anyone that says these assault rifles arent military style is wrong

[Seth]

The less cosmetic they are the more they strengthen the arguements in favor of banning them.

Whether or not to ban a rifle that is good at helping someone shoot is just a matter of opinion. I personally wouldn't ban a car that's good at helping someone drive.

 

[NolanVoyd]

Whether or not to ban a rifle that is good at helping someone shoot is just a matter of opinion. I personally wouldn't ban a car that's good at helping someone drive.

That isn't the problem.

 

[zsu2357]

This guy was so afraid of being a wannabe, that he changed the looks of his rifle. Or did he just like the aesthetics better? Maybe he was a wannabe Jungle Jim?




View attachment 67447021

OMG it's a military style sniper rifle.

 

[mrjurrs]

I think any is a problem.
I just know that anyone serious about saving lives doesn’t pick a gun that statistically is almost never used to commit murder.

Then you agree that doing something to reduce gun violence should be open to discussion? It sure doesn't seem like it.

 

[ModernDiogenes]

So...now what chaps your ass is the "style".

Tell me...do you think this is a "military rifle"?

Ok, we need not to get stupid about this.

If it looks like a duck, fires the same ammo as the duck, out of the same configuration as the duck, and it’s sole difference is a full-auto firing mode than it’s a duck without full-auto firing mode.

Now decide IF full auto-firing mode is the difference between a military weapon and a civilian one. If it’s not a requirement to make that determination than it’s a duck. Plain and simple.

Come on folks. This ain’t rocket science.

 

[braindrain]

Then you agree that doing something to reduce gun violence should be open to discussion? It sure doesn't seem like it.

I do think we need to do something. But that something has to be constitutional, effective and not be an undue burden on the overwhelming vast majority of gun owners who do nothing wrong.

The reason it seems that way to you is you want to pass unconstitutional laws that will have virtually zero effect on gun violence but restrict the rights lawful gun owners.

 

[Moon]

Then you agree that doing something to reduce gun violence should be open to discussion? It sure doesn't seem like it.

Depends on the something.

 

[braindrain]

Ok, we need not to get stupid about this.

If it looks like a duck, fires the same ammo as the duck, out of the same configuration as the duck, and it’s sole difference is a full-auto firing mode than it’s a duck without full-auto firing mode.

Now decide IF full auto-firing mode is the difference between a military weapon and a civilian one. If it’s not a requirement to make that determination than it’s a duck. Plain and simple.

Come on folks. This ain’t rocket science.

So what do you think is the meaningful difference between an AR and a mini 14.

It fires the same round as the AR, has basically the same rate of fire as the AR and can hold as many rounds as an AR. But yet the majority of the gun control zealots are not trying to have it banned.

So you are right in that it is not rocket science. Most gun control zealots want the AR banned because of the way it looks. Nothing more.
It’s also clearly not about saving lives as ARs are used in about 1% of murders.

No let me ask you a couple questions. Let’s say tomorrow ARs we’re banned. Do you really think that all the people planning to commit murder are going to decide to become good law abiding citizens or are they going to simply get a different gun.

And if you don’t think they will simply become good citizens and just use a different gun are the gun control supporters going to just give up banning guns or well that new gun become the next target to be banned.

Kind of like how New York first limited magazine capacity at 10 round and then lowered it to 7 when they realized it made virtually no difference.

 

[ModernDiogenes]

News Flash: All weapons used by the military are military weapons, by definition.

That does not make them exclusively military weapons. The Remington Model 700 bolt-action rifle has been manufactured by Remington since 1962 with the target consumer being hunters. However, in 1989 the US Army decided to adopt the rifle and designated it the M24 Sniper Rifle.

The M24 Sniper Rifle is a "military rifle." The Remington Model 700 is a civilian rifle, even though they are exactly the same bolt-action rifle.

With regard to the M16, it began as the civilian AR-15 in the mid-1950s, and sold to Colt in 1958 due to financial difficulties ArmaLite was experiencing at the time. Colt modified the AR-15, turning it into a select-fire with full-automatic capabilities and sold it to the US Army in 1964 who designated the rifle as the M16A1.

The M16A1 is a military rifle, the AR-15 is a civilian rifle. These two rifles, however, are not the same unlike the Remington example above. The M16A2 and later variants are still select-fire with a three-round burst capability. A capability the AR-15 has never had.

Keep in mind that every shotgun used by the military prior to 1972 and the Atchisson AA-12 was manufactured exclusively for civilian use before the military adopted them. Just because the military uses a firearm automatically makes it a military firearm, but it does not mean that firearm was manufactured specifically for the military. Most small arms are adopted by the military, not manufactured exclusively for them.

Now there is a smart argument about the nature of civilian to military hand carried bullet munition delivery systems.

Thank you for this concise, to the point, declarative analysis.

Now, to the rest of you, decide based on the above and get off the naming nomenclature because a gun, is a gun, is a gun and the whole “it’s a military weapon vs a civilian” thing is more than a bit stupid.

It’s not what we call it, because the military uses all of it. It’s about certain capabilities. Burst and full auto-fire shouldn’t be available to civilians. Nor instrumentations that readily imitates it, like bump stocks. Massive calibers with massive punch, like .50 cal rifle cartridges, might be subject to exclusion from civilian use (unless something like moose or grizzly is the game).

My point is folks of common sense, once these non-issues like what we call military vs. civilian firearms gets dropped, is that a little of that common sense applied what screening to allow folks access to what level of fire power should get a lot more straight forward.

 

[NolanVoyd]

So what do you think is the meaningful difference between

So you are right in that it is not rocket science. Most gun control zealots want the AR banned because of the way it looks. Nothing more.
It’s also clearly not about saving lives as ARs are used in about 1% of murders.

And most AR owners buy AR's because of the way they look. It's a fashion statement. They are posers.

 

[Mycroft]

Ok, we need not to get stupid about this.

If it looks like a duck, fires the same ammo as the duck, out of the same configuration as the duck, and it’s sole difference is a full-auto firing mode than it’s a duck without full-auto firing mode.

Now decide IF full auto-firing mode is the difference between a military weapon and a civilian one. If it’s not a requirement to make that determination than it’s a duck. Plain and simple.

Come on folks. This ain’t rocket science.

And full auto IS the difference.

That means that all those NON-full auto weapons, whether they "look" like a military rifle or not, are NOT military weapons. They are essentially no different than a semi-automatic hunting rifle...and nobody thinks a hunting rifle is a military weapon.

The reason I presented the picture of an Airsoft gun is to illustrate that looks mean nothing.

 

[braindrain]

And most AR owners buy AR's because of the way they look. It's a fashion statement. They are posers.

Prove your claim.

We both know you can’t. Because it is a lie.
But please keep posting BS.

 

[ModernDiogenes]

And full auto IS the difference.

That means that all those NON-full auto weapons, whether they "look" like a military rifle or not, are NOT military weapons. They are essentially no different than a semi-automatic hunting rifle...and nobody thinks a hunting rifle is a military weapon.

The reason I presented the picture of an Airsoft gun is to illustrate that looks mean nothing.

Except all hunting weapons are “military weapons” as war is hunting. The difference is the game being hunted.

So that nomenclature is a bit dumb for this discussion. What this isn’t about is “military vs civilian”. What it is about is capabilities, human and machine.

What capabilities; mental, training, licensing, indemnification are required of a human being before they get access, and if allowed access to what level of firepower capabilities.

That’s it. You find the line. You draw the line. The rest is hogwash.

 

[NolanVoyd]

Prove your claim.

You just did.

 

[zsu2357]

Then you agree that doing something to reduce gun violence should be open to discussion? It sure doesn't seem like it.

Oh you want to do something alright, ban them.

 

[JMB1911A1]

And most AR owners buy AR's because of the way they look. It's a fashion statement. They are posers.

Name one other weapons design that is as modular as the AR-15. Different calibers, different triggers, barrels , handguards, sights, stocks. The AR-15 design is incredibly versatile. That is why it is popular.

 

[mrjurrs]

I do think we need to do something. But that something has to be constitutional, effective and not be an undue burden on the overwhelming vast majority of gun owners who do nothing wrong.

The reason it seems that way to you is you want to pass unconstitutional laws that will have virtually zero effect on gun violence but restrict the rights lawful gun owners.

Don't you get tired of admitting that murderers are often law abiding gun owners until they aren't. Firearm bans are not unconstitutional. How many bazooka owners walking around today legally?

 

[JMB1911A1]

Real reason hoplophobes fear the AR.

 

[Mycroft]

Except all hunting weapons are “military weapons” as war is hunting. The difference is the game being hunted.

This is utter nonsense.

So that nomenclature is a bit dumb for this discussion. What this isn’t about is “military vs civilian”. What it is about is capabilities, human and machine.

No. That's not what this is about. I suggest you read the OP again.

What capabilities; mental, training, licensing, indemnification are required of a human being before they get access, and if allowed access to what level of firepower capabilities.

The 2nd Amendment doesn't allow any such requirements to be placed on American citizens who want to own a firearm.

That’s it. You find the line. You draw the line. The rest is hogwash.

This is the line: "shall not be infringed".

 

[zsu2357]

Ok, we need not to get stupid about this.

OK you guys got stupid about it a long time ago. Now your pet politicians have come out of the closet.

If it looks like a duck, fires the same ammo as the duck, out of the same configuration as the duck, and it’s sole difference is a full-auto firing mode than it’s a duck without full-auto firing mode.

What happened to pistol grips and bayonet lugs? Only problem is a semi auto wont fire automatic. Your duck died.

Now decide IF full auto-firing mode is the difference between a military weapon and a civilian one. If it’s not a requirement to make that determination than it’s a duck. Plain and simple.

Come on folks. This ain’t rocket science.

There is an awful lot of bolt action rifles out there that would beg to differ that. And I had a lot of them at one time in my teens and early twenties.

 

[ModernDiogenes]

This is utter nonsense.

We disagree.

No. That's not what this is about. I suggest you read the OP again.

The topic is the topic. What the OP has to say on it is fine but doesn’t define the discussion as to that which germane to the topic.

The 2nd Amendment doesn't allow any such requirements to be placed on American citizens who want to own a firearm.

That’s not so. If I want to open a 20mm Howitzer I’m not allowed to say, “I can have this, The Constitution said so.” Obviously there is a line. We are simply discussing where that line belongs.

This is the line: "shall not be infringed".

Again, we disagree. Infringing already takes place. Always has. I’m not aware of any time since the government had the ability to define and enforce where average folks were allowed active large bore cannons, for instance.

Infringements based on common sense and public safety have existed for a very long time. The question is in today’s world where does such a line make good sense.

 

[NolanVoyd]

Name one other weapons design that is as modular as the AR-15. Different calibers, different triggers, barrels , handguards, sights, stocks. The AR-15 design is incredibly versatile. That is why it is popular.

You can't have it both ways.

 

[IQ57]

We are the greatest country on the planet because of the 2A. Believe it.

When the poo hits the fan, what will you do to defend tyranny?

 

[ModernDiogenes]

There is an awful lot of bolt action rifles out there that would beg to differ that. And I had a lot of them at one time in my teens and early twenties.

Part of my point that basing this on “military vs civilian” is not the point. A gun is a gun is a gun.

It’s about how much gun, what it’s capable of, and what level of mental stability, proficiency, licensing and indemnification we require of it’s owner.

 

[braindrain]

You just did.

How did I know that you would just play stupid games instead of having a real answer.

Oh that’s right. It’s a day ending in Y