"Just keep talkin', Bob."
Posted on 11/01/2019 9:38:46 AM PDT by real saxophonist
⁉️ The TRUTH about Beto's GUN CONFISCATION interview on the Breakfast Club
Enough with the “Weapons of War” propaganda on the Breakfast Club. The AR-15 cannot be a weapon of war because the AR15 is exclusively a civilian rifle. The M16 is a military rifle used in war. The M4 is a military rifle used in war. The AR15 is a civilian sporting rifle made for Civilians. The AR in AR15 does not stand for Assault Rifle, it stands for Armalite rifle which is the company that initially designed it.
Our Military does not use AR-15s. They use M16’s and M4’s which are FULLY AUTOMATIC. The AR15 is a Semi-Automatic. They Look the same, but they don’t function the same. You cannot pull the trigger once and it sprays multiple bullets with an AR-15.
Now please can we stop calling the AR15 a weapon of war because it is not truthful. Robert knows this, but then again this is the same Irish American who calls himself BETO in an attempt to fool Spanish people.
So, it should be no surprise that this same man would go on the Breakfast Club and call an AR15 a weapon of war to fool the American people.
If you’re aware that most people own AR15s responsibly, why are you trying take them away from those people. What is wrong with this dude. Over 9,000 people are killed with a handgun every year.
However, less than 300 people are killed by AR15s each year. So, I ask you, if he wants to take the AR15s while admitting that most people that own AR15’s are responsible, what makes you think he’s not going to take the handguns next?
Handguns are responsible for nearly 80% of gun deaths. How is taking away the thing that used in less than 1% of gun deaths in this country about saving lives? It’s not, it’s about control.
Why are you spewing nonsense saying “It’s hard to hunt with an AR15”?
Robert the AR15 has been marketed as a hunting rifle since the 60’s, you just got here. I have friends that take kids hunting and specifically use the AR15 because it’s so easy to use for hunting. And why are you acting like the only thing people hunt is deer. People hunt all types of animals and there are some animals that make an AR15 a necessity to hunt them effectively, LIKE Hogs!
Stop spreading these lies. The AR15 is a great hunting rifle and it’s a great self-defense rifle. You have armed security, so you don’t have to worry about it. Most people can’t afford armed security, but they can afford an AR15.
Using Mass Shootings as a justification to take AR15s is an incredibly deceptive red herring.
On July 14, 2016 a terrorist in Nice, France killed 86 people and injured 458 with a truck.
On April 16, 2007, a guy killed 32 people at Virginia tech with two handguns and one of the handguns was a .22
On November 7, 2018 A guy killed 10 people in California with one handgun.
On 1st of March 2014, there was a mass stabbing in a railway station that killed 35 people and injured 143.
Does this mean that Trucks, Handguns, and knives are killing machines?
It’s not the weapon that made these incidents so deadly it was the execution. Find a bunch of unarmed people in a confided space where they can’t easily leave. That is literally the MO of every mass shooting, these people want to shoot fish in a barrel.
Yes, I think the AR is the best gun for self defense and that’s why have them and like you said yourself, most AR15 owners are responsible.
There are more mass shootings committed with handguns than AR15s so once he has all the AR15s then every handgun out there will then be a potential instrument of terror.
Then every shotgun, then every bolt action, then every knife. It will not stop at AR15s.
Robert is a gift of stupidity. He just exposes himself word after word, line after line. He’s the only one foolish enough to expose their true intentions. We should applaud this gift of stupidly not ignore it.
In sociopolitics, facts don’t matter.
Why doesn’t the Air Force M-16 have a forward assist? Did they suppose they’d never encounter dust, dirt and mud? I carried one for three years as a civilian policeman at an Air Guard base.
"Just keep talkin', Bob."
He's another "top tier" candidate.
As is the Mossburg 500 series pump shotgun (also one of the most popular civilian shotguns in history); as was the Remington 700 bolt action rifle (also one of the most popular civilian deer hunting rifles in history); as is the 9mm semi-auto handgun (also the most popular civilian handgun in the world). But the AR-15 rifle? Nope, never been used by the military.
bkmk
The Democrats have appointed themselves the definers of all terms in any argument. No one else is allowed to do so.
In a war, anything that can be used as a weapon is a weapon of War. That’s what war is. And since our inner cities are basically warzones all the weapons that the bad guys use are weapons of war. It would be interesting to see one of the Democrats suggest that these weapons of war be taken from the gangs in the cities that are run by democrats
IIRC, it was because the Air Force used the original IMR powder as designed, instead of doing like the Army did and insisting on using the much dirtier burning ball powder.
They want to take away our weapons
Because they are planning to do something
That we should shoot them for.
I W N C
...maybe civilians should have tanks/planes/nukes
_______________________
That was the original intent. At the time civilians had armed ships, cannons, and everyone had a rifle. The cost of keeping up with military made it prohibitive. Also laws were passed to prevent parity. The 2nd Amendment was put in to allow protection from a run away government, which we now have.
“Why doesn’t the Air Force M-16 have a forward assist? Did they suppose they’d never encounter dust, dirt and mud?...” [2ndDivisionVet, post 4]
“... it was because the Air Force used the original IMR powder as designed, instead of doing like the Army did and insisting on using the much dirtier burning ball powder.” [nralife, post 10]
USAF contracted with Colt’s for the original production run of M16s, but the US Army intervened, claiming that as DoD’s executive agent for small arms, it had to approve such actions by other service depts - the Air Force had not sought permission from the Army first.
After resisting development of assault rifles and small-caliber cartridges, the Army suddenly decided it needed them more urgently than anyone else, and helped itself to rifles made for the USAF contract.
But Army Ordnance did not want the arm as originally configured, without a forward-assist. Additional development resulted in what was eventually designated the M16A1, complete with forward-assist.
USAF was relegated to a lower priority, but eventually obtained a run of M16s as originally designed, with no forward-assist plunger.
USAF’s primary use of the M16 was to arm air base security forces, who encountered dust, dirt, and mud less frequently and less severely than Army infantry.
Forward-assist is overrated anyway. Some Army veterans have told me they carefully avoided using it on the M16A1, M16A2, or other variants issued to them If a round did not fully chamber under normal buffer spring pressure, the last thing they wanted to do was force it more tightly into the chamber by whacking the forward-assist plunger.
Many rifles and machine guns have been quite successful without any sort of forward-assist or positive-lock mechanism: FAL, G3, BAR are a few.
Ball powder does not burn as hotly as the chopped tube powder generically called “IMR.” But residue and fouling differences are negligible. Port pressures were very different in early ammunition lots, leading to much higher cyclic rates when firing rounds charged with ball powder, leading in turn to shorter service life and higher parts breakage rates. The change from chopped-tube to ball propellant in 5.56mm ammunition was done by contractors, without Army knowledge or permission.
The M16A1 was initially issued to troops as “self-cleaning,” with no cleaning tools nor supplies. Not the smartest move for the warm, humid jungle conditions of Southeast Asia. Army Ordnance also forbid chrome lined barrels, leading to more problems.
Gas-tube clogging was eventually traced to excessive amounts of a drying agent (calcium chloride as I recall) used in ball powder manufacture. When chemical formulation processes were realigned, it was reduced.
All these events and official decisions were covered in detail, in American Rifleman magazine, about 25 years ago.
Thanks. Not sure I believe this, though:
“The change from chopped-tube to ball propellant in 5.56mm ammunition was done by contractors, without Army knowledge or permission.”
The best discourse I’ve seen on this subject was an ‘80s era article in Soldier of Fortune magazine titled Military Marketing. I wish I could find it online. No luck so far. I guess that’s to be expected.
“..Not sure I believe this...:
‘...change...to ball propellant...done by contractors...’
The best discourse I’ve seen on this subject was an ‘80s era article in Soldier of Fortune magazine titled Military Marketing...” [nralife, post 15]
_Soldier of Fortune_ has published a number of excellent in-depth reports over the years, covering technical topics, operational & doctrinal issues, after-action reports, lessons-learned summaries, and official histories. Their take frequently examines specifics that the orthodox military establishment prefers to stay mum about - or is simply indifferent to (if that sounds like I respect the magazine and approve of their editorial stances over the decades, I plead guilty: I was a SOF charter subscriber, signing up while I was still a cadet at the US Air Force Academy).
I admit to imperfect recollection on sources of some details. Began reading gun magazines in the mid 1960s, adding in numerous industry publications, military and scholarly journals, official and technical documentation, and an ever-lengthening list of historical volumes and monographs - over the course of a 29-year military career. Subject matter ranged far beyond guns and ammunition, but often included both.
And my memory has never been perfect.
Leaving the question of sources and citations aside, I don’t find the change of propellant terribly surprising. After more than a decade of close association with the defense acquisition community, I can say that changes to technical details of system development and production are common. Should the entire system function better? Of course.
But actually bringing about improvement isn’t as easy as civilians, Congress, or veterans and folks in uniform might suppose, nor wish.
What is mildly surprising: 5.56mm ammunition was not developed from the start using ball powder. Winchester invented the stuff in the 1920s (if my memory is accurate), so it was not an experimental propellant by the 1950s, and boasted advantages over chopped-tube propellants, including more precise volumetric metering and (as I recall) safer and less costly manufacturing.
Remington developed the ammunition. DuPont owned Remington at the time and had produced IMR powders for decades. Was the development team denied the use of ball powder? Without casting aspersions on any participants, I would find the answer to that interesting.
After working for years to help the processes work better, I can say that the Army Dept may have been notified of the propellant changes, but word may have failed to percolate up to any significant offices. Numerous subsections of the DoD bureaucracy exist; not all of them accomplish the same tasks and most experience difficulties in communicating with each other. Neither does every last one of them feel like cooperating with each other on any given day.
Thank you, sir.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
