The AR-15: The Real Story
American Thinker,
by
Daniel John Sobieski
Original Article
Posted By: shazbot123,
11/7/2019 4:55:05 AM
Beto O’Rourke will never get the chance to take away the AR-15 kept in the home of Jeremy King of Lithia, Florida. King and his family are grateful for that and for the right to keep and bear arms enshrined, without any asterisk, in the Second Amendment of the Constitution that Democrats claim to be defending.
Yep, that AR-15, the very same “assault” weapon owned by bitter clingers said to endanger such families and the neighborhoods they live in.
Reply 1 - Posted by:
Dodge Boy 11/7/2019 6:11:24 AM (No. 228919)
Adding to L.Com's Must Read comment, the media never reports when the owners of these weapons save lives.
18 people like this.
Reply 2 - Posted by:
WhamDBambam 11/7/2019 6:36:04 AM (No. 228938)
Don't own one, haven't hunted in years. Have pistols and shotguns for home defense, but am considering picking up one of these just to increase ownership stats (and to horrify my leftist friends).
31 people like this.
Reply 3 - Posted by:
BarryNo 11/7/2019 7:05:47 AM (No. 228967)
Till sometime after the civil war, regular citizens COULD own any weapon they could make or afford. The North, at Gettysburg, was defended not by government issued cannon, but several private volunteers wielding cannon or advanced repeating rifles, their captains owned and financed. On the high seas, many private merchants armed their ships with cannon, handgrenades, and other 'military weapons' to ward off pirates.
And Frankly, considering some of the comments of Democrat Presidential candidates, it gives me chills to think they might have access to the nuclear football. One already threatened to use nukes on U.S. citizens if they didnt follow his edicts.
I would trust the average man on the street to be more responsible with a nuke than many Democrat posers.
25 people like this.
Reply 4 - Posted by:
Paperpuncher 11/7/2019 7:35:09 AM (No. 229002)
I am glad the author made the point that the AR-15 is NOT an assault rifle. By it's nature an assault rifle is fully automatic. The AR is semi-automatic, big difference. The leftists like to call it a weapon of war. I am personally not aware of any military that is issued AR-15s to use in combat precisely because it is a semi-automatic.
25 people like this.
Reply 5 - Posted by:
ROLFNader 11/7/2019 8:29:04 AM (No. 229057)
I bought one a few years ago at a very discounted price when a sporting goods store was going out of business. Got a S&W AR-15 22LR because I figured it would be a fun little plinker and it is. However , I wouldn't want to be downrange from one if someone was wanting to change my mind about doing something stupid.
6 people like this.
Reply 6 - Posted by:
Franz 11/7/2019 8:52:08 AM (No. 229078)
The reason the drug cartels have AR-15s is because the Obama administration promoted their sale to the cartels in the "Fast and Furious" program.
10 people like this.
Reply 7 - Posted by:
Rumblehog 11/7/2019 8:54:08 AM (No. 229080)
FTA: As Fox News contributor Judge Andrew Napolitano notes:
---
"The historical reality of the Second Amendment's protection of the right to keep and bear arms is not that it protects the right to shoot deer… It protects the right to shoot tyrants, and it protects the right to shoot at them effectively, with the same instruments they would use upon us..."
---
We've seen recently how rogue city councils, even States, can go so far as to write laws that place personal firearms in jeopardy. Making citizens vulnerable to the failed "social engineering" results of leftist politicians' by denying them access to their Second Amendment rights is itself a failed experiment. The leftists fail at EVERYTHING they try because their moral compass is broken. Increasing police presence to counter the results of failed social programs does not decrease crime, simply increases the leftists' justification for a police state... a concept abhorrent to our founders who suffered under the British Army "police state."
9 people like this.
Reply 8 - Posted by:
Franz 11/7/2019 9:02:51 AM (No. 229088)
RE: Reply 4
The military version of the AR-15 is designated as the M-16. It was issued to our soldiers during the Viet Nam War. It proved to have problems under combat conditions.
9 people like this.
Reply 9 - Posted by:
Congar 11/7/2019 9:49:41 AM (No. 229155)
To a person right of imperialistic leftists an AR-15 means you have access to self defense before the police arrive. To a Leftist an AR-15 is just something to be taken away, so they can tell you when and where you may poop.
3 people like this.
It's pretty clear this deal was dopers trying to rip off some other doper. Not sure that this crowd is the best example of law-abiding users of an AR to fend off home invaders.
2 people like this.
Reply 11 - Posted by:
GO3 11/7/2019 11:31:15 AM (No. 229272)
The AR-15 is America's rifle, period. It isn't going to just go away.
Some misconceptions. The M-16/M-4 are not just used by the military because they are selectable to fully automatic (or three round bursts), the M-16/M-4 are milspec while the AR-15 is not. The M-16 is designed and built to withstand the daily rigors of combat and high firepower requirements and have a beefier bolt carrier group and thicker gas tubes. An Ar-15 owner putting in a full auto sear is courting a catastrophic malfunction.
Yes, in VN the M-16 had problems because amazingly, the leadership bought off on the ridiculous no cleaning policy. After that policy was trashed and fixes made performance went way up. After the battle at LZ X-Ray, then Lt. Col. Hal Moore said there were three things that enabled victory, the soldiers, fire support/air power and the M-16.
By and large, AR-15s were not smuggled to the cartels by operation F&F, although it would have made more sense if they did. As I posted yesterday, zippy liked to smuggle AK-47s and sniper rifles which did not fit the cartels number requirements or logistics:
"Cartels rely on Army deserters bringing their PTR-91s (licensed German HK-91s) in NATO 7.62 and bulk M-16s in NATO 5.56 from South and Central America smuggled in originating from US stockpiles recovered from VN. Even the army's new rifle to replace the PTR-91 is in NATO 5.56. AKs serve no useful tactical/logistical purpose except for show. And Holder's gang actually revealed their stupidity in having down and out amateurs in the US smuggle in Eastern Bloc weapons."
6 people like this.
Reply 12 - Posted by:
Terry_tr6 11/7/2019 11:54:30 AM (No. 229298)
I doubt there has ever been a more effective, versatile, or affordable weapon in history. The are more sources of interchangeable and customizing parts than any gun in history with the 1911 pistol probably being second(and more costly and less adaptable). If you can buy one legally, do it. If you don't know guns, find a friend or neighbor(you may be surprised who all owns one) who does and they can guide you through either purchasing one or buying one in parts to save some money and showing you how to assemble it (I think other than a screw driver to attach the dreaded and super deadly pistol grip, no tools are required). If you're not allowed to purchase /own one due to local/state laws, ask your self why not and decide if civil disobedience is justified in you obtaining one. you are after all, a citizen and sot a subject and as such are granted by god to be the ultimate authority in our government.
6 people like this.
Reply 13 - Posted by:
DVC 11/7/2019 12:07:09 PM (No. 229313)
Well said, worth reading.
FTA:
"If the AR-15 had been available in 1776, George Washington would have fielded an army armed with it, to be sure, but just as surely every farmer, blacksmith, carpenter, and shopkeeper would have grabbed an AR-15 on their way to the village green to protect our freedoms from the same government tyranny the writers of the Constitution sought. to protect us from and that Peter Francis O’Rourke would impose on us."
Yes, and if they force us into it, it is what we will carry into Civil War 2.0 to save our country. every patriot should have one.
I really hope we don't get to that point, but it seems like the left just about insisting on it, regardless of our efforts to have the laws enforced and avoid it.
3 people like this.
Reply 14 - Posted by:
DVC 11/7/2019 12:12:57 PM (No. 229316)
#8, a last minute modification of the powder in the ammunition caused added hard residue buildup in the chambers of early Vietnam-era M16s. They were issued without any cleaning gear or cleaning instructions. When the powder was corrected and proper cleaning gear and methods used, problems stopped.
In the ensuing half century it has become an extremely reliable weapon in the hands of the military as the M16/M16A2 or currently the M4 carbine, now issued with optical sights.
2 people like this.
Reply 15 - Posted by:
cor-vet 11/7/2019 4:48:38 PM (No. 229509)
Napolitano is wrong, in one respect. We would not be defending ourselves with the same weapons the tyrants would use against us. If anyone on Gods green earth thinks that the weapons civilians have access to are the same weapons the military has, they're crazy. I never liked the 'black' guns and don't own any polymer pistols, but a few years ago, I did acquire a high end AR-15, for defense purposes, and it's a blast to shoot. Ammo is relatively cheap, also.
1 person likes this.
Below, you will find ...
Most Recent Articles posted by "shazbot123"
and
Most Active Articles (last 48 hours)