CDZ If weapons of war need to be banned, should this weapon be banned as well?

[2aguy]

Photos of an AR 15 and an M 16
"The United States Army adopted the AR-15 after some modifications as the M16. Colt didn't bury the AR-15 brand, and nowadays they are semi-automatic modern sporting rifles made for civilians, mostly for recreational shooting." https://www.quora.com/Whats-the-difference-between-an-AR15-M4-and-M16

Yes.......the key point...

after some modifications as the M16

They changed the internal workings of the rifle to change it from the semi automatic AR-15 rifle to the select fire, fully automatic capable M16.....

You guys, do you ever think before you post?

So you move your dog and pony act to another place. Here we go again.

In 1964, the USAF purchased a new gun from colt. They wanted a gun that was simple to use, easy to clean and was very light. The purchased 4000 AR-15 Model 601s. These had a brand new style breach like nothing ever had before. The traditional wood was replaced by Space Age Plastic. Many of the parts that were traditionally steel were replaced by Aluminum in the less wear areas. From 1964 to 1967, these were AR-15s, not M-16s. In the end, USAF had purchased over 9000 of these guns. This is the Daddy of ALL AR-15s, M-4s and M-16s.

I won't bore anyone else the minor differences between the M-16 and the Model 601 but had it not been for the Model 601 there would have been NO AR-15 nor M-16 at all. In fact, the weapon I first fired at Basic was an AR-15 Model 601 Mod 16. It wasn't until years after I retired that I learned the difference. The charging handle on the M-16 is a T-handle while the charging handle on a Model 601 is a triangle. Looking back, the one I fired the most had a triangle handle. But I did use both throughout 20 years of service. The AR-15 Model 601 Mod 16 was finally retired around 1992. It lasted in service much longer than I did. And you can own one if you have right around 3 to 7000 bucks and have the proper FFL license. Making it an even rarer find than a M-16 and even cheaper than the M-16 starting out at about 15,000 for a basket case. Own a real AR-15 Model 601 and own a piece of History.

The AR-15 full auto dates back to about 1959 and was sold to 3rd world nations who loved the daylights out of them. Malaysia for instance. The stock on the original AR-15 was traditional wood.

The only difference between a semi auto AR-15 and the M-16 is the ability to accept a full auto receiver. They changed to frame just a bit to not allow the interchange and then clamped down on the sale of the full auto frame. That's it. Almost all parts interchange. The Semi Auto fire rate is exactly the same since the bolt and gas system is the same. And they have removed the full auto feature from the M-16 as of the Model 604 and replaced it with a 3 shot burst. Today, most shots in combat are made in the single shot setting because of the single shot speed and accuracy of the M-16. Meaning, in Combat, there is little difference at all between a Civilian AR-15 or a M-16 in practical use.

Let's not waste anyone elses time on this and let them get back to discussing what they really want to discuss.

They modified the weapon.....the AR-15 civilian rifle is not full auto......how many times do you have to be told that even when you yourself post it in your link........ The AR-15 civilian rifle has never been used in war, has never been used by the military..... is that really, really hard for you to understand?

From your own quote...


The AR-15 full auto dates back to about 1959 and was sold to 3rd world nations who loved the daylights out of them.

And....

The only difference between a semi auto AR-15 and the M-16 is the ability to accept a full auto receiver.

This is essentially saying the only difference between a buggy and an automobile is the ability to accept a horse.........you really need to engage thought before you post.....

And...

Meaning, in Combat, there is little difference at all between a Civilian AR-15 or a M-16 in practical use.

Except the Civilian AR-15 does not have select fire capability, and cannot fire a 3 round burst or fully automatic....and....has never been used in war, or by the military...

There is little difference between a horse and buggy and a care as the buggy is the same as a car...except for the horse....

 

[Daryl Hunt]

Photos of an AR 15 and an M 16
"The United States Army adopted the AR-15 after some modifications as the M16. Colt didn't bury the AR-15 brand, and nowadays they are semi-automatic modern sporting rifles made for civilians, mostly for recreational shooting." https://www.quora.com/Whats-the-difference-between-an-AR15-M4-and-M16

Yes.......the key point...

after some modifications as the M16

They changed the internal workings of the rifle to change it from the semi automatic AR-15 rifle to the select fire, fully automatic capable M16.....

You guys, do you ever think before you post?

So you move your dog and pony act to another place. Here we go again.

In 1964, the USAF purchased a new gun from colt. They wanted a gun that was simple to use, easy to clean and was very light. The purchased 4000 AR-15 Model 601s. These had a brand new style breach like nothing ever had before. The traditional wood was replaced by Space Age Plastic. Many of the parts that were traditionally steel were replaced by Aluminum in the less wear areas. From 1964 to 1967, these were AR-15s, not M-16s. In the end, USAF had purchased over 9000 of these guns. This is the Daddy of ALL AR-15s, M-4s and M-16s.

I won't bore anyone else the minor differences between the M-16 and the Model 601 but had it not been for the Model 601 there would have been NO AR-15 nor M-16 at all. In fact, the weapon I first fired at Basic was an AR-15 Model 601 Mod 16. It wasn't until years after I retired that I learned the difference. The charging handle on the M-16 is a T-handle while the charging handle on a Model 601 is a triangle. Looking back, the one I fired the most had a triangle handle. But I did use both throughout 20 years of service. The AR-15 Model 601 Mod 16 was finally retired around 1992. It lasted in service much longer than I did. And you can own one if you have right around 3 to 7000 bucks and have the proper FFL license. Making it an even rarer find than a M-16 and even cheaper than the M-16 starting out at about 15,000 for a basket case. Own a real AR-15 Model 601 and own a piece of History.

The AR-15 full auto dates back to about 1959 and was sold to 3rd world nations who loved the daylights out of them. Malaysia for instance. The stock on the original AR-15 was traditional wood.

The only difference between a semi auto AR-15 and the M-16 is the ability to accept a full auto receiver. They changed to frame just a bit to not allow the interchange and then clamped down on the sale of the full auto frame. That's it. Almost all parts interchange. The Semi Auto fire rate is exactly the same since the bolt and gas system is the same. And they have removed the full auto feature from the M-16 as of the Model 604 and replaced it with a 3 shot burst. Today, most shots in combat are made in the single shot setting because of the single shot speed and accuracy of the M-16. Meaning, in Combat, there is little difference at all between a Civilian AR-15 or a M-16 in practical use.

Let's not waste anyone elses time on this and let them get back to discussing what they really want to discuss.

They modified the weapon.....the AR-15 civilian rifle is not full auto......how many times do you have to be told that even when you yourself post it in your link........ The AR-15 civilian rifle has never been used in war, has never been used by the military..... is that really, really hard for you to understand?

From your own quote...


The AR-15 full auto dates back to about 1959 and was sold to 3rd world nations who loved the daylights out of them.

And....

The only difference between a semi auto AR-15 and the M-16 is the ability to accept a full auto receiver.

This is essentially saying the only difference between a buggy and an automobile is the ability to accept a horse.........you really need to engage thought before you post.....

And...

Meaning, in Combat, there is little difference at all between a Civilian AR-15 or a M-16 in practical use.

Except the Civilian AR-15 does not have select fire capability, and cannot fire a 3 round burst or fully automatic....and....has never been used in war, or by the military...

There is little difference between a horse and buggy and a care as the buggy is the same as a car...except for the horse....

You are just trying to throw BS into the Ballgame. I used real history from MY history. You don't have any history to choose from. You just try and confuse people. You want to keep everyone confused. I have used all of the types of ARs and M-16s and M-4s. And have used the AR-15 Mod 601, the M-16 and the M-4 in a combat situation. And I can tell you that you just don't use them in any setting other than single shot. You don't even use them in 3 shot bursts. The 3 shot burst only puts the first shot on target and the next two go off wild. If you want to waste Ammo, you would use the older Model 601 and 602 full auto and run out of ammo really really fast and get your ass killed really really fast. Only in the movies do you see a M-16 doing spray and pray. That was the term used to describe it throughout the military. You used single shot almost always. In a practical sense, there is absolutely no difference between a civilian AR-15 and a Military M-16. In combat, you would use both of them exactly the same and wouldn't be able to tell the difference because you would be shooting single trigger pulls.

You have absolutely NO combat time. You only go by what you see in the Movies. Newsflash: The Movies are there to get you to buy tickets and video sales. They aren't there as documentaries. Anyone that says that they used the spray and pray method using a M-16 is a Rexall Ranger and if they were in the Military, they certainly didn't spend any time in a front line unit.

I don't know what your problem is but you are as fake as one could ever get. In normal operation in both in and out of combat, there is NO difference in how a M-16 and a Civilian AR-15 operates. In fact, the M-16 in the 3 shot burst mode couldn't be used with a bump stock but it would be able to be used in the single shot mode exactly like the AR-15. No one has published that because the owners of the M-16s would never try that because they care more for their Weapons that you obviously do yours. They would NEVER do something that stupid with their 15,000+ dollar weapon like you would your 500 buck bargain basement junk.

Again, there isn't enough differences between the AR-15 and the M-16 to even comment on and they operate Exactly the same way because they share more than 95% the same parts. And both would do the same job in a combat situation. If you want a full auto for combat, the SAW, M-240, M-2 and the M-60 carries that load.

 

[westwall]

Methinks we will leave this to SCOTUS, not to 2aguy.

SCOTUS has already ruled on it. The NFA of 1934, the Supremes ruled that a sawed off shotgun could be controlled "because it had no foreseeable military purpose". Game. Set. Match.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

Methinks we will leave this to SCOTUS, not to 2aguy.

SCOTUS has already ruled on it. The NFA of 1934, the Supremes ruled that a sawed off shotgun could be controlled "because it had no foreseeable military purpose". Game. Set. Match.

It also has no foreseeable hunting purposes also. Unless you can get that bird to really really cooperate. And I have yet to see a Pheasant or a Quail that cooperated worth a damned yet.

 

[westwall]

Methinks we will leave this to SCOTUS, not to 2aguy.

SCOTUS has already ruled on it. The NFA of 1934, the Supremes ruled that a sawed off shotgun could be controlled "because it had no foreseeable military purpose". Game. Set. Match.

It also has no foreseeable hunting purposes also. Unless you can get that bird to really really cooperate. And I have yet to see a Pheasant or a Quail that cooperated worth a damned yet.

Which matters not one bit. The 2nd Amendment doesn't care about hunting guns. It cares about the guns that would be used to overthrow an illegitimate government. The Bill of Rights is nine limits on what government can do...and one final option.

