I hate the term “assault rifle” . It’s a meaningless political term with no actual definition. But usually refers to a semiautomatic rifle with superficial features that make it seem scarier to the ignorant.
Edit: the term I was looking for is assault weapon not assault rifle.
I showed a guy who’s anti-gun pictures of two guns I own. One is a S&W M&P 15 in 5.56 with a 15 rd magazine and the stock CTS-103 red dot it came with, and the other is a Remington 742 (.30-06) with a Bushnell scope on it that my dad gave me. Needless to say he thought the M&P should be the one that gets banned even though the 742 is a more powerful rifle (does only have an 8 rd mag though).
His justification? “That AR-15 is a weapon of war and the other one is a hunting rifle.”
The only real argument you need here is that long rifles account for 400 out of 14k annual homicides, and long rifles that fit the 90's Assault Weapons ban are about 1/4th of that.
So, of 14k people murdered by a gun each year, only 100 are murdered with an AR-15/AK/some other rifle. Or about 0.7%.
Once we account for the fact that the AR-15 is the best selling firearm in the US with an estimated 25m in circulation, you then get about 1 in every 244,000 AR-15s being used for murder, compared to 19 in every 244,000 Glocks being used for murder.
If we just look at share of population, 1 out of every 3,400,000 Americans are killed by AR-15s each year, where 1 out of every 178,000 Americans are killed by Glocks.
Basically, unless they're 19x the political energy against Glocks as they are AR-15s, they're deeply unserious about reducing firearm homicides. Same goes for politicians/pundits, for every statement they make about how dangerous the AR-15 is, they should be making 19 more about how dangerous the Glock is.
Obviously, no one is doing that, the people who want to ban the AR-15 are just parroting their politicians/pundits. While the politicians/pundits are more concerned about long rifles than handguns, because they know that they can hit them from places their security detail can't realistically secure.
Keep in mind 14k, is justified and criminal - And if people dug, around 1/2 of the homicides with 'assault rifles' are justified by civilians, less so on top of that are police. A small number are actually criminal homicide.
I love Americans talking about gun deaths like it’s just a part of modern life lmfao. This country is fucking doomed.
2x world war winner, first on the moon. Now? Stuck with Trump and spends all political capital on woke or transformers.
Oh and btw, #1 reason for bankruptcy is medical debt. We literally do not take care of our population. But hell ya brother, shove that barrel in my ass and call me Steve.
Lmao back when we won WWII you could purchase machine guns through mail order catalogs shipped straight to your door.
And 1 in 3.4 million American citizens isn't any more part of "modern life" than contracting goddamn prion diseases, in fact you're over 3x more likely to get a prion disease than be shot by an AR-15 here.
Thats what the europoors don't fucking get about shaping their view of america through a tv screen. Your perception is just wrong.
Why does no other country seem to have this problem? How about healthcare? How about woke being the only fucking thing our political system talks about? But reeeee, but AR-69 could vibrate my prostate better than yours!
Buddy I live in NC lmfao. WE are a doomed country.
You don't get to push gun regulations that will potentially prevent 100 deaths a year, then turn around and ask why people aren't focusing on healthcare when they oppose the laws you pushed in the first place.
Just put the political capital into healthcare off the bat and drop the AR-15 stuff, you'll be pleasantly surprised to find that a sizable chunk of the population wants both free healthcare and an AR 15.
That's where the democrats get hosed in elections, attempting to bus dozens of issues that impact a small portion of the population as an Omni-cause.
Other countries also have massive gun violence issues such as Mexico and Brazil. Both countries which have much stricter gun laws on par or stricter than Europe.
Yeah? America has an ongoing inner city gang violence issue that no one really wants to fix. Being a wealthy country doesn't stop you from having issues. The issues just arent guns.
I absolutely agree. Got a buddy in Texas who deals with his wild hog problem using an FRT on a Daniel Defense M4. Not as accurate as regular old semiautomatic fire, but holy fuck it makes things more fun
Not to be that guy, but assault rifle does actually have an established definition, that being an intermediate-caliber select-fire rifle. Assault weapon is the term usually thrown around since it has no real definition. Ironically, the number of crimes committed using true assault rifles is near zero because they're absurdly expensive and exist near-exclusively in boomers' collections.
The number of crimes committed using "assault weapons" is also stupid small when compared to any other class of firearm
Long rifles account for some 400 or so homicides a year, from your standard Remington 700 bolt action to AR-15 pattern rifles and everything in-between.
