Ron by control he means control as in keep dominion over. You can use the pistol grip to keep a better grip on the weapon when you have to do something with your main hand. Think about it. Most people are not ambidextrous. They reach and manipulate and perform tasks mainly with one hand mainly the right hand. So you can keep the rifle pointed down range AWAY FROM BYSTANDERS while you o I don't know grab a fresh magazine and reload? Or clear a jam. Or pick your nose. Or scratch your nuts.
And yet in the case of the AR-15, and every other firearm where the operating system is directly over the barrel, the portion designated at the hand guard, heat shield, barrel shroud, or any other number of terms, does indeed protect the sensitive parts that are necessary in order for the firearm to function. If such models exist where the operating parts are not directly above the barrel, then present them for review and consideration.
He can't because he hasn't the slightest idea of how the system even works. He has a "liberal education" on firearms and thinks that if you pull the trigger the weapon will magically fire and cycle. You should know how liberals think by now. Remember Dianna DeGette, the current idiotic member of Congress? She was the one who thought that firearm magazines would consumables that were disposed of when used once. Yet this moron tries to write gun laws.
They have minimal additional criminal function. Practically no crime is committed with suppressors. These laws have no effect whatsoever on those planning armed robbery and the such. Heck, even in Australia one can quite easily get a 12ga shotgun. Saw the shoulder stock off and it practically has a pistol grip right there, that's how it's shaped. Saw the barrels off and you have a short barreled shotgun which is extremely concealable and devastatingly powerful. The law against barrel shrouds is ridiculous. They have a clear application to anyone who is interested in firearms (despite what the left might have one think), and offer a very limited benefit in mass shooting situations. It's just more "won't somebody please think of the children!" legislation. What does the law against such modifications do? Nothing more than oppress free citizens.
Maybe ... but is this now the reason to allow them? Another question: For what do people want to have an AR-15 ... for what need? Aside this is of course ammunition a point inside gun discussion. Shot gun ammunition with what you can kill a dinosaur is for example something, where I must ask "for what need and reason should it be allowed?"! Of course I know that his and that ammunition is forbidden in the USA, even as everything available on black market and only a question of money to get. But there are for the first in general so much things where an outsider like me must ask "why the hack do people need or want to have it? What is any serious reason to fight and defend to have it like mad?"
That's beside the point. The state should have to show the purpose is coercive, not the other way around. Perhaps they want a paperweight, perhaps they want a very capable sporting rifle, perhaps they want to hunt, perhaps they just want to shoot watermelons. Whatever - none of it is coercive. The onus should always be on the state to show why something ought to be illegal, not on the individual to show why something should not. So long as guns themselves aren't completely prohibited, neither will 12 gauge or .223 Rem. The former is more than powerful enough for practically any purpose, the latter has enough penetration to make pretty much all body armor ineffective. These are the standard rounds for shotgun and rifle, not 50BMG, or 20mm or something. Ammunition prohibition will never be effective (with the exception of a few difficult to manufacture rounds), because people can quite easily cast their own bullets and reload themselves. I am a peaceful individual. I have a quirky hobby (for Australia at least). I have never shot anyone, I have no intent to shoot anyone. I enjoy shooting melons, I enjoy being a competing member of my local shooting range, I enjoy the power. Nothing compares to the feel of a full-auto rifle. All I'm asking for is to be left alone. Go fight some actual criminals instead, and do it without collectively punishing us all for their crimes.
Because citizens should never be same way armed like executive forces and armed forces of the state are. A simple question of safety for the public servants … and aside this I see no safety lack that makes it necessary. Sure, still done BS by allowing such bad ammunition in the past is nearly impossible to reverse. But as you know, there is dangerous ammunition existing, as for example the so called Cop Killers which makes wear of any armor west useful like a wearing a cotton T-Shirt for protection. I’m peaceful too and I was sniper in German Army with combat action and KIA’s. I’m not proud of it, but even not disappeared because the KIA’s were necessary and it was war … end of story! I have shooting not as hobby, but I have nothing against gun sport in general, because it is sport too (where is the difference to shoot with rifle, pistol, bow or crossbow?). But what is today called “gun sport” is too often only a camouflage to use all guns liked and has nothing to do with normal gun sport. Never saw someone shooting with an AR-15 at Olympics or any serious National Shooting competition. More is truth that here for sure in clear majority honest people are “playing” with their toys as hobby … but their toys are lethal weapons, only designed for Military and Security Force use to kill enemies and not for sporting, hunting or “fun use”. Way to fight criminals is to restrict their possibilities to be criminal and this includes restriction of their criminal tools + power of executive to force this of course (without, any law is not paper worth written on it). The highest good of any society (and thus also of states) is to protect the population against internal and external threats! This objective is always in conflict with the rights of the population and therefore is ultimately always about keeping the protection and the right in unison so that both work in an acceptable manner! The simple point is out of this in matter of gun law: As more weapons are legal available, as more threat is given! The problem is now the contradicting reasoning to have an own gun. On one side it is reasoned to have a better self-protection against criminal threats. On the other side it is told by same side that the number of gun killings etc. is not as high to restrict gun law! So what now? Why do you need to be armed with a gun for self-protections when the threat is not that serious to be armed?
The issue isn't need for it, the issue is basic liberty. If I won the lottery, I could buy a car that could outrun any police cruiser, and go 150 MPH. Who needs that? Nobody should need a car that can go over 75 MPH. (70 highest speed limit, and 75 gives a few extra mph for passing). It's basic liberty. AR-15s are the most commonly sold single type of rifle sold on the market. Many people must think there is a need for them. They can be had in a variety of calibers, ranging from .22 LR to .50 Beowolf, and can be used to hunt almost every critter on the continent (with the exception of the big bears, IMHO). In their standard caliber, 5.56mm NATO, they are excellent for target shooting, plinking, varmint shooting (basically shooting small pesty rodents or coyotes at long range). In some of the intermediate calibers, they are appropriate for deer hunting. In their large calibers, they can be used for wild boar (where fast followup shots is a good thing), and deer hunting. There is no such thing as shotgun ammunition that can kill a dinosaur. Just shows that the only people that want to restrict guns more are people that are almost clueless about them, and believe that Jurassic Park is real (in gun terms--watching Jurassic Park (the original), I couldn't imagine them using a more foolish gun than the shotgun they used). It's ironic that you have the sig you do, as you are advocating gun safety over gun liberty.
National Match service rifle competition--a national target shooting match that has been going on since 1903. The high-power matches use AR-15s. http://thecmp.org/competitions/cmp-national-matches/
But a racing car isn’t designed, constructed and build for Military use to give possibility for soldiers to kill their enemies in war (or security forces in their duties) as AR-15 is. It is not build as hunting rifle, it is not build as sporting rifle and it is not build for citizen self-protection … it is a military weapon to kill people and nothing else! Most common in the USA? Maybe, but not in the world, because Kalashnikov beats in number several times. Rest see my answer above … aside one point: You can use in the USA an AR-15 officially for hunting? Ehm … I was sniper in army and sorry to say, but when I learned urban combat, we were for example taught to use a shot gun to shot out the locker of doors … and when I see the destruction done, sorry … an elephant would have been shot off from his feet’s!
The majority of sporting rifles on the market today are derivatives of military weapons. Ever hear of the 1898 Mauser? It was used by the German Army in two world wars. Most modern bolt action rifles are derivatives of it, just like most modern semi-automatic rifles are derivatives of the AR-15. The AR-15's features that make it good for a military rifle also make it good for boar hunting. Yes, you can use an AR-15 in the U.S. legally for hunting. If I were to get back into hunting, I would buy a AR in 6.8mm for deer. I'm talking in terms of civilian semi-automatics in the U.S. The AR-15 derivatives are the most common semi-auto rifle sold in the U.S. You don't know much about hunting then. A shotgun is not used for elephants. It doesn't have the penetration necessary. There is no shotgun round capable of taking out an elephant that is illegal or legal. Again, you are ignorant about what you are talking about outside of your experiences.
I would like to say first is if I was elephant hunting I will take the AR over a shotgun any day.It doesn't matter what type,style,or brand of gun it is,in the wrong hands it is dangerous,that is the key point in the wrong hands,just like any tool.If AR's were just made for killing people then why aren't there more people killed with them?Take a look at the hunting shows and see how much they are used for hunting nowadays,just another flaw in your moronic views,and the flaws go on and on.The people against guns are those that don't hunt,or target shoot,or even just collect them,or have the guts to protect themselves or family members.This means they have no understanding of what they are fighting against.They listen to the news and here someone was shot so it must be the guns that are bad,totally ignoring that it took someone to shoot it.When people try to blame something they know nothing about makes them ignorant of the situation,and ignorance can be like a disease,and knowledge and understanding is the cure.
