MSNBC Says AR-15 as a "Military" Rifle. Whats a Mini-14?

There is *NO* difference in capability between an AR-15 and a Ruger Mini-14 Ranch Rifle.

The Mini-14 has *never* been considered to be a military weapon! And it has been sold for literally decades!

Why is MSNBC now saying the AR-15 is a Military Rifle when there is no operational difference between it and a Mini-14?

ANS: THEY ARE PUSHING A GUN BAN AGENDA FOR THE LEFT!

Tom Brokaw even went so far as to say civilians should not have "military" weapons like the AR-15.

Tom Brokaw apparently has *NO* concept of what a military weapon *is*. There is not a military in the world that would equip its shoulders with AR-15's instead of M16s. So how can an AR-15 be a military weapon if the military won't use it as one?

In fact, I suspect Brokaw has *NEVER* read Federalist Paper 29. Leftists tend to stay away from our founding documents because they simply don't comport with the agenda of the left.

Fed Paper 29: "Little more can reasonably be aimed at, with respect to the people at large, than to have them properly armed and equipped;"

Proper arms are the arms used by the militia. Well, the militia today uses M-16s and Browning 9mm pistols.

Who is the militia? Let's go to the US Code, Section 311:

--------------------------------
The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32 , under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.

 The classes of the militia are--

 the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia;  and

 the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.
---------------------------------------------(bolding mine, upside)

The organized and unorganized militia should be equipped equally in order to minimize logistics problems with maintenance, repair, and resupply of ammunition.

Does ANYONE on MSNBC know *anything* about this nation at all?

 

Arguing about what "type" of rifle or gun is used is totally stupid, if you are shot by most any type in the right place you will be dead.

 

If it is a 'black' rifle its bad and evil incarnate...

 

I see. The black stock is alive and can cloud the mind, right?

 

My Mini 14 is black.

 

I am always amused by the ignorance of the media. Less amused by the ignorance, however, of people who are able to make policy...



Just consider yourself lucky that this assclowm Paddock didn't use a Mini-14 or we'd be listening to Dianne Fineslime telling us how it needs to be banned. I would not give mine up - and I've got two.

 

Keep it away from the Kardashian’s.

 

The AR15 designed by Armalite was the grand daddy of the M16. The AR15 unlike the M16 was semi auomatic and was initially ordered by the USAF to serve as a light fast shooting rifle for Air Police to use as the weapon of choice for guarding B52s. The champion of the USAF AR15 was Gen Curtis LeMay of SAC fame and of WWII Bomber command fame. Colt Firearms bought the rights to AR15 and the M16 was born
As a semi auto / auto option with a selector switch.

 

Which, functionally is no different than the Mini 14, hence the topic of this thread.

 

I disagree the bolt is supposed to be diferrent. That us the operating heart of any rifle.

 

Well, I would toss that into the dump to grab the mighty M-14 then. That had real power. The bullet is almost identical to the 30.06 which will drop bears. A human has little chance when blasted by the fully automatic M-14.

 

The M14 caliber is .308, which is close to the 30 06 . I agree not significant diferrence.

 

It is definitely a military style rifle but that doesn't mean civilians shouldn't be allowed to own one after passing a background check. Rarely does the military use the M-16 on full auto and it is practically identical to the AR-15 in single fire mode. The bump stock makes it pretty close and that is the debate. Trump and the NRA said they have no problem banning the bump stocks.

The 2nd Amendment I believe in the past was for the citizens to overthrow the government if the need arises as gun ownership won the Revolutionary War and united us in the Civil War. Obviously we're not to Civil War #2 yet and the US military far surpasses the capability of militias anyways.

The 2nd Amendment obviously doesn't allow us to have nukes, tanks, F-16's etc. So where do you draw the line? That's up to the Supreme Court. We're obviously not going to live in a gun free utopia anytime soon so gun nuts shouldn't get their panties in a wad yet. The NRA is a huge force.

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/10/04/us/bump-stock-las-vegas-gun.html

 

That's what they believe.

 

Well they're not interchangeable if that's what you're suggesting. But they function exactly the same, hence the topic of this thread.

 

I believe Tom Brokaw, however, would call them "AR-14."

 

They both shoot bullets ...

 

I would not say that all Democrats are that ignorant of firearms. Now liberal women tend to not know crap about weapons. I told the story of an anti war female neighbor who accused us Vietnam vets of shooting people in Vietnam with " your shot". I tried to explain that our military was not equipped with shot guns as a standard weapon. She said " you shoot with them they are shotguns" .

 

There was a time when some people called all guns AK47's. Thus crazy neighbor I talked about in another post traveled somewhere in the US right after 9 11 so she claimed thatvthere were US military soldiers with "AK47's" at He airport. She did not believe me that thevUSCmilitarybis notvequiped with AK47's.

 

I believe in thev2nd amendment very much but I do not agree that the purpose fir the 2 no was go assure that citizens had arms to overthrow the government. If that was true the founders would gave written that intonthe Constitution. They did not. The right to bear arms is Constitutional but there is no fight to overthrow our government.

Keep dreaming.

 

If they said it about me, they'd be right. It's my favorite hog-hunting rifle.

 

That us fine you were not issued an AK47 by the military adds standard weapon.

 

Mine is walnut.

 

1) The Bill of Rights was controversial at the time because many of the Founders were concerned that some idiots might see it as a limitation on rights when, in fact, the Constitution is a limitation on the Federal government.

2) Let's not forget context: the Founders had just fought a tough war against an abusive world-power and were very wary of "big government". Additionally, the right of self-defense is ancient. Even the Brits had it written into the Magna Carta and, more clearly, in the 1689 English Bill of Rights, "Whereas the late King James II., by the assistance of diverse evil counsellors, judges, and ministers employed by him, did endeavour to subvert and extirpate the Protestant religion, and the laws and liberties of this kingdom:...By causing several good subjects, being Protestants, to be disarmed, at the same time when Papists were both armed and employed contrary to law.....And, thereupon the said Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons, pursuant to their respective letters and elections, being now assembled in a full and free representation of this nation, taking into their most serious consideration the best means for attaining the ends aforesaid, do in the first place (as their ancestors in like case have usually done), for the vindicating and asserting their ancient rights and liberties, declare:....That the subjects which are Protestants may have arms for their defence suitable to their conditions, and as allowed by law."

 

That's an operational detail, it does not affect the functionality.