 

[there4eyeM]

Photos of an AR 15 and an M 16
"The United States Army adopted the AR-15 after some modifications as the M16. Colt didn't bury the AR-15 brand, and nowadays they are semi-automatic modern sporting rifles made for civilians, mostly for recreational shooting." https://www.quora.com/Whats-the-difference-between-an-AR15-M4-and-M16

Yes.......the key point...

after some modifications as the M16

They changed the internal workings of the rifle to change it from the semi automatic AR-15 rifle to the select fire, fully automatic capable M16.....

You guys, do you ever think before you post?

So you move your dog and pony act to another place. Here we go again.

In 1964, the USAF purchased a new gun from colt. They wanted a gun that was simple to use, easy to clean and was very light. The purchased 4000 AR-15 Model 601s. These had a brand new style breach like nothing ever had before. The traditional wood was replaced by Space Age Plastic. Many of the parts that were traditionally steel were replaced by Aluminum in the less wear areas. From 1964 to 1967, these were AR-15s, not M-16s. In the end, USAF had purchased over 9000 of these guns. This is the Daddy of ALL AR-15s, M-4s and M-16s.

I won't bore anyone else the minor differences between the M-16 and the Model 601 but had it not been for the Model 601 there would have been NO AR-15 nor M-16 at all. In fact, the weapon I first fired at Basic was an AR-15 Model 601 Mod 16. It wasn't until years after I retired that I learned the difference. The charging handle on the M-16 is a T-handle while the charging handle on a Model 601 is a triangle. Looking back, the one I fired the most had a triangle handle. But I did use both throughout 20 years of service. The AR-15 Model 601 Mod 16 was finally retired around 1992. It lasted in service much longer than I did. And you can own one if you have right around 3 to 7000 bucks and have the proper FFL license. Making it an even rarer find than a M-16 and even cheaper than the M-16 starting out at about 15,000 for a basket case. Own a real AR-15 Model 601 and own a piece of History.

The AR-15 full auto dates back to about 1959 and was sold to 3rd world nations who loved the daylights out of them. Malaysia for instance. The stock on the original AR-15 was traditional wood.

The only difference between a semi auto AR-15 and the M-16 is the ability to accept a full auto receiver. They changed to frame just a bit to not allow the interchange and then clamped down on the sale of the full auto frame. That's it. Almost all parts interchange. The Semi Auto fire rate is exactly the same since the bolt and gas system is the same. And they have removed the full auto feature from the M-16 as of the Model 604 and replaced it with a 3 shot burst. Today, most shots in combat are made in the single shot setting because of the single shot speed and accuracy of the M-16. Meaning, in Combat, there is little difference at all between a Civilian AR-15 or a M-16 in practical use.

Let's not waste anyone elses time on this and let them get back to discussing what they really want to discuss.

They modified the weapon.....the AR-15 civilian rifle is not full auto......how many times do you have to be told that even when you yourself post it in your link........ The AR-15 civilian rifle has never been used in war, has never been used by the military..... is that really, really hard for you to understand?

From your own quote...


The AR-15 full auto dates back to about 1959 and was sold to 3rd world nations who loved the daylights out of them.

And....

The only difference between a semi auto AR-15 and the M-16 is the ability to accept a full auto receiver.

This is essentially saying the only difference between a buggy and an automobile is the ability to accept a horse.........you really need to engage thought before you post.....

And...

Meaning, in Combat, there is little difference at all between a Civilian AR-15 or a M-16 in practical use.

Except the Civilian AR-15 does not have select fire capability, and cannot fire a 3 round burst or fully automatic....and....has never been used in war, or by the military...

There is little difference between a horse and buggy and a care as the buggy is the same as a car...except for the horse....

You are just trying to throw BS into the Ballgame. I used real history from MY history. You don't have any history to choose from. You just try and confuse people. You want to keep everyone confused. I have used all of the types of ARs and M-16s and M-4s. And have used the AR-15 Mod 601, the M-16 and the M-4 in a combat situation. And I can tell you that you just don't use them in any setting other than single shot. You don't even use them in 3 shot bursts. The 3 shot burst only puts the first shot on target and the next two go off wild. If you want to waste Ammo, you would use the older Model 601 and 602 full auto and run out of ammo really really fast and get your ass killed really really fast. Only in the movies do you see a M-16 doing spray and pray. That was the term used to describe it throughout the military. You used single shot almost always. In a practical sense, there is absolutely no difference between a civilian AR-15 and a Military M-16. In combat, you would use both of them exactly the same and wouldn't be able to tell the difference because you would be shooting single trigger pulls.

You have absolutely NO combat time. You only go by what you see in the Movies. Newsflash: The Movies are there to get you to buy tickets and video sales. They aren't there as documentaries. Anyone that says that they used the spray and pray method using a M-16 is a Rexall Ranger and if they were in the Military, they certainly didn't spend any time in a front line unit.

I don't know what your problem is but you are as fake as one could ever get. In normal operation in both in and out of combat, there is NO difference in how a M-16 and a Civilian AR-15 operates. In fact, the M-16 in the 3 shot burst mode couldn't be used with a bump stock but it would be able to be used in the single shot mode exactly like the AR-15. No one has published that because the owners of the M-16s would never try that because they care more for their Weapons that you obviously do yours. They would NEVER do something that stupid with their 15,000+ dollar weapon like you would your 500 buck bargain basement junk.

Again, there isn't enough differences between the AR-15 and the M-16 to even comment on and they operate Exactly the same way because they share more than 95% the same parts. And both would do the same job in a combat situation. If you want a full auto for combat, the SAW, M-240, M-2 and the M-60 carries that load.

These guys you're addressing don't care about facts. They just cling to their mock-M16s and dream of glory resisting some imagined oppressive government. They love the idea that they could be like the Minutemen who defeated the British, as if that was what hammened. Meanwhile, the real oppression goes on all around them in a setting where they could make a difference, organizing and voting without arms, and they refuse to see and participate. They demonstrate the essential problem with arms; when one thinks of them all the time and only of them, they become the first option in all situations; the hammer and nail cliché.
Notice, you and I have called for banning nothing.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

Methinks we will leave this to SCOTUS, not to 2aguy.

SCOTUS has already ruled on it. The NFA of 1934, the Supremes ruled that a sawed off shotgun could be controlled "because it had no foreseeable military purpose". Game. Set. Match.

It also has no foreseeable hunting purposes also. Unless you can get that bird to really really cooperate. And I have yet to see a Pheasant or a Quail that cooperated worth a damned yet.

Which matters not one bit. The 2nd Amendment doesn't care about hunting guns. It cares about the guns that would be used to overthrow an illegitimate government. The Bill of Rights is nine limits on what government can do...and one final option.

It's almost funny. If I were to choose a weapon I could buy over the counter to use as an offensive weapon in the event of.....heaven forbid....... it wouldn't be even a full blown M-16, much less an AR-15. I would prefer a Model 700 Bull Barrel 338 Winchester Mag with a decent variable optic scope with a built in range finder. Every gun shop worth it's salts stocks the ammo. Yes, it's slightly below the Lupo but just barely. But it can operate out to about 1500 yds with dead accuracy. with a remarkable kill rate. And it's highly accurate. If they are getting close enough that you can fire your AR then you are close enough for them to fire their M-16 and that's too damned close. I am mountain born. If you want me, I'll be in the Rockies where your choppers, fighters and bombers are pretty well worthless due to heavy cover. Oh, I'll lose sooner or later but it's going to be damned costly when a bunch of us are operating. Remember, they can't use their tanks, ACPs, or any other type vehicles. They are going to be on foot. If they don't bring it with them, they won't have it. And they will be operating at at least 7500 feet in elevation or higher. Maybe the 110th might do okay, but not the other units. We lose when we run out of Ammo, not out of supplies since we don't need to keep supplied. The only supply that we will miss is salt. And spices. The food will be bland to say the least. No matter how good we will be, we will lose. But you won't find one single AR carried in the bunch. The Attacking Force will learn quickly that in that area their M-16s are next to worthless as well. Our initial biggest worry will be the M-2 and M-240 which we won't have which will also have the same range as the 338 winchester Mag.

So, will we even consider doing something so stupid? Nope, Suicide isn't painless. And the 2nd amendment isn't enough to give a fighting chance.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

Photos of an AR 15 and an M 16
"The United States Army adopted the AR-15 after some modifications as the M16. Colt didn't bury the AR-15 brand, and nowadays they are semi-automatic modern sporting rifles made for civilians, mostly for recreational shooting." https://www.quora.com/Whats-the-difference-between-an-AR15-M4-and-M16

Yes.......the key point...

after some modifications as the M16

They changed the internal workings of the rifle to change it from the semi automatic AR-15 rifle to the select fire, fully automatic capable M16.....

You guys, do you ever think before you post?

So you move your dog and pony act to another place. Here we go again.

In 1964, the USAF purchased a new gun from colt. They wanted a gun that was simple to use, easy to clean and was very light. The purchased 4000 AR-15 Model 601s. These had a brand new style breach like nothing ever had before. The traditional wood was replaced by Space Age Plastic. Many of the parts that were traditionally steel were replaced by Aluminum in the less wear areas. From 1964 to 1967, these were AR-15s, not M-16s. In the end, USAF had purchased over 9000 of these guns. This is the Daddy of ALL AR-15s, M-4s and M-16s.

I won't bore anyone else the minor differences between the M-16 and the Model 601 but had it not been for the Model 601 there would have been NO AR-15 nor M-16 at all. In fact, the weapon I first fired at Basic was an AR-15 Model 601 Mod 16. It wasn't until years after I retired that I learned the difference. The charging handle on the M-16 is a T-handle while the charging handle on a Model 601 is a triangle. Looking back, the one I fired the most had a triangle handle. But I did use both throughout 20 years of service. The AR-15 Model 601 Mod 16 was finally retired around 1992. It lasted in service much longer than I did. And you can own one if you have right around 3 to 7000 bucks and have the proper FFL license. Making it an even rarer find than a M-16 and even cheaper than the M-16 starting out at about 15,000 for a basket case. Own a real AR-15 Model 601 and own a piece of History.

The AR-15 full auto dates back to about 1959 and was sold to 3rd world nations who loved the daylights out of them. Malaysia for instance. The stock on the original AR-15 was traditional wood.

The only difference between a semi auto AR-15 and the M-16 is the ability to accept a full auto receiver. They changed to frame just a bit to not allow the interchange and then clamped down on the sale of the full auto frame. That's it. Almost all parts interchange. The Semi Auto fire rate is exactly the same since the bolt and gas system is the same. And they have removed the full auto feature from the M-16 as of the Model 604 and replaced it with a 3 shot burst. Today, most shots in combat are made in the single shot setting because of the single shot speed and accuracy of the M-16. Meaning, in Combat, there is little difference at all between a Civilian AR-15 or a M-16 in practical use.

Let's not waste anyone elses time on this and let them get back to discussing what they really want to discuss.

They modified the weapon.....the AR-15 civilian rifle is not full auto......how many times do you have to be told that even when you yourself post it in your link........ The AR-15 civilian rifle has never been used in war, has never been used by the military..... is that really, really hard for you to understand?

From your own quote...


The AR-15 full auto dates back to about 1959 and was sold to 3rd world nations who loved the daylights out of them.

And....

The only difference between a semi auto AR-15 and the M-16 is the ability to accept a full auto receiver.

This is essentially saying the only difference between a buggy and an automobile is the ability to accept a horse.........you really need to engage thought before you post.....

And...

Meaning, in Combat, there is little difference at all between a Civilian AR-15 or a M-16 in practical use.

Except the Civilian AR-15 does not have select fire capability, and cannot fire a 3 round burst or fully automatic....and....has never been used in war, or by the military...

There is little difference between a horse and buggy and a care as the buggy is the same as a car...except for the horse....

You are just trying to throw BS into the Ballgame. I used real history from MY history. You don't have any history to choose from. You just try and confuse people. You want to keep everyone confused. I have used all of the types of ARs and M-16s and M-4s. And have used the AR-15 Mod 601, the M-16 and the M-4 in a combat situation. And I can tell you that you just don't use them in any setting other than single shot. You don't even use them in 3 shot bursts. The 3 shot burst only puts the first shot on target and the next two go off wild. If you want to waste Ammo, you would use the older Model 601 and 602 full auto and run out of ammo really really fast and get your ass killed really really fast. Only in the movies do you see a M-16 doing spray and pray. That was the term used to describe it throughout the military. You used single shot almost always. In a practical sense, there is absolutely no difference between a civilian AR-15 and a Military M-16. In combat, you would use both of them exactly the same and wouldn't be able to tell the difference because you would be shooting single trigger pulls.

You have absolutely NO combat time. You only go by what you see in the Movies. Newsflash: The Movies are there to get you to buy tickets and video sales. They aren't there as documentaries. Anyone that says that they used the spray and pray method using a M-16 is a Rexall Ranger and if they were in the Military, they certainly didn't spend any time in a front line unit.

I don't know what your problem is but you are as fake as one could ever get. In normal operation in both in and out of combat, there is NO difference in how a M-16 and a Civilian AR-15 operates. In fact, the M-16 in the 3 shot burst mode couldn't be used with a bump stock but it would be able to be used in the single shot mode exactly like the AR-15. No one has published that because the owners of the M-16s would never try that because they care more for their Weapons that you obviously do yours. They would NEVER do something that stupid with their 15,000+ dollar weapon like you would your 500 buck bargain basement junk.

Again, there isn't enough differences between the AR-15 and the M-16 to even comment on and they operate Exactly the same way because they share more than 95% the same parts. And both would do the same job in a combat situation. If you want a full auto for combat, the SAW, M-240, M-2 and the M-60 carries that load.

These guys you're addressing don't care about facts. They just cling to their mock-M16s and dream of glory resisting some imagined oppressive government. They love the idea that they could be like the Minutemen who defeated the British, as if that was what hammened. Meanwhile, the real oppression goes on all around them in a setting where they could make a difference, organizing and voting without arms, and they refuse to see and participate. They demonstrate the essential problem with arms; when one thinks of them all the time and only of them, they become the first option in all situations; the hammer and nail cliché.
Notice, you and I have called for banning nothing.

Yah, I know. They think that Red Dawn could actually happen. Yes, take to the mountains and do excursions off the mountain. Against the US Military, that would work only a few times. And if they sent in regular troops, about the 2nd or 3rd time they would no longer do that. What they would do is to send in the 110th which are Mountain Fighters who are special trained and equipped for that type of fighting. And there would be enough of them to wipe the rebel force out to the man. They think Red Dawn is a Documentary. It's not, it's fiction.

 

[2aguy]

Photos of an AR 15 and an M 16
"The United States Army adopted the AR-15 after some modifications as the M16. Colt didn't bury the AR-15 brand, and nowadays they are semi-automatic modern sporting rifles made for civilians, mostly for recreational shooting." https://www.quora.com/Whats-the-difference-between-an-AR15-M4-and-M16

Yes.......the key point...

after some modifications as the M16

They changed the internal workings of the rifle to change it from the semi automatic AR-15 rifle to the select fire, fully automatic capable M16.....

You guys, do you ever think before you post?

So you move your dog and pony act to another place. Here we go again.

In 1964, the USAF purchased a new gun from colt. They wanted a gun that was simple to use, easy to clean and was very light. The purchased 4000 AR-15 Model 601s. These had a brand new style breach like nothing ever had before. The traditional wood was replaced by Space Age Plastic. Many of the parts that were traditionally steel were replaced by Aluminum in the less wear areas. From 1964 to 1967, these were AR-15s, not M-16s. In the end, USAF had purchased over 9000 of these guns. This is the Daddy of ALL AR-15s, M-4s and M-16s.

I won't bore anyone else the minor differences between the M-16 and the Model 601 but had it not been for the Model 601 there would have been NO AR-15 nor M-16 at all. In fact, the weapon I first fired at Basic was an AR-15 Model 601 Mod 16. It wasn't until years after I retired that I learned the difference. The charging handle on the M-16 is a T-handle while the charging handle on a Model 601 is a triangle. Looking back, the one I fired the most had a triangle handle. But I did use both throughout 20 years of service. The AR-15 Model 601 Mod 16 was finally retired around 1992. It lasted in service much longer than I did. And you can own one if you have right around 3 to 7000 bucks and have the proper FFL license. Making it an even rarer find than a M-16 and even cheaper than the M-16 starting out at about 15,000 for a basket case. Own a real AR-15 Model 601 and own a piece of History.

The AR-15 full auto dates back to about 1959 and was sold to 3rd world nations who loved the daylights out of them. Malaysia for instance. The stock on the original AR-15 was traditional wood.

The only difference between a semi auto AR-15 and the M-16 is the ability to accept a full auto receiver. They changed to frame just a bit to not allow the interchange and then clamped down on the sale of the full auto frame. That's it. Almost all parts interchange. The Semi Auto fire rate is exactly the same since the bolt and gas system is the same. And they have removed the full auto feature from the M-16 as of the Model 604 and replaced it with a 3 shot burst. Today, most shots in combat are made in the single shot setting because of the single shot speed and accuracy of the M-16. Meaning, in Combat, there is little difference at all between a Civilian AR-15 or a M-16 in practical use.

Let's not waste anyone elses time on this and let them get back to discussing what they really want to discuss.

They modified the weapon.....the AR-15 civilian rifle is not full auto......how many times do you have to be told that even when you yourself post it in your link........ The AR-15 civilian rifle has never been used in war, has never been used by the military..... is that really, really hard for you to understand?

From your own quote...


The AR-15 full auto dates back to about 1959 and was sold to 3rd world nations who loved the daylights out of them.

And....

The only difference between a semi auto AR-15 and the M-16 is the ability to accept a full auto receiver.

This is essentially saying the only difference between a buggy and an automobile is the ability to accept a horse.........you really need to engage thought before you post.....

And...

Meaning, in Combat, there is little difference at all between a Civilian AR-15 or a M-16 in practical use.

Except the Civilian AR-15 does not have select fire capability, and cannot fire a 3 round burst or fully automatic....and....has never been used in war, or by the military...

There is little difference between a horse and buggy and a care as the buggy is the same as a car...except for the horse....

You are just trying to throw BS into the Ballgame. I used real history from MY history. You don't have any history to choose from. You just try and confuse people. You want to keep everyone confused. I have used all of the types of ARs and M-16s and M-4s. And have used the AR-15 Mod 601, the M-16 and the M-4 in a combat situation. And I can tell you that you just don't use them in any setting other than single shot. You don't even use them in 3 shot bursts. The 3 shot burst only puts the first shot on target and the next two go off wild. If you want to waste Ammo, you would use the older Model 601 and 602 full auto and run out of ammo really really fast and get your ass killed really really fast. Only in the movies do you see a M-16 doing spray and pray. That was the term used to describe it throughout the military. You used single shot almost always. In a practical sense, there is absolutely no difference between a civilian AR-15 and a Military M-16. In combat, you would use both of them exactly the same and wouldn't be able to tell the difference because you would be shooting single trigger pulls.

You have absolutely NO combat time. You only go by what you see in the Movies. Newsflash: The Movies are there to get you to buy tickets and video sales. They aren't there as documentaries. Anyone that says that they used the spray and pray method using a M-16 is a Rexall Ranger and if they were in the Military, they certainly didn't spend any time in a front line unit.

I don't know what your problem is but you are as fake as one could ever get. In normal operation in both in and out of combat, there is NO difference in how a M-16 and a Civilian AR-15 operates. In fact, the M-16 in the 3 shot burst mode couldn't be used with a bump stock but it would be able to be used in the single shot mode exactly like the AR-15. No one has published that because the owners of the M-16s would never try that because they care more for their Weapons that you obviously do yours. They would NEVER do something that stupid with their 15,000+ dollar weapon like you would your 500 buck bargain basement junk.

Again, there isn't enough differences between the AR-15 and the M-16 to even comment on and they operate Exactly the same way because they share more than 95% the same parts. And both would do the same job in a combat situation. If you want a full auto for combat, the SAW, M-240, M-2 and the M-60 carries that load.

And yet, they are not the same rifle.....again, one has a select fire capability, the other does not......The civilian rifle, the AR-15 is no different from any other semi automatic rifle, pistol or shotgun...which is why people like you are so hard on for banning the AR-15....it is your golden ticket to gun confiscation. If you can get the precedent set that the AR-15 needs to be banned, by the argument you put up in post #67, you will then demand all semi automatic weapons be banned, which you buddies at the CNN Townhall, the anti gun rallies and the school walk outs already exposed. And what people don't realize, if you get semi automatic weapons, you also get revolvers, since they too are semi automatic weapons....and then, by the back door, you get rid of open and concealed carry for self defense, since any ban on semi automatic weapons gets rid of pistols....... You want to ban these weapons, there is no negotiating with you......

And in order to do this, your left wing SJW nuts on the courts have to ignore the law, history and legal precedent.....and they will......we have

D.C. v Heller
Scalia's dissent in Friedman v Highland Park
Mcdonald v City of Chicago
Caetano v Massachusettes
Staples v United States
Murdock v Pennsylvania
Miller v United States...


All of these protect semi automatic rifles through the 2nd Amendment, and the AR-15 is specifically protected as a rifle that is in common use for lawful purposes.......

