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

[BULLDOG]

The only important definition is the legal one. The President doesn't make law. The ATF doesn't make law. The Constitution is very specific about how laws are passed and then they still can be overturned by the supreme court if they are not Constitutional.

.

Still the only reason I would be concerned about the ATF's definition,
Is that I am fairly certain they will be consulted by lawmakers should the question arise,
And they will be responsible for enforcing whatever law is created should the definition be required.

That's not saying it should be one way or the other,
just the ability to understand what will probably happen.

I am also not prepared to pretend that the Federal Government won't try, and hasn't already been successful ...
In regards to infringing upon our Constitutionally Protected Rights.

.​

A large majority of Americans want universal background checks,

That's because the term "universal background check" is incredibly broad and vague. Most likely support plummets when you drill down on what that means in terms of policy. Much like abortion, universal healthcare, anti-racism, etc...

What is so complicated? You sell a gun, you do a background check, just like dealers do now. Of course, you would have to go to a dealer to do it, and it might cost 3 or 4 dollars. Do you prefer felons buying guns without even having to tell the seller their name, or even caring if the purchaser can legally have a gun?

what makes you think thats going to stop a felon from getting a gun??

It won't stop all of them any more than wearing a seat belt stops all car deaths. You can't get 100% success from any program.

The problem is crime; not guns and always has been. You want to stop crime? Everybody wants to stop crime (except criminals and the hopelessly insane) more gun laws are not the answer because:
You can't disinvent technology. Guns, and the knowledge to make them exist, are plentiful and here to stay. As far as crime is concerned that is actually a good thing because it can help even the odds between vulnerable potential victims and attackers. People never had much problem murdering each other before guns were invented and if every one of them disappeared it is doubtful that it would have much effect on murder rates. So you're stabbed to death or blown up instead of shot; is that somehow an improvement?
We had an "assault weapon ban" for ten years that had absolutely no effect except to inflate gun prices and increase sales. That ban was implemented as a trial. It received support from some gun owners because it was to settle the question of whether more restrictive gun laws would improve the situation or not. It didn't and so the question was answered. Unfortunately that hasn't stopped some of the sheep from continuing to bleet about the already settled issue. There are already laws intended stop everything the gun grabbers claim to want to stop and they can present no reasonable rationale to believe that new repressive laws will work any better. I have heard that the definition of insanity is continuing to do the same thing over and over and expecting a different outcome. You don't curb crime by creating new criminals which is exactly the risk being run. Maybe it's past time to address the actual issues instead of continuing our wheels in the same rut and creating damage instead of progress.

Yes, crime is the problem. Crime caused by criminals with guns is a really big part of that. 90% of Americans, including 75% of NRA members say your oppressive law claim is bullshit. Why are you so fanatic about keeping an easy source of guns available to felons?

Crime caused by criminals with guns is a really big part of that.
True but it is also true that the crimes they are committing are already illegal (against current law) and nobody has yet propose a law that criminals cannot or will not break just as easily as the ones currently in place. No improvement.

90% of Americans, including 75% of NRA members say your oppressive law claim is bullshit.
No, I say that your statement is bullshit. Care to provide a link or other supporting evidence?

Why are you so fanatic about keeping an easy source of guns available to felons?
If they are so easy to get and oh so deadly why are they rarely used for criminal purposes?
From this side of the question it appears that you and your associates are the criminal friendly crowd. Why else work so hard to disarm potential victims if not to make things easier and safer for the criminals?

1. Crimes are already against the law. That's why they are called crimes. The use of a gun in those crimes puts them in a separate category. I'm still not clear on why you don't want to make it harder for known criminals to get guns.

2. You are correct. 68% of NRA members, not 75% as stated and 78% of gun owners not members of the NRA support requiring background checks for all firearm purchases.

Poll: Most NRA members support comprehensive background checks

Most National Rifle Association (NRA) members support comprehensive background checks for those purchasing a firearm, according to a new poll.

thehill.com

3. Universal background checks are for all guns. Buying a gun from an individual is extremely easy. You give them the money, you get the gun. No background check. The seller doesn't even have to know your name. If you think guns are rarely used for criminal purposes, you're nuts.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

The only important definition is the legal one. The President doesn't make law. The ATF doesn't make law. The Constitution is very specific about how laws are passed and then they still can be overturned by the supreme court if they are not Constitutional.

.

Still the only reason I would be concerned about the ATF's definition,
Is that I am fairly certain they will be consulted by lawmakers should the question arise,
And they will be responsible for enforcing whatever law is created should the definition be required.

That's not saying it should be one way or the other,
just the ability to understand what will probably happen.

I am also not prepared to pretend that the Federal Government won't try, and hasn't already been successful ...
In regards to infringing upon our Constitutionally Protected Rights.

.​

A large majority of Americans want universal background checks,

That's because the term "universal background check" is incredibly broad and vague. Most likely support plummets when you drill down on what that means in terms of policy. Much like abortion, universal healthcare, anti-racism, etc...

What is so complicated? You sell a gun, you do a background check, just like dealers do now. Of course, you would have to go to a dealer to do it, and it might cost 3 or 4 dollars. Do you prefer felons buying guns without even having to tell the seller their name, or even caring if the purchaser can legally have a gun?

what makes you think thats going to stop a felon from getting a gun??

It won't stop all of them any more than wearing a seat belt stops all car deaths. You can't get 100% success from any program.

The problem is crime; not guns and always has been. You want to stop crime? Everybody wants to stop crime (except criminals and the hopelessly insane) more gun laws are not the answer because:
You can't disinvent technology. Guns, and the knowledge to make them exist, are plentiful and here to stay. As far as crime is concerned that is actually a good thing because it can help even the odds between vulnerable potential victims and attackers. People never had much problem murdering each other before guns were invented and if every one of them disappeared it is doubtful that it would have much effect on murder rates. So you're stabbed to death or blown up instead of shot; is that somehow an improvement?
We had an "assault weapon ban" for ten years that had absolutely no effect except to inflate gun prices and increase sales. That ban was implemented as a trial. It received support from some gun owners because it was to settle the question of whether more restrictive gun laws would improve the situation or not. It didn't and so the question was answered. Unfortunately that hasn't stopped some of the sheep from continuing to bleet about the already settled issue. There are already laws intended stop everything the gun grabbers claim to want to stop and they can present no reasonable rationale to believe that new repressive laws will work any better. I have heard that the definition of insanity is continuing to do the same thing over and over and expecting a different outcome. You don't curb crime by creating new criminals which is exactly the risk being run. Maybe it's past time to address the actual issues instead of continuing our wheels in the same rut and creating damage instead of progress.

Yes, crime is the problem. Crime caused by criminals with guns is a really big part of that. 90% of Americans, including 75% of NRA members say your oppressive law claim is bullshit. Why are you so fanatic about keeping an easy source of guns available to felons?

