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.
Assault Rifle: short, compact, selective-fire weapons that fire a cartridge intermediate in power between sub-machine gun/pistol cartridge and rifle cartridges. In a strict definition, a firearm must have the following characteristics to be considered an assault rifle:
1. It must be capable of selective fire. (there isnt a single AR15 available to the market that has selective fire capabilities, 1 squeeze of the trigger, 1 round fired)
2. It must have an intermediate-power cartridge: more power than a pistol but less than a standard rifle or battle rifle
3. Its ammunition must be supplied from a detachable box magazine.
4. It must have an effective range of at least 300 meters (330 yards)
AR 15 does not qualify.
An AR-15 is an assault rifle and it only costs $500 - $2500
No it isn't. If you don't even know what the terms mean why are you bothering to post? Just to confirm you know nothing about the subject?
Quote:
Originally Posted by le roi
No, that isn't true. Assault rifles can be semi-automatic, like the AR-15.
Wrong again, you're going beyond confirming and into removing all doubt. The single most defining characteristic of an 'assault weapon' is full auto fire. An 'assault weapon' can also fire in semi automatic mode, but a rifle without full auto mode is NOT an 'assault weapon'.
Quote:
Originally Posted by le roi
It is, though, on account of the number of rounds it can deliver in a short period of time without reloading.
That has absolutely NOTHING to do with determining if it's an 'assault weapon' or not. So, mr expert, exactly what rate of fire makes it an 'assault weapon'?
Repeating Handgun Control Inc lies doesn't improve your credibility.
An AR-15 is a hunting rifle??? LOL. Since when? Are these people afraid that a herd of angry deer or elk are going to come at them in groups armed with handguns?
This is one of the funniest posts I’ve seen. If this is what hunting has become the “sport” (psst, it’s not really a sport) has devolved into a bunch of “macho” men proving they can kill something. Let me guess...these “hunters” own pit bulls and wear their pants pulled half way down their butts.
Another anti gun nut expert who knows nothing at all about the topic. The AR-15 is used as a hunting rifle by millions of people. I know this will come as a surprise to you, but people hunt more than deer and elk. The 223 cartridge is totally acceptable for dozens of species. It's very commonly used to hunt prairie dogs, coyote even hogs.
I'm sure you're one of those who think this is Ok (barely)
Reduction to the absurd, a typical argument from the far-right, is not a valid argument at all.
There are laws on many things, from traffic laws to age of consent. Nobody with a straight face can argue that we should do away with those laws because it's part of some "conspiracy" to ratchet them all up to insane levels. Similarly, nobody with a straight face can argue that because you can hardly go a day without seeing somebody run a red light, that means "traffic laws don't work" and we should clearly do away with them.
Seriously, just knock it off. Guns are NOT sacred. There is NOTHING in the Constitution that grants EVERYONE the right to own whatever weapons they want, regardless of their actions or mental state. Nothing. The Constitution specifically protects well-trained militia - that's it. And even with the individual right to own a weapon expansion of the 2nd Amendment, it STILL does not mean that anyone can own whatever they want, or that a person's actions or mental health cannot preclude them from firearm ownership. All it means is that the government can't "take all the guns" - that's really it.
Anyone with any understanding of laws and freedoms would know that people can do things that remove their right to various freedoms, such as simply being free vs. being in prison or owning a firearm. There is also nobody who can, with a straight face, argue that the average person - or really, much of any citizen - should be allowed to own military grade weapons designed to simply murder lots of people quickly.
OMG, why must we continue to tolerate such stupidity? Such nonsense is just another example why the Left/Communists will never regain power. Amiright?
Ah, the other tactic of the far right. Arguing that somehow know more about the details of guns means that everyone should be allowed to have them.
OMG, the stupidity from the right on this topic! It would be like listening to somebody explain how car transmissions works in detail, and then using that expertise to justify allowing drunks to drive 18-wheelers.
Ah, the other tactic of the far right. Arguing that somehow know more about the details of guns means that everyone should be allowed to have them.
OMG, the stupidity from the right on this topic! It would be like listening to somebody explain how car transmissions works in detail, and then using that expertise to justify allowing drunks to drive 18-wheelers.
Talk about missing the point.
Well if you are going to talk about gun laws and banning this and that I would kinda expect you to know what you are talking about. Now if you have any questions please feel free to ask away.
Ah, the other tactic of the far right. Arguing that somehow know more about the details of guns means that everyone should be allowed to have them.
OMG, the stupidity from the right on this topic! It would be like listening to somebody explain how car transmissions works in detail, and then using that expertise to justify allowing drunks to drive 18-wheelers.
Talk about missing the point.
And the actual point to you is....? Failure to make a actual , valid point as to why the AR 15 needs to be banned for civilian ownership s causing the frustrate level to rise. Thus this leads us to this conundrum wherein trading insulting rhetoric replaces discussion.
Truly, I don't think anyone expects actual discussion to happen on these gun rights threads. They seem more like a place where people come to vent on the other side. At any rate I put up a fairly long post a couple pages back that explains my position pretty well.
As a guy who avoided the AR series like the plague for quite a few years and have come to be quite fond of it now, say that banning it would be nonsensical. My avoidance of the AR was based on my Dads experiences with the original M16 rifles. The problems he encountered have been long corrected but nevertheless had me using rifles by Ruger and HK instead. The HK should never have sold but when I did finally get an AR I found that it outperformed my Rugers hands down.
I have since built a couple and the one I have now outshoots precision bolt rifles. Again say that it is the current issue service model of the military, commercial rifles are semi auto only, and private ownership of the current service rifle is the way it's always been. It's been the case for almost 250 years.
This is totally n keeping with the intent of the 2A. At least that's been the accepted fact until recently. I submit again that one of the worst mass shootings in our history was done with a 3 shot bolt action rifle. Banning ARs will change nothing and do nothing to stop mass murders.
And if we citizens have to give them up, so should LE. If we don't "need" them neither do the cops. We live on the same streets they patrol. If things will be so much safer then the cops don't need these rifles either. So say we all....
Reduction to the absurd, a typical argument from the far-right, is not a valid argument at all.
There are laws on many things, from traffic laws to age of consent. Nobody with a straight face can argue that we should do away with those laws because it's part of some "conspiracy" to ratchet them all up to insane levels. Similarly, nobody with a straight face can argue that because you can hardly go a day without seeing somebody run a red light, that means "traffic laws don't work" and we should clearly do away with them.
Seriously, just knock it off. Guns are NOT sacred. There is NOTHING in the Constitution that grants EVERYONE the right to own whatever weapons they want, regardless of their actions or mental state. Nothing. The Constitution specifically protects well-trained militia - that's it. And even with the individual right to own a weapon expansion of the 2nd Amendment, it STILL does not mean that anyone can own whatever they want, or that a person's actions or mental health cannot preclude them from firearm ownership. All it means is that the government can't "take all the guns" - that's really it.
Anyone with any understanding of laws and freedoms would know that people can do things that remove their right to various freedoms, such as simply being free vs. being in prison or owning a firearm. There is also nobody who can, with a straight face, argue that the average person - or really, much of any citizen - should be allowed to own military grade weapons designed to simply murder lots of people quickly.
When the 2nd A was written private citizens could own cannons, or didn't you know that? See, there is much one can learn if they just listen to those that do know and maybe do some reading on the topic
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.
