AR-15 inventor would be horrified and sickened.

[indyjohn]

It seems the Gatlin family (or the man himself) had the same misery.

 

[KG1]

I kind of wondered if the rights were sold off to allow so many manufacturers to produce spec components? If so, then how much did this family profit? If this line of thinking is correct, it seems to be a little hypocritical to criticize how the gun has been sold.

The AR and all of it's components have been sold to the civilian market for many, many years and I don't believe I have ever read about any objections from the Stoner family up until now.

 

[david890]

The anti crowd sees the AR design as strictly an implement of war but the fact of the matter is, and something they will never understand is that the CIVILIAN version of the AR (yes there is a distinction) represents an all around, general, multi purpose firearm akin to a modern day musket if you will to law abiding 2nd Amendment minded individuals.

"Akin to a modern-day musket"? The best a skilled musketeer could do back in the day was 3 shots per minute. Anyone can buy full-auto parts online for less than $150 (less the full-auto BCG; that's another $100 or so) and use a Dremel to mill out a semi-auto lower into a full-auto lower. So, with a little money and a little work, that "modern-day musket" becomes a full-auto weapon. Add on a 100-round drum mag and imagine what a bad guy could do. Even semi-auto and a drum could kill even more than Orlando.

I own several, so I'm not part of the "anti" crowd. I do, however, think there's no need for the basic AR to be capable of using 20-, 30-, 60- or 100-round magazines. The soul of the AR platform is the in-line arrangement of the barrel, bolt and stock, along with the combination of the BCG and the buffer. With this design, Stoner eliminated several pounds, as well as felt recoil and muzzle rise.

I had to give up my bolt-action .308 because the recoil was just too painful on my neck (2 blown discs; 3 fused vertebrae). However, I built a .300 Blackout, so I have essentially a lower-powered .308, but without the pain.

You could argue the Mauser action is also an "all-around, multi-purpose firearm" because you can get a rifle with a Mauser (or Mannlicher, for that matter) in any caliber you wish, from .17 HMR to .50 BMG. I guess your definition of "multi-purpose" is based on the ability to swap out uppers, but you don't address capacity or lethality, two issues that make the .223 a questionable rifle for civilians.

What would you say if the government confiscated every AR out there, but gave you a brand-new 1903 pattern Springfield as a replacement? 30 rounds down to 5 too much of an "infringement" for you? The 30-06 is NOT an "all-around, multi-purpose" round? Yeah, it might make a mess of a gopher, and might be under-powered for a water buffalo, but how many people shoot either of those?

Neither the AR nor the 1903 is a proper "home defense" weapon, no matter the furniture or add-ons. Just too much chance for over-penetration.

The question from the "antis" is simply this: Does a civilian shooter need a high-capacity magazine and the ease/speed of reloading when other rifles - such as the Remington 700 or Winchester 70 - are available in the caliber of your choice? Do you think Mateen could have killed 49 with a Rem 700 or Win 70 in ANY caliber?

 

[KG1]

Whatever. You don't get it either. My comparison was more symbolic than literal. Some of you are taking this **** way too literally.

 

[david890]

Whatever. You don't get it either. My comparison was more symbolic than literal. Some of you are taking this **** way too literally.

"Whatever"? Please address the issues I raised.

 

[KG1]

"Whatever"? Please address the issues I raised.

Start your own thread if you want to address those issues on whether an AR is suitable or appropriate for civilian use. And while we're at it who are you or anyone else for that matter to determine what I "need" or don't need?

 

[DoggyDaddy]

Why do they make cars that can go faster than 75 mph? Except for maybe a few isolated stretches of highway in Montana or something, there is no place in the U.S. where you can drive faster than 75 legally. Should the government mandate only small 4 cylinder engines with a governor on them to keep them below 75? Why do they make gargantuan boxes of cereal that are sold at places like Sam's club? Nobody needs to eat that much cereal at one sitting, right? Should the government limit the size of cereal boxes to one bowl's worth?

 

[Cygnus]

Why do they make cars that can go faster than 75 mph? Except for maybe a few isolated stretches of highway in Montana or something, there is no place in the U.S. where you can drive faster than 75 legally. Should the government mandate only small 4 cylinder engines with a governor on them to keep them below 75? Why do they make gargantuan boxes of cereal that are sold at places like Sam's club? Nobody needs to eat that much cereal at one sitting, right? Should the government limit the size of cereal boxes to one bowl's worth?

I only want to ban the cars that kill people.....

