Posted on 06/14/2016 11:55:16 AM PDT by Kaslin
Folks—the demonization of the AR-15 rifle has begun in the media. The usual talking points about its lethality, its rate of fire, and its scariness are coursing through the veins of the anti-gun Left following the Orlando attack. Omar Mateen committed the worst mass shooting in U.S. history on Sunday morning, which will likely be reclassified as a terrorist attack, when he murdered 49 people at a gay nightclub (Pulse). As Bob Owens and Streiff noted at Bearing Arms and RedState respectively, Mateen didn’t use an AR-15 rifle, but the media has a narrative to dole out (via CBS News):
A law enforcement source said that the shooting suspect legally purchased recently the two weapons used in the attack at the shooting center in Port St. Lucie near his Fort Pierce home. He had a Glock 17 handgun purchased on June 5, a Sigsauer MCX assault rifle purchased on June 4 on his person during the shootout, and investigators later found a .38-caliber weapon in his vehicle.
Owens noted that the rifle Mateen bought “has no major parts that interface with AR-15s in any way, shape, or form”:
The rifle used by the Islamist terrorist in Orlando was instead a Sig Sauer MCX carbine, a modular, multi-caliber (able to swap to different calibers, including 5.56 NATO, 300 BLK, and 7.62×39) rifle system that sometimes utilizes STANAG magazines common to more than 60 different firearms, but otherwise has no major parts that interface with AR-15s in any way, shape or form.
This of course will make no difference at all to the anti-gun politimedia, who don’t particularly care about factual accuracy and who likely wouldn’t be able to tell an AR-15 from a toaster oven if their lives depended on it.
Via Streiff, the purpose of the narrative is to clear a path for its prohibition for civilian use:
Now this Sig is every bit as dangerous as an AR-15. It is sold in a semi-auto version to sportsmen and in full automatic by assorted special operations forces worldwide. The point is that it is not an AR-15 and no one, other than the media, ever claimed it was an AR-15. In fact, there is no humanly possible way it could be mistaken for an AR-15. This is not a mistake. This is a narrative. It is designed to build a consensus that the AR-15 is uniquely dangerous and contrive to outlaw it. Once that is accomplished the cry will be raised to outlaw similar weapons.
This is a Sig Sauer MCX Carbine:
We must remain vigilant. We must fight back against this narrative, but as of right now—a new ban on so-called assault weapons isn’t going to happen, folks. That could change if we lose to Hillary Clinton in November, and if Republicans lose the Senate. The Second Amendment is on the ballot. Choose wisely—and by wisely I mean, saying “hell no” to Clinton.
Our sister site, Bearing Arms, will have a more detailed post about the difference between the two rifles later today. Stay tuned.
he attended a FLA police academy in 2006
Hitlery thinks she’s going to repeat her beard’s 1994 gun ban.
I find it incredible that `rats and RATs are actually trying to use their failed immigration policies to justify infringing on the 2nd amendment.
Not gonna happen again. Like the `86 amnesty, that was a mistake that won’t be repeated if we have anything to say about it. And that’s a line in the sand.
Anyone claiming to be a conservative and grumbling about Trump, stating or suggesting they may go to Hitlery, is a stinking fraud.
My favorite comparison:
Both are 5.56mm caliber items. Both use the same magazines (PMAGs, steel, etc). Both have the same operation mode (semi-automatic). Both have 16" barrels and the same lethality.
One is evil; the other is perfectly acceptable (looks like a deer rifle).
That makes this more interesting. The MUSLIM maniac murderer used an European made weapon and American weapons manufacturers are to blame? Libtards have no bounds.
Timothy McVeigh was tried, convicted and executed in less time than this fruit of islam will be given for his first trial. See Major Nidal Hassan. Obama will protect him.
Priorities.
I prefer the Springfield 1903. 30-06 round. Good for long distance shots and it delivers a hell of a punch. WW1 assault weapon. The USMC was able to deliver shots out to 1,000 yards with this weapon in France on the Germans. They never knew what hit them. And it isn’t a scary looking black rifle that makes libtards make Obama’s in their pants.
Great comparison. What are those rifles called?
Ok, so we’ve established it wasn’t a pop tart.
Suppose an M16 with fully automatic mode was used. It will fire off at a rate of about 800 rounds a minute...but that hardly means it will fire for a full minute that way. In 2.25 seconds of holding the trigger it will empty a 30 round magazine.. The reload time will vary with the skill of the shooter, but it is long enough to be tackled by somebody who is in the right place and right time who has their wits about them.
Modern M16s have a three round burst mode that was added for the very reason that fully automatic used up the magazine too fast. In this mode one squeeze of the trigger fires three bullets. Its a compromise to increase the chances of hitting and stopping targets a soldier aims at, and not requiring the solider to change their magazine too often.
The only guns the gun banners would probably allow law abiding citizen to own and carry are water pistols, and that is not even certain.
The upper is a well-farkled (optioned) AR15. The lower is the Kel Tec SU-16CA. I had an SU-16CA, it used PMAGs, USGIs, pretty much any M16/AR15/STANAG magazine you could find. The front “stock” folds out and becomes a bipod. The rear stock holds two more 10 round magazines. And the whole thing folds in half right behind the trigger assembly (folding disables operation).
Lightweight, accurate, reliable, and not scary at all. But operationally and effectively it was an AR15 in all but name only.
And it’s not an Evil Black Rifle... :)
Looks like an AR, functions like an AR (piston type), uses the same ammo and mags as an AR. A distinction without a difference?
“”If that is so, then what we are hearing is 1)an illegally modified rifle and/or 2)SWAT firing back. Your thoughts??””
I’ve wondered the same thing when the film is played over and over. That’s an awful lot of noise and no one has bothered to explain that perhaps it was OUTSIDE coming from SWAT or from INSIDE from the attacker. Seems odd to be so loud if it was from the inside and yet they said SWAT didn’t engage for 3 hours or so. If it was from outside as some said he was shooting outside before going in, no one was there to take him out then? I haven’t wanted to stay glued to the coverage for hours at a time but I guess I’m missing something by not watching it hour after hour??
It is not clear to me. How do you chamber a round on that rifle?
Asshats in congress.
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.