Crime caused by criminals with guns is a really big part of that.
True but it is also true that the crimes they are committing are already illegal (against current law) and nobody has yet propose a law that criminals cannot or will not break just as easily as the ones currently in place. No improvement.

90% of Americans, including 75% of NRA members say your oppressive law claim is bullshit.
No, I say that your statement is bullshit. Care to provide a link or other supporting evidence?

Why are you so fanatic about keeping an easy source of guns available to felons?
If they are so easy to get and oh so deadly why are they rarely used for criminal purposes?
From this side of the question it appears that you and your associates are the criminal friendly crowd. Why else work so hard to disarm potential victims if not to make things easier and safer for the criminals?

1. Crimes are already against the law. That's why they are called crimes. The use of a gun in those crimes puts them in a separate category. I'm still not clear on why you don't want to make it harder for known criminals to get guns.

2. You are correct. 68% of NRA members, not 75% as stated and 78% of gun owners not members of the NRA support requiring background checks for all firearm purchases.

Poll: Most NRA members support comprehensive background checks

Most National Rifle Association (NRA) members support comprehensive background checks for those purchasing a firearm, according to a new poll.

thehill.com

3. Universal background checks are for all guns. Buying a gun from an individual is extremely easy. You give them the money, you get the gun. No background check. The seller doesn't even have to know your name. If you think guns are rarely used for criminal purposes, you're nuts.

again it's already illegal to sell a firearm to someone who can't legally purchase a firearm
and there is no way you can stop a private sell of a firearm
Universal background checks do not stop shootings. how many states already have Universal background checks on all firearms?

 

[BULLDOG]

A large majority of Americans want universal background checks,

.

Yeah, and?

The ATF is currently approving upwards of 3 million Background Checks for new firearms purchases a month ...
And has been for quite some time ... They know what we have.

There are more firearms than people in the United States at this point.
It seems as though a lot of armed American Citizens also want to exercise their Constitutionally Protected Rights.

.​

Yes, lots of new guns are being sold. Lots of used guns being sold too. No obligation for a used seller to even care if the purchaser is a felon, or otherwise not legal to even be near a gun. You got the money, you get the gun. Don't tell me bad guys only steal guns or have a straw buyer. No need to steal or have a straw buyer, when they can buy them themselves.

Bad guys use straw buyers.....they do not use private sellers because they are afraid they are ATF, or the police.....if you did some basic research you would know this.....they use friends and family with clean records to buy the guns.....prosecutors don't want to prosecute baby momma's and grandmothers, the typical gang straw buyer because juries don't like to convict these women because they often claim the gang threatens them if they don't buy the guns.....

America Should Be Prosecuting Straw Purchasers, Not Gun Dealers | National Review

Wisconsin isn’t alone in its nonchalance. California normally treats straw purchases as misdemeanors or minor infractions. Even as the people of Baltimore suffer horrific levels of violence, Maryland classifies the crime as a misdemeanor, too. Straw buying is a felony in progressive Connecticut, albeit one in the second-least-serious order of felonies. It is classified as a serious crime in Illinois (Class 2 felony), but police rarely (meaning “almost never”) go after the nephews and girlfriends with clean records who provide Chicago’s diverse and sundry gangsters with their weapons. In Delaware, it’s a Class F felony, like forging a check. In Oregon, it’s a misdemeanor.

--------

I visited Chicago a few years back to write about the city’s gang-driven murder problem, and a retired police official told me that the nature of the people making straw purchases — young relatives, girlfriends who may or may not have been facing the threat of physical violence, grandmothers, etc. — made prosecuting those cases unattractive.


In most of those cases, the authorities emphatically should put the straw purchasers in prison for as long as possible. Throw a few gangsters’ grandmothers behind bars for 20 years and see if that gets anybody’s attention. In the case of the young women suborned into breaking the law, that should be just another charge to put on the main offender.

Read more at: America Should Be Prosecuting Straw Purchasers, Not Gun Dealers | National Review


Convicted Murderers Admit: Gun Laws Are a Joke

To gain insight into why and how, one local news station decided to go right to the source of the problem.

To get our data, we sent surveys to every killer who used a gun to murder someone in Harris County since 2014. We wanted to know how they got their gun, what they paid, and how often, if ever, they went through a background check.

The information from the inmates tells a story most of us already know:

• 90 percent of those surveyed received their gun on the black market. They either traded goods for the firearm or a friend gave them the gun.
• 63 percent of the guns were stolen and the majority of them were given to the perpetrator for free.
• 90 percent of the surveyors weren’t eligible to legally buy a gun because of past criminal convictions.
• 100 percent of the surveyors concealed carry despite failing to have a CCW permit.

In Texas, a felon in possession of a firearm can serve 2 to 1- years in prison.
But in Harris County, the average jail sentence for the offense is 3-and-a-half months.

It should be no surprise that criminals are buying guns on the unregulated market.

But when asked, the convicted killers abc13 interviewed were all well aware of the gun laws.

Many were previously convicted and knew they wouldn’t pass federally mandated background checks.

Others suggested they would never put a family member in a position to buy a gun for them since the penalty for that so-called ‘straw purchase’ is severe.

Despite gun control laws that focus on expanded background checks and banning “assault weapons,” the survey results prove neither one of would have prevented these murderers from committing their crime.

When asked what can be done to keep guns off the streets, each criminal had different views.

“I feel guns is not the problem. People just need to respect each other, and stop been [sic] disrespectfully [sic]. Youngster in the hood need to listen when older people tellin them something. Guns WILL always be in the streets of H-town! Sorry to say that

,” said 44-year-old Cedric Jones.

I will be happy to read your entire remark as soon as you post something other than your handful of memorized bumper sticker statements and your massive store of cut and paste crap.

Chickenshit.

That's exactly what I consider the reams of the same cut and past propaganda the previous poster constantly supplies to be. Chickenshit.
He hasn't posted anything original since his 2nd day here.

 

[BULLDOG]

The M4 is the main rifle used by the US military, and no one could question that it is an assault rifle. The M4 is capable of full automatic fire, and 3 round burst, and the AR15 is not. Of course, it would be illegal, but the AR15 can easily be converted to allow those types of fire. Other than that difference, what makes an M4 an assault weapon, and an AR15 not?

I dont dispute what you say. The weaponry should be exclusive for the military and never allowed for the public use. There is no valid reason for other than an ego builder and a power play by testosterone filled Rambos.
There are so many slaughtered by these that that itself should be prove they should be banned. But no, that 250 year old 2nd amendment says we have a right.
So let the mass murders continue. When it reaches your children or close family, get back to me.

I don't advocate banning anything, even though it might not hurt my feelings if some were at least regulated a little more. I do think all gun sales should be only after a background check of the buyer, though.

