I would question the sanity of anyone who would purchase an assault/military style weapon

[G_j]

IMHO, No sane person would think they need one.

[marym625]

1. Agree

[still_one]

2. What a great point. Why isn't that brought up more often?

[Eleanors38]

73. Heh.

[hack89]

3. There are thousands of competitive target shooters that would disagree

Including me and my family. In 35 years of gun ownership I have never harmed a living thing.

[Photographer]

12. You can do thaat with a single shot 22. Pretend it's the Olympics.

[hack89]

13. I think not. nt

[Photographer]

14. Why not? Wanna be like Annie Oakly and shoot silver dollars out of the sky or something?

[RoccoR5955]

47. you can target shoot competitively with a BB gun

You don't NEED an assault rifle!
PLAIN AND SIMPLE!
You may not have harmed anything YET, but the potential certainly is there.

[Waldorf]

64. It's not an assault rifle, it's a semi-automatic rifle.

If I want to play with an assault rifle I need to join the military or SWAT.

[RoccoR5955]

68. Oh EXCUUUUUUUSE Me!

Like you can't kill anyone with your semi-automatic rifle.
Another ammosexual!

[ManiacJoe]

77. You can kill someone with a BB gun, too.

If you are not familiar with the terms, look them up before you use them.

[JonathanRackham]

108. Careful you'll shoot your eye out.

[Waldorf]

83. Cute. Ammosexual. Minds me of words I heard in elementary school during recess.

[Duckhunter935]

101. way to go

When you have nothing but insults, lol

[bvar22]

76. ...or throw lawn darts!!!

[G_j]

78. yes, certainly

skill is skill. Horseshoes is one of my favorites!

[Waldorf]

84. Played a lot of lawn darts back in the 70's.

[treestar]

111. How does everyone else know that?

We don't know who is going to flip out.

I wonder if you would be willing to have a law where you leave the guns at the target range. That way anyone could target shoot but the guns would not be out in public.

[hack89]

120. If the government was willing to pay the millions

To build really strong security facilities? Perhaps. On the other hand a large number of weapons concentrated in one location would make it a prime target for organized crime. So I would have to convinced they were truly secure.

[Lizzie Poppet]

4. People purchase all kinds of things they don't need.

[maxsolomon]

5. "Need" versus "Want"

people purchase high-powered weapons because they are FUN. and they are - it's thrilling to control that much power. pew pew!

but "only a tiny % use them irresponsibly", and we've created a mountain of horseshit gish galloping rhetoric to let us sleep at night with that fact. "My family has had one for years and I've never committed a mass killing! I'm living proof we're all the bestest Mericans that ever were!"

the cat is out of the bag, the genie's out of the bottle. nothing will change for generations - I'd say 100 years before America wakes the fuck up on this issue. it's ingrained in our culture.

[bkkyosemite]

18. "it's ingrained in our culture"

yours not mine.

[maxsolomon]

33. do you live in Merica?

then its YOUR culture. I don't have a gun either.

[Hepburn]

121. I have NEVER owned a gun, shot one or even touched one.

I find them to be unfortunately necessary under certain circumstances -- read "law enforcement" and "military." However, guns and firearms have only ONE purpose -- VIOLENCE. Whether it is animal, mineral and/or vegetable, firearms destroy their targets with violent force. I frankly hate guns and have never for any reason allowed one in my home.

[maxsolomon]

122. That's great, me too. But American Culture is your culture

and mine. And Guns are Ingrained in that culture.

I'm not accusing you of being a RKBA Activist.

[bkkyosemite]

133. No being an American is a culture being a gun

enthusiast is a different culture.

[maxsolomon]

134. we are not going to agree

because you will not concede an obvious, non-controversial point. American culture is multi-faceted. I'm not a confederate flag-waving yahoo, yet confederate flag-waving occurs within my culture.

so fine, guns are not part of your culture. just the other 300 million of us who consume media saturated with gun imagery and violence, and live amongst 300 million firearms every day. you're exempt.

