AR-15 inventor would be horrified and sickened.

[DanVoils]

The very first AR15 sales ad ever, marketed to the public as a sporting and hunting rifle. Note this was before the military adopted the full auto version, the actual assault rifle, the M16. People are trying to rewrite history and claim the inventor never intended it for civilian use. Well, it was sold for civilian use first!

 

[GIJEW]

"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're not "anti gun"? you might as well be. You're the type of token gun owner they point to when B.O. makes claims like "90% of gun owners support...". As was pointed out up thread, the RKBA/2A isn't about "sporting purposes". Regarding "what does a civilian need?", I noticed photos of business owners joining to defend their shops during the riots in ferguson. They had handguns, shotguns, kalashnikovs, and AR15s. And why not? As for mateen, if he went into that night club with a shotgun wearing bandoliers of ammo like pancho villa, do you think the outcome would have been that different? The bozo who shot up that theater in CO brought an AR15. It promptly jammed and he didn't know what to do about it, so he used his shotgun and inflicted about 70 casualties--and he was an untrained goof.

There is no basis for compromise with the "progressives" (that word means they coming back for more), because they're PC bigots whose agenda is public disarmament. After they take your shotgun because it's the poor mans submachinegun (those were confiscated along with semi auto rifles in australia) they'll come back for your remington model 70, calling it a "sniper rifle", and tell you that "you don't NEED it because you can just go to the grocery store where you won't cause harm and suffering to defenseless animals".

There's an election coming, please "snap out of it"

 

[BluePig]

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.

Yea, you don't see them returning his paychecks.
If they are so sickened and horrified, they would feel the need to make repentance...
But that doesn't fit the rhetoric.

 

[david890]

You're not "anti gun"? you might as well be. You're the type of token gun owner they point to when B.O. makes claims like "90% of gun owners support...". As was pointed out up thread, the RKBA/2A isn't about "sporting purposes". Regarding "what does a civilian need?", I noticed photos of business owners joining to defend their shops during the riots in ferguson. They had handguns, shotguns, kalashnikovs, and AR15s. And why not? As for mateen, if he went into that night club with a shotgun wearing bandoliers of ammo like pancho villa, do you think the outcome would have been that different? The bozo who shot up that theater in CO brought an AR15. It promptly jammed and he didn't know what to do about it, so he used his shotgun and inflicted about 70 casualties--and he was an untrained goof.

"Token gun owner"? I had a pretty nice WW2 collection at one time: two M-1 Garands (Springfield and Winchester), two M-1 Carbines (Inland and National Postal Meter; both - unbeknownst to the folks who sold them to me - had been loaned to the Germans after WW2, making them twice as valuable as a period M-1 Carbine), a Japanese Type 37 and Type 99 "Last Ditch", and a MAS-36. The most I've paid for a single weapon was $3500 for an imported Steyr AUG (this was before MSAR started making theirs; I got my money back when I sold it). I also reload my own ammo - all four calibers. I'm hardly a "token gun owner".

If Mateen had tried to go in with a shotgun, I suspect he would have been shot by the uniformed (but off-duty) OPD cop at the door (who retreated into the club due to power of an AR vs. a service pistol).

James Holmes, that "bozo who shot up that theater in CO" fired 6 rounds from his Remington 870, switched to his AR, firing SIXTY-FIVE rounds from a 100-round drum mag, then 5 from his Glock. His AR mostly certainly WAS NOT "promptly jammed". For an "untrained goof", he managed to kill 12 and wound 70. Imagine if he had been trained; he clears the jam and finishes out with 30+ more rounds from that drum, in addition to his Glock.

No compromise for "progressives"? Here's the Wiki definition of a "Progressive": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressivism. I don't recall Teddy Roosevelt "coming back for more", unless you mean putting aside millions of acre of public land for national parks and such. Horrile!!! Seems to me there are pro- and anti-gun Progressives, if you'd take the time to explore further.