 

[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?

he was asked at his hearing and said any semiautomatic weapon is an assault weapon maybe you should watch the hearing instead of being on this website

So get back with me after he is confirmed, and your fears have come true. As far as I can tell, your fears of having your guns confiscated have had your panties in a knot for a decade or more. Confiscation any day now?

 

[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"

and your opinion is still irrelevant because firearms are constitutionally protected and protected by the OWNER

See? I knew you were going to say that.

 

[BULLDOG]

The M4 is the main rifle used by the US military, and no one could question that it is an assault rifle. The M4 is capable of full automatic fire, and 3 round burst, and the AR15 is not. Of course, it would be illegal, but the AR15 can easily be converted to allow those types of fire. Other than that difference, what makes an M4 an assault weapon, and an AR15 not?

I dont dispute what you say. The weaponry should be exclusive for the military and never allowed for the public use. There is no valid reason for other than an ego builder and a power play by testosterone filled Rambos.
There are so many slaughtered by these that that itself should be prove they should be banned. But no, that 250 year old 2nd amendment says we have a right.
So let the mass murders continue. When it reaches your children or close family, get back to me.

more people are killed every single year by knives, by clubs, and by bare hands than by all rifle types let alone just the AR-15 rifle.....

More people die each year falling off ladders than are killed by mass public shooters in general and by mass public shooters with rifles...

What are you talking about?

The AR-15 is not a military weapon....do you understand that?

There is only one mass public shooting where the rifle had an advantage in the shooting, and that was Las Vegas, where the range was over 200 yards......but he was also firing into a tightly packed crowd of over 22,000 people, at night, from a concealed and fortified position.......with his initial shooting masked by the concert.



And if the crowed wasn't trapped in that concert arena, he wouldn't have been able to kill as many since they would have run away or found cover.....since shooting at moving targets at hundreds of yards is almost impossible for all but expertly trained shooters...



At the range of every other mass public shooting a rifle has no advantage over pistols or shotguns.......



again.....at the range of a mass public shooting the AR-15 is no better than a pump action shotgun....as are 2 handguns......you idiot...



Boulder....used an AR-15 with magazines that held more than 10 bullets.. 10 killed.....



Virginia Tech...2 pistols, one with 10 round magazine..... 32 killed.



Do you see that the AR-15 killed fewer people than the 2 pistols?



Boulder...10 killed with an AR-15 rifle and regular magazines ( holding more than 10 bullets)



Luby's Cafe..... 2 pistols....24 killed.



Do you see that the 2 pistols killed more than the AR-15?



Do you know what the difference was between these attacks?



The cops immediately responded and shot at the attacker in boulder, causing him to stop shooting unarmed victims, and then he shot himself....



Virginia Tech and Luby's Cafe, the police didn't get there, and at Luby's Cafe, the one woman who could have shot and killed the attacker had to leave her gun in her car because of stupid gun free zone laws....



Boulder AR-15 with magazines that hold more than 10 bullets...you know, regular magazines..... 10 killed...



Kerch, Russia, Polytechnic school shooting.... 5 shot, pump action shotgun...which means it had 5 shells which is 5 less than 10........20 killed 70 wounded.



Do you see that the AR-15 killed fewer people than the 5 shot, pump action shotgun?



The difference? The Russian police station was 100 yards away from the school...and it still took them 10 minutes to get to the school...and he managed to kill 20 people with a 5 shot, pump action shotgun....10 more than the Boulder shooter with a rifle and a regular sized magazine...





So again.......in a mass public shooting the number of bullets in the gun magazine don't mean anything......the gun doesn't make the difference....



What makes the difference?



1) if the target is a gun free zone, more people get killed.



2) if someone starts shooting at the attacker, they commit suicide, or surrender, or runaway....



That is what you don't understand and don't care to understand since you simply have a mental issue when it comes to the AR-15 rifle.

That rifle had no special advantage in a mass public shooting.

 

[BULLDOG]

The M4 is the main rifle used by the US military, and no one could question that it is an assault rifle. The M4 is capable of full automatic fire, and 3 round burst, and the AR15 is not. Of course, it would be illegal, but the AR15 can easily be converted to allow those types of fire. Other than that difference, what makes an M4 an assault weapon, and an AR15 not?

i think you answered your question one is automatic the other is not.

There was more to the question, but don't let that bother you.

 

[BULLDOG]

The M4 is the main rifle used by the US military, and no one could question that it is an assault rifle. The M4 is capable of full automatic fire, and 3 round burst, and the AR15 is not. Of course, it would be illegal, but the AR15 can easily be converted to allow those types of fire. Other than that difference, what makes an M4 an assault weapon, and an AR15 not?

I dont dispute what you say. The weaponry should be exclusive for the military and never allowed for the public use. There is no valid reason for other than an ego builder and a power play by testosterone filled Rambos.
There are so many slaughtered by these that that itself should be prove they should be banned. But no, that 250 year old 2nd amendment says we have a right.
So let the mass murders continue. When it reaches your children or close family, get back to me.

more people are killed every single year by knives, by clubs, and by bare hands than by all rifle types let alone just the AR-15 rifle.....

More people die each year falling off ladders than are killed by mass public shooters in general and by mass public shooters with rifles...

What are you talking about?

The AR-15 is not a military weapon....do you understand that?

There is only one mass public shooting where the rifle had an advantage in the shooting, and that was Las Vegas, where the range was over 200 yards......but he was also firing into a tightly packed crowd of over 22,000 people, at night, from a concealed and fortified position.......with his initial shooting masked by the concert.



And if the crowed wasn't trapped in that concert arena, he wouldn't have been able to kill as many since they would have run away or found cover.....since shooting at moving targets at hundreds of yards is almost impossible for all but expertly trained shooters...



At the range of every other mass public shooting a rifle has no advantage over pistols or shotguns.......



again.....at the range of a mass public shooting the AR-15 is no better than a pump action shotgun....as are 2 handguns......you idiot...



Boulder....used an AR-15 with magazines that held more than 10 bullets.. 10 killed.....



Virginia Tech...2 pistols, one with 10 round magazine..... 32 killed.



Do you see that the AR-15 killed fewer people than the 2 pistols?



Boulder...10 killed with an AR-15 rifle and regular magazines ( holding more than 10 bullets)



Luby's Cafe..... 2 pistols....24 killed.



Do you see that the 2 pistols killed more than the AR-15?



Do you know what the difference was between these attacks?



The cops immediately responded and shot at the attacker in boulder, causing him to stop shooting unarmed victims, and then he shot himself....



Virginia Tech and Luby's Cafe, the police didn't get there, and at Luby's Cafe, the one woman who could have shot and killed the attacker had to leave her gun in her car because of stupid gun free zone laws....



Boulder AR-15 with magazines that hold more than 10 bullets...you know, regular magazines..... 10 killed...



Kerch, Russia, Polytechnic school shooting.... 5 shot, pump action shotgun...which means it had 5 shells which is 5 less than 10........20 killed 70 wounded.



Do you see that the AR-15 killed fewer people than the 5 shot, pump action shotgun?



The difference? The Russian police station was 100 yards away from the school...and it still took them 10 minutes to get to the school...and he managed to kill 20 people with a 5 shot, pump action shotgun....10 more than the Boulder shooter with a rifle and a regular sized magazine...





So again.......in a mass public shooting the number of bullets in the gun magazine don't mean anything......the gun doesn't make the difference....



What makes the difference?



1) if the target is a gun free zone, more people get killed.



2) if someone starts shooting at the attacker, they commit suicide, or surrender, or runaway....



That is what you don't understand and don't care to understand since you simply have a mental issue when it comes to the AR-15 rifle.

That rifle had no special advantage in a mass public shooting.

We're going to have to face one fact the AR 15 may not be used by the military but it is a weapon of war that's what makes it constitutionally protected according to U.S. v. Miller 1939

So you admit it is a weapon of war. Was that so hard?

 

[struth]

The M4 is the main rifle used by the US military, and no one could question that it is an assault rifle. The M4 is capable of full automatic fire, and 3 round burst, and the AR15 is not. Of course, it would be illegal, but the AR15 can easily be converted to allow those types of fire. Other than that difference, what makes an M4 an assault weapon, and an AR15 not?

i think you answered your question one is automatic the other is not.

There was more to the question, but don't let that bother you.

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

 

[BULLDOG]

The M4 is the main rifle used by the US military, and no one could question that it is an assault rifle. The M4 is capable of full automatic fire, and 3 round burst, and the AR15 is not. Of course, it would be illegal, but the AR15 can easily be converted to allow those types of fire. Other than that difference, what makes an M4 an assault weapon, and an AR15 not?

I dont dispute what you say. The weaponry should be exclusive for the military and never allowed for the public use. There is no valid reason for other than an ego builder and a power play by testosterone filled Rambos.
There are so many slaughtered by these that that itself should be prove they should be banned. But no, that 250 year old 2nd amendment says we have a right.
So let the mass murders continue. When it reaches your children or close family, get back to me.

more people are killed every single year by knives, by clubs, and by bare hands than by all rifle types let alone just the AR-15 rifle.....

More people die each year falling off ladders than are killed by mass public shooters in general and by mass public shooters with rifles...

What are you talking about?

The AR-15 is not a military weapon....do you understand that?

There is only one mass public shooting where the rifle had an advantage in the shooting, and that was Las Vegas, where the range was over 200 yards......but he was also firing into a tightly packed crowd of over 22,000 people, at night, from a concealed and fortified position.......with his initial shooting masked by the concert.



And if the crowed wasn't trapped in that concert arena, he wouldn't have been able to kill as many since they would have run away or found cover.....since shooting at moving targets at hundreds of yards is almost impossible for all but expertly trained shooters...



At the range of every other mass public shooting a rifle has no advantage over pistols or shotguns.......



again.....at the range of a mass public shooting the AR-15 is no better than a pump action shotgun....as are 2 handguns......you idiot...



Boulder....used an AR-15 with magazines that held more than 10 bullets.. 10 killed.....



Virginia Tech...2 pistols, one with 10 round magazine..... 32 killed.



Do you see that the AR-15 killed fewer people than the 2 pistols?



Boulder...10 killed with an AR-15 rifle and regular magazines ( holding more than 10 bullets)



Luby's Cafe..... 2 pistols....24 killed.



Do you see that the 2 pistols killed more than the AR-15?



Do you know what the difference was between these attacks?



The cops immediately responded and shot at the attacker in boulder, causing him to stop shooting unarmed victims, and then he shot himself....



Virginia Tech and Luby's Cafe, the police didn't get there, and at Luby's Cafe, the one woman who could have shot and killed the attacker had to leave her gun in her car because of stupid gun free zone laws....



Boulder AR-15 with magazines that hold more than 10 bullets...you know, regular magazines..... 10 killed...



Kerch, Russia, Polytechnic school shooting.... 5 shot, pump action shotgun...which means it had 5 shells which is 5 less than 10........20 killed 70 wounded.



Do you see that the AR-15 killed fewer people than the 5 shot, pump action shotgun?



The difference? The Russian police station was 100 yards away from the school...and it still took them 10 minutes to get to the school...and he managed to kill 20 people with a 5 shot, pump action shotgun....10 more than the Boulder shooter with a rifle and a regular sized magazine...





So again.......in a mass public shooting the number of bullets in the gun magazine don't mean anything......the gun doesn't make the difference....



What makes the difference?



1) if the target is a gun free zone, more people get killed.



2) if someone starts shooting at the attacker, they commit suicide, or surrender, or runaway....



That is what you don't understand and don't care to understand since you simply have a mental issue when it comes to the AR-15 rifle.

That rifle had no special advantage in a mass public shooting.

We're going to have to face one fact the AR 15 may not be used by the military but it is a weapon of war that's what makes it constitutionally protected according to U.S. v. Miller 1939

Heller also states it is protected then Scalia named it, specifically in his opinion in Friedman v Highland Park....

Heller and Scalia notwithstanding, you agree with bigreb that it is a weapon of war?

 

[progressive hunter]

The M4 is the main rifle used by the US military, and no one could question that it is an assault rifle. The M4 is capable of full automatic fire, and 3 round burst, and the AR15 is not. Of course, it would be illegal, but the AR15 can easily be converted to allow those types of fire. Other than that difference, what makes an M4 an assault weapon, and an AR15 not?

I dont dispute what you say. The weaponry should be exclusive for the military and never allowed for the public use. There is no valid reason for other than an ego builder and a power play by testosterone filled Rambos.
There are so many slaughtered by these that that itself should be prove they should be banned. But no, that 250 year old 2nd amendment says we have a right.
So let the mass murders continue. When it reaches your children or close family, get back to me.

more people are killed every single year by knives, by clubs, and by bare hands than by all rifle types let alone just the AR-15 rifle.....

More people die each year falling off ladders than are killed by mass public shooters in general and by mass public shooters with rifles...

What are you talking about?

The AR-15 is not a military weapon....do you understand that?

There is only one mass public shooting where the rifle had an advantage in the shooting, and that was Las Vegas, where the range was over 200 yards......but he was also firing into a tightly packed crowd of over 22,000 people, at night, from a concealed and fortified position.......with his initial shooting masked by the concert.



And if the crowed wasn't trapped in that concert arena, he wouldn't have been able to kill as many since they would have run away or found cover.....since shooting at moving targets at hundreds of yards is almost impossible for all but expertly trained shooters...



