The truth about the AR-15 rifle, the most popular rifle in the U.S.

[westwall]

I own one of each of these rifles. Both are bolt-action military rifles which may have actually been used in war. According to the anti-gun mob, they should be banned.

Mosin-Nagant

Yugo Mauser 24/48

The Japanese and Germans conquered vast amounts of the world with bolt action rifles......I was amazed when I saw a documentary on the Battle of Okinawa when I realized the Japanese infantry soldier only had a bolt action rifle...while our Marines had rifles with magazine capacity.....

Hilarious. Explain what Japan or Germany would have done with no navy, airforce, or tanks. Japan had a number of rapid fire light and heavy machine guns, as did the Germans. The German MG42 had a fire rate of 1200 rounds per/min and Alllied troops were terrified of this weapon. The German Gewehr 43 was similar to the M1 Garand but had a larger 10 round magazine.

You can entertain your fantasies but don't try to alter history to fit your worldview.

Yes, Japan had numerous machineguns that all fired from clips or magazines. In fact a couple of them even mounted optical sights and mounted bayonets. The Germans did indeed have the MG42 and 34, and yes they were outstanding weapons for their era (hell the MG42 is still arguably the finest GPMG ever designed), the G-43 is nowhere near as good as the Garand (I own examples of both) and those they had were few and far between.

Regardless, what he is stating is factual. The tanks and airplanes are good at blowing stuff up but without the troops on the ground you can't hold anything, so yes, the Japanese and German armies OVERWHELMINGLY armed with bolt actioned rifles conquered huge tracts of territory. Your pathetic uueducated effort to deflect from that fact is duly noted.

 

[IsaacNewton]

I own one of each of these rifles. Both are bolt-action military rifles which may have actually been used in war. According to the anti-gun mob, they should be banned.

Mosin-Nagant

Yugo Mauser 24/48

The Japanese and Germans conquered vast amounts of the world with bolt action rifles......I was amazed when I saw a documentary on the Battle of Okinawa when I realized the Japanese infantry soldier only had a bolt action rifle...while our Marines had rifles with magazine capacity.....

Hilarious. Explain what Japan or Germany would have done with no navy, airforce, or tanks. Japan had a number of rapid fire light and heavy machine guns, as did the Germans. The German MG42 had a fire rate of 1200 rounds per/min and Alllied troops were terrified of this weapon. The German Gewehr 43 was similar to the M1 Garand but had a larger 10 round magazine.

You can entertain your fantasies but don't try to alter history to fit your worldview.

Yes, Japan had numerous machineguns that all fired from clips or magazines. In fact a couple of them even mounted optical sights and mounted bayonets. The Germans did indeed have the MG42 and 34, and yes they were outstanding weapons for their era (hell the MG42 is still arguably the finest GPMG ever designed), the G-43 is nowhere near as good as the Garand (I own examples of both) and those they had were few and far between.

Regardless, what he is stating is factual. The tanks and airplanes are good at blowing stuff up but without the troops on the ground you can't hold anything, so yes, the Japanese and German armies OVERWHELMINGLY armed with bolt actioned rifles conquered huge tracts of territory. Your pathetic uueducated effort to deflect from that fact is duly noted.

Hey you know how to 'duly note' things. Good for you, did you get a gold star when you learned that?

Your whining changes nothing. Dorp suggested a bolt action rifle won something in WW2. Ludicrous to even a 6 year old. That you think the same betrays your ignorance of warfare, something common for conservatives. You do your best to 'mitigate' the ridiculousness of the statement he made by saying "troops on the ground" (a dishonest attempt to say dorp meant troops with mg's). Unfortunately you could have 1000 troops with bolt action rifles rush headlong at a few guys with machine guns and 1000 dead guys with their bolt action rifles will be lying on the ground come daylight.

Go look up the images of the battles on GuadalCanal. This is exactly what happened to the Japanese and their magical bolt action rifles. A few marines with machine guns piled them up like cord wood. Over and over.


And while you are at it read about Blitzkrieg. Nothing in there about 'bolt action rifles'.

 

[westwall]

I own one of each of these rifles. Both are bolt-action military rifles which may have actually been used in war. According to the anti-gun mob, they should be banned.

Mosin-Nagant

Yugo Mauser 24/48

The Japanese and Germans conquered vast amounts of the world with bolt action rifles......I was amazed when I saw a documentary on the Battle of Okinawa when I realized the Japanese infantry soldier only had a bolt action rifle...while our Marines had rifles with magazine capacity.....

Hilarious. Explain what Japan or Germany would have done with no navy, airforce, or tanks. Japan had a number of rapid fire light and heavy machine guns, as did the Germans. The German MG42 had a fire rate of 1200 rounds per/min and Alllied troops were terrified of this weapon. The German Gewehr 43 was similar to the M1 Garand but had a larger 10 round magazine.

You can entertain your fantasies but don't try to alter history to fit your worldview.

Yes, Japan had numerous machineguns that all fired from clips or magazines. In fact a couple of them even mounted optical sights and mounted bayonets. The Germans did indeed have the MG42 and 34, and yes they were outstanding weapons for their era (hell the MG42 is still arguably the finest GPMG ever designed), the G-43 is nowhere near as good as the Garand (I own examples of both) and those they had were few and far between.

Regardless, what he is stating is factual. The tanks and airplanes are good at blowing stuff up but without the troops on the ground you can't hold anything, so yes, the Japanese and German armies OVERWHELMINGLY armed with bolt actioned rifles conquered huge tracts of territory. Your pathetic uueducated effort to deflect from that fact is duly noted.

Hey you know how to 'duly note' things. Good for you, did you get a gold star when you learned that?

Your whining changes nothing. Dorp suggested a bolt action rifle won something in WW2. Ludicrous to even a 6 year old. That you think the same betrays your ignorance of warfare, something common for conservatives. You do your best to 'mitigate' the ridiculousness of the statement he made by saying "troops on the ground" (a dishonest attempt to say dorp meant troops with mg's). Unfortunately you could have 1000 troops with bolt action rifles rush headlong at a few guys with machine guns and 1000 dead guys with their bolt action rifles will be lying on the ground come daylight.

Go look up the images of the battles on GuadalCanal. This is exactly what happened to the Japanese and their magical bolt action rifles. A few marines with machine guns piled them up like cord wood. Over and over.


And while you are at it read about Blitzkrieg. Nothing in there about 'bolt action rifles'. Except of course for those who don't know wtf they are talking about.

Bolt action rifle equipped soldiers DID win the battles idiot. I suggest you take a look at the actual military doctrine of the era where it states emphatically that the job of the MG is to SUPPORT the infantry as they make the assault. The MG is NOTHING without the soldiers to do the work. And, for the record the USA had by far the largest number of soldiers equipped with self loading rifles and even we didn't have universal issue. The majority of our troops fighting against the Japanese and on the Italian fronts were armed with BOLT action M1903A4 Springfield rifles.

Our troops piled them up like cordwood because the Japanese were starving because our Navy and AAF had strangled their supply lines moron. Yes, take a look at blitzkrieg. Let's see how smart you are (or how quick you can do a search) who invented the concept of Blitzkrieg, and further who developed it into the system we use today (that last one will be a little bit harder for you).

 

[OldLady]

I own one of each of these rifles. Both are bolt-action military rifles which may have actually been used in war. According to the anti-gun mob, they should be banned.

Mosin-Nagant

Yugo Mauser 24/48

The Japanese and Germans conquered vast amounts of the world with bolt action rifles......I was amazed when I saw a documentary on the Battle of Okinawa when I realized the Japanese infantry soldier only had a bolt action rifle...while our Marines had rifles with magazine capacity.....

Hilarious. Explain what Japan or Germany would have done with no navy, airforce, or tanks. Japan had a number of rapid fire light and heavy machine guns, as did the Germans. The German MG42 had a fire rate of 1200 rounds per/min and Alllied troops were terrified of this weapon. The German Gewehr 43 was similar to the M1 Garand but had a larger 10 round magazine.

You can entertain your fantasies but don't try to alter history to fit your worldview.

Yes, Japan had numerous machineguns that all fired from clips or magazines. In fact a couple of them even mounted optical sights and mounted bayonets. The Germans did indeed have the MG42 and 34, and yes they were outstanding weapons for their era (hell the MG42 is still arguably the finest GPMG ever designed), the G-43 is nowhere near as good as the Garand (I own examples of both) and those they had were few and far between.

Regardless, what he is stating is factual. The tanks and airplanes are good at blowing stuff up but without the troops on the ground you can't hold anything, so yes, the Japanese and German armies OVERWHELMINGLY armed with bolt actioned rifles conquered huge tracts of territory. Your pathetic uueducated effort to deflect from that fact is duly noted.

Hey you know how to 'duly note' things. Good for you, did you get a gold star when you learned that?

Your whining changes nothing. Dorp suggested a bolt action rifle won something in WW2. Ludicrous to even a 6 year old. That you think the same betrays your ignorance of warfare, something common for conservatives. You do your best to 'mitigate' the ridiculousness of the statement he made by saying "troops on the ground" (a dishonest attempt to say dorp meant troops with mg's). Unfortunately you could have 1000 troops with bolt action rifles rush headlong at a few guys with machine guns and 1000 dead guys with their bolt action rifles will be lying on the ground come daylight.

Go look up the images of the battles on GuadalCanal. This is exactly what happened to the Japanese and their magical bolt action rifles. A few marines with machine guns piled them up like cord wood. Over and over.


And while you are at it read about Blitzkrieg. Nothing in there about 'bolt action rifles'.

Anyone else notice that when we get into a discussion of these guns, it ends up being about warfare action? That's because these guns were designed for WAR. Civilians don't need them. You can shoot a thug with a gun that shoots a maximum of 5 bullets at a load, just as easily as a gun that sprays 20 or 30 bullets as fast as you can pull the trigger. Forget the fantasy that anyone is going to stop the government if it decides to declare war on you.

 

[westwall]

I own one of each of these rifles. Both are bolt-action military rifles which may have actually been used in war. According to the anti-gun mob, they should be banned.

Mosin-Nagant

Yugo Mauser 24/48

The Japanese and Germans conquered vast amounts of the world with bolt action rifles......I was amazed when I saw a documentary on the Battle of Okinawa when I realized the Japanese infantry soldier only had a bolt action rifle...while our Marines had rifles with magazine capacity.....

Hilarious. Explain what Japan or Germany would have done with no navy, airforce, or tanks. Japan had a number of rapid fire light and heavy machine guns, as did the Germans. The German MG42 had a fire rate of 1200 rounds per/min and Alllied troops were terrified of this weapon. The German Gewehr 43 was similar to the M1 Garand but had a larger 10 round magazine.

You can entertain your fantasies but don't try to alter history to fit your worldview.

Yes, Japan had numerous machineguns that all fired from clips or magazines. In fact a couple of them even mounted optical sights and mounted bayonets. The Germans did indeed have the MG42 and 34, and yes they were outstanding weapons for their era (hell the MG42 is still arguably the finest GPMG ever designed), the G-43 is nowhere near as good as the Garand (I own examples of both) and those they had were few and far between.

Regardless, what he is stating is factual. The tanks and airplanes are good at blowing stuff up but without the troops on the ground you can't hold anything, so yes, the Japanese and German armies OVERWHELMINGLY armed with bolt actioned rifles conquered huge tracts of territory. Your pathetic uueducated effort to deflect from that fact is duly noted.

Hey you know how to 'duly note' things. Good for you, did you get a gold star when you learned that?

