"Stop Calling The AR-15 An Assault Rifle Or A So-Called" Topic

… ‘Weapon Of War'

"The AR-15 isn't an assault rifle and clearly not a weapon of war: Last December, it was announced that Ford Motor's F-Series pickup truck had remained the best-selling vehicle in the United States for the 40th straight year and the industry's top-selling truck for 45 consecutive years. A total of 726,004 F-Series trucks were sold out of dealerships last year.

The venerable pick-up's popularity can't be overstated, yet the large forward-heavy weight of the trucks have been noted for being more prone to rollovers and spinning out than other vehicles. In addition, a 2020 report from Lending Tree website, ValuePenguin.com declared the F-150 to be the most deadly vehicle in the United States…"

Main page

link

Armand

What does the F-150 have to do with it?

Seems the author doesn't like the name that politicians give to such a weapon, even though gun related deaths/casualties each year in the US would be considered shocking if gathered together on a single battlefield.
gunviolencearchive.org

What style of shooting sport is it used in, is clay target, tin cans or bottles. Is it used in the Olympics or is used just at local sporting events?

What style of shooting sport is it used in…

This might help: link

This is simply a rehashing of the venerable tortured comparison between firearms and motor vehicles.

Firearms all too often hurt people, therefore we should ban them.

Motor vehicles all too often hurt people, therefore we should ban them.

Obviously, we won't be banning motor vehicles, so we similarly shouldn't be thinking about banning guns.

I tried riding my Glock to work last week, but my butt cheek depressed the clip release and I 9mm'd all over the road.

Quibbling about the labeling of a firearm is sophistry. A person facing a bad actor with a firearm will derive little comfort reflecting that the weapon being used to menace him isn't actually an "assault rifle," but instead a "modern sporting rifle."

A firearm is not the equivalent of a motor vehicle. Never has been. Never will be.

C'mon Tango, you're usually more discerning than this.

HMS Exeter: please turn this around: "guns do not kill people, people kill people". Therefore banning firearms would not help the USA (where, if I am not mistaken, the most people are killed or wounded by illegal shooters), but making sure that someone who wants to buy a firearm (what kind of firearm is another discussion) is as thoroughly tested as someone who wants to ride a motor vehicle (Mind: this is rather difficult in The Netherlands, I do not know about the rules in the USA). If I understand correctly from the news here, in some American states firearms can be obtained like we here buy some tools. In my not so humble opinion (;-)) that is perhaps right in the 18th century, but certainly not civilized in the 21th century.

"Guns don't kill people. People kill people."

Another venerable chestnut.

Trucks don't kill people. Drivers kill people.

People can be dangerous. Guns can be dangerous. Dangerous people with guns are exponentially dangerous.

I don't advocate banning firearms. I don't advocate background checks, tho if people think they might help, go for it. The Sandy Hook shooter didn't need to worry about a background check. He simply took his mother's legally purchased semi automatic modern sport rifle, killed her with it, then killed 26 people at an elementary school.

The issue of private firearm ownership in America isn't going to be resolved thru governmental intervention. Not when there are already 390 million firearms in private hands in a nation of 329 million people.

The issue of firearm ownership in America will be resolved, if it ever is, via a multi generational cultural shift away from their being considered beneficial.

That's not to say there won't be governmental interventions to try to curb their availability. There's nothing in the constitution protecting a business's right to operate a retail gun store. There's nothing in there preventing a ban on interstate shipping of firearms.

Firearms in America are a meta problem. Until there is a tectonic shift in how they are perceived here, most everything proposed will be like draining a bog with a fork.

Porthos--you are incorrect taht you can buy firearms like you buy tools. Buying a firearm (legally) can only be done through a firearms dealer, and only after a background check through the FBI (system is computerized so it does not take long).

The problem is the ease with which these weapons can be bought illegally, by any nutjob who wants one. If you didn't have so many firearms in the country, the number of innocents killed by them would be vastly reduced. The Second Amendment might have been necessary 200 hundred years ago, it isn't any more.

Inanimate objects with no free will cannot take any voluntary action much less kill someone. Besides, it's the bullet that kills, not the gun unless you use the gun to bludgeon someone to death.

A fair comparison about guns would include how many people have been saved using guns in self-defense which is almost impossible to determine. Taking guns from law abiding citizens is not going to solve anything. We need to ban criminals. Firearms safety classes schools would not hurt. Check out how many mass shooters were under a doctors care being prescribed psych drugs (that can make people depressed and suicidal) or amphetamines.

You cannot legislate morality. noggin2nog and Porthos, ANYTHING (except nukes?) can be obtained in the US legally or illegally. That includes guns, drugs, and children as the US has an open border that anyone with anything can enter. Unfortunately criminals will not obey any gun bans and Mass shooters prefer Gun Free Zones. I've never seen a Mass Shooter target a gun show, NRA convention, or gun shop because they are cowards or have a psych problem.

Quibbling about the labeling of a firearm is sophistry.

First it was Saturday Night Specials, then it was Assault Rifles, then Assault Guns, and now Weapons of War which would also include muskets and Ruger 10/22 carbine as it was used in VN.

In the US the politicians seem to want to come after law abiding citizens guns and not the criminals.

YouTube link

What bullet is not designed to damage internal organs? According to his statement any gun chambered for 5.56mm, 30-06, or 7.62mm should be taken. These people are dangerous.

The 2nd Amendment was for self-defense and to protect us from the tyranny of the government. That's the reason the Nazis and Commies confiscated them and the British tried unsuccessfully to take them at Lexington and Concord. Either the government can be afraid of the people or the people are afraid of the government. History has proven that if you want to maintain your freedom make sure the government fears you because you can protect yourself from them.

Remember the Battle of Athens, TN: YouTube link

Wolfhag

Weapons of war? I carry them on weekends all summer. Let me see. I carry an 1841 Mississippi Rifle, an 1847 Walker, a sword bayonet, and a Bowie knife. All are copies, but they all would kill you just as dead. The side arm and knife are required for all members of my unit. TIG

The AR-15 (Armalite Rifle) is the only gun I can think of that has a tribute song:
YouTube link

I remember seeing in one of those coffee table books on the civil war a 2 page display of the weaponry a Confederate volunteer brought with him to take to war.

He had:
A double barrel percussion cap shotgun.
A pepperbox pistol.
A Tomahawk.
A Bowie knife, and
A blackjack.

It wasn't until I saw the blackjack that it impressed me that this fella really meant to hurt somebody.

And it was all gone by the end of the first march, except, maybe, the tomahawk which could used to cut word for a fire.
Having done some marching on back roads with ACW gear one carries as little as possible!

The AR-15 (Armalite Rifle) is the only gun I can think of that has a tribute song

'Finland Red, Egypt White' by Sisterhood, from their Album 'Gift' 1986 – On Youtube

If it's not an assault rifle, what does the "AR" in AR-15" stand for ?

Armalite Rifle.

Don't sweat it. Everybody assumes AR = Assault Rifle.

The government is us.

It's too late to regulate firearms. We are closing in on half a billion guns. I'm sure this is just what the Founders meant for the Second amendment. Just cross out the "well regulated" part. It's an industry We can't make guns fast enough. They sell like hot cakes in good times and bad. The illegal trade is beyond any control at this point, including ghost guns, homemade guns, etc. millions and millions of them.

Only generational change can begin to grapple with this.

It is a semi-automatic rifle.

"The Second Amendment might have been necessary 200 hundred years ago, it isn't any more".

Actually, it is much more relevant today, given current vectors, as our founding fathers knew and planned for, back in the day. The 2nd Amendment is to protect Americans from onerous governments and corrupt politicians / "leaders".

"It's too late to regulate firearms".