At the range of every other mass public shooting a rifle has no advantage over pistols or shotguns.......



again.....at the range of a mass public shooting the AR-15 is no better than a pump action shotgun....as are 2 handguns......you idiot...



Boulder....used an AR-15 with magazines that held more than 10 bullets.. 10 killed.....



Virginia Tech...2 pistols, one with 10 round magazine..... 32 killed.



Do you see that the AR-15 killed fewer people than the 2 pistols?



Boulder...10 killed with an AR-15 rifle and regular magazines ( holding more than 10 bullets)



Luby's Cafe..... 2 pistols....24 killed.



Do you see that the 2 pistols killed more than the AR-15?



Do you know what the difference was between these attacks?



The cops immediately responded and shot at the attacker in boulder, causing him to stop shooting unarmed victims, and then he shot himself....



Virginia Tech and Luby's Cafe, the police didn't get there, and at Luby's Cafe, the one woman who could have shot and killed the attacker had to leave her gun in her car because of stupid gun free zone laws....



Boulder AR-15 with magazines that hold more than 10 bullets...you know, regular magazines..... 10 killed...



Kerch, Russia, Polytechnic school shooting.... 5 shot, pump action shotgun...which means it had 5 shells which is 5 less than 10........20 killed 70 wounded.



Do you see that the AR-15 killed fewer people than the 5 shot, pump action shotgun?



The difference? The Russian police station was 100 yards away from the school...and it still took them 10 minutes to get to the school...and he managed to kill 20 people with a 5 shot, pump action shotgun....10 more than the Boulder shooter with a rifle and a regular sized magazine...





So again.......in a mass public shooting the number of bullets in the gun magazine don't mean anything......the gun doesn't make the difference....



What makes the difference?



1) if the target is a gun free zone, more people get killed.



2) if someone starts shooting at the attacker, they commit suicide, or surrender, or runaway....



That is what you don't understand and don't care to understand since you simply have a mental issue when it comes to the AR-15 rifle.

That rifle had no special advantage in a mass public shooting.

We're going to have to face one fact the AR 15 may not be used by the military but it is a weapon of war that's what makes it constitutionally protected according to U.S. v. Miller 1939

So you admit it is a weapon of war. Was that so hard?

we've been telling you that for days,,

 

[progressive hunter]

The M4 is the main rifle used by the US military, and no one could question that it is an assault rifle. The M4 is capable of full automatic fire, and 3 round burst, and the AR15 is not. Of course, it would be illegal, but the AR15 can easily be converted to allow those types of fire. Other than that difference, what makes an M4 an assault weapon, and an AR15 not?

I dont dispute what you say. The weaponry should be exclusive for the military and never allowed for the public use. There is no valid reason for other than an ego builder and a power play by testosterone filled Rambos.
There are so many slaughtered by these that that itself should be prove they should be banned. But no, that 250 year old 2nd amendment says we have a right.
So let the mass murders continue. When it reaches your children or close family, get back to me.

more people are killed every single year by knives, by clubs, and by bare hands than by all rifle types let alone just the AR-15 rifle.....

More people die each year falling off ladders than are killed by mass public shooters in general and by mass public shooters with rifles...

What are you talking about?

The AR-15 is not a military weapon....do you understand that?

There is only one mass public shooting where the rifle had an advantage in the shooting, and that was Las Vegas, where the range was over 200 yards......but he was also firing into a tightly packed crowd of over 22,000 people, at night, from a concealed and fortified position.......with his initial shooting masked by the concert.



And if the crowed wasn't trapped in that concert arena, he wouldn't have been able to kill as many since they would have run away or found cover.....since shooting at moving targets at hundreds of yards is almost impossible for all but expertly trained shooters...



At the range of every other mass public shooting a rifle has no advantage over pistols or shotguns.......



again.....at the range of a mass public shooting the AR-15 is no better than a pump action shotgun....as are 2 handguns......you idiot...



Boulder....used an AR-15 with magazines that held more than 10 bullets.. 10 killed.....



Virginia Tech...2 pistols, one with 10 round magazine..... 32 killed.



Do you see that the AR-15 killed fewer people than the 2 pistols?



Boulder...10 killed with an AR-15 rifle and regular magazines ( holding more than 10 bullets)



Luby's Cafe..... 2 pistols....24 killed.



Do you see that the 2 pistols killed more than the AR-15?



Do you know what the difference was between these attacks?



The cops immediately responded and shot at the attacker in boulder, causing him to stop shooting unarmed victims, and then he shot himself....



Virginia Tech and Luby's Cafe, the police didn't get there, and at Luby's Cafe, the one woman who could have shot and killed the attacker had to leave her gun in her car because of stupid gun free zone laws....



Boulder AR-15 with magazines that hold more than 10 bullets...you know, regular magazines..... 10 killed...



Kerch, Russia, Polytechnic school shooting.... 5 shot, pump action shotgun...which means it had 5 shells which is 5 less than 10........20 killed 70 wounded.



Do you see that the AR-15 killed fewer people than the 5 shot, pump action shotgun?



The difference? The Russian police station was 100 yards away from the school...and it still took them 10 minutes to get to the school...and he managed to kill 20 people with a 5 shot, pump action shotgun....10 more than the Boulder shooter with a rifle and a regular sized magazine...





So again.......in a mass public shooting the number of bullets in the gun magazine don't mean anything......the gun doesn't make the difference....



What makes the difference?



1) if the target is a gun free zone, more people get killed.



2) if someone starts shooting at the attacker, they commit suicide, or surrender, or runaway....



That is what you don't understand and don't care to understand since you simply have a mental issue when it comes to the AR-15 rifle.

That rifle had no special advantage in a mass public shooting.

We're going to have to face one fact the AR 15 may not be used by the military but it is a weapon of war that's what makes it constitutionally protected according to U.S. v. Miller 1939

Heller also states it is protected then Scalia named it, specifically in his opinion in Friedman v Highland Park....

Heller and Scalia notwithstanding, you agree with bigreb that it is a weapon of war?

sweetie,, rocks are weapons of war,,

 

[BULLDOG]

The M4 is the main rifle used by the US military, and no one could question that it is an assault rifle. The M4 is capable of full automatic fire, and 3 round burst, and the AR15 is not. Of course, it would be illegal, but the AR15 can easily be converted to allow those types of fire. Other than that difference, what makes an M4 an assault weapon, and an AR15 not?

I dont dispute what you say. The weaponry should be exclusive for the military and never allowed for the public use. There is no valid reason for other than an ego builder and a power play by testosterone filled Rambos.
There are so many slaughtered by these that that itself should be prove they should be banned. But no, that 250 year old 2nd amendment says we have a right.
So let the mass murders continue. When it reaches your children or close family, get back to me.

more people are killed every single year by knives, by clubs, and by bare hands than by all rifle types let alone just the AR-15 rifle.....

More people die each year falling off ladders than are killed by mass public shooters in general and by mass public shooters with rifles...

What are you talking about?

The AR-15 is not a military weapon....do you understand that?

There is only one mass public shooting where the rifle had an advantage in the shooting, and that was Las Vegas, where the range was over 200 yards......but he was also firing into a tightly packed crowd of over 22,000 people, at night, from a concealed and fortified position.......with his initial shooting masked by the concert.



And if the crowed wasn't trapped in that concert arena, he wouldn't have been able to kill as many since they would have run away or found cover.....since shooting at moving targets at hundreds of yards is almost impossible for all but expertly trained shooters...



At the range of every other mass public shooting a rifle has no advantage over pistols or shotguns.......



again.....at the range of a mass public shooting the AR-15 is no better than a pump action shotgun....as are 2 handguns......you idiot...



Boulder....used an AR-15 with magazines that held more than 10 bullets.. 10 killed.....



Virginia Tech...2 pistols, one with 10 round magazine..... 32 killed.



Do you see that the AR-15 killed fewer people than the 2 pistols?



Boulder...10 killed with an AR-15 rifle and regular magazines ( holding more than 10 bullets)



Luby's Cafe..... 2 pistols....24 killed.



Do you see that the 2 pistols killed more than the AR-15?



Do you know what the difference was between these attacks?



The cops immediately responded and shot at the attacker in boulder, causing him to stop shooting unarmed victims, and then he shot himself....



Virginia Tech and Luby's Cafe, the police didn't get there, and at Luby's Cafe, the one woman who could have shot and killed the attacker had to leave her gun in her car because of stupid gun free zone laws....



Boulder AR-15 with magazines that hold more than 10 bullets...you know, regular magazines..... 10 killed...



Kerch, Russia, Polytechnic school shooting.... 5 shot, pump action shotgun...which means it had 5 shells which is 5 less than 10........20 killed 70 wounded.



Do you see that the AR-15 killed fewer people than the 5 shot, pump action shotgun?



The difference? The Russian police station was 100 yards away from the school...and it still took them 10 minutes to get to the school...and he managed to kill 20 people with a 5 shot, pump action shotgun....10 more than the Boulder shooter with a rifle and a regular sized magazine...





So again.......in a mass public shooting the number of bullets in the gun magazine don't mean anything......the gun doesn't make the difference....



What makes the difference?



1) if the target is a gun free zone, more people get killed.



2) if someone starts shooting at the attacker, they commit suicide, or surrender, or runaway....



That is what you don't understand and don't care to understand since you simply have a mental issue when it comes to the AR-15 rifle.

That rifle had no special advantage in a mass public shooting.

We're going to have to face one fact the AR 15 may not be used by the military but it is a weapon of war that's what makes it constitutionally protected according to U.S. v. Miller 1939

It was never used by the military....it therefore has never been a weapon of war....the pump action shotgun is a weapon of war, as is the bolt action rifle..........

In 1961 the military commissioned 8500 AR15s for the Air Force, and later a few were sent to Viet Nam. The first M16 wasn't issued until March of 1965.

The Complete History of the AR-15 Rifle | Small Wars Journal

The history of this iconic American weapon, from its inception in 1959 to the present day.

smallwarsjournal.com

 

[BULLDOG]

A large majority of Americans want universal background checks,

.

Yeah, and?

The ATF is currently approving upwards of 3 million Background Checks for new firearms purchases a month ...
And has been for quite some time ... They know what we have.

There are more firearms than people in the United States at this point.
It seems as though a lot of armed American Citizens also want to exercise their Constitutionally Protected Rights.

.​

Yes, lots of new guns are being sold. Lots of used guns being sold too. No obligation for a used seller to even care if the purchaser is a felon, or otherwise not legal to even be near a gun. You got the money, you get the gun. Don't tell me bad guys only steal guns or have a straw buyer. No need to steal or have a straw buyer, when they can buy them themselves.

Everything you say is nothing but fear-mongering.

The problem is you're trying to make afraid people who think rationally and know you're full of shit.

You may be cementing the fear-based views of your fellow irrational gun-haters, but you're not going to convince normal people of anything.

Would you point out which part of that post you think is untrue?

there is no way you can make a law that will stop private sells
It's already illegal to sell to anyone that can't legally purchase a firearm

True, but the seller has no obligation to know or even care if he is selling to someone who is not allowed a gun. You expect a crook to tell the seller he isn't allowed?

 

[BULLDOG]

The M4 is the main rifle used by the US military, and no one could question that it is an assault rifle. The M4 is capable of full automatic fire, and 3 round burst, and the AR15 is not. Of course, it would be illegal, but the AR15 can easily be converted to allow those types of fire. Other than that difference, what makes an M4 an assault weapon, and an AR15 not?

i think you answered your question one is automatic the other is not.

There was more to the question, but don't let that bother you.

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

Go back and reread the OP.

 

[BULLDOG]

The M4 is the main rifle used by the US military, and no one could question that it is an assault rifle. The M4 is capable of full automatic fire, and 3 round burst, and the AR15 is not. Of course, it would be illegal, but the AR15 can easily be converted to allow those types of fire. Other than that difference, what makes an M4 an assault weapon, and an AR15 not?

I dont dispute what you say. The weaponry should be exclusive for the military and never allowed for the public use. There is no valid reason for other than an ego builder and a power play by testosterone filled Rambos.
There are so many slaughtered by these that that itself should be prove they should be banned. But no, that 250 year old 2nd amendment says we have a right.
So let the mass murders continue. When it reaches your children or close family, get back to me.

more people are killed every single year by knives, by clubs, and by bare hands than by all rifle types let alone just the AR-15 rifle.....

More people die each year falling off ladders than are killed by mass public shooters in general and by mass public shooters with rifles...

What are you talking about?

The AR-15 is not a military weapon....do you understand that?

There is only one mass public shooting where the rifle had an advantage in the shooting, and that was Las Vegas, where the range was over 200 yards......but he was also firing into a tightly packed crowd of over 22,000 people, at night, from a concealed and fortified position.......with his initial shooting masked by the concert.



And if the crowed wasn't trapped in that concert arena, he wouldn't have been able to kill as many since they would have run away or found cover.....since shooting at moving targets at hundreds of yards is almost impossible for all but expertly trained shooters...



At the range of every other mass public shooting a rifle has no advantage over pistols or shotguns.......



again.....at the range of a mass public shooting the AR-15 is no better than a pump action shotgun....as are 2 handguns......you idiot...



Boulder....used an AR-15 with magazines that held more than 10 bullets.. 10 killed.....



Virginia Tech...2 pistols, one with 10 round magazine..... 32 killed.



Do you see that the AR-15 killed fewer people than the 2 pistols?



Boulder...10 killed with an AR-15 rifle and regular magazines ( holding more than 10 bullets)



Luby's Cafe..... 2 pistols....24 killed.



Do you see that the 2 pistols killed more than the AR-15?



Do you know what the difference was between these attacks?



The cops immediately responded and shot at the attacker in boulder, causing him to stop shooting unarmed victims, and then he shot himself....



Virginia Tech and Luby's Cafe, the police didn't get there, and at Luby's Cafe, the one woman who could have shot and killed the attacker had to leave her gun in her car because of stupid gun free zone laws....



Boulder AR-15 with magazines that hold more than 10 bullets...you know, regular magazines..... 10 killed...



Kerch, Russia, Polytechnic school shooting.... 5 shot, pump action shotgun...which means it had 5 shells which is 5 less than 10........20 killed 70 wounded.



Do you see that the AR-15 killed fewer people than the 5 shot, pump action shotgun?



The difference? The Russian police station was 100 yards away from the school...and it still took them 10 minutes to get to the school...and he managed to kill 20 people with a 5 shot, pump action shotgun....10 more than the Boulder shooter with a rifle and a regular sized magazine...





So again.......in a mass public shooting the number of bullets in the gun magazine don't mean anything......the gun doesn't make the difference....



What makes the difference?



1) if the target is a gun free zone, more people get killed.



2) if someone starts shooting at the attacker, they commit suicide, or surrender, or runaway....



That is what you don't understand and don't care to understand since you simply have a mental issue when it comes to the AR-15 rifle.

That rifle had no special advantage in a mass public shooting.

We're going to have to face one fact the AR 15 may not be used by the military but it is a weapon of war that's what makes it constitutionally protected according to U.S. v. Miller 1939

So you admit it is a weapon of war. Was that so hard?

we've been telling you that for days,,

OK. Then show the post where that was clearly stated, other than when bigreb did.

 

[progressive hunter]

The M4 is the main rifle used by the US military, and no one could question that it is an assault rifle. The M4 is capable of full automatic fire, and 3 round burst, and the AR15 is not. Of course, it would be illegal, but the AR15 can easily be converted to allow those types of fire. Other than that difference, what makes an M4 an assault weapon, and an AR15 not?

I dont dispute what you say. The weaponry should be exclusive for the military and never allowed for the public use. There is no valid reason for other than an ego builder and a power play by testosterone filled Rambos.
There are so many slaughtered by these that that itself should be prove they should be banned. But no, that 250 year old 2nd amendment says we have a right.
So let the mass murders continue. When it reaches your children or close family, get back to me.

more people are killed every single year by knives, by clubs, and by bare hands than by all rifle types let alone just the AR-15 rifle.....

More people die each year falling off ladders than are killed by mass public shooters in general and by mass public shooters with rifles...

What are you talking about?

The AR-15 is not a military weapon....do you understand that?

There is only one mass public shooting where the rifle had an advantage in the shooting, and that was Las Vegas, where the range was over 200 yards......but he was also firing into a tightly packed crowd of over 22,000 people, at night, from a concealed and fortified position.......with his initial shooting masked by the concert.



And if the crowed wasn't trapped in that concert arena, he wouldn't have been able to kill as many since they would have run away or found cover.....since shooting at moving targets at hundreds of yards is almost impossible for all but expertly trained shooters...



At the range of every other mass public shooting a rifle has no advantage over pistols or shotguns.......



again.....at the range of a mass public shooting the AR-15 is no better than a pump action shotgun....as are 2 handguns......you idiot...



Boulder....used an AR-15 with magazines that held more than 10 bullets.. 10 killed.....



Virginia Tech...2 pistols, one with 10 round magazine..... 32 killed.



Do you see that the AR-15 killed fewer people than the 2 pistols?



Boulder...10 killed with an AR-15 rifle and regular magazines ( holding more than 10 bullets)



Luby's Cafe..... 2 pistols....24 killed.



Do you see that the 2 pistols killed more than the AR-15?



Do you know what the difference was between these attacks?



The cops immediately responded and shot at the attacker in boulder, causing him to stop shooting unarmed victims, and then he shot himself....



Virginia Tech and Luby's Cafe, the police didn't get there, and at Luby's Cafe, the one woman who could have shot and killed the attacker had to leave her gun in her car because of stupid gun free zone laws....



Boulder AR-15 with magazines that hold more than 10 bullets...you know, regular magazines..... 10 killed...



Kerch, Russia, Polytechnic school shooting.... 5 shot, pump action shotgun...which means it had 5 shells which is 5 less than 10........20 killed 70 wounded.



Do you see that the AR-15 killed fewer people than the 5 shot, pump action shotgun?



The difference? The Russian police station was 100 yards away from the school...and it still took them 10 minutes to get to the school...and he managed to kill 20 people with a 5 shot, pump action shotgun....10 more than the Boulder shooter with a rifle and a regular sized magazine...





So again.......in a mass public shooting the number of bullets in the gun magazine don't mean anything......the gun doesn't make the difference....



What makes the difference?



1) if the target is a gun free zone, more people get killed.



2) if someone starts shooting at the attacker, they commit suicide, or surrender, or runaway....



That is what you don't understand and don't care to understand since you simply have a mental issue when it comes to the AR-15 rifle.

That rifle had no special advantage in a mass public shooting.

We're going to have to face one fact the AR 15 may not be used by the military but it is a weapon of war that's what makes it constitutionally protected according to U.S. v. Miller 1939

So you admit it is a weapon of war. Was that so hard?

we've been telling you that for days,,

OK. Then show the post where that was clearly stated, other than when bigreb did.

just check my comments and then show some that proved it wrong,,

or you could prove it wrong,,

 

[BULLDOG]

The M4 is the main rifle used by the US military, and no one could question that it is an assault rifle. The M4 is capable of full automatic fire, and 3 round burst, and the AR15 is not. Of course, it would be illegal, but the AR15 can easily be converted to allow those types of fire. Other than that difference, what makes an M4 an assault weapon, and an AR15 not?

I dont dispute what you say. The weaponry should be exclusive for the military and never allowed for the public use. There is no valid reason for other than an ego builder and a power play by testosterone filled Rambos.
There are so many slaughtered by these that that itself should be prove they should be banned. But no, that 250 year old 2nd amendment says we have a right.
So let the mass murders continue. When it reaches your children or close family, get back to me.

more people are killed every single year by knives, by clubs, and by bare hands than by all rifle types let alone just the AR-15 rifle.....

More people die each year falling off ladders than are killed by mass public shooters in general and by mass public shooters with rifles...

What are you talking about?

The AR-15 is not a military weapon....do you understand that?

There is only one mass public shooting where the rifle had an advantage in the shooting, and that was Las Vegas, where the range was over 200 yards......but he was also firing into a tightly packed crowd of over 22,000 people, at night, from a concealed and fortified position.......with his initial shooting masked by the concert.



And if the crowed wasn't trapped in that concert arena, he wouldn't have been able to kill as many since they would have run away or found cover.....since shooting at moving targets at hundreds of yards is almost impossible for all but expertly trained shooters...



At the range of every other mass public shooting a rifle has no advantage over pistols or shotguns.......



again.....at the range of a mass public shooting the AR-15 is no better than a pump action shotgun....as are 2 handguns......you idiot...



Boulder....used an AR-15 with magazines that held more than 10 bullets.. 10 killed.....



Virginia Tech...2 pistols, one with 10 round magazine..... 32 killed.



Do you see that the AR-15 killed fewer people than the 2 pistols?



Boulder...10 killed with an AR-15 rifle and regular magazines ( holding more than 10 bullets)



Luby's Cafe..... 2 pistols....24 killed.



Do you see that the 2 pistols killed more than the AR-15?



Do you know what the difference was between these attacks?



The cops immediately responded and shot at the attacker in boulder, causing him to stop shooting unarmed victims, and then he shot himself....



Virginia Tech and Luby's Cafe, the police didn't get there, and at Luby's Cafe, the one woman who could have shot and killed the attacker had to leave her gun in her car because of stupid gun free zone laws....



Boulder AR-15 with magazines that hold more than 10 bullets...you know, regular magazines..... 10 killed...



Kerch, Russia, Polytechnic school shooting.... 5 shot, pump action shotgun...which means it had 5 shells which is 5 less than 10........20 killed 70 wounded.



Do you see that the AR-15 killed fewer people than the 5 shot, pump action shotgun?



The difference? The Russian police station was 100 yards away from the school...and it still took them 10 minutes to get to the school...and he managed to kill 20 people with a 5 shot, pump action shotgun....10 more than the Boulder shooter with a rifle and a regular sized magazine...





So again.......in a mass public shooting the number of bullets in the gun magazine don't mean anything......the gun doesn't make the difference....



What makes the difference?



1) if the target is a gun free zone, more people get killed.



2) if someone starts shooting at the attacker, they commit suicide, or surrender, or runaway....



That is what you don't understand and don't care to understand since you simply have a mental issue when it comes to the AR-15 rifle.

That rifle had no special advantage in a mass public shooting.

We're going to have to face one fact the AR 15 may not be used by the military but it is a weapon of war that's what makes it constitutionally protected according to U.S. v. Miller 1939

Heller also states it is protected then Scalia named it, specifically in his opinion in Friedman v Highland Park....

Heller and Scalia notwithstanding, you agree with bigreb that it is a weapon of war?

sweetie,, rocks are weapons of war,,

I'm pretty sure rocks weren't specifically designed for war.

 

[progressive hunter]

The M4 is the main rifle used by the US military, and no one could question that it is an assault rifle. The M4 is capable of full automatic fire, and 3 round burst, and the AR15 is not. Of course, it would be illegal, but the AR15 can easily be converted to allow those types of fire. Other than that difference, what makes an M4 an assault weapon, and an AR15 not?

I dont dispute what you say. The weaponry should be exclusive for the military and never allowed for the public use. There is no valid reason for other than an ego builder and a power play by testosterone filled Rambos.
There are so many slaughtered by these that that itself should be prove they should be banned. But no, that 250 year old 2nd amendment says we have a right.
So let the mass murders continue. When it reaches your children or close family, get back to me.

more people are killed every single year by knives, by clubs, and by bare hands than by all rifle types let alone just the AR-15 rifle.....

More people die each year falling off ladders than are killed by mass public shooters in general and by mass public shooters with rifles...

What are you talking about?

The AR-15 is not a military weapon....do you understand that?

There is only one mass public shooting where the rifle had an advantage in the shooting, and that was Las Vegas, where the range was over 200 yards......but he was also firing into a tightly packed crowd of over 22,000 people, at night, from a concealed and fortified position.......with his initial shooting masked by the concert.



And if the crowed wasn't trapped in that concert arena, he wouldn't have been able to kill as many since they would have run away or found cover.....since shooting at moving targets at hundreds of yards is almost impossible for all but expertly trained shooters...



At the range of every other mass public shooting a rifle has no advantage over pistols or shotguns.......



again.....at the range of a mass public shooting the AR-15 is no better than a pump action shotgun....as are 2 handguns......you idiot...



Boulder....used an AR-15 with magazines that held more than 10 bullets.. 10 killed.....



Virginia Tech...2 pistols, one with 10 round magazine..... 32 killed.



Do you see that the AR-15 killed fewer people than the 2 pistols?



Boulder...10 killed with an AR-15 rifle and regular magazines ( holding more than 10 bullets)



Luby's Cafe..... 2 pistols....24 killed.



Do you see that the 2 pistols killed more than the AR-15?



Do you know what the difference was between these attacks?



The cops immediately responded and shot at the attacker in boulder, causing him to stop shooting unarmed victims, and then he shot himself....



Virginia Tech and Luby's Cafe, the police didn't get there, and at Luby's Cafe, the one woman who could have shot and killed the attacker had to leave her gun in her car because of stupid gun free zone laws....



Boulder AR-15 with magazines that hold more than 10 bullets...you know, regular magazines..... 10 killed...



Kerch, Russia, Polytechnic school shooting.... 5 shot, pump action shotgun...which means it had 5 shells which is 5 less than 10........20 killed 70 wounded.



Do you see that the AR-15 killed fewer people than the 5 shot, pump action shotgun?



The difference? The Russian police station was 100 yards away from the school...and it still took them 10 minutes to get to the school...and he managed to kill 20 people with a 5 shot, pump action shotgun....10 more than the Boulder shooter with a rifle and a regular sized magazine...





So again.......in a mass public shooting the number of bullets in the gun magazine don't mean anything......the gun doesn't make the difference....



What makes the difference?



1) if the target is a gun free zone, more people get killed.



2) if someone starts shooting at the attacker, they commit suicide, or surrender, or runaway....



That is what you don't understand and don't care to understand since you simply have a mental issue when it comes to the AR-15 rifle.

That rifle had no special advantage in a mass public shooting.

We're going to have to face one fact the AR 15 may not be used by the military but it is a weapon of war that's what makes it constitutionally protected according to U.S. v. Miller 1939

Heller also states it is protected then Scalia named it, specifically in his opinion in Friedman v Highland Park....

Heller and Scalia notwithstanding, you agree with bigreb that it is a weapon of war?

sweetie,, rocks are weapons of war,,

I'm pretty sure rocks weren't specifically designed for war.

doesnt matter what they are designed for,, if thats all you have and wars what faces you you use it,,
a good deer rifle wasnt designed for war, but some of them make a hell of a good sniper rifle,,