An AR-15 is no more dangerous than a 9 millimeter handgun

you and a few ... wrote:

So, you would put your money on fools with AR-15s, AK-47s, bolt action rifles, shot guns and pistols?

Ask Roger Trinquier.

you and a few ... wrote:

You have watched too many movies.

The only movies I watch are where groups of men have sex with other groups of men. You can borrow some if you like.

Yes then we will see the first amendment wiped out too. Firstly nothing will happen to any of the rights in the bill of rights due to never will 38 states agree on anything again. And to all those saying about tanks and helicopters you understand the people behind those are soldiers and firing on civilians would never happen. A soldier will not follow unlawful orders and will protect the Constitution from all threats foreign and domestic that is what our oath is to not anything else. Solely to protect the Constitution. So no there will be no use of military vehicles to attack the population also have to remember soldiers are people who have "civilian" families. Stop hating on the second amendment it's there to protect the people. And can't be taken away by any law as the rights in the bill of rights are not GRANTED by the Constitution they are God given inalienable rights only PROTECTED by the Constitution.

I take it you’ve never fired a rifle that shoots a .223 bullet or a handgun with a 9mm bullet.

1. If you think the military will never fire on civilians, then why would civilians need guns to "fight against the government" in the first place?

2. Getting 38 states to agree is not the only way to amend the constitution

3. You want to be armed so that you shoot US soldiers if you disagree with the laws in the country. Congrats on not supporting our troops!

You had me for a bit, then proved you're a nutjob. Good work.

Prove Me Wrong wrote:

Yes, it may have more round capacity, but a handgun can still hold around 15 rounds of ammunition, and reload time is very quick. In a mass shooting in a large crowd, reload times don't have much impact in the ending result. Handguns are also easily concealed. It is also harder to disarm a person with a handgun compared to a rifle.

Don't buy the "common sense gun control" line. Liberal gun grabbers want to ban ALL guns, not just AR-15s.

ThatAverageRunner wrote:

Goucher Needles wrote:

This has never happened in the history of our country, and no, those hand guns will not have any influence on a government trying to oppress its citizens. Beyond the AH-64 Apache gunship is making its way through your neighborhood, the primary weapons a government has against it citizenry are financial. This is a nonsense argument.

+1.

The right’s argument is that if guns are controlled and possibly ‘taken away’ from people, the government then has full control of us and we can’t stop them.

We couldn’t stop them anyways if that’s what they wanted. Have fun shooting a tank or a helicopter with your pistol.

Agreed.

Yeah, those people have obviously never seen a tank or an F-35 or a 50-caliber gun before.....

I am not getting into the ballistics of it. Let's just agree that in the hands of any lunatic with bad intentions both are equally dangerous.

You proved the OP wrong, mission accomplished!

I don't know who told you average rate of fire for the m9 is 15 rounds per minute or the M4 being 45 rounds per minute but both of those numbers are so far off it's hysterical. If you are talking just firing rounds off you can get way more per minute. But if you are talking about aiming and actually grouping shots it all depends on the skill of the shooter. Please let me know when you have had years of training across multiple platforms and small arms. Untill then stop buying into media nonsense. And yes at 50 yrds any rifle will do better than a pistol bit tell me how many mass shootings occur over 150ft away? And when it comes to actual stopping power a 45acp is going to do more damage than a .223 however am AR 10 in 300aac blackout is the obviuos choice if you want great rate of fire combined with accuracy and stopping power and can accept extended mags. Only drawback being the recoil bit seeing as most mass shooters aren't experts or anything. Besides most mass shootings are committed with a pistol hell even Dayton was done with a (technically and legally) pistol chambered in .223.

Ok let's address the stupidity of your comment about "not supporting our troops" that you made to a veteran....secondly they aren't to protect ourselves from the military or soldiers but do you think of a government wanted to turn tyrannical that's all it would use? If so you are naive or willfully ignorant. And no there is no other way to ammend the Constitution without 38 states voting to ratify any amendment. Please learn about the Constitution before trying to change it.

Yes tell the veteran how wrong he is and how he's a nutjob for knowing more than you great argument and way to really back up your claim.

Soldiers oath is to protect and uphold the Constitution. They will not obey unlawful orders to fire upon civilians. And there would be no use of military vehicles to dominate the nation the soldiers swore to protect. Please tell us more about how soldiers are mass murderers and would kill civilians that oppose a government that wanted to turn tyrannical.

The rates of fire are just the numbers quoted in doctrine.

Yes the real rate of fire is dependent on the shooter, but the rate of fire will be higher with an M4 simply due to less of a recoil, thus target acquisition is easier.

The deadliest mass shootings have all used ARs.

Alan

Again the rate of fire has absolutely everything to due with shooter skill and training if you are talk to my target acquisition instead of just cycling rounds. Because being semi auto they will fire the same speed, as fast as you can pull the trigger. And we can agree some of the worst mass shootings were committed with rifles, vegas,pulse, Sutherland springs, and Sandy Hook. But a vast vast majority are committed by handguns, Virginia tech and that sorts I don't feel like naming them all because they aren't the ones sensationalized in the media such as the same weekend as Dayton and el paso there were 59 shot and 13 killed in Chicago including 7 shot at a playground. Of the 40,000 fun deaths a year lease than 500 are from rifles of any kind. (416 being the most in one year). And of that 40,000, 19,000 are suicides. Now let's not forget the CDC under Obama their research showed guns are used between 300,000 and 1.5million times in stopping a violent crime. The actual number being hard to pin down sue to most times their not being a police report, that's per year BTW. Includinf two weeks ago when a woman defended her house from 7 Intruders using her AR-15. And 12 says agao when a man shot 4 home Invaders that were armed with his Ak.

Prove Me Wrong wrote:

Yes, it may have more round capacity, but a handgun can still hold around 15 rounds of ammunition, and reload time is very quick. In a mass shooting in a large crowd, reload times don't have much impact in the ending result. Handguns are also easily concealed. It is also harder to disarm a person with a handgun compared to a rifle.

So why don't the military save a load of money by just using handguns?

Or I could be the typical person of the internet age who is capable of researching things that they find interesting.

As someone who chooses to exercise their 2nd Amendment rights, I was interested enough in the topic of ballistics to take an hour or two do sone basic research when deciding on what firearms to purchase for target shooting and home protection purposes.

If you see something factually incorrect in something I wrote, I’m honestly happy to be educated further. I enjoy learning about the details of topics I find interesting enough that I’d even be willing to learn from someone who obviously dislikes me without ever having met me.

Las Vegas....assault rife.

Orlando....assault rifle.

Sandy Hook....assault rifle.

El Paso....assault rifle.

8 of the top 10 most deadliest mass shootings have used assault rifles.

17 of the top 20 most deadliest shootings have occurred since the assault weapons ban was lifted.

Alan

After reading this thread I realize the problem with the 2nd Amendment is that it doesn't go far enough to protect us against, well, everyone who might be armed to the teeth and out to get us, which in principle is pretty much anyone and everyone.

Thus, every US citizen who is at least a teenager should be required to begin firearms training, and then when they are about 16 they should be required to be gun-licensed and be required to carry a firearm at all times, and be required to respond to any threats they perceive. In the case of stand-alone elementary schools, the age could be lowered to 12.

Also, anyone should be able to stockpile any quantity of military-grade weapons they can afford to acquire, with the understanding that they will be ready to deploy and use them at any time, either if requested or according to their own judgment.

Only then will we even begin to be safe.