VoodooChild
New member
- Joined
- Jun 5, 2010
- Messages
- 16
- Reaction score
- 26
- Location
- north carolina
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
I myself am a firearm owner who of course is strongly pro-guns. Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems to me a lot of the drive from the gun control side is based off fear. I find the reason for this comes from the majority of gun control enthusiast, from my experience, don’t own weapons and have never fired one. Therefore their experience with guns comes from movies and discussions about guns with many people who do not have any experience with firearms.
The big one is “assault rifles”. The fact that there are millions in the country who think I should not be allowed to own an AR-15, to put it bluntly, pisses me off to no end. It’s a scary word. But what does it mean and where did it come from?
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/StG_44
Well, the first major “assault rifle” was produced back in WWII by the Germans. The Sturmgewehr-44, Or STG-44. One of Hitler’s weapons researchers found out that most firefights were never engaged past 300 meters with the average soldier carrying a bolt action rifle that is effective up to 800-1000 meters. So he had the brilliant idea or taking the properties of the low recoil, fully automatic SMG, and the power and accuracy of the rifle and putting them in one weapon. What he came up with was a small rifle cartridge and built a SMG around that round. Then he came up with the STG-44. The world’s first assault rifle.
It being designed in 1944 it was too late to have a huge impact on the war, but it did however change the concept of the of the rifleman’s weapon.
So today, the term assault rifle continues to be used. It is thrown around in a manner that is used as a fear tactic in my opinion. Even while most people don’t understand why it’s even called that. Today all an “assault rifle” is is a semi-auto rifle, with a removable magazine, and a pistol grip. It is the today’s equivalent of what bolt actions and lever action rifles where back in there day when they were new hot pieces of technology. Like those rifles they also were in use by the military then they caught on in the hunting community. The AR-15 is now in the phase where it is getting popular in the hunting community. The only difference is firearms aren’t a norm like it was back when the bolt and lever actions were the new kid on the block. So they are getting bashed as nothing but weapons of war. Well wasn’t every type of firearm ever used a weapon of war at one point?
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AR-15
The AR-15 does not stand for “assault rifle-15” or “automatic rifle-15” like SOOO many people think it does. It was designed by a fella named Eugene Stoner. The first company to produce this rifle was a company by the name of ArmaLite. So they called it the ArmaLite-15, or AR-15. It was later produced by Colt during the Vietnam war as the M-16, which today the Marine doesn’t even use fully-automatic M-16, M-4s (its carbine cousin). Why, you might ask. Why should it? It has a burst feature. I have talked to many of my Senior NCOs who fought in bloody parts or Iraq back in 03-04. And you rarely ever hear one of them say they ever used burst. It’s a waste of ammo and you can’t put bullets exactly where you want like you can with semi.
People hear the words “civilians with assault rifles” and they think about some madman spraying bullets into crowds of people running for their lives. Even though you can’t get a fully automatic rifle without a special permit that isn’t necessarily easy to obtain, and even when you get it you still have to buy firearms that were made before a certain date. I want to say 1993, but I’m too lazy to surf through bills to find the regulation and cite, sorry.
My point is that this ignorance allows laws that aren’t even attempt to remove the AR-15; they just discourage someone from owning one due to too many restrictions. Example, I have a buddy from CT. In CT you can own a semi- auto rifle but out of these options, pistol grip, removable magazine, bayonet lug, compensator, and collapsible buttstock you can only choose 2 out of the 5. Most modern AR’s have all 5. Answer me this, how is a madman with all 5 options, pistol grip removable magazine, compensator, bayonet lug, and a collapsible buttstock, going to cause more destruction than someone with only a removable magazine and pistol grip. There isn’t going to be a difference. The law isn’t there to make the weapon less dangerous. It’s there to make owning a nice AR such a pain in someone’s ass that they just don’t bother. It’s just a kick in the balls to gun owners, while not even attempting to make it a safer place to live.
People want the 50 cal banned. When is the last time you heard of 50 cals being the weapon of choice for criminals. It’s not. The thing weights like 30 pounds naked. People see the movie Shooter and have this fear that people that own 50 cals could kill the president if they want. Even if you did own the rifle, there are probably only a handful of people in the world that could shoot someone at 2000m. And the government knows who they are because they trained most of them.
Why is there a wait period to buy a pistol? Correct me if I’m wrong, but I think it was created for a situation like this… A man catches his wife cheating on him with his neighbor because he comes home early from work. He decides he is going to off both of them. Goes to a gun store says “I need a .40 glock.” He has to wait 10 days, and then he cools down and rethinks the situation… The thing is if he really was wanting to go through with it all he would do then would be fork over 300 bucks for a 12ga 870 and a box of buckshot. Then go out with his plan. Once again the law does nothing to stop that crime from happening. It just makes the act of buying a firearm a pain in the ass.
Me and my buddy where going to buy a stripped AR lower receiver and a parts kit to build our own AR from the ground up. We go in to a gun store and start asking the guy about buying a lower. Turns out that a couple months before a federal law was passed that did not allow persons under the age of 21 to buy lowers because someone could buy an AR pistol kit to make an “AR pistol”. Which is the stupidest firearm know to man. So we had to wait. What was the point of that law? What criminal have you heard of using an AR-pistol to commit crimes. None…
Probably the worst crime done with “assault rifles” was the LA bank robbery where it ended up bloody. The only reason it had gotten as bloody as it did was because the local law enforcement didn’t have any weapons that would penetrate their full suits of body armor. They only had pistols and shotguns. Sense then, law enforcement officers have been issued weapons like AR-15s to be able to combat the problem in case it ever happens again, they will at least have the firepower to do it. Should that result in a law that doesn’t allow me to own an AK-47?
