result of your callus attitude toward being factually and completely accurate with your assertions made on a topic you know to be highly acrimonious and contentious. "The devil is in the details," and given the line of discussion you've chosen for your OP, the nature of ammunition types, the details matter.
Red:
Military units do use .45 caliber ammunition.
Forty-five cal ammunition can be had in full metal jacket (non-expanding) or hollow point (expanding) varieties. Are you asserting that in a declared war, the last of which for the U.S. were the WWII declarations, the units that use .45 cal will either sit out the conflict or use something else?
- DEVGRU, or SEAL Team 6, does use Heckler & Koch .45
- About two years ago, Marine Corps Special Operations Command awarded a $22.5 million contract to Colt Defense LLC for new .45-caliber Close Quarter Battle Pistols for the service’s elite special operations troops.
The Hague treaty to which you refer prohibits, as you note, the expanding variety but not necessarily hollow point ammunition. From the Hague Declaration document:
Much discussion and legal analysis has transpired regarding whether hollow points can or cannot be used in war.
The Contracting Parties agree to abstain from the use of bullets which expand or flatten easily in the human body, such as bullets with a hard envelope which does not entirely cover the core or is pierced with incisions.
The present Declaration is only binding for the Contracting Powers in the case of a war between two or more of them.
- General thought on the matter -- The 1899 Hague Declaration concerning Expanding Bullets A treaty effective for more than 100 years faces complex contemporary issues
[T]he velocity and mass of a bullet together determine how much tissue damage can potentially be done by it. Bullet construction is only one factor to take into account when considering the size of wounds. Importantly, the higher the velocity, the greater the deformation of a dumdum bullet on impact with tissue. This means that bullet construction becomes a less important factor with increasing range. However, if one considers in the absolute the degree of injury and suffering caused by bullets on the modern battlefield, and not only the size of an individual wound, rate of fire is probably the most important factor; an increased chance of hitting the enemy which may also result in multiple wounds is an important design feature of modern military rifles. As far as we know, there has been no attempt to link the energy deposit from multiple hits to the notion of superfluous injury or unnecessary suffering.What can one rationally conclude from the various sources above? (Yes, you'll need to click on the links and read more than just the blurb I posted.) Well, first and foremost, that bullet technology and design in 1898 was significantly less sophisticated than it is today; therefore the mere caliber of a bullet, or the design of its tip, aren't governing factors in whether a bullet complies with the humanitarian aims of the Hague Declaration.
- Specific guidance re: hollow point bullets -- Military Sniper Combat Use of Open Tip Match Ammunition
- Practice Relating to Rule 77. Expanding Bullets
One will also observe that the U.S. military can indeed use expanding point ammunition, but that, in compliance with the Hague Declaration, it must refrain from doing so in declared states of war. Seeing as the U.S. hasn't declared war on any nation since the 1940s, the Hague Declaration is largely irrelevant unless and until some nation is of a mind to bring the U.S. (or its leaders) to trial for war crimes resulting from conflicts that are not declared wars.
As goes the matter of a bullet's causing undue suffering, I suppose that matters to some extent, if only because there's a treaty that aims to limit/prevent that consequence among war fighters. The suffering that matters most to me is that experienced by the survivors of those who die from gunshots. I doubt they suffer more or less due to whether their loved one was killed by "this" or "that" type of bullet.
Blue:
The tinyness of the AR-15's ammunition, based on the "Pulse" massacre, is similarly irrelevant. It is a sufficiently deadly round. Moreover, it seems that in concert with the deadly-enough nature of the .223 round, the rapidity with which multiple units of those rounds can be fired has a material impact on the weapon's effectiveness at killing civilians going about their lives.
Side note:
The AR-15, which evolved into the M16, can use .233 or 5.56x45mm ammunition. The two rounds though quite similar are notably different, specifically re: pressure. I have no idea what chamber design exists in the gun used at Pulse, but seeing as the man killed nearly 50 people, I don't think it matters.
What words did I put in your mouth that you didn't put on the page?...
And you wonder why I think you are a fucking low-down, dirty liar.I see, so the fact that blacks kill more blacks than whites kill whites, and the fact that guns make suicide more effective and more tempting, lead you to say "fuck it, let the n*ggers and the mentally ill die."
And you wonder why your position is villified.
Sorry dude, but he's right, but probably for the wrong reasons.Moron journalist Tom Brokaw called for a ban on the "AR-14" today. MSNBC morons said 2nd amendment covers guns...not "weapons of war". I can't take it anymore. My final attempt to educate them.
Guns: An AR-15 shoots a TINY bullet...a .223. That bullet is HALF THE size of a standard cops pistol bullet...a .45. Plus....pistols have big hollow point bullets...far deadlier. In fact...so deadly...they aren't allowed in war. That's right....the hollow point pistol bullet is banned from wars by the 1899 Hague Convention treaty. The .223 bullet an AR shoots? Army and Marine troops complain that they aren't deadly enough in war. They created the 6.8 round to try to fix it....which the standard AR-15 doesn't shoot.
Guns: 30 round magazines for a .223 AR??? GUESS WHAT??? They make 30 round mags for Glocks...that shoot the far larger and far deadlier hollow point bullets. AR15s are almost all semi auto...not full auto. Almost none are full auto.
**A side note: A gunman with a rifle is also FAR EASIER to disarm than one with a pistol. Imagine trying to pry away a broom from a guy vs prying away a fork. The larger gun is by far easier to grab...control...and wrestle away.
2nd Amendment: Libs are now saying the Founders meant muskets....not "Weapons of War". Hey idiots....in 1776....muskets WERE WEAPONS OF WAR
View attachment 78100
I'll add more later. Can't overwhelm the ignorant brains reading this.
Dude, you make claims that are either (1) factually so in your mind alone or (2) the result of your callus attitude toward being factually and completely accurate with your assertions made on a topic you know to be highly acrimonious and contentious. "The devil is in the details," and given the line of discussion you've chosen for your OP, the nature of ammunition types, the details matter.
Red:
Military units do use .45 caliber ammunition.
Forty-five cal ammunition can be had in full metal jacket (non-expanding) or hollow point (expanding) varieties. Are you asserting that in a declared war, the last of which for the U.S. were the WWII declarations, the units that use .45 cal will either sit out the conflict or use something else?
- DEVGRU, or SEAL Team 6, does use Heckler & Koch .45
- About two years ago, Marine Corps Special Operations Command awarded a $22.5 million contract to Colt Defense LLC for new .45-caliber Close Quarter Battle Pistols for the service’s elite special operations troops.
The Hague treaty to which you refer prohibits, as you note, the expanding variety but not necessarily hollow point ammunition. From the Hague Declaration document:
Much discussion and legal analysis has transpired regarding whether hollow points can or cannot be used in war.
The Contracting Parties agree to abstain from the use of bullets which expand or flatten easily in the human body, such as bullets with a hard envelope which does not entirely cover the core or is pierced with incisions.
The present Declaration is only binding for the Contracting Powers in the case of a war between two or more of them.
- General thought on the matter -- The 1899 Hague Declaration concerning Expanding Bullets A treaty effective for more than 100 years faces complex contemporary issues
[T]he velocity and mass of a bullet together determine how much tissue damage can potentially be done by it. Bullet construction is only one factor to take into account when considering the size of wounds. Importantly, the higher the velocity, the greater the deformation of a dumdum bullet on impact with tissue. This means that bullet construction becomes a less important factor with increasing range. However, if one considers in the absolute the degree of injury and suffering caused by bullets on the modern battlefield, and not only the size of an individual wound, rate of fire is probably the most important factor; an increased chance of hitting the enemy which may also result in multiple wounds is an important design feature of modern military rifles. As far as we know, there has been no attempt to link the energy deposit from multiple hits to the notion of superfluous injury or unnecessary suffering.What can one rationally conclude from the various sources above? (Yes, you'll need to click on the links and read more than just the blurb I posted.) Well, first and foremost, that bullet technology and design in 1898 was significantly less sophisticated than it is today; therefore the mere caliber of a bullet, or the design of its tip, aren't governing factors in whether a bullet complies with the humanitarian aims of the Hague Declaration.