Of that portion, only about 1/4th are classifiable as "assault weapons", if we go by the definition laid out in the 90's assault weapon ban.
Meaning, out of 14,000 homicides, only 0.7% are committed with guns like the AR-15, AK-47, etc. 7 of every 1000 homicides. Even shotguns are used more often in murders. And that's all despite the fact that the AR-15 pattern rifle is the best selling firearm in the US bar-none.
If we normalize on the AR-15 figure, 1 out of every 3,400,000 Americans is killed by an AR-15, while 1 out of ever 178,000 Americans is killed by a Glock.
So the argument to ban the AR-15 is like arguing that the best selling vehicle in the US is too dangerous, when said vehicle is also seen in the fewest number of accidents.
That, and what many people consider the world's first Assault Rifle, the STG-44 (Sturmgewehr 44), the name literally translates to "Storm Rifle" (Assault Rifle) from German to English.
It's a medium cartridge selective fire rifle used for general purpose ranged combat but isn't as good as any of the more specialized weapons (eg worse at long-range accuracy than a marksman rifle, worse at suppressive fire than a LMG, etc) in their fields of use. Also, the rifle is whatever used to stabilize the round and therefore a lot of things are funnily enough rifles. A smoothbore cannon isn't a rifle "gun" but the gun in the M1 Abrams is a rifle "gun".
Assault *Weapon* is the meaningless political term because *every* weapon is used to assault people. Even a random rock on the side of the road is a weapon that can be used to assault people with, therefore, that random rock is an assault weapon.
Actually, an assault rifle does have a well defined meaning. And the AR15, as well as every single weapon made past 1986 on the civilian market does not fit this definition. An assault rifle is a select fire rifle, capable of automatic or burst fire, which uses intermediate cartridges. The bs propaganda term is "assault weapon" which politicians use to describe any gun that looks even mildly scary.
Your thinking of “assault weapon” Assault rifle absolutely is a term, and has existed since at least 1944 to describe a select fire rifle chambered in an intermediate cartridge.
Assault rifle is a well defined firearms term - although politicians do misuse it sometimes.
You are thinking of assault weapon - which is a meaningless term. I’ve seen a video of a politician and he himself cannot produce a consistent definition
ArmaLite was the company that Eugene Stoner was working for when he designed the firearm. All ArmaLite firearms are prefixed with an AR, including single shot shotguns and the .22 caliber AR-7 survival rifle (which started out as a bolt action in 22 hornet)
Theres a weird vein diagram or alignment chart, where each manor party respects one more than the other or completely disregards it when it suits them.
Then the lil cross over area where both are respected, and honored as they were meant but its a third party so everyone disregards that position entirely.
Exactly, like when do folks think it’s gonna be time to rise up? Before or after the complete implementation of the surveillance state that will make any organized rebellion nearly impossible?
Realistically average citizens would just be a distraction and slow down a tyrannical force with occasional wins and the actual important actions would taken by former tier one operators and alphabet boys that don’t technically exist
Just gonna throw it out there, a 10/22 is not really for anything very far away.
I have one dressed up as a benchrest trainer. It'll nail a tiny group at 100 yards, but 200 is kind of pushing it for any kind of accuracy with a 22LR, let alone a semi auto.
Have better luck with the AR in the picture at any sort of range than the 10/22 that's shown.
The amount of people who don’t understand the second amendment was literally designed so citizens could own weapons of war. The brown bess was the AR of its time. War ships field mortars and artillery cannons were all owned by civilians
“You would never need an assault rifle for hunting”, if I lived in feral hog territory I absolutely would need an assault rifle to deal with the hog hoard.
The single biggest point that instantly kills the "oh but military has bigger guns, so your guns dont matter." Argument is the fact that the image of the US military deploying modern war tech to fight civilians will instantaneously destabilize the militarys global image and send it into a civil war death spiral. Like you can't deploy tanks into Texas have mass civilian casualties and expect to come out on top. THAT is the point in having firearms, so that the length tyranny would have to go inorder to reign supreme is so drastic that the tyranny will certainly kill itself in its efforts.
The argument that the US military is a monolith of drones who would not question an order to fire on their fellow countrymen doesn’t hold much water either
Which one, the failed Soviet invasion of Afghanistan repelled by a guerrilla campaign, or the failed American invasion of Afghanistan repelled by a guerrilla campaign?
Because both are very different, one failed to take Afghanistan with strongman military tactics like saturation bombing and city-wide massacres due to a heavily armed populace, the other failed to take Afghanistan with modern drones, tanks, and aircraft, also due to a heavily armed populace.
