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.
Because the critical design features are the automatic reloading and hammer cocking functions married to the rapid reloading and/or high magazine capabilities. Showing trick shooters rapidly loading other type of weapons without the inherent ability to sustain fire for an extended period will only cause the political class to add those weapons to the banned list.
Just hope a crazy person does not become a show shooter and then goes on a rampage because the next step will be to limit you to muzzle loaders
But no one is calling for a ban on all semi-auto rifles....
Well as quoted by the designers it isn't just one facet of the AR-15.
Huh? The post I quoted was yours, not a firearms designer's. Your post that I was responding to was almost exclusively about the amount of damage the 5.56 NATO round causes.
So, if the AR-15 went back to the 12-1 or 15-1 twist it had in the early days (which would minimize or eliminate the tumbling), you'd be fine with it for civilian use?
What other "facets" of the AR-15 do you take issue with?
Yeah. You are. If not emotional, you're being illogical.
Show us you are not being emotional or illogical. Please present actual facts beyond the typical hard-left talking points. I'll be more than happy to argue them in public, or private.
Heck, come on down to Charlotte. I'll put you up for the weekend, cook a bit of BBQ (my namesake) and shoot the breeze with you. I won't just put my money where my mouth is, I'll put my house where my mouth is. I'm all about civilized debate. And a good time.
OK she is wrong about assault rifles, as was I. Happy now? Can we get back to the issue I was addressing? We are discussing how liberals in general, and Hillary in particular, want a total gun ban. It's not true, it has never been true. This is her position and frankly I don't understand how it can be argued
CLINTON: I respect the Second Amendment. I respect the rights of lawful gun owners to own guns, to use their guns, but I also believe that most lawful gun owners whom I have spoken with for many years across our country also want to be sure that we keep those guns out of the wrong hands. And as president, I will work to try to bridge this divide, which I think has been polarizing and, frankly, doesn’t reflect the common sense of the American people. We will strike the right balance to protect the constitutional right but to give people the feeling & the reality that they will be protected from guns in the wrong hands.
She is merely deflecting, or more aptly, not saying anything specific.
Either she, or any elected official, needs to be absolutely specific, or say nothing at all. This isn't a privilege, it's a right. I've said it before... How about banning some speech or some right of assembly, and not specifically cite what speech or assembly?
That's exactly what amorphous statements about guns means. And it's why it is diligent to counter it at every turn.
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.
One of the reasons the police use the AR15 type rifle is because it doesn't go through walls. You don't have a clue, do you?
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.
But no one is calling for a ban on all semi-auto rifles....
Yet, but they are calling for a ban on all semi automatic rifles which can be reloaded relatively rapidly or accept extended magazines. The defense of defining "assault" or a specific model name from a specific manufacturer as if the general public cares about Colt, Armalite, Ruger... or "selective fire" or any technical legal term is meaningless politically. It started with named models UZI (with its extended barrel as a carbine) back in the day and then when the industry made minor changes and gave a new model name they started they saw that didn't work and started going after design characteristics like pistol grips and magazine capability. Then the industry came up with the attached pistol grip and called it a giant hole in the butt stock to get around the regulation.
If someone introduced a pump action or lever action weapon with a detachable fast reloading magazine to get around the semi automatic ban and someone went on a murder spree with one of those expect it to be added to a banned list also.
Huh? The post I quoted was yours, not a firearms designer's. Your post that I was responding to was almost exclusively about the amount of damage the 5.56 NATO round causes.
So, if the AR-15 went back to the 12-1 or 15-1 twist it had in the early days (which would minimize or eliminate the tumbling), you'd be fine with it for civilian use?
What other "facets" of the AR-15 do you take issue with?
Those were the same comments as one of the designers, I already listed all the issues.
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.
