The AR-15 Is The "Musket Of Our Time"

No...
"dangerous and unusual"
That is, more "dangerous" than the level of danger inherent to any firearm
That is, "unusual" in terms of how common they are owned and used across the population

It takes an exceptionally dim wit to believe one of these rifles is "dangerous and unusual" while the other is not.

 

I was using the language of the supreme court

 

According to FBI statistics, AR/AK type rifles only account for less than 1% of gun deaths in the United States.

 

8,000 Revolutionary Soldiers and 24,000 British Soldiers died during the Revolutionary War. The musket and other weapons were able to kill 32,000 people.

 

First of all, "well regulated" doesn't mean government regulate or government controlled. It means "well functioning" or working in proper order.

Secondly, there is no such thing as an "Assault Weapon."

So, the anti-gunners logic is made up of misinformation.

 

Damn good thing our founding fathers explicitly state the 2nd Amendment.

The last thing we need is mob rule (61%) to strip away the rights of ALL law abiding citizens.

 

Where is the Amendment that protects the AR?

 

Just underneath the amendment that protects the cellphone, the personal computer, and the internet.

 

The 2nd, of course.

 

Um... the 2nd?

 

Muskets killed one or two during the Civil war.

 

If the terrorist attack was the Orlando, Florida gay nightclub attack with 49 kills and 50 wounded, the jihadist did not use an AR-15 or an AR.

But the MSM and liberals lied to the American people saying that the Muslim used an AR.

The Muslim during the terrorist attack in Orlando used a Sig-MCX which doesn't use an ArmaLite gas tube to cycle the action but a gas piston liked used on the M-14, M-1 Garand, Mini-14 and other black scary looking rifles that uses a gas piston.

The Sig-CMX is not an AR or an assault weapon or an assault rifle.


Sig-MCX

But it's black and scares liberals.

 

GCAs are generally ignorant of firearms, regurgitating Leftist Dogma (propaganda) as fact. An analogy is because some snakes are venomous, all snakes are dangerous and should be killed. Not true? How many applauded a school punishing a child that chewed a Pop-Tart into the shape of a gun?

 

That one always puzzled me. Are they worried about people being shot, or people being stabbed with a very short and clumsy spear?

And most have absolutely no idea what a "flash suppressor" actually is. And no, it is not made to prevent the flash from being seen. It is actually made so that if shooting in low light conditions the shooter is not blinded by the flash from their own weapon. In the modern ones on the AR-15 and others the bottom part is not cut out, to help prevent dirt from being thrown up in the shooter's face when firing from the prone position.

As is typical, they just hear the names then make up their own definitions. And no amount of facts will ever change that. Like that idiot a few years ago that claimed they are called the AR-15 because it is an "Automatic Rifle that fires 15 bullets each time you pull the trigger". Wrong cupcake. It is model 15 of the ArmaLite Rifle series.

The first was the AR-5/MA-1, then the AR-7. Then the AR-10, which was refined into the AR-15/M-16. One of their newer ones is the AR-50, a bolt action rifle that fires the .50 cartridge.

 

There was a video a few years ago where a guy had 3 weapons on a table, and asked people which of them should be banned, and which was the most deadly. And almost universally they pointed to the AR-15. Saying it was the most deadly, and should be banned.

The one that most said was just a "Hunting Rifle" and was OK was the M-14. That was chambered in 7.62 NATO, a far more deadly round than the 5.56mm AR-15. Another they were fine with was the Ruger Mini 14. Which is literally pretty much an AR-15, but with a more conventional wood stock instead of a black plastic one. It shows that they only cared about looks, not capabilities.

 

You are probably recollecting the following,


Not much different than the legislatures that base knowledge on common sense ignorance

 

Different one, but very similar. I have seen this one as well.

 

The AR-15 is to the musket as the internet is to the quill.

 

The anti-gun left preys - indeed, depends, on ignorance.

 

Exactly right. And ironically, it is almost always based on the appearance of the weapon and nothing else. Like anything else, they are obsessed with looks.

Here is a classic example. I once owned a gun very much like this, and asked some anti-gunners if it should be banned. And of course I got back a lot of responses as to why it should be banned, and how they hoped I was arrested for having it.



And here is the ironic thing for those that know weapons. Even in the People's Republic of California this is not considered an "Assault Rifle", and is perfectly legal to own. That is because what is pictured is simply a modification on the classic Ruger 10/22. A .22 rimfire weapon, which the Assault Weapon laws in California specifically exclude in considering if a weapon is an "Assault Rifle" or not.



Here is the exact same weapon, without the cosmetic changes. It is the exact same gun, no different than if I took a Yugo and slapped on a hood intake, rear spoiler, Lambo doors, and low profile slick tires. Yea, it may look cool, but it is still just another Ruger 10/22.

I also wonder what they would think of this. And yes, it is just another 10/22.



The very thought that somebody can look at these 3 guns and make completely different judgements on them based entirely on looks shows how mental they really are. I guess to people like that, their appearance is much more important than their content.

 

Notice my new signature; it explains the conversation you overheard. It's a quote from an actual liberal but it applies to any liberal.