You will probably be visited by an under cover atf agent soon offering all the hardware you could possibly need. Play stupid games....win stupid prizes.
This matter has been gone over time and time again. You quite literally have no excuse for failing to understand that the above point is incorrect. The only explanation is that you are knowingly engaging in intellectual dishonesty when making your claims. Mass shootings are statistically rare, and the number of victims statistically minute. Handguns are used in far more murders than any other firearm, but the supreme court has stated that they cannot be prohibited from ownership, making the matter a non-issue and a non-starter. First and foremost, the AR-15 was never designed for any battlefield, nor is it supplied to any military. The AR-15 was produced by the Armalite company for the civilian market for several years before the military ever adopted the platform, and had it redesigned into what became the M16 rifle. The round of ammunition used was developed from a hunting cartridge used for small to medium-sized game. It is used for foxes, wolves, coyotes, feral hogs, and a number of other wild animals. This individual is engaging in intellectual dishonesty in their statements. The AR-15 was never designed, nor intended, to kill a lot of people in a short amount of time. Nor is it devoid of practical applications in a civilized society. It is a target rifle, a hunting rifle, a home and personal defense rifle, and a law enforcement rifle. It is used in quite literally every avenue where the use of a rifle is deemed either appropriate or necessary, because it is superior for such uses when compared to all other firearms available for such purposes.
Perhaps a list can be provided to demonstrate such as being accurate. Even in states where the caliber is not legal for hunting deer, it is legal for a number of smaller game animals, especially those regarded as nuisance species.
No very current: Alabama- centerfire Alaska- centerfire Alberta- .23 and up centerfire Arizona- centerfire Arkansas- .22 and up centerfire California- centerfire Colorado- .24 and up, 70grn or larger bullet/ minimum of 1000ft/lbs at 100 yards Connecticut- .243 and up if legal in your area Delaware- shotgun/muzzle loader Florida- centerfire Georgia- .22 and up centerfire Hawaii- Any rifle with at least 1200 ft/lbs of ME. This would start at around .223 I think Idaho- Centerfire (cannot weigh more than 16 lbs?) Illinois- Shotgun/ML/Pistol onlyIndiana- Rifles with pistol calibers/shotgun/ML/Pistols Iowa- .24 or larger centerfire only for antlerless season in part of the state. Kansas- .23 or larger centerfire (actually says larger than .23 so maybe .24 is the mininum) Kentucky- centerfire Louisiana- .22 and up centerfire Maine- .22 magnum rimfire and up! Manitoba- Centerfire, but it says .23 and below not recommended. Does not say illegal though. Maryland- ME of at least 1200 ft/lbs Mass- Shotgun/ML Michigan- centerfire in certain areas Minnesota- .24 and up centerfire Mississippi- No restrictions that I could find Missouri- centerfire Montana- No restrictions Nebraska- Rifles with 900 ft/lbs or more at 100 yards Nevada- .22 centerfire and up New Hampshire- centerfire New Jersey- shotgun only New Mexico- centerfire New York- centerfire North Carolina- No restrictions North Dakota- .22-.49 centerfire Nova Scotia- .23 and up Ohio- Shotgun/ML Oklahoma- centerfire with 55 grn or heavier bullet Ontario- centerfire Oregon- .22 centerfire and upPennsylvania- centerfire Quebec- 6mm/.243 and up Rhode Island- shotgun/ML* Saskatchewan- .24 and up South Carolina- centerfire South Dakota- rifles with 1,000 ft/lbs or more ME Tennessee- centerfire Texas- centerfire Utah- centerfire Vermont- No restriction Virginia- .23 centerfire and up Washington- .24 centerfire and up West Virginia- .25 rimfire and up and all centerfire Wisconsin- .22 centerfire and up Wyoming- .23 centerfire and up
The original .223 was designed to wound, it takes a lot more of your enemies resources to care for its wounded than to bury its dead. As with all firearms it will kill. But most people know that with the high capacity most shooters rely on the spray and pay method, rather than an accurate well aimed shot. Also the normal effective range for most normal shooters is 300 yards. A bolt action is far more accurate, and has greater range especially when chambered in a 7.62 variant.
Where did you get your information that the cartridge was designed to wound? I'm not suggesting your theory is wrong in its effect, I just have never heard that the original design was to achieve this. Smaller lighter weapon and ammo for sure, but designed to wound? Not sure about that.