Your whining changes nothing. Dorp suggested a bolt action rifle won something in WW2. Ludicrous to even a 6 year old. That you think the same betrays your ignorance of warfare, something common for conservatives. You do your best to 'mitigate' the ridiculousness of the statement he made by saying "troops on the ground" (a dishonest attempt to say dorp meant troops with mg's). Unfortunately you could have 1000 troops with bolt action rifles rush headlong at a few guys with machine guns and 1000 dead guys with their bolt action rifles will be lying on the ground come daylight.

Go look up the images of the battles on GuadalCanal. This is exactly what happened to the Japanese and their magical bolt action rifles. A few marines with machine guns piled them up like cord wood. Over and over.


And while you are at it read about Blitzkrieg. Nothing in there about 'bolt action rifles'.

Anyone else notice that when we get into a discussion of these guns, it ends up being about warfare action? That's because these guns were designed for WAR. Civilians don't need them. You can shoot a thug with a gun that shoots a maximum of 5 bullets at a load, just as easily as a gun that sprays 20 or 30 bullets as fast as you can pull the trigger. Forget the fantasy that anyone is going to stop the government if it decides to declare war on you.

It ain't a fantasy as it has actually happened. Even within your lifetime, so you are simply ignorant and wrong.

 

[Rustic]

I own one of each of these rifles. Both are bolt-action military rifles which may have actually been used in war. According to the anti-gun mob, they should be banned.

Mosin-Nagant

Yugo Mauser 24/48

The Japanese and Germans conquered vast amounts of the world with bolt action rifles......I was amazed when I saw a documentary on the Battle of Okinawa when I realized the Japanese infantry soldier only had a bolt action rifle...while our Marines had rifles with magazine capacity.....

Hilarious. Explain what Japan or Germany would have done with no navy, airforce, or tanks. Japan had a number of rapid fire light and heavy machine guns, as did the Germans. The German MG42 had a fire rate of 1200 rounds per/min and Alllied troops were terrified of this weapon. The German Gewehr 43 was similar to the M1 Garand but had a larger 10 round magazine.

You can entertain your fantasies but don't try to alter history to fit your worldview.

Yes, Japan had numerous machineguns that all fired from clips or magazines. In fact a couple of them even mounted optical sights and mounted bayonets. The Germans did indeed have the MG42 and 34, and yes they were outstanding weapons for their era (hell the MG42 is still arguably the finest GPMG ever designed), the G-43 is nowhere near as good as the Garand (I own examples of both) and those they had were few and far between.

Regardless, what he is stating is factual. The tanks and airplanes are good at blowing stuff up but without the troops on the ground you can't hold anything, so yes, the Japanese and German armies OVERWHELMINGLY armed with bolt actioned rifles conquered huge tracts of territory. Your pathetic uueducated effort to deflect from that fact is duly noted.

Hey you know how to 'duly note' things. Good for you, did you get a gold star when you learned that?

Your whining changes nothing. Dorp suggested a bolt action rifle won something in WW2. Ludicrous to even a 6 year old. That you think the same betrays your ignorance of warfare, something common for conservatives. You do your best to 'mitigate' the ridiculousness of the statement he made by saying "troops on the ground" (a dishonest attempt to say dorp meant troops with mg's). Unfortunately you could have 1000 troops with bolt action rifles rush headlong at a few guys with machine guns and 1000 dead guys with their bolt action rifles will be lying on the ground come daylight.

Go look up the images of the battles on GuadalCanal. This is exactly what happened to the Japanese and their magical bolt action rifles. A few marines with machine guns piled them up like cord wood. Over and over.


And while you are at it read about Blitzkrieg. Nothing in there about 'bolt action rifles'.

Anyone else notice that when we get into a discussion of these guns, it ends up being about warfare action? That's because these guns were designed for WAR. Civilians don't need them. You can shoot a thug with a gun that shoots a maximum of 5 bullets at a load, just as easily as a gun that sprays 20 or 30 bullets as fast as you can pull the trigger. Forget the fantasy that anyone is going to stop the government if it decides to declare war on you.

An ar15 is just a sporting rifle... Nothing more.

 

[Rustic]

 

[IsaacNewton]

I own one of each of these rifles. Both are bolt-action military rifles which may have actually been used in war. According to the anti-gun mob, they should be banned.

Mosin-Nagant

Yugo Mauser 24/48

The Japanese and Germans conquered vast amounts of the world with bolt action rifles......I was amazed when I saw a documentary on the Battle of Okinawa when I realized the Japanese infantry soldier only had a bolt action rifle...while our Marines had rifles with magazine capacity.....

Hilarious. Explain what Japan or Germany would have done with no navy, airforce, or tanks. Japan had a number of rapid fire light and heavy machine guns, as did the Germans. The German MG42 had a fire rate of 1200 rounds per/min and Alllied troops were terrified of this weapon. The German Gewehr 43 was similar to the M1 Garand but had a larger 10 round magazine.

You can entertain your fantasies but don't try to alter history to fit your worldview.

Yes, Japan had numerous machineguns that all fired from clips or magazines. In fact a couple of them even mounted optical sights and mounted bayonets. The Germans did indeed have the MG42 and 34, and yes they were outstanding weapons for their era (hell the MG42 is still arguably the finest GPMG ever designed), the G-43 is nowhere near as good as the Garand (I own examples of both) and those they had were few and far between.

Regardless, what he is stating is factual. The tanks and airplanes are good at blowing stuff up but without the troops on the ground you can't hold anything, so yes, the Japanese and German armies OVERWHELMINGLY armed with bolt actioned rifles conquered huge tracts of territory. Your pathetic uueducated effort to deflect from that fact is duly noted.

Hey you know how to 'duly note' things. Good for you, did you get a gold star when you learned that?

