Nobody doubts the M4 is an assault weapon. Are there any material differences between an M4 and an AR15?

[BULLDOG]

This GOTCHA attempt is so lame, we need to call in a veterinarian and have it put down.

It's an honest question. All I want is an honest answer.

Lots of people doubt its an assault rifle so the entire thread is pointless.

There are always people who live in their own little world, but if disagree with our military's definition, you're pretty much an idiot.

Like you who thinks that it's soooooo easy to modify an AR 15 into a fully automatic weapon even though no one ever seems to use modified AR 15s to commit crimes

Perhaps it would be beyond your ability to fabricate one small part, and purchase the rest. That wouldn't be a big hurdle for many.

Then tell me why we don't see people using modified Ar 15s to commit crimes.

You say all this shit but you have no proof that people are actually modifying their ARs

I never said they do, even though I believe some do. I just said it was possible, and not that hard to do.

Like I said if it was as easy as you say that we would see criminals , especially gangs, use them and it just doesn't happen.

Lots of things are possible but aren't probable

BUT ALL YOU NEED IS A FILE AND A PIECE OF STEEL CMON MAN ITS SO EASY

I never said just a file and piece of steel, but I get your point. I never explicitly said it would also require some sort of easily built jig and some sort of easily built bracket to hold the grinder steady. I regularly use those types of things, and don't see them as anything other than just normal use of the tool. I still stand by my claim that it is possible to cut a few non-complex notches out of a 1/2 by 3/4 by 1 1/4 inch piece of steel with nothing more than a grinder, a vice, and perhaps a file to smooth up the rough cuts, and a cheap set of Harbor Freight calipers to check your work. Oh look, I added a file and a way of measuring. I didn't mention a pencil to mark where to cut either. Does that mean my claim that a DIAS is easily built is a lie?

Make one. Show us how easy it is.

Hop to it.

Making one would put me in prison. I said I could show how to make one. but I want to make sure the other questions about the ease of conversion are answered first.

Talking to someone about it is Conspiracy to Commit.

Conversion isn't easy. I have built them legally, I had a full machine shop at my beck and call.

No . Talking about it is no conspiracy. There is no intent to build one. Yes, it is easy. Are you saying you aren't capable of swapping a few easily bought parts?

Not conspiracy. Solicitation.

"A person is guilty of solicitation to commit a crime if, with the purpose of promoting or facilitating its commission, he commands, encourages or requests another person to engage in specific conduct which would constitute such crime..."

You're encouraging people to break the law. Tsk, tsk.

Several times I said conversion was illegal and would put you in prison for a long time. I've specifically said I don't advise it. This thread is about why most people don't do it. The gun nut mantra is that crooks don't obey laws anyway, so why don't more crooks convert their AR15s. Is it because it is too complicated? Is there some secret procedure that they can't figure out?

Aside from difficulty and expense or trouble, full auto or burst capability is only an improvement in rare and unlikely circumstances even for criminals. Certainly not worth the risk of massive additional prison time for essentially no gain and for simple possession rather than actual use in a possibly profitable crime. Criminals aren't necessarily stupid.

Criminals aren't necessarily stupid, but gun nuts claim that criminals don't care about the law. Gun laws only limit legal users is the often made claim. Are you gonna change your mind now?

Not at all, what I wrote is not in conflict with that claim. You don't have to care about the law to understand cation or to want possible gain to outweigh the risk. My point is that having full auto weapons is simply of no great importance to the vast majority of gun owners. Few-criminal or otherwise-would consider it worth the trouble expense or risk. There is almost nothing that a full auto weapon will do that a simi-auto won't do just as well so why bother?

Bullshit. Everybody, especially gun nuts would love to have a fully automatic rifle. I've paid my money to shoot one at a gun show, just like thousands of others have. Criminals don't care about what is legal, isn't that what NRA types say every day? If they were legal, I would have one, and you probably would too. They are FUN!!

You're dreaming and not paying attention. The M-16 A-1 was issued to me and served as my primary weapon throughout my tour of duty in Vietnam. I was also issued M-60's and M-2 50 cal. BMGs at times. I qualified "expert" with the M-16. I am more than a little familiar with automatic weapons as well as most other weapon types. Any one who knows me considers me the proto-typical gun nut. I have no desire to own a full-auto weapon. The sad truth is ammo is expensive and can become hard to find at any price, I could not afford the care and feeding of a full auto weapon and still shoot it enough to shoot it as well as I would like. Besides if there is ever a time I would need a full auto weapon I feel there will be unneeded ones lying around.

But you could easily swap the bolt, hammer, and selector, couldn't you?

Don't know or care. I could easily set myself on fire but have never had the urge to do so.

What a silly comparison. Setting yourself on fire is not the same as owning a fully automatic rifle. Whether you personally would want a fully auto rifle is not the point anyway. We all know many would want one.

Maybe so maybe not. I don't care. Why should I care if law abiding citizens have full auto weapons? I would rather criminal types didn't have them but anyone who is paying attention knows that the laws we have don't stop anyone who is really determined to get one from doing so and there is absolutely no reason to believe there are any new laws that could do so. But it's also obvious that criminals don't really want them anyway. The only thing that repressive gun laws accomplishes is to increase the numbers of criminals by definition. Pass a law that violates my Constitutional rights and I'll ignore it and some will consider me a criminal. I'm okay with that.

You think fully auto weapons should not be regulated? Thankfully, most disagree with you.

Didn't say that. I said I don't care. And that anyone who really wants one can get one regardless. But I do care very much that the blind drive to regulate automatic weapons doesn't spill over into attempts to further regulate other types of weapons including simi-automatic weapons. I would consider that unconstitutional and therefore illegal.

Many people agree with you. That has nothing to do with the OP, but sure, lots of people agree with you.

Then why not tell us all exactly what the purpose of the OP is? Why are you being all coy about that? Why ask others what you claim to already know?

Just wondering what made an AR15 different from a military defined assault rifle. Of course that one difference (F/A capability) shrinks when you consider how easy it is to make an AR fully automatic. During the course of the thread, it became interesting to see how hard many were trying to pretend that conversion is all but impossible, or that nobody would ever even be interested in making the conversion.

And, Ultimately the question remains.

Who cares.

The 2nd Amendment is Specifically about weapons that are usable by the military so your point is moot.

In US v Miller, the SCOTUS held that a sawed off shotgun could be regulated because it had no forseeable military purpose..

Which makes this entire thread irrelevant.

Nope. the 2nd and Miller have nothing to do with my question. Either you are too stupid to see that, or some RWNJ defect is making you constantly repeat the only thing you are capable of repeating. I suspect it's a little of both.

 

[2aguy]

This GOTCHA attempt is so lame, we need to call in a veterinarian and have it put down.

It's an honest question. All I want is an honest answer.

Lots of people doubt its an assault rifle so the entire thread is pointless.

There are always people who live in their own little world, but if disagree with our military's definition, you're pretty much an idiot.

Like you who thinks that it's soooooo easy to modify an AR 15 into a fully automatic weapon even though no one ever seems to use modified AR 15s to commit crimes

Perhaps it would be beyond your ability to fabricate one small part, and purchase the rest. That wouldn't be a big hurdle for many.

Then tell me why we don't see people using modified Ar 15s to commit crimes.

You say all this shit but you have no proof that people are actually modifying their ARs

I never said they do, even though I believe some do. I just said it was possible, and not that hard to do.

Like I said if it was as easy as you say that we would see criminals , especially gangs, use them and it just doesn't happen.

Lots of things are possible but aren't probable

BUT ALL YOU NEED IS A FILE AND A PIECE OF STEEL CMON MAN ITS SO EASY

I never said just a file and piece of steel, but I get your point. I never explicitly said it would also require some sort of easily built jig and some sort of easily built bracket to hold the grinder steady. I regularly use those types of things, and don't see them as anything other than just normal use of the tool. I still stand by my claim that it is possible to cut a few non-complex notches out of a 1/2 by 3/4 by 1 1/4 inch piece of steel with nothing more than a grinder, a vice, and perhaps a file to smooth up the rough cuts, and a cheap set of Harbor Freight calipers to check your work. Oh look, I added a file and a way of measuring. I didn't mention a pencil to mark where to cut either. Does that mean my claim that a DIAS is easily built is a lie?

Make one. Show us how easy it is.

Hop to it.

Making one would put me in prison. I said I could show how to make one. but I want to make sure the other questions about the ease of conversion are answered first.

Talking to someone about it is Conspiracy to Commit.

Conversion isn't easy. I have built them legally, I had a full machine shop at my beck and call.

No . Talking about it is no conspiracy. There is no intent to build one. Yes, it is easy. Are you saying you aren't capable of swapping a few easily bought parts?

Not conspiracy. Solicitation.

"A person is guilty of solicitation to commit a crime if, with the purpose of promoting or facilitating its commission, he commands, encourages or requests another person to engage in specific conduct which would constitute such crime..."

You're encouraging people to break the law. Tsk, tsk.

Several times I said conversion was illegal and would put you in prison for a long time. I've specifically said I don't advise it. This thread is about why most people don't do it. The gun nut mantra is that crooks don't obey laws anyway, so why don't more crooks convert their AR15s. Is it because it is too complicated? Is there some secret procedure that they can't figure out?

Aside from difficulty and expense or trouble, full auto or burst capability is only an improvement in rare and unlikely circumstances even for criminals. Certainly not worth the risk of massive additional prison time for essentially no gain and for simple possession rather than actual use in a possibly profitable crime. Criminals aren't necessarily stupid.

Criminals aren't necessarily stupid, but gun nuts claim that criminals don't care about the law. Gun laws only limit legal users is the often made claim. Are you gonna change your mind now?