Why would the government issue a rifle that uses ammo designed to wound, then use air-dropped bombs, drone launched missiles, artillery, rockets, mortars, tank guns, and heavy, medium and light machine guns to kill the vast majority of those who oppose us?
Apparently, you don't know much about the history of the AR-15 and its usefulness in war. "Versions of the AR-15 have been the U.S. military's standard-issue assault rifle in every war since Vietnam.... "My trainer – a pale-eyed ex-cop named Chris – hands me an AR made by Daniel Defense, which markets its guns with photographs of U.S. soldiers and the tag line 'Use What They Use.'... "Firing at the torso of the man-size silhouette, I blast through two boxes of ammunition.... "The rifle shoots faster than I can aim, but I'm learning the bouncing rhythm of the muzzle. How it rises with each shot, before settling back on target. Faster now. Boom. Boom boom. Boomboomboom. In less than a minute, my magazine is empty. Eighteen shots are direct hits – to the forehead, face and chin. One bullet drifted down the jugular. I miss only once. "The story of how this masterpiece of war technology morphed into a billion-dollar blockbuster for domestic gun-makers lays bare both the power, and recklessness, of the gun industry. With millions of semi-automatic assault rifles now in civilian hands, and little more than a credit-card swipe standing between an unhinged killer and one of these weapons, the AR-15 has emerged as the brightest flashpoint in America's gun debate.... "In 1957, the Army approached Armalite's star gun designer, Eugene Stoner, with a tall order: Produce a six-pound, high-velocity rifle, firing in semi- and full-automatic modes, with firepower capable 'of penetrating a steel helmet or standard body armor at 500 yards.'.... His answer to the Army's request was the AR-15, an exceptionally balanced gun with little recoil – meaning soldiers could more easily keep the rifle level, and on target, in a firefight. "By the Army's own metrics, Stoner had built a superior war-fighting machine.... "...it was the killing power of the AR-15 that turned the heads of Pentagon bureaucrats and congressional appropriators alike. The battlefield testimonials included in the ARPA report are horrific: One describes an Army Ranger killing a Viet Cong soldier at about 15 meters with a three-round burst. 'One round in the head – took it completely off,' it reads. 'Another in the right arm, took it completely off, too. One round hit him in the right side, causing a hole about five inches in diameter.' Each shot was a killer: 'Any one of the three would have caused death.'... "The 'phenomenal lethality' of the AR-15 described by ARPA was decisive, according to a later Pentagon report. LeMay's pending request for the Air Force to procure AR-15s got the green light. In December 1963, the Army adopted the AR-15 – rebranding it the M16." http://www.rollingstone.com/politic...became-mass-shooters-weapon-of-choice-w451452
That was one factor in select 5.56. Another was the lighter weight of ammo. War has some seemingly stupid rules. Soldiers can only be engaged by .30 caliber or smaller rounds and only full metal jacket. It is against the rules of war to kill a civilians with a bayonet but perfectly O.K. to vaporize them with a 500 lb bomb from 20,000 feet. The selection of the AR-15 was as much a political as a military decision.
A snowflakes evaluation. The original rifles used by US SF were weapons with very slow twist barrels. By the time of significant US involvement Ordnance had changed the rifle by speeding up the twist rate. Modern rifles use 1:9 to 1:7 inch twists. Firing Vietnam era 55 grain FMC these rounds aren't nearly as lethal. You have to change to ammo to HP's or use much heavier and much more expensive heavier bullets.
As I said, it takes more of your enemies resources to care for its wounded than to bury it's dead. This weapon first came into use in the Vietnam war, way back in the 50's. It was lightweight, rounds were lighter so a soldier could carry more rounds. It also led to the spray and pray method, soldiers and civilians relied on large amounts of rounds rather than shooting accurately.
You really think that a 55 gr projectile capable of penetrating a steel helmet at 500 meters would expand enough to take off a head or create a wound channel 5" in diameter at 15 meters because of an article in Rolling Stone magazine? I've seen the terminal results of a 168 grain .30 caliber projectile traveling faster than any .223 AR projectile, on 600 pound thick skinned creatures. Little hole going in, little bigger hole going out, and dead right there.
Ignoring the fact they we can't shoot them with a rifle until after we bomb them, hit them with artillery barrages and mortar barrages, and engage them with machine gun fire, all of which is designed to kill them, if we win the battlefield, then those wounded clog our logistics. If the wounded survive to clog the enemy's logistics, that means we lost. Plus, Snuffy knows that wounded doesn't mean incapacitated, and those wounded enemy can still kill him. He can always just shoot him again. And again.
