As we have been told: The difference between an AR-15 and a military M-16/M-4 are negligible in terms of the damage they can do. The only real difference is that the AR-15 is semi-auto only. One shot for each finger twitch (and that's about all it takes) as opposed to holding the trigger down for full auto or getting a three round burst from one trigger pull. They use virtually the same ammo and because of the relatively large amount of powder (compared to a ".22 plinker") are equally as deadly. Their gas operation and stock spring are identical so the recoil is negligible, meaning even the most novice shooter can be decently accurate and will not have recoil issues Whether you call them "assault rifles" or not means little. It is a military weapon...designed to be that. http://www.politicalforum.com/index...common-misconceptions.557484/#post-1070682432 Question: Is the AR15 a "military weapon" or, if you prefer, a "weapon of war? BEFORE you answer, consider this: If the AR15 is a "weapon or war", why does the military issue M6/M4s and not AR15s? Please be sure to support your response.
It goes beyond the AR issue. For over a hundred years the military used the 1911, and sold the exact same weapon to the civilian population, the precedent here would be that 'weapons of war' are completely acceptable in the hands of civilians. The same case can be made for dozens of weapons since the Revolution. Particularly after the Civil War, and again after WWI. Clearly this is political grandstanding because the AR models are not even technically the same as the models used by our armed forces to begin with...
I mean, I can see it being a very good weapon in wartime, but it is silly to pretend it is special. Most hunting rifles are going to be more powerful.
Per the OP. "For over a hundred years the military used the 1911, and sold the exact same weapon to the civilian population, the precedent here would be that 'weapons of war' are completely acceptable in the hands of civilians" This suggest that civilians should have "weapons of war" without and qualifiers here. That includes ALL weapons of ANY kind.
So... how is the AR15 'weapon of war'? If the AR15 is a 'weapon of war', why does the military issue M6/M4s and not AR15s?
'Cos they preferred one weapon of war to the other weapon of war. Probably 'cos it killed more people better. That's what weapons of war do, kill people. It's no use for anything except killing people, lots of people very quickly. You don't go hunting with one of them unless you're hunting people. The only people who want this **** want to kill people.
So, under that argument, what firearm is NOT a 'weapon of war"? You speak from ignorance. You speak from ignorance. You speak from ignorance.
You sound like a 12 year old kid, spitting in the playground. Your argument that the army didn't select that weapon and therefore it isn't a weapon of war is just laughable. The army evaluates many weapons and discards many of them, that doesn't mean they can't be used in a war. I'm sure the thing would work very well in wars around the world. So, to your short answers. Please respond properly, if you can.
I'm sorry you don't like the fact you argue from ignorance. I'll ask again: Under the argument you presented, what firearms are NOT 'weapons of war"?
The AR-15 and the M-16's are chambered for a varmint hunting cartridge the Remington .222. A varmint cartridge like the Remington .222 and.223 were designed to kill small four legged critters like ground hogs and squirrels not so much the two legged varmints like commies and Islamic jihadist. Before the U.S. Army was forced to adopt the M-16 rifle, both Armalite and then Colt sold the AR-15 in sporting goods stores as a hunting rifle years before the Army adopted the varmint rifle. 1963 Colt AR-15 advertisement Due to several different .222 caliber cartridges being developed for the SCHV project, the 222 Special was renamed .223 Remington in 1959.
You have every right to own a M-1 tank. Many law abiding Americans own tanks. Tanks are legal to own the USA and other countries. There are no US Federal restrictions to owning a tank . You may operate it on private land without restrictions. You will also need to determine if there are totalitarian state or local laws prohibiting tank ownership. If you can own a tractor, you can own a tank! https://www.drivetanks.com/own-one/
I say yes it is. A semi-auto weapon is going to be combat effective in nearly all combat scenarios. But I also view self defense as combat, and 'weapons of war' is a shitty definition for gun legislation. Im OK with restricting full auto because it makes the weapon indiscriminate, which is the same reason explosives are restricted (though I would support legalizing both, as I know plenty of folks who would/could make their own of any of the above regardless of any laws if they were inclined to use them- they only reason they dont is because they arent, not because of laws). All weapons are 'weapons of war.' If you run out of ammo, you grab ur knife. If it breaks, you find a rock. 'Weapon of war' means nothing.
Below is the definition of "arms" when it was used in the Second Amendment when the founding fathers wrote the Constitution. So it's obvious that the founding fathers believed that arms were the same type of arms the military used. Should be noted while the British and the Continental armies during the Revolutionary War were armed with smooth bore muskets the American civilian militias were armed with rifles like the Kentucky Rifle. The civilian colonist were better armed than the British red coats or Washington's Continental Army.
"Weapon of war" is the current catch phrase of the anti-gun left - it moved on from 'assault weapon' and 'semi-automatic assault rifle' because those terms no longer carry the emotional impact necessary to sway the ignorant.
Following such logic, all firearms in existence could constitute "weapons of war" because they can be utilized for such purposes by someone involved in combat. Therefore it all firearms can be classified as "weapons of war" then the term is ultimately meaningless and thus no firearms are so-called "weapons of war". Simply because something could be utilized in a declared state of war to some extent, does not mean it qualifies as being a weapon of war. It simply does not work that way.
A buddy of mine has an M-1 Garrand he wants me to come over a shoot. One of the best weapons of war ever produced! Not automatic, no pistol grip, no extended magazine.