In Lieu Of Recent Mass Shootings With Assault Rifles,There Seems To Be Mass Ignorance Of What One Is

[Jitss617]

There have been far too many mass shootings in the recent History of the United States. Two common factors in these crimes have been “assault rifle” style firearms and for the press and politicians to describe these weapons as “high power.” This is an error, which I will address shortly, but first, a trigger warning—no pun intended. I frankly think trigger warnings are overused, but in this case, I am about to describe terrible things.

Proceed at your own risk.

A Brief History of the Assault Rifle, for Journalists and Legislators

Yes, AR-15 and AK 47's are assault rifles, both the fully automatics, and semi automatics. If you don't know this, you are to stupid to own one, and should be prohibited from doing so. This article is for those that are not gun enthusiasts, and can be confused by the misinformation spewed on this and other sites. This will give you all of the information you need to make donnie gun nut look like the idiot he is telling you about his vast knowledge of firearms.

Enjoy.

A rifle assaulted someone? Was it questioned?

 

[whitehall]

Police Officers were the initial targets and then random civilians. That seems to go along with the left's hatred for Law Enforcement these days. A similar case of mass shooting happened with the notorious "Beltway Snipers" a couple of years ago but in a longer time span. The left made excuses for the trigger man at the time and now they want to let him out of jail.

 

[satrebil]

I have allowed this to on long enough. The Federal Courts have ruled that the definition of "Assault Rifle" doesn't have any meaning. But it has ruled on the meaning of "Ar-15 and it's various clones" as being able to be not only heavily regulated but also banned at the state and local level. A few of you gunnutters keep reading into Miller V, Heller V and McDonald V and trying to get them to say something they don't say. But the law reads that the AR-15 can be heavily regulated AND even banned by the States. Like Judge Young said in the Mass V US ruling, you don't like the local ruling, move to an area more to your liking. I hear Texas is a fun filled place these days.

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

JAIME CAETANO v. MASSACHUSETTS

No. 14–10078. Decided March 21, 2016
Per Curiam.

The Court has held that “the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding,” District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U. S. 570, 582 (2008), and that this “ Second Amendment right is fully applicable to the States,” McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U. S. 742, 750 (2010).

 

[rightwinger]

Let’s just set a firing speed and magazine capacity and call it an assault weapon

Yeah one round per trigger pull is not an assault rifle

Depends how easy that trigger pulls

So now you want to regulate the weight of a trigger pull?

Maybe we should just amputate the trigger finger off of anyone who can pull a trigger more than once every 5 seconds

Are you presuming that all semiautomatic weapons will fire at the same rate?

 

[rightwinger]

When did the M1 Garand cease being an assault rifle?

Lol
You have no clue what an so-called “assault rifle” even is shit for brains

So, lacking the ability the answer the question, you fall back on an attempt at an insult post to hide your lack of knowledge or intelligence.
By the way dopey, the law determines the definition of what an assault weapon is, not you.

They already have, you dumb shit...

Staples v United States...

Supreme Court ruling...

Staples v. United States, 511 U.S. 600 (1994).

The AR-15 is the civilian version of the military's M-16 rifle, and is, unless modified, a semiautomatic weapon. The M-16, in contrast, is a selective fire rifle that allows the operator, by rotating a selector switch, to choose semiautomatic or automatic fire

Your link is about machine guns dumb shit. This thread is about defining what an assault weapon is.

nothing in our Constitution mentions overthrowing our government

 

[progressive hunter]

Let’s just set a firing speed and magazine capacity and call it an assault weapon

Yeah one round per trigger pull is not an assault rifle

Depends how easy that trigger pulls

So now you want to regulate the weight of a trigger pull?

Maybe we should just amputate the trigger finger off of anyone who can pull a trigger more than once every 5 seconds

Are you presuming that all semiautomatic weapons will fire at the same rate?

they all fire as fast as your finger can pull the trigger

 

[progressive hunter]

Lol
You have no clue what an so-called “assault rifle” even is shit for brains

So, lacking the ability the answer the question, you fall back on an attempt at an insult post to hide your lack of knowledge or intelligence.
By the way dopey, the law determines the definition of what an assault weapon is, not you.