28 years ago I was at a 3G shoot and there was this guy there-not very good, but he had a grenade launcher under a legally possessed M16 rifle that he had at the club. He had 6 live rounds for the GL and noted he had to pay a 200 dollar tax stamp for EACH round. so he had 1200 in tax fees for his six grenades-I forget how much they cost and another 200 for the rifle/launcher. I think he had figured it would be good if he faced an attack on his home like depicted at the end of SCARFACE me-I figured for 1400 dollars I could have bought two new semi AR 15 rifles. But since the civilian police departments don't use grenade launchers or bazookas for self defense, I cannot see self defense usage for them. IN the constitutional theme, they are more Ordnance rather than arms which are protected by the Second Amendment
LOL does anyone who actually understands guns believe this propaganda. A gun banner who wants to ban guns telling us guns we use all the time for legally purposes have no legitimate use? Oh that is rich. Mark Barden has no credibility
As I said this is a Vietnam era weapon, we didn't do everything you say because targets were not stationary, they were small guerilla units. This was a land based war and one of the last of it's type. In jungles so thick that line of sight was less than 20 yards, you can see why most of the actions you listed were not used.
So we dropped less lethal napalm on Charlie and fired less lethal 105mm and 155mm artillery at the VC? Did your squads and platoons carry M-60s and M-79s into those jungles? Those didn't fire a round "designed just to wound". ACAV tracks seemed to be well equipped with M2HBs and M-60s used in direct fire mode against enemy infantry. Why did the commanders allow the use of those weapons if the goal was to clog logistics?
A great deal of information pertaining to the history of the AR-15 and M16 is known, as it has been garnered from long hours of studious research for the purpose of separating fact from fiction, in order to cut through the nonsense being presented as if it were truthful. The AR-15 was produced as a civilian rifle from nineteen fifty nine to nineteen sixty four by the Armalite company, before the design was sold to the Colt manufacturing company, which later redesigned the internals for the purpose of creating the M16 rifle, approximately two years after the untied states officially entered into the Vietnam war. What you reference is nothing more than marketing hype. The simple fact of the matter is that the AR-15 has never been a piece of standard or reserve military equipment, for any military on any continent around the world. It resembles the M16 outwardly, but that is the extent of the matter, as it does not function like the M16 at all. The internals are completely different, and are in no way interchangeable with one another. It is no different from claiming that a pinto and a lamborghini function exactly the same as each other, simply because they are both motor vehicles. Nothing more than emotional hyperbole. None of which changes the fact that rifles and shotguns of all sorts are used the least in killings. Handguns are used the most for homicides, and the available statistics prove such. Rifles serve to grab headlines, but handguns have higher body counts. Even if all of the above is accepted as being the absolute truth, it still changes nothing. The firearm known as the AR-15 today, is not a military firearm, and never was. After Armalite sold the platform to Colt, the name was changed to M16 as it was modified. That means the name, and only the name, is the same thing. Absolutely everything else pertaining to the two is different.
The above assumes that a designated enemy group would actually place value on the lives of its own members, and would care enough to remove them from the battlefield, rather than simply killing them on the spot. How many hostile engagements has the united states military engaged in, where the designated enemy forces have displayed such care for its own?
Would this be the same Ronald Reagan quoted with the following. Your conservative hero wouldn't even make it through his Party's primary today. The Right has become so brainwashed by the NRA. “This is a matter of vital importance to the public safety ... While we recognize that assault-weapon legislation will not stop all assault-weapon crime, statistics prove that we can dry up the supply of these guns, making them less accessible to criminals.” --Ronald Reagan, in a May 3, 1994 letter to the U.S. House of Representatives, which was also signed by Jimmy Carter and Gerald Ford. “I do not believe in taking away the right of the citizen for sporting, for hunting and so forth, or for home defense. But I do believe that an AK-47, a machine gun, is not a sporting weapon or needed for defense of a home.” --Ronald Reagan, in a speech at his 78th birthday celebration in Los Angeles on February 6, 1989. “Certain forms of ammunition have no legitimate sporting, recreational, or self-defense use and thus should be prohibited.” --Ronald Reagan, in an August 28, 1986 signing statement on a bill that banned the production and importation of armor-piercing bullets.
