AR-15's are NOT designed to kill

a reply to: Phage

No, I don't care to cherry pick The constitution with you. I just don't have the desire or stamina to debate it with you or anyone else. You believe what you want and I'll do the same. I just do not have the stamina or desire to even try to influence others opinions on most issues. Truth is I really don't give a rat's ars at this point.

a reply to: 00018GE

They were actually built to nurture young babies.

Think of the children and buy an AR-15 today.

a reply to: Bybyots

but any reasonable American must be against military weapons being available to civilians.

I'm not. Our country's foundation is built with the concept of civilian overthrow of our government, if need be.

If our troops are ever set against us, we'd need more than bb guns and .22s. Our fallen soldiers will be falling with weapons that can be utilized by the populace.

Your reasoning is wrong, in that aspect.

Misread OP.

Correct.


Edit...for the record, AR actually stands for "Armalite Rifle"...and NOT "Assault Rifle" as the liberal media would have you believe!

The original "AR" was an Armalite, not a Colt.

a reply to: donktheclown

If our troops are ever set against us, we'd need more than bb guns and .22s.

Right. Cruise missiles and B-2s would be required.

originally posted by: Flyingclaydisk
Misread OP.

Correct.


Edit...for the record, AR actually stands for "Armalite Rifle"...and NOT "Assault Rifle" as the liberal media would have you believe!

The original "AR" was an Armalite, not a Colt.

Cool. What was it's purpose?

a reply to: intrepid

The purpose of Armalite?

The original Armalite rifles were intended for survival situations where you are stuck in a remote location and need to hunt for food or survive behind enemy lines if you were a soldier stuck in a hostile zone.

a reply to: intrepid
It's a plinking rifle that looks cool, is fun and cheap to shoot. Try going out to a range sometime and actually fool around with one. It's fun...

originally posted by: radarloveguy
a reply to: 00018GE

I think the effectiveness of the AR15
as a lethal weapon has recently been
verified in Orlando .

Your premise is somewhat flawed ,
and has set my meter off ....

Just one problem with your premise, the Orlando shooter did not use an AR-15.

This is also the problem with people wanting to ban AR-15s, it would not have stopped the shooting in Orlando even if AR-15s were banned because he did not use an AR-15.

a reply to: BIGPoJo
Was it a semi-automatic rifle?
What caliber?

There is no proposed legislation which is specific to AR15s, is there?

The AR-15 sucks, and I tell you this as a military man that has qualified "expert" on it... it jams often, the action is sloppy as hell and it just isn't all that accurate (unless you have a match grade weapon). A Soviet built SKS (milled parts, not stamped like the Norincos) is far more accurate, far deadlier, and much cheaper.

a reply to: BIGPoJo

Just one problem with your premise, the Orlando shooter did not use an AR-15.

No, you're right, it was a SIG SAUER MCX:

SIG SAUER developed the MCX rifle for America’s special forces. Their goal: a firearm that’s as quiet as an MP5, as deadly as an AK-47, and more modular than anything ever designed.

www.sigsauer.com...

And he was using .223

There are videos recording how many shots he was able to get off with this particular assault rifle in a ridiculously sho0rt period of time.

Get a good long look.

They and their ammunition will, in civilian life, be an artifact of history soon.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: BIGPoJo
Was it a semi-automatic rifle?
What caliber?

There is no proposed legislation which is specific to AR15s, is there?

Not anymore, but that is what the media is pushing. Countless anti-gun libs pushing to ban the AR-15 which is a fools errand at best.

Here is the best part, the weapon that he did have was a Sig Sauer MCX, which is highly regulated as opposed to the AR-15. Its illegal to even possess parts of if without proper licensing, which is exactly what the Orlando shooter had.

Lastly, the Sig and the AR look similar but they are very different in function. Even banning AR-15 type weapons would not have banned the Sig, unless they want another cosmetic ban rofl.

a reply to: Bybyots

Can I keep my AR-15 then?

a reply to: BIGPoJo

Its illegal to even possess parts of if without proper licensing, which is exactly what the Orlando shooter had.

Did he possess it illegally?

Even banning AR-15 type weapons would not have banned the Sig

Please explain further. What is it that makes the Sig not subject to proposed regulation?

a reply to: BIGPoJo

No.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: BIGPoJo

Its illegal to even possess parts of if without proper licensing, which is exactly what the Orlando shooter had.

Did he possess it illegally?

Even banning AR-15 type weapons would not have banned the Sig

Please explain further. What is it that makes the Sig not subject to proposed regulation?

He had a special license for it, possessed it legally, was not on a watch list (anymore) or a no flylist.

None of the 4 bills that failed to pass would have mattered in the Orlando case.

It was illegal for him to possess it in the nightclub however and it was illegal for him to shoot people.

originally posted by: Bybyots
a reply to: BIGPoJo

No.

What about a 9mm Glock?

originally posted by: BIGPoJo

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: BIGPoJo
Was it a semi-automatic rifle?
What caliber?

There is no proposed legislation which is specific to AR15s, is there?

Not anymore, but that is what the media is pushing. Countless anti-gun libs pushing to ban the AR-15 which is a fools errand at best.

Here is the best part, the weapon that he did have was a Sig Sauer MCX, which is highly regulated as opposed to the AR-15. Its illegal to even possess parts of if without proper licensing, which is exactly what the Orlando shooter had.

Lastly, the Sig and the AR look similar but they are very different in function. Even banning AR-15 type weapons would not have banned the Sig, unless they want another cosmetic ban rofl.

It is not highly regulated, except in its fully automatic configuration, which is illegal to own without a FFL. You cannot buy an automatic AR-15, AK-47 etc. without a FFL license. Any other modification to a semi-auto rifle to make it fully automatic (machine gun to the idiots out there) is illegal as hell and will land you in "Federal Pound Me Up The A$$ Prison"

a reply to: BIGPoJo

Not if I had anything to do with it.

My plans for civil weaponry include two things: Single-shot dueling pistols with giant primitive rounds coated in white phosphorous...

...and rapiers.