Not at all, what I wrote is not in conflict with that claim. You don't have to care about the law to understand cation or to want possible gain to outweigh the risk. My point is that having full auto weapons is simply of no great importance to the vast majority of gun owners. Few-criminal or otherwise-would consider it worth the trouble expense or risk. There is almost nothing that a full auto weapon will do that a simi-auto won't do just as well so why bother?

Bullshit. Everybody, especially gun nuts would love to have a fully automatic rifle. I've paid my money to shoot one at a gun show, just like thousands of others have. Criminals don't care about what is legal, isn't that what NRA types say every day? If they were legal, I would have one, and you probably would too. They are FUN!!

You're dreaming and not paying attention. The M-16 A-1 was issued to me and served as my primary weapon throughout my tour of duty in Vietnam. I was also issued M-60's and M-2 50 cal. BMGs at times. I qualified "expert" with the M-16. I am more than a little familiar with automatic weapons as well as most other weapon types. Any one who knows me considers me the proto-typical gun nut. I have no desire to own a full-auto weapon. The sad truth is ammo is expensive and can become hard to find at any price, I could not afford the care and feeding of a full auto weapon and still shoot it enough to shoot it as well as I would like. Besides if there is ever a time I would need a full auto weapon I feel there will be unneeded ones lying around.

But you could easily swap the bolt, hammer, and selector, couldn't you?

Don't know or care. I could easily set myself on fire but have never had the urge to do so.

What a silly comparison. Setting yourself on fire is not the same as owning a fully automatic rifle. Whether you personally would want a fully auto rifle is not the point anyway. We all know many would want one.

Maybe so maybe not. I don't care. Why should I care if law abiding citizens have full auto weapons? I would rather criminal types didn't have them but anyone who is paying attention knows that the laws we have don't stop anyone who is really determined to get one from doing so and there is absolutely no reason to believe there are any new laws that could do so. But it's also obvious that criminals don't really want them anyway. The only thing that repressive gun laws accomplishes is to increase the numbers of criminals by definition. Pass a law that violates my Constitutional rights and I'll ignore it and some will consider me a criminal. I'm okay with that.

You think fully auto weapons should not be regulated? Thankfully, most disagree with you.

Didn't say that. I said I don't care. And that anyone who really wants one can get one regardless. But I do care very much that the blind drive to regulate automatic weapons doesn't spill over into attempts to further regulate other types of weapons including simi-automatic weapons. I would consider that unconstitutional and therefore illegal.

Many people agree with you. That has nothing to do with the OP, but sure, lots of people agree with you.

Then why not tell us all exactly what the purpose of the OP is? Why are you being all coy about that? Why ask others what you claim to already know?

Just wondering what made an AR15 different from a military defined assault rifle. Of course that one difference (F/A capability) shrinks when you consider how easy it is to make an AR fully automatic. During the course of the thread, it became interesting to see how hard many were trying to pretend that conversion is all but impossible, or that nobody would ever even be interested in making the conversion.

And, Ultimately the question remains.

Who cares.

The 2nd Amendment is Specifically about weapons that are usable by the military so your point is moot.

In US v Miller, the SCOTUS held that a sawed off shotgun could be regulated because it had no forseeable military purpose..

Which makes this entire thread irrelevant.

Nope. the 2nd and Miller have nothing to do with my question. Either you are too stupid to see that, or some RWNJ defect is making you constantly repeat the only thing you are capable of repeating. I suspect it's a little of both.

Your question was answered on page 1 or 2.

 

[daveman]

This GOTCHA attempt is so lame, we need to call in a veterinarian and have it put down.

It's an honest question. All I want is an honest answer.

Lots of people doubt its an assault rifle so the entire thread is pointless.

There are always people who live in their own little world, but if disagree with our military's definition, you're pretty much an idiot.

Like you who thinks that it's soooooo easy to modify an AR 15 into a fully automatic weapon even though no one ever seems to use modified AR 15s to commit crimes

Perhaps it would be beyond your ability to fabricate one small part, and purchase the rest. That wouldn't be a big hurdle for many.

Then tell me why we don't see people using modified Ar 15s to commit crimes.

You say all this shit but you have no proof that people are actually modifying their ARs

I never said they do, even though I believe some do. I just said it was possible, and not that hard to do.

Like I said if it was as easy as you say that we would see criminals , especially gangs, use them and it just doesn't happen.

Lots of things are possible but aren't probable

BUT ALL YOU NEED IS A FILE AND A PIECE OF STEEL CMON MAN ITS SO EASY

I never said just a file and piece of steel, but I get your point. I never explicitly said it would also require some sort of easily built jig and some sort of easily built bracket to hold the grinder steady. I regularly use those types of things, and don't see them as anything other than just normal use of the tool. I still stand by my claim that it is possible to cut a few non-complex notches out of a 1/2 by 3/4 by 1 1/4 inch piece of steel with nothing more than a grinder, a vice, and perhaps a file to smooth up the rough cuts, and a cheap set of Harbor Freight calipers to check your work. Oh look, I added a file and a way of measuring. I didn't mention a pencil to mark where to cut either. Does that mean my claim that a DIAS is easily built is a lie?

Make one. Show us how easy it is.

Hop to it.

Making one would put me in prison. I said I could show how to make one. but I want to make sure the other questions about the ease of conversion are answered first.

Talking to someone about it is Conspiracy to Commit.

Conversion isn't easy. I have built them legally, I had a full machine shop at my beck and call.

No . Talking about it is no conspiracy. There is no intent to build one. Yes, it is easy. Are you saying you aren't capable of swapping a few easily bought parts?

Not conspiracy. Solicitation.

"A person is guilty of solicitation to commit a crime if, with the purpose of promoting or facilitating its commission, he commands, encourages or requests another person to engage in specific conduct which would constitute such crime..."

You're encouraging people to break the law. Tsk, tsk.

Several times I said conversion was illegal and would put you in prison for a long time. I've specifically said I don't advise it. This thread is about why most people don't do it. The gun nut mantra is that crooks don't obey laws anyway, so why don't more crooks convert their AR15s. Is it because it is too complicated? Is there some secret procedure that they can't figure out?

Aside from difficulty and expense or trouble, full auto or burst capability is only an improvement in rare and unlikely circumstances even for criminals. Certainly not worth the risk of massive additional prison time for essentially no gain and for simple possession rather than actual use in a possibly profitable crime. Criminals aren't necessarily stupid.

Criminals aren't necessarily stupid, but gun nuts claim that criminals don't care about the law. Gun laws only limit legal users is the often made claim. Are you gonna change your mind now?

Not at all, what I wrote is not in conflict with that claim. You don't have to care about the law to understand cation or to want possible gain to outweigh the risk. My point is that having full auto weapons is simply of no great importance to the vast majority of gun owners. Few-criminal or otherwise-would consider it worth the trouble expense or risk. There is almost nothing that a full auto weapon will do that a simi-auto won't do just as well so why bother?

Bullshit. Everybody, especially gun nuts would love to have a fully automatic rifle. I've paid my money to shoot one at a gun show, just like thousands of others have. Criminals don't care about what is legal, isn't that what NRA types say every day? If they were legal, I would have one, and you probably would too. They are FUN!!

You're dreaming and not paying attention. The M-16 A-1 was issued to me and served as my primary weapon throughout my tour of duty in Vietnam. I was also issued M-60's and M-2 50 cal. BMGs at times. I qualified "expert" with the M-16. I am more than a little familiar with automatic weapons as well as most other weapon types. Any one who knows me considers me the proto-typical gun nut. I have no desire to own a full-auto weapon. The sad truth is ammo is expensive and can become hard to find at any price, I could not afford the care and feeding of a full auto weapon and still shoot it enough to shoot it as well as I would like. Besides if there is ever a time I would need a full auto weapon I feel there will be unneeded ones lying around.

But you could easily swap the bolt, hammer, and selector, couldn't you?

Don't know or care. I could easily set myself on fire but have never had the urge to do so.

What a silly comparison. Setting yourself on fire is not the same as owning a fully automatic rifle. Whether you personally would want a fully auto rifle is not the point anyway. We all know many would want one.

Maybe so maybe not. I don't care. Why should I care if law abiding citizens have full auto weapons? I would rather criminal types didn't have them but anyone who is paying attention knows that the laws we have don't stop anyone who is really determined to get one from doing so and there is absolutely no reason to believe there are any new laws that could do so. But it's also obvious that criminals don't really want them anyway. The only thing that repressive gun laws accomplishes is to increase the numbers of criminals by definition. Pass a law that violates my Constitutional rights and I'll ignore it and some will consider me a criminal. I'm okay with that.

You think fully auto weapons should not be regulated? Thankfully, most disagree with you.

Didn't say that. I said I don't care. And that anyone who really wants one can get one regardless. But I do care very much that the blind drive to regulate automatic weapons doesn't spill over into attempts to further regulate other types of weapons including simi-automatic weapons. I would consider that unconstitutional and therefore illegal.

Many people agree with you. That has nothing to do with the OP, but sure, lots of people agree with you.

Then why not tell us all exactly what the purpose of the OP is? Why are you being all coy about that? Why ask others what you claim to already know?

Just wondering what made an AR15 different from a military defined assault rifle. Of course that one difference (F/A capability) shrinks when you consider how easy it is to make an AR fully automatic. During the course of the thread, it became interesting to see how hard many were trying to pretend that conversion is all but impossible, or that nobody would ever even be interested in making the conversion.

And yet, oddly, you have not proven your assertion that the conversion is easy, nor highly sought-after.

No. You may NOT ban semi-automatic weapons because there's a remote possibility someone might convert them to fully-automatic. Give it up.

 

[daveman]

This GOTCHA attempt is so lame, we need to call in a veterinarian and have it put down.

It's an honest question. All I want is an honest answer.

Lots of people doubt its an assault rifle so the entire thread is pointless.

There are always people who live in their own little world, but if disagree with our military's definition, you're pretty much an idiot.

Like you who thinks that it's soooooo easy to modify an AR 15 into a fully automatic weapon even though no one ever seems to use modified AR 15s to commit crimes

Perhaps it would be beyond your ability to fabricate one small part, and purchase the rest. That wouldn't be a big hurdle for many.

Then tell me why we don't see people using modified Ar 15s to commit crimes.

You say all this shit but you have no proof that people are actually modifying their ARs

I never said they do, even though I believe some do. I just said it was possible, and not that hard to do.

Like I said if it was as easy as you say that we would see criminals , especially gangs, use them and it just doesn't happen.

Lots of things are possible but aren't probable

BUT ALL YOU NEED IS A FILE AND A PIECE OF STEEL CMON MAN ITS SO EASY

I never said just a file and piece of steel, but I get your point. I never explicitly said it would also require some sort of easily built jig and some sort of easily built bracket to hold the grinder steady. I regularly use those types of things, and don't see them as anything other than just normal use of the tool. I still stand by my claim that it is possible to cut a few non-complex notches out of a 1/2 by 3/4 by 1 1/4 inch piece of steel with nothing more than a grinder, a vice, and perhaps a file to smooth up the rough cuts, and a cheap set of Harbor Freight calipers to check your work. Oh look, I added a file and a way of measuring. I didn't mention a pencil to mark where to cut either. Does that mean my claim that a DIAS is easily built is a lie?

Make one. Show us how easy it is.

Hop to it.

Making one would put me in prison. I said I could show how to make one. but I want to make sure the other questions about the ease of conversion are answered first.

Talking to someone about it is Conspiracy to Commit.

Conversion isn't easy. I have built them legally, I had a full machine shop at my beck and call.

No . Talking about it is no conspiracy. There is no intent to build one. Yes, it is easy. Are you saying you aren't capable of swapping a few easily bought parts?

Not conspiracy. Solicitation.

"A person is guilty of solicitation to commit a crime if, with the purpose of promoting or facilitating its commission, he commands, encourages or requests another person to engage in specific conduct which would constitute such crime..."

You're encouraging people to break the law. Tsk, tsk.

Several times I said conversion was illegal and would put you in prison for a long time. I've specifically said I don't advise it. This thread is about why most people don't do it. The gun nut mantra is that crooks don't obey laws anyway, so why don't more crooks convert their AR15s. Is it because it is too complicated? Is there some secret procedure that they can't figure out?

Aside from difficulty and expense or trouble, full auto or burst capability is only an improvement in rare and unlikely circumstances even for criminals. Certainly not worth the risk of massive additional prison time for essentially no gain and for simple possession rather than actual use in a possibly profitable crime. Criminals aren't necessarily stupid.

Criminals aren't necessarily stupid, but gun nuts claim that criminals don't care about the law. Gun laws only limit legal users is the often made claim. Are you gonna change your mind now?

Not at all, what I wrote is not in conflict with that claim. You don't have to care about the law to understand cation or to want possible gain to outweigh the risk. My point is that having full auto weapons is simply of no great importance to the vast majority of gun owners. Few-criminal or otherwise-would consider it worth the trouble expense or risk. There is almost nothing that a full auto weapon will do that a simi-auto won't do just as well so why bother?

Bullshit. Everybody, especially gun nuts would love to have a fully automatic rifle. I've paid my money to shoot one at a gun show, just like thousands of others have. Criminals don't care about what is legal, isn't that what NRA types say every day? If they were legal, I would have one, and you probably would too. They are FUN!!

You're dreaming and not paying attention. The M-16 A-1 was issued to me and served as my primary weapon throughout my tour of duty in Vietnam. I was also issued M-60's and M-2 50 cal. BMGs at times. I qualified "expert" with the M-16. I am more than a little familiar with automatic weapons as well as most other weapon types. Any one who knows me considers me the proto-typical gun nut. I have no desire to own a full-auto weapon. The sad truth is ammo is expensive and can become hard to find at any price, I could not afford the care and feeding of a full auto weapon and still shoot it enough to shoot it as well as I would like. Besides if there is ever a time I would need a full auto weapon I feel there will be unneeded ones lying around.

But you could easily swap the bolt, hammer, and selector, couldn't you?

Don't know or care. I could easily set myself on fire but have never had the urge to do so.

What a silly comparison. Setting yourself on fire is not the same as owning a fully automatic rifle. Whether you personally would want a fully auto rifle is not the point anyway. We all know many would want one.

Maybe so maybe not. I don't care. Why should I care if law abiding citizens have full auto weapons? I would rather criminal types didn't have them but anyone who is paying attention knows that the laws we have don't stop anyone who is really determined to get one from doing so and there is absolutely no reason to believe there are any new laws that could do so. But it's also obvious that criminals don't really want them anyway. The only thing that repressive gun laws accomplishes is to increase the numbers of criminals by definition. Pass a law that violates my Constitutional rights and I'll ignore it and some will consider me a criminal. I'm okay with that.

You think fully auto weapons should not be regulated? Thankfully, most disagree with you.

Didn't say that. I said I don't care. And that anyone who really wants one can get one regardless. But I do care very much that the blind drive to regulate automatic weapons doesn't spill over into attempts to further regulate other types of weapons including simi-automatic weapons. I would consider that unconstitutional and therefore illegal.

Many people agree with you. That has nothing to do with the OP, but sure, lots of people agree with you.

Then why not tell us all exactly what the purpose of the OP is? Why are you being all coy about that? Why ask others what you claim to already know?

Just wondering what made an AR15 different from a military defined assault rifle. Of course that one difference (F/A capability) shrinks when you consider how easy it is to make an AR fully automatic. During the course of the thread, it became interesting to see how hard many were trying to pretend that conversion is all but impossible, or that nobody would ever even be interested in making the conversion.

And, Ultimately the question remains.

Who cares.

The 2nd Amendment is Specifically about weapons that are usable by the military so your point is moot.

In US v Miller, the SCOTUS held that a sawed off shotgun could be regulated because it had no forseeable military purpose..

Which makes this entire thread irrelevant.

Nope. the 2nd and Miller have nothing to do with my question. Either you are too stupid to see that, or some RWNJ defect is making you constantly repeat the only thing you are capable of repeating. I suspect it's a little of both.

You're so dishonest.

 

[daveman]

This GOTCHA attempt is so lame, we need to call in a veterinarian and have it put down.

It's an honest question. All I want is an honest answer.

Lots of people doubt its an assault rifle so the entire thread is pointless.

There are always people who live in their own little world, but if disagree with our military's definition, you're pretty much an idiot.

Like you who thinks that it's soooooo easy to modify an AR 15 into a fully automatic weapon even though no one ever seems to use modified AR 15s to commit crimes

Perhaps it would be beyond your ability to fabricate one small part, and purchase the rest. That wouldn't be a big hurdle for many.

Then tell me why we don't see people using modified Ar 15s to commit crimes.

You say all this shit but you have no proof that people are actually modifying their ARs

I never said they do, even though I believe some do. I just said it was possible, and not that hard to do.

Like I said if it was as easy as you say that we would see criminals , especially gangs, use them and it just doesn't happen.

Lots of things are possible but aren't probable

BUT ALL YOU NEED IS A FILE AND A PIECE OF STEEL CMON MAN ITS SO EASY

I never said just a file and piece of steel, but I get your point. I never explicitly said it would also require some sort of easily built jig and some sort of easily built bracket to hold the grinder steady. I regularly use those types of things, and don't see them as anything other than just normal use of the tool. I still stand by my claim that it is possible to cut a few non-complex notches out of a 1/2 by 3/4 by 1 1/4 inch piece of steel with nothing more than a grinder, a vice, and perhaps a file to smooth up the rough cuts, and a cheap set of Harbor Freight calipers to check your work. Oh look, I added a file and a way of measuring. I didn't mention a pencil to mark where to cut either. Does that mean my claim that a DIAS is easily built is a lie?

Make one. Show us how easy it is.

Hop to it.

Making one would put me in prison. I said I could show how to make one. but I want to make sure the other questions about the ease of conversion are answered first.

Talking to someone about it is Conspiracy to Commit.

Conversion isn't easy. I have built them legally, I had a full machine shop at my beck and call.

No . Talking about it is no conspiracy. There is no intent to build one. Yes, it is easy. Are you saying you aren't capable of swapping a few easily bought parts?

Not conspiracy. Solicitation.

"A person is guilty of solicitation to commit a crime if, with the purpose of promoting or facilitating its commission, he commands, encourages or requests another person to engage in specific conduct which would constitute such crime..."

You're encouraging people to break the law. Tsk, tsk.

Several times I said conversion was illegal and would put you in prison for a long time. I've specifically said I don't advise it. This thread is about why most people don't do it. The gun nut mantra is that crooks don't obey laws anyway, so why don't more crooks convert their AR15s. Is it because it is too complicated? Is there some secret procedure that they can't figure out?

Aside from difficulty and expense or trouble, full auto or burst capability is only an improvement in rare and unlikely circumstances even for criminals. Certainly not worth the risk of massive additional prison time for essentially no gain and for simple possession rather than actual use in a possibly profitable crime. Criminals aren't necessarily stupid.

Criminals aren't necessarily stupid, but gun nuts claim that criminals don't care about the law. Gun laws only limit legal users is the often made claim. Are you gonna change your mind now?

Not at all, what I wrote is not in conflict with that claim. You don't have to care about the law to understand cation or to want possible gain to outweigh the risk. My point is that having full auto weapons is simply of no great importance to the vast majority of gun owners. Few-criminal or otherwise-would consider it worth the trouble expense or risk. There is almost nothing that a full auto weapon will do that a simi-auto won't do just as well so why bother?

Bullshit. Everybody, especially gun nuts would love to have a fully automatic rifle. I've paid my money to shoot one at a gun show, just like thousands of others have. Criminals don't care about what is legal, isn't that what NRA types say every day? If they were legal, I would have one, and you probably would too. They are FUN!!

You're dreaming and not paying attention. The M-16 A-1 was issued to me and served as my primary weapon throughout my tour of duty in Vietnam. I was also issued M-60's and M-2 50 cal. BMGs at times. I qualified "expert" with the M-16. I am more than a little familiar with automatic weapons as well as most other weapon types. Any one who knows me considers me the proto-typical gun nut. I have no desire to own a full-auto weapon. The sad truth is ammo is expensive and can become hard to find at any price, I could not afford the care and feeding of a full auto weapon and still shoot it enough to shoot it as well as I would like. Besides if there is ever a time I would need a full auto weapon I feel there will be unneeded ones lying around.

But you could easily swap the bolt, hammer, and selector, couldn't you?

Don't know or care. I could easily set myself on fire but have never had the urge to do so.

What a silly comparison. Setting yourself on fire is not the same as owning a fully automatic rifle. Whether you personally would want a fully auto rifle is not the point anyway. We all know many would want one.

Maybe so maybe not. I don't care. Why should I care if law abiding citizens have full auto weapons? I would rather criminal types didn't have them but anyone who is paying attention knows that the laws we have don't stop anyone who is really determined to get one from doing so and there is absolutely no reason to believe there are any new laws that could do so. But it's also obvious that criminals don't really want them anyway. The only thing that repressive gun laws accomplishes is to increase the numbers of criminals by definition. Pass a law that violates my Constitutional rights and I'll ignore it and some will consider me a criminal. I'm okay with that.

You think fully auto weapons should not be regulated? Thankfully, most disagree with you.

Didn't say that. I said I don't care. And that anyone who really wants one can get one regardless. But I do care very much that the blind drive to regulate automatic weapons doesn't spill over into attempts to further regulate other types of weapons including simi-automatic weapons. I would consider that unconstitutional and therefore illegal.

Many people agree with you. That has nothing to do with the OP, but sure, lots of people agree with you.

Then why not tell us all exactly what the purpose of the OP is? Why are you being all coy about that? Why ask others what you claim to already know?

Just wondering what made an AR15 different from a military defined assault rifle. Of course that one difference (F/A capability) shrinks when you consider how easy it is to make an AR fully automatic. During the course of the thread, it became interesting to see how hard many were trying to pretend that conversion is all but impossible, or that nobody would ever even be interested in making the conversion.

And, Ultimately the question remains.

Who cares.

The 2nd Amendment is Specifically about weapons that are usable by the military so your point is moot.

In US v Miller, the SCOTUS held that a sawed off shotgun could be regulated because it had no forseeable military purpose..

Which makes this entire thread irrelevant.

Nope. the 2nd and Miller have nothing to do with my question. Either you are too stupid to see that, or some RWNJ defect is making you constantly repeat the only thing you are capable of repeating. I suspect it's a little of both.

Your question was answered on page 1 or 2.

But he didn't get the answer he wanted -- "You're right! There's no difference! We must ban the AR!!" -- so he pretends the question was never answered.

 

[westwall]

This GOTCHA attempt is so lame, we need to call in a veterinarian and have it put down.

It's an honest question. All I want is an honest answer.

Lots of people doubt its an assault rifle so the entire thread is pointless.

There are always people who live in their own little world, but if disagree with our military's definition, you're pretty much an idiot.

Like you who thinks that it's soooooo easy to modify an AR 15 into a fully automatic weapon even though no one ever seems to use modified AR 15s to commit crimes

Perhaps it would be beyond your ability to fabricate one small part, and purchase the rest. That wouldn't be a big hurdle for many.

Then tell me why we don't see people using modified Ar 15s to commit crimes.

You say all this shit but you have no proof that people are actually modifying their ARs

I never said they do, even though I believe some do. I just said it was possible, and not that hard to do.

Like I said if it was as easy as you say that we would see criminals , especially gangs, use them and it just doesn't happen.

Lots of things are possible but aren't probable

BUT ALL YOU NEED IS A FILE AND A PIECE OF STEEL CMON MAN ITS SO EASY

I never said just a file and piece of steel, but I get your point. I never explicitly said it would also require some sort of easily built jig and some sort of easily built bracket to hold the grinder steady. I regularly use those types of things, and don't see them as anything other than just normal use of the tool. I still stand by my claim that it is possible to cut a few non-complex notches out of a 1/2 by 3/4 by 1 1/4 inch piece of steel with nothing more than a grinder, a vice, and perhaps a file to smooth up the rough cuts, and a cheap set of Harbor Freight calipers to check your work. Oh look, I added a file and a way of measuring. I didn't mention a pencil to mark where to cut either. Does that mean my claim that a DIAS is easily built is a lie?

Make one. Show us how easy it is.

Hop to it.

Making one would put me in prison. I said I could show how to make one. but I want to make sure the other questions about the ease of conversion are answered first.

Talking to someone about it is Conspiracy to Commit.

Conversion isn't easy. I have built them legally, I had a full machine shop at my beck and call.

No . Talking about it is no conspiracy. There is no intent to build one. Yes, it is easy. Are you saying you aren't capable of swapping a few easily bought parts?

Not conspiracy. Solicitation.

"A person is guilty of solicitation to commit a crime if, with the purpose of promoting or facilitating its commission, he commands, encourages or requests another person to engage in specific conduct which would constitute such crime..."

You're encouraging people to break the law. Tsk, tsk.

Several times I said conversion was illegal and would put you in prison for a long time. I've specifically said I don't advise it. This thread is about why most people don't do it. The gun nut mantra is that crooks don't obey laws anyway, so why don't more crooks convert their AR15s. Is it because it is too complicated? Is there some secret procedure that they can't figure out?

Aside from difficulty and expense or trouble, full auto or burst capability is only an improvement in rare and unlikely circumstances even for criminals. Certainly not worth the risk of massive additional prison time for essentially no gain and for simple possession rather than actual use in a possibly profitable crime. Criminals aren't necessarily stupid.

Criminals aren't necessarily stupid, but gun nuts claim that criminals don't care about the law. Gun laws only limit legal users is the often made claim. Are you gonna change your mind now?

Not at all, what I wrote is not in conflict with that claim. You don't have to care about the law to understand cation or to want possible gain to outweigh the risk. My point is that having full auto weapons is simply of no great importance to the vast majority of gun owners. Few-criminal or otherwise-would consider it worth the trouble expense or risk. There is almost nothing that a full auto weapon will do that a simi-auto won't do just as well so why bother?

Bullshit. Everybody, especially gun nuts would love to have a fully automatic rifle. I've paid my money to shoot one at a gun show, just like thousands of others have. Criminals don't care about what is legal, isn't that what NRA types say every day? If they were legal, I would have one, and you probably would too. They are FUN!!

You're dreaming and not paying attention. The M-16 A-1 was issued to me and served as my primary weapon throughout my tour of duty in Vietnam. I was also issued M-60's and M-2 50 cal. BMGs at times. I qualified "expert" with the M-16. I am more than a little familiar with automatic weapons as well as most other weapon types. Any one who knows me considers me the proto-typical gun nut. I have no desire to own a full-auto weapon. The sad truth is ammo is expensive and can become hard to find at any price, I could not afford the care and feeding of a full auto weapon and still shoot it enough to shoot it as well as I would like. Besides if there is ever a time I would need a full auto weapon I feel there will be unneeded ones lying around.

But you could easily swap the bolt, hammer, and selector, couldn't you?

Don't know or care. I could easily set myself on fire but have never had the urge to do so.

What a silly comparison. Setting yourself on fire is not the same as owning a fully automatic rifle. Whether you personally would want a fully auto rifle is not the point anyway. We all know many would want one.

Maybe so maybe not. I don't care. Why should I care if law abiding citizens have full auto weapons? I would rather criminal types didn't have them but anyone who is paying attention knows that the laws we have don't stop anyone who is really determined to get one from doing so and there is absolutely no reason to believe there are any new laws that could do so. But it's also obvious that criminals don't really want them anyway. The only thing that repressive gun laws accomplishes is to increase the numbers of criminals by definition. Pass a law that violates my Constitutional rights and I'll ignore it and some will consider me a criminal. I'm okay with that.

You think fully auto weapons should not be regulated? Thankfully, most disagree with you.

Didn't say that. I said I don't care. And that anyone who really wants one can get one regardless. But I do care very much that the blind drive to regulate automatic weapons doesn't spill over into attempts to further regulate other types of weapons including simi-automatic weapons. I would consider that unconstitutional and therefore illegal.

Many people agree with you. That has nothing to do with the OP, but sure, lots of people agree with you.

Then why not tell us all exactly what the purpose of the OP is? Why are you being all coy about that? Why ask others what you claim to already know?

Just wondering what made an AR15 different from a military defined assault rifle. Of course that one difference (F/A capability) shrinks when you consider how easy it is to make an AR fully automatic. During the course of the thread, it became interesting to see how hard many were trying to pretend that conversion is all but impossible, or that nobody would ever even be interested in making the conversion.

And, Ultimately the question remains.

Who cares.

The 2nd Amendment is Specifically about weapons that are usable by the military so your point is moot.

In US v Miller, the SCOTUS held that a sawed off shotgun could be regulated because it had no forseeable military purpose..

Which makes this entire thread irrelevant.

Nope. the 2nd and Miller have nothing to do with my question. Either you are too stupid to see that, or some RWNJ defect is making you constantly repeat the only thing you are capable of repeating. I suspect it's a little of both.

Sure they do. You're so dishonest, and stupid, you think you can make us say something that will legitimize your desire to ban the single most popular rifle type in the USA.

 

[BlackSand]

.

Hey BULLDOG ... The ATF has started to identify an Assault Rifle.

In their internal documents, they refer to an Assault Rifle as ...
Any semi-auto rifle with a detachable magazine, that chambers a round greater than ,22 caliber.

So ... Basically by their current definition, any modern rifle that isn't bolt-action or single breech loaded ... Is an Assault Rifle ...

.​

 

[bigrebnc1775]

This GOTCHA attempt is so lame, we need to call in a veterinarian and have it put down.

It's an honest question. All I want is an honest answer.

Lots of people doubt its an assault rifle so the entire thread is pointless.

There are always people who live in their own little world, but if disagree with our military's definition, you're pretty much an idiot.

Like you who thinks that it's soooooo easy to modify an AR 15 into a fully automatic weapon even though no one ever seems to use modified AR 15s to commit crimes

Perhaps it would be beyond your ability to fabricate one small part, and purchase the rest. That wouldn't be a big hurdle for many.

Then tell me why we don't see people using modified Ar 15s to commit crimes.

You say all this shit but you have no proof that people are actually modifying their ARs

I never said they do, even though I believe some do. I just said it was possible, and not that hard to do.

Like I said if it was as easy as you say that we would see criminals , especially gangs, use them and it just doesn't happen.

Lots of things are possible but aren't probable

BUT ALL YOU NEED IS A FILE AND A PIECE OF STEEL CMON MAN ITS SO EASY

I never said just a file and piece of steel, but I get your point. I never explicitly said it would also require some sort of easily built jig and some sort of easily built bracket to hold the grinder steady. I regularly use those types of things, and don't see them as anything other than just normal use of the tool. I still stand by my claim that it is possible to cut a few non-complex notches out of a 1/2 by 3/4 by 1 1/4 inch piece of steel with nothing more than a grinder, a vice, and perhaps a file to smooth up the rough cuts, and a cheap set of Harbor Freight calipers to check your work. Oh look, I added a file and a way of measuring. I didn't mention a pencil to mark where to cut either. Does that mean my claim that a DIAS is easily built is a lie?

Make one. Show us how easy it is.

Hop to it.

Making one would put me in prison. I said I could show how to make one. but I want to make sure the other questions about the ease of conversion are answered first.

Talking to someone about it is Conspiracy to Commit.

Conversion isn't easy. I have built them legally, I had a full machine shop at my beck and call.

No . Talking about it is no conspiracy. There is no intent to build one. Yes, it is easy. Are you saying you aren't capable of swapping a few easily bought parts?

Not conspiracy. Solicitation.

"A person is guilty of solicitation to commit a crime if, with the purpose of promoting or facilitating its commission, he commands, encourages or requests another person to engage in specific conduct which would constitute such crime..."

You're encouraging people to break the law. Tsk, tsk.

Several times I said conversion was illegal and would put you in prison for a long time. I've specifically said I don't advise it. This thread is about why most people don't do it. The gun nut mantra is that crooks don't obey laws anyway, so why don't more crooks convert their AR15s. Is it because it is too complicated? Is there some secret procedure that they can't figure out?

Aside from difficulty and expense or trouble, full auto or burst capability is only an improvement in rare and unlikely circumstances even for criminals. Certainly not worth the risk of massive additional prison time for essentially no gain and for simple possession rather than actual use in a possibly profitable crime. Criminals aren't necessarily stupid.

Criminals aren't necessarily stupid, but gun nuts claim that criminals don't care about the law. Gun laws only limit legal users is the often made claim. Are you gonna change your mind now?

Not at all, what I wrote is not in conflict with that claim. You don't have to care about the law to understand cation or to want possible gain to outweigh the risk. My point is that having full auto weapons is simply of no great importance to the vast majority of gun owners. Few-criminal or otherwise-would consider it worth the trouble expense or risk. There is almost nothing that a full auto weapon will do that a simi-auto won't do just as well so why bother?

Bullshit. Everybody, especially gun nuts would love to have a fully automatic rifle. I've paid my money to shoot one at a gun show, just like thousands of others have. Criminals don't care about what is legal, isn't that what NRA types say every day? If they were legal, I would have one, and you probably would too. They are FUN!!

You're dreaming and not paying attention. The M-16 A-1 was issued to me and served as my primary weapon throughout my tour of duty in Vietnam. I was also issued M-60's and M-2 50 cal. BMGs at times. I qualified "expert" with the M-16. I am more than a little familiar with automatic weapons as well as most other weapon types. Any one who knows me considers me the proto-typical gun nut. I have no desire to own a full-auto weapon. The sad truth is ammo is expensive and can become hard to find at any price, I could not afford the care and feeding of a full auto weapon and still shoot it enough to shoot it as well as I would like. Besides if there is ever a time I would need a full auto weapon I feel there will be unneeded ones lying around.

But you could easily swap the bolt, hammer, and selector, couldn't you?

Don't know or care. I could easily set myself on fire but have never had the urge to do so.

What a silly comparison. Setting yourself on fire is not the same as owning a fully automatic rifle. Whether you personally would want a fully auto rifle is not the point anyway. We all know many would want one.

Maybe so maybe not. I don't care. Why should I care if law abiding citizens have full auto weapons? I would rather criminal types didn't have them but anyone who is paying attention knows that the laws we have don't stop anyone who is really determined to get one from doing so and there is absolutely no reason to believe there are any new laws that could do so. But it's also obvious that criminals don't really want them anyway. The only thing that repressive gun laws accomplishes is to increase the numbers of criminals by definition. Pass a law that violates my Constitutional rights and I'll ignore it and some will consider me a criminal. I'm okay with that.

You think fully auto weapons should not be regulated? Thankfully, most disagree with you.

Didn't say that. I said I don't care. And that anyone who really wants one can get one regardless. But I do care very much that the blind drive to regulate automatic weapons doesn't spill over into attempts to further regulate other types of weapons including simi-automatic weapons. I would consider that unconstitutional and therefore illegal.

Many people agree with you. That has nothing to do with the OP, but sure, lots of people agree with you.

Then why not tell us all exactly what the purpose of the OP is? Why are you being all coy about that? Why ask others what you claim to already know?

Just wondering what made an AR15 different from a military defined assault rifle. Of course that one difference (F/A capability) shrinks when you consider how easy it is to make an AR fully automatic. During the course of the thread, it became interesting to see how hard many were trying to pretend that conversion is all but impossible, or that nobody would ever even be interested in making the conversion.

And, Ultimately the question remains.

Who cares.

The 2nd Amendment is Specifically about weapons that are usable by the military so your point is moot.

In US v Miller, the SCOTUS held that a sawed off shotgun could be regulated because it had no forseeable military purpose..

Which makes this entire thread irrelevant.

Nope. the 2nd and Miller have nothing to do with my question. Either you are too stupid to see that, or some RWNJ defect is making you constantly repeat the only thing you are capable of repeating. I suspect it's a little of both.

again your question is irrelevant since they are constitutionally protected and protected by the OWNER

 

[bigrebnc1775]

.

Hey BULLDOG ... The ATF has started to identify an Assault Rifle.

In their internal documents, they refer to an Assault Rifle as ...
Any semi-auto rifle with a detachable magazine, that chambers a round greater than ,22 caliber.

So ... Basically by their current definition, any modern rifle that isn't bolt-action or single breech loaded ... Is an Assault Rifle ...

.​

actually, Chipman couldn't identify what an assault weapon was.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

This GOTCHA attempt is so lame, we need to call in a veterinarian and have it put down.

It's an honest question. All I want is an honest answer.

Lots of people doubt its an assault rifle so the entire thread is pointless.

There are always people who live in their own little world, but if disagree with our military's definition, you're pretty much an idiot.

Like you who thinks that it's soooooo easy to modify an AR 15 into a fully automatic weapon even though no one ever seems to use modified AR 15s to commit crimes

Perhaps it would be beyond your ability to fabricate one small part, and purchase the rest. That wouldn't be a big hurdle for many.

Then tell me why we don't see people using modified Ar 15s to commit crimes.

You say all this shit but you have no proof that people are actually modifying their ARs

I never said they do, even though I believe some do. I just said it was possible, and not that hard to do.

Like I said if it was as easy as you say that we would see criminals , especially gangs, use them and it just doesn't happen.

Lots of things are possible but aren't probable

BUT ALL YOU NEED IS A FILE AND A PIECE OF STEEL CMON MAN ITS SO EASY

I never said just a file and piece of steel, but I get your point. I never explicitly said it would also require some sort of easily built jig and some sort of easily built bracket to hold the grinder steady. I regularly use those types of things, and don't see them as anything other than just normal use of the tool. I still stand by my claim that it is possible to cut a few non-complex notches out of a 1/2 by 3/4 by 1 1/4 inch piece of steel with nothing more than a grinder, a vice, and perhaps a file to smooth up the rough cuts, and a cheap set of Harbor Freight calipers to check your work. Oh look, I added a file and a way of measuring. I didn't mention a pencil to mark where to cut either. Does that mean my claim that a DIAS is easily built is a lie?

Make one. Show us how easy it is.

