Anybody remember back during the days when COLT and BUSHMASTER made the only two choices for ....
- Thread starter nitesite
- Start date
yes. very good. i find myself correcting people of the AR and Assault Rifle terminology often.
I don't think anyone is angry with you. They just care enough to give you a gentle nudge. 
There is just a lot of people out there that like to scare people with certain terminology and would like nothing more to limit their ownership to only themselves.
Assault rifle is probably one of the biggest out there.
Cop killer bullets, high capacity magazines probably come in close behind.
And then there are the laws on the books that try to define "legitimate" and sporting into the only category of guns that mere civilians should be "allowed" to own and the one where the "attorney general" has the broad spectrum of determining what is "sporting" or suitable; blah blah blah.....
There are just many out there who would try to classify certain weapons into certain groups of "good guns" or "bad guns".
There is just a lot of people out there that like to scare people with certain terminology and would like nothing more to limit their ownership to only themselves.
Assault rifle is probably one of the biggest out there.
Cop killer bullets, high capacity magazines probably come in close behind.
And then there are the laws on the books that try to define "legitimate" and sporting into the only category of guns that mere civilians should be "allowed" to own and the one where the "attorney general" has the broad spectrum of determining what is "sporting" or suitable; blah blah blah.....
There are just many out there who would try to classify certain weapons into certain groups of "good guns" or "bad guns".
No worries Mark, nobody has their britches in a bunch over it.
I didn't see you post the "A" word either. It was apparently the word "tactical" being associated with the AR-15 platform that got the conversation started. The statement in response was only to lend credence to the platform's use for sporting and hunting purposes as well. Our beloved "evil black rifles" are attacked on a daily basis, so raising awareness is high on a lot of priority lists. We're a thick skinned bunch around here and it'll take more than something like this to turn things sideways.
We don't get angry and we don't expect anyone to apologize for speaking their mind...
I didn't see you post the "A" word either. It was apparently the word "tactical" being associated with the AR-15 platform that got the conversation started. The statement in response was only to lend credence to the platform's use for sporting and hunting purposes as well. Our beloved "evil black rifles" are attacked on a daily basis, so raising awareness is high on a lot of priority lists. We're a thick skinned bunch around here and it'll take more than something like this to turn things sideways.
We don't get angry and we don't expect anyone to apologize for speaking their mind...
You didn't say assault rifle.
I think this is where I was left scratching my head:
For someone who really has no legit use for a "tactical" rifle.
And more specifically: no legit use for a "tactical" rifle
There are many folks out there that see pictures of these AR15's and really have no idea that they're not machineguns. I'm not sure if you're one of those folks or not, but they're popular guns for many reasons to many different people.
They're very accurate which lends very well to target practice and competition and hunting.
Many of us hunt with our AR's regularly and there are about 2 dozen different caliber uppers ranging from 22LR, a host of pistol calibers, 223, 243, 6.8 (which uses a 270 bullet) and other calibers and other larger calibers like 458 socom which are well suited for big and dangerous game usually just by swapping uppers and magazines and even a shotgun upper that I can think of off the top of my head.
Really, I'm not mad at you. Like many here, we have marched to our state capitals in protests, spoken with elected reps and have worked for decades for all of us to be able to choose any gun they wish.
Whether classic lines of wood and blued steel, or plastic and parkerized with rails and detachable magazines. We love them all.
I think this is where I was left scratching my head:
For someone who really has no legit use for a "tactical" rifle.
And more specifically: no legit use for a "tactical" rifle
There are many folks out there that see pictures of these AR15's and really have no idea that they're not machineguns. I'm not sure if you're one of those folks or not, but they're popular guns for many reasons to many different people.
They're very accurate which lends very well to target practice and competition and hunting.
Many of us hunt with our AR's regularly and there are about 2 dozen different caliber uppers ranging from 22LR, a host of pistol calibers, 223, 243, 6.8 (which uses a 270 bullet) and other calibers and other larger calibers like 458 socom which are well suited for big and dangerous game usually just by swapping uppers and magazines and even a shotgun upper that I can think of off the top of my head.
Really, I'm not mad at you. Like many here, we have marched to our state capitals in protests, spoken with elected reps and have worked for decades for all of us to be able to choose any gun they wish.
Whether classic lines of wood and blued steel, or plastic and parkerized with rails and detachable magazines. We love them all.
TomcatPC
.270 WIN
I guess I meant to say the only legit reason (for me), I could see me wanting an AR-15 (M-16A1 Version) would be...nostalgia. Just because it was the service rifle when I was in the Service. But I'd have "no legitimate reason" to have one, because I was never issued one (not because of anti-Firearms reasons). I was just a Plane-Captain in a fighter squadron in peace time and was never issued a weapon, So my nostalgia reason does not count in my case.
