Except there is no nation to be found on the planet, that has firearm-related restrictions in place, which prohibit their military from having access to fully-automatic firearms. Such firearm-related restrictions only apply to private citizens, while the government is exempt from such. Which countries utilize semi-automatic rifles exclusively and forego the option of fully-automatic capabilities for general issue? Do be specific about such. Then why do militaries insist on their rifles having fully-automatic capabilities? Why is semi-automatic simply unacceptable for general issuance to them? Then name them. Explain precisely how the AR-15 is a military firearm, when no military force on the planet will order or utilize such.
I support the right of the people in states or divisions within states, like a city to ban certain weapons or high capacity magazines if that's the will of the people. I don't believe banning certain things violates the 2nd Amendment, because it isn't disarming the people. It's a sad day when we feel lucky that only 3 people were killed and the list includes a six and ten year old. Someone in their twenties and a shooter who was nineteen was also killed. If it wasn't for the bravery of cops using their pistols to take down a mass murderer with an SKS, the death toll could have been much higher at the Garlic Festival. This time it was an SKS a semi-auto version of an AK-47. I remember dropping by my brother's home just before the assault rifle ban and my brother showed me 5 SKS he had just purchased and he already had 2 AK-47 types. My brother collected guns, mostly military style rifles, so I guess he figured possessing some banned weapons would get him better access to some earlier military rifles he wanted. I thought the M-4 had a barrel length less than the 16 inch minimum and didn't have a civilian semi-auto version.
Except there is no rule in the universe that requires a military weapon to have auto capability and removing that auto capability doesn't change a weapon from being a military weapon. It's nonsense to claim making a military weapon semi-auto changes it from being a military weapon. It's just a modification to allow civilian sales of a military weapon. Being semi-auto doesn't prevent someone having a sixty round capacity by duct tapping two 30 round magazines together and semi-auto targeted fire is more deadly than auto fire.
It's the trolling by people like you that is pathetic. You can't steal valor by being in the service, particularly if you spent your time on a carrier deck playing bell bottom grab ass throughout your enlistment.
By the time I was in-country and issued the M-16A1 (June 69) most of the problems were fixed including the ammunition. But there still was the problem with the 20 round magazine where you could only load the magazine with 18 rounds max or you might have a stoppage. And the biggest problem was that the M-16 was still chambered for a varmint cartridge and being so small and light that brush would deflect the round in flight. And still there's the problem which is still today the biggest complaint by American troops of the gas fouling up firing mechanism that leads to a stoppage.
Firstly, you're right, the actual military M-4 has a 14.5" barrel & is select fire while the military M-16 has a 20" barrel & is also select fire. The term "M-4" is sometimes used to describe civilian firearms with a barrel length that is shorter than the 20" barrel on the M-16 or AR-15 like the civilian, semi auto only Smith & Wesson M&P15 which has a 16" barrel. I'm afraid that I must disagree with the idea that bans on certain semi-auto rifles would deter a determined mass murderer for 3 reasons. 1. There are millions of semi-auto rifles & carbines already in circulation & the confiscation of them would be impossible and immediately render their lawful owners criminals. 2. It is at least my opinion that such bans would, indeed, be unconstitutional in both the letter and spirit of the law. 3. Finally, IF it were possible to legally ban a class of semi automatic rifles, a determined killer should simply resort to a different and possibly more lethal WMD such as bombs, Bio-Chem weapon, "Molotov cocktails", vehicles etc. I feel that the tragic killings such as this one at the Garlic Festival are a symptom of a violent society that could be better treated by more readily accessible & more affordable Mental Health Care than attempting to ban plentiful inanimate objects. In other words, I believe in treating the disease, itself, rather than its symptoms.
Then why do militaries insist their rifles must be fully-automatic, if there is no requirement for such? Explain such. If a firearm is not configured to the required standard insisted upon by the military, then the firearm is not a military weapon. Pray tell, why is such a simple concept, ultimately proving to be so difficult to comprehend? Such still does not make a firearm a military weapon.
