Posted on 03/23/2018 9:45:34 PM PDT by GuavaCheesePuff
More than ever.
As long as the background check is not linked to a specific firearm, this cannot happen.
Consider the case where a potential purchaser carries the sale to the point of having the background check done, and then decides not to buy the firearm(s). And there is not a thing preventing gun rights advocates going to gun shops and having background checks run with no purchase.
Having a background check run is NOT proof of gun purchase.
Who is “we” Parvez? You and the mouse in your pocket?
Mindset. Is that an illogical statement?
The Second Amendment can just as easily be seen as validating life. The prevention of my life from being 'invalidated'.
Background checks are tied to a weapon.
A New England state banned ARs and used background checks to knock on doors. Their plan failed because enough people had traded the ARs to keep them out of government hands kind of like what happened in Canada.
But there is no necessity for them to be. The desired function of "keeping guns out of the hands of...." is fulfilled without such linkage. And it is up to us to see that any background check legislation does not have said linkage.
“...58% of those polled said that Americans should have the right to own guns and be armed to defend themselves and their families”
(not attacking you)
What an ignorant poll question!
***SHOULD*** have the right????
Americans ***DO*** have the right!!!!
It’s not debatable.
58% of those polled, believe the sun “should” be allowed to come up tomorrow.
58% of those polled, believe that bears “should” be allowed to poop in the woods.
I guess if it were 0% we would see calls for laws making it illegal for the sun to come up or for bears to poop!
” ... the AR15 is not an assault weapon.
The fully auto M16, its big brother, is.” [budj, post 13]
“... ‘assault weapon.’ ... a propaganda term, that does not actually define any real-world type of gun. ...” [Steve_Seattle, post 26]
“...The m-16 is a government issued small arm. ...I strongly dislike the term assault rifle. ... the 2A shouldn’t be limited by anything.” [Bulwyf, post 61]
“Assault rifle” is one of the few terms tossed about here that does have meaning. Or did; it used to appear in the US Defense Dept’s Dictionary of Military Terms and Expressions. Not sure that’s still being published. It denoted a select-fire individual weapon, fed from box magazines, firing from a closed bolt, chambering a cartridge of less power than standard-issue rifles of the time.
Steve-Seattle is correct. “Assault weapon” is a contrived term, cooked up early in the Clinton administration by the anti-gun groups and popularized through eager cooperation of the media. People who ought to know better cannot stop using it; it’s entered pop culture. No formal military nor legal definition; takes advantage of the relative ignorance of the average citizen.
The M16 is not a big brother to the AR-15. Both rifles are exactly the same size & weight (for comparable models). Both fire the same cartridge; many parts interchange. “M16” is official nomenclature; “AR-15” is a trademarked term owned by Colt’s, legally protected by copyright. They bought the rights to it when they concluded a licensing agreement with ArmaLite.
You’re exactly correct re: the M16 “big brother” comment. I was only intending it in the sense of military assault, full auto.
There’s a great history of the AR rifles at:
https://www.ar15goa.com/about/the-ar-15-rifle/
Written by a (once) CAIR National Board Chairman:
“Prior to his election as CAIR National Board Chairman, Dr. Parvez Ahmed was Chairman of the Board for the Florida Chapter of CAIR and a CAIR National Board member. Dr. Ahmed resides in Jacksonville , Florida where he teaches finance at a university. He also writes editorials dispelling stereotypes about Islam and Muslims. His editorials have been published in The Orlando Sentinel, Houston Chronicle, San Francisco Chronicle, Miami Herald, New York Newsday, and Seattle Times among many others.”
https://www.cair.com/press-center/press-releases/1306-cair-board-elects-new-chairman.html
“You’re exactly correct re: the M16 “big brother” comment. I was only intending it in the sense of military assault, full auto.
There’s a great history of the AR rifles at:
https://www.ar15goa.com/about/the-ar-15-rifle";
budj’s sense of style deserves pride of place. It’s not metaphorically overdoing it to imbue military systems with older-sibling qualities, compared to civilian systems.
My memory skipped a step. I was thinking of ArmaLite’s AR-10, the company’s earlier effort to compete in trials for a new US service rifle, as the big brother. It chambered 7.62x51mm NATO - a cartridge Eugene Stoner was said to prefer. He’d seen action while a US Marine during World War Two.