[treestar]

114. yes, how do we know for sure

they are not the ones who are going to flip out? They are saying we should trust them with the guns, because they don't intend to hurt anyone.

You have to wonder if one of their loved ones happened to be one of the sacrificial lambs. Some other nut goes on a mass shooting and one of their loved ones is the victim. Then it wouldn't be so relevant it's only a small percent. Or be so willing to sacrifice so many lives to the right to own a gun.

[TipTok]

6. Fortunately, in any meaningful sense, that opinion and $3 will get you a $3 cup of coffee...

Not much else...

[Facility Inspector]

19. Actually

the truck stop in Dirty, Mississippi south of mile marker 441 will sell you a cup for about $1.42.

[LanternWaste]

23. Much as your own response.

"that opinion and $3 will get you a $3 cup of coffee. Not much else..."

Much as your own response.
Six of one, half a dozen of the other...

[TipTok]

24. Absolutely...

Shouting into the void...

Feels good but doesn't matter one whit in the 'real world'...

[zipplewrath]

7. Well......

Look, I'm no gun nut, and I don't personally own any. But one can understand someone who admires the basic technology. It's no real difference than someone who brews their own beer or restores old cars. Especially the older guns, but even modern guns involve a certain amount of "craftmenship" and much like owning sculpture, there are going to be reasonable people who choose to own them.

Now, if you think you "need" it, you're probably dead wrong, at the very least there is almost assuredly a better choice in weapons.

[tk2kewl]

22. there is no comparison

between admiring a technology designed for death verses one designed for pleasure

[zipplewrath]

26. Oh there is

Just as much as one can admire anything from a Corsair to an F-16.

[tk2kewl]

58. Finding something interesting, even awesome is different from finding it admirable IMO

And if I'm not mistaken, a corsair and an F-16 are both airplanes, so there might be something comparable there

[zipplewrath]

69. Weapons

Yes, they are both weapons that fly.

[tk2kewl]

132. I guess I misunderstood your post about the flying weapons

I thought you were making a parallel analogy to the the gun/beer analogy. I knew both were planes but not being a weapons fanatic, and thinking you were making the parallel analogy, I had forgotten that the the corsair was a WWII fighter.

Anyway... I still can't agree that guns designed to kill humans deserve admiration. Neither can I agree that weapons of war are deserving of admiration.

To paraphrase Jimmy Carter, "war is sometimes a necessary evil, but it is always evil." I can't admire evil.

[zipplewrath]

135. separate the tool from the task.

Look, all tools have bad uses. The hammer has been a tool of murder for centuries. The vast majority of uses of guns has been to hunt food. One can admire the workmanship of a gun without admiring murder.

[tk2kewl]

136. i'll disagree with you on that

[zipplewrath]

141. hunting

The vast majority of uses of weapons over history has been for food. In this day and age that is no longer true. But the technology stays the same.

[jtuck004]

32. "admiring a technology designed for death verses one designed for pleasure"< My 1966 VW.

That said, I can admire the technology of war without admiring the war. For example, moon landings, the Internet, tremendous medical advances in emergency medicine - things we may not have seen without the situations that necessitated them. Ugliness isn't the opposite of beauty, it's a component of it.

You include death and pleasure, but you forget the category of simply staying alive in the meantime. That's where those excel, and where they appear.

Maybe we could do it another way, but this is the path we have chosen.

[gwheezie]

8. I think it's weird too

Especially when they parade around with them.

[-none]

9. But, but, but, their assault weapons look so virile.

It is the looks that sells the gun for the gunners. Never mind the working parts are the same as a standard hunting rifle.
It is the screwed on plastic that gets their adrenaline flowing and their fantasies flowering on overdrive, with saving the world and killing what they consider to be the bad guys.

[1939]

38. Which is why

Banning "assault weapons" but allowing regular rifles is foolish. The assault weapons sold legally are semiautomatic and shoot just as many bullets just as far and just as fast as a non-assault weapon. The only difference is one has a pistol grip and plastic furniture while the regular rifle has no pistol grip and walnut furniture.

[-none]

56. You are purposely missing the point.

It IS the looks that are driving many gun sales. Sales that might not be made otherwise.
Assault weapons belong in war zones, not on public streets and meeting rooms.

[1939]

59. Soldier and Army Civilian for a total of 33 years

Working in Ordnance maintenance and later in R&D. I never heard the term "assault weapons" till I heard it being used by the news media beginning in the late 1980s.

The only working definition that I can see for an "assault weapon" is that it is black plastic.

[-none]

62. All that plastic was not available in the 1980's

It was after we invaded Iraq that the term came into use. That's when plastic started appearing on so-called "hunting" rifles.

[Eleanors38]

70. Tennite and nylon appeared in production civilian weapons in the 50s.

"So-called" hunting rifles use composites for several reasons, among them are accuracy. Wood warps due to moisture and weather changes, and impinges on the barrel; composites, not so much. Even the "bed" of the barreled action has gone from a steel recoil plate stuck in a wood slot, to a fiberglass bed. This can all give a $500-dollar deer rifle the accuracy of a $3,000 custom made rifle built 20 years ago.

These kinds of changes are a good thing for the ethical hunter and the competitive target shooter, and only follows the trend in most technologies toward improvements in performance and reliability, with declining costs. A lot of the look is butt-ugly, but some of that is now improving.

If I were young and purchasing a rifle for hunting and general utility purposes (including self-defense) I might choose an AR 15 or AR 10 over my far prettier, factory-made Remington 700 in walnut and blue steel.

[GGJohn]

140. Wrong.

No army in the world uses a semi auto as their main battle rifle, and that's all an AR style rifle is, a semi auto rifle that shoots one round per trigger pull.
40+years in the US Army, so I think I know something about firearms.

[RoccoR5955]

48. If they need virility

Then give them penis implants, NOT guns!

[-none]

57. Or Viagra.

Either way we need Single Payer, Universal Health Care to help cut down on our home grown terrorism.

[Eleanors38]

71. The 200-Foot Penise raises its ugly head at last!

I knew that all that fore... Ahem!... preliminary stuff about insanity would bring the wood, or plastic, out!!

[malaise]

10. But but but

that would cut into profits

[krispos42]

11. Must be nice for you

You get to unilaterally define "assault weapon" then you get to determine their sanity.


Must be nice to be the king.

[maxsolomon]

39. Kings have power

internet opinions don't.

R
E
L
A
X

[flamin lib]

52. No, Krispos, the gun nuts defined assault weapon a long time ago.

Last edited Thu Dec 3, 2015, 04:34 PM - Edit history (1)

check it out:

[Kang Colby]

113. Not so fast...

A) Most of those pre-1986 magazines may well be talking about fully automatic firearms.
B) The Gun Digest Book of Assault Weapons actually says on the front cover, "Full-auto, Submachineguns,..."

What was your point?

[flamin lib]

117. Not so fast!

Most of those illustrations are of semi auto consumer available guns.

It is only recently that the NRA talking point that such weapons are actually 'popular modern sporting rifles' has been making the rounds. Next thing ya know body armor, black face masks and vests for carrying huge numbers of magazines will be known as 'popular modern sporting attire'.

[trumad]

119. Excellent post!

[Vinca]

15. That type of weapon is for one thing and one thing only: killing multiple humans quickly.

Unless you're in the military or law enforcement, you don't need one.

[smirkymonkey]

34. "But, but, but.....target practice!!"

[840high]

40. Or if you're a terrorist.

[Recursion]

91. Did you notice none of those magazines use the term "assault weapon"?

Like, did that even bother you for a second? Since it basically disproves your entire point?

[Vinca]

99. The label doesn't matter. Only what it does.

[Recursion]

102. Now we're getting somewhere! Assault weapons do the same thing as other weapons

That's what matters. The whole idea of "assault weapons" is a red herring the DLC has led Democrats around by the nose with, because all semi automatics do exactly the same thing.

[thucythucy]

128. Wait--I see the term "assault weapon"

multiple times in that post.

Am I looking at something different here?

[Elmergantry]

104. So If I try to shoot a target or pesky groundhog

it will not work?

[Elmergantry]

105. Anyone who thinks a ban on "assault weapons"

Would prevent mass shootings is just deluding themselves.

[Vinca]

107. What is a common factor in the majority of mass shootings?

Weapons that should only be in the hands of the military or law enforcement.

[Elmergantry]

112. They are used quite often becasue

they are light and ergonomic and so preferred. If they were banned, the shooter would just go to another fully capable rifle. Therefore, a assault weapon ban would be meaningless. And we know that mass shooters are fully capable of racking up a body count without them. So again, totally useless to ban them. But you know it might make you feel warm and fuzzy.

[Vinca]

106. You must be a wonderful shot if you have to spray ammunition to hit a target or a groundhog.

I suggest you take up another hobby.

[Elmergantry]

109. So you are saying its

impossible to hit anything other than people with an assault rifle?

[hughee99]

137. So if that's all it does, then everyone who own's one must use it for that, right? n/t

[TheCowsCameHome]

16. Therein lies the problem

It's all too many nutty gun humpers that think they do.

[moondust]

17. I would question the sanity of anyone who

would allow the general public to purchase assault weapons.

I'm looking at you, federal government--primarily but not exclusively Republicans.

[Facility Inspector]

20. I would question the sanity of anyone

who tries to find power or control by posting stuff on the Internets.

[Eleanors38]

72. People complain they have little power and say. Well, here we are!

[ileus]

21. What about those that purchase a counter-assault weapon?

Or what about someone that purchases a regular semi-auto instead of an assault weapon?

[Reter]

25. How about my Batman knife?

It's shaped like a bat, with sharp points on all sides. Do I really need it?

[Recursion]

27. So, take Lanza's mom. She didn't purchase an assault weapon.

Why wasn't it an assault weapon? Because it had no bayonet lug.

If it had had a bayonet lug, it would have been an assault weapon under Connecticut law at the time, and been illegal.

Remind me how many people Lanza bayoneted?

Now Connecticut has changed its assault weapons ban. They removed the "bayonet lug loophole". The weapon Lanza's mother bought is entirely illegal... unless the manufacturer changes the shape of its grip, and sells it under a different brand name. Which they have already done.

Can you at least grok that a lot of people find this whole category of law stupid? Ban semi-automatics, or don't. But this crap where a perpendicular grip is illegal but one at 70 degrees is fine is absolutely stupid.

[G_j]

30. I revised my subject line

argument over definitions is simply a distraction.

[Recursion]

31. How is the actual argument you're making a "disctraction"?

If it's a distraction why did you post that?

[G_j]

54. your argument

over the definition of assault rifle is the distraction. So I'll just say military style weapons and trust that people understand the point.

[Recursion]

93. If you can't even distinguish between "assault rifle" and "assault weapon" why do you bother

having an opinion on gun control? That would be like not knowing the difference between single-payer and a public option but calling people who oppose a public option crazy.

Do you understand, factually, that assault rifles and assault weapons are different things? And that assault rifles have been (essentially) illegal for 80 years?

[Duckhunter935]

103. my bolt action rifles

Are actual military weapons not "military style". Should I be allowed to own them?

[1939]

41. I own a rifle with a bayonet lug

It is a weapon that has killed thousands of Germans, Japanese, North Koreans, and Red Chinese. It is an M-1 Garand. Why do I own it? I bought it for nostalgia for the one they handed me in September 1957 (SN 2125424). I don't even have ammo for it. I take it out once a month or so just to take it apart and put it back together with my eyes closed. BUT, it is not a scary "assault weapon".

[AtheistCrusader]

44. It is a Battle Rifle. The 'assault rifle's' big, semi-automatic brother.

And a fine piece of hardware.

[1939]

51. My wife said

"What do you need that for?"

I said, "Because it just called out to me". Lovely piece, perfect shape and very low SN (only six digits) which means it is an early production item. I just wish it had a leather sling with the brass hardware instead of the newer canvas sling. The bore is perfect and the wooden furniture has very few dings and dents.

[ScreamingMeemie]

55. I wish I knew you then; you could have had my husband's.

He collected the war weaponry and had an M1 Garand, a Mosin Nagant, a Mauser and an Enfield (Lee-Enfield). He would search and search for them.

[AtheistCrusader]

45. If anyone is interested, I think a workable solution doesn't require a ban, but a change in classifi

cation.

Repeal the Hughes amendment to re-open the NFA registry. Then extend the 1934 NFA to include all semi-automatics.

There would have to be some adjustment in cost on the tax stamp, but the NFA registry is extremely effective in keeping machine guns out of the hands of 'bad actors'. It would be a massive improvement in the realm of semi-auto firearms as well.

[Recursion]

95. I have loved that idea for a while

Lower the statutory fee, and even create a "mini FFL" for people who want to purchase but not resell semi-autos.

[AtheistCrusader]

97. That's a great idea too.

And best of all, we already know it'll stand constitutional muster. The courts have already tested the NFA and found it valid, or, 'not a ban'.

[ManiacJoe]

65. If Lanza's mom had keep the gun safe door secured,

we would never of heard of her or her son.

[Glimmer of Hope]

28. I live in one of the most dangerous cities in the country and

possessing one of these or any other type of gun doesn't fit my reality. I just don't get it.

[MohRokTah]

29. I really don't get that statement. eom

[humbled_opinion]

35. Wingnuts are now declaring

that Obama and Dems continue to try and limit the ability of the American people to arm themselves and at the same time won't even acknowledge that Islamic Radicals are here in America killing our sons and daughters.... finish by declaring whose side are those liberals on anyway?

[smirkymonkey]

36. I agree. I would never be friends with someone who felt the need to

own one. I think it's sick.

[DonCoquixote]

37. frankly, I do not care if you have a backyard nuke

but you better not whine about the REGULATIONS we expect you to keep, including background checks, including training and re licensing, including insurance. It is ludicrous that it is harder to buy a car than a gun.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

42. Did NORMAL people feel they NEEDED a Tommy Gun during prohibition?

[ManiacJoe]

63. Not a need, no.

However, anyone who WANTED a Tommy Gun could purchase one.

They are fun to shoot!

[Spitfire of ATJ]

82. Back then you could buy grenades too.

[AtheistCrusader]

43. I own at least two. I am not insane.

One I inherited from my father, and has sentimental value to me. It is an AR-15, made in 1986, and it has never been fired, outside the three factory 'proof' rounds that were put through it. It lives in a safe. My brother has it's twin. Neither of us use them.

I also have a mini-14. A similar platform, with a slightly different mechanism, but the effect is the same. Detachable magazine, goes bang every time you pull the trigger, as fast as you can pull it. It has a beautiful walnut stock, and the furniture goes the full length of the upper, and half the barrel. I'm willing to bet you could look at it and never know that it is functionally identical to the AR-15. It is light, and nimble, and the recoil is negligible. My wife can use it as easily as I do. It has put many, many holes in paper targets, and a few coconuts, and that's it. It is very useful for hunting game smaller than a deer. It is not legal nor suitable for deer, because it is too under-powered to cleanly bring down a large animal. But it has good range, a very flat trajectory, and it is very accurate. It is a useful tool that I carefully control access to, and that's that. Nothing more to it.