- Specific guidance re: hollow point bullets -- Military Sniper Combat Use of Open Tip Match Ammunition
- Practice Relating to Rule 77. Expanding Bullets
One will also observe that the U.S. military can indeed use expanding point ammunition, but that, in compliance with the Hague Declaration, it must refrain from doing so in declared states of war. Seeing as the U.S. hasn't declared war on any nation since the 1940s, the Hague Declaration is largely irrelevant unless and until some nation is of a mind to bring the U.S. (or its leaders) to trial for war crimes resulting from conflicts that are not declared wars.
As goes the matter of a bullet's causing undue suffering, I suppose that matters to some extent, if only because there's a treaty that aims to limit/prevent that consequence among war fighters. The suffering that matters most to me is that experienced by the survivors of those who die from gunshots. I doubt they suffer more or less due to whether their loved one was killed by "this" or "that" type of bullet.
Blue:
The tinyness of the AR-15's ammunition, based on the "Pulse" massacre, is similarly irrelevant. It is a sufficiently deadly round. Moreover, it seems that in concert with the deadly-enough nature of the .223 round, the rapidity with which multiple units of those rounds can be fired has a material impact on the weapon's effectiveness at killing civilians going about their lives.
Side note:
The AR-15, which evolved into the M16, can use .233 or 5.56x45mm ammunition. The two rounds though quite similar are notably different, specifically re: pressure. I have no idea what chamber design exists in the gun used at Pulse, but seeing as the man killed nearly 50 people, I don't think it matters.
So....you want us to take you seriously. And you finish by saying the AR-15 "evolved into the M-16"??? See....THIS is the kind of shit that sparked this thread.
Dude....the M-16 came first. Then...the AR-15. The gun maker civilianized the M-16 and called it an AR-15.
So...no....the M16 did not evolve from the AR15. It's the exact opposite.
Semper Fi and agreed. I first trained on the M-14 and was disappointed by the M-16 for both reliability and performance reasons (mainly out past 300 yards).I don't give a fuck if you label an AR-15 your personal dildo.....it is STILL a very, very lethal weapon that should not be in the hands of everybody....including the terrorists that YOU ARE AIDING in getting those guns readily
Makes you wonder why millions of AR15s have been sold? Not very lethal, aren't for assault purposes, much better guns out there to kill with.
So why do the gun nutters buy so many of them a person might ask.
Must be millions of varmit hunters out there. I am surprised there are any varmints left.
So it must be that the gun nutters love the AR cause it's scary looking. You can dress it up in all the finery a real assault rifle would have and prance around in the woods and play army with a scary looking weapon.
Is that the reason nutters love the AR15?
Though that little .223 round killed effectively in the night club.
All of the above. It's the "cool" gun. Like a Corvette. It's the video game gun. It is the most despised gun of liberals. All sorts of reasons it's so popular.
It's use by special forces make it popular. But one must know WHY they adapted to it instead of the MP5. And that was the 9mm MP5 was not as effective at taking down airfields....due to huge long runways and open space.
Inside a building at closer ranges??? MANY guns are better than an AR15. The MP5. A .45 cal pistol. My personal favorite is the .40 cal UMP sub gun. I won't go into all of them. But an AR15 inside a building isn't close to the best choice but many fall for the "cool gun" nonsense and want one. Many SWAT teams are guilty of this too.
Another reason for why the AR-15 is so popular is it is the civilian version of the weapon that virtually every military member carried for their entire time in service (M-16.) As a result, Military vets especially are infinitely more familiar with the functions, capabilities and limitations of the AR-15 than they are with any other weapon of choice.
As a Marine Corps Veteran myself, I can attest that a military soldier's interest in defending our country and our Constitutional principles does not end when we receive our discharge papers.
Beyond that, the AR-15 is one of the most fun guns on the range of all. I have found that women especially love the AR's. That's largely because there is virtually no recoil. Aiming is pretty simple (especially at 100 yds.) and the AR's are very lightweight and easy to put on target compared to most other long guns (especially shotguns.)
As far as the AR-15 being deadly? I can name a shit ton of other guns and other things that would have killed far more than the ISIS wannabe with his AR-15 did in Orlando. However, I see no value in educating the masses on how to achieve an even higher dead count than what he did.
Sorry dude, but he's right, but probably for the wrong reasons.Moron journalist Tom Brokaw called for a ban on the "AR-14" today. MSNBC morons said 2nd amendment covers guns...not "weapons of war". I can't take it anymore. My final attempt to educate them.
Guns: An AR-15 shoots a TINY bullet...a .223. That bullet is HALF THE size of a standard cops pistol bullet...a .45. Plus....pistols have big hollow point bullets...far deadlier. In fact...so deadly...they aren't allowed in war. That's right....the hollow point pistol bullet is banned from wars by the 1899 Hague Convention treaty. The .223 bullet an AR shoots? Army and Marine troops complain that they aren't deadly enough in war. They created the 6.8 round to try to fix it....which the standard AR-15 doesn't shoot.
Guns: 30 round magazines for a .223 AR??? GUESS WHAT??? They make 30 round mags for Glocks...that shoot the far larger and far deadlier hollow point bullets. AR15s are almost all semi auto...not full auto. Almost none are full auto.
**A side note: A gunman with a rifle is also FAR EASIER to disarm than one with a pistol. Imagine trying to pry away a broom from a guy vs prying away a fork. The larger gun is by far easier to grab...control...and wrestle away.
2nd Amendment: Libs are now saying the Founders meant muskets....not "Weapons of War". Hey idiots....in 1776....muskets WERE WEAPONS OF WAR
View attachment 78100
I'll add more later. Can't overwhelm the ignorant brains reading this.
Dude, you make claims that are either (1) factually so in your mind alone or (2) the result of your callus attitude toward being factually and completely accurate with your assertions made on a topic you know to be highly acrimonious and contentious. "The devil is in the details," and given the line of discussion you've chosen for your OP, the nature of ammunition types, the details matter.
Red:
Military units do use .45 caliber ammunition.
Forty-five cal ammunition can be had in full metal jacket (non-expanding) or hollow point (expanding) varieties. Are you asserting that in a declared war, the last of which for the U.S. were the WWII declarations, the units that use .45 cal will either sit out the conflict or use something else?
- DEVGRU, or SEAL Team 6, does use Heckler & Koch .45
- About two years ago, Marine Corps Special Operations Command awarded a $22.5 million contract to Colt Defense LLC for new .45-caliber Close Quarter Battle Pistols for the service’s elite special operations troops.
The Hague treaty to which you refer prohibits, as you note, the expanding variety but not necessarily hollow point ammunition. From the Hague Declaration document:
Much discussion and legal analysis has transpired regarding whether hollow points can or cannot be used in war.
The Contracting Parties agree to abstain from the use of bullets which expand or flatten easily in the human body, such as bullets with a hard envelope which does not entirely cover the core or is pierced with incisions.
The present Declaration is only binding for the Contracting Powers in the case of a war between two or more of them.
- General thought on the matter -- The 1899 Hague Declaration concerning Expanding Bullets A treaty effective for more than 100 years faces complex contemporary issues
[T]he velocity and mass of a bullet together determine how much tissue damage can potentially be done by it. Bullet construction is only one factor to take into account when considering the size of wounds. Importantly, the higher the velocity, the greater the deformation of a dumdum bullet on impact with tissue. This means that bullet construction becomes a less important factor with increasing range. However, if one considers in the absolute the degree of injury and suffering caused by bullets on the modern battlefield, and not only the size of an individual wound, rate of fire is probably the most important factor; an increased chance of hitting the enemy which may also result in multiple wounds is an important design feature of modern military rifles. As far as we know, there has been no attempt to link the energy deposit from multiple hits to the notion of superfluous injury or unnecessary suffering.What can one rationally conclude from the various sources above? (Yes, you'll need to click on the links and read more than just the blurb I posted.) Well, first and foremost, that bullet technology and design in 1898 was significantly less sophisticated than it is today; therefore the mere caliber of a bullet, or the design of its tip, aren't governing factors in whether a bullet complies with the humanitarian aims of the Hague Declaration.
