2 ms·

No, that is a terrible comparison and a shitty argument. This is like saying we should let people drive unmodified T-72 tanks around, because they don’t have ex

No, that is a terrible comparison and a shitty argument. This is like saying we should let people drive unmodified T-72 tanks around, because they don’t have explosive-reactive armour or composite armour, and you probably couldn’t beat the US Army with them based on the results of Desert Storm. You could still destroy an entire unarmed neighbourhood in minutes, or level a hospital, killing hundreds. They are inherently capable of killing a lot of people quickly. The “civilian” model AR-15s are simply M4 Carbines with with less automatic firing modes. If you go back 50 years and show an AR-15 to nearly any soldier, they’d happily swap you. They have large magazines, and can sustain a high rate of fire with very high accuracy. The way you use them is exactly how soldiers generally operate their M4s. Don’t take my word for it, listen to this soldier: https://twitter.com/pauldeaton52/status/1532492803271544833 https://twitter.com/pauldeaton52/status/1532492803271544833

_-david-_ 4y ago
>This is like saying we should let people drive unmodified T-72 tanks around... You can literally own a tank in the US. Tanks probably weight to much to be street legal, but you might be able to trim off some weight and make it street legal. You can drive armored humvees with guns on top on the street. >They are inherently capable of killing a lot of people quickly. And? So are cars. >The “civilian” model AR-15s are simply M4 Carbines with with less automatic firing modes. Most AR15s cannot fire 5.56 due to the extra pressure and can only fire .223. So most of them are a bit more different than just firing modes. >If you go back 50 years and show an AR-15 to nearly any soldier, they’d happily swap you. Which means nothing? They don't use AR15s in wars. I'm sure you could find a soldier to trade knives with. Would you suggest banning knives since they are a weapon of war. Regardless, a solider almost certainly wouldn't trade their gun for an AR15 because the ammo didn't exist, they wouldn't know how to repair the gun, and they can't get replacement parts. All of those are necessary for weapons of war. >Don’t take my word for it, listen to this soldier If you really want me to I can find a solider that says the opposite. A weapon of war isn't really a weapon of war if it isn't used by militaries. Even if something is used by militaries it can't always be classified as a weapon of war. Soldiers have killed others with a headbutt during war so let's decapitate everyone so they can't use their weapon of war. Regardless, the whole thing is moot. The US Constitution allows civilians to own real weapons of war. During the time of the writing of the Constitution individuals were allowed to own warships, cannons, machine guns (yes you read that right), rifles, hand guns, swords, and anything else I forgot. The idea that automatic weapons are banned now is highly questionable since it was allowed at the time of the Constitution.
- cormacrelf 4y ago
  You are allowed to own a tank IF YOU FILL THE GUN WITH CONCRETE. You are not allowed to own a tank that has an operational gun. It boggles the mind to think you believe people are allowed to own a tank with an operational gun. And I challenge you to destroy a 10-storey building in ten minutes with a car, dude. The gun is the bit of the tank that is for killing people and destroying other tanks.
  - _-david-_ 4y ago
    I am not sure what the rules are around this, but I never claimed you could own a tank with an operational gun. Please reread what I wrote. Regardless of the rules, I think this proves my point. You can own a tank without the weapon of war part. You can own a rifle without the weapon of war part. A rifle without the weapon of war part can be an AR15. You can run over a huge number of people with a car. You can put a bomb in a car and blow it up and potentially take down a 10 story building.

_-david-_ 4y ago

>This is like saying we should let people drive unmodified T-72 tanks around... You can literally own a tank in the US. Tanks probably weight to much to be street legal, but you might be able to trim off some weight and make it street legal. You can drive armored humvees with guns on top on the street. >They are inherently capable of killing a lot of people quickly. And? So are cars. >The “civilian” model AR-15s are simply M4 Carbines with with less automatic firing modes. Most AR15s cannot fire 5.56 due to the extra pressure and can only fire .223. So most of them are a bit more different than just firing modes. >If you go back 50 years and show an AR-15 to nearly any soldier, they’d happily swap you. Which means nothing? They don't use AR15s in wars. I'm sure you could find a soldier to trade knives with. Would you suggest banning knives since they are a weapon of war. Regardless, a solider almost certainly wouldn't trade their gun for an AR15 because the ammo didn't exist, they wouldn't know how to repair the gun, and they can't get replacement parts. All of those are necessary for weapons of war. >Don’t take my word for it, listen to this soldier If you really want me to I can find a solider that says the opposite. A weapon of war isn't really a weapon of war if it isn't used by militaries. Even if something is used by militaries it can't always be classified as a weapon of war. Soldiers have killed others with a headbutt during war so let's decapitate everyone so they can't use their weapon of war. Regardless, the whole thing is moot. The US Constitution allows civilians to own real weapons of war. During the time of the writing of the Constitution individuals were allowed to own warships, cannons, machine guns (yes you read that right), rifles, hand guns, swords, and anything else I forgot. The idea that automatic weapons are banned now is highly questionable since it was allowed at the time of the Constitution.

cormacrelf 4y ago
You are allowed to own a tank IF YOU FILL THE GUN WITH CONCRETE. You are not allowed to own a tank that has an operational gun. It boggles the mind to think you believe people are allowed to own a tank with an operational gun. And I challenge you to destroy a 10-storey building in ten minutes with a car, dude. The gun is the bit of the tank that is for killing people and destroying other tanks.
- _-david-_ 4y ago
  I am not sure what the rules are around this, but I never claimed you could own a tank with an operational gun. Please reread what I wrote. Regardless of the rules, I think this proves my point. You can own a tank without the weapon of war part. You can own a rifle without the weapon of war part. A rifle without the weapon of war part can be an AR15. You can run over a huge number of people with a car. You can put a bomb in a car and blow it up and potentially take down a 10 story building.