• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

some good education about "assault weapons"

Amelia said:
I don't feel strongly about it.

I feel sad about all those children whose parents didn't give enough of a damn about them to keep them safe from guns ... and about the children whose parents did care but their children still weren't safe because of other people's decisions which the caring parents couldn't control for.

But I don't feel strongly, because I feel numb. We have single issue voters who would elect a Trump because of some fearmongering about people taking away their guns. How do I deal with that? I don't try. I think it's hopeless.

I just thought it amusing to see the first two posts send off friendly fire over the vocab, so I commented. The vocabulary wars are a symbol of why we won't be making any progress on this subject. So I noted them. And with that I am done.

(Oh, I did watch the video, but am not stupid enough to get any deeper into this conversation.)
Click to expand...

You see, those comments weren't intended the way you think they were, and you don't care to understand that. This makes you part of the problem you're complaining about.
 
Last edited:
Mach said:
So with a bump stock an AR15 is at 9 rounds per second rather than 30. And that means you "can't have a serious conversation"?
AR-15s were developed directly from the M16 rifle as designed for military use, in war, to kill humans efficiently at range, with the only significant difference the lack of select fire. But you object to it being called a "weapon of war"? It was basically even ruled as such years back.

Of course you can't have a serious conversation when you aren't posting seriously. Amelia's correct, even the OP video slips up, but you apologize for that because stuff.
Click to expand...

The M16 was designed to be a "weapon of war", but the only two military features were the selective fire capability and the bayonet lug. The semiautomatic AR-15 has never been used in war; the military doesn't own any of them; the firing mode was first developed in 1905 for hunting rifles; the bullet caliber was developed in 1935 for hunting rifles; and the hunting rifle with a removable box magazine has been around since 1905, too.

What exactly makes the AR-15 a "weapon of war"?
 
Amelia is right, and away we go.

Rucker61 said:
The M16 was designed to be a "weapon of war", but the only two military features were the selective fire capability and the bayonet lug. The semiautomatic AR-15 has never been used in war; the military doesn't own any of them; the firing mode was first developed in 1905 for hunting rifles; the bullet caliber was developed in 1935 for hunting rifles; and the hunting rifle with a removable box magazine has been around since 1905, too.
What exactly makes the AR-15 a "weapon of war"?
Click to expand...
 
Rucker61 said:
...what exactly makes the AR-15 a "weapon of war"?
Click to expand...


It's a lot better than say an M3 carbine and that was a standard military weapon.


I'd say the AR-15 is a lot better than the POS I had to carry in the army - namely the SA-80 A1
 
Mach said:
Amelia's correct, even the OP video slips up, but you apologize for that because stuff.
Click to expand...

That's . . . the exact opposite of what Amelia said.
 
Mach said:
So with a bump stock an AR15 is at 9 rounds per second rather than 30. And that means you "can't have a serious conversation"?
AR-15s were developed directly from the M16 rifle as designed for military use, in war, to kill humans efficiently at range, with the only significant difference the lack of select fire. But you object to it being called a "weapon of war"? It was basically even ruled as such years back.

Of course you can't have a serious conversation when you aren't posting seriously. Amelia's correct, even the OP video slips up, but you apologize for that because stuff.
Click to expand...
The rifle was originally marketed as a Sporting Rifle precisely because operational it is no different than any and every other semiautomatic rifle on the market (for example, the Ruger Ranch Rifle).
13434807_1383807998301784_6909590571140954570_n-515x700.jpg

eec1c14b48949947d168c2e304b1836e.jpg
 
Mach said:
So with a bump stock an AR15 is at 9 rounds per second rather than 30. And that means you "can't have a serious conversation"?
AR-15s were developed directly from the M16 rifle as designed for military use, in war, to kill humans efficiently at range, with the only significant difference the lack of select fire. But you object to it being called a "weapon of war"? It was basically even ruled as such years back.

Of course you can't have a serious conversation when you aren't posting seriously. Amelia's correct, even the OP video slips up, but you apologize for that because stuff.
Click to expand...

Oh...and it should be noted...the 'bump stock' is a relatively new accessory...not a rifle. It was approved by the Obama administrations BATF because it did not change the operating mechanics of the weapon, still requiring one pull for each round sent down range.

Still doesnt make the Armalite Rifle 15 an 'assault rifle', any more so than the average persons trigger finger and a belt loop.

 
Rich2018 said:
It's a lot better than say an M3 carbine and that was a standard military weapon.


I'd say the AR-15 is a lot better than the POS I had to carry in the army - namely the SA-80 A1
Click to expand...

It's 50/50 in comparison to the Brown Bess.
 
"So there you have it. An AR-15 is not an assault rifle ... an assault rifle is propaganda. No one seems able to get it right."

I don't understand how you could consider this puff piece "a good analysis".

Problem: The AR-15 types of rifles are being labeled as assault rifles by uninformed politicians to further an anti-gun agenda. Did I get that right?
Hypothesis: One has to guess as its not clearly stated.
Solution: Stop calling them (AR-15 type weapons) assault rifles? Brilliant:lol:

Her videos sure do seem to resonate with a certain segment of the population though!
 
Mach said:
So with a bump stock an AR15 is at 9 rounds per second rather than 30. And that means you "can't have a serious conversation"?
AR-15s were developed directly from the M16 rifle as designed for military use, in war, to kill humans efficiently at range, with the only significant difference the lack of select fire. But you object to it being called a "weapon of war"? It was basically even ruled as such years back.

Of course you can't have a serious conversation when you aren't posting seriously. Amelia's correct, even the OP video slips up, but you apologize for that because stuff.
Click to expand...

you're lying again, the AR 15 was not designed to kill. The M16 was designed to inflict casualties on enemies. and SO WHAT. what do you think the purpose of the second amendment was and is?
 
Rucker61 said:
It's 50/50 in comparison to the Brown Bess.
Click to expand...

the brown bess had no other real use other than military. Its smooth bore barrel facilitated rapid reloading but meant the weapon was rather inaccurate. not accurate enough for shooting games or hunting. Its utility was when there were 1000 redcoats who could fire at Massed Frenchmen 50 yards away.,
 
TurtleDude said:
the brown bess had no other real use other than military. Its smooth bore barrel facilitated rapid reloading but meant the weapon was rather inaccurate. not accurate enough for shooting games or hunting. Its utility was when there were 1000 redcoats who could fire at Massed Frenchmen 50 yards away.,
Click to expand...

So, about 50/50 against the SA 80 ;)
 
poppopfox said:
"So there you have it. An AR-15 is not an assault rifle ... an assault rifle is propaganda. No one seems able to get it right."

I don't understand how you could consider this puff piece "a good analysis".

Problem: The AR-15 types of rifles are being labeled as assault rifles by uninformed politicians to further an anti-gun agenda. Did I get that right?
Hypothesis: One has to guess as its not clearly stated.
Solution: Stop calling them (AR-15 type weapons) assault rifles? Brilliant:lol:

Her videos sure do seem to resonate with a certain segment of the population though!
Click to expand...

Because it isn't clear from your words here . . .

What exact point do you think you made?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom