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.
I don't frankly want to engage in 2nd Amendment and gun control discussions, and most especially not the one that surely is going on in this thread which was begun with at least three factual falsehoods and one gross misrepresentation of context.
[
If you have to "militarize" an AR-15 to make it function LIKE the MK-16. . . then they are not the same same fucking gun. Are they.
Gawd you leftardz are dense.
Red:
LOL...That makes two of us.
Truly, however, my fist two posts in this thread made no effort to discuss guns themselves, but rather the ineptitude and rampant material inaccuracies in the OP.
I don't frankly want to engage in 2nd Amendment and gun control discussions, and most especially not the one that surely is going on in this thread which was begun with at least three factual falsehoods and one gross misrepresentation of context.
The Founders in 1776 didn't intend to allow WEAPONS OF WAR.
They only intended to allow pistols and muskets....which were not used as weapons of war in those days
???? Oh, Lord, have mercy. Muskets were most certainly weapons of war in 1776. Ever hear of the Brown Bess?
(click the photo for the related narrative)
It only takes one to prove the point. Though there are countless millions of instances where guns have been used for self defense and to save lives.
Unfortunately the information you post is simply not accurate.
Really. Which part specifically?
His claim that the M-16 preceded the AR-15.
His claim that the M-16 preceded the AR-15.
And what is it that you are claiming? That the AR 15 was built before the M16? You have evidence of that?
Wiki says they were developed at the same time. Two weapons of war. One fully automatic the other not. What is the issue?
The reason millions of ARs have been sold is because the buyers can't purchase an M16.
Why are gun nutters so dense about this fact?
Please at least TRY and follow the thread.
The AR-15 has never been a military weapon, was never designed to be.
[
Please try and answer the questions. If you can. If you can't, no big deal. I don't give a flying fuck really. All you nutters are crazy anyway.
Yea, but its the closet thing to today's military weapon a civilian can buy isn't it?
Gun nutters would be buying M16s if possible.
Or are you going to deny that?
Yea, but its the closet thing to today's military weapon a civilian can buy isn't it?
No, it is not an automatic rifle.
"Weapon of war" is a lie that anti-liberty fucks spew in their war on civil rights
Gun nutters would be buying M16s if possible.
Or are you going to deny that?
I can't say what others would buy.
Millions buy iPhones from EvilCorp.
I will say that the left is waging full out war on civil rights, and lies are the assault weapons you use.
The Founders in 1776 didn't intend to allow WEAPONS OF WAR.
They only intended to allow pistols and muskets....which were not used as weapons of war in those days
???? Oh, Lord, have mercy. Muskets were most certainly weapons of war in 1776. Ever hear of the Brown Bess?
(click the photo for the related narrative)
He was being sarcastic, you DO grasp that, right?
Get rid of all assault style weapons. Pretty simple concept really.
Australia confiscated 650,000 guns. Murders and suicides plummeted.
Gotta love how the facts put the leftardz claims into perspective.
All that, both videos, does not alter the fact that the M16 evolved from the AR-15, which is what I wrote, which is 100% accurate, and which is what gave rise to Busco's inaccurate remark.
Do you claim that an AR-15 is the very same thing as an M-16 (a rose by any other name)? Yes or no?
No, I do not claim it is the very same thing; I don't think an AR-15 is exactly the same as an M16. I don't because it is not. I claimed that the AR-15 evolved into the M16. The two are quite similar, yet they are different. That said, click on the link I provided to my initial mention of the M16 and you'll see that the similarity and differences between the two are irrelevant to the point of the post, paragraph and sentence in which I first mentioned the M16. I could have been right or wrong about whether the AR-15 evolved into the M16 and the point of the sentence would be neither enhanced nor diminished.
If you click on the links I provided earlier, you'll also find that my statement that the AR-15 evolved into the M16 is fully accurate. It did. I am simply not incorrect on that point of fact.
Red:
I'm sorry the literary device I used zoomed over your head like an F16 on afterburner.
Do you understand what metaphor, they specific type of metaphor being metonymy, is? Do you not recognize that my statement -- "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." -- is precisely that?
Yes, I made reference to one of the best known plays of all time. But take a look at The Bard's verses from Romeo and Juliet:
Thou art thyself though, not a Montague.
What’s Montague? it is nor hand, nor foot,
Nor arm, nor face, nor any other part
Belonging to a man. O! be some other name:
What’s in a name? that which we call a rose
By any other name would smell as sweet;
The Bard doesn't suggest literal equivalence. Juliet's remarks focus on overall substance, not on absolute identicality. Just Montague-ness does not depend on the face or foot being precisely the same for one's substance to yet be that of a Montague, so too does the similarity of substance between the AR-15 and M16 not depend on literal and uniform sameness.
The answer "no" will suffice.
They are not the same. So, the inference that an AR-15 is just an M-16 going by another name is false, fallacious, fictitious, disingenuous, misleading, deceptive, counter productive, erroneous and is not supported by the facts. .
The first weapon I was introduced to in USAF was an AR-15. It was called a M-16 shortly after that. The AR-15 is a class of weapons that includes all versions of the civilian and military versions. Many parts are interchangable as well.
If I militarize a civilian AR-15, I have to change out the bolt and barrel. Much like when the M-16A-1 was upgraded to the M-16A-2. The barrel ended up being chromed in the firing chamber. And Stainless Steel parts were introduced. You can legally buy these parts and upgrade your AR-15 to the militarized version. The only thing you won't be able to do legally is to upgrade the receiver to the M-16 full auto receiver. But adapting to the Trace Method, the semi auto AR-15 can fire as fast as the M-16 on full auto.
The other difference is the bullet speed. 3200 V 3400. Not enough to even notice. And militarizing your AR-15 means you can now fire the hotter ammo.
In a confined and heavily populated area, you can use the Trace Method to empty out your 30 round clip and easily kill 49 people right around a second of time. It's not the gun, per se, it's the high capacity mag that enables it to be just as good at massacres as the M-16 is at war.
