User avatar
seahawk
Posts: 8727
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:29 am

Re: Colt ending production of the AR-15

Fri Sep 27, 2019 1:44 pm

The 2nd amendment knows no limitation on the type og fire arm the citizens can own. Even full auto guns must be legal based on the constitution. You should be free to have your own M240G mounted on your truck if you so desire.
 
WIederling
Posts: 8888
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2015 2:15 pm

Re: Colt ending production of the AR-15

Fri Sep 27, 2019 2:02 pm

extender wrote:
seb146 wrote:
Besides all the people who have been murdered for simply going about their lives? The families that have been torn apart? Besides all lives matter?


If that is your contention, traffic fatalities take much more lives. Harping on them?


traffic fatalities are fall out from risk of using transport ( a needed activity.)
Being shot by some imbecile hobbyist has no balance.
Murphy is an optimist
 
extender
Posts: 337
Joined: Thu Oct 18, 2007 2:52 am

Re: Colt ending production of the AR-15

Fri Sep 27, 2019 2:09 pm

I wouldn't want to be shot by an imbecile hobbyist, hell, I don't want to be shot period.

But to call me an imbecile hobbyist is insulting.
 
User avatar
Aaron747
Posts: 9717
Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2003 2:07 am

Re: Colt ending production of the AR-15

Fri Sep 27, 2019 2:44 pm

seahawk wrote:
The 2nd amendment knows no limitation on the type og fire arm the citizens can own. Even full auto guns must be legal based on the constitution. You should be free to have your own M240G mounted on your truck if you so desire.


Hmm, um, no, not exactly. Justice Scalia in the majority opinion for District of Columbia v. Heller:

(2) Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZO.html

While you may want to believe that is the case, SCOTUS has ruled time and again that there are indeed limitations.
If you need someone to blame / throw a rock in the air / you'll hit someone guilty
 
extender
Posts: 337
Joined: Thu Oct 18, 2007 2:52 am

Re: Colt ending production of the AR-15

Fri Sep 27, 2019 2:49 pm

So the SCotUS doesn't make mistakes?
 
WIederling
Posts: 8888
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2015 2:15 pm

Re: Colt ending production of the AR-15

Fri Sep 27, 2019 3:09 pm

extender wrote:
So the SCotUS doesn't make mistakes?


coming repeatedly to a similar conclusion over the years on that topic
while the composition of the court changes over time
IMHO indicates that this is not a mistake.
Murphy is an optimist
 
User avatar
Aaron747
Posts: 9717
Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2003 2:07 am

Re: Colt ending production of the AR-15

Fri Sep 27, 2019 3:27 pm

extender wrote:
So the SCotUS doesn't make mistakes?


Justice Scalia is considered the gold standard justice among conservatives, so his opinion seems particularly prescient. And whether or not they make mistakes is irrelevant - their decisions impact the scope of practical law, not a.net posters' opinions. The other poster's claim that virtually any kind of weapon 'must be legal' is obviously countermanded by the language in Heller.
If you need someone to blame / throw a rock in the air / you'll hit someone guilty
 
User avatar
seahawk
Posts: 8727
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:29 am

Re: Colt ending production of the AR-15

Fri Sep 27, 2019 4:22 pm

Still none of those limitations are written in the constitution.
 
User avatar
seb146
Posts: 20723
Joined: Wed Dec 01, 1999 7:19 am

Re: Colt ending production of the AR-15

Fri Sep 27, 2019 4:43 pm

WIederling wrote:
extender wrote:
seb146 wrote:
Besides all the people who have been murdered for simply going about their lives? The families that have been torn apart? Besides all lives matter?


If that is your contention, traffic fatalities take much more lives. Harping on them?


traffic fatalities are fall out from risk of using transport ( a needed activity.)
Being shot by some imbecile hobbyist has no balance.


Transportation is not a "needed" activity". It is something we have come to expect thanks to advances in technology.

It is not generally "imbecile hobbyists" who are to blame for mass shootings and domestic terror attacks. It is a combination of ease of access to such weapons and mental illness and leaders feeding into lies and hate.
You bet I'm pumped!!! I just had a green tea!!!
 
User avatar
seb146
Posts: 20723
Joined: Wed Dec 01, 1999 7:19 am

Re: Colt ending production of the AR-15

Fri Sep 27, 2019 4:44 pm

seahawk wrote:
Still none of those limitations are written in the constitution.


"A well regulated militia" would disagree.
You bet I'm pumped!!! I just had a green tea!!!
 
WIederling
Posts: 8888
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2015 2:15 pm

Re: Colt ending production of the AR-15

Fri Sep 27, 2019 6:54 pm

seb146 wrote:
Transportation is not a "needed" activity". It is something we have come to expect thanks to advances in


Balloney!
It is a part of establilshed day to day life. ( would you part with your car/truck and/or access to public mobility ( even if that is limited to walking along the road ) without protest?

Nigh nobody follows Thoreau's ideas. Why work for the ticket to Rye when you can as well walk the distance. :-))
Murphy is an optimist
 
User avatar
DIRECTFLT
Posts: 2008
Joined: Sat Jan 02, 2010 3:00 am

Re: Colt ending production of the AR-15

Sun Sep 29, 2019 6:13 am

DL717 wrote:
LittleSprocket wrote:
seb146 wrote:

From the article I posted:

ArmaLite first developed the AR-15 in the late 1950s as a military rifle, but had limited success in selling it. In 1959 the company sold the design to Colt.

In 1963, the U.S. military selected Colt to manufacture the automatic rifle that soon became standard issue for U.S. troops in the Vietnam War. It was known as the M-16.


Nope. Not a weapon of war. Never developed for the military. Only always civilian. uh-huh

I get there are civilian rifles. That's fine. No one is talking about those. We are talking about a rifle developed for the United States military for war. Not for deer hunting or grouse hunting or scaring away coyotes. These are weapons of war. Used for killing humans.


Do you understand that the 2nd amendment is not about deer hunting but to keep a tyrannical government in check? I don’t care what it was designed for or whom...if it is the best self defense rifle out there I want it. An AR15 is great for fending off packs of wild dogs, coyotes, hogs, bobcats and other nuisance animals. It’s round is also designed for maiming more than killing which reduces casualties. If you were really serious about saving lives you would study the ammunition that is out there. A 5.56 round is just a souped up .22. Look at what can happen with anything greater that a .243.


Not worth the energy. The anti gun crowd thinks 2A applies to muskets, not a weapon equivalent to or superior to that of the enemy so that you can actually have a fighting chance. Cause our founding fathers couldn’t possibly have imagined firearm improvements over time. Even though improvements were ongoing at the time of its writing. :roll:

They’ll try and roll it into “that’s what the military is for”, but you didn’t see anyone running around with a personal canon or personal warship either.


Applying the Anti-2nd Amendment musket logic... there is nor freedom of the press except for things printed on a press. And that would then exclude TV News, Cable News, and Radio News among other platforms.... :spin:
Smoothest Ride so far ~ AA A300B4-600R ~~ Favorite Aviation Author ~ Robert J. Serling
 
KFTG
Posts: 182
Joined: Sun Apr 28, 2019 12:08 am

Re: Colt ending production of the AR-15

Sun Sep 29, 2019 10:20 am

extender wrote:
But civilians can legally own them, and will continue to own them.

Until it is illegal to do so. You do not have a "right" to own whatever weapon of your choice.
 
KFTG
Posts: 182
Joined: Sun Apr 28, 2019 12:08 am

Re: Colt ending production of the AR-15

Sun Sep 29, 2019 10:21 am

KFTG wrote:
LittleSprocket wrote:
Do you understand that the 2nd amendment is not about deer hunting but to keep a tyrannical government in check?

Oh? Who are you going to murder (assassinate) first from that "tyranical government"? Policemen? Military servicemembers? Government officials?
How do you propose you are going to (violently) overthrow a government with nuclear weapons? How about one with guided missile destroyers?
Or perhaps you have a plan to overthrow your local police department? You know, the one stockpiled with military grade weaponry and equipment?

Still waiting on liddlesprocket's reply.
 
ChrisKen
Posts: 838
Joined: Tue Aug 05, 2008 11:15 pm

Re: Colt ending production of the AR-15

Sun Sep 29, 2019 10:43 am

The second ammendment is about having a well regulated militia in the absence of a standing army.
You no longer require a militia as this has been superseded by standing military forces.
Any militia that supposedly exists today isn't well regulated.