? An "assualt weapon"? And what features make a semi-automatic sporting rifle an "assault weapon"? Which state or cities definition are you going to use? So the only reason why it exists is for hip shooting? LOL Why don't you provide some military service manuals that validate your claim? Last I checked rifles are supposed to be aimed, and aiming does not occur from the hip.
Have you ever seen an elephant? I can break wooden doors with an ax. I'd never face an elephant with an ax. To reliably kill an elephant, you need to shoot it's brain, which is at least 30 cm in the skull.
In the Zoo several times and here both ... Indian and African elephants. I did not write to give him a headshot, but what about a shot into the side and causing a large hole? However, maybe not kill him directly or stopping an angry elephant to attack you, clear and no objections from my side ... but the basic question was why someone needs shot gun ammunition which shreds the target heavy? As told, I'm no hunting man, so if you are expert, please do me the favor and explain me for which animals hunted it is needed.
Well, depends on the type of shotgun shell. Shotguns fire a variety of ammunition for hunting, from very small pellets used for shooting small birds (quail, for instance) or rabbits (Hassen), to single slugs, primarily used for deer. People use intermediate sized pellets for larger birds, like geese or wild turkeys, and they sometime use fairly large pellets for deer (called buckshot). The thing is, the power of those pellets drops off quickly with range. At 2 or 3 meters, you might see a really bad shredding of the target, but almost no game is shot at 2 or 3 meters. The ammunition that can shred the door at 2 meters, will spread and slow down, and if you can get a few of those pellets to hit a bird, it will die. Shotguns are used for birds, and small animals, that are moving fast, because of that spread of the shot (pellets are called shot). At 20 meters, that shotgun's spread to about half a meter in diameter, and makes it easier to hit.
But I am and have been on elephant hunts for problem animals. Elephants lungs don't collapse if you hit them there. They will either attempt to kill you or run like hell and that's the last you see of them. It's not uncommon to recover bullets from poachers. Minimal caliber for jumbo is 375 H&H and that's a bit light and you're using what are called solids with deep penetration. Miss the heart shot and you'll have a problem. Best shot is a brain shot. Many PH's require at least a 45 caliber solid, with the 458 Winchester or better yet a 458 Lott the usual choice in bolt action and a 470 Nitro in a double. It's not uncommon for trophy hunters to use 50 caliber or better. It's up close and personal with jumbo in the jess. Hardly anyone is a amateur or first timer for elephant. The cartridges used are large bore and heavy recoiling and the bullets are specialty types, with bonded heavy jackets, some with tungsten inserts and the rest solid brass or bronze. Unlike with buff, there is really no place to run and you can't climb a tree. They are remarkably fast and extremely quiet animals. If they intend to kill you they will do their utmost to do so. The problem is that their buddies will also not like you very much either.
You are quite wrong. The AR-15 is not, nor has it ever been, a military rifle in any capacity. It was never designed, not intended for military use. It is a civilian origin firearm. It is visually similar to the M16, but it lacks the automatic firing capabilities, making it unsuitable for military purposes. Simply because the two look similar does not mean that they are similar. You are engaging in a pattern of dishonesty supported by Josh Sugarman, who claimed that the stupidity of the people of the united states should be exploited to enact specific policies. If you are going to make claims like some sort of expert, then it would be wise to at least be factual in your claims. You have been anything but in your stated position. Correct. The AR-15 is available in many configurations regarding barrel length, and caliber. The standard model is suitable for coyotes and foxes. Those chambered in larger calibers, such as the .450 Bushmaster, and .50 Beowolf, are designed for use against large game, and mimic the ballistics of calibers used in old buffalo rifles. Besides a lack of grammar, you are demonstrating a lack of knowledge pertaining to physics. If you are claiming that an elephant can be knocked off its feet from being shot with a shotgun, your knowledge of firearms is limited purely to the works of Hollywood. Someone cannot be knocked off of their feet from being shot with a shotgun, without the individual behind the shotgun experiencing similar results. It is Newton's third law of motion; for every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction.