Your whining changes nothing. Dorp suggested a bolt action rifle won something in WW2. Ludicrous to even a 6 year old. That you think the same betrays your ignorance of warfare, something common for conservatives. You do your best to 'mitigate' the ridiculousness of the statement he made by saying "troops on the ground" (a dishonest attempt to say dorp meant troops with mg's). Unfortunately you could have 1000 troops with bolt action rifles rush headlong at a few guys with machine guns and 1000 dead guys with their bolt action rifles will be lying on the ground come daylight.

Go look up the images of the battles on GuadalCanal. This is exactly what happened to the Japanese and their magical bolt action rifles. A few marines with machine guns piled them up like cord wood. Over and over.


And while you are at it read about Blitzkrieg. Nothing in there about 'bolt action rifles'. Except of course for those who don't know wtf they are talking about.

Bolt action rifle equipped soldiers DID win the battles idiot. I suggest you take a look at the actual military doctrine of the era where it states emphatically that the job of the MG is to SUPPORT the infantry as they make the assault. The MG is NOTHING without the soldiers to do the work. And, for the record the USA had by far the largest number of soldiers equipped with self loading rifles and even we didn't have universal issue. The majority of our troops fighting against the Japanese and on the Italian fronts were armed with BOLT action M1903A4 Springfield rifles.

Our troops piled them up like cordwood because the Japanese were starving because our Navy and AAF had strangled their supply lines moron. Yes, take a look at blitzkrieg. Let's see how smart you are (or how quick you can do a search) who invented the concept of Blitzkrieg, and further who developed it into the system we use today (that last one will be a little bit harder for you).

"Our troops piled them up like cordwood because the Japanese were starving because our Navy and AAF had strangled their supply lines"

The exact opposite was true on Guadalcanal. The 1st Marine division was landed and then a large Japanese fleet showed up and sank many US ships and the US navy had to withdraw, leaving the Marines very low on supplies as most of their supplies had not been unloaded yet.

I mean you have to at least READ something about it before making one inaccurate statement after another.

 

[IsaacNewton]

The Japanese and Germans conquered vast amounts of the world with bolt action rifles......I was amazed when I saw a documentary on the Battle of Okinawa when I realized the Japanese infantry soldier only had a bolt action rifle...while our Marines had rifles with magazine capacity.....

Hilarious. Explain what Japan or Germany would have done with no navy, airforce, or tanks. Japan had a number of rapid fire light and heavy machine guns, as did the Germans. The German MG42 had a fire rate of 1200 rounds per/min and Alllied troops were terrified of this weapon. The German Gewehr 43 was similar to the M1 Garand but had a larger 10 round magazine.

You can entertain your fantasies but don't try to alter history to fit your worldview.

Yes, Japan had numerous machineguns that all fired from clips or magazines. In fact a couple of them even mounted optical sights and mounted bayonets. The Germans did indeed have the MG42 and 34, and yes they were outstanding weapons for their era (hell the MG42 is still arguably the finest GPMG ever designed), the G-43 is nowhere near as good as the Garand (I own examples of both) and those they had were few and far between.

Regardless, what he is stating is factual. The tanks and airplanes are good at blowing stuff up but without the troops on the ground you can't hold anything, so yes, the Japanese and German armies OVERWHELMINGLY armed with bolt actioned rifles conquered huge tracts of territory. Your pathetic uueducated effort to deflect from that fact is duly noted.

Hey you know how to 'duly note' things. Good for you, did you get a gold star when you learned that?

Your whining changes nothing. Dorp suggested a bolt action rifle won something in WW2. Ludicrous to even a 6 year old. That you think the same betrays your ignorance of warfare, something common for conservatives. You do your best to 'mitigate' the ridiculousness of the statement he made by saying "troops on the ground" (a dishonest attempt to say dorp meant troops with mg's). Unfortunately you could have 1000 troops with bolt action rifles rush headlong at a few guys with machine guns and 1000 dead guys with their bolt action rifles will be lying on the ground come daylight.

Go look up the images of the battles on GuadalCanal. This is exactly what happened to the Japanese and their magical bolt action rifles. A few marines with machine guns piled them up like cord wood. Over and over.


And while you are at it read about Blitzkrieg. Nothing in there about 'bolt action rifles'.

Anyone else notice that when we get into a discussion of these guns, it ends up being about warfare action? That's because these guns were designed for WAR. Civilians don't need them. You can shoot a thug with a gun that shoots a maximum of 5 bullets at a load, just as easily as a gun that sprays 20 or 30 bullets as fast as you can pull the trigger. Forget the fantasy that anyone is going to stop the government if it decides to declare war on you.

It ain't a fantasy as it has actually happened. Even within your lifetime, so you are simply ignorant and wrong.

Please 'enlighten' us on how a population armed with semi-auto rifles is going to fight our military and do anything but lose within a week.

And now comes the 'but what about this and what about that'. And none of it will have to do with the almighty use of semi-auto rifles winning anything. Those days ended over 110 years ago.

 

[westwall]

The Japanese and Germans conquered vast amounts of the world with bolt action rifles......I was amazed when I saw a documentary on the Battle of Okinawa when I realized the Japanese infantry soldier only had a bolt action rifle...while our Marines had rifles with magazine capacity.....

Hilarious. Explain what Japan or Germany would have done with no navy, airforce, or tanks. Japan had a number of rapid fire light and heavy machine guns, as did the Germans. The German MG42 had a fire rate of 1200 rounds per/min and Alllied troops were terrified of this weapon. The German Gewehr 43 was similar to the M1 Garand but had a larger 10 round magazine.

You can entertain your fantasies but don't try to alter history to fit your worldview.

Yes, Japan had numerous machineguns that all fired from clips or magazines. In fact a couple of them even mounted optical sights and mounted bayonets. The Germans did indeed have the MG42 and 34, and yes they were outstanding weapons for their era (hell the MG42 is still arguably the finest GPMG ever designed), the G-43 is nowhere near as good as the Garand (I own examples of both) and those they had were few and far between.

Regardless, what he is stating is factual. The tanks and airplanes are good at blowing stuff up but without the troops on the ground you can't hold anything, so yes, the Japanese and German armies OVERWHELMINGLY armed with bolt actioned rifles conquered huge tracts of territory. Your pathetic uueducated effort to deflect from that fact is duly noted.

Hey you know how to 'duly note' things. Good for you, did you get a gold star when you learned that?

Your whining changes nothing. Dorp suggested a bolt action rifle won something in WW2. Ludicrous to even a 6 year old. That you think the same betrays your ignorance of warfare, something common for conservatives. You do your best to 'mitigate' the ridiculousness of the statement he made by saying "troops on the ground" (a dishonest attempt to say dorp meant troops with mg's). Unfortunately you could have 1000 troops with bolt action rifles rush headlong at a few guys with machine guns and 1000 dead guys with their bolt action rifles will be lying on the ground come daylight.

Go look up the images of the battles on GuadalCanal. This is exactly what happened to the Japanese and their magical bolt action rifles. A few marines with machine guns piled them up like cord wood. Over and over.


And while you are at it read about Blitzkrieg. Nothing in there about 'bolt action rifles'. Except of course for those who don't know wtf they are talking about.

Bolt action rifle equipped soldiers DID win the battles idiot. I suggest you take a look at the actual military doctrine of the era where it states emphatically that the job of the MG is to SUPPORT the infantry as they make the assault. The MG is NOTHING without the soldiers to do the work. And, for the record the USA had by far the largest number of soldiers equipped with self loading rifles and even we didn't have universal issue. The majority of our troops fighting against the Japanese and on the Italian fronts were armed with BOLT action M1903A4 Springfield rifles.

Our troops piled them up like cordwood because the Japanese were starving because our Navy and AAF had strangled their supply lines moron. Yes, take a look at blitzkrieg. Let's see how smart you are (or how quick you can do a search) who invented the concept of Blitzkrieg, and further who developed it into the system we use today (that last one will be a little bit harder for you).

"Our troops piled them up like cordwood because the Japanese were starving because our Navy and AAF had strangled their supply lines"

The exact opposite was true on Guadalcanal. The 1st Marine division was landed and then a large Japanese fleet showed up and sank many US ships and the US navy had to withdraw, leaving the Marines very low on supplies as most of their supplies had not been unloaded yet.

I mean you have to at least READ something about it before making one inaccurate statement after another.

You need to read more than the wiki entry dude. How about that history of the development of blitzkrieg i asked you for?

 

[IsaacNewton]

Hilarious. Explain what Japan or Germany would have done with no navy, airforce, or tanks. Japan had a number of rapid fire light and heavy machine guns, as did the Germans. The German MG42 had a fire rate of 1200 rounds per/min and Alllied troops were terrified of this weapon. The German Gewehr 43 was similar to the M1 Garand but had a larger 10 round magazine.

You can entertain your fantasies but don't try to alter history to fit your worldview.

Yes, Japan had numerous machineguns that all fired from clips or magazines. In fact a couple of them even mounted optical sights and mounted bayonets. The Germans did indeed have the MG42 and 34, and yes they were outstanding weapons for their era (hell the MG42 is still arguably the finest GPMG ever designed), the G-43 is nowhere near as good as the Garand (I own examples of both) and those they had were few and far between.

Regardless, what he is stating is factual. The tanks and airplanes are good at blowing stuff up but without the troops on the ground you can't hold anything, so yes, the Japanese and German armies OVERWHELMINGLY armed with bolt actioned rifles conquered huge tracts of territory. Your pathetic uueducated effort to deflect from that fact is duly noted.

Hey you know how to 'duly note' things. Good for you, did you get a gold star when you learned that?

Your whining changes nothing. Dorp suggested a bolt action rifle won something in WW2. Ludicrous to even a 6 year old. That you think the same betrays your ignorance of warfare, something common for conservatives. You do your best to 'mitigate' the ridiculousness of the statement he made by saying "troops on the ground" (a dishonest attempt to say dorp meant troops with mg's). Unfortunately you could have 1000 troops with bolt action rifles rush headlong at a few guys with machine guns and 1000 dead guys with their bolt action rifles will be lying on the ground come daylight.

Go look up the images of the battles on GuadalCanal. This is exactly what happened to the Japanese and their magical bolt action rifles. A few marines with machine guns piled them up like cord wood. Over and over.


And while you are at it read about Blitzkrieg. Nothing in there about 'bolt action rifles'. Except of course for those who don't know wtf they are talking about.

Bolt action rifle equipped soldiers DID win the battles idiot. I suggest you take a look at the actual military doctrine of the era where it states emphatically that the job of the MG is to SUPPORT the infantry as they make the assault. The MG is NOTHING without the soldiers to do the work. And, for the record the USA had by far the largest number of soldiers equipped with self loading rifles and even we didn't have universal issue. The majority of our troops fighting against the Japanese and on the Italian fronts were armed with BOLT action M1903A4 Springfield rifles.

Our troops piled them up like cordwood because the Japanese were starving because our Navy and AAF had strangled their supply lines moron. Yes, take a look at blitzkrieg. Let's see how smart you are (or how quick you can do a search) who invented the concept of Blitzkrieg, and further who developed it into the system we use today (that last one will be a little bit harder for you).

"Our troops piled them up like cordwood because the Japanese were starving because our Navy and AAF had strangled their supply lines"

The exact opposite was true on Guadalcanal. The 1st Marine division was landed and then a large Japanese fleet showed up and sank many US ships and the US navy had to withdraw, leaving the Marines very low on supplies as most of their supplies had not been unloaded yet.

I mean you have to at least READ something about it before making one inaccurate statement after another.

You need to read more than the wiki entry dude.

Hilarious, your bullshit is stomped on and you attack the messenger. Fallback position #16 for conservatives. Use of the Red Herring or Strawman.