- Specific guidance re: hollow point bullets -- Military Sniper Combat Use of Open Tip Match Ammunition
- Practice Relating to Rule 77. Expanding Bullets
One will also observe that the U.S. military can indeed use expanding point ammunition, but that, in compliance with the Hague Declaration, it must refrain from doing so in declared states of war. Seeing as the U.S. hasn't declared war on any nation since the 1940s, the Hague Declaration is largely irrelevant unless and until some nation is of a mind to bring the U.S. (or its leaders) to trial for war crimes resulting from conflicts that are not declared wars.
As goes the matter of a bullet's causing undue suffering, I suppose that matters to some extent, if only because there's a treaty that aims to limit/prevent that consequence among war fighters. The suffering that matters most to me is that experienced by the survivors of those who die from gunshots. I doubt they suffer more or less due to whether their loved one was killed by "this" or "that" type of bullet.
Blue:
The tinyness of the AR-15's ammunition, based on the "Pulse" massacre, is similarly irrelevant. It is a sufficiently deadly round. Moreover, it seems that in concert with the deadly-enough nature of the .223 round, the rapidity with which multiple units of those rounds can be fired has a material impact on the weapon's effectiveness at killing civilians going about their lives.
Side note:
The AR-15, which evolved into the M16, can use .233 or 5.56x45mm ammunition. The two rounds though quite similar are notably different, specifically re: pressure. I have no idea what chamber design exists in the gun used at Pulse, but seeing as the man killed nearly 50 people, I don't think it matters.
So....you want us to take you seriously. And you finish by saying the AR-15 "evolved into the M-16"??? See....THIS is the kind of shit that sparked this thread.
Dude....the M-16 came first. Then...the AR-15. The gun maker civilianized the M-16 and called it an AR-15.
So...no....the M16 did not evolve from the AR15. It's the exact opposite.
The Armalite AR-15 came first, was bought by Colt and refined into the M-16 then, later, Colt, owning the rights to "AR-15" made a civilian version labeled, you guessed it, the AR-15.
FWIW, I used to own a neat little gun, the AR-7, also by Armalite. Now made by Henry.
http://www.nodakspud.com/RetroAR15.pdf
The M16 is a child of the late Eugene Stoner, then-chief engineer for ArmaLite, a division of Fairchild Aircraft. At this point it’s appropriate to point out the somewhat confusing nomenclature associated with this weapon series. Prior to its type classification by the U.S. military, it was known as the AR-15, and, as it was designed for military applications, it was a selective-fire weapon, meaning that it had the capacity to fire in the full-auto mode. This designation was used because it was part of ArmaLite’s product line and all of their firearms designations used an “AR” prefix followed by a number, usually indicating their chronological order of development in ArmaLite’s catalog. After adoption by the U.S. military, Colt decided to market a civilian version that was semiautomatic-only and designated it as the Colt AR-15. So today, the term “M16” refers to a selective-fire rifle, while an “AR-15” is the semiautomatic-only version
Semper Fi and agreed. I first trained on the M-14 and was disappointed by the M-16 for both reliability and performance reasons (mainly out past 300 yards).I don't give a fuck if you label an AR-15 your personal dildo.....it is STILL a very, very lethal weapon that should not be in the hands of everybody....including the terrorists that YOU ARE AIDING in getting those guns readily
Makes you wonder why millions of AR15s have been sold? Not very lethal, aren't for assault purposes, much better guns out there to kill with.
So why do the gun nutters buy so many of them a person might ask.
Must be millions of varmit hunters out there. I am surprised there are any varmints left.
So it must be that the gun nutters love the AR cause it's scary looking. You can dress it up in all the finery a real assault rifle would have and prance around in the woods and play army with a scary looking weapon.
Is that the reason nutters love the AR15?
Though that little .223 round killed effectively in the night club.
All of the above. It's the "cool" gun. Like a Corvette. It's the video game gun. It is the most despised gun of liberals. All sorts of reasons it's so popular.
It's use by special forces make it popular. But one must know WHY they adapted to it instead of the MP5. And that was the 9mm MP5 was not as effective at taking down airfields....due to huge long runways and open space.
