I remember a scene where someone in California went into a building with what the police claimed was an AR-15, and shot the place up. The officers displayed the weapon surrounded by a stack of loaded magazines. Several of us contacted the media, and pointed out that the weapons could not be used to fire any rounds at all. It was only half a rifle. It was the upper receiver only. It was missing the lower half section of the rifle which includes the trigger assembly. The media followed up, and found that the surveillance video showed that the shooter did in fact only had half a rifle when he entered the building. Eventually, the police had to amend their statement that the shooter had only fired a 9mm. Now, that was a easy catch, of a typical police tactic. Displaying weapons that they know could not have been used as if they were in fact used. A grenade launcher is much harder to determine if it is actually functional. I have yet to see any case where a grenade was used. Well, let me amend that statement. I have yet to see a case where anything other then a smoke or CS grenade has been used.
You're right that those were used, napalm was primarily used against fixed structures instead of personnel, it wasn't until later when incendiary rounds were used for anti-personnel. The artillery was good against fixed and fortified positions but was ineffectual against ambush squads in the jungle. Tracks and tanks were good in urban warfare buut again, almost useless in the jungle. As for carrying M60s and M79s in the jungle, the M60 weighs over 23 lbs, tack on the grenade launcher and their are few people that could carry that weapon for miles in the jungle.
The VC was known for removing their wounded and dead so that the US military could never be sure of what they accomplished.
I have body armor. I also am an experienced archer and bowhunter I have a trauma plate on my vest since a broadhead will go through kevlar or spectra. so will a speargun and even more importantly an Ie pick or a sharpened screw driver.
DNC Icon Mario Cuomo was heard to say about Reagan-circa 1986, that a FISH ROTS FROM THE HEAD FIRST. Its fun watching gun banners cite Reagan when none of us who are hard core gun rights advocates see Reagan as anything other than less bad than clinton and Obama.
Congratulations! I'm all for all types of sporting events. Regarding the 2nd amendment, many Supreme Court judges in recent history dispute that the 2nd Amendment allows citizens to possess any firearm they please.
They can both kill a large number of people in a very short time. Australia has only had one mass murder since the 1980 Melbourne shooting. This was in Port Arthur in 1996. How many did we have last year in the US? Duh! Let's put more assault weapons in circulation. That will solve the problem.
The civilian AR15 is not an assault weapon, and isn't more capable of killing at a faster rate than you can keep pulling the trigger, same as other semi auto rifles.
Let me see if you have a clue about this subject. what is the single most lethal weapon you can obtain in the USA in a day without breaking all sorts of laws
some people have watched too much VPC nonsense or listened to idiots like this [video=youtube;iJmFEv6BHM0]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iJmFEv6BHM0[/video]
I bought a Yugo underfolder which has the capacity to launch grenades. Maybe you could do the same? [video=youtube;csOvUCJZG08]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=csOvUCJZG08[/video]
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_massacres_in_Australia Not only was there no Melbourne shooting in 1980 listed, there were 13 mass shootings between 1980 and Port Arthur, and using standard US definitions of 3 dead for a mass murder and 4 total shot for a mass shooting, we see five mass murders or shootings after 1996. Australia only collected about 70% of their banned guns, so doing that well would still leave about 3 million "assault weapons" in the hands of those who refuse to obey the law. Since mass murders with AR15s have averaged about one per year since 2004, do you really think that a madman couldn't get one? Besides, handguns work just as worked for mass shootings. - - - Updated - - - I think we've seen who has been posting porky pies about Australia.
Are you aware that much of the small unit actions in Vietnam were fought outside of the jungle? Are you claiming that infantry until operating in jungle terrain didn't use M-60 machine-guns? Are you suggesting that adding a grenade launcher to the M-60 made it even more unwieldy and less likely to be used?
We had some of those in my infantry unit then at Schweinfurt Germany. Since we closed the base, he might check with the Germans to see what they found that we left behind.
The obvious question of "so what?" applies with regard to the above. Nothing you say will change the fact that rifles of all sorts are used in the least in killing others. Handguns are overwhelming used in the killing of others, but the supreme court has stated in absolute terms that efforts at prohibiting them are unconstitutional and will not be accepted.
gun banners are all about harassing gun owners. they wanted to ban handguns because that would harass the most gun owners and the argument against handguns was the easiest to make. They lost that . they want to ban semi auto rifles to make the argument that-we banned stuff rarely used in crime-shouldn't be ban stuff used for most murders
Well, they are expensive. If you are willing to jump through many legal hoops you can buy one. The hard part is the ammunition, which I believe require a separate background check and $250 tax stamp apiece. http://www.gunbroker.com/item/608115821 Base cost is $1425. For legalities: https://www.atf.gov/qa-category/national-firearms-act-nfa
AR-15s (and all assault rifles) are responsible for only about 3% of gun murders. Banning or making it very hard to own AR-15s will do almost nothing to reduce gun murders, but you're a smart guy. You know that already, you just seem to forget it. - - - Updated - - - Rolling Stone is a magazine with almost no journalistic integrity. Try a real source, not fiction.
A list I got from a gun forum, and it claimed a date of 2008 for accuracy. I know it's correct for the states that I've looked into--GA, AL and FL (states I've lived in).
The .223 was not designed to wound. It is a slightly up-powered version of a cartridge designed to be used to shoot varmints. It's virtually identical to the .222 Remington Magnum (which has since almost gone extinct). The .222 (non-magnum) was the original choice for the AR-15, by Stoner, but it didn't meet the military's minimum requirements for velocity and penetration. They upped it a bit to make that criteria.