You have no historical, legal or moral ground to go after these weapons......you are irrational..

 

[there4eyeM]

Methinks we will leave this to SCOTUS, not to 2aguy.

SCOTUS has already ruled on it. The NFA of 1934, the Supremes ruled that a sawed off shotgun could be controlled "because it had no foreseeable military purpose". Game. Set. Match.

It also has no foreseeable hunting purposes also. Unless you can get that bird to really really cooperate. And I have yet to see a Pheasant or a Quail that cooperated worth a damned yet.

Which matters not one bit. The 2nd Amendment doesn't care about hunting guns. It cares about the guns that would be used to overthrow an illegitimate government. The Bill of Rights is nine limits on what government can do...and one final option.

It's almost funny. If I were to choose a weapon I could buy over the counter to use as an offensive weapon in the event of.....heaven forbid....... it wouldn't be even a full blown M-16, much less an AR-15. I would prefer a Model 700 Bull Barrel 338 Winchester Mag with a decent variable optic scope with a built in range finder. Every gun shop worth it's salts stocks the ammo. Yes, it's slightly below the Lupo but just barely. But it can operate out to about 1500 yds with dead accuracy. with a remarkable kill rate. And it's highly accurate. If they are getting close enough that you can fire your AR then you are close enough for them to fire their M-16 and that's too damned close. I am mountain born. If you want me, I'll be in the Rockies where your choppers, fighters and bombers are pretty well worthless due to heavy cover. Oh, I'll lose sooner or later but it's going to be damned costly when a bunch of us are operating. Remember, they can't use their tanks, ACPs, or any other type vehicles. They are going to be on foot. If they don't bring it with them, they won't have it. And they will be operating at at least 7500 feet in elevation or higher. Maybe the 110th might do okay, but not the other units. We lose when we run out of Ammo, not out of supplies since we don't need to keep supplied. The only supply that we will miss is salt. And spices. The food will be bland to say the least. No matter how good we will be, we will lose. But you won't find one single AR carried in the bunch. The Attacking Force will learn quickly that in that area their M-16s are next to worthless as well. Our initial biggest worry will be the M-2 and M-240 which we won't have which will also have the same range as the 338 winchester Mag.

So, will we even consider doing something so stupid? Nope, Suicide isn't painless. And the 2nd amendment isn't enough to give a fighting chance.

Interesting to see someone thinking in the same vein as I. Up close combat was never what I could have withstood, and at my age out of the question. But, I am a very good shot, especially with a rifle. Keep the enemy, at most at the level of Daech videos I've seen, at least a few hundred yards away and you can make their advancement too costly to continue. If we're talking about an organized, trained army, at the level of the U.S.; "hands up! Don't shoot!"
P.S. Don't know anything about the .338; would have thought a .308 would do. I'll have to 'net it.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

Photos of an AR 15 and an M 16
"The United States Army adopted the AR-15 after some modifications as the M16. Colt didn't bury the AR-15 brand, and nowadays they are semi-automatic modern sporting rifles made for civilians, mostly for recreational shooting." https://www.quora.com/Whats-the-difference-between-an-AR15-M4-and-M16

Yes.......the key point...

after some modifications as the M16

They changed the internal workings of the rifle to change it from the semi automatic AR-15 rifle to the select fire, fully automatic capable M16.....

You guys, do you ever think before you post?

So you move your dog and pony act to another place. Here we go again.

In 1964, the USAF purchased a new gun from colt. They wanted a gun that was simple to use, easy to clean and was very light. The purchased 4000 AR-15 Model 601s. These had a brand new style breach like nothing ever had before. The traditional wood was replaced by Space Age Plastic. Many of the parts that were traditionally steel were replaced by Aluminum in the less wear areas. From 1964 to 1967, these were AR-15s, not M-16s. In the end, USAF had purchased over 9000 of these guns. This is the Daddy of ALL AR-15s, M-4s and M-16s.

I won't bore anyone else the minor differences between the M-16 and the Model 601 but had it not been for the Model 601 there would have been NO AR-15 nor M-16 at all. In fact, the weapon I first fired at Basic was an AR-15 Model 601 Mod 16. It wasn't until years after I retired that I learned the difference. The charging handle on the M-16 is a T-handle while the charging handle on a Model 601 is a triangle. Looking back, the one I fired the most had a triangle handle. But I did use both throughout 20 years of service. The AR-15 Model 601 Mod 16 was finally retired around 1992. It lasted in service much longer than I did. And you can own one if you have right around 3 to 7000 bucks and have the proper FFL license. Making it an even rarer find than a M-16 and even cheaper than the M-16 starting out at about 15,000 for a basket case. Own a real AR-15 Model 601 and own a piece of History.

The AR-15 full auto dates back to about 1959 and was sold to 3rd world nations who loved the daylights out of them. Malaysia for instance. The stock on the original AR-15 was traditional wood.

The only difference between a semi auto AR-15 and the M-16 is the ability to accept a full auto receiver. They changed to frame just a bit to not allow the interchange and then clamped down on the sale of the full auto frame. That's it. Almost all parts interchange. The Semi Auto fire rate is exactly the same since the bolt and gas system is the same. And they have removed the full auto feature from the M-16 as of the Model 604 and replaced it with a 3 shot burst. Today, most shots in combat are made in the single shot setting because of the single shot speed and accuracy of the M-16. Meaning, in Combat, there is little difference at all between a Civilian AR-15 or a M-16 in practical use.

Let's not waste anyone elses time on this and let them get back to discussing what they really want to discuss.

They modified the weapon.....the AR-15 civilian rifle is not full auto......how many times do you have to be told that even when you yourself post it in your link........ The AR-15 civilian rifle has never been used in war, has never been used by the military..... is that really, really hard for you to understand?

From your own quote...


The AR-15 full auto dates back to about 1959 and was sold to 3rd world nations who loved the daylights out of them.

And....

The only difference between a semi auto AR-15 and the M-16 is the ability to accept a full auto receiver.

This is essentially saying the only difference between a buggy and an automobile is the ability to accept a horse.........you really need to engage thought before you post.....

And...

Meaning, in Combat, there is little difference at all between a Civilian AR-15 or a M-16 in practical use.

Except the Civilian AR-15 does not have select fire capability, and cannot fire a 3 round burst or fully automatic....and....has never been used in war, or by the military...

There is little difference between a horse and buggy and a care as the buggy is the same as a car...except for the horse....

You are just trying to throw BS into the Ballgame. I used real history from MY history. You don't have any history to choose from. You just try and confuse people. You want to keep everyone confused. I have used all of the types of ARs and M-16s and M-4s. And have used the AR-15 Mod 601, the M-16 and the M-4 in a combat situation. And I can tell you that you just don't use them in any setting other than single shot. You don't even use them in 3 shot bursts. The 3 shot burst only puts the first shot on target and the next two go off wild. If you want to waste Ammo, you would use the older Model 601 and 602 full auto and run out of ammo really really fast and get your ass killed really really fast. Only in the movies do you see a M-16 doing spray and pray. That was the term used to describe it throughout the military. You used single shot almost always. In a practical sense, there is absolutely no difference between a civilian AR-15 and a Military M-16. In combat, you would use both of them exactly the same and wouldn't be able to tell the difference because you would be shooting single trigger pulls.

You have absolutely NO combat time. You only go by what you see in the Movies. Newsflash: The Movies are there to get you to buy tickets and video sales. They aren't there as documentaries. Anyone that says that they used the spray and pray method using a M-16 is a Rexall Ranger and if they were in the Military, they certainly didn't spend any time in a front line unit.

I don't know what your problem is but you are as fake as one could ever get. In normal operation in both in and out of combat, there is NO difference in how a M-16 and a Civilian AR-15 operates. In fact, the M-16 in the 3 shot burst mode couldn't be used with a bump stock but it would be able to be used in the single shot mode exactly like the AR-15. No one has published that because the owners of the M-16s would never try that because they care more for their Weapons that you obviously do yours. They would NEVER do something that stupid with their 15,000+ dollar weapon like you would your 500 buck bargain basement junk.

Again, there isn't enough differences between the AR-15 and the M-16 to even comment on and they operate Exactly the same way because they share more than 95% the same parts. And both would do the same job in a combat situation. If you want a full auto for combat, the SAW, M-240, M-2 and the M-60 carries that load.

And yet, they are not the same rifle.....again, one has a select fire capability, the other does not......The civilian rifle, the AR-15 is no different from any other semi automatic rifle, pistol or shotgun...which is why people like you are so hard on for banning the AR-15....it is your golden ticket to gun confiscation. If you can get the precedent set that the AR-15 needs to be banned, by the argument you put up in post #67, you will then demand all semi automatic weapons be banned, which you buddies at the CNN Townhall, the anti gun rallies and the school walk outs already exposed. And what people don't realize, if you get semi automatic weapons, you also get revolvers, since they too are semi automatic weapons....and then, by the back door, you get rid of open and concealed carry for self defense, since any ban on semi automatic weapons gets rid of pistols....... You want to ban these weapons, there is no negotiating with you......

And in order to do this, your left wing SJW nuts on the courts have to ignore the law, history and legal precedent.....and they will......we have

D.C. v Heller
Scalia's dissent in Friedman v Highland Park
Mcdonald v City of Chicago
Caetano v Massachusettes
Staples v United States
Murdock v Pennsylvania
Miller v United States...


All of these protect semi automatic rifles through the 2nd Amendment, and the AR-15 is specifically protected as a rifle that is in common use for lawful purposes.......

You have no historical, legal or moral ground to go after these weapons......you are irrational..

You keep throwing those rulings out hoping no one will actually read them. Actually, those rulings pretty much are in favor of handguns in the homes. Or conventional traditional weapons for home defense. The AR really isn't that good of a home defense weapon over a shotgun or a handgun. And you keep hammering that it's single shot only yet in combat, the M-16 is usually only used in single shot mode which makes it exactly like an AR-15 in all ways.

Now, on to the meat of the subject. The National Firearms Act Of 1934 is the one that counts. It's also the basis for the Brady Act. It didn't ban the Thompson Auto, it elevated it to the next level and made it require an FFL license and it cost 200 dollars for the license. Funny, even today, the price for that FFL basic license is still 200 bucks. If you adjusted for inflation, it would be more than 3500 bucks. But the money isn't there to make money, it's there to discourage people. The Thompson was deemed a public Health danger. When the Brady Bill was passed, the 2nd Amendment was not violated when the AR-15 was also elevated to that level. The AR wasn't banned, it was regulated. You can't legally ban the AR but you can legally regulate it and all your many cites that you hope no one reads pretty well back that up as well. There has never been any record of a FFL licensed person that has been involved in an illegal shooting of any kind. This means that it takes the weapon that has been deemed a public safety factor and removes it by regulating it to FFL status.