It's easy, just admit the bolt action rifle was obsolete even in WW2. Was it needed? Yes. For most countries that was their best technology at the time. Did it turn the tide in any battle in WW2? No. Boots were also needed and you COULD make an argument that a battle, or the war, could not have been won by men with bare feet. Which would likely be the case. Even in WW1 70% of the casualties were from artillery.

Nothing wrong with liking guns if you are a responsible person. But defending nonsense is nonsense.

 

[Rustic]

Hilarious. Explain what Japan or Germany would have done with no navy, airforce, or tanks. Japan had a number of rapid fire light and heavy machine guns, as did the Germans. The German MG42 had a fire rate of 1200 rounds per/min and Alllied troops were terrified of this weapon. The German Gewehr 43 was similar to the M1 Garand but had a larger 10 round magazine.

You can entertain your fantasies but don't try to alter history to fit your worldview.

Yes, Japan had numerous machineguns that all fired from clips or magazines. In fact a couple of them even mounted optical sights and mounted bayonets. The Germans did indeed have the MG42 and 34, and yes they were outstanding weapons for their era (hell the MG42 is still arguably the finest GPMG ever designed), the G-43 is nowhere near as good as the Garand (I own examples of both) and those they had were few and far between.

Regardless, what he is stating is factual. The tanks and airplanes are good at blowing stuff up but without the troops on the ground you can't hold anything, so yes, the Japanese and German armies OVERWHELMINGLY armed with bolt actioned rifles conquered huge tracts of territory. Your pathetic uueducated effort to deflect from that fact is duly noted.

Hey you know how to 'duly note' things. Good for you, did you get a gold star when you learned that?

Your whining changes nothing. Dorp suggested a bolt action rifle won something in WW2. Ludicrous to even a 6 year old. That you think the same betrays your ignorance of warfare, something common for conservatives. You do your best to 'mitigate' the ridiculousness of the statement he made by saying "troops on the ground" (a dishonest attempt to say dorp meant troops with mg's). Unfortunately you could have 1000 troops with bolt action rifles rush headlong at a few guys with machine guns and 1000 dead guys with their bolt action rifles will be lying on the ground come daylight.

Go look up the images of the battles on GuadalCanal. This is exactly what happened to the Japanese and their magical bolt action rifles. A few marines with machine guns piled them up like cord wood. Over and over.


And while you are at it read about Blitzkrieg. Nothing in there about 'bolt action rifles'.

Anyone else notice that when we get into a discussion of these guns, it ends up being about warfare action? That's because these guns were designed for WAR. Civilians don't need them. You can shoot a thug with a gun that shoots a maximum of 5 bullets at a load, just as easily as a gun that sprays 20 or 30 bullets as fast as you can pull the trigger. Forget the fantasy that anyone is going to stop the government if it decides to declare war on you.

It ain't a fantasy as it has actually happened. Even within your lifetime, so you are simply ignorant and wrong.

Please 'enlighten' us on how a population armed with semi-auto rifles is going to fight our military and do anything but lose within a week.

And now comes the 'but what about this and what about that'. And none of it will have to do with the almighty use of semi-auto rifles winning anything. Those days ended over 110 years ago.

You anti-gun nutters always say that, you think military folk are going to side with the federal government that wants to abolish the Constitution?
Our military folk would never go against the country's population... fuck nuts like yourself Forget to realize the strongest supporters of the Second Amendment are our military, police and fire.

 

[gipper]

If you have a machine shop and the skills necessary to create the parts that will fit in a precision machine, you probably could. And no, "most people" could certainly not produce the parts necessry to make the AR-15 fully automatic. But "most people" could certainly create a bomb that would kill far more people.

Was the rifle used by Holmes a fully automatic weapon?

Most people would just buy those parts at a gun show or on line.

Doesn't matter if holmes had a fully auto matic weapon or not. the fact he had a semi-automatic weapon with the power it had is the problem. 12 people died and anther 60 wer wounded, and you guys are okay with this.

I'm not.

No, I am not ok with that. I want the laws followed so that the people who are mentally incompetent are not allowed to buy a weapon from a dealer. And I want the mental health professionals to follow those laws and report the lunatics to the system that will prevent them from buying.

You want to blame the gun, and take them away from the 100 million gun owners. 9,500 gun murders constitute less than one tenth of one percent of the legal gun owners. 99.9% of gun owners never kill anyone at all.

Again...facts do not affect Joe. He is unchanged by the facts. So, naturally, debating such a person is an utter waste of time.

 

[chikenwing]

It's effectively the same weapon. fires the same round, has the same range, etc.

the only difference is that the M16 can be fired on full auto. You have to modify the AR15 in order to do that, which you can do very easily.

Some gun nutter needs to refute what Joe said. Is the difference between the two rifles that fact that one is fully automatic? Or not? Can the AR be made fully automatic? If so, Joe's right. Again.


But but but. Come on gun nutters. Defend your weapon!

Ok, that is easy enough.

In order to make the AR-15 fire as a fully automatic rifle, you have to have a machine shop. You will need to cut the receiver of the weapon and change out a couple of parts (which you have to make). And the rifle is a very precise machine, so the new parts and cuts will have to be within very tight tolerances and of a quality metal.

I know people that build from scratch,the whole gun,whats your point?

 

[chikenwing]

I own one of each of these rifles. Both are bolt-action military rifles which may have actually been used in war. According to the anti-gun mob, they should be banned.

Mosin-Nagant

Yugo Mauser 24/48

The Japanese and Germans conquered vast amounts of the world with bolt action rifles......I was amazed when I saw a documentary on the Battle of Okinawa when I realized the Japanese infantry soldier only had a bolt action rifle...while our Marines had rifles with magazine capacity.....

Hilarious. Explain what Japan or Germany would have done with no navy, airforce, or tanks. Japan had a number of rapid fire light and heavy machine guns, as did the Germans. The German MG42 had a fire rate of 1200 rounds per/min and Alllied troops were terrified of this weapon. The German Gewehr 43 was similar to the M1 Garand but had a larger 10 round magazine.

