What makes the M4/M16 type rifles more deadly besides the select fire trigger?

[The B]

Answering the OP directly -

fast rate of high volume, accurate, and very incapacitating fire. Yea, theyre deadly as sh¡t, thats why we like em. when you need to fight or die, thats what you want.

any argument to the contrary is transparently disingenuous and counterproductive by making us look like were either stupid or lying.

those here who have made the point that its just plain irrelevant how "deadly" a weapon is or whether or not a gun can be called a "weapon of war" are spot-on. Guns are deadly, thats the whole point.

any time gun control comes up in my circles, my answer is always the same: the 2nd amendment is the law of the land. Guns are legal; gun laws are illegal. If you want to make guns illegal and/or gun laws legal, there's a legal process for that: constitutional amendment. Till you get that, STFU.

 

[American123]

Not sure what you're saying. Each gun is registered and can be inspected at will by the ATF. The registry closed in 1986.

I think we are talking past eachother, all my examples were related to the time that the NFA was enacted in the 30's.

 

[RX-79G]

I think we are talking past eachother, all my examples were related to the time that the NFA was enacted in the 30's.

Yeah, and in the 30s any registered Thompson suspected of being linked to a crime could have been collected and tested.

I don't know what the guy bringing stuff in from China has to do with - if they were machineguns they would be subject to registration, and if it was recent they weren't able to be registered.

 

[RVTECH]

George Kelly used a Tommy and likely acquired it through theft or purchase (pre NFA, the guy was an outlaw but did have some bootleg cash).

I believe I once saw in a documentary his girlfriend bought his Tommy Gun in a pawn shop for like $11 if I recall. If even true!

 

[mhayd93]

Answering the OP directly -

fast rate of high volume, accurate, and very incapacitating fire. Yea, theyre deadly as sh¡t, thats why we like em. when you need to fight or die, thats what you want.

any argument to the contrary is transparently disingenuous and counterproductive by making us look like were either stupid or lying.

those here who have made the point that its just plain irrelevant how "deadly" a weapon is or whether or not a gun can be called a "weapon of war" are spot-on. Guns are deadly, thats the whole point.

any time gun control comes up in my circles, my answer is always the same: the 2nd amendment is the law of the land. Guns are legal; gun laws are illegal. If you want to make guns illegal and/or gun laws legal, there's a legal process for that: constitutional amendment. Till you get that, STFU.

I think there is a misunderstanding as to why people are debating the semantics of what constitutes a "military style" "weapon of war."

It is not disingenuous as a 2A supporter to argue the technicalities with those who would classify the AR-15 as an "assault rifle." As many others have pointed out, current legal doctrine (consistent with some of the most recent Supreme Court rulings such as Heller v DC) has created a classification system of firearms which clearly separates "assault weapons" from those which are consider common use among civilians.

I think every member of this forum is vehemently against the "common use" doctrine and the myriad of restrictions allowed by the courts in interpreting the Second Amendment so narrowly. That being said, that is where the battle is taking place. The gun grabbers have established a battlefield trying to classify AR-15s (among other firearms) as "weapons of war" because that would give them more legal justification to ban them from civilian ownership. It is in this context that those of us on the correct side of the Second Amendment get into the semantics of "what is the difference between an M4 and AR-15?"

I am all for offensive actions to get rid of restrictions (such as the NFA and ATF) that have become firmly entrenched in society. That does not mean that we should just stop playing defense though. Both can be done at the same time.

 

[Hueco]

I believe I once saw in a documentary his girlfriend bought his Tommy Gun in a pawn shop for like $11 if I recall. If even true!

I'd be surprised if that's true. The $200 tax stamp created for the NFA wasn't chosen at random - it was the retail price of the Tommy Gun. (Side note, the government applied a 100% tax to an item in 1934...The Tea Act (1773) established a tax of 3 Pennies/Lb of tea [which was ~0.11/lb at the time...so, roughly 33%]. So, in 161 years, the population went from "I'll see your 3 pennies and pew pew you back to hell" to "yessir Uncle Sam")

So...a Tommy showing up in a pawn shop for $11? Pawn shop must have mistaken it for something not a cutting edge piece of ballistic technology.

 

[American123]

Yeah, and in the 30s any registered Thompson suspected of being linked to a crime could have been collected and tested.

I don't know what the guy bringing stuff in from China has to do with - if they were machineguns they would be subject to registration, and if it was recent they weren't able to be registered.

The stuff brought in from China was all illegal, under the table, no registration. My point this entire time has been that these laws only prevent the law abiding.

 

[RX-79G]

It is not disingenuous as a 2A supporter to argue the technicalities with those who would classify the AR-15 as an "assault rifle." As many others have pointed out, current legal doctrine (consistent with some of the most recent Supreme Court rulings such as Heller v DC) has created a classification system of firearms which clearly separates "assault weapons" from those which are consider common use among civilians.

It is a somewhat pointless exercise, since assault weapon is not a pre-existing term (unlike assault rifle) and can be used whatever way the user wishes.

In WA, tube fed .22 semiautos are semiautomatic assault rifles. It has nothing to do with how common that gun is, since that three word term is essentially newly created for a specific regulatory purpose.

There isn't much point in arguing about definitions when a new definition can be created with a new string of words at any time. Assault rifle has never been a US legal term. It is a loose idea that even gun people can argue about (M2 Carbine, HK53).

 

[RVTECH]

The gun grabbers have established a battlefield trying to classify AR-15s (among other firearms) as "weapons of war" because that would give them more legal justification to ban them from civilian ownership.

And this is exactly why I believe the AWB was created as I have said before.

It resulted in a panic purchase of ARs. AKs etc. like never seen before - and then when it ended in 2004 it opened the door to a slew of new anti gun advocates as never seen before.

Diabolical plan or just a coincidence ? We'll never know but it was an interesting sequence of events to see at the time.

 

[RX-79G]

The stuff brought in from China was all illegal, under the table, no registration. My point this entire time has been that these laws only prevent the law abiding.

Well, yeah. And most people avoid breaking laws, and the people who do break them do so at the added risk of detection and prosecution. Laws don't just punish if you are caught, they allow for the investigation and detection of those items. Despite all the relatively easy means of making or smuggling machineguns, the US does not have a machinegun violence problem. It seems like the NFA largely worked to make creating, buying or stealing them unappealing to criminals.

 

[American123]

Well, yeah. And most people avoid breaking laws, and the people who do break them do so at the added risk of detection and prosecution. Laws don't just punish if you are caught, they allow for the investigation and detection of those items. Despite all the relatively easy means of making or smuggling machineguns, the US does not have a machinegun violence problem. It seems like the NFA largely worked to make creating, buying or stealing them unappealing to criminals.

Or, possibly that the difference in effectiveness in hitting a target with semi auto fire vs full automatic fire is insignificant. This is generally the case in watching most anyone shoot full auto at greater than household distances, the forst shot is on target, the second shot might be on the target, and the rest are somewhere outside the target (but it sounds impressive)

Because if having a full auto gun gave people such a significant advantage that it mattered, there would be people who would want that.

 

[The B]

I think there is a misunderstanding as to why people are debating the semantics of what constitutes a "military style" "weapon of war."

It is not disingenuous as a 2A supporter to argue the technicalities with those who would classify the AR-15 as an "assault rifle." As many others have pointed out, current legal doctrine (consistent with some of the most recent Supreme Court rulings such as Heller v DC) has created a classification system of firearms which clearly separates "assault weapons" from those which are consider common use among civilians.

I think every member of this forum is vehemently against the "common use" doctrine and the myriad of restrictions allowed by the courts in interpreting the Second Amendment so narrowly. That being said, that is where the battle is taking place. The gun grabbers have established a battlefield trying to classify AR-15s (among other firearms) as "weapons of war" because that would give them more legal justification to ban them from civilian ownership. It is in this context that those of us on the correct side of the Second Amendment get into the semantics of "what is the difference between an M4 and AR-15?"

I am all for offensive actions to get rid of restrictions (such as the NFA and ATF) that have become firmly entrenched in society. That does not mean that we should just stop playing defense though. Both can be done at the same time.

Trying to make the claim that black rifles or higher capacity autos dont offer overall more killing capacity than other, non-contentious guns, is disingenuous. Yes, they are. Thats why they exist, its why we have to demand that our right to own and use them be recognized.

last goddamn thing i want to be slugging it out with a murderous burglar in my house at 3am is a bubbleguming 26" bolt action deer rifle, or goddamn 5-shot revolver. I want 30 rounds of flesh-rending 5.56 blasting out of my short barreled, easy to aim, fire, and maneuver in close quarters AR15. There is absolutely zero reason to go to anything less than the single most deadly tool available when my life is on the line.

arguing about the differences in invented definitions does nothing other than validate the anti's position - denying (or confirming) that a gun is a "weapon of war" legitimizes the term, and the term is total bullbubblegum. Theres no such thing as a "weapon of war," and acquiescing that there is just further erodes our position by creating yet another arbitrary classification that can be used against us.

This AR15 isnt a weapon of war, only "assault weapons" are weapons of war. Cool.. so the things we're unconstitutionally prohibited from owning are now classed as "weapons of war" and the prohibitions deepen.. thats cool, until ALL semiautomatic rifles or "high capacity" pistols are classed as "assault weapons," and now are also considered "weapons of war," etcetcetc.. we can take those scenarios to infinity, and all of them will involve further erosion of our right to keep and bear. Playing that game is just playing to fail - that position only makes sense if you think our fight is impossible and youre willing to make concessions to just hold on a little longer. Thats exactly how we got where we are today, with our constitutional right nary more than a boon our government sometimes allows under strict conditions.

it also further confuses or at least partitions american's perceptions of guns and their legitimate uses, and further erodes the strength of the second amendment. All of MY guns are, in fact, weapons - im not a goddamn deer hunter, im not an olympic target shooter, im not an "enthusiast," theres nothing "sporting" about my guns- im a self-defense gun owner. My weapons are for two-legged psychopaths or enemy invaders alone, and by the second amendment i dont have to defend that position at all. Im not arguing over what features my guns have or what totally irrelevant/arbitrary classifications some moron anti-gunner wants to invent to label them with. And its important americans view our 2A right in that light. Validating this ridiculous notion that some guns are "weapons of war" serves only to strengthen the notion that some guns are bad and some guns are less bad and we should only be allowed the less-bad guns.

cuz theres ALWAYS going to be a less bad gun we can further restrict to.

you play politics with our rights all you want, but thats not my game.

 

[Enginerd]

Weapon of war has always been the worst argument. You don't even have to resort to ideological arguments, it's just factually wrong to suggest that ar15s are unique because of its similarity to its service cousin. I get giddy every time someone tries to use it. 1) 99% of weapons development and advancement can be traced back to military roots. 2) the most common hunting firearms (Remington model 700, Mossberg 500 series, Remington 870) all have active service equivalents that are mechanically identical much more so than m16/ar15. 3) Ar15 was sold to civilians before it was adopted by the government.

 

[RX-79G]

Or, possibly that the difference in effectiveness in hitting a target with semi auto fire vs full automatic fire is insignificant. This is generally the case in watching most anyone shoot full auto at greater than household distances, the forst shot is on target, the second shot might be on the target, and the rest are somewhere outside the target (but it sounds impressive)

Because if having a full auto gun gave people such a significant advantage that it mattered, there would be people who would want that.

I don't know how much tactical testing and evaluation criminals go through with machineguns they don't have to determine if they should get some. But I imagine it is very little.

99% of gun crime is with handguns.

 

[Tony617]

Weapon of war has always been the worst argument. You don't even have to resort to ideological arguments, it's just factually wrong to suggest that ar15s are unique because of its similarity to its service cousin. I get giddy every time someone tries to use it. 1) 99% of weapons development and advancement can be traced back to military roots. 2) the most common hunting firearms (Remington model 700, Mossberg 500 series, Remington 870) all have active service equivalents that are mechanically identical much more so than m16/ar15. 3) Ar15 was sold to civilians before it was adopted by the government.

Colt started selling Colt AR-15 Sporter rifles to the public back in 1964. Note that it only had a 5 round magazine at that time.

 

[mhayd93]

Trying to make the claim that black rifles or higher capacity autos dont offer overall more killing capacity than other, non-contentious guns, is disingenuous. Yes, they are. Thats why they exist, its why we have to demand that our right to own and use them be recognized.

last goddamn thing i want to be slugging it out with a murderous burglar in my house at 3am is a bubbleguming 26" bolt action deer rifle, or goddamn 5-shot revolver. I want 30 rounds of flesh-rending 5.56 blasting out of my short barreled, easy to aim, fire, and maneuver in close quarters AR15. There is absolutely zero reason to go to anything less than the single most deadly tool available when my life is on the line.

arguing about the differences in invented definitions does nothing other than validate the anti's position - denying (or confirming) that a gun is a "weapon of war" legitimizes the term, and the term is total bullbubblegum. Theres no such thing as a "weapon of war," and acquiescing that there is just further erodes our position by creating yet another arbitrary classification that can be used against us.

This AR15 isnt a weapon of war, only "assault weapons" are weapons of war. Cool.. so the things we're unconstitutionally prohibited from owning are now classed as "weapons of war" and the prohibitions deepen.. thats cool, until ALL semiautomatic rifles or "high capacity" pistols are classed as "assault weapons," and now are also considered "weapons of war," etcetcetc.. we can take those scenarios to infinity, and all of them will involve further erosion of our right to keep and bear. Playing that game is just playing to fail - that position only makes sense if you think our fight is impossible and youre willing to make concessions to just hold on a little longer. Thats exactly how we got where we are today, with our constitutional right nary more than a boon our government sometimes allows under strict conditions.

it also further confuses or at least partitions american's perceptions of guns and their legitimate uses, and further erodes the strength of the second amendment. All of MY guns are, in fact, weapons - im not a goddamn deer hunter, im not an olympic target shooter, im not an "enthusiast," theres nothing "sporting" about my guns- im a self-defense gun owner. My weapons are for two-legged psychopaths or enemy invaders alone, and by the second amendment i dont have to defend that position at all. Im not arguing over what features my guns have or what totally irrelevant/arbitrary classifications some moron anti-gunner wants to invent to label them with. And its important americans view our 2A right in that light. Validating this ridiculous notion that some guns are "weapons of war" serves only to strengthen the notion that some guns are bad and some guns are less bad and we should only be allowed the less-bad guns.

cuz theres ALWAYS going to be a less bad gun we can further restrict to.

you play politics with our rights all you want, but thats not my game.

Short of a violent revolution, "playing politics" is the current arena where the Second Amendment is being attacked, and therefore where it is also being defended.

I have already agreed that the current definitions and system of restrictions need to be done away with entirely; how lethal a weapon is or it's intended purpose should have no bearing on what we can own according to the Second Amendment. As a matter of fact, any reasonable human being would interpret the Second Amendment to be purely for the average citizens ability to defend themselves and this country against foreign or domestic threats. "Weapons of war" are therefore strongly encouraged by the Second Amendment!

Back to my point though; like it or not, unconstitutional laws have been put in place to restrict the Second Amendment. Much of the justification revolves around the separation of "assault weapons" from "common use" firearms. Again, like it or not, those arbitrary definitions and reasoning have been used to successfully achieve gun control. As such, when people try to erroneously lump in AR-15s or AK-47s with their select fire brethren, it needs to be called out and resisted.