During the time that the AR-15 was on the No No List, the AR was use almost no time for crimes. Enough time passed where it was almost out of civilian circulation. It takes about 10 years or more like it did the Thompson. They don't have to go out and gather them up. AFter they regulate them, they just wait. Given enough time, they just naturally start to disappear. You can't get parts for them anymore. Gunsmiths won't work on them anymore. You can't sell them. You can't trade them. You can't use them at gun ranges. But they won't come for them. As they bust the criminals, they collect the weapons and the criminals no longer have an avenue to replentish their AR supply. If you become a Felon, they collect your AR and melt them down. It takes about 10 years. In the end, only gun collectors will have them. If you want to freely use them, you will have to become what is essentially a gun collector and licensed under the FFL, But within the 2nd Amendment, they won't be banned.

So keep this nonsense up. Your own hotheaded BS drives more and more "Citizens" into thinking that they need to do something about the AR since it HAS become a Public Safety Issue and any level of government can elevate it to the FFL status.

 

[abrere]

Yup. They are against the Geneva convention anyway so nobody should be using them in wa either.

the geneva said nothing about small arms. That was the hague convention and the US never signed it. Also, neither of those conventions applied to anything but declared wars between nations that are signatories to the agreements. It has nothing to do with cops, or non declared wars, nor wars wherein one nation was not a signatore to the conventions. So nothing whatsover prevents the US military from using hollowpoints or shotguns. In fact, our spec ops people have been using 77 gr boattail hollowpoint 223 ammo in the middle east for many years already.

 

[abrere]

Yes.......the key point...

after some modifications as the M16

They changed the internal workings of the rifle to change it from the semi automatic AR-15 rifle to the select fire, fully automatic capable M16.....

You guys, do you ever think before you post?

So you move your dog and pony act to another place. Here we go again.

In 1964, the USAF purchased a new gun from colt. They wanted a gun that was simple to use, easy to clean and was very light. The purchased 4000 AR-15 Model 601s. These had a brand new style breach like nothing ever had before. The traditional wood was replaced by Space Age Plastic. Many of the parts that were traditionally steel were replaced by Aluminum in the less wear areas. From 1964 to 1967, these were AR-15s, not M-16s. In the end, USAF had purchased over 9000 of these guns. This is the Daddy of ALL AR-15s, M-4s and M-16s.

I won't bore anyone else the minor differences between the M-16 and the Model 601 but had it not been for the Model 601 there would have been NO AR-15 nor M-16 at all. In fact, the weapon I first fired at Basic was an AR-15 Model 601 Mod 16. It wasn't until years after I retired that I learned the difference. The charging handle on the M-16 is a T-handle while the charging handle on a Model 601 is a triangle. Looking back, the one I fired the most had a triangle handle. But I did use both throughout 20 years of service. The AR-15 Model 601 Mod 16 was finally retired around 1992. It lasted in service much longer than I did. And you can own one if you have right around 3 to 7000 bucks and have the proper FFL license. Making it an even rarer find than a M-16 and even cheaper than the M-16 starting out at about 15,000 for a basket case. Own a real AR-15 Model 601 and own a piece of History.

The AR-15 full auto dates back to about 1959 and was sold to 3rd world nations who loved the daylights out of them. Malaysia for instance. The stock on the original AR-15 was traditional wood.

The only difference between a semi auto AR-15 and the M-16 is the ability to accept a full auto receiver. They changed to frame just a bit to not allow the interchange and then clamped down on the sale of the full auto frame. That's it. Almost all parts interchange. The Semi Auto fire rate is exactly the same since the bolt and gas system is the same. And they have removed the full auto feature from the M-16 as of the Model 604 and replaced it with a 3 shot burst. Today, most shots in combat are made in the single shot setting because of the single shot speed and accuracy of the M-16. Meaning, in Combat, there is little difference at all between a Civilian AR-15 or a M-16 in practical use.

Let's not waste anyone elses time on this and let them get back to discussing what they really want to discuss.

They modified the weapon.....the AR-15 civilian rifle is not full auto......how many times do you have to be told that even when you yourself post it in your link........ The AR-15 civilian rifle has never been used in war, has never been used by the military..... is that really, really hard for you to understand?

From your own quote...


The AR-15 full auto dates back to about 1959 and was sold to 3rd world nations who loved the daylights out of them.

And....

The only difference between a semi auto AR-15 and the M-16 is the ability to accept a full auto receiver.

This is essentially saying the only difference between a buggy and an automobile is the ability to accept a horse.........you really need to engage thought before you post.....

And...

Meaning, in Combat, there is little difference at all between a Civilian AR-15 or a M-16 in practical use.

Except the Civilian AR-15 does not have select fire capability, and cannot fire a 3 round burst or fully automatic....and....has never been used in war, or by the military...

There is little difference between a horse and buggy and a care as the buggy is the same as a car...except for the horse....

You are just trying to throw BS into the Ballgame. I used real history from MY history. You don't have any history to choose from. You just try and confuse people. You want to keep everyone confused. I have used all of the types of ARs and M-16s and M-4s. And have used the AR-15 Mod 601, the M-16 and the M-4 in a combat situation. And I can tell you that you just don't use them in any setting other than single shot. You don't even use them in 3 shot bursts. The 3 shot burst only puts the first shot on target and the next two go off wild. If you want to waste Ammo, you would use the older Model 601 and 602 full auto and run out of ammo really really fast and get your ass killed really really fast. Only in the movies do you see a M-16 doing spray and pray. That was the term used to describe it throughout the military. You used single shot almost always. In a practical sense, there is absolutely no difference between a civilian AR-15 and a Military M-16. In combat, you would use both of them exactly the same and wouldn't be able to tell the difference because you would be shooting single trigger pulls.

You have absolutely NO combat time. You only go by what you see in the Movies. Newsflash: The Movies are there to get you to buy tickets and video sales. They aren't there as documentaries. Anyone that says that they used the spray and pray method using a M-16 is a Rexall Ranger and if they were in the Military, they certainly didn't spend any time in a front line unit.

I don't know what your problem is but you are as fake as one could ever get. In normal operation in both in and out of combat, there is NO difference in how a M-16 and a Civilian AR-15 operates. In fact, the M-16 in the 3 shot burst mode couldn't be used with a bump stock but it would be able to be used in the single shot mode exactly like the AR-15. No one has published that because the owners of the M-16s would never try that because they care more for their Weapons that you obviously do yours. They would NEVER do something that stupid with their 15,000+ dollar weapon like you would your 500 buck bargain basement junk.

Again, there isn't enough differences between the AR-15 and the M-16 to even comment on and they operate Exactly the same way because they share more than 95% the same parts. And both would do the same job in a combat situation. If you want a full auto for combat, the SAW, M-240, M-2 and the M-60 carries that load.

And yet, they are not the same rifle.....again, one has a select fire capability, the other does not......The civilian rifle, the AR-15 is no different from any other semi automatic rifle, pistol or shotgun...which is why people like you are so hard on for banning the AR-15....it is your golden ticket to gun confiscation. If you can get the precedent set that the AR-15 needs to be banned, by the argument you put up in post #67, you will then demand all semi automatic weapons be banned, which you buddies at the CNN Townhall, the anti gun rallies and the school walk outs already exposed. And what people don't realize, if you get semi automatic weapons, you also get revolvers, since they too are semi automatic weapons....and then, by the back door, you get rid of open and concealed carry for self defense, since any ban on semi automatic weapons gets rid of pistols....... You want to ban these weapons, there is no negotiating with you......

And in order to do this, your left wing SJW nuts on the courts have to ignore the law, history and legal precedent.....and they will......we have

D.C. v Heller
Scalia's dissent in Friedman v Highland Park
Mcdonald v City of Chicago
Caetano v Massachusettes
Staples v United States
Murdock v Pennsylvania
Miller v United States...


All of these protect semi automatic rifles through the 2nd Amendment, and the AR-15 is specifically protected as a rifle that is in common use for lawful purposes.......

You have no historical, legal or moral ground to go after these weapons......you are irrational..

You keep throwing those rulings out hoping no one will actually read them. Actually, those rulings pretty much are in favor of handguns in the homes. Or conventional traditional weapons for home defense. The AR really isn't that good of a home defense weapon over a shotgun or a handgun. And you keep hammering that it's single shot only yet in combat, the M-16 is usually only used in single shot mode which makes it exactly like an AR-15 in all ways.

Now, on to the meat of the subject. The National Firearms Act Of 1934 is the one that counts. It's also the basis for the Brady Act. It didn't ban the Thompson Auto, it elevated it to the next level and made it require an FFL license and it cost 200 dollars for the license. Funny, even today, the price for that FFL basic license is still 200 bucks. If you adjusted for inflation, it would be more than 3500 bucks. But the money isn't there to make money, it's there to discourage people. The Thompson was deemed a public Health danger. When the Brady Bill was passed, the 2nd Amendment was not violated when the AR-15 was also elevated to that level. The AR wasn't banned, it was regulated. You can't legally ban the AR but you can legally regulate it and all your many cites that you hope no one reads pretty well back that up as well. There has never been any record of a FFL licensed person that has been involved in an illegal shooting of any kind. This means that it takes the weapon that has been deemed a public safety factor and removes it by regulating it to FFL status.

During the time that the AR-15 was on the No No List, the AR was use almost no time for crimes. Enough time passed where it was almost out of civilian circulation. It takes about 10 years or more like it did the Thompson. They don't have to go out and gather them up. AFter they regulate them, they just wait. Given enough time, they just naturally start to disappear. You can't get parts for them anymore. Gunsmiths won't work on them anymore. You can't sell them. You can't trade them. You can't use them at gun ranges. But they won't come for them. As they bust the criminals, they collect the weapons and the criminals no longer have an avenue to replentish their AR supply. If you become a Felon, they collect your AR and melt them down. It takes about 10 years. In the end, only gun collectors will have them. If you want to freely use them, you will have to become what is essentially a gun collector and licensed under the FFL, But within the 2nd Amendment, they won't be banned.

So keep this nonsense up. Your own hotheaded BS drives more and more "Citizens" into thinking that they need to do something about the AR since it HAS become a Public Safety Issue and any level of government can elevate it to the FFL status.

No, all we have to do is go to DC and say hello and goodbye to about 300 antigun politicians. the law will be rescinded the next week, by 100% popular acclaim in both houses of Congress. Bet your life on that. ALL of us are not sheep, you know.

 

[westwall]

Methinks we will leave this to SCOTUS, not to 2aguy.

SCOTUS has already ruled on it. The NFA of 1934, the Supremes ruled that a sawed off shotgun could be controlled "because it had no foreseeable military purpose". Game. Set. Match.

It also has no foreseeable hunting purposes also. Unless you can get that bird to really really cooperate. And I have yet to see a Pheasant or a Quail that cooperated worth a damned yet.

Which matters not one bit. The 2nd Amendment doesn't care about hunting guns. It cares about the guns that would be used to overthrow an illegitimate government. The Bill of Rights is nine limits on what government can do...and one final option.

It's almost funny. If I were to choose a weapon I could buy over the counter to use as an offensive weapon in the event of.....heaven forbid....... it wouldn't be even a full blown M-16, much less an AR-15. I would prefer a Model 700 Bull Barrel 338 Winchester Mag with a decent variable optic scope with a built in range finder. Every gun shop worth it's salts stocks the ammo. Yes, it's slightly below the Lupo but just barely. But it can operate out to about 1500 yds with dead accuracy. with a remarkable kill rate. And it's highly accurate. If they are getting close enough that you can fire your AR then you are close enough for them to fire their M-16 and that's too damned close. I am mountain born. If you want me, I'll be in the Rockies where your choppers, fighters and bombers are pretty well worthless due to heavy cover. Oh, I'll lose sooner or later but it's going to be damned costly when a bunch of us are operating. Remember, they can't use their tanks, ACPs, or any other type vehicles. They are going to be on foot. If they don't bring it with them, they won't have it. And they will be operating at at least 7500 feet in elevation or higher. Maybe the 110th might do okay, but not the other units. We lose when we run out of Ammo, not out of supplies since we don't need to keep supplied. The only supply that we will miss is salt. And spices. The food will be bland to say the least. No matter how good we will be, we will lose. But you won't find one single AR carried in the bunch. The Attacking Force will learn quickly that in that area their M-16s are next to worthless as well. Our initial biggest worry will be the M-2 and M-240 which we won't have which will also have the same range as the 338 winchester Mag.

So, will we even consider doing something so stupid? Nope, Suicide isn't painless. And the 2nd amendment isn't enough to give a fighting chance.

Yeah, no. I actually do long range precision shooting. it requires intense, and continuous practice to maintain those skills. i shoot two to three times a week to maintain that level of skill. Most people don't have near that much time. I could go in to extensive detail about why the .338 is not the best choice, but you would ignore me anyway. Suffice to say, that at the ranges most combat occurs, especially insurgent warfare, the AR/M-16 is a far superior weapons platform. Anyone who thinks you're going to get a 1000 meter shot in an urban setting is dreaming. They simply don't happen that often.

 

[hunarcy]

Yup. They are against the Geneva convention anyway so nobody should be using them in wa either.

Are you sure? OCTOBER 1997 THE ARMY LAWYER

 

[there4eyeM]

Yes.......the key point...

after some modifications as the M16

They changed the internal workings of the rifle to change it from the semi automatic AR-15 rifle to the select fire, fully automatic capable M16.....

You guys, do you ever think before you post?

So you move your dog and pony act to another place. Here we go again.

In 1964, the USAF purchased a new gun from colt. They wanted a gun that was simple to use, easy to clean and was very light. The purchased 4000 AR-15 Model 601s. These had a brand new style breach like nothing ever had before. The traditional wood was replaced by Space Age Plastic. Many of the parts that were traditionally steel were replaced by Aluminum in the less wear areas. From 1964 to 1967, these were AR-15s, not M-16s. In the end, USAF had purchased over 9000 of these guns. This is the Daddy of ALL AR-15s, M-4s and M-16s.

I won't bore anyone else the minor differences between the M-16 and the Model 601 but had it not been for the Model 601 there would have been NO AR-15 nor M-16 at all. In fact, the weapon I first fired at Basic was an AR-15 Model 601 Mod 16. It wasn't until years after I retired that I learned the difference. The charging handle on the M-16 is a T-handle while the charging handle on a Model 601 is a triangle. Looking back, the one I fired the most had a triangle handle. But I did use both throughout 20 years of service. The AR-15 Model 601 Mod 16 was finally retired around 1992. It lasted in service much longer than I did. And you can own one if you have right around 3 to 7000 bucks and have the proper FFL license. Making it an even rarer find than a M-16 and even cheaper than the M-16 starting out at about 15,000 for a basket case. Own a real AR-15 Model 601 and own a piece of History.

The AR-15 full auto dates back to about 1959 and was sold to 3rd world nations who loved the daylights out of them. Malaysia for instance. The stock on the original AR-15 was traditional wood.

The only difference between a semi auto AR-15 and the M-16 is the ability to accept a full auto receiver. They changed to frame just a bit to not allow the interchange and then clamped down on the sale of the full auto frame. That's it. Almost all parts interchange. The Semi Auto fire rate is exactly the same since the bolt and gas system is the same. And they have removed the full auto feature from the M-16 as of the Model 604 and replaced it with a 3 shot burst. Today, most shots in combat are made in the single shot setting because of the single shot speed and accuracy of the M-16. Meaning, in Combat, there is little difference at all between a Civilian AR-15 or a M-16 in practical use.

Let's not waste anyone elses time on this and let them get back to discussing what they really want to discuss.

They modified the weapon.....the AR-15 civilian rifle is not full auto......how many times do you have to be told that even when you yourself post it in your link........ The AR-15 civilian rifle has never been used in war, has never been used by the military..... is that really, really hard for you to understand?

From your own quote...


The AR-15 full auto dates back to about 1959 and was sold to 3rd world nations who loved the daylights out of them.

And....

The only difference between a semi auto AR-15 and the M-16 is the ability to accept a full auto receiver.

This is essentially saying the only difference between a buggy and an automobile is the ability to accept a horse.........you really need to engage thought before you post.....

And...

Meaning, in Combat, there is little difference at all between a Civilian AR-15 or a M-16 in practical use.

Except the Civilian AR-15 does not have select fire capability, and cannot fire a 3 round burst or fully automatic....and....has never been used in war, or by the military...

There is little difference between a horse and buggy and a care as the buggy is the same as a car...except for the horse....

You are just trying to throw BS into the Ballgame. I used real history from MY history. You don't have any history to choose from. You just try and confuse people. You want to keep everyone confused. I have used all of the types of ARs and M-16s and M-4s. And have used the AR-15 Mod 601, the M-16 and the M-4 in a combat situation. And I can tell you that you just don't use them in any setting other than single shot. You don't even use them in 3 shot bursts. The 3 shot burst only puts the first shot on target and the next two go off wild. If you want to waste Ammo, you would use the older Model 601 and 602 full auto and run out of ammo really really fast and get your ass killed really really fast. Only in the movies do you see a M-16 doing spray and pray. That was the term used to describe it throughout the military. You used single shot almost always. In a practical sense, there is absolutely no difference between a civilian AR-15 and a Military M-16. In combat, you would use both of them exactly the same and wouldn't be able to tell the difference because you would be shooting single trigger pulls.

You have absolutely NO combat time. You only go by what you see in the Movies. Newsflash: The Movies are there to get you to buy tickets and video sales. They aren't there as documentaries. Anyone that says that they used the spray and pray method using a M-16 is a Rexall Ranger and if they were in the Military, they certainly didn't spend any time in a front line unit.

I don't know what your problem is but you are as fake as one could ever get. In normal operation in both in and out of combat, there is NO difference in how a M-16 and a Civilian AR-15 operates. In fact, the M-16 in the 3 shot burst mode couldn't be used with a bump stock but it would be able to be used in the single shot mode exactly like the AR-15. No one has published that because the owners of the M-16s would never try that because they care more for their Weapons that you obviously do yours. They would NEVER do something that stupid with their 15,000+ dollar weapon like you would your 500 buck bargain basement junk.

Again, there isn't enough differences between the AR-15 and the M-16 to even comment on and they operate Exactly the same way because they share more than 95% the same parts. And both would do the same job in a combat situation. If you want a full auto for combat, the SAW, M-240, M-2 and the M-60 carries that load.

And yet, they are not the same rifle.....again, one has a select fire capability, the other does not......The civilian rifle, the AR-15 is no different from any other semi automatic rifle, pistol or shotgun...which is why people like you are so hard on for banning the AR-15....it is your golden ticket to gun confiscation. If you can get the precedent set that the AR-15 needs to be banned, by the argument you put up in post #67, you will then demand all semi automatic weapons be banned, which you buddies at the CNN Townhall, the anti gun rallies and the school walk outs already exposed. And what people don't realize, if you get semi automatic weapons, you also get revolvers, since they too are semi automatic weapons....and then, by the back door, you get rid of open and concealed carry for self defense, since any ban on semi automatic weapons gets rid of pistols....... You want to ban these weapons, there is no negotiating with you......

And in order to do this, your left wing SJW nuts on the courts have to ignore the law, history and legal precedent.....and they will......we have

D.C. v Heller
Scalia's dissent in Friedman v Highland Park
Mcdonald v City of Chicago
Caetano v Massachusettes
Staples v United States
Murdock v Pennsylvania
Miller v United States...


All of these protect semi automatic rifles through the 2nd Amendment, and the AR-15 is specifically protected as a rifle that is in common use for lawful purposes.......

You have no historical, legal or moral ground to go after these weapons......you are irrational..

You keep throwing those rulings out hoping no one will actually read them. Actually, those rulings pretty much are in favor of handguns in the homes. Or conventional traditional weapons for home defense. The AR really isn't that good of a home defense weapon over a shotgun or a handgun. And you keep hammering that it's single shot only yet in combat, the M-16 is usually only used in single shot mode which makes it exactly like an AR-15 in all ways.

Now, on to the meat of the subject. The National Firearms Act Of 1934 is the one that counts. It's also the basis for the Brady Act. It didn't ban the Thompson Auto, it elevated it to the next level and made it require an FFL license and it cost 200 dollars for the license. Funny, even today, the price for that FFL basic license is still 200 bucks. If you adjusted for inflation, it would be more than 3500 bucks. But the money isn't there to make money, it's there to discourage people. The Thompson was deemed a public Health danger. When the Brady Bill was passed, the 2nd Amendment was not violated when the AR-15 was also elevated to that level. The AR wasn't banned, it was regulated. You can't legally ban the AR but you can legally regulate it and all your many cites that you hope no one reads pretty well back that up as well. There has never been any record of a FFL licensed person that has been involved in an illegal shooting of any kind. This means that it takes the weapon that has been deemed a public safety factor and removes it by regulating it to FFL status.

During the time that the AR-15 was on the No No List, the AR was use almost no time for crimes. Enough time passed where it was almost out of civilian circulation. It takes about 10 years or more like it did the Thompson. They don't have to go out and gather them up. AFter they regulate them, they just wait. Given enough time, they just naturally start to disappear. You can't get parts for them anymore. Gunsmiths won't work on them anymore. You can't sell them. You can't trade them. You can't use them at gun ranges. But they won't come for them. As they bust the criminals, they collect the weapons and the criminals no longer have an avenue to replentish their AR supply. If you become a Felon, they collect your AR and melt them down. It takes about 10 years. In the end, only gun collectors will have them. If you want to freely use them, you will have to become what is essentially a gun collector and licensed under the FFL, But within the 2nd Amendment, they won't be banned.

So keep this nonsense up. Your own hotheaded BS drives more and more "Citizens" into thinking that they need to do something about the AR since it HAS become a Public Safety Issue and any level of government can elevate it to the FFL status.

This is what I've said on many occasions, that this inflexible "Orthodox2nd" group was only hardening the situation and pushing things to more repression than any of us want.

 

[2aguy]

Yes.......the key point...

after some modifications as the M16

They changed the internal workings of the rifle to change it from the semi automatic AR-15 rifle to the select fire, fully automatic capable M16.....

You guys, do you ever think before you post?

So you move your dog and pony act to another place. Here we go again.

In 1964, the USAF purchased a new gun from colt. They wanted a gun that was simple to use, easy to clean and was very light. The purchased 4000 AR-15 Model 601s. These had a brand new style breach like nothing ever had before. The traditional wood was replaced by Space Age Plastic. Many of the parts that were traditionally steel were replaced by Aluminum in the less wear areas. From 1964 to 1967, these were AR-15s, not M-16s. In the end, USAF had purchased over 9000 of these guns. This is the Daddy of ALL AR-15s, M-4s and M-16s.

I won't bore anyone else the minor differences between the M-16 and the Model 601 but had it not been for the Model 601 there would have been NO AR-15 nor M-16 at all. In fact, the weapon I first fired at Basic was an AR-15 Model 601 Mod 16. It wasn't until years after I retired that I learned the difference. The charging handle on the M-16 is a T-handle while the charging handle on a Model 601 is a triangle. Looking back, the one I fired the most had a triangle handle. But I did use both throughout 20 years of service. The AR-15 Model 601 Mod 16 was finally retired around 1992. It lasted in service much longer than I did. And you can own one if you have right around 3 to 7000 bucks and have the proper FFL license. Making it an even rarer find than a M-16 and even cheaper than the M-16 starting out at about 15,000 for a basket case. Own a real AR-15 Model 601 and own a piece of History.

The AR-15 full auto dates back to about 1959 and was sold to 3rd world nations who loved the daylights out of them. Malaysia for instance. The stock on the original AR-15 was traditional wood.

The only difference between a semi auto AR-15 and the M-16 is the ability to accept a full auto receiver. They changed to frame just a bit to not allow the interchange and then clamped down on the sale of the full auto frame. That's it. Almost all parts interchange. The Semi Auto fire rate is exactly the same since the bolt and gas system is the same. And they have removed the full auto feature from the M-16 as of the Model 604 and replaced it with a 3 shot burst. Today, most shots in combat are made in the single shot setting because of the single shot speed and accuracy of the M-16. Meaning, in Combat, there is little difference at all between a Civilian AR-15 or a M-16 in practical use.

Let's not waste anyone elses time on this and let them get back to discussing what they really want to discuss.

They modified the weapon.....the AR-15 civilian rifle is not full auto......how many times do you have to be told that even when you yourself post it in your link........ The AR-15 civilian rifle has never been used in war, has never been used by the military..... is that really, really hard for you to understand?

From your own quote...


The AR-15 full auto dates back to about 1959 and was sold to 3rd world nations who loved the daylights out of them.

And....

The only difference between a semi auto AR-15 and the M-16 is the ability to accept a full auto receiver.

This is essentially saying the only difference between a buggy and an automobile is the ability to accept a horse.........you really need to engage thought before you post.....

And...

Meaning, in Combat, there is little difference at all between a Civilian AR-15 or a M-16 in practical use.

Except the Civilian AR-15 does not have select fire capability, and cannot fire a 3 round burst or fully automatic....and....has never been used in war, or by the military...

There is little difference between a horse and buggy and a care as the buggy is the same as a car...except for the horse....

You are just trying to throw BS into the Ballgame. I used real history from MY history. You don't have any history to choose from. You just try and confuse people. You want to keep everyone confused. I have used all of the types of ARs and M-16s and M-4s. And have used the AR-15 Mod 601, the M-16 and the M-4 in a combat situation. And I can tell you that you just don't use them in any setting other than single shot. You don't even use them in 3 shot bursts. The 3 shot burst only puts the first shot on target and the next two go off wild. If you want to waste Ammo, you would use the older Model 601 and 602 full auto and run out of ammo really really fast and get your ass killed really really fast. Only in the movies do you see a M-16 doing spray and pray. That was the term used to describe it throughout the military. You used single shot almost always. In a practical sense, there is absolutely no difference between a civilian AR-15 and a Military M-16. In combat, you would use both of them exactly the same and wouldn't be able to tell the difference because you would be shooting single trigger pulls.

You have absolutely NO combat time. You only go by what you see in the Movies. Newsflash: The Movies are there to get you to buy tickets and video sales. They aren't there as documentaries. Anyone that says that they used the spray and pray method using a M-16 is a Rexall Ranger and if they were in the Military, they certainly didn't spend any time in a front line unit.

I don't know what your problem is but you are as fake as one could ever get. In normal operation in both in and out of combat, there is NO difference in how a M-16 and a Civilian AR-15 operates. In fact, the M-16 in the 3 shot burst mode couldn't be used with a bump stock but it would be able to be used in the single shot mode exactly like the AR-15. No one has published that because the owners of the M-16s would never try that because they care more for their Weapons that you obviously do yours. They would NEVER do something that stupid with their 15,000+ dollar weapon like you would your 500 buck bargain basement junk.

Again, there isn't enough differences between the AR-15 and the M-16 to even comment on and they operate Exactly the same way because they share more than 95% the same parts. And both would do the same job in a combat situation. If you want a full auto for combat, the SAW, M-240, M-2 and the M-60 carries that load.

And yet, they are not the same rifle.....again, one has a select fire capability, the other does not......The civilian rifle, the AR-15 is no different from any other semi automatic rifle, pistol or shotgun...which is why people like you are so hard on for banning the AR-15....it is your golden ticket to gun confiscation. If you can get the precedent set that the AR-15 needs to be banned, by the argument you put up in post #67, you will then demand all semi automatic weapons be banned, which you buddies at the CNN Townhall, the anti gun rallies and the school walk outs already exposed. And what people don't realize, if you get semi automatic weapons, you also get revolvers, since they too are semi automatic weapons....and then, by the back door, you get rid of open and concealed carry for self defense, since any ban on semi automatic weapons gets rid of pistols....... You want to ban these weapons, there is no negotiating with you......

And in order to do this, your left wing SJW nuts on the courts have to ignore the law, history and legal precedent.....and they will......we have

D.C. v Heller
Scalia's dissent in Friedman v Highland Park
Mcdonald v City of Chicago
Caetano v Massachusettes
Staples v United States
Murdock v Pennsylvania
Miller v United States...


All of these protect semi automatic rifles through the 2nd Amendment, and the AR-15 is specifically protected as a rifle that is in common use for lawful purposes.......

You have no historical, legal or moral ground to go after these weapons......you are irrational..

You keep throwing those rulings out hoping no one will actually read them. Actually, those rulings pretty much are in favor of handguns in the homes. Or conventional traditional weapons for home defense. The AR really isn't that good of a home defense weapon over a shotgun or a handgun. And you keep hammering that it's single shot only yet in combat, the M-16 is usually only used in single shot mode which makes it exactly like an AR-15 in all ways.

Now, on to the meat of the subject. The National Firearms Act Of 1934 is the one that counts. It's also the basis for the Brady Act. It didn't ban the Thompson Auto, it elevated it to the next level and made it require an FFL license and it cost 200 dollars for the license. Funny, even today, the price for that FFL basic license is still 200 bucks. If you adjusted for inflation, it would be more than 3500 bucks. But the money isn't there to make money, it's there to discourage people. The Thompson was deemed a public Health danger. When the Brady Bill was passed, the 2nd Amendment was not violated when the AR-15 was also elevated to that level. The AR wasn't banned, it was regulated. You can't legally ban the AR but you can legally regulate it and all your many cites that you hope no one reads pretty well back that up as well. There has never been any record of a FFL licensed person that has been involved in an illegal shooting of any kind. This means that it takes the weapon that has been deemed a public safety factor and removes it by regulating it to FFL status.

During the time that the AR-15 was on the No No List, the AR was use almost no time for crimes. Enough time passed where it was almost out of civilian circulation. It takes about 10 years or more like it did the Thompson. They don't have to go out and gather them up. AFter they regulate them, they just wait. Given enough time, they just naturally start to disappear. You can't get parts for them anymore. Gunsmiths won't work on them anymore. You can't sell them. You can't trade them. You can't use them at gun ranges. But they won't come for them. As they bust the criminals, they collect the weapons and the criminals no longer have an avenue to replentish their AR supply. If you become a Felon, they collect your AR and melt them down. It takes about 10 years. In the end, only gun collectors will have them. If you want to freely use them, you will have to become what is essentially a gun collector and licensed under the FFL, But within the 2nd Amendment, they won't be banned.

So keep this nonsense up. Your own hotheaded BS drives more and more "Citizens" into thinking that they need to do something about the AR since it HAS become a Public Safety Issue and any level of government can elevate it to the FFL status.

You really don't know what you are talking about...but you say it with such meaning that the uninformed might believe you.

The AR-15 is not a public safety issue, more people are killed by wasps and bees than by AR-15 rifles, and more people are killed by lawn mowers than are killed in mass public shootings by all gun types, let alone AR-15 rifles....

And just so we are clear, the AR-15 rifle is protected by the 2nd Amendment, as stated by Scalia specifically in his Dissent in Friedman v Highland Park....

For those who won't go an actually read the Supreme Court rulings that create the legal Precedent protecting semi automatic rifles, pistols and shotguns.......here you go....

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/15-133_7l48.pdf

Lastly, the Seventh Circuit considered “whether lawabiding citizens retain adequate means of self-defense,” and reasoned that the City’s ban was permissible because “f criminals can find substitutes for banned assault weapons, then so can law-abiding homeowners.” 784 F. 3d, at 410, 411. Although the court recognized that “Heller held that the availability of long guns does not save a ban on handgun ownership,” it thought that “Heller did not foreclose the possibility that allowing the use of most long guns plus pistols and revolvers . . . gives householders adequate means of defense.” Id., at 411.

That analysis misreads Heller. The question under Heller is not whether citizens have adequate alternatives available for self-defense. Rather, Heller asks whether the law bans types of firearms commonly used for a lawful purpose—regardless of whether alternatives exist. 554 U. S., at 627–629. And Heller draws a distinction between such firearms and weapons specially adapted to unlawful uses and not in common use, such as sawed-off shotguns. Id., at 624–625.


The City’s ban is thus highly suspect because it broadly prohibits common semiautomatic firearms used for lawful purposes. Roughly five million Americans own AR-style semiautomatic rifles. See 784 F. 3d, at 415, n. 3. The overwhelming majority of citizens who own and use such rifles do so for lawful purposes, including self-defense and target shooting. See ibid.

Under our precedents, that is all that is needed for citizens to have a right under the Second Amendment to keep such weapons. See McDonald, 561 U. S., at 767–768; Heller, supra, at 628–629.

Heller, however, forbids subjecting the Second Amendment’s “core protection . . . to a freestanding ‘interestbalancing’ approach.” Heller, supra, at 634. This case illustrates why. If a broad ban on firearms can be upheld based on conjecture that the public might feel safer (while being no safer at all), then the Second Amendment guarantees nothing. III

 

[2aguy]

So you move your dog and pony act to another place. Here we go again.

In 1964, the USAF purchased a new gun from colt. They wanted a gun that was simple to use, easy to clean and was very light. The purchased 4000 AR-15 Model 601s. These had a brand new style breach like nothing ever had before. The traditional wood was replaced by Space Age Plastic. Many of the parts that were traditionally steel were replaced by Aluminum in the less wear areas. From 1964 to 1967, these were AR-15s, not M-16s. In the end, USAF had purchased over 9000 of these guns. This is the Daddy of ALL AR-15s, M-4s and M-16s.

I won't bore anyone else the minor differences between the M-16 and the Model 601 but had it not been for the Model 601 there would have been NO AR-15 nor M-16 at all. In fact, the weapon I first fired at Basic was an AR-15 Model 601 Mod 16. It wasn't until years after I retired that I learned the difference. The charging handle on the M-16 is a T-handle while the charging handle on a Model 601 is a triangle. Looking back, the one I fired the most had a triangle handle. But I did use both throughout 20 years of service. The AR-15 Model 601 Mod 16 was finally retired around 1992. It lasted in service much longer than I did. And you can own one if you have right around 3 to 7000 bucks and have the proper FFL license. Making it an even rarer find than a M-16 and even cheaper than the M-16 starting out at about 15,000 for a basket case. Own a real AR-15 Model 601 and own a piece of History.

The AR-15 full auto dates back to about 1959 and was sold to 3rd world nations who loved the daylights out of them. Malaysia for instance. The stock on the original AR-15 was traditional wood.

The only difference between a semi auto AR-15 and the M-16 is the ability to accept a full auto receiver. They changed to frame just a bit to not allow the interchange and then clamped down on the sale of the full auto frame. That's it. Almost all parts interchange. The Semi Auto fire rate is exactly the same since the bolt and gas system is the same. And they have removed the full auto feature from the M-16 as of the Model 604 and replaced it with a 3 shot burst. Today, most shots in combat are made in the single shot setting because of the single shot speed and accuracy of the M-16. Meaning, in Combat, there is little difference at all between a Civilian AR-15 or a M-16 in practical use.

Let's not waste anyone elses time on this and let them get back to discussing what they really want to discuss.

They modified the weapon.....the AR-15 civilian rifle is not full auto......how many times do you have to be told that even when you yourself post it in your link........ The AR-15 civilian rifle has never been used in war, has never been used by the military..... is that really, really hard for you to understand?

From your own quote...


The AR-15 full auto dates back to about 1959 and was sold to 3rd world nations who loved the daylights out of them.

And....

The only difference between a semi auto AR-15 and the M-16 is the ability to accept a full auto receiver.

This is essentially saying the only difference between a buggy and an automobile is the ability to accept a horse.........you really need to engage thought before you post.....

And...

Meaning, in Combat, there is little difference at all between a Civilian AR-15 or a M-16 in practical use.

Except the Civilian AR-15 does not have select fire capability, and cannot fire a 3 round burst or fully automatic....and....has never been used in war, or by the military...

There is little difference between a horse and buggy and a care as the buggy is the same as a car...except for the horse....

You are just trying to throw BS into the Ballgame. I used real history from MY history. You don't have any history to choose from. You just try and confuse people. You want to keep everyone confused. I have used all of the types of ARs and M-16s and M-4s. And have used the AR-15 Mod 601, the M-16 and the M-4 in a combat situation. And I can tell you that you just don't use them in any setting other than single shot. You don't even use them in 3 shot bursts. The 3 shot burst only puts the first shot on target and the next two go off wild. If you want to waste Ammo, you would use the older Model 601 and 602 full auto and run out of ammo really really fast and get your ass killed really really fast. Only in the movies do you see a M-16 doing spray and pray. That was the term used to describe it throughout the military. You used single shot almost always. In a practical sense, there is absolutely no difference between a civilian AR-15 and a Military M-16. In combat, you would use both of them exactly the same and wouldn't be able to tell the difference because you would be shooting single trigger pulls.

You have absolutely NO combat time. You only go by what you see in the Movies. Newsflash: The Movies are there to get you to buy tickets and video sales. They aren't there as documentaries. Anyone that says that they used the spray and pray method using a M-16 is a Rexall Ranger and if they were in the Military, they certainly didn't spend any time in a front line unit.

I don't know what your problem is but you are as fake as one could ever get. In normal operation in both in and out of combat, there is NO difference in how a M-16 and a Civilian AR-15 operates. In fact, the M-16 in the 3 shot burst mode couldn't be used with a bump stock but it would be able to be used in the single shot mode exactly like the AR-15. No one has published that because the owners of the M-16s would never try that because they care more for their Weapons that you obviously do yours. They would NEVER do something that stupid with their 15,000+ dollar weapon like you would your 500 buck bargain basement junk.

Again, there isn't enough differences between the AR-15 and the M-16 to even comment on and they operate Exactly the same way because they share more than 95% the same parts. And both would do the same job in a combat situation. If you want a full auto for combat, the SAW, M-240, M-2 and the M-60 carries that load.

And yet, they are not the same rifle.....again, one has a select fire capability, the other does not......The civilian rifle, the AR-15 is no different from any other semi automatic rifle, pistol or shotgun...which is why people like you are so hard on for banning the AR-15....it is your golden ticket to gun confiscation. If you can get the precedent set that the AR-15 needs to be banned, by the argument you put up in post #67, you will then demand all semi automatic weapons be banned, which you buddies at the CNN Townhall, the anti gun rallies and the school walk outs already exposed. And what people don't realize, if you get semi automatic weapons, you also get revolvers, since they too are semi automatic weapons....and then, by the back door, you get rid of open and concealed carry for self defense, since any ban on semi automatic weapons gets rid of pistols....... You want to ban these weapons, there is no negotiating with you......

And in order to do this, your left wing SJW nuts on the courts have to ignore the law, history and legal precedent.....and they will......we have

D.C. v Heller
Scalia's dissent in Friedman v Highland Park
Mcdonald v City of Chicago
Caetano v Massachusettes
Staples v United States
Murdock v Pennsylvania
Miller v United States...


All of these protect semi automatic rifles through the 2nd Amendment, and the AR-15 is specifically protected as a rifle that is in common use for lawful purposes.......

You have no historical, legal or moral ground to go after these weapons......you are irrational..

You keep throwing those rulings out hoping no one will actually read them. Actually, those rulings pretty much are in favor of handguns in the homes. Or conventional traditional weapons for home defense. The AR really isn't that good of a home defense weapon over a shotgun or a handgun. And you keep hammering that it's single shot only yet in combat, the M-16 is usually only used in single shot mode which makes it exactly like an AR-15 in all ways.

Now, on to the meat of the subject. The National Firearms Act Of 1934 is the one that counts. It's also the basis for the Brady Act. It didn't ban the Thompson Auto, it elevated it to the next level and made it require an FFL license and it cost 200 dollars for the license. Funny, even today, the price for that FFL basic license is still 200 bucks. If you adjusted for inflation, it would be more than 3500 bucks. But the money isn't there to make money, it's there to discourage people. The Thompson was deemed a public Health danger. When the Brady Bill was passed, the 2nd Amendment was not violated when the AR-15 was also elevated to that level. The AR wasn't banned, it was regulated. You can't legally ban the AR but you can legally regulate it and all your many cites that you hope no one reads pretty well back that up as well. There has never been any record of a FFL licensed person that has been involved in an illegal shooting of any kind. This means that it takes the weapon that has been deemed a public safety factor and removes it by regulating it to FFL status.

During the time that the AR-15 was on the No No List, the AR was use almost no time for crimes. Enough time passed where it was almost out of civilian circulation. It takes about 10 years or more like it did the Thompson. They don't have to go out and gather them up. AFter they regulate them, they just wait. Given enough time, they just naturally start to disappear. You can't get parts for them anymore. Gunsmiths won't work on them anymore. You can't sell them. You can't trade them. You can't use them at gun ranges. But they won't come for them. As they bust the criminals, they collect the weapons and the criminals no longer have an avenue to replentish their AR supply. If you become a Felon, they collect your AR and melt them down. It takes about 10 years. In the end, only gun collectors will have them. If you want to freely use them, you will have to become what is essentially a gun collector and licensed under the FFL, But within the 2nd Amendment, they won't be banned.

So keep this nonsense up. Your own hotheaded BS drives more and more "Citizens" into thinking that they need to do something about the AR since it HAS become a Public Safety Issue and any level of government can elevate it to the FFL status.

This is what I've said on many occasions, that this inflexible "Orthodox2nd" group was only hardening the situation and pushing things to more repression than any of us want.

Yes....Blacks were so 14th Amendment/orthodox when they insisted that all Rights should apply to them, hardening the situation when the democrats were moving for more repression of their Rights..... they should have settled on accepting Jim Crow Laws, Poll Taxes, Literacy tests, Separate but equal.....because when they didn't, it just led to them losing more Rights.....right?

 

[JakeStarkey]

SCOTUS rules, period.

 

[westwall]

SCOTUS rules, period.

Indeed. They already have. ONLY military weapons are protected by the 2nd according to the SCOTUS ruling in the 1934 National Firearms Act. Thank you for making that clear!