I've mentioned I spent 80 days at PI (starting 01/14/72), 10 days leave and 40 days in ITR at the time the recruits first starting showing up with boot camp and ITR being together. We used M 14s in boot camp and M-16A1s in ITR. Getting two or three round bursts was very easy with the M-16A1. We were still taught the fire team formation of having a machine gunner, but I wouldn't want to cart around M60s if I wanted to be highly mobile, just the ammo for them is too much. I'd rather be with a squad only having the M-16A1s walking in single file with weapons alternating left and right. I think the ammo you can carry would be more effective that way. The second fireteam in the squad should be four man and have a grenadier, the rest just M-16A1s. We were also taught to prevent magazine overload. There was also a problem with aluminum magazines having tangs bent or something. I think it eventually caused the magazine to not be inserted properly. There was also a claim the aluminum magazines were suppose to be disposable in combat. I never knew about the issue, until I bought some extra magazines for my AR-15 years later. I don't recall seeing aluminum magazines before that. From what I've seen of cartridge sales, 5.56 is right up there only beaten by 9 mm. I bought military rounds and followed the bullet trail once, noticing it went thru two large trees and wasn't deflected, straight in and straight out twice. That's when I knew the AR-15 was not good for home defense, the rounds either have to hit something substantial to slow down, or they just keep going in that direction. Trees weren't enough. As far as a varmint rifle goes, a .22 can kill a varmint, if you know how to shoot. 5.56 can be used in some big game by an experienced shooter, but it might not even qualify in some areas. The .30 cals. are better for big game. The real issue becomes what weapon and ammo is best for a particular combat situation. If I had distance from the enemy and supply, I'd rather be using 7.62. For mobility in areas like jungles, I'd rather have 5.56, because I can't see to get a clear shot and I might need automatic suppression fire to advance to target. I'd rather be carrying the lighter rounds and weapons. I'd be examining the powder in the ammo to eliminate cleaning problems. Let's face it, if you can design a piston system for the 7.62, you can do so with 5.56.
I don't consider keeping the status quo to allow a mass murderer to quickly buy the materials to aid a mass murder the wise way to solve the problem. Civilians don't need 20 and 30 round magazines and assault rifles to use easy to get ammo. It's meaningless if the weapons are semi-auto, they can get more kills that way. I don't believe it's unconstitutional to ban assault weapon and accessory purchases and I believe it's unconstitutional to prohibit a state from doing so. Restricting assault weapons is not disarming the public. Mass murderers choose assault weapons, because that's the best they can get. We were lucky at the Garlic Festival, but the odds of us living two more months without another mass shooting with assault weapons are between slim and none.
Wise conservatives will support the idea that the states can ban guns, and will then encourage the 'liberal' states to do so. Look to the future.
I can read and I know exactly why every word in the 2nd Amendment was written that way. I don't fall for NRA bullshit.
The few parts and changes needed to make an M 16 don't cost much. When you subtract from that the extra costs of adding features to make it difficult to easily convert to auto, the price for an M 16 and AR-15 would be virtually the same and a foreign government can probably can get a military discount for the M 16. Why would they order the AR-15, it was only designed to allow it to be sold to the public by removing the auto feature?
Thus you are openly and knowingly admitting, to everyone present in the discussion, that the AR-15 is not, never was, and never will be, a military firearm, because it is not designed to utilize the components necessary for it to meet military specifications. Thus the above is nothing less than an admission to knowingly engaging in intellectual dishonesty throughout this entire discussion.
No, it wasn't. An SKS is in not the same as an AK-47, other than the type ammo. The SKS has 10-round internal box magazine, loaded by hand or a stripper clip. The AK-47 has a removable magazine with a spring-loaded ammunition storage and feeding device, with 10, 20, 30 or more round mags. Worse, the gun used was the Romanian WASR-10, not an SKS.
If the AR-15 / M-16 were, originally designed to be full auto capable it would have fired from an open bolt like the BAR, M-1919 Browning machine guns, Thompson submachine gun. The AR-15 that were first used in Vietnam were not full auto capable and the U.S. Air Force who was the first to accept the AR-15 were not full auto capable. Even the M-14 in it's early R&D stage wasn't full auto capable. It was the U.S. Army who added an additional requirement for the M-14 and M-16 that they be capable of full automatic fire. When soldiers and Marines in Vietnam lost fire discipline is when they had the M-16A1 in full auto mode and were firing more than three round burst is when the M-16 overheated and jammed. Even the mass shooter Stephen Paddock in Las Vegas who had numerous AR's with bump stocks, everyone of those AR's with bump stocks over heated and jammed on him because he had no fire discipline and didn't know the proper way of firing a rifle that was firing like a full auto rifle. Remember that when the U.S. Army was looking for a replacement for the M-1 Garand they wanted a rifle that could also be full auto capable to also replace the BAR that did fire from an open bolt.
If the AR-15 is a so-called "weapon of war" then why does the united states military issue the fully-automatic M16 rifle, instead of the semi-automatic AR-15 rifle?
Only the M-16A1 was full auto capable. The M-16A2 and M-16A4 are only capable of three round burst which is the proper way of firing a submachine gun and a rifle that is full auto capable firing from a close bolt. Squad automatic weapons (SAW) like the BAR and M-249 lay down suppressive fire for the riflemen using five round burst. SAW fire from an open bolt.