I did not meant they should not be illegal... Also I have dyslexia and if I miss one word in my writing it can come out very wrong... So even I mean to type one thing, it can come out very wrong. I think I should just shut up now...I've already done enough damage to myself... Sorry once again.
Mark
I did not meant they should not be illegal... Also I have dyslexia and if I miss one word in my writing it can come out very wrong... So even I mean to type one thing, it can come out very wrong. I think I should just shut up now...I've already done enough damage to myself... Sorry once again.
Mark
Really, there is no reason to apologize. That's not what we're about here. It just made me scratch me head.
Water under the bridge.
I'd like to hear some of your stories about being a fighter Captain one of these days. In the meantime, we're going to get back to our regularly scheduled program of early AR15's.
Water under the bridge.
I'd like to hear some of your stories about being a fighter Captain one of these days. In the meantime, we're going to get back to our regularly scheduled program of early AR15's.
Armalite Rifle
decent post, took it a little out of context though.....but your a good patriot
For the record I have far more wood/blued , bolt guns, shotguns, revolvers, single shot firearms than semi auto fighting firearms....
guess which ones sit around the most because they aren't as fun , accurate , or practical for the situation we live in as society decays around us
guess which ones will feed your family, and has the ability to defend against a mob....
very few firearms can do it all.....AR15(called that before M16 was ever coined) with ammo choice can harvest a squirrel to a big buck AND effectively defend your family or way of life from multiple assailants, is light weight, next to no recoil can be shot by anyone in almost any condition, common ammo, a truck load of caliber choices, one of the best Close Quarters defense AND one of the best long range choices
Sir, if one has no practicality for an AR15.....then I would say one hasn't opened their mind to the possibilities this world presents us.
better to have it and not need it, two is one.......all that applies
Bobster
.30-06
Mark, didn't mean to offend, only enlighten. In this day and age it is important that ALL gun owners stay united, regardless of what kinds of guns we own or like OR kinds of guns we don't own or particularly care for. A hunter with a dozen bolt-action rifles is in the same boat (ship ) as a three-gun competitor with a trio of semi-auto competition guns or someone heavily into clays with a $5000 O/U or a father and son going to the range to shoot a $100 .22 rifle. Sorry to go OT here... BTW, some early prototypes of the AR have wooden stocks!
Some may disagree with me but history has shown that once a "class" of guns or features has been outlawed, then the anti-gunners will go for the next most "dangerous" guns or features. The UK and Australia come to mind. It is for this reason that many (most?) US gun owners are uncompromising on any new gun laws and we have to be. Some State gun laws are just ridiculously stupid and unfounded. When is the last time someone was murdered with a bayonet or that a pistol grip or flash hider induced "extra" criminal activity?
Hence my comment on your "tactical" reference. One man's tactical rifle is another man's "assault weapon that should be banned!". I'm not a big "tactifool" guy myself, but I don't fault anyone else for it. Nor would I want to prohibit any features even though I don't see a practical application for them (ie: grenade launcher) in the civilian world.
US firearms ownership is the "fourth" branch of US Government and is a check and balance on the other three branches. I'm not talking anarchy here, but merely the threat of it. An elected official that is not "firearms friendly" is an elected official that is not to be trusted.
In this day and age it is important that ALL gun owners stay united, regardless of what kinds of guns we own or like OR kinds of guns we don't own or particularly care for. A hunter with a dozen bolt-action rifles is in the same boat (ship ) as a three-gun competitor with a trio of semi-auto competition guns or someone heavily into clays with a $5000 O/U or a father and son going to the range to shoot a $100 .22 rifle. Sorry to go OT here... BTW, some early prototypes of the AR have wooden stocks! Some may disagree with me but history has shown that once a "class" of guns or features has been outlawed, then the anti-gunners will go for the next most "dangerous" guns or features. The UK and Australia come to mind. It is for this reason that many (most?) US gun owners are uncompromising on any new gun laws and we have to be. Some State gun laws are just ridiculously stupid and unfounded. When is the last time someone was murdered with a bayonet or that a pistol grip or flash hider induced "extra" criminal activity?
Hence my comment on your "tactical" reference. One man's tactical rifle is another man's "assault weapon that should be banned!". I'm not a big "tactifool"
guy myself, but I don't fault anyone else for it. Nor would I want to prohibit any features even though I don't see a practical application for them (ie: grenade launcher) in the civilian world.US firearms ownership is the "fourth" branch of US Government and is a check and balance on the other three branches. I'm not talking anarchy here, but merely the threat of it. An elected official that is not "firearms friendly" is an elected official that is not to be trusted.
Last edited:
S
SHOOTER13
Guest
John A took the words right outta my mouth...Olympic Arms
...and the wife's plinker:
...and the wife's plinker: