RE: For Americans tired of NRA bullying.
June 28, 2016 at 9:12 pm
(This post was last modified: June 28, 2016 at 9:51 pm by RetiredArmy.)
Very good, very good.
As for the "sturm" debate, the type of weapon you make reference to there is full-auto capable, a feature not legal in the U.S. without a federal license. Since full-auto isn't an option for the law abiding citizen without an FFL, what remains is just what Rhythm described... two rifles functioning the same with different appearance.
The idea I'm getting from your "sturm" argument is that these weapons are meant for war, and you maybe believe that's where they should stay?
Yes, the original M-16 design was for military contract (again, full-auto functionality). Yes, the U.S. Military largely now uses the M-4 Carbine (this one having a Burst option, also requiring an FFL in civi-life). The AR-15 or any variant is neither of those weapons. The AR-15 is semi-auto, just as many "non-assault" weapons, just looking like the real deal.
I hope the difference here is clear, and that I have shown the argument here boils down to aesthetics. Aesthetics don't mean shit. Function, reliability, accuracy, and simplicity are king. If you look at our top-tier shooters, our CQB experts who do their thing everyday, they don't go with M-4 Carbines in many cases. There are way better battlefield weapons, depending on the mission, many not having the "cool" or "scary" appearance of the M-4/AR-15 (not referring to the dumb-shit skull thing). They don't care if it looks really murderous, they care if it gets the job done.
1. Appearance of a weapon does not influence its' lethality.
2. Banning weapons based on appearance does not affect the functionality of weapons available.
3. Banning weapons based on appearance does set a precedence of doing stupid shit.
4. Doing stupid shit could lead to complete prohibition (as Hillary would have it), benefiting the bad guy.
5. Bad guys and cops have the guns. When seconds count, police are only minutes away.
As for the "sturm" debate, the type of weapon you make reference to there is full-auto capable, a feature not legal in the U.S. without a federal license. Since full-auto isn't an option for the law abiding citizen without an FFL, what remains is just what Rhythm described... two rifles functioning the same with different appearance.
The idea I'm getting from your "sturm" argument is that these weapons are meant for war, and you maybe believe that's where they should stay?
Yes, the original M-16 design was for military contract (again, full-auto functionality). Yes, the U.S. Military largely now uses the M-4 Carbine (this one having a Burst option, also requiring an FFL in civi-life). The AR-15 or any variant is neither of those weapons. The AR-15 is semi-auto, just as many "non-assault" weapons, just looking like the real deal.
I hope the difference here is clear, and that I have shown the argument here boils down to aesthetics. Aesthetics don't mean shit. Function, reliability, accuracy, and simplicity are king. If you look at our top-tier shooters, our CQB experts who do their thing everyday, they don't go with M-4 Carbines in many cases. There are way better battlefield weapons, depending on the mission, many not having the "cool" or "scary" appearance of the M-4/AR-15 (not referring to the dumb-shit skull thing). They don't care if it looks really murderous, they care if it gets the job done.
1. Appearance of a weapon does not influence its' lethality.
2. Banning weapons based on appearance does not affect the functionality of weapons available.
3. Banning weapons based on appearance does set a precedence of doing stupid shit.
4. Doing stupid shit could lead to complete prohibition (as Hillary would have it), benefiting the bad guy.
5. Bad guys and cops have the guns. When seconds count, police are only minutes away.
Creationists are like Slinkys: It's hard not to giggle when they tumble down the stairs.