The historical summary at ar15goa.com does not mesh with other accounts I’ve read. Or perhaps it’s too tight a summary (I cannot speak to the veracity of any account; as a gradeschooler in those days, I was preoccupied with penmanship and multiplication tables): my understanding was that Eugene Stoner left Armalite; his ex-fellow employees got wind of the US Army’s Small-Caliber High-Velocity program, the mission of which was developing smaller, lighter infantry arms based on 22 centerfire cartridges. L J Sullivan led a team that downsized the AR-10 into what was initially called the AR-15, chambered for 222 Remington.
Some prototype “toolroom” examples were made up, and sent (very quietly) to US advisors operating in Southeast Asia, late in the 1950s. Results against hostile troops exceeded everyone’s wildest fantasies. Minor modifications were implemented, including the development of slightly longer, slightly more powerful cartridges. One became the military 5.56x45mm, soon introduced commercially as 223 Remington. At length, NATO adopted it as the primary alliance rifle round.
AR-10 lost out in the service rifle competition that ultimately selected a “product-improved” Garand design to be the M14. Politics inside the US Army and DoD were confused and ugly at that point: Ordnance Corps supporters favored the M14, while several prominent field leaders were convinced a smaller, lighter rifle, more easily controlled on full-auto, was the way forward.
US Army Ordnance asserted its primacy as DoD’s executive agent for US small arms; it pointed to the logistical simplification to be gained by re-equipping with the M14 (it was slated to replace the M1 Garand, M1 and M2 Carbines, all 45 cal submachine guns (Thompson M1A1 and M3/M3A1), and the M1918A2 BAR).
This sweeping change did not sit well with the US Air Force, which was being forced to replace the M2 Carbines it issued to security and guard forces, with a full-size rifle as heavy as a Garand (and longer), overpowered for air base security and law enforcement. Gen Curtis E Lemay, then newly appointed as Deputy Chief of Staff of USAF (and one of the very few gun enthusiasts to attain high rank), approached Colt (who had purchased trademark and manufacturing licenses from ArmaLite); a contract was arranged, to supply something like 20,000 5.56mm M16-type rifles to USAF. I’m calling them “M16-type” because I don’t know what nomenclature USAF used.
Army Ordnance re-asserted its authority over small arms and forced USAF to set aside the Colt contract. But the other factions inside the Army took a chance and demanded limited series-production of an M16-type rifle for ground force use. Ordnance, dealing imperfectly with small arms production problems, ultimately lost the battle to keep the M14; more modifications were made to the M16 prototypes, resulting in issue and employment of these new 5.56x45mm rifles in the burgeoning effort in Southeast Asia. The type was ultimately approved as the M16A1 - after many additional problems. In the end, USAF’s acquisition of M16s only suffered a delay. USAF security forces still use them.
In the aftermath of numerous teething troubles that afflicted the M16 in Southeast Asia, many military members, civilian gun enthusiasts, and gunwriters remained skeptical abut this new chunk of hardware. It did not have the simplicity and brute-force indifference to rough treatment of the USSR’s Kalashnikov, though it was comparable in performance. Bore diameter was disdained as no better than that needed for a “poodle-shooter,” but the concept was not invalid. It wasn’t known in the West at the time, but Red Army scientists had been working on their own small-caliber, high-velocity cartridge since the mid-1950s, formally adopting it as the 5.45x39mm, in 1974.
Much of the detail I’ve mentioned has appeared in historical and technical articles appearing in American Rifleman, Small Arms Review, and other periodicals.
ar15goa.com is mistaken at one point: rifles of AR-15 size are not chambered in “308” (one presumes the webmaster/editor means 7.62mm NATO): the receiver and magazine well are too small to accommodate a bolt capable of encircling the 7.62 NATO cartridge head. But today’s ArmaLite (a different firm, which purchased the defunct original’s patents and intellectual properties in the 1990s) is turning out their own trademarked AR-10 rifles in 7.62 NATO. Many other gunmakers are doing the same, though they must use different nomenclature to avoid trademark infringement.
“...numerous teething troubles that afflicted the M16 in Southeast Asia...”
Charitable statement, there.
I was trained on the excellent M14 (in ‘66). I absolutely loved that rifle. Went to RVN in ‘68 and served in a composite artillery battery (175 mm guns and 8 inch howitzers) reinforcing the Korean 9th ROK (White Horse) Infantry Division.
We were issued M16’s, but when we went on Search Missions we always took “donated” AK’s. Dead flat reliable and no sound signature.
Today I have a PSA AR-308 for sport shooting. For home protection I prefer a 9mm carbine.
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.