Inside a building at closer ranges??? MANY guns are better than an AR15. The MP5. A .45 cal pistol. My personal favorite is the .40 cal UMP sub gun. I won't go into all of them. But an AR15 inside a building isn't close to the best choice but many fall for the "cool gun" nonsense and want one. Many SWAT teams are guilty of this too.
Another reason for why the AR-15 is so popular is it is the civilian version of the weapon that virtually every military member carried for their entire time in service (M-16.) As a result, Military vets especially are infinitely more familiar with the functions, capabilities and limitations of the AR-15 than they are with any other weapon of choice.
As a Marine Corps Veteran myself, I can attest that a military soldier's interest in defending our country and our Constitutional principles does not end when we receive our discharge papers.
Beyond that, the AR-15 is one of the most fun guns on the range of all. I have found that women especially love the AR's. That's largely because there is virtually no recoil. Aiming is pretty simple (especially at 100 yds.) and the AR's are very lightweight and easy to put on target compared to most other long guns (especially shotguns.)
As far as the AR-15 being deadly? I can name a shit ton of other guns and other things that would have killed far more than the ISIS wannabe with his AR-15 did in Orlando. However, I see no value in educating the masses on how to achieve an even higher dead count than what he did.
I don't give a fuck if you label an AR-15 your personal dildo.....it is STILL a very, very lethal weapon that should not be in the hands of everybody....including the terrorists that YOU ARE AIDING in getting those guns readily
Makes you wonder why millions of AR15s have been sold? Not very lethal, aren't for assault purposes, much better guns out there to kill with.
So why do the gun nutters buy so many of them a person might ask.
Must be millions of varmit hunters out there. I am surprised there are any varmints left.
So it must be that the gun nutters love the AR cause it's scary looking. You can dress it up in all the finery a real assault rifle would have and prance around in the woods and play army with a scary looking weapon.
Is that the reason nutters love the AR15?
Though that little .223 round killed effectively in the night club.
All of the above. It's the "cool" gun. Like a Corvette. It's the video game gun. It is the most despised gun of liberals. All sorts of reasons it's so popular.
It's use by special forces make it popular. But one must know WHY they adapted to it instead of the MP5. And that was the 9mm MP5 was not as effective at taking down airfields....due to huge long runways and open space.
Inside a building at closer ranges??? MANY guns are better than an AR15. The MP5. A .45 cal pistol. My personal favorite is the .40 cal UMP sub gun. I won't go into all of them. But an AR15 inside a building isn't close to the best choice but many fall for the "cool gun" nonsense and want one. Many SWAT teams are guilty of this too.
Another reason for why the AR-15 is so popular is it is the civilian version of the weapon that virtually every military member carried for their entire time in service (M-16.) As a result, Military vets especially are infinitely more familiar with the functions, capabilities and limitations of the AR-15 than they are with any other weapon of choice.
As a Marine Corps Veteran myself, I can attest that a military soldier's interest in defending our country and our Constitutional principles does not end when we receive our discharge papers.
Beyond that, the AR-15 is one of the most fun guns on the range of all. I have found that women especially love the AR's. That's largely because there is virtually no recoil. Aiming is pretty simple (especially at 100 yds.) and the AR's are very lightweight and easy to put on target compared to most other long guns (especially shotguns.)
As far as the AR-15 being deadly? I can name a shit ton of other guns and other things that would have killed far more than the ISIS wannabe with his AR-15 did in Orlando. However, I see no value in educating the masses on how to achieve an even higher dead count than what he did.
Couldnt agree more. I own both the AR15 and the AR10 (as well as the M14) platform because they are just plain fun to shoot. Not to mention the fact that the M16 and the .45 saved my life on several occasions.
Unfortunately, you'll never convince those who a. Never had the guts to serve and b. Those folks that truly believe that a "disarmed" society is a safe society.
I know what my rights are, I know what the Constitution says and I know what my capabilities are. So, I really don't fear anything from the left. Not even a total ban on the AR-15 would change anything where gun crimes are concerned and it's clear to me that the leftardz already know that. They are simply posturing because they sincerely do wish that the right (their political enemies) in this country were as un-armed and defenseless as they are.
