Why would I not. It’s what I was trained on during the war. But, it might as well have been an AR15 95% of the time.
Underpowered ? Tell that to anyone on the receiving end of these rounds.. You should know. The effectiness of a weapon is not just caliber or muzzle energy. It’s how quickly and accurately you can get a slug down range in the most efficient way possible. You can carry twice the ammo with less then half the recoil then standard mid size hunting rounds in a weapon that has multiple uses and weighs much less, and can be fired by practically any adult. It’s specifically designed to be a man stopper within 200 plus yards. Deer and bear don’t shoot back. The AR15 is a military based weapon. It’s very effective at doing the worse we can imagine, slaughtering kids when fired by kids.
The regulation pertaining to fully-automatic firearms was put in place by the national firearms act, long before the AR-15 or M16 were ever created or even imagined. There was no lobbyist effort to be had in the matter. Except for the fact that you have done no such thing. In truth you have not even attempted to do such. The Colt Manufacturing Company did not help write the national firearms act.
Except for the simple fact that such does not actually work that way. Except such is not actually the case.
45 Thompson is far too heavy for a submachine gun Try the SAW (Squad Automatic Rifle or M229) which has magazines of up to 200 rounds, and you can carry it with 600 rounds as a basic load. It's far from light but you can carry more ammo and it's a rifle, not a pistol, so more powerful. The .223 is much smaller than a .45 but moves MUCH faster. For city work isn't a combat shotgun better anyway?
Entirely wrong. Colt designed a legal ans superb sporting rifle. It is most definitely not a weapon of war, not even close. Not only that, but the whole point of it being a weapon of war or not is entirely irrelevant. The fact that there are regulations for colt to adhere to tells us that gun regulations have gone too far already. The armalite rifle is arguably the best sporting rifles on the planet. I am sorry that you are scared of it because it's painted black. However you really ought to be afraid of peoples fists after all they kill more people than rifles. Ar 15 proven not to be a weapon of war, weapon of war or not is irrelevant. And you are irrationally afraid of an inanimate object.
Bows and arrows used to be weapons of war. Same with smooth bore flintlocks, then caplocks, then rifled bore arms, horse pistols, and lever action repeating rifles. Basic bolt action rifles are still the weapon of choice for many snipers today. The best way to keep lunatics from killing people is to stop making lunatics, get married, raise our children properly, provide a stable loving environment for them, conduct ourselves uprightly and bring our passions to heel. Dang, I forgot to answer the question. I'd say it's not a weapon of war. But it could be used effectively in a war...superior to say a lever action rifle or any handgun.
The Thompson is a heavy submachine gun at 10 lbs empty. That's why the Thompson has very little recoil or muzzle rise. But I was referring to urban warfare, close quarters combat, clearing out buildings. During the Tet Offensive in 1968 the Army and Marine Corps broke out the WW ll era weapons, BAR's, M-1919 .30 cal air cooled machine guns and the Thompson sub machine guns. During Tet during the battle for Hue the Thompson sub machine gun and the 12 ga shotgun was the weapon of choice by the Marines. The Thompson was used by Americans during the Vietnam War. This leatherneck of the 1st Marine Division carried a Thompson gun during the Tet Offensive, in the battle for Hue, February 1968. Twilight of the Thompson: a Thompson-armed sentry of the 1st Marine Division stands guard near Da Nang in February 1967. https://www.americanrifleman.org/ar...y-gun-in-country-the-thompson-smg-in-vietnam/
Tanks, sure, but you'd have to abide by city, county, state, and federal regulations as to where it could be driven. The weight limits on roads and things are legislated. As far as I know the F-35 and most of its systems are classified, ergo private citizens could not own them due to the security risk it would pose by not having the necessary security measure to protect that classified information. Nukes would be regulated by various agencies, the owning of them would require extraordinary measures for ensuring they are properly maintained and stored. Not to mention the classified nature stated above. The same could be said of most 'weapons of mass destruction' so I'm not sure where you are going with this...
It was yourself who introduced the nation that the rounds utilized in the AR-15 were not underpowered, simply because they have killed individuals.
In limited circumstances, but under most situations, even in urban combat, a carbine is always prove to be the superior firearm for such applications.
By introducing the hyperbolic discussing pertaining to weapons of mass destruction, it is an effort to get individuals to agree that the second amendment allows for firearm-related restrictions, and restrictions on the private ownership of weapons.
Not really, it brings into play other Constitutionally authorized powers of the government and shows a bigger picture. Failing to address it all just makes gun grabbers even more whiny...
Wrong Doubtless you have heard of nascar And you agree that nascar cars ARE race cars Can you get nascar cars that have been modified to be street legal, yes https://www.carthrottle.com/post/own-a-street-legal-nascar-race-car-for-21000/ Do those modifications mean that these cars are no longer race cars....imo, no They are simply race cars that have been modified to be street legal! THAT is what the ar15 is.... it is a military rifle that has been modified to street legal Do armies buy the ar15, no. Do civilians buy the ar15 to go to war, no But the fundamental characteristics of the rifle are unchanged... it was designed as a weapon if war, and could easily be used for that purpose even after the modifications to make it street legal Bear in mind, i am not saying it is illegal, or that it should be banned I think that it is near impossible to legally describe the characteristics of an assault weapon in a way that prevents circumvention. Otoh, it is just a matter of sophistry to describe a street legal nascar as NOT A RACE CAR. And similarly it is a matter of sophistry to say the ar15 is not a weapon of war that has been modified to be street legal
If it was designed and developed for the civilian market - and thus, civilian uses - how can it be a weapon of war?
All the above serves to do is further demonstrate that the restrictions on fully-automatic firearms serve no legitimate purpose in existing. If there is truly no meaningful difference between a semi-automatic firearm, and a fully-automatic firearm, the restrictions on the latter serve no purpose, have no reason for existing, are entirely arbitrary in their nature, and should be repealed in their entirety. If there is truly no meaningful difference between the two, there is no legitimate reason for fully-automatic firearms to be freely available from any federally licensed firearms dealer, to anyone who can pass the present background check requirement.