As for "no basis for compromise", that would be the 2A absolutists, such as the NRA and yourself. Newtown and 20 dead KIDS weren't enough to cause any meaningful change in gun laws (aside from some bans on semi-autos, which SCOTUS rightfully refuses to address, if you're one of the "State's Rights" folks). As for what happened in Australia, perhaps you should read this Wiki entry: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_Australia. While firearms were confiscated, owners were compensated. As I noted in my post, how would you feel about receiving a new 1903 Springfield in exchange for your AR? Would it SIGNIFICANTLY affect your shooting habits? It would mine, but only because of the damage to my neck and the recoil of the 1903, not due to my shooting abilities.

Yes, there is an election coming. I'm enjoying watching the Trump campaign implode.

 

[The Bubba Effect]

"Token gun owner"? I had a pretty nice WW2 collection at one time: two M-1 Garands (Springfield and Winchester), two M-1 Carbines (Inland and National Postal Meter; both - unbeknownst to the folks who sold them to me - had been loaned to the Germans after WW2, making them twice as valuable as a period M-1 Carbine), a Japanese Type 37 and Type 99 "Last Ditch", and a MAS-36. The most I've paid for a single weapon was $3500 for an imported Steyr AUG (this was before MSAR started making theirs; I got my money back when I sold it). I also reload my own ammo - all four calibers. I'm hardly a "token gun owner".

If Mateen had tried to go in with a shotgun, I suspect he would have been shot by the uniformed (but off-duty) OPD cop at the door (who retreated into the club due to power of an AR vs. a service pistol).

James Holmes, that "bozo who shot up that theater in CO" fired 6 rounds from his Remington 870, switched to his AR, firing SIXTY-FIVE rounds from a 100-round drum mag, then 5 from his Glock. His AR mostly certainly WAS NOT "promptly jammed". For an "untrained goof", he managed to kill 12 and wound 70. Imagine if he had been trained; he clears the jam and finishes out with 30+ more rounds from that drum, in addition to his Glock.

No compromise for "progressives"? Here's the Wiki definition of a "Progressive": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressivism. I don't recall Teddy Roosevelt "coming back for more", unless you mean putting aside millions of acre of public land for national parks and such. Horrile!!! Seems to me there are pro- and anti-gun Progressives, if you'd take the time to explore further.

As for "no basis for compromise", that would be the 2A absolutists, such as the NRA and yourself. Newtown and 20 dead KIDS weren't enough to cause any meaningful change in gun laws (aside from some bans on semi-autos, which SCOTUS rightfully refuses to address, if you're one of the "State's Rights" folks). As for what happened in Australia, perhaps you should read this Wiki entry: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_Australia. While firearms were confiscated, owners were compensated. As I noted in my post, how would you feel about receiving a new 1903 Springfield in exchange for your AR? Would it SIGNIFICANTLY affect your shooting habits? It would mine, but only because of the damage to my neck and the recoil of the 1903, not due to my shooting abilities.

Yes, there is an election coming. I'm enjoying watching the Trump campaign implode.

Do you mind if I ask you how old you are?

 

[david890]

Yea, you don't see them returning his paychecks.

Paychecks are based on the work Stoner did; I suspect you're thinking of ROYALTIES. But then, you generally don't get royalties for work you did while employed by a company. You might get a patent, but the rights and royalties (for licensing to other companies) belong to the company that paid you. Hiram Maxim made a killing (pun intended) during WW1 by licensing his machine gun to all sides.

Nowhere in Stoner's biography do I see an indication that he intended any of his designs to be used by civilians. The AR-10 (designed before the AR-15) was in competition with the M-14. The Stoner 63 was clearly a military weapon, as was the Bushmaster 25mm auto cannon. Finally, the SR-25 is used primarily by Special Forces.

Those facts don't fit your rhetoric.

 

[david890]

Do you mind if I ask you how old you are?

Mid-50s, Navy veteran, owner of several Class 3/NFA items.

 

[KG1]

The very first AR15 sales ad ever, marketed to the public as a sporting and hunting rifle. Note this was before the military adopted the full auto version, the actual assault rifle, the M16. People are trying to rewrite history and claim the inventor never intended it for civilian use. Well, it was sold for civilian use first!

Wut? This can't possibly be true. It has to be some photoshop trickery.

 

[KG1]

Mid-50s, Navy veteran, owner of several Class 3/NFA items.

You don't need those Class 3/NFA items. Turn them in now before they go on a killing spree.

 

[BogWalker]

Mid-50s, Navy veteran, owner of several Class 3/NFA items.

No civilian needs to own class 3 firearms. You can hunt and defend your home just fine with long barreled rifles and shotguns, and you don't need suppressors, machineguns, or grenade launchers.

Oh, and your Steyr AUG shares the same caliber and very similar fire rates to the rifles used at Newtown and Orlando. You should really consider destroying it as it is clearly a public danger and you should feel ashamed owning it.

Or are you more trustable with firearms than the rest of us lowly peons? "For me but not for thee"?


Hypocrite.

 

[actaeon277]

"Newtown and 20 dead KIDS weren't enough to cause any meaningful change in gun laws"

Well, most murders are done with firearms are pistols or shotguns. So I guess you're okay with losing your pistols and shotguns.
After all, you wouldn't want to be exactly what you are accusing us to be.


"If Mateen had tried to go in with a shotgun, I suspect he would have been shot by the uniformed (but off-duty) OPD cop at the door (who retreated into the club due to power of an AR vs. a service pistol)."

Like this guy retreated "against the power of an MAK-90 vs. a service pistol"?
An Airman's Revenge - 5 Minutes of Terror - NYTimes.com
HistoryLink.org- the Free Online Encyclopedia of Washington State History
That's the story of an airman that rode a bike a quarter mile to a scene (raising his heart beat I imagine). Fired 4 rounds from 70 yards. 2 rounds missed, 1 round to the shoulder, and 1 round to the head.
I guess the rifle wasn't insurmountable.

 

[actaeon277]

As for compromise...


National Firearms Act ("NFA") (1934): Taxes the manufacture and transfer of, and mandates the registration of Title II weapons such as machine guns, short-barreled rifles and shotguns, heavy weapons, explosive ordnance, silencers, and disguised or improvised firearms.

Federal Firearms Act of 1938 ("FFA"): Requires that gun manufacturers, importers, and persons in the business of selling firearms have a Federal Firearms License (FFL). Prohibits the transfer of firearms to certain classes of persons, such as convicted felons.

Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (1968): Prohibited interstate trade in handguns, increased the minimum age to 21 for buying handguns.

Gun Control Act of 1968 ("GCA"): Focuses primarily on regulating interstate commerce in firearms by generally prohibiting interstate firearms transfers except among licensed manufacturers, dealers and importers.

Firearm Owners Protection Act ("FOPA") (1986): Revised and partially repealed the Gun Control Act of 1968. Prohibited the sale to civilians of automatic firearms manufactured after the date of the law's passage. Required ATF approval of transfers of automatic firearms.

Undetectable Firearms Act (1988): Effectively criminalizes, with a few exceptions, the manufacture, importation, sale, shipment, delivery, possession, transfer, or receipt of firearms with less than 3.7 oz of metal content.

Gun-Free School Zones Act (1990): Prohibits unauthorized individuals from knowingly possessing a firearm at a place that the individual knows, or has reasonable cause to believe, is a school zone.

Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act (1993): Requires background checks on most firearm purchasers, depending on seller and venue.

Federal Assault Weapons Ban (1994–2004): Banned semiautomatic assault weapons and large capacity ammunition feeding devices. The law expired in 2004.


Looking for the give and take. You know.... compromise.
Simple Definition of compromise

• : a way of reaching agreement in which each person or group gives up something that was wanted in order to end an argument or dispute
• : something that combines the qualities of two different things
• : a change that makes something worse and that is not done for a good reason

Where did the anti-gunners give up something?
Unless we're talking about the 3rd definition.

 

[david890]

"Newtown and 20 dead KIDS weren't enough to cause any meaningful change in gun laws"

Well, most murders are done with firearms are pistols or shotguns. So I guess you're okay with losing your pistols and shotguns.
After all, you wouldn't want to be exactly what you are accusing us to be.