Guns are already highly regulated.

Alas, no one has figured out how to get criminals to follow the laws, and now many are even against prosecuting and punishing people for violating our laws.

The latter is the REAL crux of the issue, in addition to the very weak, corrupt politicians.

Law abiding citizens aren't the problem.

link

Rifles of all kinds are rather low on the list of murder weapon types.

Most firearms can only be sold in the US by a firearms dealer or between private individuals using a dealer to conduct the background check for a small fee. However, some states do permit individual sales to other private parties. These are a tiny fraction of dealer sales however.

The AR stands for Armalite Rifle the company that invented the original that eventually was sold to Colt and became the M16 in Army use. However they have always been marketed to civilians in semi-automatic versions and tens of millions of them are in civilian hands. They were marketed to civilians since at least 1965. Many companies make essentially the same rifle and they are the most popular rifle in the US with often over a million sold per year.

They are used in shooting competition, hunting, self-defense, and are very popular with police departments as a patrol rifle. They are very accurate and reliable.

link

They are frequently used to hunt deer, feral hogs, and coyotes. Hogs and coyotes are dangerous pests who harm livestock, pets, destroy crops (the hogs) and sometimes attack people.

The Second Amendment is intended to allow people to own arms for self defense, and the defense of their local community as well as the nation. In urban riots people have defended themselves and their property against attack when the police were unavailable.

link

Many European and other nations have succumbed to Fascist or Communist take overs in the 20th Century resulting in war and mass murder. That has not happened in the USA and I think our right to keep and bear arms has had a role in maintaining our freedom.

Mike Bunkermeister Creek

I have a Short Land Pattern smoothbore and a 1911
Both weapons of war at one time

And by rights it's a semiautomatic carbine

I would NEVER go to war with a semi-automatic AR-15, AK-47, etc. Semi-automatics are NOT "weapons of War", nor "Assault Rifle", let alone "Assault Weapons". An "Assault Weapon" is anything used as a weapon to attack another human being, such as a rock, spear, baseball bat, hatchet, mace, musket, knife, blade of a hand, the Five Finger Death Punch, SUV, Yugo, etc. The scary name of "Assault Weapon" can be applied to ANYTHING.

The Second Amendment is a very necessary item. The Ukrainians have proven that with the Russians every day

"[guns, cars, other rhetorical objects] don't kill people; people kill people."

I don't object to banning people. The animals will probably do a better job with the planet than we have.

"The Ukrainians have proven that with the Russians every day"
Arguments about our Second Amendment aside, this is not true. It was a great morale booster to begin with, but without their resilient army and Western support it would have been all over a while ago.

A rose by any other name would smell as sweet. – W Shakespeare

A very well organized and determined band of guerrillas defeated a nuclear super power in the 1960s and early 1970s, even though said super power really never lost a single battle against them.

The North Vietnamese remained determined and ultimately won the conflict through dogged determination.

About 50 years later a band of stone-age guerrillas with AKs and riding on mopeds defeated the same super power in Afghanistan.

Even when heavily outnumbered and outgunned, determined foes armed with little more than small arms can sometimes win against a much more powerful force, especially when the latter is poorly led and lacks the will to "win".

I am amazed at the people who do not know the difference between a "semi-automatic" and a "fully automatic" weapon?
In fact – any AUTOMATIC weapons that are not belt fed are not really combat desirable and due to limit rounds per clip not considered very effective. 2 1/2 burst per clip.

Russ Dunaway
USMC --1967---1971

I normally try to remain quiet around "anti-gun" folks. I do so because they universally have no knowledge of the history of gun-control in the USA. They also seem proud of their ignorance regarding guns when they speak about them. "Gun lovers" universally lack empathy or a willingness to understand the "anti-gun" folks. The "anti-gun" crowd is blissfully unaware that, in America, gun-control has been historically a racist endeavor. No, I'm not going to provide a treatise on Racism and gun control. Get off your lame ass and read a few books on the history of gun control in America. I will provide an illustrating example. In CA during the 60s the Black Panthers exercised their 2A Right to bear Arms. The CA legislature went Bat-*hi*-Crazy and fast tracked the Mulford Act. For those of you that lack historical perspective – the Panthers were exercising their 2A rights because they were being hunted and killed by police departments across the country. The 2A was designed and added to the Constitution for just a reason. The USA has exhibited a willingness to hunt and kill its citizens when politically expedient. There are too many examples in American when those in power (white people) decided to kill, starve, enslave, and incarcerate ethnic, racial, & indigent populations when it suited their purposes. A person or people must be able to resist such actions when so endangered. That's why the 2A is in the Constitution, it's to protect citizens from whackadoodles in any level of Government. Gun-control is how the power-elites (white people) hold onto their privilege and status. Or not.

The Armalite AR-15 is apparently derived from the Colt AR-15. I wonder what Colt thought the "A" stood for ?

If the manufacturer's had half a brain, they would simply change the name of the gun to something like "The Grizzly bear" and that would end half the problem -
-It is sad that they would have to do this, but in the age of political correctness-- it is either that or keep on riding into the gale??

Russ Dunaway

Other way around on the Armalite vs Colt Dagwood.
link

"In 1959, ArmaLite sold its rights to the AR-15 to Colt due to financial difficulties and limitations in terms of manpower and production capacity".

Armalite designed several rifles AR-7, .22LR survival rifle, AR-10 similar to AR-15 in larger cartridge 7.62x51 (.308) that preceded the AR-15, AR-180- drum fed .22 .

Thanks.

Armand

My brother has an AR-180
YouTube link

Wolfhag

"The Second Amendment might have been necessary 200 hundred years ago, it isn't any more".

Actually, it is much more relevant today, given current vectors, as our founding fathers knew and planned for, back in the day. The 2nd Amendment is to protect Americans from onerous governments and corrupt politicians / "leaders".

Where does this concept come from? The Founders wanted to make sure that "the mob" didnt vote but that the mob should have weapons to overturn them?

What does oppression look like exactly? When do armed mobs without training accomplish this? The only examples I see are of completely alien cultures that America would never emulate in any other way.

It's too late to regulate firearms.

If I understand your meaning, it isnt too late.

I find many people think that the confiscation of weapons means some sort of brown shirt door to door event. You can have the law operate that they become illegal to own after a certain date, make ammo harder to get, require oodles of insurance or repeal the law blocking suits against gun manufacturers.

In fact, it is super easy to eliminate guns from private possession.

No it's not, only a large at best portion of firearms are known, and not because of so called " ghost" guns or printed guns, to much moving around for a century.
There are more firearms than people in the country, but worse part is notice who gets charged with a firearm laws violatiions break and who doesn't.

Those who would give up essential freedoms for temporary security will end with neither freedom nor security.

It is a good thing that our government would never allow riots to rampage unchecked or criminals to run rampant without prosecution. Even better that no government would even dream about draconian control measures and stomping on other constitutional rights like freedom of religion "shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof".

Ok perhaps that second paragraph was a bit snarky – but true.

Those who would give up essential freedoms for temporary security will end with neither freedom nor security.

Of course it could be said that one's freedoms end when they infringe on someone else's freedoms; I think Ben Franklin would agree.

Perhaps you're in favor of a constitutional rewrite to reaffirm essential liberties and add new ones?

It is a good thing that our government would never allow riots to rampage unchecked or criminals to run rampant without prosecution.

There were over 14,000 arrests during the protests. Not exactly "unchecked", except for a lack of sources making the original statement.

Ok perhaps that second paragraph was a bit snarky – but true.

Maybe this is not quite true.

Even better that no government would even dream about draconian control measures and stomping on other constitutional rights like freedom of religion "shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof".

Should people have risen up with firearms to enforce their freedom of religion?