Dammit Florida

[nate]

Here is an image of our military not using an AR-15, right?

[Jason]

2 minutes ago, nate said:

Bullshit they don't.

 

At one time they did but they no longer do. They are constantly changing what they use as technology gets better

[Jason]

1 minute ago, nate said:

Here is an image of our military not using an AR-15, right?

Looks the same but it's an M4

[Jason]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_individual_weapons_of_the_U.S._Armed_Forces#In_active_service_3

[nate]

The M4A1 is just an updated version of an AR15...

Here is a M4

Here is an AR-15

They are both made by Colt and are revisions of the AR10...

Quote

Following the adoption of the M16 rifle, carbine variants were also adopted for close quarters operations. The CAR-15 family of weapons served through the Vietnam War. However, these carbines had design issues, as "the barrel length was halved" to 10 inches which "upset the ballistics", reducing its range and accuracy and "led to considerable muzzle flash and blast, so that a large flash suppressor had to be fitted".^[7] "Nevertheless, as a short-range weapon it is quite adequate and thus, (despite) its caliber, (the XM177 "Commando") is classed as a submachine gun."^[7] In 1988, Colt began work on a new carbine design called the XM4 combining the best features of the Colt Commando and M16A2 rifles.

The XM4 was given a longer 14.5-inch barrel with the M16A2's 1:7 inch rifle twist, to use the heavier 62-grain M855 rounds. The extended barrel improved the XM4's ballistics, reduced muzzle blast and gave the XM4 the ability to mount a bayonet and the M203 grenade launcher. The XM4 was also given the M16A2's improved rear sight and cartridge deflector, as well as other minor refinements.^{[citation needed]} In 1994, the U.S. military officially accepted the XM4 into service as the M4 carbine to replace M16A2s in certain roles.^[8] The M4 carbine has also replaced most submachine guns and selected handguns in U.S. military service,^[8] as it fires more effective rifle ammunition that offers superior stopping power and is better able to penetrate modern body armor.

 

[Amazing Larry]

Thanks for proving me correct. 

[red321]

9 minutes ago, Angels N Skins said:

Would you be OK with people who have had formal training and have been thoroughly cleared by law enforcement to own these rifles?

That's an interesting question. I would say at a minimum that should be the case...but i would still come back to why.would someone need to own a weapon of this magnitude?

[Jason]

2 minutes ago, nate said:

The M4A1 is just an updated version of an AR15...

Here is a M4

Here is an AR-15

They are both made by Colt and are revisions of the AR10...

 

I believe the only real difference is the select fire. The military has a choice between semi/full auto or burst fire.

[red321]

12 minutes ago, Lawrence said:

Modifying the push button magazine is illegal. 

Yep...sure that's the first thing on a mass shooter's mind.

[nate]

Correct.  All of which can be modified with kits commonly sold at gun shows by the way or by watching a youtube video and some minor fabrication.

[Jason]

2 minutes ago, red321 said:

That's an interesting question. I would say at a minimum that should be the case...but i would still come back to why.would someone need to own a weapon of this magnitude?

I'm not sure the need is that important. The important thing is that some stupid asshole doesn't have one.

[Jason]

1 minute ago, nate said:

Correct.  All of which can be modified with kits commonly sold at gun shows by the way or by watching a youtube video and some minor fabrication.

Those who are willing to break the law should not own one. I will 100% agree with that.

[nate]

Nobody should.  When are you in the military they train you not to just empty the clip fully auto btw.  They train short bursts.

There is no actual reason for anyone to own one unless they plan on killing lots of people with it or expect to face an assault from the government.  Y'allqueda in Oregon were armed to the teeth with them.

[red321]

6 minutes ago, Angels N Skins said:

I'm not sure the need is that important. The important thing is that some stupid asshole doesn't have one.

Fuck'em. We don't always get what we want. They'll have to make do with firearms that aren't designed to slaughter people. 

 

[Jason]

6 minutes ago, nate said:

Nobody should.  When are you in the military they train you not to just empty the clip fully auto btw.  They train short bursts.

There is no actual reason for anyone to own one unless they plan on killing lots of people with it or expect to face an assault from the government.  Y'allqueda in Oregon were armed to the teeth with them.

I can assure you that I did not buy mine for any of those reasons. I enjoy shooting it, nothing more. Your assumption is not correct. There are about 8-9 million of them out there and there are around 300 murders a year committed with rifles (all kinds included). That's a very low number bought for that reason. 

[Adam]

I don't think that "there's no reason to own one" is a good reason for banning things. There's no reason to own a vehicle that goes beyond the highest speed limit in the country. There's no reason to own a lot of things that are commonly owned. 

[nate]

It can easily be used to kill lots of people and has no practical use seems like a good reason to ban one.

I have shot the whole range of M16/AR rifles and they are fun, but your fun comes at the expense of many lives.

[Jay]

I need to pull my old Ruger 10/22 out of the closet and clean it. It's been about 20 years.

Even though it's a .22 it's semi-automatic with a 10-shot magazine. You could probably use it for home protection.

[Adam]

3 minutes ago, nate said:

It can easily be used to kill lots of people and has no practical use seems like a good reason to ban one.

I have shot the whole range of M16/AR rifles and they are fun, but your fun comes at the expense of many lives.

I don't think that position is unreasonable I just have a hard time with the idea that well-intentioned folks can be punished because of what scumbags do. 

[nate]

Explain that to the families of the 50 dead people in FL.

[Amazing Larry]

1 minute ago, nate said:

Explain that to the families of the 50 dead people in FL.

I still don't understand how banning an AR 15 would have stopped what happened in FL. He could have done the same thing with any semi automatic rifle. 

[nate]

I am saying all semi automatic assault rifles should be banned, not just the AR 15.  There should be other restrictions as well.

[AngelsLakersFan]

Remember the good ol' days when every self respecting terrorist was white and hand one of these?

[Jason]

2 minutes ago, Lawrence said:

I still don't understand how banning an AR 15 would have stopped what happened in FL. He could have done the same thing with any semi automatic rifle. 

http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/nyc-crime/dozens-die-fire-illegal-bonx-social-club-1990-article-1.2152091

They'll find a way

[Jason]

2 minutes ago, nate said:

I am saying all semi automatic assault rifles should be banned, not just the AR 15.  There should be other restrictions as well.

That's why the 2nd amendment supporters and gun owners freak out when gun control talks come up. There are law makers that share this view as well.