The Next Time Someone Calls an AR-15 an Assault Rifle, Show Them This

hm1996

Moderator
Staff member
What constitutes an assault rifle?

Originally Posted By: WilkipediaPrior to its use in U.S. firearms laws, the term "assault weapon" was limited to naming certain military weapons, for example, the Rifleman's Assault Weapon, a grenade launcher developed in 1977 for use with the M16 assault rifle,[19] or the Shoulder-launched Multipurpose Assault Weapon, a rocket launcher introduced in 1984.[20

You've heard the old saw, "beauty is skin deep"? The same applies to the difference between a full- automatic M16 and the cosmetically similar civilian semi-automatic AR15 which requires one trigger pull to fire one shot. Outward appearance is the same, function is daylight and dark. Fully automatic weapons have been heavily restricted since June 26, 1934 by the NFA (National Firearms Act) see regulations here.


The non-shooting public envisions a full-automatic weapon which fires multiple rounds with a single trigger pull because they have been conditioned to do so by the liberal news media, whose main interest is to increase their audience, and their videos of full-auto fire at a watermelon or other reactive targets. Such videos are much more graphic than the semi-automatic fire below:




Quote:

The Next Time Someone Calls an AR-15 an Assault Rifle, Show Them This



By Joe Perticone (2 days ago) | Editor's Choice, Technology

Getty - Brendan Smialowski/AFP

The AR-15 is being dubbed the “weapon of choice” for mass shooters. And the act of terrorism in Orlando has renewed calls for an “assault weapons” ban.

But by any definition of the term, the AR-15 is not an assault rifle.

What constitutes an assault rifle?

An assault rifle needs to hit the mark on three different characteristics.

1. An assault rifle has selective fire.

That means that the user can toggle between at least two settings, semiautomatic and automatic.

The AR-15 is a gas powered semiautomatic rifle, meaning one pull of the trigger corresponds to only one round being fired.

In contrast, the M16 and sometimes the M4, which are the United States military’s small arms rifle of choice, do fire automatically. The M16 and M4 also allow a three-round burst option, which is also not possible on an AR-15.

2. An assault rifle fires an intermediate cartridge.

An intermediate cartridge is less powerful than standard full power battle rifle cartridges, but is still more powerful than the common pistol cartridges. The 5.56 NATO round, used in the M16, is an intermediate cartridge. So is the .223, used in the AR-15.

3. An assault rifle will have a detachable magazine.

The AR-15, like the M16 and the M4, have detachable magazines.

But virtually every modern firearm uses detachable magazines.

Cosmetics.

The AR-15 looks very similar to the M16, which is an actual assault rifle. They are both heavily customizable and have many of the same features.

An AR-15 owner can tack on scopes, muzzle brakes, and spiffy slings. The user can interchange lowers and swap out magazines as well. The AR-15 and the M16 look very similar.

Here is a U.S. Marine aiming an M4.


Image Credit: ADEK BERRY/AFP/GettyImages


And here is a U.S. civilian holding an AR-15.


Image Credit: Adek Berry/AFP/Getty Images

But their functionality could not be more different.

Some misconceptions about the AR-15.

The AR-15 is not that powerful when compared to common hunting rifles. A .223 round is often too small to take down large game like deer and elk.

In many cases, the .223 is prohibited for hunting certain game. Because of its lack of power, it might not fully kill the animal, leading to suffering.

For instance, in the state of Washington, all big game — with the exception of cougar — can only be hunted with a minimum of .24 caliber (6mm) centerfire rifle.

Rather, hunters opt instead for more powerful rounds such as a .30-30 or a .308.


Image Credit: Pinterest

In addition to overestimating its power, inexperienced gun critics often cite the AR-15’s ability to rapid fire.

In the wake of the Orlando attack, Florida Congressman Alan Grayson, a Democrat, told CNN’s Erin Burnett:


“If [Matteen] was not able to buy a weapon that shoots off 700 rounds in a minute, a lot of those people would still be alive. That’s exactly right. If somebody like him had nothing worse to deal with than a Glock pistol…he might have killed three or four people and not 50. It’s way too easy to kill people in America today and we have to think long and hard about what to do about that.”

What Grayson said on national television was false. The AR-15 cannot fire 700 rounds per minute. Such an action would be a physical impossibility.

And while Grayson said “a Glock pistol” can only target “three or four people,” the standard magazine for a Glock 19 holds 15 rounds.

But Burnett didn’t challenge Grayson, instead she told him, “You’re right about that. Thank you very much.”

Another misconception is that the “AR” in AR-15 is an abbreviation for “assault rifle.” It is not. The “AR” is an abbreviation for “ArmaLite Rifle,” after the company that designed the firearm.

So while gun control supporters rally their cohorts to bring about an assault rifle ban, the AR-15 is not an assault rifle. It just looks like one.

Editor’s note: This article was updated after publication.

http://www.ijreview.com/2016/06/627943-h...-and-the-ar-15/

Regards,
hm
 
its easy to understand why there's so much confusion out there regarding "assault weapons" - they cant even keep their Identification guides consistent.




Humor_funny_journalists_guide_to_firearms_ak47_glock.jpg
 
I was watching Lawrence last night and it's like nails on a chalk board to hear him talking about "the devastating power of an Ar type military assault weapon".

I'll say it again, any Remington semi auto .22 or a Ruger .22 pistol can kill just as many people, and someone who is seriously intent on doing so can buy 25 magazines that are far easier to carry than AR magazines with the same amount of bullets.

There is a dialog on both sides that tends to get away from the facts, and that is disturbing because the argument gets away from common sense when the distortions are the dialog.

AR restrictions....NO

Background checks and correlation with police and FBI looking for incidents or reasons to deny someone with reported mental health issues or on the no fly list...YES
 
Originally Posted By: woodguruI was watching Lawrence last night and it's like nails on a chalk board to hear him talking about "the devastating power of an Ar type military assault weapon".

I'll say it again, any Remington semi auto .22 or a Ruger .22 pistol can kill just as many people, and someone who is seriously intent on doing so can buy 25 magazines that are far easier to carry than AR magazines with the same amount of bullets Cartridges. FIFY I know you know, but, sorry, one of my pet peeves; bullet = projectile; cartridge = round of ammunition consistinf of case, primer, powder and bullet.
smile.gif
We all complain of politicians & newscasters who do not know what they are talking about so IMO it is important to use correct nomenclature ourselves.

There is a dialog on both sides that tends to get away from the facts, and that is disturbing because the argument gets away from common sense when the distortions are the dialog.

AR restrictions....NO

Background checks and correlation with police and FBI looking for incidents or reasons to deny someone with reported mental health issues or on the no fly list...YES

The politicians/talking heads would have us believe there are no background checks or at least none required for gunshow and online purchases. We ALL know better but no one ever seems to call them on it so the non-shooting public believes it.

As for no fly list, when due process is considered when placing someone on the no fly list, AND when a suitable appeal procedure is provided should one inadvertently wind up on the no fly list, it would make sense to share that list with the proper LEO agencies* . Until the no fly list is reformed, I DO have a problem with it and that is, by the way, the position the NRA is taking on the issue in spite of what the naysayers are spouting.


* Originally Posted By: Senator Ted Kennedy Aug. 19, 2004: I got on the watch list last April. I was taking a plane to Boston and I get out to the USAIR and I come up to the counter and I said I want my ticket.

They said we can’t give it to you. I say, well, wait a minute, here is a Visa. There must have been a mix-up. And the person behind the gate said, “I can’t sell it to you. You can’t buy a ticket to go on the airline to Boston.” I said well, why not. We just — we can’t tell you. Well, I said, let me talk to the supervisor on that. This is at five of seven. The plane is about to leave and finally, the supervisor said okay.

And I thought it was a mix-up in my office, which it wasn’t. And I got to Boston and said there’s been a mix-up on this thing to Boston. What in the world has ever happened? Is this what happened? Tried to get on the plane back to Washington. You can’t get on the plane. I went up to the desk. I said I’ve been getting on this plane, you know, for 42 years and why can’t I get on the plane back to Boston — back to Washington. And they said you can’t get on the plane back to Washington.

So my administrative assistant talked to the Department of Homeland Security and they said there’s some mistake. It happened three more times and finally Secretary Ridge called to apologize on it. It happened even after he called to apologize because they couldn’t — my name was on the list at the airports and with the airlines and the Homeland Security. He couldn’t get my name off the list for a period of weeks.

Now, if they had that kind of difficulty for a member of Congress, they’d have it — my office has a number of instances where we’ve had the leader of a distinguished medical school in New England and the list goes on. How in the world are average Americans who are going to get caught up in this kind of thing, how are they going to be able to get treated fairly and not have their rights abused?

http://www.factcheck.org/2015/12/ted-kennedy-and-the-no-fly-list-myth/

Regards,
hm

 
Originally Posted By: woodguruI was watching Lawrence last night and it's like nails on a chalk board to hear him talking about "the devastating power of an Ar type military assault weapon".

I'll say it again, any Remington semi auto .22 or a Ruger .22 pistol can kill just as many people, and someone who is seriously intent on doing so can buy 25 magazines that are far easier to carry than AR magazines with the same amount of bullets.

There is a dialog on both sides that tends to get away from the facts, and that is disturbing because the argument gets away from common sense when the distortions are the dialog.

AR restrictions....NO

Background checks and correlation with police and FBI looking for incidents or reasons to deny someone with reported mental health issues or on the no fly list...YES




so what happens when none of the terrorist bastards who are shooting up our citizens are on either the no fly list, or the terror watch lists?


see the san bernadino shooter and the orlando shooter. a no fly/terror list ban wouldnt have stopped either one of them because... wait for it - NEITHER OF THEM WERE ON THOSE LISTS.
 
Quote:See the san bernadino shooter and the orlando shooter. a no fly/terror list ban wouldnt have stopped either one of them because... wait for it - NEITHER OF THEM WERE ON THOSE LISTS.


Neither of their wives were on said list either, one we know for certain was a part of the plan to take American lives, the other we know was involved to some extent, if not involved in every aspect except pulling the trigger.

Doesn't do any good to enter the no-fly list into this matter, when terrorists aren't on it. That is utterly ridiculous!! Leave it to a liberal to suggest a known non-answer, to answer a question they don't understand.
 
Back
Top