politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
The US doesn't do that either. Very few people own assault rifles, you need a very expensive and difficult to obtain license and have since 1986. You're falling for gun grabber propaganda.
Anyone who could pass the FBI background check and the rest of the NFA process can own pre-86 transferable machine guns. Assuming they could afford the 5 figure or more prices they tend to fetch.
An SOT (special occupational taxpayer) license would allow you to handle or build them depending on which you had, along with an FFL (federal firearms license [dealer license]).
I don't think the license itself is the expensive part, the guns are (because they have to be old enough to be a collector's item to be legal for civilian ownership even with the right paperwork)
This isn't entirely true. Our gun laws are weird as fuck, and half of them seem designed to get around some sort of loophole or another.
To any reasonable person, a 10.5" AR-15 that looks like this:
collapsed inline media
In dozens of states including my own, you can freely purchase and own one without any sort of permit whatsoever, you just buy it.
The ar-15 is not an assault rifle. Regardless of how much cosmetic crap you throw on it, it's semi auto. Not burst fire or full auto. It's no more deadly than any number of wood stock semi auto hunting rifles.
It does most of what an assault rifle does and the part it doesn't do is rarely used in combat because it burns through ammo too fast. So an ar-15 is for all practical purposes pretty much the same thing that soldiers use in combat and whether or not it can do full-auto is nearly irrelevant. A wood stock semi auto hunting rifle typically won't be as efficient as an ar-15 in either handling or ammo capacity for a shooter to very easily kill lots of people.
I say this in a neutral manner, not claiming that these weapons should be banned or not, which is a philosophical question. Yes, "assault rifle" is used loosely by anti-gun people to scare but it's also a term used narrowly by pro-gun people to defend their right to own weapons that are clearly capable of military combat and killing large numbers of people fast.
Completely agree with your points. I own several AR-15s (that I refer to as assault rifles in long form and AR in short form) and even battle rifles and if you even walk into any gun store they would call them AR. Which they’d say means armalite rifle, except that it’s a brand name… so it would certainly seem they’re either saying Kleenex, or it’s referring to something with a more common name… just gun people think anyone saying “assault rifle” isn’t in the know or is looking to take their guns. Which is stupid.
Common parlance is changing and it’s very simple.
The ar-15 isn't a military rifle. The m-16 is. The m-16 supports burst fire and full auto, the ar-15 does not. That's what makes it an assault rifle. You're probably confusing "assault rifle" with "assault weapon", which was defined as a semi auto rifle that looks scary. This was on purpose so the Democrats could say "see? We're doing something"
This is apparently the only significant difference between the two, and at least full auto is rarely used by regular soldiers from what I found from multiple sources. I'm not sure about burst fire, but I imagine that it's also used in a minority of cases. I looked all of this up except burst fire before making my previous reply. I'm not confusing them, I'm making the specific point that ar-15 are for the most part the same as m-16.
Burst fire/full auto is what makes it an assault rifle. Whether we should ban the ar-15 is a separate conversation. My point is if you have strong opinions about something you should know what you're talking about about and use proper terminology. You're wrong when you call the ar-15 an assault rifle. That's not good for your argument. It makes you easy to ignore.
I may not have been very clear. I'm not arguing that it is or isn't an "assault rifle". I don't care what it's named. My point is that an AR15 is at its most essential function (high-capacity semi-auto rifle) the same as a military weapon. Like I said, I'm not making a judgement on whether everyone should be allowed to own military weapons or not. I'm just pointing out that that's what it is.
It's not a military weapon. It's a civilian weapon that is shaped like a military weapon. Nobody in the military is carrying an ar-15.
https://old.reddit.com/r/Firearms/comments/1e3gquq/anyone_have_a_reliable_source_of_information_that/
https://old.reddit.com/r/WarCollege/comments/q7ezat/how_is_full_auto_fire_used_in_modern_american/
Nice reddit threads. Now check out the US Army's official definition of "assault rifle"
The U.S. Army defines assault rifles as "short, compact, selective-fire weapons that fire a cartridge intermediate in power between submachine gun and rifle cartridges." In this strict definition, a firearm must have at least the following characteristics to be considered an assault rifle:
It must be capable of selective fire. It must have an intermediate-power cartridge: more power than a pistol but less than a standard rifle or battle rifle; examples of intermediate cartridges are the 7.92×33mm Kurz, the 7.62×39mm and 5.56×45mm NATO. Its ammunition must be supplied from a detachable box magazine.[5] It must have an effective range of at least 300 metres (330 yards).
Rifles that meet most of these criteria, but not all, are not assault rifles according to the U.S. Army's definition. For example:
Select-fire rifles such as the FN FAL, M14, and H&K G3 main battle rifles are not assault rifles; they fire full-powered rifle cartridges. Semi-automatic-only rifles like the Colt AR-15 are not assault rifles; they do not have select-fire capabilities. Semi-automatic-only rifles with fixed magazines like the SKS are not assault rifles; they do not have detachable box magazines and are not capable of automatic fire.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_rifle
I had already said I don't care if it's called an "assault rifle" or not, so your last reply is beside the point. I've already explained that the point is that they are essentially military weapons that are sold to civilians. The two reddit threads were to reinforce my points. They explain that a) the AR15 was designed for military use and b) regular US military is generally trained not to use full-auto.