For the last time, I'm gonna try to educate the left on GUNS; Can't take ignorance any longer.

[Timmy]

I have a question.

People say handguns are more effective at killing . Then what's the point of AR style rifles ? Why would a guy hell bent on killing choose this weapon??

Fantasy.

That and poor planning.

No comment....I don't want to educate the idiots. Better to have them armed with rhetoric and emotion than fact.

Well that's a stupid statement .

Makes it seem like you are afraid to answer truthfully.

 

[RandallFlagg]

So....you want us to take you seriously. And you finish by saying the AR-15 "evolved into the M-16"??? See....THIS is the kind of shit that sparked this thread.

Dude....the M-16 came first. Then...the AR-15. The gun maker civilianized the M-16 and called it an AR-15.

So...no....the M16 did not evolve from the AR15. It's the exact opposite.

Red:
It appears you don't know your gun history as well as you think. In ~1959 ArmaLite sold the rights to the AR-15 rifle designs to Colt, who designated it the M16. As I wrote earlier, your arguments leave much to be desired in terms of completeness and accuracy.

• M16 rifle - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  
• History of the M16
  
• U.S. M16

What's your point? To be exact - and if you believe me to be a liar CHECK IT OUT - the first "AR" was not the 15 - it was the AR10. a .308 (or 7.62) rifle developed by Armalite. So what the hell if Armalite sold the design to Colt? Jesus - you "literal-minded" folks make me cringe.

I think it's important to be factual, but not get bogged so far down in it we forget the big picture.

The M-14 won the design contest for replacing the M-1 Garand, with the AR-10 being a loser. Even though I'd love to have an M-14, I couldn't justify spending $2000 for something that would see little use. Instead, I spent half that on a DPMS AR-10, specifically, the Oracle: 308 WIN & 7.62 NATO 16-18

I have a DPMS 10 myself and I love it. But, truthfully, the thought of having to hump a battle load of 7.62 for this old man is not too appealing....

Much easier to carry a battle load of 5.56

Hell, just the other day, I received a shipment of .45 ammo and I couldn't help but think "Jesus - this crap is getting heavier every time I lift it!"

 

[Chuz Life]

Two

So....you want us to take you seriously. And you finish by saying the AR-15 "evolved into the M-16"??? See....THIS is the kind of shit that sparked this thread.

Dude....the M-16 came first. Then...the AR-15. The gun maker civilianized the M-16 and called it an AR-15.

So...no....the M16 did not evolve from the AR15. It's the exact opposite.

Red:
It appears you don't know your gun history as well as you think. In ~1959 ArmaLite sold the rights to the AR-15 rifle designs to Colt, who designated it the M16. As I wrote earlier, your arguments leave much to be desired in terms of completeness and accuracy.

• M16 rifle - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  
• History of the M16
  
• U.S. M16

What's your point? To be exact - and if you believe me to be a liar CHECK IT OUT - the first "AR" was not the 15 - it was the AR10. a .308 (or 7.62) rifle developed by Armalite. So what the hell if Armalite sold the design to Colt? Jesus - you "literal-minded" folks make me cringe.

Also, the claim that the AR-15 came before the M-16 is for the most part only true as far as nomenclature goes. The designers created the AR-15 while trying to market a lightweight gun to the military.

It's not like AR-15's were ever readily available on gun store shelves for any length of time before the M-16 was developed.

So, yes... technically the AR-15 came first.

But only in nomenclature and for the most part prototypes.

"He told Stoner that he was interested in developing the AR series for the military, and Stoner went on to create the AR-15."


It's funny how the left will (cherry pick) cling to anything they think will make a point, even as they ignore all the details that prove against them and their claims.

That the AR-15 evolved into the M16 isn't and wasn't the point of my post. Busco latched onto that one parenthetical fact/remark, not me. Read the post from which that was taken.

Sidebar:
Somewhere in this thread, someone asked about what types of guns are assault weapons. In my mind, a gun that was made by one company as a military weapon is an assault weapon. I don't care what name gets put on it. That is essentially what the AR-15 is, the "rose" that is the M16 but called by another name.

Your ignorance about the difference between them (the AR-15 and the M-16) is not only showing. . . . it's very telling.

 

[Chuz Life]

I have a question.

People say handguns are more effective at killing . Then what's the point of AR style rifles ? Why would a guy hell bent on killing choose this weapon??

Fantasy.

That and poor planning.

No comment....I don't want to educate the idiots. Better to have them armed with rhetoric and emotion than fact.

Well that's a stupid statement .

Makes it seem like you are afraid to answer truthfully.

Meh.

Needs salt.

 

[Divine Wind]

TY, but there's no reason to be right when citing a factual point of information, and that reason is because one gives a damn about presenting facts not fiction.

Agreed 100%, which is why, IMHO, it's better to present an discussion point with facts so as to quickly shut down any disagreement. There are waaaaay too many opinions expressed on forums and very few facts.

A factual reference is best.

 

[Kosh]

I have a question.

People say handguns are more effective at killing . Then what's the point of AR style rifles ? Why would a guy hell bent on killing choose this weapon??

Fantasy.

That and poor planning.

No comment....I don't want to educate the idiots. Better to have them armed with rhetoric and emotion than fact.

Well that's a stupid statement .

Makes it seem like you are afraid to answer truthfully.

Says the far left drone armed with their religious dogma not connected to reality.

 

[P@triot]

Thank you for illustrating how failed liberal policy of disarming the American people has resulted in catastrophic effects for the American people.

Is that's what has been happening?

Just kidding, not a real question. I know you're a liar.

How am I a "liar"? It's your statistic junior. If it's inaccurate - it's on you. It proves you are the liar. If it's accurate, it proves how liberalism has failed the American people. Which way do you want to go with it? I'm good with either....

You're actually claiming that gun laws have been MORE restrictive since 2001? Are you ******* high?

They sure as hell haven't become less restrictive junior....

DeBlasio illegally outlawed guns in New York. Obama initiated "Operation Choke Point". And Obama illegally issued Executive Orders on firearms.

I'm not "high". I'm educated. Only stoned and stupid liberals don't know the difference.

 

[P@triot]

I have a question.

People say handguns are more effective at killing. Then what's the point of AR style rifles ? Why would a guy hell bent on killing choose this weapon??

Hey Timmy - why do you beat your wife? Do you know how sick that is?!?

 

[Timmy]

I have a question.

People say handguns are more effective at killing . Then what's the point of AR style rifles ? Why would a guy hell bent on killing choose this weapon??

Fantasy.

That and poor planning.

No comment....I don't want to educate the idiots. Better to have them armed with rhetoric and emotion than fact.

Well that's a stupid statement .

Makes it seem like you are afraid to answer truthfully.

Says the far left drone armed with their religious dogma not connected to reality.

Hmm. Righties start a thread to "educate " us idiots about guns , but when asked specific questions you suddenly have no answers ???!

 

[Divine Wind]

So....you want us to take you seriously. And you finish by saying the AR-15 "evolved into the M-16"??? See....THIS is the kind of shit that sparked this thread.

Dude....the M-16 came first. Then...the AR-15. The gun maker civilianized the M-16 and called it an AR-15.

So...no....the M16 did not evolve from the AR15. It's the exact opposite.

Red:
It appears you don't know your gun history as well as you think. In ~1959 ArmaLite sold the rights to the AR-15 rifle designs to Colt, who designated it the M16. As I wrote earlier, your arguments leave much to be desired in terms of completeness and accuracy.

• M16 rifle - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  
• History of the M16
  
• U.S. M16

What's your point? To be exact - and if you believe me to be a liar CHECK IT OUT - the first "AR" was not the 15 - it was the AR10. a .308 (or 7.62) rifle developed by Armalite. So what the hell if Armalite sold the design to Colt? Jesus - you "literal-minded" folks make me cringe.

I think it's important to be factual, but not get bogged so far down in it we forget the big picture.

The M-14 won the design contest for replacing the M-1 Garand, with the AR-10 being a loser. Even though I'd love to have an M-14, I couldn't justify spending $2000 for something that would see little use. Instead, I spent half that on a DPMS AR-10, specifically, the Oracle: 308 WIN & 7.62 NATO 16-18

I have a DPMS 10 myself and I love it. But, truthfully, the thought of having to hump a battle load of 7.62 for this old man is not too appealing....

Much easier to carry a battle load of 5.56

Hell, just the other day, I received a shipment of .45 ammo and I couldn't help but think "Jesus - this crap is getting heavier every time I lift it!"

A slight disagreement in philosophy. This isn't Vietnam where most firefights are in pistol range. If that is the case, I still think the AK-47 is superior in reliability and stopping power.

In the scenario you described, we'd be involved in guerrilla warfare. Sure a few situations would require up close and personal combat, my preferred method of combat survival is picking off an officer or NCO from 500-800 yards and then making a quick exit.

 

[Kosh]

I have a question.

People say handguns are more effective at killing . Then what's the point of AR style rifles ? Why would a guy hell bent on killing choose this weapon??

Fantasy.

That and poor planning.

No comment....I don't want to educate the idiots. Better to have them armed with rhetoric and emotion than fact.

Well that's a stupid statement .

Makes it seem like you are afraid to answer truthfully.

Says the far left drone armed with their religious dogma not connected to reality.

Hmm. Righties start a thread to "educate " us idiots about guns , but when asked specific questions you suddenly have no answers ???!

And you have proven that far left drones can not be educated with facts. That you will still stick to your debunked religious dogma at all costs.

 

[Timmy]

I have a question.

People say handguns are more effective at killing. Then what's the point of AR style rifles ? Why would a guy hell bent on killing choose this weapon??

Hey Timmy - why do you beat your wife? Do you know how sick that is?!?

Hey Pat, I'm just repeating stuff said by the gun "experts" that started this ******* thread .

Is it so outrageous to say hand guns are designed to kill ?

 

[RandallFlagg]

Thank you for illustrating how failed liberal policy of disarming the American people has resulted in catastrophic effects for the American people.

Is that's what has been happening?

Just kidding, not a real question. I know you're a liar.

How am I a "liar"? It's your statistic junior. If it's inaccurate - it's on you. It proves you are the liar. If it's accurate, it proves how liberalism has failed the American people. Which way do you want to go with it? I'm good with either....

You're actually claiming that gun laws have been MORE restrictive since 2001? Are you ******* high?

They sure as hell haven't become less restrictive junior....

DeBlasio illegally outlawed guns in New York. Obama initiated "Operation Choke Point". And Obama illegally issued Executive Orders on firearms.

I'm not "high". I'm educated. Only stoned and stupid liberals don't know the difference.

Isn't it funny the things that the left gravitate to? I mean, I came in the house today after plowing - and there on TV Land (yeah, I know, but I'm old) in the lower right hand corner of the screen was the TV Land logo in the rainbow flag. All this during "Gunsmoke" - which I found to be rather weird.

However, liberals never once open their tiny little mouths when blacks are killing blacks by the hundreds in Chicago. Not a damned peep out of them. Very telling, don't you think?

 

[Timmy]

Fantasy.

That and poor planning.

No comment....I don't want to educate the idiots. Better to have them armed with rhetoric and emotion than fact.

Well that's a stupid statement .

Makes it seem like you are afraid to answer truthfully.

Says the far left drone armed with their religious dogma not connected to reality.

Hmm. Righties start a thread to "educate " us idiots about guns , but when asked specific questions you suddenly have no answers ???!

And you have proven that far left drones can not be educated with facts. That you will still stick to your debunked religious dogma at all costs.

I was asking for info . Seriously ! But methinks now that yall really don't want to answer the questions .

 

[Kosh]

I have a question.

People say handguns are more effective at killing. Then what's the point of AR style rifles ? Why would a guy hell bent on killing choose this weapon??

Hey Timmy - why do you beat your wife? Do you know how sick that is?!?

Hey Pat, I'm just repeating stuff said by the gun "experts" that started this ******* thread .

Is it so outrageous to say hand guns are designed to kill ?

No you are not, you are repeating what is circulated in in far left religious texts and nothing more.

If the far left was for this, your programming would be for this..

Just admit far left policies have failed all over the world.

 

[Divine Wind]

Well that's a stupid statement .

Makes it seem like you are afraid to answer truthfully.

Ahh, recognized yourself in that comment, eh? No worries. I can take your 6th grade-level of attacks. Have at it, kid.

 

[Kosh]

No comment....I don't want to educate the idiots. Better to have them armed with rhetoric and emotion than fact.

Well that's a stupid statement .

Makes it seem like you are afraid to answer truthfully.

Says the far left drone armed with their religious dogma not connected to reality.

Hmm. Righties start a thread to "educate " us idiots about guns , but when asked specific questions you suddenly have no answers ???!

And you have proven that far left drones can not be educated with facts. That you will still stick to your debunked religious dogma at all costs.

I was asking for info . Seriously ! But methinks now that yall really don't want to answer the questions .

No you weren't you trying once again to make a baseless point with far left religious dogma and you have proven that far left drones can not be educated with facts!

 

[Timmy]

Thank you for illustrating how failed liberal policy of disarming the American people has resulted in catastrophic effects for the American people.

Is that's what has been happening?

Just kidding, not a real question. I know you're a liar.

