For the last time, I'm gonna try to educate the left on GUNS; Can't take ignorance any longer.

[320 Years of History]

Two

What's your point? To be exact - and if you believe me to be a liar CHECK IT OUT - the first "AR" was not the 15 - it was the AR10. a .308 (or 7.62) rifle developed by Armalite. So what the hell if Armalite sold the design to Colt? Jesus - you "literal-minded" folks make me cringe.

Also, the claim that the AR-15 came before the M-16 is for the most part only true as far as nomenclature goes. The designers created the AR-15 while trying to market a lightweight gun to the military.

It's not like AR-15's were ever readily available on gun store shelves for any length of time before the M-16 was developed.

So, yes... technically the AR-15 came first.

But only in nomenclature and for the most part prototypes.

"He told Stoner that he was interested in developing the AR series for the military, and Stoner went on to create the AR-15."


It's funny how the left will (cherry pick) cling to anything they think will make a point, even as they ignore all the details that prove against them and their claims.

That the AR-15 evolved into the M16 isn't and wasn't the point of my post. Busco latched onto that one parenthetical fact/remark, not me. Read the post from which that was taken.

Sidebar:
Somewhere in this thread, someone asked about what types of guns are assault weapons. In my mind, a gun that was made by one company as a military weapon is an assault weapon. I don't care what name gets put on it. That is essentially what the AR-15 is, the "rose" that is the M16 but called by another name.

Your ignorance about the difference between them (the AR-15 and the M-16) is not only showing. . . . it's very telling.

??? The AR-15 came first and evolved into the M16. That is all I wrote about it. I am not incorrect. There is no ignorance to be shown.

Your (ignorant) implication / inference is clear. An AR-15 is not simply an M-16 under a different name as you have suggested and I suspect that you already know better. But then again, maybe you really are actually more ignorant than I first thought. So, I will allow for that possibility.

Go look at the original post in which I first mentioned the M16 and tell me what difference the post-transfer of the AR-15 design to Colt makes to the points of that post. I can tell you now, the answer is none. Even with regard to the topic of the sentence and paragraph in which the M16 reference, the differences are irrelevant, just as irrelevant as is the difference in the two types of ammunition the AR-15 can accept.

So, yes, someone's ignorance about the differences between the two weapons might in some discussions be relevant; however, given that the M16 was mentioned as an parenthetical and informational bit of ancillary minutia in paragraph that itself is noted as a sidebar to the main topic of the post and post section, and given that the M16 did evolve from the AR-15, there is neither ignorance -- no factual inaccuracy -- nor relevant ignorance in play.

 

[Wry Catcher]

"arms" is the term used in the 2nd. Do you believe the 2nd authorizes all weapons of war? If not, which weapons / arms can be denied to a US Citizens?

What is that chill?

It's as if the mean IQ of the left just declined by 40 points


Oh, hi Wry....

Uncensored will not answer a simple question; one more example of a dishonest conservative posting an Idiot-Gram.

 

[Old Rocks]

It is not illegal to own a .45 Thompson, but if you want to shoot it outside your property, you have to have a special license. We should simply include any semiautomatic rifle that has a magazine that can be rapidly removed and replaced. And if you are found with such a weapon without the license, you have committed a felony, all your firearms will be confiscated and destroyed, and, after you have served your time, you cannot own or have in your possession a firearm for the rest of your life. And, from the time the law is passed, you have to pass the same license requirements to purchase one of these weapons.

 

[Wry Catcher]

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.

As though the gun grabbers wouldn't go after the muskets after they succeeded in banning all the more "modern" weapons. The ultimate goal is total disarming of the citizenry like they've done in most other countries.

One more example of a dishonest conservative ^^^ echoing a logical fallacy posted dozens of times.

 

[Wry Catcher]

What are the gun grabbers going to do when THIS technology continues to improve too?

They will regulate printers for sure.

LOL!

Good luck with that!

No doubt they'll ban the making, but the Left loves to pass unenforceable laws. It makes them feel good.

The left? How many laws have been passed to make a legal abortion more difficult, and how many have been overturned by the courts? How many abortions have been prevented, and how many unwanted pregnancies from law which restrict the ability to obtain contraceptives?

 

[Divine Wind]

No one said they want to ‘ban’ anything.

President Obama reiterated his desire to ban "assault weapons" which, presumably, includes banning "high capacity magazines".

And what person, in their right mind, honestly believes that they would stop at the insidious "assault weapon"? I mean, seriously....

Not me. The Democrats have latched onto being anti-gun ever since JFK was assassination. Every time Republicans "compromise" by giving an inch, the Democrats take a mile and then, a year or so later, come back for more.

I have no doubt accepting a permanent ban on magazines over 10 rounds will eventually result in Democrats pushing to ban magazines over 5 rounds.

 

[Chuz Life]

Two
Also, the claim that the AR-15 came before the M-16 is for the most part only true as far as nomenclature goes. The designers created the AR-15 while trying to market a lightweight gun to the military.

