the AR15 was not designed as nor ever was a assault weapon.

reply to post by ecoparity


Ah.. you beat me too it.
I saw where a woman turned one of those in to a gun buyback. She had found it in a closet and didn't know what she had ( I am fairly sure it was that weapon) it wasn't functioning. I think that the police actually turned her down though and told her it's worth several thousand and let her keep it.

Is it semi automatic?

If so it can be used as an assault weapon.

End of argument.

It's not about it's designed purpose, or who it was made for, used for.... mass killing in a short space of time.

Attributes previously defined in Federal assault weapon legislation and their purposes:
Detachable magazines allow for fast reloading
Collapsible stocks allow for adjustment to the length of pull, permitting one firearm to be immediately fitted for any shooter
Folding stocks allow for ease of transport by reducing the total length of the firearm when transported
Pistol grips (on rifles) reduce the angle (and thus rotational strain) of the wrist when shouldered.
Bayonet mounts are often on civilian firearms due to the same parts being used on both government and civilian rifles[12]
Flash suppressors reduce night vision degradation to a shooter's vision, as well as those beside or behind the user. They do not render any reduction in detecting a shooter.[55]
Threaded barrels mount flash suppressors, compensators and muzzle brakes both used for aiding recoil management.
Barrel mounted grenade launcher mounts are concentric rings around the muzzle that facilitate attachment of rifle grenades
A barrel shroud is a tube around the barrel designed to limit transfer of heat from the barrel to the supporting hand, or to protect a shooter from being burned by accidental contact.[56]
Magazines greater than 10 rounds[12]
Semi-automatic, functionality meaning that they can eject spent shell casings and chamber the next round without additional human action, but (as opposed to automatic firearms) only one round is fired per pull of the trigger.[15]

The AR15 was never designed to be an assault weapon? Who the hell do you think paid for it to be developed? CONARC sponsored the development and asked Winchester and Armalite to come up with designs for a high-velocity, full and semi auto fire, 20 shot magazine, 6lbs loaded, able to penetrate both sides of a standard Army helmet at 500 meters rifle.

Originally posted by pacifier2012
Is it semi automatic?

If so it can be used as an assault weapon.

End of argument.

It's not about it's designed purpose, or who it was made for, used for.... mass killing in a short space of time.

edit on 6-2-2013 by pacifier2012 because: (no reason given)

I am trained in such a way (and i'm sure i'm not the only one here), that would allow me to kill several people per minute, with nothing more than a knife.....does that make a knife an assault weapon?

please think before you spew stupid crap..

My biggest pet peeve has been repeated again.

Do you all know that "full auto" is incorrect when comparing an AR15 to an M16 ?

M16's my friends are not "full auto" anymore, they are 3 round burst.

If you're going to insist that people use correct nomenclature then please get ALL the facts straight.


Thank you.

80% machined lower receivers do not require registration. Lower receivers are the only parts of guns with serial numbers linked to a registration. All you have to do is machine the other 20% of the lower receiver and then you can purchase all the rest of the unregistered parts and assemble them to the lower receiver you completed. With minimum a machine shop skills, you can have yourself a completely legal, unregistered firearm of any kind.

It is not against the law to make your own gun. And it is not required that you register any gun you make .

reply to post by jefwane

Yeah, when I think assault rifle I think M-249 SAW, BAR, RPK, and other full auto weapons that you would use to base a fire so that your maneuver element can move into better position to engage.

These are support weapons, light machine guns, and not rifles.

loll the first armalite was the AR10..an dutch build rifle....7.62 cal.

it did compete for testing the new dutch army rifle...wich was won in favor for the Belgium made FAL...

later an amerikan consortium boucht the patents an they produced the later m16....

Hilarious, some peoples ability to be swayed by media opinion.

Mind you, nothing that throws lead is built for hugging people and healing the sick. Interesting distinctions happening surrounding this issue, most of which are utterly pointless in any case.

Originally posted by ANNED

Originally posted by MDDoxs
reply to post by ANNED

 

Can you explain the difference between a "Assault Weapon" and a AR type weapon.

two words "full auto!!!"

you sure about that?

lol... oh wow...

Originally posted by FraternitasSaturni

Originally posted by ANNED

Originally posted by MDDoxs
reply to post by ANNED

 

Can you explain the difference between a "Assault Weapon" and a AR type weapon.

two words "full auto!!!"

you sure about that?

lol... oh wow...

yes, i'm fairly certain he's QUITE sure...

see this post for clarification www.abovetopsecret.com...

Originally posted by Soloprotocol
Depends on what you are assaulting i suppose...I'm pretty sure the SAS/Navy Seals etc could put a AR15 to good use..
Who cares what it say's on the box, it's still a WMD whatever way you try and butter it up...

Apparently George W Bush was not aware of this definition of WMD.

Iraq was full of WMD using your definition.

Originally posted by ANNED
The BIG lie by the ANTIGUN people is that AR stands for assault rifle and that the AR is a military assault weapon.

This means that if someone tries to tell you that the AR15 is a assault weapon you can bust there chops and correct them.

Capitalizing "ANTIGUN" shows me you're one of those crazy gun nuts(not saying gun owners are crazy) who has been obsessing over this topic. "LIE" is the part of that sentence that a sane person would have emphasized.

Yes, AR doesn't stand for Assault Rifle. But please show me someone using it the way you are saying. You're seeing things. you're confusing people who are saying "AR-15 and other assault rifles." Some people might think it stands for assault rifle, that doesn't mean people in positions of power are saying it stands for that.

The fact is it is an assault rifle and it is an assault weapon. I'm looking at the pictures now. That's clearly an assault rifle. And people are talking about military STYLE weapons. It doesn't really matter if they are actually used in the military, Since the word style is used, it refers to any weapons resembling them. BUT the AR-15 is essentially the same as the M16, which was used in the military.

So if someone says AR-15 stands for Assault Rifle, well yeah, you can bust their chops. But it is an assault rifle. You're just going to look dumb or crazy if you try to argue otherwise.
You're basically trying to argue semantics, over something people aren't actually saying, nor something that you actually know the definition to.

reply to post by buster2010


The 500 meter penetration of both sides of an army helmet may have been a design goal and was managed in tests, but in the real world, that is a pretty iffy proposition. Not that you don't have a point, just saying. Anyway, it only has to penetrate one side, doesn't it.

Capitalizing "ANTIGUN" shows me you're one of those crazy gun nuts(not saying gun owners are crazy) who has been obsessing over this topic. "LIE" is the part of that sentence that a sane person would have emphasized.

reply to post by Ghost375


I am sick of the manipulation of terminology that has been used to demonize guns owners. Change the meaning of a word by constant reinforcement of your improper usage and the lemmings will follow. Once we had illegal aliens now we have undocumented workers. Takes away the stigma of being one doesn't it? Now start calling a rifle a assault rifle and you conjure up images of a weapon for war. Just like the idiots who claim you can't hunt with a AR-15, Guess what you can! But facts like that interfere with the goal don't they? The mass shootings eveyone has been tying their knickers into knots over have been exceptions to the use of guns for crimes. Except when you start taking the mental states of the shooters into account. Gun control is working so well in Chicago this year hasn't it? The only ones to benifit from this are politicians and lawyers. One gets votes an the other has new things to get dropped in a plea bargain.

Originally posted by Eshel
My biggest pet peeve has been repeated again.

Do you all know that "full auto" is incorrect when comparing an AR15 to an M16 ?

M16's my friends are not "full auto" anymore, they are 3 round burst.

If you're going to insist that people use correct nomenclature then please get ALL the facts straight.


Thank you.

Wrong.

M-16 A1s are full auto select and can still be purchased from the correct outlets many law enforcement agencies have them.

M-16 A2s are 3 round burst select and are the primary weapon for most US military.

The term assault weapon was coined for rifles that could lay down suppressive fire on the enemy giving cover for team members in squads to either advance or withdraw finding optimal vantage points. The military will always value marksmanship over the person who simply sends a barrage of bullets down range. Three round burst was incorporated sought by the military after Vietnam for 2 major reasons. One was that they found after the third round was fired in almost every instance the shooter would be sufficiently off target. Two soldiers in the field were going through ammo at an accelerated rate meaning soldiers would need to carry more with them on missions and the kill ratio had not increased to justify the excessive fire.

The M16 was selected as the primary weapon for the military due to many factors however the primary reason was due to weight. The lighter weapon and smaller round allowed soldiers to carry more ammo on each mission compared to the weapons they were using. Politics, backroom deals, and what some had categorized as sabotage created many problems with the first M-16s that were issued in the field. They also had problems with ammunition using out dated powder which caused malfunctions with the weapon. The story of the m-16 and its development is a very interesting read and worthy of study however the point I am trying to make is although the M-16 is considered a great weapon now it wasn’t always considered to be by soldiers. I personally didn’t care for the M-16 and preferred larger caliber weapons. The M-60 which has been replaced by most of our military will always be my preferred weapon but even though the M-60 is full auto the military terms it as a SAW squad automatic weapon (force multiplier) The first M-60s were designed to except magazines as well as belts the M249 SAWs were designed the same at first and they had 2 settings fast and supper fast.

reply to post by Grimpachi


not "wrong"... I've heard many times that the "military version is full auto".... military hasn't used full auto in years.

Yes, they once were. But it is a misnomer to imply that they still are. And do you know why they don't use them anymore ?

For the same reason any full auto weapon shouldn't be used or available.

I'll give you a chance to answer...

reply to post by Eshel


I already covered the reason in my post.

One- they found after the third round was fired in almost every instance the shooter would be sufficiently off target. Two- soldiers in the field were going through ammo at an accelerated rate meaning soldiers would need to carry more with them on missions and the kill ratio had not increased to justify the excessive fire.

The main reasons are posted above as in my previous post. BTW the military still has some M-16 A1s in their arsenal mostly available to SF. M-16A1s are still being sold to allies across the world. It is the primary weapon for the Honduran Military as of my visit last year. Just last year the police bought 250 M-16A1s for their officers where I live.

Your comment was absolutely wrong. You can’t weasel out of it by playing semantics. It’s like trying to lump all tanks together that is why there is a nomenclature system for identification.

Originally posted by ANNED

Originally posted by MDDoxs
reply to post by ANNED

 

Can you explain the difference between a "Assault Weapon" and a AR type weapon.

two words "full auto!!!"

shh your expecting intellectual honesty from the lefties. Don't get your hopes up they are incapable of it.