The rights of the people to bear arms as part of a well regulated militia wouldn't be infringed if civilian usage was regulated.
With rights, come responsibilities. The right to bear arms comes with the responsibility to provide military service. In which case, you should have no problem with being held liable to draft at any time or being required to meet and maintain the required standards throughout your ownership should the government start applying them once again.
 
WIederling
Posts: 8888
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2015 2:15 pm

Re: Colt ending production of the AR-15

Sun Sep 29, 2019 10:50 am

ChrisKen wrote:
The right to bear arms comes with the responsibility to provide military service. In which case, you should have no problem with being held liable to draft at any time or being required to meet and maintain the required standards throughout your ownership should the government start applying them once again.


They'll shoot Postman bringing the draft notice first. Holnists
Murphy is an optimist
 
johns624
Posts: 2227
Joined: Mon Jul 07, 2008 11:09 pm

Re: Colt ending production of the AR-15

Sun Sep 29, 2019 12:05 pm

KFTG wrote:
extender wrote:
But civilians can legally own them, and will continue to own them.

Until it is illegal to do so. You do not have a "right" to own whatever weapon of your choice.
But you do have a right to self defense. You are as likely to meet a criminal as a cop, so why shouldn't you be able to be as well armed? In fact, you are more likely to meet up with a criminal as cops don't stop crime as much as they show up to write the reports.
 
WIederling
Posts: 8888
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2015 2:15 pm

Re: Colt ending production of the AR-15

Sun Sep 29, 2019 1:59 pm

johns624 wrote:
But you do have a right to self defense. You are as likely to meet a criminal as a cop, so why shouldn't you be able to be as well armed?


You don't have a right to preemptive "self defense" and
you don't have a right to shoot the guy who fills your post box with unwanted leaflets either.

One property of a _civilized_ society is to have delegated use of "excessive force" to some group institution ( here police ).
If in your view the state of affairs requires to be armed to the teeth with equipment more suitable to formal war
either you or the society needs some adjustment. ( depends on how many "you"s there are.)
Murphy is an optimist
 
johns624
Posts: 2227
Joined: Mon Jul 07, 2008 11:09 pm

Re: Colt ending production of the AR-15

Sun Sep 29, 2019 5:00 pm

WIederling wrote:
johns624 wrote:
But you do have a right to self defense. You are as likely to meet a criminal as a cop, so why shouldn't you be able to be as well armed?


You don't have a right to preemptive "self defense" and
you don't have a right to shoot the guy who fills your post box with unwanted leaflets either.

One property of a _civilized_ society is to have delegated use of "excessive force" to some group institution ( here police ).
If in your view the state of affairs requires to be armed to the teeth with equipment more suitable to formal war
either you or the society needs some adjustment. ( depends on how many "you"s there are.)

When did I ever say you did? I've had an AR15 or two for 20+ years and I've never had the urge to shoot anyone with them, just like millions of other responsible owners. In fact, I've competed nationally with one and occasionally even beat military team members. I do leave the full auto weapons to the military. My gun is just like a revolver, one pull of the trigger, one shot.
 
GalaxyFlyer
Posts: 3700
Joined: Fri Jan 01, 2016 4:44 am

Re: Colt ending production of the AR-15

Mon Sep 30, 2019 9:59 pm

ChrisKen wrote:
The second ammendment is about having a well regulated militia in the absence of a standing army.
You no longer require a militia as this has been superseded by standing military forces.
Any militia that supposedly exists today isn't well regulated.

The rights of the people to bear arms as part of a well regulated militia wouldn't be infringed if civilian usage was regulated.
With rights, come responsibilities. The right to bear arms comes with the responsibility to provide military service. In which case, you should have no problem with being held liable to draft at any time or being required to meet and maintain the required standards throughout your ownership should the government start applying them once again.


Care to show us where, in either law or custom, membership in a militia was required by the 2nd Amendment. Sounds like you’re making things up. I served in the military for 29 years and was never told I had to be militia member to own arms. Also, I’ve never been asked in six states I held or owned firearms that I had to join the militia as a condition of licensure. You might rethink that.

GF
 
LittleSprocket
Posts: 262
Joined: Sun Oct 30, 2016 2:56 am

Re: Colt ending production of the AR-15

Tue Oct 01, 2019 12:07 am

KFTG wrote:
KFTG wrote:
LittleSprocket wrote:
Do you understand that the 2nd amendment is not about deer hunting but to keep a tyrannical government in check?

Oh? Who are you going to murder (assassinate) first from that "tyranical government"? Policemen? Military servicemembers? Government officials?
How do you propose you are going to (violently) overthrow a government with nuclear weapons? How about one with guided missile destroyers?
Or perhaps you have a plan to overthrow your local police department? You know, the one stockpiled with military grade weaponry and equipment?

Still waiting on liddlesprocket's reply.


Excuse me? For starters I don’t spend my life on this board nor on any other form of social media. I prefer to go about life and enjoy it for all that it is.

I’ll give you one simple answer...the Oklahoma City bombing was committed by 2 disgruntled veterans and a truck fool of fertilizer. I’ll also raise you the fact that we have been fighting a war overseas in Afghanistan for 18 years now and the Taliban has no Air Force, no satellites, no drones, no nuclear weapons nor an armored force yet they manage to keep the worlds strongest military stuck in a quagmire. The Vietnam War for instance showed how effective that type of warfare can be... What’s really scary here is the fact that you are trying to take away these firearms while advocating that the government nuke those that dare hold it accountable.

Do you people even think past your ideologies when you post this nonsense?
 
LittleSprocket
Posts: 262
Joined: Sun Oct 30, 2016 2:56 am

Re: Colt ending production of the AR-15

Tue Oct 01, 2019 12:10 am

ChrisKen wrote:
The second ammendment is about having a well regulated militia in the absence of a standing army.
You no longer require a militia as this has been superseded by standing military forces.
Any militia that supposedly exists today isn't well regulated.

The rights of the people to bear arms as part of a well regulated militia wouldn't be infringed if civilian usage was regulated.
With rights, come responsibilities. The right to bear arms comes with the responsibility to provide military service. In which case, you should have no problem with being held liable to draft at any time or being required to meet and maintain the required standards throughout your ownership should the government start applying them once again.


Check mate

“10 U.S. Code § 246. Militia: composition and classes
U.S. Code
Notes
prev | next
(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are—
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.”

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/246
 
LittleSprocket
Posts: 262
Joined: Sun Oct 30, 2016 2:56 am

Re: Colt ending production of the AR-15

Tue Oct 01, 2019 12:14 am

DIRECTFLT wrote:
DL717 wrote:
LittleSprocket wrote:

Do you understand that the 2nd amendment is not about deer hunting but to keep a tyrannical government in check? I don’t care what it was designed for or whom...if it is the best self defense rifle out there I want it. An AR15 is great for fending off packs of wild dogs, coyotes, hogs, bobcats and other nuisance animals. It’s round is also designed for maiming more than killing which reduces casualties. If you were really serious about saving lives you would study the ammunition that is out there. A 5.56 round is just a souped up .22. Look at what can happen with anything greater that a .243.


Not worth the energy. The anti gun crowd thinks 2A applies to muskets, not a weapon equivalent to or superior to that of the enemy so that you can actually have a fighting chance. Cause our founding fathers couldn’t possibly have imagined firearm improvements over time. Even though improvements were ongoing at the time of its writing. :roll:

They’ll try and roll it into “that’s what the military is for”, but you didn’t see anyone running around with a personal canon or personal warship either.


Applying the Anti-2nd Amendment musket logic... there is nor freedom of the press except for things printed on a press. And that would then exclude TV News, Cable News, and Radio News among other platforms.... :spin:


I agree wholeheartedly. They can’t seem to grasp why the founding fathers would want the civilian population armed after fighting to overthrow an oppressive government. What’s funny, like you stated, is that they seem to think that they couldn’t imagine the advancement of firearms which is great except civilians owned Puckle Guns (which we machine guns invented in 1718) as well as artillery pieces. If they want to stick to 18th century technology, I’ll gladly take a canon to the range...grape shot would be awesome!
 
GalaxyFlyer
Posts: 3700
Joined: Fri Jan 01, 2016 4:44 am

Re: Colt ending production of the AR-15

Tue Oct 01, 2019 12:33 am

Grape shot wouldn’t have helped at M&M this past weekend
 
User avatar
DL717
Posts: 1736
Joined: Wed May 23, 2018 10:53 pm

Re: Colt ending production of the AR-15

Tue Oct 01, 2019 2:25 am

ChrisKen wrote:
The second ammendment is about having a well regulated militia in the absence of a standing army.
You no longer require a militia as this has been superseded by standing military forces.
Any militia that supposedly exists today isn't well regulated.