"If Mateen had tried to go in with a shotgun, I suspect he would have been shot by the uniformed (but off-duty) OPD cop at the door (who retreated into the club due to power of an AR vs. a service pistol)."

Like this guy retreated "against the power of an MAK-90 vs. a service pistol"?
An Airman's Revenge - 5 Minutes of Terror - NYTimes.com
HistoryLink.org- the Free Online Encyclopedia of Washington State History
That's the story of an airman that rode a bike a quarter mile to a scene (raising his heart beat I imagine). Fired 4 rounds from 70 yards. 2 rounds missed, 1 round to the shoulder, and 1 round to the head.
I guess the rifle wasn't insurmountable.

No, I wouldn't be okay with losing my pistols (I own several) or my shotgun (just the one). OTOH, I see no NEED for someone to own a 33-round mag for their Glock. 5-8 is enough for most people.

As for your example, you did not face Mateen, so kindly don't armchair-quarterback the actions of the cop; I have no doubt he wishes he could have done more than he did. I'm also guessing Mateen was much closer than 70 yards to that cop; it's a miracle he even survived. I would argue your example of the airman is an exception, not the rule.

 

[HoughMade]

...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?

The Second Amendment was intended to ensure that the people's right to have military grade weapons for defense of themselves, their communities and their country was untouchable.

Need​? Is the word "need"...as determined by people who can not be trusted to defend themselves, their community or country somewhere in the 2d Amendment that I don't see?

 

[actaeon277]

No, I wouldn't be okay with losing my pistols (I own several) or my shotgun (just the one). OTOH, I see no NEED for someone to own a 33-round mag for their Glock. 5-8 is enough for most people.

As for your example, you did not face Mateen, so kindly don't armchair-quarterback the actions of the cop; I have no doubt he wishes he could have done more than he did. I'm also guessing Mateen was much closer than 70 yards to that cop; it's a miracle he even survived. I would argue your example of the airman is an exception, not the rule.

1st, I did not second guess the actions of the cop.
You in fact brought up the AR vs pistol as AR has SO MUCH POWER, or whatever, that the pistol can not win. Or at least that's the way your post appeared to me.
I merely showed that the pistol against rifle is not always going to go to the rifle.
And after spending 6 years transporting SEALs around the globe, well they were ALWAYS outmanned and outgunned. So, I disagree with "exception".


While you think 5-8 rounds is enough for "most people"...
I don't want to be the "people" that it's NOT good enough for.
Also, many in the country think your 5-8 rounds are TOO MUCH.
So if you can tell them that it's enough for you, than I guess I can tell you 5-8 is not enough for me.

 

[pipelinen]

No, I wouldn't be okay with losing my pistols (I own several) or my shotgun (just the one). OTOH, I see no NEED for someone to own a 33-round mag for their Glock. 5-8 is enough for most people.

As for your example, you did not face Mateen, so kindly don't armchair-quarterback the actions of the cop; I have no doubt he wishes he could have done more than he did. I'm also guessing Mateen was much closer than 70 yards to that cop; it's a miracle he even survived. I would argue your example of the airman is an exception, not the rule.

You are a troll looking for attention.

 

[david890]

As for compromise...


National Firearms Act ("NFA") (1934): Taxes the manufacture and transfer of, and mandates the registration of Title II weapons such as machine guns, short-barreled rifles and shotguns, heavy weapons, explosive ordnance, silencers, and disguised or improvised firearms.

Passed in response to the use of such weapons by criminals. Dillinger, Floyd, etc. Few civilians could afford - or even buy - a Thompson Submachine Gun or B.A.R. (Dillinger's choice of firearm) during the 1930s.

Federal Firearms Act of 1938 ("FFA"): Requires that gun manufacturers, importers, and persons in the business of selling firearms have a Federal Firearms License (FFL). Prohibits the transfer of firearms to certain classes of persons, such as convicted felons.

Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (1968): Prohibited interstate trade in handguns, increased the minimum age to 21 for buying handguns.

Gun Control Act of 1968 ("GCA"): Focuses primarily on regulating interstate commerce in firearms by generally prohibiting interstate firearms transfers except among licensed manufacturers, dealers and importers.