Whether it is truly dangerous to society, is entirely dependent upon my nature and my intent. Being not-insane, and valuing human life above all, I am not a violent person. I don't start fights. I don't relish the idea of hurting humans. I abhor violence and accidents, so, in my hands, that rifle is totally safe. I don't know how to help you craft a bar or barrier to access these tools in a manner that excludes all potentially dangerous people. I'm willing to work on that. In the meantime, please consider that some of us are just regular human beings, and mean you absolutely no harm.

[RoccoR5955]

46. I would also question

the size of their penis, or lack thereof.
It's all about macho control. That is all.

[Eleanors38]

74. ww-m-m-m-o-O-O-OM-BAT!!

[RoccoR5955]

49. Hey, I want a shoulder mounted rocket launcher with nuclear capability.

It is a version of "arms," so under the 2nd Amendment, I should be allowed to keep and bear one.
I want to parade around the streets with it, like having a ten foot penis, and having people fear me!
Just like the ammosexual freedom protector owners want to!

[prouddemfromaustin44]

50. Indeed

People who own those things are probably not quite right in the head IMO.

[sonofspy777]

53. A sane person would purchase one.

if they knew they were under direct attack.

Under these circumstances: When a local government is massively corrupt,
and in league with an unmonitored agency that holds people's possessions
up for ransom. A serious deterrent factor is required.

I was all set to pull the trigger (as it were) and buy one but they backed down
with legal action. At the time I was by no means sure they would.


Been there.

[Egnever]

60. I feel the same way about cats

[cleanhippie]

61. +1

Are all the cat pics on the Internet the actions of sane people?

[Eleanors38]

75. Talk about assault weapons.

[beevul]

129. You can't trust them.

[Eleanors38]

130. That second one looks to be coyote hunting, for some peculiar reason.

[ManiacJoe]

66. It is not the looks that draw in the owners.

It is the ergonomics. Unfortunately, the good ergonomics results in ugly looks.

[Waldorf]

67. I own a couple of the them (are semi-automatic no assault weapons).

I find them accurate, low recoil and the ability to change uppers to different calibers while keeping the same lower is nice.

[Eleanors38]

131. Why, you are insane!!

[Jester Messiah]

79. Need? No.

Want, definitely. Those things are an absolute joy to fire at the range. (Which is where they should be fired, unless you are a military person in an active theater of war.)

[bvar22]

80. In spite of "popular knowlege" at DU,

..many people who live on the edge of the wilderness in Alaska and Canada DO use military assault rifles to feed their families.
They are popular for a number of reasons:

1) very durable in the Alaskan environment.
Most of the parts are nylon ( or some type of plastic) that last forever.

2)They are light. If the snow machine breaks down 20 miles along a trap line, you've got a long walk home through snow and want to be as light as possible, but armed against bears.

3) They will usually fire no matter how long they have been dragged through the mud & snow.

3) Many Wilderness hunters & guides load their rifles inside their home, and prefer NOT to take the clip out until back home to avoid all kinds of mud, snow, and other stuff in the mechanism.
It is a pretty difficult job to load a clip with Arctic Mittens on, and at 20 below, your hands stick to the shells and magazines.

I don't live there, and own no military type assault weapons,
but I DO watch the shows.

[G_j]

81. Something I hadn't known

I hadn't considered, or known about this. Perhaps there could be specific hunting permits?

[ManiacJoe]

88. No need for special hunting permits.

The rules and laws for hunting apply equally to traditional rifles as well as "assault weapons", including the same limits on magazine capacity.

[lumberjack_jeff]

85. I've shot one.

It was surprisingly adept at target shooting. It was light, not terribly loud and had little recoil. Technically, it is a better rifle than those which people would identify as a hunting rifle (i.e. rifles with a wooden stock)

I can also understand - to a degree - people who collect a variety of firearms. I find them to be interesting devices from a technological and historical perspective.

The problem with AR rifles is entirely aesthetics - but I think that's enough to question the psychological health of those who collect them.

[G_j]

86. Simply because they are exceptionally dangerous nt

[ManiacJoe]

87. A common misconception.

There is nothing special about "assault weapons" beyond their looks.
They shoot the same ammo as traditional rifles.
Their magazines hold the same amount of ammo as traditional rifles.
They shoot the ammo at the same rates of fire as traditional rifles.
They have the same accuracy as traditional rifles.

The only difference is wood vs plastic "furniture".
The plastic is lighter in weight, more weather proof, available in just about any color you want, more ergonomically shaped, and for the most part ugly as hell.

[Recursion]

94. No more so than hunting rifles.

It's a low-caliber hunting rifle dressed up in black plastic. This is part of what's so frustrating about gun discussions. You probably sincerely think that an AR-15 is somehow much, much more dangerous than your grandfather's walnut-finished Woodsmaster rifle. But it's not.

[lumberjack_jeff]

98. A gun launches projectiles. They are all dangerous.

There is an admirable quality about one that does it lighter more reliably and generally better.

[Flying Squirrel]

90. Sanity is in the eye of the beholder

Labeling people as insane isn't the answer.

[Rex]

92. I would question the sanity of a country that has been at war for 14 years with no endpoint in sight

but that is just me.

[Yo_Mama]

96. I question the sanity of anyone who thinks the way you do. Heck, who needs an SUV?

These are pretty standard rifles used by match shooters, hunters, varmint hunters, etc.

I admit not being into guns or shooting at all, but at least I know what they are, and people who think these are tommy-guns are ignorant.

The standard AR-15s are 22 caliber (.223 or 5.56mm).

[Elmergantry]

115. Yes I am a bit of a novice on firearms.

I have a military style rifle, a Mosin-Nagant, that I rarely shoot because I hate cleaning the thing - that surplus Russian ammo is dirty! Would like to get a more practical all-around rifle but until know haven't figured out what that would be. I have recently learned you can put in receiver? in the AR-15 to shoot cheaper 22LR. That pretty much has sold me on wanting to get one. .223 is too expensive for plinking and ground hogs, but still would want it for the heavier targets. Sounds like I can have my cake and eat it too.

[Yo_Mama]

124. What I have been told is that the AR-15s were popular because you could buy

different barrels and stuff for the receiver to change out ammo and stuff.

Something like this?
http://www.brownells.com/rifle-parts/receiver-amp-action-parts/receivers/upper-receivers/ar-15-m16-ar-22-upper-receiver-assembly-prod32508.aspx

I admit that my eyes glaze over when I hear about this sort of thing. Shooting is like golf. You are either into it or not. I am not. But I gather it is the ability to mix and match that makes it popular. I think I have heard that you have to do it properly or you have jams.

[Elmergantry]

125. Interesting

What I saw was something a lot smaller, you keep the original barrel.. but yeah, I have a lot of learning to do. Just don't have a lot of time and money to put towards it right now.

[madokie]

100. Of the couple people who I know

who own one are nuts. They are exactly why we need laws not allowing them to be sold to the public in the first place.

[aikoaiko]

110. I have several. What's your question?

[TeddyR]

116. I'm going to buy one next year I think

Probably a Daniel Defense M4A1 once I have a couple grand to blow. They are a blast to shoot.

[Elmergantry]

127. Couple grand? Ouch!

Better get it insured!

[CharlotteVale]

118. So would I.

[Iggo]

123. In triplicate. (n/t)

[villager]

126. Exactly. There's already something "off" about you if you think you "need" one

n/t

[Recursion]

138. Do you believe they're "more powerful" in some way than non military-style weapon?

I seriously never understood the revulsion they caused when equally powerful but traditional-looking weapons never get a second glance.

[villager]

139. Split hairs, really. There's something off about the whole veneration of war grade weapons...

nt