The rights of the people to bear arms as part of a well regulated militia wouldn't be infringed if civilian usage was regulated.
With rights, come responsibilities. The right to bear arms comes with the responsibility to provide military service. In which case, you should have no problem with being held liable to draft at any time or being required to meet and maintain the required standards throughout your ownership should the government start applying them once again.


Interesting position considering many of the left think Trump is a Hitler like dictator hell bent on taking over the country by force.
Welcome to Nothingburgers. May I take your order?
 
User avatar
DIRECTFLT
Posts: 2008
Joined: Sat Jan 02, 2010 3:00 am

Re: Colt ending production of the AR-15

Wed Oct 02, 2019 7:00 am

DL717 wrote:
ChrisKen wrote:
The second ammendment is about having a well regulated militia in the absence of a standing army.
You no longer require a militia as this has been superseded by standing military forces.
Any militia that supposedly exists today isn't well regulated.

The rights of the people to bear arms as part of a well regulated militia wouldn't be infringed if civilian usage was regulated.
With rights, come responsibilities. The right to bear arms comes with the responsibility to provide military service. In which case, you should have no problem with being held liable to draft at any time or being required to meet and maintain the required standards throughout your ownership should the government start applying them once again.


Interesting position considering many of the left think Trump is a Hitler like dictator hell bent on taking over the country by force.


They're just projecting their evil desires on America onto Trump.
Smoothest Ride so far ~ AA A300B4-600R ~~ Favorite Aviation Author ~ Robert J. Serling
 
User avatar
seahawk
Posts: 8727
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:29 am

Re: Colt ending production of the AR-15

Wed Oct 02, 2019 7:13 am

If you want to go full cultural revolution on America, everybody opposed to this must be Hitler.
 
User avatar
lightsaber
Moderator
Posts: 18136
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 10:55 pm

Re: Colt ending production of the AR-15

Mon Oct 07, 2019 12:54 am

LittleSprocket wrote:
DIRECTFLT wrote:
DL717 wrote:

Not worth the energy. The anti gun crowd thinks 2A applies to muskets, not a weapon equivalent to or superior to that of the enemy so that you can actually have a fighting chance. Cause our founding fathers couldn’t possibly have imagined firearm improvements over time. Even though improvements were ongoing at the time of its writing. :roll:

They’ll try and roll it into “that’s what the military is for”, but you didn’t see anyone running around with a personal canon or personal warship either.


Applying the Anti-2nd Amendment musket logic... there is nor freedom of the press except for things printed on a press. And that would then exclude TV News, Cable News, and Radio News among other platforms.... :spin:


I agree wholeheartedly. They can’t seem to grasp why the founding fathers would want the civilian population armed after fighting to overthrow an oppressive government. What’s funny, like you stated, is that they seem to think that they couldn’t imagine the advancement of firearms which is great except civilians owned Puckle Guns (which we machine guns invented in 1718) as well as artillery pieces. If they want to stick to 18th century technology, I’ll gladly take a canon to the range...grape shot would be awesome!

You only have the 1st amendment with the 2nd. Would the Chinese government listen to Hong Kong protesters if they had AR-15s? You had better believe it!

Sigh, my range only allows, 12-gauge shotgun, .223/5.56, and limited (not highest muzzle velocity) 308, 7.62, 30-06, and 45-70 (FUN!).

The founding fathers knew government inherently becomes corrupt. You can only be so corrupt if everyone owns firearms.

Lightsaber
IM messages to mods on warnings and bans will be ignored and nasty ones will result in a ban.
 
User avatar
lightsaber
Moderator
Posts: 18136
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 10:55 pm

Re: Colt ending production of the AR-15

Mon Oct 07, 2019 12:55 am

PS, a militia is a local organization to arm and train. I could easily form a local militia of 200+. :)
Heck, I think my employers gun club has 5,000 members at our local site...