Passed following the assassinations of JFK, Robert Kennedy and MLK, Jr. Without such hi-profile killings, I doubt either would have been passed.

Firearm Owners Protection Act ("FOPA") (1986): Revised and partially repealed the Gun Control Act of 1968. Prohibited the sale to civilians of automatic firearms manufactured after the date of the law's passage. Required ATF approval of transfers of automatic firearms.

Undetectable Firearms Act (1988): Effectively criminalizes, with a few exceptions, the manufacture, importation, sale, shipment, delivery, possession, transfer, or receipt of firearms with less than 3.7 oz of metal content.

Gun-Free School Zones Act (1990): Prohibits unauthorized individuals from knowingly possessing a firearm at a place that the individual knows, or has reasonable cause to believe, is a school zone.

Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act (1993): Requires background checks on most firearm purchasers, depending on seller and venue.

Note that it took 10 years after Reagan and Brady were shot to get the last one passed. Also, the gun show loophole remains open, so anyone can bypass the background check, amirite?

Federal Assault Weapons Ban (1994–2004): Banned semiautomatic assault weapons and large capacity ammunition feeding devices. The law expired in 2004.

Which focused more on where the parts were made and the furniture, not the type of weapon. You could still get an AK-47, so long as it had 10 US-made parts and lacked the "scary" bits of an assault rifle (pistol grip, etc.).

Simple Definition of compromise

• : a way of reaching agreement in which each person or group gives up something that was wanted in order to end an argument or dispute
• : something that combines the qualities of two different things
• : a change that makes something worse and that is not done for a good reason

Tell me, what has the NRA given up in the past 20 years? What has the NRA done to end this dispute? I would argue the financial influence of the NRA (i.e., political bribery and PAC attack ads for anyone they view as "anti-gun") qualifies as meeting your 3rd definition quite accurately. The NRA used to be like the CMP, until it was hijacked by 2A absolutists.

 

[VERT]

The AR-15 (like the musket of old) is exactly the type of firearm that the founding fathers had in mind when they wrote the constitution. Technology changes. No different then how social media changes how we view the 1st admendment. There is nothing in the constitution that guarantees the right to own rifles for hunting. My guess is in the eighteenth century people would have looked at you funny for even suggesting such a thing.

Keep in in mind that there are gun owners there are hunters and there are shooters. We need more shooters because the gun owners and hunters will gladly give away our rights either to protect what they view as an investment or because they think it doesn't pertain to them.

 

[KG1]

The Second Amendment was intended to ensure that the people's right to have military grade weapons for defense of themselves, their communities and their country was untouchable.

Need​? Is the word "need"...as determined by people who can not be trusted to defend themselves, their community or country somewhere in the 2d Amendment that I don't see?

Everyone is inherently capable of committing unspeakable horrors with these evil weapons therefore no one should be trusted with them. It's in the 2nd Amendment. I read it in the living document addition.

 

[actaeon277]

Passed in response to the use of such weapons by criminals. Dillinger, Floyd, etc. Few civilians could afford - or even buy - a Thompson Submachine Gun or B.A.R. (Dillinger's choice of firearm) during the 1930s.



Passed following the assassinations of JFK, Robert Kennedy and MLK, Jr. Without such hi-profile killings, I doubt either would have been passed.



Note that it took 10 years after Reagan and Brady were shot to get the last one passed. Also, the gun show loophole remains open, so anyone can bypass the background check, amirite?



Which focused more on where the parts were made and the furniture, not the type of weapon. You could still get an AK-47, so long as it had 10 US-made parts and lacked the "scary" bits of an assault rifle (pistol grip, etc.).





Tell me, what has the NRA given up in the past 20 years? What has the NRA done to end this dispute? I would argue the financial influence of the NRA (i.e., political bribery and PAC attack ads for anyone they view as "anti-gun") qualifies as meeting your 3rd definition quite accurately. The NRA used to be like the CMP, until it was hijacked by 2A absolutists.

What has the NRA given up? I'd say the points were listed above.


I listed things we gave up.
You listed reasons.
I'm still waiting for the things given up by the anti-gun crowd.