Post by: Bob Noel on August 09, 2016, 07:39:29 AM
Of particular interest is how a "weapon of war" can be distinquished from a rifle or handgun used for target shooting, hunting, home defense (as examples of firearm uses).
Post by: asechrest on August 09, 2016, 07:48:01 AM
Post by: nddons on August 09, 2016, 07:52:56 AM
Question for the anti-gun liberals out there, could someone please define what they mean by "weapon of war"?Anything that Rambo might shoot.
Of particular interest is how a "weapon of war" can be distinquished from a rifle or handgun used for target shooting, hunting, home defense (as examples of firearm uses).
That's the depth of thinking of our liberal "leaders."
Post by: nddons on August 09, 2016, 07:53:32 AM
(http://cdn.wonderfulengineering.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/aircraft-carrier-798x350.jpg)Well played, sir!
Post by: Bob Noel on August 09, 2016, 09:30:13 AM
Anything that Rambo might shoot.
That's the depth of thinking of our liberal "leaders."
I hear (D) "leaders" bleating on and on about "weapons of war" but I haven't seen a rational definition of "weapon of war"
Post by: EppyGA - White Christian Domestic Terrorist on August 09, 2016, 09:32:49 AM
Post by: Dav8or on August 09, 2016, 09:39:50 AM
I hear (D) "leaders" bleating on and on about "weapons of war" but I haven't seen a rational definition of "weapon of war"
I think they mean this. These are scary. We should ban them.
(http://www.metatech.org/wp/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/sword-600w.png)
Post by: nddons on August 09, 2016, 10:12:05 AM
I think they mean this. These are scary. We should ban them.
(http://www.metatech.org/wp/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/sword-600w.png)
Same with a sabre, foil, or epee, as evidenced by the violent way they are being used. We should ban them. (http://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20160809/978cd4d55de4839bbb2c47431c77c6dd.jpg)
Post by: asechrest on August 09, 2016, 11:18:30 AM
Same with a sabre, foil, or epee, as evidenced by the violent way they are being used. We should ban them. (http://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20160809/978cd4d55de4839bbb2c47431c77c6dd.jpg)
I'm going to have to ask you to remove that picture. I feel psychologically micro-aggressed by the assertive stance of that fencer, and along with her antagonistic facial expression, I feel there is some possibility of a panic attack resulting from inappropriate intrusion of my mental safe-space. Perhaps consider replacing it with a picture of a nondescript asexual unicorn feeding a vegan breakfast to an infant chipmunk upon a bed of soft bahiagrass.
Post by: nddons on August 09, 2016, 02:10:41 PM
I'm going to have to ask you to remove that picture. I feel psychologically micro-aggressed by the assertive stance of that fencer, and along with her antagonistic facial expression, I feel there is some possibility of a panic attack resulting from inappropriate intrusion of my mental safe-space. Perhaps consider replacing it with a picture of a nondescript asexual unicorn feeding a vegan breakfast to an infant chipmunk upon a bed of soft bahiagrass.Why do you hate Muslim fencers?
Post by: asechrest on August 09, 2016, 09:13:21 PM
Why do you hate Muslim fencers?
I gotta buy you a beer sometime.
Post by: nddons on August 09, 2016, 09:18:37 PM
I gotta buy you a beer sometime.👍🍺
Post by: Number7 on August 10, 2016, 10:33:01 AM
Post by: Gary on August 10, 2016, 05:20:22 PM
Question for the anti-gun liberals out there, could someone please define what they mean by "weapon of war"?
Of particular interest is how a "weapon of war" can be distinquished from a rifle or handgun used for target shooting, hunting, home defense (as examples of firearm uses).
A good question, don't think it has ever been defined. Seems more an emotional thing rather than something based on physical charateristics. Shouldn't be that way... but that's how the discussion is often framed.
From a different viewpoint, do you believe that the general populace should have unrestricted access to all the firearms available to the military (a weapon of war)?
Post by: Bob Noel on August 10, 2016, 05:58:44 PM
A good question, don't think it has ever been defined. Seems more an emotional thing rather than something based on physical charateristics. Shouldn't be that way... but that's how the discussion is often framed.
I find it intellectually dishonest of the anti-gunners to not define terms like "weapon of war"
From a different viewpoint, do you believe that the general populace should have unrestricted access to all the firearms available to the military (a weapon of war)?
Restrictions on our rights should be logical, rational, based on sound reasoning.
So, a direct answer to your question is that I'm open to restrictions to firearms, if someone can make a sound rational argument.
Post by: You Only Live Twice on August 11, 2016, 05:55:12 AM
I find it intellectually dishonest of the anti-gunners to not define terms like "weapon of war"They can't define it but they know it when they see it. ;)
Post by: bflynn on August 11, 2016, 06:43:51 AM
Post by: Gary on August 11, 2016, 03:35:50 PM
Restrictions on our rights should be logical, rational, based on sound reasoning.
So, a direct answer to your question is that I'm open to restrictions to firearms, if someone can make a sound rational argument.
A reasonable approach. So, it we were to attempt to define a "weapon of war", that would be subject to restrictions (as yet undefined) as far as availability to the general population, what characteristics would it have? I'll start with a few and you can comment.
1.) Automatic fire
2.) greater than say... .50 caliber
3.) rocket propelled
4.) explosive projectile
5.) jacketed or armored projectile
If I think of more, I'll add them. As far as the yet undefined restrictions, I could see them to be pretty broad, anything from simple demonstration of the skill/responsibility to use the weapon, though registration to total prohibition. If we can actually come up with a definition, I
can envision no restrictions whatsoever.
Post by: Little Joe on August 11, 2016, 06:01:32 PM
A reasonable approach. So, it we were to attempt to define a "weapon of war", that would be subject to restrictions (as yet undefined) as far as availability to the general population, what characteristics would it have? I'll start with a few and you can comment.But why should we restrict "weapons of war"? The Constitution says nothing about hunting or self defense or target shooting. It is all about the security of a free state. That sounds like preserving the ability of civilians to wage war to me.
1.) Automatic fire
2.) greater than say... .50 caliber
3.) rocket propelled
4.) explosive projectile
5.) jacketed or armored projectile
If I think of more, I'll add them. As far as the yet undefined restrictions, I could see them to be pretty broad, anything from simple demonstration of the skill/responsibility to use the weapon, though registration to total prohibition. If we can actually come up with a definition, I
can envision no restrictions whatsoever.
But if that is not what the American people want, then there are remedies to change the Constitution, but those remedies are very difficult to achieve.
Post by: Dav8or on August 11, 2016, 08:10:39 PM
Quote
weap·on
ˈwepən
noun
a thing designed or used for inflicting bodily harm or physical damage.
"nuclear weapons"
a means of gaining an advantage or defending oneself in a conflict or contest.
"resignation threats had long been a weapon in his armory"
Quote
war
wôr
noun
1.
a state of armed conflict between different nations or states or different groups within a nation or state.
"Japan declared war on Germany"
synonyms: conflict, warfare, combat, fighting, (military) action, bloodshed, struggle; More
antonyms: peace
a particular armed conflict.
"after the war, they immigrated to America"
a state of competition, conflict, or hostility between different people or groups.
"she was at war with her parents"
a sustained effort to deal with or end a particular unpleasant or undesirable situation or condition.
"the authorities are waging war against all forms of smuggling"
synonyms: campaign, crusade, battle, fight, struggle, movement, drive
"the war against drugs"
verb
verb: war; 3rd person present: wars; past tense: warred; past participle: warred; gerund or present participle: warring
1.
engage in a war.
"small states warred against each other"
synonyms: fight (against), battle (against), combat (against), wage war against, take up arms against;
Combine the two.
Post by: You Only Live Twice on August 11, 2016, 08:23:39 PM
Post by: nddons on August 11, 2016, 09:29:58 PM
A reasonable approach. So, it we were to attempt to define a "weapon of war", that would be subject to restrictions (as yet undefined) as far as availability to the general population, what characteristics would it have? I'll start with a few and you can comment.
1.) Automatic fire
2.) greater than say... .50 caliber
3.) rocket propelled
4.) explosive projectile
5.) jacketed or armored projectile
If I think of more, I'll add them. As far as the yet undefined restrictions, I could see them to be pretty broad, anything from simple demonstration of the skill/responsibility to use the weapon, though registration to total prohibition. If we can actually come up with a definition, I
can envision no restrictions whatsoever.
#2 would suck for those black powder shooters who shoot 58 caliber muskets.
Of course #5 will stop virtually all rifle hunting, and pistol shooting.
Unintended consequences are a bitch.
Post by: Gary on August 12, 2016, 03:04:08 AM
#2 would suck for those black powder shooters who shoot 58 caliber muskets.
Good point, forgot about them! The size was arbitary.
Of course #5 will stop virtually all rifle hunting, and pistol shooting.
Shows my lack of technical knowledge.. wasn't there some type of uproar a little while back over a special bullet that had armor piercing ability??
Post by: Bob Noel on August 12, 2016, 04:53:48 AM
Good point, forgot about them! The size was arbitary.
Shows my lack of technical knowledge.. wasn't there some type of uproar a little while back over a special bullet that had armor piercing ability??
yep
but jacketed bullets aren't the same as armor piercing.
One advantage of jacketed bullets is reduced lead-fouling. Also, the jacketed bullets tend to be more ballistically consistent (better for competitive target shooting) and allow higher muzzle velocities. Plus using a jacketed bullets means that the shooter doesn't need to fuss with variations in lead hardness. I don't shoot high caliber lead bullets for precision, but my understanding is that hard lead has some advantages, until the muzzle velocities get too high and then they have a tendency to break apart.
Post by: Bob Noel on August 12, 2016, 04:57:40 AM
Combine the two.
so, IEDs would be "weapons of war", yes?
A blunt instrument would be a "weapon of war"?
A hunting rifle?
A 1911?
Post by: bflynn on August 12, 2016, 05:48:27 AM
so, IEDs would be "weapons of war", yes?
A blunt instrument would be a "weapon of war"?
A hunting rifle?
A 1911?
KBAR?
Pitchfork?
Fists?
Post by: Bob Noel on August 12, 2016, 06:34:35 AM
Fists?
as an aside, according to FBI statistics (2009 iirc), more people were kicked or beaten (fists) to death than were killed with a rifle...any kind of rifle, not just the evil black gun.
Post by: Username on August 12, 2016, 07:59:20 AM
Post by: Dav8or on August 12, 2016, 09:42:42 AM
so, IEDs would be "weapons of war", yes?
A blunt instrument would be a "weapon of war"?
A hunting rifle?
A 1911?
Yep, those are potential weapons of war. However I believe the Liberal definition is a weapon that is specifically designed to make war on other human beings. A sword is a good example of this. A sword is made to kill people. Nobody hunts with a sword and a sword really can't be used for much else. It's design and construction is made with one purpose in mind, to kill, or maim people.
Now apply that to modern day weapons. An aircraft carrier is a weapon of war, a tank is a weapon of war, an F-16 is a weapon of war and now in the firearms world, an M-16 is a weapon of war. Why?
The M-16 was designed to do one job, kill or maim people. It was not designed for hunting animals, it was not designed to shoot paper targets and it was not designed for personal protection excepting of course on the battlefield. However, it just happens that the M-16 can be used for hunting small game, it can be used for shooting paper targets and in some instances it can be used for personal protection.
However a Liberal would say that secondary uses do not excuse it from being a weapon of war as defined as being a machine specifically designed to kill or maim people. I'm just saying this is how they see it, don't shoot the messenger. (With or without your weapon of war!)
Post by: nddons on August 12, 2016, 03:14:44 PM
Good point, forgot about them! The size was arbitary.No problem, Gary, and I'm not being critical. But it does highlight the problem with having people who have zero knowledge of guns drafting legislation limiting them, don't you think?
Shows my lack of technical knowledge.. wasn't there some type of uproar a little while back over a special bullet that had armor piercing ability??
There is a picture floating around with Diane Feinstein at a Congressional Hearing or news conference, holding up an AR-15, and her FINGER WAS IN THE TRIGGER GUARD!!!! My God, even the NRA's Eddie the Eagle teaches kids to assume that all firearms are loaded.
Incidentally, there are various grades of body armor, but any jacketed rifle bullet (regardless of the gun it came from) will pierce some of the lower grades of body armor.
Post by: nddons on August 12, 2016, 03:22:30 PM
Yep, those are potential weapons of war. However I believe the Liberal definition is a weapon that is specifically designed to make war on other human beings. A sword is a good example of this. A sword is made to kill people. Nobody hunts with a sword and a sword really can't be used for much else. It's design and construction is made with one purpose in mind, to kill, or maim people.Phew. That clears that up. Since an AR-15 is most decidedly NOT an M-16, can we now dispense with the idiotic foolishness that an AR-15 is a "weapon of war"?
Now apply that to modern day weapons. An aircraft carrier is a weapon of war, a tank is a weapon of war, an F-16 is a weapon of war and now in the firearms world, an M-16 is a weapon of war. Why?
The M-16 was designed to do one job, kill or maim people. It was not designed for hunting animals, it was not designed to shoot paper targets and it was not designed for personal protection excepting of course on the battlefield. However, it just happens that the M-16 can be used for hunting small game, it can be used for shooting paper targets and in some instances it can be used for personal protection.
However a Liberal would say that secondary uses do not excuse it from being a weapon of war as defined as being a machine specifically designed to kill or maim people. I'm just saying this is how they see it, don't shoot the messenger. (With or without your weapon of war!)
Post by: Dav8or on August 12, 2016, 04:53:55 PM
Phew. That clears that up. Since an AR-15 is most decidedly NOT an M-16, can we now dispense with the idiotic foolishness that an AR-15 is a "weapon of war"?
And an AR-15 is a M-16 modified so it's sales would not be restricted by the NFA. There have been further modifications over the years to get around various "assault weapon" bans, but they are silly and minor. We can dispense with all the silliness we want but the Left will not. They will argue that the AR-15 still retains nearly all of the characteristics that make the M-16 a great weapon of war.
Post by: nddons on August 12, 2016, 08:12:15 PM
And an AR-15 is a M-16 modified so it's sales would not be restricted by the NFA. There have been further modifications over the years to get around various "assault weapon" bans, but they are silly and minor. We can dispense with all the silliness we want but the Left will not. They will argue that the AR-15 still retains nearly all of the characteristics that make the M-16 a great weapon of war.Well, except for the select fire feature which is pretty important in the weapon of war business over the last 60 years or so.
Otherwise, all those "characteristics" are cosmetic, and thus rediculous.
Post by: Dav8or on August 12, 2016, 09:39:27 PM
Well, except for the select fire feature which is pretty important in the weapon of war business over the last 60 years or so.
Otherwise, all those "characteristics" are cosmetic, and thus rediculous.
Yeah, sure, if you say so, but IMO, the pro gun movement (which I am a member) needs to be more honest than this. Those other characteristics are much more than "cosmetic". They are actual improvements in the weapon's effectiveness at killing people. At some point we need to change the conversation away from the "The AR-15 and other's like it is just the same as Grandpa's old gun" argument and towards the facts and the true meaning of the Constitution.
Fact- The AR-15 is nearly as good of a killing machine as the M-16. Automatic fire is used mostly for suppressing fire. More often than not, carefully aimed shots get the kill. Fact- The Constitution is about arming the people with the means to counter their government if need be. The AR-15 is a good match for the M-16. Fact- AR-15s and similar "assault rifles" are not used in many homicides, or gun crimes. Fact- Domestic terrorists can get easy access to the AR-15 and it's popular with them.
These are issues that need to be discussed. To say that the AR-15 is just a regular ol' gun, nuthin' to see here, move along... is disingenuous. It is not your grandpa's gun. Rather we should be emphasizing the reasons we should have the AR-15 and why a ban is not needed.
Post by: bflynn on August 13, 2016, 02:34:18 AM
And an AR-15 is a M-16 modified so it's sales would not be restricted by the NFA. There have been further modifications over the years to get around various "assault weapon" bans, but they are silly and minor. We can dispense with all the silliness we want but the Left will not. They will argue that the AR-15 still retains nearly all of the characteristics that make the M-16 a great weapon of war.
You really need to learn history. Because your knowledge is flawed, your entire post is invalid.
The M-16 is a modified AR-15. The AR was the first gun, built and designed prior to the Vietnam War. The ARmalite company sold the AR publicly and then sold the design to Colt who turned it into the M-16 and made it the weapon of the US Army.
The design of it was nothing new. I have a Sears Ranger .22 "rapidfire" rifle from before WWII which operates on the same principle - a bolt is pushed back by the expanding gas, a spring returns the bolt to position, picking up a new round along the way.
Now, using your newly acquired knowledge, go back and read what you wrote.
Post by: Dav8or on August 13, 2016, 07:57:22 AM
You really need to learn history. Because your knowledge is flawed, your entire post is invalid.
The M-16 is a modified AR-15. The AR was the first gun, built and designed prior to the Vietnam War. The ARmalite company sold the AR publicly and then sold the design to Colt who turned it into the M-16 and made it the weapon of the US Army.
Now, using your newly acquired knowledge, go back and read what you wrote.
Hey professor Dipshit, you really need to learn actual history not just fantasy history. Because your knowledge of history is fabricated, your critique of my post is invalid.
Armalite designed and built the AR-10 for the military but it was not accepted by the US military, however some foreign militaries did buy it. The AR-10 was always selective fire. At the request of The US militry they redesigned the AR-10 to use the Remington .223 round and the AR-15 was born. It was always a selective fire weapon. Armalite never sold either weapon to the general public.
Armalite was forced to hand the designs for the AR-10 and the AR-15 to Colt manufacturing because they had no large scale manufacturing capability to satisfy the military. Colt's only real change to the design was to change the location of the charging handle from under the carrying handle to the back where it is today. The AR-15 was always selective fire and Colt did not add that. The new design with the rear charging handle was adopted by the US military as the M-16.
It wasn't until 1963-64 that Colt would modify the original AR-15 design to be semi automatic only and sell the rifle to the civilian market. The AR-10 and AR-15 was never, in any way designed to be a civilian rifle. The idea that it was a civilian rifle that the military just happened to like is utter fabrication and a lie. It is most certainly the other way around.
Now that you have actual history, you and Lucifer can go back read what I wrote. If you guys demand citations and links, go look it up yourself. Google "AR-15 history" Lots of factual history there.
Post by: bflynn on August 13, 2016, 09:01:52 AM
Hey professor Dipshit,
And in that note, almost nothing else was read. If your intent was to insult and argue, you failed.
Post by: Bob Noel on August 13, 2016, 11:09:50 AM
Yeah, sure, if you say so, but IMO, the pro gun movement (which I am a member) needs to be more honest than this. Those other characteristics are much more than "cosmetic". They are actual improvements in the weapon's effectiveness at killing people. At some point we need to change the conversation away from the "The AR-15 and other's like it is just the same as Grandpa's old gun" argument and towards the facts and the true meaning of the Constitution.
Fact- The AR-15 is nearly as good of a killing machine as the M-16. Automatic fire is used mostly for suppressing fire. More often than not, carefully aimed shots get the kill. Fact- The Constitution is about arming the people with the means to counter their government if need be. The AR-15 is a good match for the M-16. Fact- AR-15s and similar "assault rifles" are not used in many homicides, or gun crimes. Fact- Domestic terrorists can get easy access to the AR-15 and it's popular with them.
These are issues that need to be discussed. To say that the AR-15 is just a regular ol' gun, nuthin' to see here, move along... is disingenuous. It is not your grandpa's gun. Rather we should be emphasizing the reasons we should have the AR-15 and why a ban is not needed.
fact: improvements made to the "AR-15" type platform have improved the reliability of the rifle, and accuracy. (for example, adding weight helps in shooting competitions but those stock weights and forearm weights would never ever be added to an M-16 intended for combat). (another example, match triggers are an improvement to the "AR-15" type platform but would not last long in combat conditions)
fact: baseball bats are used more often than any form of AR-15 to kill and injure people.
fact: My Bushmaster was designed to be an accurate rifle for shooting competitions.
fact: Although millions and millions of firearms have been sold in the USA, gun deaths have remained relatively flat. and the sad reality is that suicides make up about half of firearm deaths.
"Domestic terrorists can get easy access to the AR-15 and it's popular with them" - well, to that I ask: so what? if the AR-15 wasn't available, domestic terrorists would use something else, like pressure cookers, pipe bombs, or box cutters. Oh wait, they already have used those. It is completely irrational to think that eliminating all AR-15s would stop domestics terrorism (or even slow it down).
I believe that it is NOT incumbent on gun owners to justify why we need any firearm. I believe it is incumbent on the anti-gun <deleted> to justify restricting my constitutional rights.
I do agree honesty is needed in the discussion. Sadly, honesty from the anti-gun crowd is rare. and even more sadly, ignorance seems to be their preferred approach.
Post by: Gary on August 13, 2016, 02:03:07 PM
These are issues that need to be discussed.
Yes they are!
To say that the AR-15 is just a regular ol' gun, nuthin' to see here, move along... is disingenuous.
No, don't believe it is disingenuous, more a matter of degree.
It is not your grandpa's gun.
Other than it's looks, the AR-15 isn't all that different from a number of semi-automatic guns my grandpa owned. I do not believe that looks are a characteristic of a "weapon of war". I do believe that the automatic fire function is a characteristic.
Rather we should be emphasizing the reasons we should have the AR-15 and why a ban is not needed.
Agreed!
Post by: Gary on August 13, 2016, 02:10:25 PM
I do agree honesty is needed in the discussion. Sadly, honesty from the anti-gun crowd is rare. and even more sadly, ignorance seems to be their preferred approach.
There needs to be honesty on both sides. You are correct that there many on the anti-gun crowd that act only on emotion, with few facts, if any. By the same measure, the pro-gun crowd doesn't always act with honesty and have failed to get their message out. Unfortunately, many still attach the NRA to Charlton Heston and his "cold dead hands" speech. There was certainly much publicity (negative unfortunately) of people deciding to bring their AR-15 into Walmart, just because they could.
Post by: Number7 on August 13, 2016, 05:20:38 PM
Post by: JeffDG on August 14, 2016, 11:28:05 AM
Fists?Let me channel my inner liberal for a second...
"The Second Amendment says you have the right to bear arms, it says nothing about below the wrist!"
Post by: Bob Noel on August 15, 2016, 08:32:26 AM
There needs to be honesty on both sides. You are correct that there many on the anti-gun crowd that act only on emotion, with few facts, if any. By the same measure, the pro-gun crowd doesn't always act with honesty and have failed to get their message out. Unfortunately, many still attach the NRA to Charlton Heston and his "cold dead hands" speech. There was certainly much publicity (negative unfortunately) of people deciding to bring their AR-15 into Walmart, just because they could.
No one on the left, excuse me, anti-gun crowd seems to pay attention to the number of times a firearm is used defensively, especially when no shots are fired.
No one on the le... anti-gun crowd seems to pay attention to difference between the tools and the person wielding it (e.g., the corrupt door-mats quote about Vermonts guns committing crimes in New York)
Claims from such stalwarts of liberty like M. Healy (Mass AG) about getting guns off the streets. (sounds good, doesn't it? except my guns aren't on the street)
No on the l... anti-gun crowd seems to pay attention to all the NRA/CMP training about firearm safety. Wave a gun around at either of my 2 gun clubs and there will no shortage of people "counseling" you.
Post by: Bob Noel on August 15, 2016, 08:36:02 AM
There needs to be honesty on both sides. You are correct that there many on the anti-gun crowd that act only on emotion, with few facts, if any. By the same measure, the pro-gun crowd doesn't always act with honesty and have failed to get their message out. Unfortunately, many still attach the NRA to Charlton Heston and his "cold dead hands" speech. There was certainly much publicity (negative unfortunately) of people deciding to bring their AR-15 into Walmart, just because they could.
yes, I cringe when other folks at my club talk about "cold dead fingers"
I cringed at the NRA response to Sandy Hook. It was too predictable and did nothing to address the few valid concerns of the anti-gun crowd. They should have highlighted responsible firearm ownership and how there is a need for dealing with the mentally ill. They should have welcomed any opportunity to address protection from criminals and school safety.
Post by: nddons on August 15, 2016, 11:31:10 AM
yes, I cringe when other folks at my club talk about "cold dead fingers"I rarely disagree with you, Bob, but I think you're off base here. I believe the NRA did, in fact, discuss those things after Sandy Hook. The press didn't cover it, of course, but it was out there.
I cringed at the NRA response to Sandy Hook. It was too predictable and did nothing to address the few valid concerns of the anti-gun crowd. They should have highlighted responsible firearm ownership and how there is a need for dealing with the mentally ill. They should have welcomed any opportunity to address protection from criminals and school safety.
Post by: Anthony on October 24, 2016, 04:59:02 AM
an M-16 is a weapon of war. Why?
The M-16 was designed to do one job, kill or maim people. It was not designed for hunting animals, it was not designed to shoot paper targets and it was not designed for personal protection excepting of course on the battlefield. However, it just happens that the M-16 can be used for hunting small game, it can be used for shooting paper targets and in some instances it can be used for personal protection.
This is incorrect. Eugene Stoner of Armalite (a division of Fairchild Aircraft) designed the AR-15 for civilian use. Hunting, target shooting, and personal defense. Yes, the rifle was semi-automatic only. The Air Force saw the AR-15, and asked that an automatic version be designed for military use. The rest is history. My point is that the original design was for civilian uses stated above, and that is what people are using AR-15's today. It is the most popular modern sporting rifle in the U.S.
Post by: Bob Noel on October 24, 2016, 05:32:45 AM
This is incorrect. Eugene Stoner of Armalite (a division of Fairchild Aircraft) designed the AR-15 for civilian use. Hunting, target shooting, and personal defense. Yes, the rifle was semi-automatic only. The Air Force saw the AR-15, and asked that an automatic version be designed for military use. The rest is history. My point is that the original design was for civilian uses stated above, and that is what people are using AR-15's today. It is the most popular modern sporting rifle in the U.S.
I'm not questioning you, but do you have a reference for your statement above?
Thanks
Post by: PaulS on October 24, 2016, 06:33:48 AM
Post by: bflynn on October 24, 2016, 07:05:10 AM
Why do we accept this premise, "weapon of war" when talking about the 2nd amendment? The musket was a weapon of war, any gun is a weapon of war, a rock is a weapon of war. These phrases and arguments have one purpose, to facilitate infringement of 2nd amendment rights. Bottom line, the 2nd amendment protects an american's right to be armed, go fuck yourself if you feel otherwise.
I would actually argue that responsible, moral citizens should have any weapon of war that they can personally support. People talk about muskets, but let's remember that private ownership of weapons went beyond muskets. In the Revolution, private citizens owned cannons and ships too.
I premised this with describing the citizens are responsible and moral and that is actually where my qualms lie. But ultimately, people have the right to fight in self defense of their freedom. If it comes to a life or death self defense situation and they lose because you have denied them an effective weapon then their blood is on your hands.
Post by: Anthony on October 24, 2016, 09:04:03 AM
I'm not questioning you, but do you have a reference for your statement above?
Thanks
Bob, I am trying to find it. I read a history of the AR-15 many years ago, and can't locate it yet.
Post by: Bob Noel on October 24, 2016, 09:23:44 AM
Bob, I am trying to find it. I read a history of the AR-15 many years ago, and can't locate it yet.
no worries.
The wikipedia stuff would seem to indicate that the first AR-15 was select-fire, and the "AR-15" as we know it today is a directive of the M-16.
Post by: Anthony on October 24, 2016, 09:32:41 AM
no worries.
The wikipedia stuff would seem to indicate that the first AR-15 was select-fire, and the "AR-15" as we know it today is a directive of the M-16.
Wikipedia is often wrong about gun stuff. They also tend to have a liberal slant. The AR-15 was an off shoot of the AR-10 program which was in .308, and larger.
Post by: Witmo on October 25, 2016, 08:52:35 AM
Post by: Anthony on October 25, 2016, 09:00:52 AM
Clearly one of the characteristics of a "weapon of war" is a high capacity magazine. You'd be hardpressed to argue that a sportsman needs a rifle that can fire 30 times or more without reloading while that capability offers a soldier a useful if not essential feature.
Where is the word "sportsmen" in the Second Amendment? Ever hear of a home invasion with multiple assailants? You'd want a standard capacity magazine then.
The Second Amendment has NOTHING to do with hunting, or sport shooting.
Post by: Bob Noel on October 25, 2016, 09:02:12 AM
Clearly one of the characteristics of a "weapon of war" is a high capacity magazine. You'd be hardpressed to argue that a sportsman needs a rifle that can fire 30 times or more without reloading while that capability offers a soldier a useful if not essential feature.
Are you referring to the standard capacity magazines for the AR-15?
in any case, even if your claim is true wrt hunting and 30rd mags, please enlighten us how my having a standard capacity magazine infringes on your (or anyone's) rights.
Post by: Witmo on October 25, 2016, 03:13:56 PM
Post by: PaulS on October 25, 2016, 03:23:30 PM
I'm just offering an opinion of what constitutes a "weapon of war" vs a sport firearm. I happen to believe that the Second Amendment protects the rights of a citizen to own a "weapon of war" and not just some form of firearm chosen by Congress for its limited lethality.
Where does the 2nd amendment say that citizens may only own "sport" firearms?
Post by: Gary on October 25, 2016, 04:05:30 PM
Where does the 2nd amendment say that citizens may only own "sport" firearms?
Don't think it says that anywhere. That then begs the question - should the general citizen have unlimited access to any and all weapons available to the military?
Post by: Anthony on October 25, 2016, 04:52:16 PM
Don't think it says that anywhere. That then begs the question - should the general citizen have unlimited access to any and all weapons available to the military?
I tend not to go to extremes in these arguments because that gets us off track. A standard capacity magazine designed for the intended firearm is a reasonable, common sense item for American citizens to own.
Post by: Gary on October 25, 2016, 05:06:35 PM
I tend not to go to extremes in these arguments because that gets us off track. A standard capacity magazine designed for the intended firearm is a reasonable, common sense item for American citizens to own.
I do understand that talking in extremes doesn't get either side very far. I know that you are quite passionate about gun ownership, and that is perfectly fine with me. I believe that you recognize and accept the responsibility that goes along with gun ownership, there are some that do not, to me that is a problem. Don't remember if it was you or another poster that made the point that guns are just a tool and how they are used makes all the difference. I mostly agree with that, but it is also true that a shotgun has far more destructive power than baseball bat. There has to be a way to have the tens of millions of legal, law-abiding gun owners retain the rights to their gun ownership, yet have a method to keep guns out of the hands of people who shouldn't have them. Yes, realize that brings up the thorny problem of who judges and what those standards are. Wish I had the answer.