It's not like AR-15's were ever readily available on gun store shelves for any length of time before the M-16 was developed.

So, yes... technically the AR-15 came first.

But only in nomenclature and for the most part prototypes.

"He told Stoner that he was interested in developing the AR series for the military, and Stoner went on to create the AR-15."


It's funny how the left will (cherry pick) cling to anything they think will make a point, even as they ignore all the details that prove against them and their claims.

That the AR-15 evolved into the M16 isn't and wasn't the point of my post. Busco latched onto that one parenthetical fact/remark, not me. Read the post from which that was taken.

Sidebar:
Somewhere in this thread, someone asked about what types of guns are assault weapons. In my mind, a gun that was made by one company as a military weapon is an assault weapon. I don't care what name gets put on it. That is essentially what the AR-15 is, the "rose" that is the M16 but called by another name.

Your ignorance about the difference between them (the AR-15 and the M-16) is not only showing. . . . it's very telling.

??? The AR-15 came first and evolved into the M16. That is all I wrote about it. I am not incorrect. There is no ignorance to be shown.

Your (ignorant) implication / inference is clear. An AR-15 is not simply an M-16 under a different name as you have suggested and I suspect that you already know better. But then again, maybe you really are actually more ignorant than I first thought. So, I will allow for that possibility.

Go look at the original post in which I first mentioned the M16 and tell me what difference the post-transfer of the AR-15 design to Colt makes to the points of that post. I can tell you now, the answer is none. Even with regard to the topic of the sentence and paragraph in which the M16 reference, the differences are irrelevant, just as irrelevant as is the difference in the two types of ammunition the AR-15 can accept.

So, yes, someone's ignorance about the differences between the two weapons might in some discussions be relevant; however, given that the M16 was mentioned as an parenthetical and informational bit of ancillary minutia in paragraph that itself is noted as a sidebar to the main topic of the post and post section, and given that the M16 did evolve from the AR-15, there is neither ignorance -- no factual inaccuracy -- nor relevant ignorance in play.

Gotta love how the facts put the leftardz claims into perspective.

 

[Divine Wind]

The left? How many laws have been passed to make a legal abortion more difficult, and how many have been overturned by the courts? How many abortions have been prevented, and how many unwanted pregnancies from law which restrict the ability to obtain contraceptives?

Yes, the Left. Agreed the Right can be just as big a fucking authoritarian assholes as the Left when it comes to gay marriage and abortion, but as far as this thread is concerned, it's the LEFT trying to restrict my Second Amendment rights.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

As a hunter I have heard this same rhetoric for 30 years...they are gonna take your guns. Some will buy into anything. A real hunter uses a bolt action. Not an assault rifle. The 2nd amendment protects my right to own my hunting guns. Its all fear rhetoric.

The 2nd amendment has nothing to do with hunting.

 

[Divine Wind]

That the AR-15 evolved into the M16 isn't and wasn't the point of my post. Busco latched onto that one parenthetical fact/remark, not me. Read the post from which that was taken.

Sidebar:
Somewhere in this thread, someone asked about what types of guns are assault weapons. In my mind, a gun that was made by one company as a military weapon is an assault weapon. I don't care what name gets put on it. That is essentially what the AR-15 is, the "rose" that is the M16 but called by another name.

Your ignorance about the difference between them (the AR-15 and the M-16) is not only showing. . . . it's very telling.

??? The AR-15 came first and evolved into the M16. That is all I wrote about it. I am not incorrect. There is no ignorance to be shown.

Your (ignorant) implication / inference is clear. An AR-15 is not simply an M-16 under a different name as you have suggested and I suspect that you already know better. But then again, maybe you really are actually more ignorant than I first thought. So, I will allow for that possibility.

Go look at the original post in which I first mentioned the M16 and tell me what difference the post-transfer of the AR-15 design to Colt makes to the points of that post. I can tell you now, the answer is none. Even with regard to the topic of the sentence and paragraph in which the M16 reference, the differences are irrelevant, just as irrelevant as is the difference in the two types of ammunition the AR-15 can accept.

So, yes, someone's ignorance about the differences between the two weapons might in some discussions be relevant; however, given that the M16 was mentioned as an parenthetical and informational bit of ancillary minutia in paragraph that itself is noted as a sidebar to the main topic of the post and post section, and given that the M16 did evolve from the AR-15, there is neither ignorance -- no factual inaccuracy -- nor relevant ignorance in play.

Gotta love how the facts put the leftardz claims into perspective.

Thanks, Chuz, but the anti-gun Left doesn't give a shit about facts. We're already seen that a few times on this thread alone.

 

[Chuz Life]

No one said they want to ‘ban’ anything.

President Obama reiterated his desire to ban "assault weapons" which, presumably, includes banning "high capacity magazines".

And what person, in their right mind, honestly believes that they would stop at the insidious "assault weapon"? I mean, seriously....

Not me. The Democrats have latched onto being anti-gun ever since JFK was assassination. Every time Republicans "compromise" by giving an inch, the Democrats take a mile and then, a year or so later, come back for more.

I have no doubt accepting a permanent ban on magazines over 10 rounds will eventually result in Democrats pushing to ban magazines over 5 rounds.

They can ban high capacity mags (in their dreams) but can they ban this?

 

[Flash]

As a hunter I have heard this same rhetoric for 30 years...they are gonna take your guns. Some will buy into anything. A real hunter uses a bolt action. Not an assault rifle. The 2nd amendment protects my right to own my hunting guns. Its all fear rhetoric.

The 2nd amendment has nothing to do with hunting.

These "Fudds" are just as much a threat to the right to keep and bear arm as any of the anti gunners.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

This guy......with a friggin revolver!!!!

 

[Chuz Life]

What are the gun grabbers going to do when THIS technology continues to improve too?

They will regulate printers for sure.

LOL!

Good luck with that!

No doubt they'll ban the making, but the Left loves to pass unenforceable laws. It makes them feel good.

The left? How many laws have been passed to make a legal abortion more difficult, and how many have been overturned by the courts? How many abortions have been prevented, and how many unwanted pregnancies from law which restrict the ability to obtain contraceptives?

June 8, 2015, 9:32 AM
Abortion rate declines in almost every state

"Several of the states that have been most aggressive in passing anti-abortion laws - including Indiana, Missouri, Ohio, and Oklahoma - have seen their abortion numbers drop by more than 15 percent since 2010. But more liberal states such as New York, Washington and Oregon also had declines of that magnitude, even as they maintained unrestricted access to abortion.

Nationwide, the AP survey showed a decrease in abortions of about 12 percent since 2010."

 

[Divine Wind]

As a hunter I have heard this same rhetoric for 30 years...they are gonna take your guns. Some will buy into anything. A real hunter uses a bolt action. Not an assault rifle. The 2nd amendment protects my right to own my hunting guns. Its all fear rhetoric.

The 2nd amendment has nothing to do with hunting.

Agreed, which is why the anti-gun Left wants to redefine the meaning of the Second Amendment.

2nd Amendment: Original Meaning and Purpose | Tenth Amendment Center
.....James Madison, the father of the Constitution, said in 1789 that “A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country.”

An example of a well regulated militia under Madison’s definition were the Minutemen at Concord and Lexington, who had drilled on fields in preparation for war.

As to the meaning of the word “militia,” it has nothing to do with the National Guard. There is already a clause in the Constitution that specifically authorizes arming them.

So what is a militia as defined by the Founders? Mason said they were “the whole people, except for a few public officials.”

In fact, there was a universal acceptance among both federalists and anti-federalists as to the importance of the right to bear arms.

Alexander Hamilton wrote in Federalist 28 that “if the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no recourse left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense,” a right which he declared to be “paramount.”

And then there is clause “shall not be infringed.” There is no exception to this contained anywhere in the amendment.

Zacharia Johnson, a delegate to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, summed up the meaning of the Second Amendment when he declared that “The people are not to be disarmed of their weapons. They are left in full possession of them.”

Full possession. Not some. Not most. Full possession of their weapons. The feds were to keep their hands off entirely.

The Founders made it very clear what the Second Amendment means. But if we do not fight against any and all attempts by the feds to infringe upon our right to keep and bear arms, then it loses all relevant meaning.

 

[Chuz Life]

This guy......with a friggin revolver!!!!

That dude is awesome.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

Put a semi auto in his hand and it gets insane....rifle or pistol.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

whoops forgot the link.

 

[RandallFlagg]

It is not illegal to own a .45 Thompson, but if you want to shoot it outside your property, you have to have a special license. We should simply include any semiautomatic rifle that has a magazine that can be rapidly removed and replaced. And if you are found with such a weapon without the license, you have committed a felony, all your firearms will be confiscated and destroyed, and, after you have served your time, you cannot own or have in your possession a firearm for the rest of your life. And, from the time the law is passed, you have to pass the same license requirements to purchase one of these weapons.

Actually, it is perfectly legal to own a Thompson. Looks just like the real deal. Only difference? Only fires semi-auto.

The rest of your post I completely disagree with.

Here's an idea. Let's take away the First Amendment. Why not? Let's make it a crime to express yourself without a proper license. Why not?

Let's make it a crime - punishable by imprisonment - if you gather in groups in public to express your disappointment with whatever.

See how quickly it can devolve into biting us on the ass?

 

[Divine Wind]

No one said they want to ‘ban’ anything.

President Obama reiterated his desire to ban "assault weapons" which, presumably, includes banning "high capacity magazines".

And what person, in their right mind, honestly believes that they would stop at the insidious "assault weapon"? I mean, seriously....

Not me. The Democrats have latched onto being anti-gun ever since JFK was assassination. Every time Republicans "compromise" by giving an inch, the Democrats take a mile and then, a year or so later, come back for more.

I have no doubt accepting a permanent ban on magazines over 10 rounds will eventually result in Democrats pushing to ban magazines over 5 rounds.

They can ban high capacity mags (in their dreams) but can they ban this?

Their strategy is "one step at a time".