Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Yes "needs" is subjective but in terms of recent history why would this weapon be needed or allowed in on the commercial market. If you read through the design and saw real life consequence it takes a toll, small hole going in rather small diameter but it is designed to tumble and inflict great damage to the enemy. If you read through the comments by Sullivan he states the same.
All I was stating is that if military equipment that meets those criteria is allowed on the market then where do you draw the line.
OK calm down and let me give you the point of view of most of us liberals. Up until a few days ago I was in this group. As you can see since I have been educated on this particular gun I am changing my opinion, making me the first person in the history of the internet to be convinced to change an opinion on anything.
But back on topic the general feeling among liberals is not to take your guns and it's not to blame you for the shootings. They felt that guns like this, which were built for the sole purpose of killing as many people as possible, are not necessary. They felt you could survive without such a gun which to them looks like nothing more than a way to get your rocks off at the cost of innocent lives.
They understood that making them illegal would not rid the world of them, they just didn't want to make it as easy for the whack jobs to simply walk into a gun store and come out with one. But the important thing for you to understand is there is huge difference between their want to ban THIS gun and the want to come to your house and rip your guns from you grubby paws. Even the most hard core liberal knows that's not going to happen, it's merely a pipe dream. But for most of us the feeling was guns ain't for me but if it's works for you, with the understanding that they are protected by the 2nd Amendment, then have at it. To assume that once we get this gun banned we will come after others is simply paranoia and not true. I've been in the liberal huddles, I've attended the password protected secret meetings. You're gonna have to trust me on this, that ain't the plan for the vast majority of us.
"They felt that guns like this, which were built for the sole purpose of killing as many people as possible,"
Here IS THE PROBLEM.
I won't say "liberal" because many are pro gun.
I use anti-gunners or anti's.
Anti's KEEP saying the AR-15 is an "assault weapon". It is NOT.
The ORIGINAL product was NEVER AVAILABLE TO THE GENERAL PUBLIC, AND IS STILL NOT.
The SEMI-AUTOMATIC version is what IS available to the general public and IS NOT "built for the sole purpose of killing as many people as possible,"
"But after Stoner's death in 1997, at the age of 74, a semi-autotmatic version of the AR-15 became a civilian bestseller, too, spawning dozens of copy-cat weapons."
It is used today mostly for sport shooting and for hunting small game.
I appreciate your wanting to learn and speak respectfully.
I try to do the same but, on this thread we have the same people over and over CLAIM the AR-15 today is the one ORIGINALLY invented. it is not.
I would think that after all the info on this thread would "teach" you that what you stated is NOT true and you SHOULD KNOW it.
"they just didn't want to make it as easy for the whack jobs to simply walk into a gun store and come out with one."
NO ONE want "whack jobs" to be able to buy ANY gun.
Why can'tr you grab this?
For some thought for you.
Say the AR is banned and all were confiscated.
Do you think that would stop any WHACK JOB from buying any another semi-automatic gun?
I have been in an ongoing debate about this gun and I am certainly willing to discuss with an open mind. I'll be the first to admit I am not knowledgeable about guns and would like to make an informed opinion. The problem I have is finding an unbiased poster who can give me info without the slant of pro right or pro left links. I want to make it clear that banning this guy would not have stopped this idiot, he would have simply used other guns.
I think it is clear now that an AR 15 is being misrepresented as an "assault rifle" when it is clearly not. But I too looked at the link 1AngryTaxPayer supplied and have a problem when it was compared to standard rifles, shot guns and hand guns. Correct me if I'm wrong but I read where Lanza had several 30 round clips which enabled him to fire at least 154 rounds in 5 minutes. You simply can not do that with the handguns, a shot gun or standard rifle this gun was being compared to in the article right? All these other guns, the shot gun in particular, would have taken multiple reloads and that could have made a huge difference in the outcome. I also had read where Orlando (I believe this was the one) had the type of bullets that explode on impact or whatever. Is this true and are these bullets legal? Again please excuse my ignorance.
Any chance I can get fair feedback?
Wrong I can have a a Springfield armory xd9mm that holds 19rounds per magazine. Or even a glock 19 with a 33round magazine. You can empty a magazine in 5 seconds or so. I can have a vest with 20 extra magazines or a bag loaded with full magazines and if someone wanted to they can kill a hundred unarmed people in 5 minutes
If this rifle's sole purpose is for killing as many as possible then why do the police have them? Is that their business killing as many as possible?
Police sometimes are required to kill people. They have them because the general public has them. The police cannot run the risk of being outgunned by the general public. If civilians couldn't get them the police wouldn't use them.
Why does the dept of security call them "defense" rifles when they place a order? So what is it are they assault or defense rifles?
They call them "defense rifles" for the same reason they use the phrase "collateral damage" instead of "dead civilians" its government double speak.
What makes a AR-15 more lethal compared to a semi auto rifle of another design?
AR-15's aren't more deadly then other assault rifles on the market its just that they are far more plentiful. There is no need to single out AR-15's when all assault rifles should be banned.
"There is no need to single out AR-15's when all assault rifles should be banned."
BINGO! The rifles you talk about are NOT ASSAULT WEAPONS and has been stated probably THOUSANDS of times now people like you CONTINUE to say it.
"Life's tough......It's even tougher if you're stupid."
-John Wayne
The original inventor of tanks probably didn't intend for them to be sold to consumers. We have numerous collectors who own tanks.
When one designs and markets an item to the military they most likely are not designing it to be a consumer product. They've designed it to win a contract. Jeeps weren't marketed to civilians, yet, here we are with a few million of them on the road. Velcro and NASA is another example.
It's pretty darn hard to make me believe what you say is an intent when the person you speak for is no longer among the living. He obviously can't refute your claim. And, why wasn't this claim made far sooner? Why wasn't it made when the '94 Brady Bill was signed into law? Or when it was being debated?
I say Mr. Stoner had no problem with a variant of his design being in the hands of the general public. I contend that his being alive would not have prevented him from making testimony against civilian ownership should he have had an issue with it. He would have had nearly 9 months to speak for or against it (Feb to Nov 1993). For those wondering, he died in '97.
Am I the only one that thinks the timing of this revelation is a little suspect? He had from 1963 up until his death to tell us about how he never wanted the AR-15 to be in civilian hands. That's when Colt began marketing and selling the AR platform to civilians. 34 years he had to voice his displeasure, but now, 19 years after his death, the family says he didn't want that. Yeah, suspect as hell.
He invented the FULL automatic version, so it makes sense he would be against it in civilian hands.
I believe the company was SOLD AFTER he invented the original and was converted to a semi-automatic for civilian use.
And all your idea does is tax the hell out of law-abiding citizens who like to participate in shooting activities.
Look what Prohibition did. Ban alcohol and organized crime spikes. Sure, the law-abiding among us didn't drink ...much. How many people actually died as a result of that ban. How many people lost jobs?
Now, look at gasoline. Read the sticker on the pump that explains how much of a gallon of gas goes towards taxes. Millions of vehicles on the road and the government always needs more tax revenue.
Your tax idea just made the cost of lead skyrocket. You didn't keep anyone from having loads of ammo, AND, more importantly, you've created a black market for ammunition. What you probably don't realize is the big manufacturers manufacture to specific tolerances. This is not something your black market dealer will do. They'll also not collect or pay a single cent in tax.
Please stop being emotional.
I'm not being emotional at all, just logical.
Cigarettes won't go the way of prohibition. But they are taxed up the wazoo.
No one is disputing an out of control (destabilized) bullet tumbles. All longer bullets do. It's also hard to hit anything with a curve ball bullet. You get the same effect firing a blunderbuss full of nails.
They didn't design it to tumble, it was a by product of the wrong twist rate.
They may not have designed that way but that is the result. There are some guns/bullets that go straight through an that is the reason the AR-15 isn't used as a hunting rifle.
If this rifle's sole purpose is for killing as many as possible then why do the police have them? Is that their business killing as many as possible?
Police sometimes are required to kill people. They have them because the general public has them. The police cannot run the risk of being outgunned by the general public. If civilians couldn't get them the police wouldn't use them.
Why does the dept of security call them "defense" rifles when they place a order? So what is it are they assault or defense rifles?
They call them "defense rifles" for the same reason they use the phrase "collateral damage" instead of "dead civilians" its government double speak.
What makes a AR-15 more lethal compared to a semi auto rifle of another design?
AR-15's aren't more deadly then other assault rifles on the market its just that they are far more plentiful. There is no need to single out AR-15's when all assault rifles should be banned.
You lost the debate the moment you called for "assault rifles" to be banned because "assault rifles" as they have been coined are no more lethal than any other semi-auto rifle out there that is not considered a "assault rifle".
But lets be true here, if you get your ban on "assault rifles" after the next criminal uses a "hunting semi auto" then they will call for a ban n them, and when the next criminal uses a pump shotgun then they will call for a ban on them, and then when the next criminal uses a handgun they will then call for a ban on them. The truth is they will only stop maybe when all is legal to own is a two shot double barrel shotgun after you get a license.
How about attacking the cause and not the symptom? The weapon is a symptom , the cause is the person behind it. While Obama and Clinton say we need to change by giving up our rights, they say they support bringing over Muslim refugees when there is no way to know who they are and no way to ask for info from the Syrian government on who they are since we decided to make that government our enemy while siding with rebels who at any other time would be enemies of us.
50 undocumented refugees come in, 2 are terrorists and there you go, and after the next and the next attack Obama,Clinton and Sanders will say " well they are not true Muslims most are peaceful. But hey citizens you gotta change with the times
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