 

[actaeon277]

It's the modern musket, because the average soldier carried a musket back then.
Now the AR may not be full auto, but it shares the features of
Easy recoil
Box magazine
Modular design
Ability to personalize and add on
Standardized parts.

So it puts civilians in the same game.
Thus, modern day musket.

 

[Titanium_Frost]

"Akin to a modern-day musket"? The best a skilled musketeer could do back in the day was 3 shots per minute. Anyone can buy full-auto parts online for less than $150 (less the full-auto BCG; that's another $100 or so) and use a Dremel to mill out a semi-auto lower into a full-auto lower. So, with a little money and a little work, that "modern-day musket" becomes a full-auto weapon. Add on a 100-round drum mag and imagine what a bad guy could do. Even semi-auto and a drum could kill even more than Orlando.

I own several, so I'm not part of the "anti" crowd. I do, however, think there's no need for the basic AR to be capable of using 20-, 30-, 60- or 100-round magazines. The soul of the AR platform is the in-line arrangement of the barrel, bolt and stock, along with the combination of the BCG and the buffer. With this design, Stoner eliminated several pounds, as well as felt recoil and muzzle rise.

I had to give up my bolt-action .308 because the recoil was just too painful on my neck (2 blown discs; 3 fused vertebrae). However, I built a .300 Blackout, so I have essentially a lower-powered .308, but without the pain.

You could argue the Mauser action is also an "all-around, multi-purpose firearm" because you can get a rifle with a Mauser (or Mannlicher, for that matter) in any caliber you wish, from .17 HMR to .50 BMG. I guess your definition of "multi-purpose" is based on the ability to swap out uppers, but you don't address capacity or lethality, two issues that make the .223 a questionable rifle for civilians.

What would you say if the government confiscated every AR out there, but gave you a brand-new 1903 pattern Springfield as a replacement? 30 rounds down to 5 too much of an "infringement" for you? The 30-06 is NOT an "all-around, multi-purpose" round? Yeah, it might make a mess of a gopher, and might be under-powered for a water buffalo, but how many people shoot either of those?

Neither the AR nor the 1903 is a proper "home defense" weapon, no matter the furniture or add-ons. Just too much chance for over-penetration.

The question from the "antis" is simply this: Does a civilian shooter need a high-capacity magazine and the ease/speed of reloading when other rifles - such as the Remington 700 or Winchester 70 - are available in the caliber of your choice? Do you think Mateen could have killed 49 with a Rem 700 or Win 70 in ANY caliber?

Uh, the bad guys with several full auto converted rifles and plenty of ammo including several drums and full body armor at North Hollywood didn't manage to kill anyone.

 

[Titanium_Frost]

Also... Too much risk of over penetration with an AR for home defense? How clueless are you?

 

[The Bubba Effect]

"Akin to a modern-day musket"? The best a skilled musketeer could do back in the day was 3 shots per minute. Anyone can buy full-auto parts online for less than $150 (less the full-auto BCG; that's another $100 or so) and use a Dremel to mill out a semi-auto lower into a full-auto lower. So, with a little money and a little work, that "modern-day musket" becomes a full-auto weapon. Add on a 100-round drum mag and imagine what a bad guy could do. Even semi-auto and a drum could kill even more than Orlando.

I own several, so I'm not part of the "anti" crowd. I do, however, think there's no need for the basic AR to be capable of using 20-, 30-, 60- or 100-round magazines. The soul of the AR platform is the in-line arrangement of the barrel, bolt and stock, along with the combination of the BCG and the buffer. With this design, Stoner eliminated several pounds, as well as felt recoil and muzzle rise.

I had to give up my bolt-action .308 because the recoil was just too painful on my neck (2 blown discs; 3 fused vertebrae). However, I built a .300 Blackout, so I have essentially a lower-powered .308, but without the pain.

You could argue the Mauser action is also an "all-around, multi-purpose firearm" because you can get a rifle with a Mauser (or Mannlicher, for that matter) in any caliber you wish, from .17 HMR to .50 BMG. I guess your definition of "multi-purpose" is based on the ability to swap out uppers, but you don't address capacity or lethality, two issues that make the .223 a questionable rifle for civilians.

What would you say if the government confiscated every AR out there, but gave you a brand-new 1903 pattern Springfield as a replacement? 30 rounds down to 5 too much of an "infringement" for you? The 30-06 is NOT an "all-around, multi-purpose" round? Yeah, it might make a mess of a gopher, and might be under-powered for a water buffalo, but how many people shoot either of those?