Lightsaber
IM messages to mods on warnings and bans will be ignored and nasty ones will result in a ban.
 
cpd
Posts: 6012
Joined: Sat Jun 28, 2008 4:46 am

Re: Colt ending production of the AR-15

Mon Oct 07, 2019 2:49 am

lightsaber wrote:
LittleSprocket wrote:
DIRECTFLT wrote:

Applying the Anti-2nd Amendment musket logic... there is nor freedom of the press except for things printed on a press. And that would then exclude TV News, Cable News, and Radio News among other platforms.... :spin:


I agree wholeheartedly. They can’t seem to grasp why the founding fathers would want the civilian population armed after fighting to overthrow an oppressive government. What’s funny, like you stated, is that they seem to think that they couldn’t imagine the advancement of firearms which is great except civilians owned Puckle Guns (which we machine guns invented in 1718) as well as artillery pieces. If they want to stick to 18th century technology, I’ll gladly take a canon to the range...grape shot would be awesome!

You only have the 1st amendment with the 2nd. Would the Chinese government listen to Hong Kong protesters if they had AR-15s? You had better believe it!

Lightsaber


What good is an AR-15 against armoured tanks? They can simply just run over all the protesters.
 
extender
Posts: 337
Joined: Thu Oct 18, 2007 2:52 am

Re: Colt ending production of the AR-15

Mon Oct 07, 2019 10:39 am

cpd wrote:
What good is an AR-15 against armoured tanks? They can simply just run over all the protesters.


Improvise, adapt, overcome. Shaped charges do wonder on armour.
 
johns624
Posts: 2227
Joined: Mon Jul 07, 2008 11:09 pm

Re: Colt ending production of the AR-15

Mon Oct 07, 2019 11:55 am

cpd wrote:

What good is an AR-15 against armoured tanks? They can simply just run over all the protesters.
There are men in those tanks who have to come out. The Russians used Molotov Cocktails to good effect in WW2. You're also overlooking the fact that parts of the military wouldn't obey the government's authority.
 
cpd
Posts: 6012
Joined: Sat Jun 28, 2008 4:46 am

Re: Colt ending production of the AR-15

Mon Oct 07, 2019 7:12 pm

johns624 wrote:
cpd wrote:

What good is an AR-15 against armoured tanks? They can simply just run over all the protesters.
There are men in those tanks who have to come out. The Russians used Molotov Cocktails to good effect in WW2. You're also overlooking the fact that parts of the military wouldn't obey the government's authority.



They obeyed authority in Tiananmen Square, so why wouldn’t they do it again in HK, which is what led to this whole tangent. Of course that wouldn’t happen in the ‘States.
 
GalaxyFlyer
Posts: 3700
Joined: Fri Jan 01, 2016 4:44 am

Re: Colt ending production of the AR-15

Tue Oct 08, 2019 3:40 am

cpd wrote:
lightsaber wrote:
LittleSprocket wrote:

I agree wholeheartedly. They can’t seem to grasp why the founding fathers would want the civilian population armed after fighting to overthrow an oppressive government. What’s funny, like you stated, is that they seem to think that they couldn’t imagine the advancement of firearms which is great except civilians owned Puckle Guns (which we machine guns invented in 1718) as well as artillery pieces. If they want to stick to 18th century technology, I’ll gladly take a canon to the range...grape shot would be awesome!

You only have the 1st amendment with the 2nd. Would the Chinese government listen to Hong Kong protesters if they had AR-15s? You had better believe it!

Lightsaber


What good is an AR-15 against armoured tanks? They can simply just run over all the protesters.


I suggest reading lots of military history—the “underdog” frequently wins. Just ask George Washington, Ho Chi Minh and countless Afghans.

GF
 
johns624
Posts: 2227
Joined: Mon Jul 07, 2008 11:09 pm

Re: Colt ending production of the AR-15

Tue Oct 08, 2019 11:03 am

cpd wrote:
johns624 wrote:
cpd wrote:

What good is an AR-15 against armoured tanks? They can simply just run over all the protesters.
There are men in those tanks who have to come out. The Russians used Molotov Cocktails to good effect in WW2. You're also overlooking the fact that parts of the military wouldn't obey the government's authority.



They obeyed authority in Tiananmen Square, so why wouldn’t they do it again in HK, which is what led to this whole tangent. Of course that wouldn’t happen in the ‘States.
I wasn't speaking of Chinese troops...

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: mdsh00 and 44 guests

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos