AR-15 rifles
 

True North wrote:
On Thursday, 22 February 2018 20:50:48 UTC-4, Alex wrote:
Tim wrote:
Mr. Luddite
- show quoted text -
Why are the AR-15 style rifles the most popular weapon being sold in the
USA today?

.....

Because they “play the part�. Light and accurate.

Though I consider my Steyr AUG a superior weapon, nobody wants one of those Star Wars looking things. But the ease of disassembly and barrel interchange is attractive if you wanna be “tactical�. I like it...

But the AR is “Made in USA “ and the platform for a host of different cartridges. And they look way cool compared to an AK-47/74

Anyhow, back to the Steyr...

https://sofrep.com/68224/steyr-aug-m...odular-rifles/

I have an IWI Tavor that, to me, looks nicer and is more ergonomic:

https://iwi.us/product/tavor-sar-556-w16-barrel/

Of course you do......

I don't care if you believe me, dummy.

AR-15 rifles
 

True North wrote:
On Friday, 23 February 2018 12:36:05 UTC-4, Bill wrote:
True North wrote:
On Thursday, 22 February 2018 21:58:50 UTC-4, Its Me wrote:
snip...
If you want to lessen the ability of sick people to do these types of
mass shootings, you'll have to strip all firearms from the US. Every
long gun, pistol, shotgun... everything. It'll take decades.
snip...


Bingo! Now you're finally talking sense...didn't know y'all had it in you.
Simple fact...too many Americans just can't be trusted with firearms so
the rest of y'all have to suffer for the common good.

How about you and your firearm? Been a few school shootings and even a
major knife attack in your lands. Get rid of firearms and knives. Oh
yeah, ban rental trucks, they have been used to mow down pedestrians not in
the street. It is a breakdown of society.
I'll have to parrot Mr Luddite and Harry here. The main purpose of a rental truck is to move things...the main purpose of all your guns is to kill things. Get it?

Aside from hunting feral pigs, shooting paper is the main purpose for me.

AR-15 rifles
 

Keyser Söze wrote:
Bill wrote:
True North wrote:
On Friday, 23 February 2018 12:36:05 UTC-4, Bill wrote:
True North wrote:
On Thursday, 22 February 2018 21:58:50 UTC-4, Its Me wrote:
snip...
If you want to lessen the ability of sick people to do these types of
mass shootings, you'll have to strip all firearms from the US. Every
long gun, pistol, shotgun... everything. It'll take decades.
snip...


Bingo! Now you're finally talking sense...didn't know y'all had it in you.
Simple fact...too many Americans just can't be trusted with firearms so
the rest of y'all have to suffer for the common good.


How about you and your firearm? Been a few school shootings and even a
major knife attack in your lands. Get rid of firearms and knives. Oh
yeah, ban rental trucks, they have been used to mow down pedestrians not in
the street. It is a breakdown of society.

I'll have to parrot Mr Luddite and Harry here. The main purpose of a
rental truck is to move things...the main purpose of all your guns is to
kill things. Get it?


The main purpose of the 2nd amendment is to keep government in check.



That’s a laugh.


Look what one guy with a pistol did in Sareavo a bunch more years ago.
And the 2nd amendment was instituted for just that reason. You should
have read the Federalist Papers, in place of Russian novels.

AR-15 rifles
 

Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 2/23/2018 2:11 PM, Bill wrote:
Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 2/23/2018 8:01 AM, John H. wrote:
On Thu, 22 Feb 2018 22:59:44 -0500, wrote:

On Thu, 22 Feb 2018 14:14:26 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 2/22/2018 1:21 PM, wrote:
On Thu, 22 Feb 2018 11:33:58 -0500, Keyser Soze
wrote:

On 2/22/18 11:24 AM, wrote:
On Thu, 22 Feb 2018 08:57:24 -0500, Keyser Soze
wrote:

On 2/21/18 9:51 PM, wrote:

Everyone still seems to avoid the fact that this is a kid problem, not
a gun problem. When I was in K-12 lots of kids had easy access to
guns. We were hunting at 14 and this was within a mile of the DC line,
not wyoming. Nobody shot anyone. It was not even in our wildest scope
of thought.


It is a societal problem, exacerbated by the easy availability of most
high-powered firearms. Even in Maryland, there is no state background
check for a long gun, or even a waiting period. You just have to be 21.
And, of course, a long gun sale from one private owner to another in
this state doesn't require any state paperwork.

Tell you a secret. I got rid of my "high-powered" rifles, the Colt and
the Ruger, because they bored me. Basically, my target shooting is
limited to 100 yards unless I want to take a 2-1/2 hour drive out to the
Shenandoah. I don't need superfast, superloud .223 rounds and their
expense and noise to hit easily hit dead .targets at 100 yards or less.
A .22LR, a 9 mm, or a .357 MAG will do that job nicely.

That is simply rationalizing. Plenty of mass shootings have happened
with 9mms, usually pistols but your assault rifle would do just fine.
The "military style" thing is really a red herring. Your CZ is
certainly "military style" and they will sell you a tactical style
stock for just about anything. You can certainly make a very
"military" looking weapon out of a Mini14 or even a 10-22.


What part is "rationalizing"? The AR-15 is the school shoot up weapon of
choice. Any idiot can buy a long gun privately in many parts of this
country without any background check or waiting period. I didn't mention
"military style." You did.


Richard is stuck on the military thing, along with most of the left.


Yes, I am sure some moron can shoot up a school with a CZ Scorpion, but
a $900 9mm rifle is not a weapon of choice for that sort of "fun."

If that is what they had, that is what they would use. The Columbine
boys used a similar Hi Point carbine.


I am not stuck on the "military thing". The military should have the
most lethal weapons available.

I am stuck on military type AR-15s available for civilian purchase
because they have a record of being the weapons of choice for these mass
shootings more often than not. I don't know why they hold such a
fascination for nut cases who want to go kill a bunch of people but they
do. Maybe it's because they are cheap, heavily marketed and available
as you have pointed out.


===

I think the high capacity magazines have a lot to do with it, along
with relatively small size, high power and reliability.

---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com

I'd have no problem with outlawing them also. Again, I don't think it
would be effective, but it
would be 'perceived' as taking action.



More than a ineffective perception, it might be the start of an
awareness that not all guns are suitable or designed for civilian
recreational use. It could be the beginning of a more rational attitude
about firearms without risking 2nd Amendment "rights". I know this
offends many here but I can't think of a legitimate use of a AK-15 style
rifle by recreational shooters other than they are "COOL" to have and
the government, in the interest of the rest of the population, can't do
a damn thing about having one ... or two... or three.






The 2nd amendment was not for hunting.


Oh yeah. It was for a well regulated militia. If you think that refers
to national defense, I guess we can save a lot of money and do away with
the Army, Navy, Marines, Air Force and Coast Guard.

If you interpret that as being a state's right to protect against an
army raised and supported by a tyrannical national government as most
2nd Amendment orientalists (and gun nuts) believe to mean, it really
doesn't matter. If the US Army, Navy, Marines, Air Force and Coast Guard
were ever taken over by a tyrannical national government and turned
against the states and the "well regulated militia" I don't think the
fight would last long.




Had nada with militia. Was the fact that in Europe, arms for the peasants
were extremely limited. Here, they overthrew the British with arms the
locals owned. Peasants for hundreds of years in Europe had nothing to
defend themselves with from the ruling class. Ruling class could own a
crossbow. Peasants were banned as a crossbow bolt would penetrate a
knights armor.

AR-15 rifles
 

On Friday, February 23, 2018 at 10:07:15 PM UTC-5, Bill wrote:
Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 2/23/2018 2:11 PM, Bill wrote:
Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 2/23/2018 8:01 AM, John H. wrote:
On Thu, 22 Feb 2018 22:59:44 -0500, wrote:

On Thu, 22 Feb 2018 14:14:26 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 2/22/2018 1:21 PM, wrote:
On Thu, 22 Feb 2018 11:33:58 -0500, Keyser Soze
wrote:

On 2/22/18 11:24 AM, wrote:
On Thu, 22 Feb 2018 08:57:24 -0500, Keyser Soze
wrote:

On 2/21/18 9:51 PM, wrote:

Everyone still seems to avoid the fact that this is a kid problem, not
a gun problem. When I was in K-12 lots of kids had easy access to
guns. We were hunting at 14 and this was within a mile of the DC line,
not wyoming. Nobody shot anyone. It was not even in our wildest scope
of thought.


It is a societal problem, exacerbated by the easy availability of most
high-powered firearms. Even in Maryland, there is no state background
check for a long gun, or even a waiting period. You just have to be 21.
And, of course, a long gun sale from one private owner to another in
this state doesn't require any state paperwork.

Tell you a secret. I got rid of my "high-powered" rifles, the Colt and
the Ruger, because they bored me. Basically, my target shooting is
limited to 100 yards unless I want to take a 2-1/2 hour drive out to the
Shenandoah. I don't need superfast, superloud .223 rounds and their
expense and noise to hit easily hit dead .targets at 100 yards or less.
A .22LR, a 9 mm, or a .357 MAG will do that job nicely.

That is simply rationalizing. Plenty of mass shootings have happened
with 9mms, usually pistols but your assault rifle would do just fine.
The "military style" thing is really a red herring. Your CZ is
certainly "military style" and they will sell you a tactical style
stock for just about anything. You can certainly make a very
"military" looking weapon out of a Mini14 or even a 10-22.


What part is "rationalizing"? The AR-15 is the school shoot up weapon of
choice. Any idiot can buy a long gun privately in many parts of this
country without any background check or waiting period. I didn't mention
"military style." You did.


Richard is stuck on the military thing, along with most of the left.


Yes, I am sure some moron can shoot up a school with a CZ Scorpion, but
a $900 9mm rifle is not a weapon of choice for that sort of "fun."

If that is what they had, that is what they would use. The Columbine
boys used a similar Hi Point carbine.


I am not stuck on the "military thing". The military should have the
most lethal weapons available.

I am stuck on military type AR-15s available for civilian purchase
because they have a record of being the weapons of choice for these mass
shootings more often than not. I don't know why they hold such a
fascination for nut cases who want to go kill a bunch of people but they
do. Maybe it's because they are cheap, heavily marketed and available
as you have pointed out.


===

I think the high capacity magazines have a lot to do with it, along
with relatively small size, high power and reliability.

---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com

I'd have no problem with outlawing them also. Again, I don't think it
would be effective, but it
would be 'perceived' as taking action.



More than a ineffective perception, it might be the start of an
awareness that not all guns are suitable or designed for civilian
recreational use. It could be the beginning of a more rational attitude
about firearms without risking 2nd Amendment "rights". I know this
offends many here but I can't think of a legitimate use of a AK-15 style
rifle by recreational shooters other than they are "COOL" to have and
the government, in the interest of the rest of the population, can't do
a damn thing about having one ... or two... or three.






The 2nd amendment was not for hunting.


Oh yeah. It was for a well regulated militia. If you think that refers
to national defense, I guess we can save a lot of money and do away with
the Army, Navy, Marines, Air Force and Coast Guard.

If you interpret that as being a state's right to protect against an
army raised and supported by a tyrannical national government as most
2nd Amendment orientalists (and gun nuts) believe to mean, it really
doesn't matter. If the US Army, Navy, Marines, Air Force and Coast Guard
were ever taken over by a tyrannical national government and turned
against the states and the "well regulated militia" I don't think the
fight would last long.




Had nada with militia. Was the fact that in Europe, arms for the peasants
were extremely limited. Here, they overthrew the British with arms the
locals owned. Peasants for hundreds of years in Europe had nothing to
defend themselves with from the ruling class. Ruling class could own a
crossbow. Peasants were banned as a crossbow bolt would penetrate a
knights armor.

I love it when some "old guy" smacks down a liberal's argument.

Sorry, Bill. I'm some years behind you, but hope I get there. :)

AR-15 rifles
 

On Fri, 23 Feb 2018 12:22:50 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 2/23/2018 12:07 PM, wrote:
On Fri, 23 Feb 2018 08:28:10 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 2/23/2018 8:01 AM, John H. wrote:
On Thu, 22 Feb 2018 22:59:44 -0500, wrote:

On Thu, 22 Feb 2018 14:14:26 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 2/22/2018 1:21 PM, wrote:
On Thu, 22 Feb 2018 11:33:58 -0500, Keyser Soze
wrote:

On 2/22/18 11:24 AM, wrote:
On Thu, 22 Feb 2018 08:57:24 -0500, Keyser Soze
wrote:

On 2/21/18 9:51 PM, wrote:

Everyone still seems to avoid the fact that this is a kid problem, not
a gun problem. When I was in K-12 lots of kids had easy access to
guns. We were hunting at 14 and this was within a mile of the DC line,
not wyoming. Nobody shot anyone. It was not even in our wildest scope
of thought.


It is a societal problem, exacerbated by the easy availability of most
high-powered firearms. Even in Maryland, there is no state background
check for a long gun, or even a waiting period. You just have to be 21.
And, of course, a long gun sale from one private owner to another in
this state doesn't require any state paperwork.

Tell you a secret. I got rid of my "high-powered" rifles, the Colt and
the Ruger, because they bored me. Basically, my target shooting is
limited to 100 yards unless I want to take a 2-1/2 hour drive out to the
Shenandoah. I don't need superfast, superloud .223 rounds and their
expense and noise to hit easily hit dead .targets at 100 yards or less.
A .22LR, a 9 mm, or a .357 MAG will do that job nicely.

That is simply rationalizing. Plenty of mass shootings have happened
with 9mms, usually pistols but your assault rifle would do just fine.
The "military style" thing is really a red herring. Your CZ is
certainly "military style" and they will sell you a tactical style
stock for just about anything. You can certainly make a very
"military" looking weapon out of a Mini14 or even a 10-22.


What part is "rationalizing"? The AR-15 is the school shoot up weapon of
choice. Any idiot can buy a long gun privately in many parts of this
country without any background check or waiting period. I didn't mention
"military style." You did.


Richard is stuck on the military thing, along with most of the left.


Yes, I am sure some moron can shoot up a school with a CZ Scorpion, but
a $900 9mm rifle is not a weapon of choice for that sort of "fun."

If that is what they had, that is what they would use. The Columbine
boys used a similar Hi Point carbine.


I am not stuck on the "military thing". The military should have the
most lethal weapons available.

I am stuck on military type AR-15s available for civilian purchase
because they have a record of being the weapons of choice for these mass
shootings more often than not. I don't know why they hold such a
fascination for nut cases who want to go kill a bunch of people but they
do. Maybe it's because they are cheap, heavily marketed and available
as you have pointed out.


===

I think the high capacity magazines have a lot to do with it, along
with relatively small size, high power and reliability.

---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com

I'd have no problem with outlawing them also. Again, I don't think it would be effective, but it
would be 'perceived' as taking action.



More than a ineffective perception, it might be the start of an
awareness that not all guns are suitable or designed for civilian
recreational use. It could be the beginning of a more rational attitude
about firearms without risking 2nd Amendment "rights". I know this
offends many here but I can't think of a legitimate use of a AK-15 style
rifle by recreational shooters other than they are "COOL" to have and
the government, in the interest of the rest of the population, can't do
a damn thing about having one ... or two... or three.


I could make the same argument about just about any car except a 4
cylinder family sedan. Would you ban sports cars? They have no
function except being cool to have and they kill many times more
people than AR 15s.
Should people have to justify having a truck or SUV with a specific
need?
I guarantee you there are plenty of environmentalists who would sign
on to that legislation. Hard core greenies would ban cars altogether
to save the planet.
The slope really starts getting slippery when you start banning
things, simply because of perceptions,.



Yep, as President Reagan said, "There you go again".

You're comparing a car that's purpose is transportation and/or enjoyment
with a AR-15 that's purpose is to shoot things and, too often, people.
When a fatality in a car occurs it's called an "accident".

Like I said. Let's have a *rational* discussion.


You can't be rational when you ignore one "tool" that kills 40,000
people because it is convenient and concentrate on one that kills a
couple hundred. "AR 15" is not the problem. People who want to kill
other people are the problem
What is wrong with the slippery slope argument?
This will not accomplish anything and then people will demand more.
In fact the people who are saying AR15 actually mean any semi auto
with a box magazine. The "why not Australia model" people mean any
repeater. Basically anything that holds more than 2 shots.
They would want background checks, licensing and registration of a
flintlock musket.

AR-15 rifles
 

On Fri, 23 Feb 2018 12:59:44 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 2/23/2018 12:13 PM, wrote:
On Fri, 23 Feb 2018 06:04:07 -0800 (PST), Its Me
wrote:

On Friday, February 23, 2018 at 12:42:43 AM UTC-5, wrote:
On Thu, 22 Feb 2018 20:44:53 -0800 (PST), Its Me
wrote:

A basic "starter kit" AR is $400-500. You have to assemble it (the lower). A good assembled AR is about $1000.

Building one is easy. Once you've done it, you can build a lower in ~20 minutes. The upper, if you have the couple of tools required, shouldn't take more than that.

Rural King will sell you a S&W M&P for $500 ready to go, no assembly
necessary. I even see them less on sale occasionally.

The M&P Sport model is their least expensive and it retails for $739, with a street price of $600+. Rural King seems to be selling them for less than anyone else I've seen.

I think Walmart matches their price or is very close. I really have no
interest in ARs so I don't pay that much attention.
In that regard I almost agree with Richard but I also realize it is
none of my business what others want to do. I understand a homicidal
maniac can buy a prettier gun, like a ranch rifle and do exactly the
same damage. (same ammo, same rate of fire, same size magazines)
We keep forgetting, the first "school shooter" most people remember
killed 14 people and wounded 31 with a bolt action Remington 700.
(Charles Whitman)



For some reason the ability to run down to WalMart to buy an AR-15 type
rifle blows my mind.


There is a background check tho. Why shouldn't you be able to buy a
rifle if you can buy any other kind of gun?

AR-15 rifles
 

On Fri, 23 Feb 2018 14:42:18 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

If you interpret that as being a state's right to protect against an
army raised and supported by a tyrannical national government as most
2nd Amendment orientalists (and gun nuts) believe to mean, it really
doesn't matter. If the US Army, Navy, Marines, Air Force and Coast Guard
were ever taken over by a tyrannical national government and turned
against the states and the "well regulated militia" I don't think the
fight would last long.


Yeah we wiped out those barefoot guys with small arms in Vietnam in a
few weeks. The ones in Afghanistan and Iraq were no problem either.

Tell me, just when did we actually defeat an insurgent uprising? 1865?

AR-15 rifles
 

On Fri, 23 Feb 2018 14:58:08 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:


It meant it then according to the SCOTUS .... or at least they *think*
that's what it meant. Obviously the meaning has been debated for years.

The SCOTUS also affirmed in Heller that this was an individual right,
not only a right in the context of a militia.

AR-15 rifles
 

On Fri, 23 Feb 2018 16:40:15 -0500, Keyser Soze
wrote:

What part of "well-regulated" applies to today's rabble of NRA nutsies

What part of "Congress shall make no law..." applies to a local
government allowing a nativity scene in the park?
If you are going to use the first phrase in an amendment to define the
rest of it, why not start with the first one?