Neither the AR nor the 1903 is a proper "home defense" weapon, no matter the furniture or add-ons. Just too much chance for over-penetration.

The question from the "antis" is simply this: Does a civilian shooter need a high-capacity magazine and the ease/speed of reloading when other rifles - such as the Remington 700 or Winchester 70 - are available in the caliber of your choice? Do you think Mateen could have killed 49 with a Rem 700 or Win 70 in ANY caliber?

It is too much of an infringement for me.


For whatever reason, people like to form groups. Something about inclusion and exclusion really scratches an itch for us. Races, Genders, schools, religions, profesional sports team fans, economic, philosofic, regional, language, it just goes on and on. People like groups.

Most of the time, these overlapping groups get along just fine, every now and then some group gets squared off with another group and there is violence. If one side has a tremendous advantage and enough social inertia, this advantage can spell the end of the road for an entire culture.

We are not going to expose ourselves to genocide to try and prevent occasional mass murders. It is not about defending yourself from a mugger, it is not about shooting paper, clays, or IPSC, or deer.

It is about doing our best to make sure our great grandchildren are not loaded into stock cars or knelt down in rice paddies or put up against a wall by some other group.


At least, that is how I see it.

 

[dirtybird]

"Akin to a modern-day musket"? The best a skilled musketeer could do back in the day was 3 shots per minute. Anyone can buy full-auto parts online for less than $150 (less the full-auto BCG; that's another $100 or so) and use a Dremel to mill out a semi-auto lower into a full-auto lower. So, with a little money and a little work, that "modern-day musket" becomes a full-auto weapon. Add on a 100-round drum mag and imagine what a bad guy could do. Even semi-auto and a drum could kill even more than Orlando.

I own several, so I'm not part of the "anti" crowd. I do, however, think there's no need for the basic AR to be capable of using 20-, 30-, 60- or 100-round magazines. The soul of the AR platform is the in-line arrangement of the barrel, bolt and stock, along with the combination of the BCG and the buffer. With this design, Stoner eliminated several pounds, as well as felt recoil and muzzle rise.

I had to give up my bolt-action .308 because the recoil was just too painful on my neck (2 blown discs; 3 fused vertebrae). However, I built a .300 Blackout, so I have essentially a lower-powered .308, but without the pain.

You could argue the Mauser action is also an "all-around, multi-purpose firearm" because you can get a rifle with a Mauser (or Mannlicher, for that matter) in any caliber you wish, from .17 HMR to .50 BMG. I guess your definition of "multi-purpose" is based on the ability to swap out uppers, but you don't address capacity or lethality, two issues that make the .223 a questionable rifle for civilians.

What would you say if the government confiscated every AR out there, but gave you a brand-new 1903 pattern Springfield as a replacement? 30 rounds down to 5 too much of an "infringement" for you? The 30-06 is NOT an "all-around, multi-purpose" round? Yeah, it might make a mess of a gopher, and might be under-powered for a water buffalo, but how many people shoot either of those?

Neither the AR nor the 1903 is a proper "home defense" weapon, no matter the furniture or add-ons. Just too much chance for over-penetration.

The question from the "antis" is simply this: Does a civilian shooter need a high-capacity magazine and the ease/speed of reloading when other rifles - such as the Remington 700 or Winchester 70 - are available in the caliber of your choice? Do you think Mateen could have killed 49 with a Rem 700 or Win 70 in ANY caliber?

I assume you also tell your doctor and dentist what tools you think he needs to do his job? Who are you to tell my wife what she needs to defend my home from a gang of attackers when I'm not home? Nobody needs 30 rounds? Again, if my wife has 5 people breaking in I want her to have the confidence to defend herself and my children, not be panicked trying to reload mags under stress. I also like how you take a stance against the law abiding, as if a magazine ban prevented the couple in San Bernardino from using 30 round mags. To be honest I don't know why you NEED the Internet with download speeds over 1mb, or why you need a assault vehicle that holds 20 gallons of fuel and goes faster than the speed limit...

 

[Principal Skinr]

Forgive me if I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure Stoner was alive and well when the civilian AR-15 went on the market and I've never read anything about him having a problem with it. I'll happily stand corrected if ignorant of anything he wrote or said. People had these guns for a long time before some bad apples decided to turn it on their victims. They should be upset that these evil people have used this implement of freedom to do harm to innocents. If they believe what they say, then they should be absolutely pissed off at their father/grandfather for inventing such an evil device. Much as they rationalize, they can't have it both ways. He invented a tool. I've never heard the family of the Stanley Tools guy lamenting a nut bag pounding someone's skull in with one of his hammers. It is even more silly for them to act like he intended it to do some purpose other than what it does....kill people.

 

[308jake]

"Akin to a modern-day musket"? The best a skilled musketeer could do back in the day was 3 shots per minute. Anyone can buy full-auto parts online for less than $150 (less the full-auto BCG; that's another $100 or so) and use a Dremel to mill out a semi-auto lower into a full-auto lower. So, with a little money and a little work, that "modern-day musket" becomes a full-auto weapon. Add on a 100-round drum mag and imagine what a bad guy could do. Even semi-auto and a drum could kill even more than Orlando.

I own several, so I'm not part of the "anti" crowd. I do, however, think there's no need for the basic AR to be capable of using 20-, 30-, 60- or 100-round magazines. The soul of the AR platform is the in-line arrangement of the barrel, bolt and stock, along with the combination of the BCG and the buffer. With this design, Stoner eliminated several pounds, as well as felt recoil and muzzle rise.

I had to give up my bolt-action .308 because the recoil was just too painful on my neck (2 blown discs; 3 fused vertebrae). However, I built a .300 Blackout, so I have essentially a lower-powered .308, but without the pain.

You could argue the Mauser action is also an "all-around, multi-purpose firearm" because you can get a rifle with a Mauser (or Mannlicher, for that matter) in any caliber you wish, from .17 HMR to .50 BMG. I guess your definition of "multi-purpose" is based on the ability to swap out uppers, but you don't address capacity or lethality, two issues that make the .223 a questionable rifle for civilians.

What would you say if the government confiscated every AR out there, but gave you a brand-new 1903 pattern Springfield as a replacement? 30 rounds down to 5 too much of an "infringement" for you? The 30-06 is NOT an "all-around, multi-purpose" round? Yeah, it might make a mess of a gopher, and might be under-powered for a water buffalo, but how many people shoot either of those?

Neither the AR nor the 1903 is a proper "home defense" weapon, no matter the furniture or add-ons. Just too much chance for over-penetration.

The question from the "antis" is simply this: Does a civilian shooter need a high-capacity magazine and the ease/speed of reloading when other rifles - such as the Remington 700 or Winchester 70 - are available in the caliber of your choice? Do you think Mateen could have killed 49 with a Rem 700 or Win 70 in ANY caliber?

Please stop before I shart myself from laughing too hard.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

Neither the AR nor the 1903 is a proper "home defense" weapon, no matter the furniture or add-ons. Just too much chance for over-penetration.

Probably want to fact check that. .223/5.56 ammunition suitable for home defense penetrates less than comparable pistol ammunition after dry wall, auto body, etc.

 

[printcraft]

Stop being a gunbutter.

What's tomorrows restrictions after the AR? You do know there will be others if that were to happen right?
"Nobody needs a semiautomatic revolver, All you do is keep pulling the trigger and it keeps firing!!!!!"

 

[actaeon277]

Also, each person's self defense requirements may be different.

 

[pipelinen]

"Akin to a modern-day musket"? The best a skilled musketeer could do back in the day was 3 shots per minute. Anyone can buy full-auto parts online for less than $150 (less the full-auto BCG; that's another $100 or so) and use a Dremel to mill out a semi-auto lower into a full-auto lower. So, with a little money and a little work, that "modern-day musket" becomes a full-auto weapon. Add on a 100-round drum mag and imagine what a bad guy could do. Even semi-auto and a drum could kill even more than Orlando.

I own several, so I'm not part of the "anti" crowd. I do, however, think there's no need for the basic AR to be capable of using 20-, 30-, 60- or 100-round magazines. The soul of the AR platform is the in-line arrangement of the barrel, bolt and stock, along with the combination of the BCG and the buffer. With this design, Stoner eliminated several pounds, as well as felt recoil and muzzle rise.

I had to give up my bolt-action .308 because the recoil was just too painful on my neck (2 blown discs; 3 fused vertebrae). However, I built a .300 Blackout, so I have essentially a lower-powered .308, but without the pain.

You could argue the Mauser action is also an "all-around, multi-purpose firearm" because you can get a rifle with a Mauser (or Mannlicher, for that matter) in any caliber you wish, from .17 HMR to .50 BMG. I guess your definition of "multi-purpose" is based on the ability to swap out uppers, but you don't address capacity or lethality, two issues that make the .223 a questionable rifle for civilians.

What would you say if the government confiscated every AR out there, but gave you a brand-new 1903 pattern Springfield as a replacement? 30 rounds down to 5 too much of an "infringement" for you? The 30-06 is NOT an "all-around, multi-purpose" round? Yeah, it might make a mess of a gopher, and might be under-powered for a water buffalo, but how many people shoot either of those?

Neither the AR nor the 1903 is a proper "home defense" weapon, no matter the furniture or add-ons. Just too much chance for over-penetration.

The question from the "antis" is simply this: Does a civilian shooter need a high-capacity magazine and the ease/speed of reloading when other rifles - such as the Remington 700 or Winchester 70 - are available in the caliber of your choice? Do you think Mateen could have killed 49 with a Rem 700 or Win 70 in ANY caliber?

You are what we refer to as a FUDD. A person who thinks guns are for hunting. Kind of like Elmer Fudd. The Libtards use gun laws as a stepping stone to eventually disarm the whole country. Do I need 30 round magazines or 100 round drums or 200+ round belts probably not but it sure does feel nice to live in the only country in the world where I can have them. Please give up your evil black rifles to somebody here that appreciates freedom.

 

[LarryC]

"Akin to a modern-day musket"? The best a skilled musketeer could do back in the day was 3 shots per minute. Anyone can buy full-auto parts online for less than $150 (less the full-auto BCG; that's another $100 or so) and use a Dremel to mill out a semi-auto lower into a full-auto lower. So, with a little money and a little work, that "modern-day musket" becomes a full-auto weapon. Add on a 100-round drum mag and imagine what a bad guy could do. Even semi-auto and a drum could kill even more than Orlando.

I own several, so I'm not part of the "anti" crowd. I do, however, think there's no need for the basic AR to be capable of using 20-, 30-, 60- or 100-round magazines. The soul of the AR platform is the in-line arrangement of the barrel, bolt and stock, along with the combination of the BCG and the buffer. With this design, Stoner eliminated several pounds, as well as felt recoil and muzzle rise.

I had to give up my bolt-action .308 because the recoil was just too painful on my neck (2 blown discs; 3 fused vertebrae). However, I built a .300 Blackout, so I have essentially a lower-powered .308, but without the pain.

You could argue the Mauser action is also an "all-around, multi-purpose firearm" because you can get a rifle with a Mauser (or Mannlicher, for that matter) in any caliber you wish, from .17 HMR to .50 BMG. I guess your definition of "multi-purpose" is based on the ability to swap out uppers, but you don't address capacity or lethality, two issues that make the .223 a questionable rifle for civilians.

What would you say if the government confiscated every AR out there, but gave you a brand-new 1903 pattern Springfield as a replacement? 30 rounds down to 5 too much of an "infringement" for you? The 30-06 is NOT an "all-around, multi-purpose" round? Yeah, it might make a mess of a gopher, and might be under-powered for a water buffalo, but how many people shoot either of those?

Neither the AR nor the 1903 is a proper "home defense" weapon, no matter the furniture or add-ons. Just too much chance for over-penetration.

The question from the "antis" is simply this: Does a civilian shooter need a high-capacity magazine and the ease/speed of reloading when other rifles - such as the Remington 700 or Winchester 70 - are available in the caliber of your choice? Do you think Mateen could have killed 49 with a Rem 700 or Win 70 in ANY caliber?

Years ago there was a movement to restrict semi-auto rifles of any type. There were shotgun hunters that said since it didn't affect them, they weren't worried! This becomes a very slippery slope. ANY gun restrictions affect all of us. When I read your post I immediately recognized you were a hunter. However the main reason the second amendment exists has very little if anything to do with HUNTING. The reason the framers of our constitution wrote the second amendment was to prevent a Tyrannical Government from having the power to enslave the citizens. No I don't wear a tin hat, but I sure did read History and do remember Hitler and many other Despots that first disarmed the Citizens, then slaughtered them as they wished. Yes it can and will happen again in the future if the citizens are completely disarmed, maybe not a slaughter but complete control of the citizens by a tyrannical leader!

As to how many were killed in the last tragedy, YES the radical Islamic Muslim Terrorist could have killed as many or more using handguns and multiple magazines. When you look at the number of times he had to reload and the time he was in full control of the mass of people I doubt the magazine capacity had much to do with the casualty count. Propane tanks, Gasoline bombs, poison gas, pipe bombs may have caused even more! From the newscasts it stated the back exit was locked so the people had no way out other than past the Terrorist, had he used gasoline to set the place on fire it may have killed hundreds!