Hop to it.

Making one would put me in prison. I said I could show how to make one. but I want to make sure the other questions about the ease of conversion are answered first.

Talking to someone about it is Conspiracy to Commit.

Conversion isn't easy. I have built them legally, I had a full machine shop at my beck and call.

No . Talking about it is no conspiracy. There is no intent to build one. Yes, it is easy. Are you saying you aren't capable of swapping a few easily bought parts?

Not conspiracy. Solicitation.

"A person is guilty of solicitation to commit a crime if, with the purpose of promoting or facilitating its commission, he commands, encourages or requests another person to engage in specific conduct which would constitute such crime..."

You're encouraging people to break the law. Tsk, tsk.

Several times I said conversion was illegal and would put you in prison for a long time. I've specifically said I don't advise it. This thread is about why most people don't do it. The gun nut mantra is that crooks don't obey laws anyway, so why don't more crooks convert their AR15s. Is it because it is too complicated? Is there some secret procedure that they can't figure out?

Aside from difficulty and expense or trouble, full auto or burst capability is only an improvement in rare and unlikely circumstances even for criminals. Certainly not worth the risk of massive additional prison time for essentially no gain and for simple possession rather than actual use in a possibly profitable crime. Criminals aren't necessarily stupid.

Criminals aren't necessarily stupid, but gun nuts claim that criminals don't care about the law. Gun laws only limit legal users is the often made claim. Are you gonna change your mind now?

Not at all, what I wrote is not in conflict with that claim. You don't have to care about the law to understand cation or to want possible gain to outweigh the risk. My point is that having full auto weapons is simply of no great importance to the vast majority of gun owners. Few-criminal or otherwise-would consider it worth the trouble expense or risk. There is almost nothing that a full auto weapon will do that a simi-auto won't do just as well so why bother?

Bullshit. Everybody, especially gun nuts would love to have a fully automatic rifle. I've paid my money to shoot one at a gun show, just like thousands of others have. Criminals don't care about what is legal, isn't that what NRA types say every day? If they were legal, I would have one, and you probably would too. They are FUN!!

You're dreaming and not paying attention. The M-16 A-1 was issued to me and served as my primary weapon throughout my tour of duty in Vietnam. I was also issued M-60's and M-2 50 cal. BMGs at times. I qualified "expert" with the M-16. I am more than a little familiar with automatic weapons as well as most other weapon types. Any one who knows me considers me the proto-typical gun nut. I have no desire to own a full-auto weapon. The sad truth is ammo is expensive and can become hard to find at any price, I could not afford the care and feeding of a full auto weapon and still shoot it enough to shoot it as well as I would like. Besides if there is ever a time I would need a full auto weapon I feel there will be unneeded ones lying around.

But you could easily swap the bolt, hammer, and selector, couldn't you?

Don't know or care. I could easily set myself on fire but have never had the urge to do so.

What a silly comparison. Setting yourself on fire is not the same as owning a fully automatic rifle. Whether you personally would want a fully auto rifle is not the point anyway. We all know many would want one.

Maybe so maybe not. I don't care. Why should I care if law abiding citizens have full auto weapons? I would rather criminal types didn't have them but anyone who is paying attention knows that the laws we have don't stop anyone who is really determined to get one from doing so and there is absolutely no reason to believe there are any new laws that could do so. But it's also obvious that criminals don't really want them anyway. The only thing that repressive gun laws accomplishes is to increase the numbers of criminals by definition. Pass a law that violates my Constitutional rights and I'll ignore it and some will consider me a criminal. I'm okay with that.

You think fully auto weapons should not be regulated? Thankfully, most disagree with you.

Didn't say that. I said I don't care. And that anyone who really wants one can get one regardless. But I do care very much that the blind drive to regulate automatic weapons doesn't spill over into attempts to further regulate other types of weapons including simi-automatic weapons. I would consider that unconstitutional and therefore illegal.

Many people agree with you. That has nothing to do with the OP, but sure, lots of people agree with you.

Then why not tell us all exactly what the purpose of the OP is? Why are you being all coy about that? Why ask others what you claim to already know?

Just wondering what made an AR15 different from a military defined assault rifle. Of course that one difference (F/A capability) shrinks when you consider how easy it is to make an AR fully automatic. During the course of the thread, it became interesting to see how hard many were trying to pretend that conversion is all but impossible, or that nobody would ever even be interested in making the conversion.

And, Ultimately the question remains.

Who cares.

The 2nd Amendment is Specifically about weapons that are usable by the military so your point is moot.

In US v Miller, the SCOTUS held that a sawed off shotgun could be regulated because it had no forseeable military purpose..

Which makes this entire thread irrelevant.

Nope. the 2nd and Miller have nothing to do with my question. Either you are too stupid to see that, or some RWNJ defect is making you constantly repeat the only thing you are capable of repeating. I suspect it's a little of both.

Your question was answered on page 1 or 2.

But he didn't get the answer he wanted -- "You're right! There's no difference! We must ban the AR!!" -- so he pretends the question was never answered.

Didn't Chipman say he had a AR 15 at Waco?

 

[daveman]

.

Hey BULLDOG ... The ATF has started to identify an Assault Rifle.

In their internal documents, they refer to an Assault Rifle as ...
Any semi-auto rifle with a detachable magazine, that chambers a round greater than ,22 caliber.

So ... Basically by their current definition, any modern rifle that isn't bolt-action or single breech loaded ... Is an Assault Rifle ...

.​

Bulldog will love that. He gets to pretend his irrational hatred of scary black rifles is legitimate.

 

[westwall]

.

Hey BULLDOG ... The ATF has started to identify an Assault Rifle.

In their internal documents, they refer to an Assault Rifle as ...
Any semi-auto rifle with a detachable magazine, that chambers a round greater than ,22 caliber.

So ... Basically by their current definition, any modern rifle that isn't bolt-action or single breech loaded ... Is an Assault Rifle ...

.​

actually, Chipman couldn't identify what an assault weapon was.

Chipman is a disgusting piece of shit. He got four good agents killed due to his incompetence.

 

[daveman]

This GOTCHA attempt is so lame, we need to call in a veterinarian and have it put down.

It's an honest question. All I want is an honest answer.

Lots of people doubt its an assault rifle so the entire thread is pointless.

There are always people who live in their own little world, but if disagree with our military's definition, you're pretty much an idiot.

Like you who thinks that it's soooooo easy to modify an AR 15 into a fully automatic weapon even though no one ever seems to use modified AR 15s to commit crimes

Perhaps it would be beyond your ability to fabricate one small part, and purchase the rest. That wouldn't be a big hurdle for many.

Then tell me why we don't see people using modified Ar 15s to commit crimes.

You say all this shit but you have no proof that people are actually modifying their ARs

I never said they do, even though I believe some do. I just said it was possible, and not that hard to do.

Like I said if it was as easy as you say that we would see criminals , especially gangs, use them and it just doesn't happen.

Lots of things are possible but aren't probable

BUT ALL YOU NEED IS A FILE AND A PIECE OF STEEL CMON MAN ITS SO EASY

I never said just a file and piece of steel, but I get your point. I never explicitly said it would also require some sort of easily built jig and some sort of easily built bracket to hold the grinder steady. I regularly use those types of things, and don't see them as anything other than just normal use of the tool. I still stand by my claim that it is possible to cut a few non-complex notches out of a 1/2 by 3/4 by 1 1/4 inch piece of steel with nothing more than a grinder, a vice, and perhaps a file to smooth up the rough cuts, and a cheap set of Harbor Freight calipers to check your work. Oh look, I added a file and a way of measuring. I didn't mention a pencil to mark where to cut either. Does that mean my claim that a DIAS is easily built is a lie?

Make one. Show us how easy it is.

Hop to it.

Making one would put me in prison. I said I could show how to make one. but I want to make sure the other questions about the ease of conversion are answered first.

Talking to someone about it is Conspiracy to Commit.

Conversion isn't easy. I have built them legally, I had a full machine shop at my beck and call.

No . Talking about it is no conspiracy. There is no intent to build one. Yes, it is easy. Are you saying you aren't capable of swapping a few easily bought parts?

Not conspiracy. Solicitation.

"A person is guilty of solicitation to commit a crime if, with the purpose of promoting or facilitating its commission, he commands, encourages or requests another person to engage in specific conduct which would constitute such crime..."

You're encouraging people to break the law. Tsk, tsk.

Several times I said conversion was illegal and would put you in prison for a long time. I've specifically said I don't advise it. This thread is about why most people don't do it. The gun nut mantra is that crooks don't obey laws anyway, so why don't more crooks convert their AR15s. Is it because it is too complicated? Is there some secret procedure that they can't figure out?

Aside from difficulty and expense or trouble, full auto or burst capability is only an improvement in rare and unlikely circumstances even for criminals. Certainly not worth the risk of massive additional prison time for essentially no gain and for simple possession rather than actual use in a possibly profitable crime. Criminals aren't necessarily stupid.

Criminals aren't necessarily stupid, but gun nuts claim that criminals don't care about the law. Gun laws only limit legal users is the often made claim. Are you gonna change your mind now?

Not at all, what I wrote is not in conflict with that claim. You don't have to care about the law to understand cation or to want possible gain to outweigh the risk. My point is that having full auto weapons is simply of no great importance to the vast majority of gun owners. Few-criminal or otherwise-would consider it worth the trouble expense or risk. There is almost nothing that a full auto weapon will do that a simi-auto won't do just as well so why bother?

Bullshit. Everybody, especially gun nuts would love to have a fully automatic rifle. I've paid my money to shoot one at a gun show, just like thousands of others have. Criminals don't care about what is legal, isn't that what NRA types say every day? If they were legal, I would have one, and you probably would too. They are FUN!!

You're dreaming and not paying attention. The M-16 A-1 was issued to me and served as my primary weapon throughout my tour of duty in Vietnam. I was also issued M-60's and M-2 50 cal. BMGs at times. I qualified "expert" with the M-16. I am more than a little familiar with automatic weapons as well as most other weapon types. Any one who knows me considers me the proto-typical gun nut. I have no desire to own a full-auto weapon. The sad truth is ammo is expensive and can become hard to find at any price, I could not afford the care and feeding of a full auto weapon and still shoot it enough to shoot it as well as I would like. Besides if there is ever a time I would need a full auto weapon I feel there will be unneeded ones lying around.

But you could easily swap the bolt, hammer, and selector, couldn't you?

Don't know or care. I could easily set myself on fire but have never had the urge to do so.

What a silly comparison. Setting yourself on fire is not the same as owning a fully automatic rifle. Whether you personally would want a fully auto rifle is not the point anyway. We all know many would want one.

Maybe so maybe not. I don't care. Why should I care if law abiding citizens have full auto weapons? I would rather criminal types didn't have them but anyone who is paying attention knows that the laws we have don't stop anyone who is really determined to get one from doing so and there is absolutely no reason to believe there are any new laws that could do so. But it's also obvious that criminals don't really want them anyway. The only thing that repressive gun laws accomplishes is to increase the numbers of criminals by definition. Pass a law that violates my Constitutional rights and I'll ignore it and some will consider me a criminal. I'm okay with that.

You think fully auto weapons should not be regulated? Thankfully, most disagree with you.

Didn't say that. I said I don't care. And that anyone who really wants one can get one regardless. But I do care very much that the blind drive to regulate automatic weapons doesn't spill over into attempts to further regulate other types of weapons including simi-automatic weapons. I would consider that unconstitutional and therefore illegal.

Many people agree with you. That has nothing to do with the OP, but sure, lots of people agree with you.

Then why not tell us all exactly what the purpose of the OP is? Why are you being all coy about that? Why ask others what you claim to already know?

Just wondering what made an AR15 different from a military defined assault rifle. Of course that one difference (F/A capability) shrinks when you consider how easy it is to make an AR fully automatic. During the course of the thread, it became interesting to see how hard many were trying to pretend that conversion is all but impossible, or that nobody would ever even be interested in making the conversion.

And, Ultimately the question remains.

Who cares.

The 2nd Amendment is Specifically about weapons that are usable by the military so your point is moot.

In US v Miller, the SCOTUS held that a sawed off shotgun could be regulated because it had no forseeable military purpose..

Which makes this entire thread irrelevant.

Nope. the 2nd and Miller have nothing to do with my question. Either you are too stupid to see that, or some RWNJ defect is making you constantly repeat the only thing you are capable of repeating. I suspect it's a little of both.

Your question was answered on page 1 or 2.

But he didn't get the answer he wanted -- "You're right! There's no difference! We must ban the AR!!" -- so he pretends the question was never answered.

Didn't Chipman say he had a AR 15 at Waco?

Dunno. But like all Democrat elitists, he thinks he's entitled to what he would deny you.

 

[BlackSand]

​

Bulldog will love that. He gets to pretend his irrational hatred of scary black rifles is legitimate.

.

Scary Indeed ...
This Nerf Gun is a semi-auto rifle with a detachable magazine that chambers a round greater than a .22 caliber.

.​

 

[daveman]

​

Bulldog will love that. He gets to pretend his irrational hatred of scary black rifles is legitimate.

.

Scary Indeed ...
This Nerf Gun is a semi-auto rifle with a detachable magazine that chambers a round greater than a .22 caliber.

View attachment 495600

.​

Maybe this one won't scare Bulldog so much:

 

[BULLDOG]

This GOTCHA attempt is so lame, we need to call in a veterinarian and have it put down.

It's an honest question. All I want is an honest answer.

Lots of people doubt its an assault rifle so the entire thread is pointless.

There are always people who live in their own little world, but if disagree with our military's definition, you're pretty much an idiot.

Like you who thinks that it's soooooo easy to modify an AR 15 into a fully automatic weapon even though no one ever seems to use modified AR 15s to commit crimes

Perhaps it would be beyond your ability to fabricate one small part, and purchase the rest. That wouldn't be a big hurdle for many.

Then tell me why we don't see people using modified Ar 15s to commit crimes.

You say all this shit but you have no proof that people are actually modifying their ARs

I never said they do, even though I believe some do. I just said it was possible, and not that hard to do.

Like I said if it was as easy as you say that we would see criminals , especially gangs, use them and it just doesn't happen.

Lots of things are possible but aren't probable

BUT ALL YOU NEED IS A FILE AND A PIECE OF STEEL CMON MAN ITS SO EASY

I never said just a file and piece of steel, but I get your point. I never explicitly said it would also require some sort of easily built jig and some sort of easily built bracket to hold the grinder steady. I regularly use those types of things, and don't see them as anything other than just normal use of the tool. I still stand by my claim that it is possible to cut a few non-complex notches out of a 1/2 by 3/4 by 1 1/4 inch piece of steel with nothing more than a grinder, a vice, and perhaps a file to smooth up the rough cuts, and a cheap set of Harbor Freight calipers to check your work. Oh look, I added a file and a way of measuring. I didn't mention a pencil to mark where to cut either. Does that mean my claim that a DIAS is easily built is a lie?

Make one. Show us how easy it is.

Hop to it.

Making one would put me in prison. I said I could show how to make one. but I want to make sure the other questions about the ease of conversion are answered first.

Talking to someone about it is Conspiracy to Commit.

Conversion isn't easy. I have built them legally, I had a full machine shop at my beck and call.

No . Talking about it is no conspiracy. There is no intent to build one. Yes, it is easy. Are you saying you aren't capable of swapping a few easily bought parts?

Not conspiracy. Solicitation.

"A person is guilty of solicitation to commit a crime if, with the purpose of promoting or facilitating its commission, he commands, encourages or requests another person to engage in specific conduct which would constitute such crime..."

You're encouraging people to break the law. Tsk, tsk.

Several times I said conversion was illegal and would put you in prison for a long time. I've specifically said I don't advise it. This thread is about why most people don't do it. The gun nut mantra is that crooks don't obey laws anyway, so why don't more crooks convert their AR15s. Is it because it is too complicated? Is there some secret procedure that they can't figure out?

Aside from difficulty and expense or trouble, full auto or burst capability is only an improvement in rare and unlikely circumstances even for criminals. Certainly not worth the risk of massive additional prison time for essentially no gain and for simple possession rather than actual use in a possibly profitable crime. Criminals aren't necessarily stupid.

Criminals aren't necessarily stupid, but gun nuts claim that criminals don't care about the law. Gun laws only limit legal users is the often made claim. Are you gonna change your mind now?

Not at all, what I wrote is not in conflict with that claim. You don't have to care about the law to understand cation or to want possible gain to outweigh the risk. My point is that having full auto weapons is simply of no great importance to the vast majority of gun owners. Few-criminal or otherwise-would consider it worth the trouble expense or risk. There is almost nothing that a full auto weapon will do that a simi-auto won't do just as well so why bother?

Bullshit. Everybody, especially gun nuts would love to have a fully automatic rifle. I've paid my money to shoot one at a gun show, just like thousands of others have. Criminals don't care about what is legal, isn't that what NRA types say every day? If they were legal, I would have one, and you probably would too. They are FUN!!

You're dreaming and not paying attention. The M-16 A-1 was issued to me and served as my primary weapon throughout my tour of duty in Vietnam. I was also issued M-60's and M-2 50 cal. BMGs at times. I qualified "expert" with the M-16. I am more than a little familiar with automatic weapons as well as most other weapon types. Any one who knows me considers me the proto-typical gun nut. I have no desire to own a full-auto weapon. The sad truth is ammo is expensive and can become hard to find at any price, I could not afford the care and feeding of a full auto weapon and still shoot it enough to shoot it as well as I would like. Besides if there is ever a time I would need a full auto weapon I feel there will be unneeded ones lying around.

But you could easily swap the bolt, hammer, and selector, couldn't you?

Don't know or care. I could easily set myself on fire but have never had the urge to do so.

What a silly comparison. Setting yourself on fire is not the same as owning a fully automatic rifle. Whether you personally would want a fully auto rifle is not the point anyway. We all know many would want one.

Maybe so maybe not. I don't care. Why should I care if law abiding citizens have full auto weapons? I would rather criminal types didn't have them but anyone who is paying attention knows that the laws we have don't stop anyone who is really determined to get one from doing so and there is absolutely no reason to believe there are any new laws that could do so. But it's also obvious that criminals don't really want them anyway. The only thing that repressive gun laws accomplishes is to increase the numbers of criminals by definition. Pass a law that violates my Constitutional rights and I'll ignore it and some will consider me a criminal. I'm okay with that.

You think fully auto weapons should not be regulated? Thankfully, most disagree with you.

Didn't say that. I said I don't care. And that anyone who really wants one can get one regardless. But I do care very much that the blind drive to regulate automatic weapons doesn't spill over into attempts to further regulate other types of weapons including simi-automatic weapons. I would consider that unconstitutional and therefore illegal.

Many people agree with you. That has nothing to do with the OP, but sure, lots of people agree with you.

Then why not tell us all exactly what the purpose of the OP is? Why are you being all coy about that? Why ask others what you claim to already know?

Just wondering what made an AR15 different from a military defined assault rifle. Of course that one difference (F/A capability) shrinks when you consider how easy it is to make an AR fully automatic. During the course of the thread, it became interesting to see how hard many were trying to pretend that conversion is all but impossible, or that nobody would ever even be interested in making the conversion.

And, Ultimately the question remains.

Who cares.

The 2nd Amendment is Specifically about weapons that are usable by the military so your point is moot.

In US v Miller, the SCOTUS held that a sawed off shotgun could be regulated because it had no forseeable military purpose..

Which makes this entire thread irrelevant.

Nope. the 2nd and Miller have nothing to do with my question. Either you are too stupid to see that, or some RWNJ defect is making you constantly repeat the only thing you are capable of repeating. I suspect it's a little of both.

Sure they do. You're so dishonest, and stupid, you think you can make us say something that will legitimize your desire to ban the single most popular rifle type in the USA.

I already said I have no desire to ban the AR. I really don't give a fuck if you believe that or not. I'm well aware that you won't deviate from your memorized talking points. That's obvious by the efforts that you gun nuts went to great lengths to divert the subject here. I found what I was looking for.

 

[BULLDOG]

.

Hey BULLDOG ... The ATF has started to identify an Assault Rifle.

In their internal documents, they refer to an Assault Rifle as ...
Any semi-auto rifle with a detachable magazine, that chambers a round greater than ,22 caliber.

So ... Basically by their current definition, any modern rifle that isn't bolt-action or single breech loaded ... Is an Assault Rifle ...

.​

I'll double check, but I'm pretty sure that ATF definition is of an assault weapon. I'm not aware of an ATF definition of an assault rifle. The military does define assault rifle though, and it is different than the definition you gave.

 

[BULLDOG]

This GOTCHA attempt is so lame, we need to call in a veterinarian and have it put down.

It's an honest question. All I want is an honest answer.

Lots of people doubt its an assault rifle so the entire thread is pointless.

There are always people who live in their own little world, but if disagree with our military's definition, you're pretty much an idiot.

Like you who thinks that it's soooooo easy to modify an AR 15 into a fully automatic weapon even though no one ever seems to use modified AR 15s to commit crimes

Perhaps it would be beyond your ability to fabricate one small part, and purchase the rest. That wouldn't be a big hurdle for many.

Then tell me why we don't see people using modified Ar 15s to commit crimes.

You say all this shit but you have no proof that people are actually modifying their ARs

I never said they do, even though I believe some do. I just said it was possible, and not that hard to do.

Like I said if it was as easy as you say that we would see criminals , especially gangs, use them and it just doesn't happen.

Lots of things are possible but aren't probable

BUT ALL YOU NEED IS A FILE AND A PIECE OF STEEL CMON MAN ITS SO EASY

I never said just a file and piece of steel, but I get your point. I never explicitly said it would also require some sort of easily built jig and some sort of easily built bracket to hold the grinder steady. I regularly use those types of things, and don't see them as anything other than just normal use of the tool. I still stand by my claim that it is possible to cut a few non-complex notches out of a 1/2 by 3/4 by 1 1/4 inch piece of steel with nothing more than a grinder, a vice, and perhaps a file to smooth up the rough cuts, and a cheap set of Harbor Freight calipers to check your work. Oh look, I added a file and a way of measuring. I didn't mention a pencil to mark where to cut either. Does that mean my claim that a DIAS is easily built is a lie?

Make one. Show us how easy it is.

Hop to it.

Making one would put me in prison. I said I could show how to make one. but I want to make sure the other questions about the ease of conversion are answered first.

Talking to someone about it is Conspiracy to Commit.

Conversion isn't easy. I have built them legally, I had a full machine shop at my beck and call.

No . Talking about it is no conspiracy. There is no intent to build one. Yes, it is easy. Are you saying you aren't capable of swapping a few easily bought parts?

Not conspiracy. Solicitation.

"A person is guilty of solicitation to commit a crime if, with the purpose of promoting or facilitating its commission, he commands, encourages or requests another person to engage in specific conduct which would constitute such crime..."

You're encouraging people to break the law. Tsk, tsk.

Several times I said conversion was illegal and would put you in prison for a long time. I've specifically said I don't advise it. This thread is about why most people don't do it. The gun nut mantra is that crooks don't obey laws anyway, so why don't more crooks convert their AR15s. Is it because it is too complicated? Is there some secret procedure that they can't figure out?

Aside from difficulty and expense or trouble, full auto or burst capability is only an improvement in rare and unlikely circumstances even for criminals. Certainly not worth the risk of massive additional prison time for essentially no gain and for simple possession rather than actual use in a possibly profitable crime. Criminals aren't necessarily stupid.

Criminals aren't necessarily stupid, but gun nuts claim that criminals don't care about the law. Gun laws only limit legal users is the often made claim. Are you gonna change your mind now?

Not at all, what I wrote is not in conflict with that claim. You don't have to care about the law to understand cation or to want possible gain to outweigh the risk. My point is that having full auto weapons is simply of no great importance to the vast majority of gun owners. Few-criminal or otherwise-would consider it worth the trouble expense or risk. There is almost nothing that a full auto weapon will do that a simi-auto won't do just as well so why bother?

Bullshit. Everybody, especially gun nuts would love to have a fully automatic rifle. I've paid my money to shoot one at a gun show, just like thousands of others have. Criminals don't care about what is legal, isn't that what NRA types say every day? If they were legal, I would have one, and you probably would too. They are FUN!!

You're dreaming and not paying attention. The M-16 A-1 was issued to me and served as my primary weapon throughout my tour of duty in Vietnam. I was also issued M-60's and M-2 50 cal. BMGs at times. I qualified "expert" with the M-16. I am more than a little familiar with automatic weapons as well as most other weapon types. Any one who knows me considers me the proto-typical gun nut. I have no desire to own a full-auto weapon. The sad truth is ammo is expensive and can become hard to find at any price, I could not afford the care and feeding of a full auto weapon and still shoot it enough to shoot it as well as I would like. Besides if there is ever a time I would need a full auto weapon I feel there will be unneeded ones lying around.

But you could easily swap the bolt, hammer, and selector, couldn't you?

Don't know or care. I could easily set myself on fire but have never had the urge to do so.

What a silly comparison. Setting yourself on fire is not the same as owning a fully automatic rifle. Whether you personally would want a fully auto rifle is not the point anyway. We all know many would want one.

Maybe so maybe not. I don't care. Why should I care if law abiding citizens have full auto weapons? I would rather criminal types didn't have them but anyone who is paying attention knows that the laws we have don't stop anyone who is really determined to get one from doing so and there is absolutely no reason to believe there are any new laws that could do so. But it's also obvious that criminals don't really want them anyway. The only thing that repressive gun laws accomplishes is to increase the numbers of criminals by definition. Pass a law that violates my Constitutional rights and I'll ignore it and some will consider me a criminal. I'm okay with that.

You think fully auto weapons should not be regulated? Thankfully, most disagree with you.

Didn't say that. I said I don't care. And that anyone who really wants one can get one regardless. But I do care very much that the blind drive to regulate automatic weapons doesn't spill over into attempts to further regulate other types of weapons including simi-automatic weapons. I would consider that unconstitutional and therefore illegal.

Many people agree with you. That has nothing to do with the OP, but sure, lots of people agree with you.

Then why not tell us all exactly what the purpose of the OP is? Why are you being all coy about that? Why ask others what you claim to already know?

Just wondering what made an AR15 different from a military defined assault rifle. Of course that one difference (F/A capability) shrinks when you consider how easy it is to make an AR fully automatic. During the course of the thread, it became interesting to see how hard many were trying to pretend that conversion is all but impossible, or that nobody would ever even be interested in making the conversion.

And, Ultimately the question remains.

Who cares.

The 2nd Amendment is Specifically about weapons that are usable by the military so your point is moot.

In US v Miller, the SCOTUS held that a sawed off shotgun could be regulated because it had no forseeable military purpose..

Which makes this entire thread irrelevant.

Nope. the 2nd and Miller have nothing to do with my question. Either you are too stupid to see that, or some RWNJ defect is making you constantly repeat the only thing you are capable of repeating. I suspect it's a little of both.

again your question is irrelevant since they are constitutionally protected and protected by the OWNER

Awww Ain't that cute. I'll bet that if someone asked you if it was raining, your answer would be "your question is irrelevant since they are constitutionally protected"

 

[RetiredGySgt]

.

Hey BULLDOG ... The ATF has started to identify an Assault Rifle.

In their internal documents, they refer to an Assault Rifle as ...
Any semi-auto rifle with a detachable magazine, that chambers a round greater than ,22 caliber.

So ... Basically by their current definition, any modern rifle that isn't bolt-action or single breech loaded ... Is an Assault Rifle ...

.​

I'll double check, but I'm pretty sure that ATF definition is of an assault weapon. I'm not aware of an ATF definition of an assault rifle. The military does define assault rifle though, and it is different than the definition you gave.

The person nominated to head the ATF said that was the definition according to him.

 

[BULLDOG]

.

Hey BULLDOG ... The ATF has started to identify an Assault Rifle.

In their internal documents, they refer to an Assault Rifle as ...
Any semi-auto rifle with a detachable magazine, that chambers a round greater than ,22 caliber.

So ... Basically by their current definition, any modern rifle that isn't bolt-action or single breech loaded ... Is an Assault Rifle ...

.​

I'll double check, but I'm pretty sure that ATF definition is of an assault weapon. I'm not aware of an ATF definition of an assault rifle. The military does define assault rifle though, and it is different than the definition you gave.

The person nominated to head the ATF said that was the definition according to him.

Weapon or rifle? A link would clear up any question. Of course, if he was only nominated at the time, there is no way he could determine the definition for the ATF anyway, could he?