How am I a "liar"? It's your statistic junior. If it's inaccurate - it's on you. It proves you are the liar. If it's accurate, it proves how liberalism has failed the American people. Which way do you want to go with it? I'm good with either....

You're actually claiming that gun laws have been MORE restrictive since 2001? Are you ******* high?

They sure as hell haven't become less restrictive junior....

DeBlasio illegally outlawed guns in New York. Obama initiated "Operation Choke Point". And Obama illegally issued Executive Orders on firearms.

I'm not "high". I'm educated. Only stoned and stupid liberals don't know the difference.

Isn't it funny the things that the left gravitate to? I mean, I came in the house today after plowing - and there on TV Land (yeah, I know, but I'm old) in the lower right hand corner of the screen was the TV Land logo in the rainbow flag. All this during "Gunsmoke" - which I found to be rather weird.

However, liberals never once open their tiny little mouths when blacks are killing blacks by the hundreds in Chicago. Not a damned peep out of them. Very telling, don't you think?

Nice deflection. Too bad it's wrong . Libs have been fighting for gun control because of all those shootings you speak of.

 

[Timmy]

Well that's a stupid statement .

Makes it seem like you are afraid to answer truthfully.

Says the far left drone armed with their religious dogma not connected to reality.

Hmm. Righties start a thread to "educate " us idiots about guns , but when asked specific questions you suddenly have no answers ???!

And you have proven that far left drones can not be educated with facts. That you will still stick to your debunked religious dogma at all costs.

I was asking for info . Seriously ! But methinks now that yall really don't want to answer the questions .

No you weren't you trying once again to make a baseless point with far left religious dogma and you have proven that far left drones can not be educated with facts!

Where exactly ? Asking why someone would choose an AR vs a handgun is some kind of gotcha question???

Then don't start threads to "educate the left" if you can't handle questions .

 

[RandallFlagg]

So....you want us to take you seriously. And you finish by saying the AR-15 "evolved into the M-16"??? See....THIS is the kind of shit that sparked this thread.

Dude....the M-16 came first. Then...the AR-15. The gun maker civilianized the M-16 and called it an AR-15.

So...no....the M16 did not evolve from the AR15. It's the exact opposite.

Red:
It appears you don't know your gun history as well as you think. In ~1959 ArmaLite sold the rights to the AR-15 rifle designs to Colt, who designated it the M16. As I wrote earlier, your arguments leave much to be desired in terms of completeness and accuracy.

• M16 rifle - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  
• History of the M16
  
• U.S. M16

What's your point? To be exact - and if you believe me to be a liar CHECK IT OUT - the first "AR" was not the 15 - it was the AR10. a .308 (or 7.62) rifle developed by Armalite. So what the hell if Armalite sold the design to Colt? Jesus - you "literal-minded" folks make me cringe.

I think it's important to be factual, but not get bogged so far down in it we forget the big picture.

The M-14 won the design contest for replacing the M-1 Garand, with the AR-10 being a loser. Even though I'd love to have an M-14, I couldn't justify spending $2000 for something that would see little use. Instead, I spent half that on a DPMS AR-10, specifically, the Oracle: 308 WIN & 7.62 NATO 16-18

I have a DPMS 10 myself and I love it. But, truthfully, the thought of having to hump a battle load of 7.62 for this old man is not too appealing....

Much easier to carry a battle load of 5.56

Hell, just the other day, I received a shipment of .45 ammo and I couldn't help but think "Jesus - this crap is getting heavier every time I lift it!"

A slight disagreement in philosophy. This isn't Vietnam where most firefights are in pistol range. If that is the case, I still think the AK-47 is superior in reliability and stopping power.

In the scenario you described, we'd be involved in guerrilla warfare. Sure a few situations would require up close and personal combat, my preferred method of combat survival is picking off an officer or NCO from 500-800 yards and then making a quick exit.

You won't get any argument from me on that point. It's ALWAYS better to "reach out and touch someone" when the opportunity presents itself (at least that's what they taught me at Benning) but in Viet Nam - that wasn't always feasible. 9 times out of 10 - we were spraying the bush - hoping to keep Charlie's head down...that's when "select fire" came in handy

Now, I shoot for enjoyment. And it is relaxing as hell. The idea that I'm engaging in some "horrible activity" would be as foreign to us folks in Montana as the thought of Roe V Wade being overturned to the liberal wrist wringers on this board.

And to your point of "guerrilla warfare" - is it out of the question these days? Again - there is a storm on the horizon that ain't gonna end well for the country.