Makes you wonder why millions of AR15s have been sold? Not very lethal, aren't for assault purposes, much better guns out there to kill with.
So why do the gun nutters buy so many of them a person might ask.
Must be millions of varmit hunters out there. I am surprised there are any varmints left.
So it must be that the gun nutters love the AR cause it's scary looking. You can dress it up in all the finery a real assault rifle would have and prance around in the woods and play army with a scary looking weapon.
Is that the reason nutters love the AR15?
Though that little .223 round killed effectively in the night club.
All of the above. It's the "cool" gun. Like a Corvette. It's the video game gun. It is the most despised gun of liberals. All sorts of reasons it's so popular.
It's use by special forces make it popular. But one must know WHY they adapted to it instead of the MP5. And that was the 9mm MP5 was not as effective at taking down airfields....due to huge long runways and open space.
Inside a building at closer ranges??? MANY guns are better than an AR15. The MP5. A .45 cal pistol. My personal favorite is the .40 cal UMP sub gun. I won't go into all of them. But an AR15 inside a building isn't close to the best choice but many fall for the "cool gun" nonsense and want one. Many SWAT teams are guilty of this too.
Another reason for why the AR-15 is so popular is it is the civilian version of the weapon that virtually every military member carried for their entire time in service (M-16.) As a result, Military vets especially are infinitely more familiar with the functions, capabilities and limitations of the AR-15 than they are with any other weapon of choice.
As a Marine Corps Veteran myself, I can attest that a military soldier's interest in defending our country and our Constitutional principles does not end when we receive our discharge papers.
Beyond that, the AR-15 is one of the most fun guns on the range of all. I have found that women especially love the AR's. That's largely because there is virtually no recoil. Aiming is pretty simple (especially at 100 yds.) and the AR's are very lightweight and easy to put on target compared to most other long guns (especially shotguns.)
As far as the AR-15 being deadly? I can name a shit ton of other guns and other things that would have killed far more than the ISIS wannabe with his AR-15 did in Orlando. However, I see no value in educating the masses on how to achieve an even higher dead count than what he did.
Couldnt agree more. I own both the AR15 and the AR10 (as well as the M14) platform because they are just plain fun to shoot. Not to mention the fact that the M16 and the .45 saved my life on several occasions.
Unfortunately, you'll never convince those who a. Never had the guts to serve and b. Those folks that truly believe that a "disarmed" society is a safe society.
I know what my rights are, I know what the Constitution says and I know what my capabilities are. So, I really don't fear anything from the left. Not even a total ban on the AR-15 would change anything where gun crimes are concerned and it's clear to me that the leftardz already know that. They are simply posturing because they sincerely do wish that the right (their political enemies) in this country were as un-armed and defenseless as they are.
That's why, years ago, after I retired from the Army and a civilian occupation, I bought land FAR out in the mountains of Montana. 260 acres to be exact. Hell, one could see the direction this poor country was heading back then - and I wanted to be as far from highly populated areas as I could get. There are storm clouds on the horizon. There is a storm coming in America and the main instigators of it are liberals. Most will not stop until this country is destroyed. Taking weapons out of the hands of law-abiding citizens is a necessary part of their ideology.
So....you want us to take you seriously. And you finish by saying the AR-15 "evolved into the M-16"??? See....THIS is the kind of shit that sparked this thread.
Dude....the M-16 came first. Then...the AR-15. The gun maker civilianized the M-16 and called it an AR-15.
So...no....the M16 did not evolve from the AR15. It's the exact opposite.
The gun nuts have decided that the background check loopholes are the most important element of gun rights in this country.
Why is that?
There is no loophole, you're just lying.
The ONLY time a background check is not needed is when a PRIVATE individual sells a single weapon the he/she owns, to another private individual.
You know this, yet chose to lie.
Fucking leftists, not so much as a shred of integrity in any of you.
They also don't admit that this "loop hole" takes place 99% of the time in the urban ghettos where black market gun sales happen dozens of times a day. More black market gun sales occur in a Chicago weekend than every Illinois gun show on any given weekend.
