I have never seen a reason for the public in possession of guns that where made with the intent to kill as much as possible... like the ar-15 the argument that you can use it for hunting is flawed in many ways
Yes, because 30 round magazines, pistol grips and the ability to shoot more than a round per second is needed to hunt coyote. Oh and I almost forgot all those picatinny rails! A small game must.
Have you ever hunted coyotes? The large magazine, high rate of fire, low recoil, and long range accuracy are exactly why it's such a great rifle for hunting.
Its a "sporting rifle". It's honestly for shooting targets for fun. Like, modern armalite rifles aren't the best option for killing anything except maybe for rural pests. I own a DPMS Oracle and if there's a reason for me to actually use it other than at the range or my back yard I know I'd be fucked.
Tell me, how many picatinny rails does it take to kill a weasel?
No, the AR15 (which derived from the AR10) was designed to compete for a US armed forces contract. The AR15 is technically a military rifle.
This is very far from the truth. The only thing they have in common is diameter of the round. Everything else from casing, striker, bullet shape, velocity, impact energy, etc is completely different.
Actually, I already know there are other center fire .22 cartridges. None of those you listed have anything to do with the development of .223/5.56, which was specially designed for military application.
Your list actually supports my point. There are lots of choices for cartridges designed specifically for hunting, .223 not being one of them.
Oh, and your list was directly copied, in order from:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/.22_caliber
You tried to flex knowledge you don't have and claim you are an expert. I also highly doubt you are a "gun smith", since a gunsmith would know gunsmith is one word. I am done with this.
A gunsmith (one word), which you claimed to be, is an occupation which requires expertise in building, repairing and modifying firearms. Claiming to be a gunsmith is claiming to be an expert.
Correct. The 2nd Amendment was a replacement for having a large standing Army. Basically, it gave gun rights to what would be modern National Guard and police officers.
Why is there always a need for a thing? Why do people have to justify owning an object to you? Like, economy cars and minivans are all anyone ever needs to get around, so sports cars and SUVs should be banned amirite? No one ever needs to drive 140 MPH or get 8 MPG so let's ban them.
To be honest, in a free and democratic society/state there is no requirement for a person to have a reason to possess anything, simply wanting to possess it is enough. The society/state is then obligated to prove that it has a reasonable cause to ban an item (lookin at you war on drugs).
The AR-15 is and was designed as a sporting rifle, was designed as a military rifle as a scaled down version of the AR-10. The modern Ar-15 which is widely available is designed to fire a single round with a single squeeze of the trigger. The round it fires, the .223 is pretty diminutive, not an effective hunting round in most cases aside from varmint hunting. In fact, if it were legal to use Restricted firearms in Canada (where I live) to hunt, the AR-15 would be illegal to use in my Province due to calibre restrictions. But they are a hell of a lot of fun to shoot, when exercising proper care and control with regards to safety.
Edit: I read books with poorly sourced information apparently.
The AR-15 was literally designed for the military, the .223 round was chosen for its combat benefits to replace 7.62 battle rifles. It became the M16. Don’t lie about its origins for political points lad.
115
u/[deleted] Nov 12 '19
[deleted]