Post by: Anthony on October 25, 2016, 05:12:12 PM
I do understand that talking in extremes doesn't get either side very far. I know that you are quite passionate about gun ownership, and that is perfectly fine with me. I believe that you recognize and accept the responsibility that goes along with gun ownership, there are some that do not, to me that is a problem. Don't remember if it was you or another poster that made the point that guns are just a tool and how they are used makes all the difference. I mostly agree with that, but it is also true that a shotgun has far more destructive power than baseball bat. There has to be a way to have the tens of millions of legal, law-abiding gun owners retain the rights to their gun ownership, yet have a method to keep guns out of the hands of people who shouldn't have them. Yes, realize that brings up the thorny problem of who judges and what those standards are. Wish I had the answer.
And a car, SUV, or 18 wheeler truck has far more destructive power than a shotgun, yet we allow teenagers that can pass the easiest test they ever took to wield them. I agree with you, in general, however, that keeping guns out of the hands of the non-law abiding must be the goal. I don't have the answer either, other than enforcing existing laws with harsh penalties, and not plea bargaining down crimes committed with a gun, which seems to be commonplace.
As usual, I think we are on the same page.
Post by: Witmo on October 25, 2016, 05:33:20 PM
Where is the word "sportsmen" in the Second Amendment? Ever hear of a home invasion with multiple assailants? You'd want a standard capacity magazine then.
The Second Amendment has NOTHING to do with hunting, or sport shooting.
I agree 100%.
Post by: Anthony on October 25, 2016, 06:31:09 PM
I agree 100%.
I appreciate your perspective, not only that you agree with me, but are willing to make logical arguments. Thank you.
Post by: PaulS on October 25, 2016, 06:33:00 PM
Don't think it says that anywhere. That then begs the question - should the general citizen have unlimited access to any and all weapons available to the military?
Why not?
Post by: Little Joe on October 25, 2016, 07:33:52 PM
I tend not to go to extremes in these arguments because that gets us off track. A standard capacity magazine designed for the intended firearm is a reasonable, common sense item for American citizens to own.Where does it say "the right to bear sensible arms shall not be infringed.
Every time I have said that the 2nd amendment is vague, someone comes back and says "what is so vague about "shall not be infringed".
Post by: Jim Logajan on October 25, 2016, 08:32:24 PM
Where does it say "the right to bear sensible arms shall not be infringed.
Every time I have said that the 2nd amendment is vague, someone comes back and says "what is so vague about "shall not be infringed".
Well, take a careful read of the First Amendment and explain how laws against fraud and libel are considered constitutional when the plain text seems to exclude their existence? Or that FCC regulations on the content of broadcasts (e.g. profanity, nudity) don't per se violate it?
As I see it, the same process has been used against most of the amendments. Often starting from before the constitution was even written.
Post by: bflynn on October 25, 2016, 08:53:26 PM
And a car, SUV, or 18 wheeler truck has far more destructive power than a shotgun, yet we allow teenagers that can pass the easiest test they ever took to wield them. I agree with you, in general, however, that keeping guns out of the hands of the non-law abiding must be the goal. I don't have the answer either, other than enforcing existing laws with harsh penalties, and not plea bargaining down crimes committed with a gun, which seems to be commonplace.
As usual, I think we are on the same page.
A cannon or a frigate from the 18th century has more destructive power than a shotgun too and we allowed any citizen who could afford them to have them.
I believe the answer lies in very harsh penalties for crimes committed with a gun. Sentences like 50 years for armed robbery and life for anything that includes a murder. No payroll.
Post by: Bob Noel on October 26, 2016, 03:57:00 AM
A cannon or a frigate from the 18th century has more destructive power than a shotgun too and we allowed any citizen who could afford them to have them.
I believe the answer lies in very harsh penalties for crimes committed with a gun. Sentences like 50 years for armed robbery and life for anything that includes a murder. No payroll.
or parole even.
:-)
Post by: JeffDG on October 26, 2016, 04:04:13 AM
Where does the 2nd amendment say that citizens may only own "sport" firearms?It actually says the exact opposite.
The general purpose behind the 2nd was to have an armed populace that the nation could call upon in the event of invasion. That meant that "the people" needed to be armed and trained in such a manner as to be able to fight a war with the weapons they had on hand.
It goes back to the distrust the framers had for standing armies. Having the people armed in their homes meant that a standing army was less needed, as an army could be formed at need from among the people.
Post by: Anthony on October 26, 2016, 04:15:32 AM
Where does it say "the right to bear sensible arms shall not be infringed.
Every time I have said that the 2nd amendment is vague, someone comes back and says "what is so vague about "shall not be infringed".
I was being a bit facetious with those terms, as that is what the Progressives use against us to ultimately ban, and confiscate firearms. I don't like to get into conversations discussing whether the average, law abiding citizens should be able to own nukes, or aircraft carriers because it takes away from the real discussion.