You can entertain your fantasies but don't try to alter history to fit your worldview.

Yes, Japan had numerous machineguns that all fired from clips or magazines. In fact a couple of them even mounted optical sights and mounted bayonets. The Germans did indeed have the MG42 and 34, and yes they were outstanding weapons for their era (hell the MG42 is still arguably the finest GPMG ever designed), the G-43 is nowhere near as good as the Garand (I own examples of both) and those they had were few and far between.

Regardless, what he is stating is factual. The tanks and airplanes are good at blowing stuff up but without the troops on the ground you can't hold anything, so yes, the Japanese and German armies OVERWHELMINGLY armed with bolt actioned rifles conquered huge tracts of territory. Your pathetic uueducated effort to deflect from that fact is duly noted.

Hey you know how to 'duly note' things. Good for you, did you get a gold star when you learned that?

Your whining changes nothing. Dorp suggested a bolt action rifle won something in WW2. Ludicrous to even a 6 year old. That you think the same betrays your ignorance of warfare, something common for conservatives. You do your best to 'mitigate' the ridiculousness of the statement he made by saying "troops on the ground" (a dishonest attempt to say dorp meant troops with mg's). Unfortunately you could have 1000 troops with bolt action rifles rush headlong at a few guys with machine guns and 1000 dead guys with their bolt action rifles will be lying on the ground come daylight.

Go look up the images of the battles on GuadalCanal. This is exactly what happened to the Japanese and their magical bolt action rifles. A few marines with machine guns piled them up like cord wood. Over and over.


And while you are at it read about Blitzkrieg. Nothing in there about 'bolt action rifles'.

Anyone else notice that when we get into a discussion of these guns, it ends up being about warfare action? That's because these guns were designed for WAR. Civilians don't need them. You can shoot a thug with a gun that shoots a maximum of 5 bullets at a load, just as easily as a gun that sprays 20 or 30 bullets as fast as you can pull the trigger. Forget the fantasy that anyone is going to stop the government if it decides to declare war on you.

Need is irrelevant,and you don't get to say what is,there are thousands of different model of guns chambered in 223,the end of the barrel there is no difference.

 

[2aguy]

No, I am not ok with that. I want the laws followed so that the people who are mentally incompetent are not allowed to buy a weapon from a dealer. And I want the mental health professionals to follow those laws and report the lunatics to the system that will prevent them from buying.

You want to blame the gun, and take them away from the 100 million gun owners. 9,500 gun murders constitute less than one tenth of one percent of the legal gun owners. 99.9% of gun owners never kill anyone at all.

Again, we ban things for a lot less.

How many lawn darts do you think killed someone at some point? But lawn darts are illegal now.

Lawn darts don't save lives asshole.

 

[westwall]

Yes, Japan had numerous machineguns that all fired from clips or magazines. In fact a couple of them even mounted optical sights and mounted bayonets. The Germans did indeed have the MG42 and 34, and yes they were outstanding weapons for their era (hell the MG42 is still arguably the finest GPMG ever designed), the G-43 is nowhere near as good as the Garand (I own examples of both) and those they had were few and far between.

Regardless, what he is stating is factual. The tanks and airplanes are good at blowing stuff up but without the troops on the ground you can't hold anything, so yes, the Japanese and German armies OVERWHELMINGLY armed with bolt actioned rifles conquered huge tracts of territory. Your pathetic uueducated effort to deflect from that fact is duly noted.

Hey you know how to 'duly note' things. Good for you, did you get a gold star when you learned that?

Your whining changes nothing. Dorp suggested a bolt action rifle won something in WW2. Ludicrous to even a 6 year old. That you think the same betrays your ignorance of warfare, something common for conservatives. You do your best to 'mitigate' the ridiculousness of the statement he made by saying "troops on the ground" (a dishonest attempt to say dorp meant troops with mg's). Unfortunately you could have 1000 troops with bolt action rifles rush headlong at a few guys with machine guns and 1000 dead guys with their bolt action rifles will be lying on the ground come daylight.

Go look up the images of the battles on GuadalCanal. This is exactly what happened to the Japanese and their magical bolt action rifles. A few marines with machine guns piled them up like cord wood. Over and over.


And while you are at it read about Blitzkrieg. Nothing in there about 'bolt action rifles'. Except of course for those who don't know wtf they are talking about.

Bolt action rifle equipped soldiers DID win the battles idiot. I suggest you take a look at the actual military doctrine of the era where it states emphatically that the job of the MG is to SUPPORT the infantry as they make the assault. The MG is NOTHING without the soldiers to do the work. And, for the record the USA had by far the largest number of soldiers equipped with self loading rifles and even we didn't have universal issue. The majority of our troops fighting against the Japanese and on the Italian fronts were armed with BOLT action M1903A4 Springfield rifles.

Our troops piled them up like cordwood because the Japanese were starving because our Navy and AAF had strangled their supply lines moron. Yes, take a look at blitzkrieg. Let's see how smart you are (or how quick you can do a search) who invented the concept of Blitzkrieg, and further who developed it into the system we use today (that last one will be a little bit harder for you).

"Our troops piled them up like cordwood because the Japanese were starving because our Navy and AAF had strangled their supply lines"

The exact opposite was true on Guadalcanal. The 1st Marine division was landed and then a large Japanese fleet showed up and sank many US ships and the US navy had to withdraw, leaving the Marines very low on supplies as most of their supplies had not been unloaded yet.

I mean you have to at least READ something about it before making one inaccurate statement after another.

You need to read more than the wiki entry dude.

Hilarious, your bullshit is stomped on and you attack the messenger. Fallback position #16 for conservatives. Use of the Red Herring or Strawman.

It's easy, just admit the bolt action rifle was obsolete even in WW2. Was it needed? Yes. For most countries that was their best technology at the time. Did it turn the tide in any battle in WW2? No. Boots were also needed and you COULD make an argument that a battle, or the war, could not have been won by men with bare feet. Which would likely be the case. Even in WW1 70% of the casualties were from artillery.

Nothing wrong with liking guns if you are a responsible person. But defending nonsense is nonsense.

Wrong. My position was NOT demolished jackass. Of course the bolt action was obsolete by the end of WWII. It doesn't alter the fact that almost all of Europe was conquered by an army equipped with them. And, the armies that defeated them, Soviet Union, and the UK, were likewise armed with them. Those are the facts, obfuscate and bluster all you wish, but those ARE the facts.

 

[WinterBorn]

It's effectively the same weapon. fires the same round, has the same range, etc.

the only difference is that the M16 can be fired on full auto. You have to modify the AR15 in order to do that, which you can do very easily.

Some gun nutter needs to refute what Joe said. Is the difference between the two rifles that fact that one is fully automatic? Or not? Can the AR be made fully automatic? If so, Joe's right. Again.


But but but. Come on gun nutters. Defend your weapon!

Ok, that is easy enough.

In order to make the AR-15 fire as a fully automatic rifle, you have to have a machine shop. You will need to cut the receiver of the weapon and change out a couple of parts (which you have to make). And the rifle is a very precise machine, so the new parts and cuts will have to be within very tight tolerances and of a quality metal.

I know people that build from scratch,the whole gun,whats your point?

Yes, a skilled machinist can build one from scratch.

 

[2aguy]

I own one of each of these rifles. Both are bolt-action military rifles which may have actually been used in war. According to the anti-gun mob, they should be banned.

Mosin-Nagant

Yugo Mauser 24/48

The Japanese and Germans conquered vast amounts of the world with bolt action rifles......I was amazed when I saw a documentary on the Battle of Okinawa when I realized the Japanese infantry soldier only had a bolt action rifle...while our Marines had rifles with magazine capacity.....

Hilarious. Explain what Japan or Germany would have done with no navy, airforce, or tanks. Japan had a number of rapid fire light and heavy machine guns, as did the Germans. The German MG42 had a fire rate of 1200 rounds per/min and Alllied troops were terrified of this weapon. The German Gewehr 43 was similar to the M1 Garand but had a larger 10 round magazine.

You can entertain your fantasies but don't try to alter history to fit your worldview.

Asshole...I wasn't commenting on the entire arsenal that the Japanese and German armies have...moron....I was commenting on the fact that the average Japanese infantry soldier and German soldier for that matter had a bolt action rifle.....moron....

 

[2aguy]

I own one of each of these rifles. Both are bolt-action military rifles which may have actually been used in war. According to the anti-gun mob, they should be banned.

Mosin-Nagant

Yugo Mauser 24/48

The Japanese and Germans conquered vast amounts of the world with bolt action rifles......I was amazed when I saw a documentary on the Battle of Okinawa when I realized the Japanese infantry soldier only had a bolt action rifle...while our Marines had rifles with magazine capacity.....

Hilarious. Explain what Japan or Germany would have done with no navy, airforce, or tanks. Japan had a number of rapid fire light and heavy machine guns, as did the Germans. The German MG42 had a fire rate of 1200 rounds per/min and Alllied troops were terrified of this weapon. The German Gewehr 43 was similar to the M1 Garand but had a larger 10 round magazine.

You can entertain your fantasies but don't try to alter history to fit your worldview.

Yes, Japan had numerous machineguns that all fired from clips or magazines. In fact a couple of them even mounted optical sights and mounted bayonets. The Germans did indeed have the MG42 and 34, and yes they were outstanding weapons for their era (hell the MG42 is still arguably the finest GPMG ever designed), the G-43 is nowhere near as good as the Garand (I own examples of both) and those they had were few and far between.

Regardless, what he is stating is factual. The tanks and airplanes are good at blowing stuff up but without the troops on the ground you can't hold anything, so yes, the Japanese and German armies OVERWHELMINGLY armed with bolt actioned rifles conquered huge tracts of territory. Your pathetic uueducated effort to deflect from that fact is duly noted.

Hey you know how to 'duly note' things. Good for you, did you get a gold star when you learned that?

Your whining changes nothing. Dorp suggested a bolt action rifle won something in WW2. Ludicrous to even a 6 year old. That you think the same betrays your ignorance of warfare, something common for conservatives. You do your best to 'mitigate' the ridiculousness of the statement he made by saying "troops on the ground" (a dishonest attempt to say dorp meant troops with mg's). Unfortunately you could have 1000 troops with bolt action rifles rush headlong at a few guys with machine guns and 1000 dead guys with their bolt action rifles will be lying on the ground come daylight.

Go look up the images of the battles on GuadalCanal. This is exactly what happened to the Japanese and their magical bolt action rifles. A few marines with machine guns piled them up like cord wood. Over and over.


And while you are at it read about Blitzkrieg. Nothing in there about 'bolt action rifles'.

Anyone else notice that when we get into a discussion of these guns, it ends up being about warfare action? That's because these guns were designed for WAR. Civilians don't need them. You can shoot a thug with a gun that shoots a maximum of 5 bullets at a load, just as easily as a gun that sprays 20 or 30 bullets as fast as you can pull the trigger. Forget the fantasy that anyone is going to stop the government if it decides to declare war on you.

How many times do we have to explain to you that if the police and military have the weapon then we as their bosses have to have those weapons to......

The Germans of the 1920s completely agreed with your belief about guns...only the police and military should have access to them....why would the average German citizen need a rifle or even a pistol...they had police to protect them....the rest of Europe believed the same thing.....20 years later....they marched 12 million Europeans like you into gas chambers.....while the police handled crowd control and the soldiers directed the unarmed prisoners onto trains......

Those people in the 1930s disagreed with your point of view and all of Europe paid the price for your foolishness.......