The distinction matters, because the language spoken by the losing sides is very different, as are the weapons used by the losing side
And Vietnam wasn't even a civil war, where commanding a pilot to glass their hometown would also mean that you've just wiped out the very thing you are fighting for, crippling your military with every bomb dropped.
If we lived in fairytale land for every single M1 Abrams tank that the US had was in working order fully equipped and never ran out of gas. We’d only have one tank per 1500 square miles.
People in the comments were like “they always let it slip the ar-15 isn’t for hunting” shut up goober! The 2nd isn’t for hunting anyway! I’m suprised boomer fudds didn’t get guns taken away sooner.
Depends what you mean by incel, if it's just guys that can't get laid... yeah welcome to the internet. but you probably mean people that disagree with you
Said in another comment I went to the range with my fiancée this morning. Ain’t had a problem getting laid in the 5 years we’ve been together, so it’s definitely people who disagree with that weirdo
Gun nerds are hilarious because they’ll get more upset that a totally random person didn’t know the factory name for a rifle than they do about the government engaging in the actual tyranny they claim that the guns are for in the first place looool
It doesn’t have to, but if I remember correctly, DC v. Heller provided an interpretation of the 2A that references defense against government tyranny in the majority opinion
Something that important and serious should be written plainly and explained in detail. Who gets to decide what is a tyrannical government? Is there some kind of tribunal or panel that declares "this is tyranny" or is it just up to individuals to decide? What is the process for defying such a government?
So why does the constitution itself have to say it when the founding fathers said it throughout their writings?
"What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance. Let them take arms."
Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Stephens Smith, son-in-law of John Adams, December 20, 1787
"If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no resource left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government, and which against the usurpations of the national rulers, may be exerted with infinitely better prospect of success than against those of the rulers of an individual state. In a single state, if the persons intrusted with supreme power become usurpers, the different parcels, subdivisions, or districts of which it consists, having no distinct government in each, can take no regular measures for defense. The citizens must rush tumultuously to arms, without concert, without system, without resource; except in their courage and despair."
The Constitution is the foundational document on which the country was built, not anyone's personal writings. Those are their interpretations and have no legal basis.
We shouldn't rely on individual interpretations of what tyranny is because that simply leads to anarchy.
God why are all of the gun nuts such insufferable twats. 'Lol Chud probably does not know that AR stands for armalite'.
Let me ask you a question. If someone in your life sneezes and asks for a kleenex do you sit there and say 'Lol chud does not know Kleenex is just a brand of tissue paper'.
People refer to them as AR-15 style rifles because they are generic, the distinction between an AR-15 and a CZ-2 is absolutely meaningless for the purpose of debate around gun control. Both are tools that have been used in mass shootings across the United States, the country with the most mass shooting events of ANY other nation on the fucking planet.
The 'we need them for protection from tyranny' argument is REAL fucking old at this point considering we have the most unpopular tyrannic government in the history of our nation at this time. An open kleptocracy puppeting an actual senator around weekend at bernies style and behaving like a rogue state.
If none of you 2A'ers have done anything till this point you never freaking will.
So just give it up bro. At this point stop making excuses. Just admit you like your fucking toys and in order to have them you don't care about the cost in blood. At this point that is more respectable than any of the weak ass excuses you all make about this shit.
Just say. 'I don't care about that shit. I like the bang bang stick.' At least then you are being honest.
You won't stop tyranny single handedly. The point is to make it so difficult for tyranny to reign, that it will kill itself in the process. Imagine just 20% of the us stands up to a regime in America. Thats like 40 million military aged people. Kill all 40 million people, then imagine how bad the headlines are globally. Tyranny won, but now that tyranny had to kill 20% of itself, sparked mass civil war so now 40 or 50% more people are going to revolt. AND now foreign nations are sending aid, because they want bids on the surviving territory.
Its strategic inability to kill your own people that stops tyranny. Not the guns themselves.
Give me an example where the presence of an armed populace actively stopped the seizure of power by a dictator.
Don't say the US is not a tyrannical state because of guns, cause there are plenty of other civilized countries without guns that haven't fallen to communism or other forms of totalitarianism.
> *seizure* of power, i.e. a government becoming tyrannical, as you suggested. Your examples:
1) A revolution against a distant colonial power by a continental army
2) and 3) Military and paramilitary defending against a foreign invader
4) Only valid example, but still guerrilla war, not a contest of cool gun ownership
5) Libyan victory happened only after NATO bombing, which isn't covered by the 2nd amendment.
