The gun grabbers/haters just can’t get their facts/lies straight on AR-15s

[RugersGR8]

So you cant fight a war unless your rifle/carbine has a happy switch? Horse ****

No, l am just not going to fall into the MSM Bravo Sierra trap that a AR15 is a full auto rifle/weapon. Please watch the video above to see what I am referring to. If we can’t keep the facts straight, the socialist MSM sure won’t.

 

[tRidiot]

No, l am just not going to fall into the MSM Bravo Sierra trap that a AR15 is a full auto rifle/weapon. Please watch the video above to see what I am referring to. If we can’t keep the facts straight, the socialist MSM sure won’t.

They are all about exaggeration and misdirection to achieve political power. Appealing to emotion instead of facts is the hallmark of the left.

 

[rc508pir]

No, l am just not going to fall into the MSM Bravo Sierra trap that a AR15 is a full auto rifle/weapon. Please watch the video above to see what I am referring to. If we can’t keep the facts straight, the socialist MSM sure won’t.

Well, see thats my point to begin with. The 2nd explicitly protects the right to be armed, most importantly, to protect the security of a free state. In order for that to happen, every able bodied American should have a military type weapon. Every able bodied American is, afterall a citizen soldier.

This constant sparing of wording is ridiculous. Whether or not the AR15 is full auto or not is irrelevant. If the Military decided to take the select fire switch off M4s or any future adopted weapon still makes them a military weapon.

Like I said previously, 99% of Combat Arms branches ie Infantry in the Army and USMC dont even train for the use of full auto by rifleman (The MC does for Automatic Rifleman because they have switched from the M249 to the HK variant) Training doctrine for Marksmanship in both services remains "one shot one kill"

To those that say the AR-15 isn't a military weapon, know what youre talking about before you chime in. The AR-15 was introduced by Armalite. Bought by Colt as the AR-15 and adopted by the Military as the M16/A1.... etc. A AR15 is a dangerous weapon, especially in the hands of a trained individual. The argument that it isn't a "Assault Rifle" is irrelevant. A AR15 is only slightly less lethal without select fire. You could argue that the Semi Auto is more lethal to multiple targets since you are more likely to hit more targets on semi that full auto.

 

[druryj]

The AR15 is not an M16. The AR15 is not an M4. They are not the same.

AGREED.

An AR15(Armalite15) is a semiauto rifle(MSR), not a weapon of war. It is no different than a Remington 742, Remington 80/81, Winchester 100, Ruger Mini 14, etc. except for their configurations - none of which are full auto/selective fire rifles. The M14, M4A1, A2 & M16 are weapons of war and have selective fire capabilities.

AGREED.

They are all about exaggeration and misdirection to achieve political power. Appealing to emotion instead of facts is the hallmark of the left.

Doubly AGREED.

Sure the AR 15, any of the commercial ones...like a S&W M&P-15 or a DPMS a Ruger or any of the others one can buy in any LGS could be used in combat. But they aren't. They don't have select fire capabilities (full auto or 3 round burst) is the point. Actually, just about ANY current semi-auto centerfire rifle could be used in combat...I think the argument is that these media types like to allude to is that what WE can buy off the shelf is the SAME as what the military uses. And it for the most part isn't the same thing. They just twist the words 'cause an AR 15 is evil looking...to them.

 

[Fredkrueger100]

Well, see thats my point to begin with. The 2nd explicitly protects the right to be armed, most importantly, to protect the security of a free state. In order for that to happen, every able bodied American should have a military type weapon. Every able bodied American is, afterall a citizen soldier.

This constant sparing of wording is ridiculous. Whether or not the AR15 is full auto or not is irrelevant. If the Military decided to take the select fire switch off M4s or any future adopted weapon still makes them a military weapon.

Like I said previously, 99% of Combat Arms branches ie Infantry in the Army and USMC dont even train for the use of full auto by rifleman (The MC does for Automatic Rifleman because they have switched from the M249 to the HK variant) Training doctrine for Marksmanship in both services remains "one shot one kill"

To those that say the AR-15 isn't a military weapon, know what youre talking about before you chime in. The AR-15 was introduced by Armalite. Bought by Colt as the AR-15 and adopted by the Military as the M16/A1.... etc. A AR15 is a dangerous weapon, especially in the hands of a trained individual. The argument that it isn't a "Assault Rifle" is irrelevant. A AR15 is only slightly less lethal without select fire. You could argue that the Semi Auto is more lethal to multiple targets since you are more likely to hit more targets on semi that full auto.

None of it matters anyway. We should be able to own ANY weapon we want. The term “military weapon” or “weapon of war” is a term made up to sound scary to the unknowing. But you don’t hear the MSM referring to Sig pistols, glock pistols, 1911’s as “weapons of war”. Why is that? Because they see the AR 15 and it looks exactly like the M16 or M4. So they use their scary terminology to brainwash the people that don’t know any better. Any weapon could be a weapon of war. If you take it to war then it becomes a weapon of war. But that still doesn’t change the fact that the civilian AR15 IS NOT the same as the M16 or M4. One is capable of full auto, burst fire and the other is only capable of semi auto fire. Nobody that I saw ever said anything about how these are used in war. I already knew that most don’t ever use auto or burst. Unless trying to suppress an enemy there really isn’t a reason to use it.

 

[rc508pir]

I

None of it matters anyway. We should be able to own ANY weapon we want. The term “military weapon” or “weapon of war” is a term made up to sound scary to the unknowing. But you don’t hear the MSM referring to Sig pistols, glock pistols, 1911’s as “weapons of war”. Why is that? Because they see the AR 15 and it looks exactly like the M16 or M4. So they use their scary terminology to brainwash the people that don’t know any better. Any weapon could be a weapon of war. If you take it to war then it becomes a weapon of war. But that still doesn’t change the fact that the civilian AR15 IS NOT the same as the M16 or M4. One is capable of full auto, burst fire and the other is only capable of semi auto fire. Nobody that I saw ever said anything about how these are used in war. I already knew that most don’t ever use auto or burst. Unless trying to suppress an enemy there really isn’t a reason to use it.

I agree...… Except the M16/M4 are only the Military nomenclatures of...… the AR15. Any other rifle other than a Colt or FN is a "AR15 style" rifle or carbine. Rifles and carbines sold by Colt and FN are AR15s whether full auto or not.

There is absolutely no difference between Colts LE6920 and the M4 (working parts in the lower) other than the LE6920 has no auto sear. The full auto function isn't what makes a weapon a weapon of war. The military considered having a semi auto only M16A2. A compromise occurred and we got 3rd burst.

 

[rc508pir]

AGREED.



AGREED.



Doubly AGREED.

Sure the AR 15, any of the commercial ones...like a S&W M&P-15 or a DPMS a Ruger or any of the others one can buy in any LGS could be used in combat. But they aren't. They don't have select fire capabilities (full auto or 3 round burst) is the point. Actually, just about ANY current semi-auto centerfire rifle could be used in combat...I think the argument is that these media types like to allude to is that what WE can buy off the shelf is the SAME as what the military uses. And it for the most part isn't the same thing. They just twist the words 'cause an AR 15 is evil looking...to them.

My point is, it doesn't matter whether they call a DPMS Oracle (arguable one of the cheapest AR15s made, both in cost and quality) a evil weapon or Satin. It doesn't matter whether its a military weapon or not. The 2nd says "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State". While you can fight a war with antiquated weaponry, you wont last long

 

[dennishoddy]

So you cant fight a war unless your rifle/carbine has a happy switch? Horse ****

This is an issue up for discussion. Full Auto fire is to suppress the opposition in a mad minute, but single aimed fire is much more effective in some situations, not all though.
The experience of jungle combat, in which most fire fights took place at ranges of no more than thirty to fifty yards, and in which speed and surprise were so important that it might often cost a soldier his life to take the time to aim his rifle instead of simply pointing it in the right direction and opening up on automatic. The theater of operations determines what rate of fire is most effective.
The AR-15 is no more a weapon of war as has been said than other sporting rifles that operate off the same system. Rem 742 and so on. It's all about the appearance for those that want to ban it.

 

[druryj]

Appearances can be everything to some people too.

 

[MacFromOK]

I even called my wife "Joanne" one time (her name is Susan), talk about a weapon of war!

You are extremely lucky to have survived that conflict...