They already have, you dumb shit...

Staples v United States...

Supreme Court ruling...

Staples v. United States, 511 U.S. 600 (1994).

The AR-15 is the civilian version of the military's M-16 rifle, and is, unless modified, a semiautomatic weapon. The M-16, in contrast, is a selective fire rifle that allows the operator, by rotating a selector switch, to choose semiautomatic or automatic fire

Your link is about machine guns dumb shit. This thread is about defining what an assault weapon is.

nothing in our Constitution mentions overthrowing our government

you skipped a word,,,tyrannical,,,

 

[2aguy]

You do not ban 18 million rifles for the criminal acts of less than 5 people, you dumb twit.

Therefore mass shootings with military style semi automatics are justified.

No, shitstain....

First, the AR-15 is not a military anything, it has never been used by the military, has never been used in war...that you keep saying that shows you are a giant doofus.

And we already have laws on the books that state you can't...

1) murder people

2) murder people with guns...

We have those laws on the books already so we can already arrest anyone who uses a gun illegally........are you that f*****g stupid that you don't realize that? Does your mother still help you dress and eat?

 

[2aguy]

I have allowed this to on long enough. The Federal Courts have ruled that the definition of "Assault Rifle" doesn't have any meaning. But it has ruled on the meaning of "Ar-15 and it's various clones" as being able to be not only heavily regulated but also banned at the state and local level. A few of you gunnutters keep reading into Miller V, Heller V and McDonald V and trying to get them to say something they don't say. But the law reads that the AR-15 can be heavily regulated AND even banned by the States. Like Judge Young said in the Mass V US ruling, you don't like the local ruling, move to an area more to your liking. I hear Texas is a fun filled place these days.

Moron....you keep pulling that crap out of your ass and then you act like you have done something profound....nothing you posted is true...

Heller, Miller ,Caetano, and Friedman v Highland park, all Supreme Court rulings, the highest court in the Country says that these rifles are protected....and by name that the AR-15 and similar rifles are protected by the 2nd Amendment.....

 

[2aguy]

doesnt matter since the 2nd is about all guns, not just what the government says you can have,

Obviously false, as has been shown every time this has been tested. Enjoy your stay in fantasyland, troll....

Incorrect. The British Government didn't ban weapons like you claim. They banned weapons from a select group of people they deemed most likely to use them against the British Troops. They were right in their assumption. They were just piss poor in implementing enforcing the law.

And their gun crime and murder rate did not change......and is now likely to go up as their young, fatherless males become more violent....the British police stated to the press they can't stop the increasing flow of illegal guns into their country.....

 

[2aguy]

I have allowed this to on long enough. The Federal Courts have ruled that the definition of "Assault Rifle" doesn't have any meaning. But it has ruled on the meaning of "Ar-15 and it's various clones" as being able to be not only heavily regulated but also banned at the state and local level. A few of you gunnutters keep reading into Miller V, Heller V and McDonald V and trying to get them to say something they don't say. But the law reads that the AR-15 can be heavily regulated AND even banned by the States. Like Judge Young said in the Mass V US ruling, you don't like the local ruling, move to an area more to your liking. I hear Texas is a fun filled place these days.

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

JAIME CAETANO v. MASSACHUSETTS

No. 14–10078. Decided March 21, 2016
Per Curiam.

The Court has held that “the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding,” District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U. S. 570, 582 (2008), and that this “ Second Amendment right is fully applicable to the States,” McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U. S. 742, 750 (2010).

And the best part is where Alito states that "Dangerous and Unusual" cannot be applied to common rifles and other guns........

 

[Daryl Hunt]

I have allowed this to on long enough. The Federal Courts have ruled that the definition of "Assault Rifle" doesn't have any meaning. But it has ruled on the meaning of "Ar-15 and it's various clones" as being able to be not only heavily regulated but also banned at the state and local level. A few of you gunnutters keep reading into Miller V, Heller V and McDonald V and trying to get them to say something they don't say. But the law reads that the AR-15 can be heavily regulated AND even banned by the States. Like Judge Young said in the Mass V US ruling, you don't like the local ruling, move to an area more to your liking. I hear Texas is a fun filled place these days.

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

JAIME CAETANO v. MASSACHUSETTS

No. 14–10078. Decided March 21, 2016
Per Curiam.

The Court has held that “the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding,” District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U. S. 570, 582 (2008), and that this “ Second Amendment right is fully applicable to the States,” McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U. S. 742, 750 (2010).

Taken directly from McDonald V Chicago, "For Purposes of Self Defense". And states that Heller V stating unmistakenly pointed to the answer. "For the Purposes of Self Defense". The Reason McDonald V used Heller V as precedence was because it dealt with exactly the same thing. Both D.C. and Chicago tried to essentially ban handguns for normal citizens in the home. Not regulate them or license them but ban them. And the same ruling was concluded. This has NOTHING to do with anything other than a reasonable ability to defend your home using reasonable force.

If you want to make a reasonable decision on it, I suggest you read the whole thing.
MCDONALD ET AL. v. CITY OF CHICAGO, ILLINOIS

 

[miketx]

There have been far too many mass shootings in the recent History of the United States. Two common factors in these crimes have been “assault rifle” style firearms and for the press and politicians to describe these weapons as “high power.” This is an error, which I will address shortly, but first, a trigger warning—no pun intended. I frankly think trigger warnings are overused, but in this case, I am about to describe terrible things.

Proceed at your own risk.

A Brief History of the Assault Rifle, for Journalists and Legislators

Yes, AR-15 and AK 47's are assault rifles, both the fully automatics, and semi automatics. If you don't know this, you are to stupid to own one, and should be prohibited from doing so. This article is for those that are not gun enthusiasts, and can be confused by the misinformation spewed on this and other sites. This will give you all of the information you need to make donnie gun nut look like the idiot he is telling you about his vast knowledge of firearms.

Enjoy.

Even the full semi-automatic ones, liar?

 

[2aguy]

I have allowed this to on long enough. The Federal Courts have ruled that the definition of "Assault Rifle" doesn't have any meaning. But it has ruled on the meaning of "Ar-15 and it's various clones" as being able to be not only heavily regulated but also banned at the state and local level. A few of you gunnutters keep reading into Miller V, Heller V and McDonald V and trying to get them to say something they don't say. But the law reads that the AR-15 can be heavily regulated AND even banned by the States. Like Judge Young said in the Mass V US ruling, you don't like the local ruling, move to an area more to your liking. I hear Texas is a fun filled place these days.

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

JAIME CAETANO v. MASSACHUSETTS

No. 14–10078. Decided March 21, 2016
Per Curiam.

The Court has held that “the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding,” District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U. S. 570, 582 (2008), and that this “ Second Amendment right is fully applicable to the States,” McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U. S. 742, 750 (2010).

Taken directly from McDonald V Chicago, "For Purposes of Self Defense". And states that Heller V stating unmistakenly pointed to the answer. "For the Purposes of Self Defense". The Reason McDonald V used Heller V as precedence was because it dealt with exactly the same thing. Both D.C. and Chicago tried to essentially ban handguns for normal citizens in the home. Not regulate them or license them but ban them. And the same ruling was concluded. This has NOTHING to do with anything other than a reasonable ability to defend your home using reasonable force.

If you want to make a reasonable decision on it, I suggest you read the whole thing.
MCDONALD ET AL. v. CITY OF CHICAGO, ILLINOIS

Moron.....

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf

Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment.

We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844, 849 (1997), and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27, 35–36 (2001), the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/15-133_7l48.pdf

That analysis misreads Heller. The question under Heller is not whether citizens have adequate alternatives available for self-defense.

Rather, Heller asks whether the law bans types of firearms commonly used for a lawful purpose—regardless of whether alternatives exist. 554 U. S., at 627–629. And Heller draws a distinction between such firearms and weapons specially adapted to unlawful uses and not in common use, such as sawed-off shotguns. Id., at 624–625.

The City’s ban is thus highly suspect because it broadly prohibits common semiautomatic firearms used for lawful purposes.

Roughly five million Americans own AR-style semiautomatic rifles. See 784 F. 3d, at 415, n. 3. The overwhelming majority of citizens who own and use such rifles do so for lawful purposes, including self-defense and target shooting. See ibid. Under our precedents, that is all that is needed for citizens to have a right under the Second Amendment to keep such weapons. See McDonald, 561 U. S., at 767–768; Heller, supra, at 628–629

 

[2aguy]

I have allowed this to on long enough. The Federal Courts have ruled that the definition of "Assault Rifle" doesn't have any meaning. But it has ruled on the meaning of "Ar-15 and it's various clones" as being able to be not only heavily regulated but also banned at the state and local level. A few of you gunnutters keep reading into Miller V, Heller V and McDonald V and trying to get them to say something they don't say. But the law reads that the AR-15 can be heavily regulated AND even banned by the States. Like Judge Young said in the Mass V US ruling, you don't like the local ruling, move to an area more to your liking. I hear Texas is a fun filled place these days.

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

JAIME CAETANO v. MASSACHUSETTS

No. 14–10078. Decided March 21, 2016
Per Curiam.

The Court has held that “the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding,” District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U. S. 570, 582 (2008), and that this “ Second Amendment right is fully applicable to the States,” McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U. S. 742, 750 (2010).

Taken directly from McDonald V Chicago, "For Purposes of Self Defense". And states that Heller V stating unmistakenly pointed to the answer. "For the Purposes of Self Defense". The Reason McDonald V used Heller V as precedence was because it dealt with exactly the same thing. Both D.C. and Chicago tried to essentially ban handguns for normal citizens in the home. Not regulate them or license them but ban them. And the same ruling was concluded. This has NOTHING to do with anything other than a reasonable ability to defend your home using reasonable force.

If you want to make a reasonable decision on it, I suggest you read the whole thing.
MCDONALD ET AL. v. CITY OF CHICAGO, ILLINOIS

And Caetano v Massachusetts......the case following Heller....

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/14-10078_aplc.pdf
Opinion of the Court[edit]

In a per curiam decision, the Supreme Court vacated the ruling of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court.

[7] Citing District of Columbia v. Heller[8] and McDonald v. City of Chicago,[9] the Court began its opinion by stating that "the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding" and that "the Second Amendment right is fully applicable to the States".[6]

The Court then identified three reasons why the Massachusetts court's opinion contradicted prior rulings by the United States Supreme Court.[1]

First, the Massachusetts court said that stun guns could be banned because they "were not in common use at the time of the Second Amendment’s enactment", but the Supreme Court noted that this contradicted Heller's conclusion that Second Amendment protects "arms ... that were not in existence at the time of the founding”.[10]

Second, the Massachusetts court said that stun guns were "dangerous per se at common law and unusual" because they were "a thoroughly modern invention", but the Supreme Court held that this was also inconstant with Heller.[11]


Third, the Massachusetts court said that stun guns could be banned because they were not "readily adaptable to use in the military", but the Supreme Court held that Heller rejected the argument that "only those weapons useful in warfare" were protected by the Second Amendment.[12]

-----

----As to “dangerous,” the court below held that a weapon is “dangerous per se” if it is “ ‘designed and constructed to produce death or great bodily harm’ and ‘for the purpose of bodily assault or defense.’” 470 Mass., at 779, 26 N. E. 3d, at 692 (quoting Commonwealth v. Appleby, 380 Mass. 296, 303, 402 N. E. 2d 1051, 1056 (1980)).


That test may be appropriate for applying statutes criminalizing assault with a dangerous weapon. See ibid., 402 N. E. 2d, at 1056. But it cannot be used to identify arms that fall outside the Second Amendment. First, the relative dangerousness of a weapon is irrelevant when the weapon belongs to a class of arms commonly used for lawful purposes. See Heller, supra, at 627 (contrasting “‘dangerous and unusual weapons’” that may be banned with protected “weapons . . . ‘in common use at the time’”).

Second, even in cases where dangerousness might be relevant, the Supreme Judicial Court’s test sweeps far too broadly.

Heller defined the “Arms” covered by the Second Amendment to include “‘any thing that a man wears for his defence, or takes into his hands, or useth in wrath to cast at or strike another.’” 554 U. S., at 581.


Under the decision below, however, virtually every covered arm would qualify as “dangerous.” Were there any doubt on this point, one need only look at the court’s first example of “dangerous per se” weapons: “firearms.” 470 Mass., at 779, 26 N. E. 3d, at 692.

If Heller tells us anything, it is that firearms cannot be categorically prohibited just because they are dangerous. 554 U. S., at 636. A fortiori, stun guns that the Commonwealth’s own witness described as “non-lethal force,” Tr. 27, cannot be banned on that basis.---------

The court also opined that a weapon’s unusualness depends on whether “it is a weapon of warfare to be used by the militia.” 470 Mass., at 780, 26 N. E. 3d, at 693. It asserted that we followed such an approach in Miller and “approved its use in Heller.” 470 Mass., at 780, 26 N. E. 3d, at 693.


But Heller actually said that it would be a “startling reading” of Miller to conclude that “only those weapons useful in warfare are protected.” 554 U. S., at 624.


Instead, Miller and Heller recognized that militia members traditionally reported for duty carrying “the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home,” and that the Second Amendment therefore protects such weapons as a class, regardless of any particular weapon’s suitability for military use.


554 U. S., at 627; see id., at 624–625. Indeed, Heller acknowledged that advancements in military technology might render many commonly owned weapons ineffective in warfare. Id., at 627–628. But such “modern developments . . . cannot change our interpretation of the right.” Ibid.
In any event, the Supreme Judicial Court’s assumption that stun guns are unsuited for militia or military use is untenable.

 

[Rustic]

Lol
You have no clue what an so-called “assault rifle” even is shit for brains

So, lacking the ability the answer the question, you fall back on an attempt at an insult post to hide your lack of knowledge or intelligence.
By the way dopey, the law determines the definition of what an assault weapon is, not you.

They already have, you dumb shit...

Staples v United States...

Supreme Court ruling...

Staples v. United States, 511 U.S. 600 (1994).

The AR-15 is the civilian version of the military's M-16 rifle, and is, unless modified, a semiautomatic weapon. The M-16, in contrast, is a selective fire rifle that allows the operator, by rotating a selector switch, to choose semiautomatic or automatic fire

Your link is about machine guns dumb shit. This thread is about defining what an assault weapon is.

nothing in our Constitution mentions overthrowing our government

The federal government has zero moral credibility

 

[MikeK]

Yes, AR-15 and AK 47's are assault rifles, both the fully automatics, and semi automatics. If you don't know this, you are to stupid to own one, and should be prohibited from doing so. This article is for those that are not gun enthusiasts, and can be confused by the misinformation spewed on this and other sites. This will give you all of the information you need to make donnie gun nut look like the idiot he is telling you about his vast knowledge of firearms.

Enjoy.

Skews13, you're a really good writer but in this example you have over-cooked the sauce. To begin with, fully automatic capability is the primary requirement for an 'assault' rifle. Next on the list of requirements are light weight, compactness, high ammo capacity, simple functionality.

"Assault rifle" is a military term. The word 'assault' in military terms means a tactic in which a large number of troops are rapidly and aggressively deployed in a forward attack on a defended position -- such as the beach at Normandy during WW-II.

Why are the B.A.R., the M1 Garand and the M-14 not good 'assault' rifles? Simple answer -- too big, too heavy, thus comparatively clumsy. Why is the M1 Carbine the ideal 'assault' rifle? Simple answer -- it manifests all of the necessary requirements.

The M-16 is a good 'assault' rifle. The AR-15 is not -- simply because it is not full-auto capable.

 

[Dan Stubbs]

There have been far too many mass shootings in the recent History of the United States. Two common factors in these crimes have been “assault rifle” style firearms and for the press and politicians to describe these weapons as “high power.” This is an error, which I will address shortly, but first, a trigger warning—no pun intended. I frankly think trigger warnings are overused, but in this case, I am about to describe terrible things.

Proceed at your own risk.

A Brief History of the Assault Rifle, for Journalists and Legislators

Yes, AR-15 and AK 47's are assault rifles, both the fully automatics, and semi automatics. If you don't know this, you are to stupid to own one, and should be prohibited from doing so. This article is for those that are not gun enthusiasts, and can be confused by the misinformation spewed on this and other sites. This will give you all of the information you need to make donnie gun nut look like the idiot he is telling you about his vast knowledge of firearms.

Enjoy.

The Deep State are using Psychiatrists to recruit mass shooters. The Psychiatrists pump them up with meds and fill their heads with nonsense. These mass shooters are lonely. They have ADHD from drinking fluoride from birth. And when the Psychiatrists declares them insane. That is when they gives them a free coupon to buy several assault weapons with lots of ammo. And then the Deep State creates them a social page saying how much that they love Pres.Trump. But while they bans the real Pres.Trump's supporters from social media. And then it will force Pres.Trump to abolish the 2nd amendment, so that the U.N. peacekeepers can come and take our weapons away. And once they have taken away all of our weapons. That the U.N. peace keepers will hog tied us up to a tree. and sodomize us all as a victory dance.

You don't happen to own a gun do you?

 

[Dan Stubbs]

Yes, AR-15 and AK 47's are assault rifles, both the fully automatics, and semi automatics. If you don't know this, you are to stupid to own one, and should be prohibited from doing so. This article is for those that are not gun enthusiasts, and can be confused by the misinformation spewed on this and other sites. This will give you all of the information you need to make donnie gun nut look like the idiot he is telling you about his vast knowledge of firearms.

Enjoy.

Skews13, you're a really good writer but in this example you have over-cooked the sauce. To begin with, fully automatic capability is the primary requirement for an 'assault' rifle. Next on the list of requirements are light weight, compactness, high ammo capacity, simple functionality.

"Assault rifle" is a military term. The word 'assault' in military terms means a tactic in which a large number of troops are rapidly and aggressively deployed in a forward attack on a defended position -- such as the beach at Normandy during WW-II.

Why are the B.A.R., the M1 Garand and the M-14 not good 'assault' rifles? Simple answer -- too big, too heavy, thus comparatively clumsy. Why is the M1 Carbine the ideal 'assault' rifle? Simple answer -- it manifests all of the necessary requirements.

The M-16 is a good 'assault' rifle. The AR-15 is not -- simply because it is not full-auto capable.

They seemed OK during the war in Korea...14s are varmint guns

 

[Daryl Hunt]

Yes, AR-15 and AK 47's are assault rifles, both the fully automatics, and semi automatics. If you don't know this, you are to stupid to own one, and should be prohibited from doing so. This article is for those that are not gun enthusiasts, and can be confused by the misinformation spewed on this and other sites. This will give you all of the information you need to make donnie gun nut look like the idiot he is telling you about his vast knowledge of firearms.

Enjoy.

Skews13, you're a really good writer but in this example you have over-cooked the sauce. To begin with, fully automatic capability is the primary requirement for an 'assault' rifle. Next on the list of requirements are light weight, compactness, high ammo capacity, simple functionality.

"Assault rifle" is a military term. The word 'assault' in military terms means a tactic in which a large number of troops are rapidly and aggressively deployed in a forward attack on a defended position -- such as the beach at Normandy during WW-II.

Why are the B.A.R., the M1 Garand and the M-14 not good 'assault' rifles? Simple answer -- too big, too heavy, thus comparatively clumsy. Why is the M1 Carbine the ideal 'assault' rifle? Simple answer -- it manifests all of the necessary requirements.

The M-16 is a good 'assault' rifle. The AR-15 is not -- simply because it is not full-auto capable.

The M-16A-1 and the AR-15 Model 601 both were deemed later on as not a good assault rifle BECAUSE they were capable of full auto operation. Both were replaced by the M-16A-2 and M-16A-4 which aren't really capable of full auto operation. Both had semi auto and 3 shot burst capability. But due to combat experience, both are used primarily in semi auto setting as even the 3 shot burst wastes 66% of your ammo. And the 11th commandment of combat is, "Thou Shalt Not Waste your Ammo".