I have no desire to give up ground, which is why we do have to play defense according to the rules as they are currently written. Like I said earlier though, this defense can happen while also aggressively pursuing the removal of 2A restrictions. If clinging to legal technicalities is successful in maintaining our rights as we have them now, then that needs to continue to happen until proactive solutions come to fruition.

 

[The B]

Short of a violent revolution, "playing politics" is the current arena where the Second Amendment is being attacked, and therefore where it is also being defended.

I have already agreed that the current definitions and system of restrictions need to be done away with entirely; how lethal a weapon is or it's intended purpose should have no bearing on what we can own according to the Second Amendment. As a matter of fact, any reasonable human being would interpret the Second Amendment to be purely for the average citizens ability to defend themselves and this country against foreign or domestic threats. "Weapons of war" are therefore strongly encouraged by the Second Amendment!

Back to my point though; like it or not, unconstitutional laws have been put in place to restrict the Second Amendment. Much of the justification revolves around the separation of "assault weapons" from "common use" firearms. Again, like it or not, those arbitrary definitions and reasoning have been used to successfully achieve gun control. As such, when people try to erroneously lump in AR-15s or AK-47s with their select fire brethren, it needs to be called out and resisted.

I have no desire to give up ground, which is why we do have to play defense according to the rules as they are currently written. Like I said earlier though, this defense can happen while also aggressively pursuing the removal of 2A restrictions. If clinging to legal technicalities is successful in maintaining our rights as we have them now, then that needs to continue to happen until proactive solutions come to fruition.

I hear you. I just disagree, as far as an action-plan goes. I dont know about you, but im currently in no way involved in the political fight, im just a dude with an opinion. If i felt my contribution was worth much, id lend in. But as it is, just as you describe it, we're beyond the point where an extremist view is useful. And its pretty lame that my view- which i believe is not the least bit extreme in believing the goddamn constitution should be followed to the letter- IS absolutely considered an extremist viewpoint.

believe me, im no where near extreme in my overall political ideology - im a realist and a rationalist. If it makes sense and fits within the framework of the law, buddy lets do it. Ive never seen gun control legislation - suggested nor enacted - that fit. the supreme law says "shall not be infringed." Its just no simpler than that.

and yea - if a supermajority of americans decided together to strike the 2nd amendment and permit states to legally enact euro-style gun control, i'd have to accept that. The law is the law.

fortunately that aint happening for at least a couple more generations.. if the union isnt dissolved before.

 

[RX-79G]

As such, when people try to erroneously lump in AR-15s or AK-47s with their select fire brethren, it needs to be called out and resisted.

I have no desire to give up ground, which is why we do have to play defense according to the rules as they are currently written. Like I said earlier though, this defense can happen while also aggressively pursuing the removal of 2A restrictions. If clinging to legal technicalities is successful in maintaining our rights as we have them now, then that needs to continue to happen until proactive solutions come to fruition.

That's a losing play. As pointed out, this just makes us look either dumb or disingenuous to the fence sitters. We would do much better to make a deeper argument about the real dangers of de-clawing Americans for both ourselves and the world.

 

[mhayd93]

That's a losing play. As pointed out, this just makes us look either dumb or disingenuous to the fence sitters. We would do much better to make a deeper argument about the real dangers of de-clawing Americans for both ourselves and the world.

How is it a losing play? There have been many victories for the Second Amendment as a result of people challenging restrictions through the legal system, which involves getting down to the "legalese" definitions and semantics.

Like I said, a combination of legal defense and proactive measures (such as reaching out to the fence sitters with a message like you mentioned) is going to increase our chances of success, not diminish it.

 

[RX-79G]

How is it a losing play? There have been many victories for the Second Amendment as a result of people challenging restrictions through the legal system, which involves getting down to the "legalese" definitions and semantics.

Like I said, a combination of legal defense and proactive measures (such as reaching out to the fence sitters with a message like you mentioned) is going to increase our chances of success, not diminish it.

When you correct some guy on the internet for saying Weapon of War, you are not engaging the legal system.

The fence sitters are being reached out to, just not with anything that is logical or convincing.