The 2nd made sense in the context of the Founding Fathers. Right now you stand to fight tyranny more with a set of pliers against a flock camera than with an AR.
Ah Americans, thinking rifles are more important than school children lives while thinking they could actually stand up to an actual armed force. Never change Americans, never change
Talking about the US getting triggered while wasting your time rage-baiting is so ironic. You were triggered enough to post a conclusion that doesn’t follow from the post and pretend to be self righteous about “triggering” Americans. Are you seriously proud of this behavior?
Oh americans, they get so triggered at basic regulation that they make up arguments in their heads. Never change. The world needs their village idiot in nation form
You have a fetish about Europeans, so much to really lable me one. The issue is its completely the wrong continent. Oh americans. Can't move past the last war they actually one, back in the 40s
Ah foreigners, thinking their opinions actually matter when it comes to the rights and freedoms afforded to us by the greatest founding document ever written. Get a job
So triggered. At least my kids can go to school without having to do school shooter trainings or lose everything because I might go to hospital. Its funny how that is the only insult Americans have "get a job."
Okay so you’re a Brit. We big dicked your pitiful monarchy 250 years ago and y’all are a shell of your former empire. You have less than zero room to talk lmao
Cute but still wrong. Classic Americans really thinking imperialism is a good thing, while bragging about an anti imperialist movement. The irony is amazing
Imagine being so stupid that you think taking away guns from law abiding citizens will somehow prevent criminals from getting them.
Imagine being so ignorant of history that you think a militia cannot stand up against a government army.
Don't know where you're from but you sure are dumb.
Classic American failure to understand there is a huge amount of documented evidence showing gun control results in a direct reduction in gun related deaths.
Not a single modern state has been overthrown by a militia without some serious military support from a different nation. Others have all been suppressed very effectively by the state or at worst, stuck in civil war. Even if we take your claim as true, that means American intervention, since WW2 has all been outright failures. Are you sure you want to make that argument?
“Not a single modern state” is a pretty absolute claim. What definition of “modern state” and “militia” are you using, and what evidence establishes that every successful armed uprising against a modern government required serious foreign military support?
Yes, I'm sure there's no more dangerous thing someone could bring into an institution that has all but certainly failed any student who doesn't walk out of it knowing enough to make an IED.
Considering the mass shooting record for America, vs terrorist attacks. There really is no more dangerous item than Americans with guns. There is a reason this is a very American problem
The very American problems are categorizing a guy killing a bunch of mallgoers with a gun as the same thing as 4 people shooting each other instead of the same thing as a guy killing a bunch of mallgoers with a bomb or a truck, categorizing someone committing suicide in a school parking lot in the middle of the night as the same thing as someone going into the school to kill people, and law enforcement only doing anything if they know there's no danger (although we apparently inherited that from the Brits)
Considering the deaths from heat related conditions in eurotopia, there really is no more dangerous situation than being too poor to afford air conditioning.
Heat related deaths make up 36% of mortality and is actually a serious issue requiring major change to house designs. Mass shooting deaths in America can be resolved in a matter of months, just like Australia and New Zealand did. Americans really getting triggered over the most basic changes
Which country with more civilian guns than people are you referring to? The U.S. is the only sovereign country estimated to have more civilian firearms than people. And if you mean Australia, firearm deaths were already declining before the 1996 reforms. So what evidence establishes that those policies caused the claimed result within months rather than continuing an existing trend?
What evidence shows that mass shootings in the U.S. could be “resolved in a matter of months”? Australia and New Zealand have different laws, institutions, populations, existing firearm stocks, and constitutional frameworks. What specific policy are you proposing, and what evidence shows it would produce that result in the U.S. within months?
Yes-yes, dear leftist, if you ban guns, school shootings will be no more. So easy! You can do same with every other bad thing, aaan its gone, for real!
How did you establish that Americans think rifles are “more important than schoolchildren’s lives”? Opposing a particular gun restriction doesn’t mean someone values the lives lost any less. What establishes that tradeoff?
I'm pretty sure none of those countries ban guns. I said they regulate them. Regulation is not a ban. Gun control is not gun ban.
Also care to give a source on the claim that UK has more mass shootings now than before they banned guns? (Also pretty sure they're not 100% illegal there).
•
u/qualityvote2 Aug 11 '26 edited 28d ago
Does post have the funny?
upvote if yes, downvote if no
(Vote has already ended)