My question is, with all the ignorance of firearms, does that ignorance turn into laws that only restrict my right to own a firearm while not stopping criminals from committing crimes and killing people with guns?
Sorry for making it so long…
The big one is “assault rifles”. The fact that there are millions in the country who think I should not be allowed to own an AR-15, to put it bluntly, pisses me off to no end. It’s a scary word. But what does it mean and where did it come from?
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/StG_44
Well, the first major “assault rifle” was produced back in WWII by the Germans. The Sturmgewehr-44, Or STG-44. One of Hitler’s weapons researchers found out that most firefights were never engaged past 300 meters with the average soldier carrying a bolt action rifle that is effective up to 800-1000 meters. So he had the brilliant idea or taking the properties of the low recoil, fully automatic SMG, and the power and accuracy of the rifle and putting them in one weapon. What he came up with was a small rifle cartridge and built a SMG around that round. Then he came up with the STG-44. The world’s first assault rifle.
It being designed in 1944 it was too late to have a huge impact on the war, but it did however change the concept of the of the rifleman’s weapon.
So today, the term assault rifle continues to be used. It is thrown around in a manner that is used as a fear tactic in my opinion. Even while most people don’t understand why it’s even called that. Today all an “assault rifle” is is a semi-auto rifle, with a removable magazine, and a pistol grip. It is the today’s equivalent of what bolt actions and lever action rifles where back in there day when they were new hot pieces of technology. Like those rifles they also were in use by the military then they caught on in the hunting community. The AR-15 is now in the phase where it is getting popular in the hunting community. The only difference is firearms aren’t a norm like it was back when the bolt and lever actions were the new kid on the block. So they are getting bashed as nothing but weapons of war. Well wasn’t every type of firearm ever used a weapon of war at one point?
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AR-15
The AR-15 does not stand for “assault rifle-15” or “automatic rifle-15” like SOOO many people think it does. It was designed by a fella named Eugene Stoner. The first company to produce this rifle was a company by the name of ArmaLite. So they called it the ArmaLite-15, or AR-15. It was later produced by Colt during the Vietnam war as the M-16, which today the Marine doesn’t even use fully-automatic M-16, M-4s (its carbine cousin). Why, you might ask. Why should it? It has a burst feature. I have talked to many of my Senior NCOs who fought in bloody parts or Iraq back in 03-04. And you rarely ever hear one of them say they ever used burst. It’s a waste of ammo and you can’t put bullets exactly where you want like you can with semi.
People hear the words “civilians with assault rifles” and they think about some madman spraying bullets into crowds of people running for their lives. Even though you can’t get a fully automatic rifle without a special permit that isn’t necessarily easy to obtain, and even when you get it you still have to buy firearms that were made before a certain date. I want to say 1993, but I’m too lazy to surf through bills to find the regulation and cite, sorry.
My point is that this ignorance allows laws that aren’t even attempt to remove the AR-15; they just discourage someone from owning one due to too many restrictions. Example, I have a buddy from CT. In CT you can own a semi- auto rifle but out of these options, pistol grip, removable magazine, bayonet lug, compensator, and collapsible buttstock you can only choose 2 out of the 5. Most modern AR’s have all 5. Answer me this, how is a madman with all 5 options, pistol grip removable magazine, compensator, bayonet lug, and a collapsible buttstock, going to cause more destruction than someone with only a removable magazine and pistol grip. There isn’t going to be a difference. The law isn’t there to make the weapon less dangerous. It’s there to make owning a nice AR such a pain in someone’s ass that they just don’t bother. It’s just a kick in the balls to gun owners, while not even attempting to make it a safer place to live.
People want the 50 cal banned. When is the last time you heard of 50 cals being the weapon of choice for criminals. It’s not. The thing weights like 30 pounds naked. People see the movie Shooter and have this fear that people that own 50 cals could kill the president if they want. Even if you did own the rifle, there are probably only a handful of people in the world that could shoot someone at 2000m. And the government knows who they are because they trained most of them.
Why is there a wait period to buy a pistol? Correct me if I’m wrong, but I think it was created for a situation like this… A man catches his wife cheating on him with his neighbor because he comes home early from work. He decides he is going to off both of them. Goes to a gun store says “I need a .40 glock.” He has to wait 10 days, and then he cools down and rethinks the situation… The thing is if he really was wanting to go through with it all he would do then would be fork over 300 bucks for a 12ga 870 and a box of buckshot. Then go out with his plan. Once again the law does nothing to stop that crime from happening. It just makes the act of buying a firearm a pain in the ass.
Me and my buddy where going to buy a stripped AR lower receiver and a parts kit to build our own AR from the ground up. We go in to a gun store and start asking the guy about buying a lower. Turns out that a couple months before a federal law was passed that did not allow persons under the age of 21 to buy lowers because someone could buy an AR pistol kit to make an “AR pistol”. Which is the stupidest firearm know to man. So we had to wait. What was the point of that law? What criminal have you heard of using an AR-pistol to commit crimes. None…
Probably the worst crime done with “assault rifles” was the LA bank robbery where it ended up bloody. The only reason it had gotten as bloody as it did was because the local law enforcement didn’t have any weapons that would penetrate their full suits of body armor. They only had pistols and shotguns. Sense then, law enforcement officers have been issued weapons like AR-15s to be able to combat the problem in case it ever happens again, they will at least have the firepower to do it. Should that result in a law that doesn’t allow me to own an AK-47?
My question is, with all the ignorance of firearms, does that ignorance turn into laws that only restrict my right to own a firearm while not stopping criminals from committing crimes and killing people with guns?
Sorry for making it so long…
Last edited: