Article Regarding: Guns (an Essay By Stephen King)

[hossenpepper]

Best Ammo For AR15 - User Voted Top Ammunition For AR15

Thanks for link big guy. Maybe I am dumb here, but I don't even see that type of cartridge listed. From the rhetoric I am hearing, the opposers of this regulation are making it seem like this would effectively end the ability to shoot an AR-15. Which to me would mean this is the only cartridge available for it. If it isn't, then why is there a backlash for wanting to get armor piercing rounds off the streets? Why does one need armor piercing rounds for target shooting or hunting? I've hunted a lot and never used them (though I've mostly done shotgun and .22 rifle hunting).

What am I missing here?

 

[Grandpa]

i think you're misinformed. While a gunsmith might be able to convert one, the layman certainly couldn't and good luck finding a gunsmith to do it.

It was my primary marksmanship instructor who first told me it was easily convertible, and I have a friend who claims to have had it done with his AR-15, and he takes it to a mutual friend's ranch and fires it on auto.

I don't know what version AR-15 that he has. My M-16 in the Corps could be fired full-auto, the whole clip. I'm told that later models ratchet it back to short bursts.

The purpose of all guns is to fire a projectile. A hunting rifle could as easily be called a sniper rifle.

Sure. We're saying the same thing. It's a question of emphasis.

 

[ghost19]

Thanks for link big guy. Maybe I am dumb here, but I don't even see that type of cartridge listed. From the rhetoric I am hearing, the opposers of this regulation are making it seem like this would effectively end the ability to shoot an AR-15. Which to me would mean this is the only cartridge available for it. If it isn't, then why is there a backlash for wanting to get armor piercing rounds off the streets? Why does one need armor piercing rounds for target shooting or hunting? I've hunted a lot and never used them (though I've mostly done shotgun and .22 rifle hunting).

What am I missing here?

I think Hoss, and I'm not sure if this is the general consensus, it's a "You give an inch, they take a mile theory". If you agree to the ban of the type of ammo being described here, it's a wedge into the larger issue of banning all of that particular caliber of ammunition. Said theory being "Since this type of ammo does this, it will be banned." Next step after that ammo is banned is that "Since we were able to ban that other type of ammo, this other type of round also will almost do what the previous type of ammo did, so we better ban it also." A few years down the road and a whole truck load of lawyers later, you could then start to daisy chain these arguments together over the span of a decade or two. What started in 2015 as a ban on a certain type of .223 ammo ends up being the starting point in the chain for the eventual ban of all .223 cal ammo ten or fifteen years down the road. Then, with the ammo banned, there isn't any reason not to ban AR-15 rifles altogether since you can't purchase ammo for them legally anyway. That's just a point of view and maybe how the NRA might look at the issue.

 

[ghost19]

It was my primary marksmanship instructor who first told me it was easily convertible, and I have a friend who claims to have had it done with his AR-15, and he takes it to a mutual friend's ranch and fires it on auto.

I don't know what version AR-15 that he has. My M-16 in the Corps could be fired full-auto, the whole clip. I'm told that later models ratchet it back to short bursts.



Sure. We're saying the same thing. It's a question of emphasis.

Yeah, the latest model is single or three round burst only sir. No more option to go "Rock 'n Roll"

 

[hossenpepper]

I think Hoss, and I'm not sure if this is the general consensus, it's a "You give an inch, they take a mile theory". If you agree to the ban of the type of ammo being described here, it's a wedge into the larger issue of banning all of that particular caliber of ammunition. Said theory being "Since this type of ammo does this, it will be banned." Next step after that ammo is banned is that "Since we were able to ban that other type of ammo, this other type of round also will almost do what the previous type of ammo did, so we better ban it also." A few years down the road and a whole truck load of lawyers later, you could then start to daisy chain these arguments together over the span of a decade or two. What started in 2015 as a ban on a certain type of .223 ammo ends up being the starting point in the chain for the eventual ban of all .223 cal ammo ten or fifteen years down the road. Then, with the ammo banned, there isn't any reason not to ban AR-15 rifles altogether since you can't purchase ammo for them legally anyway. That's just a point of view and maybe how the NRA might look at the issue.

Well I had asked besides this particular viewpoint, why is banning this particular types of ammo bad? It seems that the other rounds which were in the link Giant provided were what you say are "regular bullets" and to ban them would require banning all ammo. So it seems like banning armor piercing rounds because of the danger to LEOs (which is the cited reason for wanting the legislation) doesn't have the ability to extend to all types of ammo. Because honestly it seems if the intent was to say "if a=b and b=c then a=c" the idea that a bullet can end life would make their purpose enough to ban them all, no? I mean it's not legal to own an RPG or other military grade weapons is it? Why not? Because they can kill TOO many people, right? So if the idea was "ban because it can do..." then we'd already maybe NOT have any weapons. So to me the slipper slope argument just seems paranoid.

But the real question is then, if we can't ban these, but they are now able to be shot from easily concealed weapons and that was the prompt for this idea, then what does it take for the argument of the "slippery slope" not seem to be the intent? Dead LEOs? Can we not regulate any currently available weapon or ammo without it always being a road to government control? Just seems like we are skipping a whole lot of stuff to run straight to that argument as a response to every piece of gun safety legislation. I have lived here my whole life, so it's not like these arguments are new to me. I've given them careful thought and the current NRA argument just seems to be based on unjustified paranoia.

 

[Grandpa]

I think Hoss, and I'm not sure if this is the general consensus, it's a "You give an inch, they take a mile theory". If you agree to the ban of the type of ammo being described here, it's a wedge into the larger issue of banning all of that particular caliber of ammunition. Said theory being "Since this type of ammo does this, it will be banned." Next step after that ammo is banned is that "Since we were able to ban that other type of ammo, this other type of round also will almost do what the previous type of ammo did, so we better ban it also." A few years down the road and a whole truck load of lawyers later, you could then start to daisy chain these arguments together over the span of a decade or two. What started in 2015 as a ban on a certain type of .223 ammo ends up being the starting point in the chain for the eventual ban of all .223 cal ammo ten or fifteen years down the road. Then, with the ammo banned, there isn't any reason not to ban AR-15 rifles altogether since you can't purchase ammo for them legally anyway. That's just a point of view and maybe how the NRA might look at the issue.

Sure, it's the "slippery slope" argument or the "camel's nose in the tent" fear. Of course, you can use that to apply to just about any law, because just about any law involves some restriction of some citizen somewhere. Once they give you a speed limit, the next thing you know, they'll be taking away your car. That type of thing.

 

[GNTLGNT]

Thanks for link big guy. Maybe I am dumb here, but I don't even see that type of cartridge listed. From the rhetoric I am hearing, the opposers of this regulation are making it seem like this would effectively end the ability to shoot an AR-15. Which to me would mean this is the only cartridge available for it. If it isn't, then why is there a backlash for wanting to get armor piercing rounds off the streets? Why does one need armor piercing rounds for target shooting or hunting? I've hunted a lot and never used them (though I've mostly done shotgun and .22 rifle hunting).

What am I missing here?

...you DON'T need such rounds...if one does, then one suffers from SPS...small penis syndrome....

 

[ghost19]

Well I had asked besides this particular viewpoint, why is banning this particular types of ammo bad? It seems that the other rounds which were in the link Giant provided were what you say are "regular bullets" and to ban them would require banning all ammo. So it seems like banning armor piercing rounds because of the danger to LEOs (which is the cited reason for wanting the legislation) doesn't have the ability to extend to all types of ammo. Because honestly it seems if the intent was to say "if a=b and b=c then a=c" the idea that a bullet can end life would make their purpose enough to ban them all, no? I mean it's not legal to own an RPG or other military grade weapons is it? Why not? Because they can kill TOO many people, right? So if the idea was "ban because it can do..." then we'd already maybe NOT have any weapons. So to me the slipper slope argument just seems paranoid.

But the real question is then, if we can't ban these, but they are now able to be shot from easily concealed weapons and that was the prompt for this idea, then what does it take for the argument of the "slippery slope" not seem to be the intent? Dead LEOs? Can we not regulate any currently available weapon or ammo without it always being a road to government control? Just seems like we are skipping a whole lot of stuff to run straight to that argument as a response to every piece of gun safety legislation. I have lived here my whole life, so it's not like these arguments are new to me. I've given them careful thought and the current NRA argument just seems to be based on unjustified paranoia.

Paranoia is subjective I guess. I heard they are about to drop the request for the ban, someone with a lot of money and horsepower must be in on it.

 

[M&P15]

I think Hoss, and I'm not sure if this is the general consensus, it's a "You give an inch, they take a mile theory". If you agree to the ban of the type of ammo being described here, it's a wedge into the larger issue of banning all of that particular caliber of ammunition. Said theory being "Since this type of ammo does this, it will be banned." Next step after that ammo is banned is that "Since we were able to ban that other type of ammo, this other type of round also will almost do what the previous type of ammo did, so we better ban it also." A few years down the road and a whole truck load of lawyers later, you could then start to daisy chain these arguments together over the span of a decade or two. What started in 2015 as a ban on a certain type of .223 ammo ends up being the starting point in the chain for the eventual ban of all .223 cal ammo ten or fifteen years down the road. Then, with the ammo banned, there isn't any reason not to ban AR-15 rifles altogether since you can't purchase ammo for them legally anyway. That's just a point of view and maybe how the NRA might look at the issue.

There aren't that many types of ammo. Pretty much all non expanding rifle ammunition could be considered armor piercing, and then expanding ammunition becomes "talon bullets meant to tear someone's guts out." Guess what? There's nothing left.

It's all in the labels. Those scoped hunting rifles can be "anti personnel Sniper rifles", inexpensive handguns are "Saturday Night Specials" and any effective guns are "Assault Weapons" LOL.

 

[M&P15]

It was my primary marksmanship instructor who first told me it was easily convertible, and I have a friend who claims to have had it done with his AR-15, and he takes it to a mutual friend's ranch and fires it on auto.

I don't know what version AR-15 that he has. My M-16 in the Corps could be fired full-auto, the whole clip. I'm told that later models ratchet it back to short bursts.

I'm pretty sure it requires parts that aren't readily available and probably out of reach for most people. I wouldn't know for sure, but I imagine, with the exception of your friend there, that anyone with the means and contacts to do that, probably already has access to ready made machine guns, along with grenades and rocket launchers.

 

[M&P15]

I agree. However, when you fight for rights....you are fighting for their rights. Assuming you are fighting for the right to such weapons. I think some people fight for the right to carry/have a hand gun, and oppose some other weapons. There are more than two sides to this issue.

Really, there must be about 10 or more sides.

At least that many sides, but I don't think this clown would be any less stupid for buying cookies while carrying a shotgun or a bolt action rifle, or any other long gun.

Just a fool trying to make some stupid point.

 

[Grandpa]

I'm pretty sure it requires parts that aren't readily available and probably out of reach for most people. I wouldn't know for sure, but I imagine, with the exception of your friend there, that anyone with the means and contacts to do that, probably already has access to ready made machine guns, along with grenades and rocket launchers.

I'm not sure what we're debating, but if I Google "how to convert an AR15 to full auto," I get some handy-looking sites, including at the top two Youtube videos that claim to show me how.

And now I wait for the courtesy call from Homeland Security.

 

[GNTLGNT]

I'm not sure what we're debating, but if I Google "how to convert an AR15 to full auto," I get some handy-looking sites, including at the top two Youtube videos that claim to show me how.

And now I wait for the courtesy call from Homeland Security.

 

[AnnaMarie]

I'm not sure what we're debating, but if I Google "how to convert an AR15 to full auto," I get some handy-looking sites, including at the top two Youtube videos that claim to show me how.

And now I wait for the courtesy call from Homeland Security.

When my son was taking a college course to be a firefighter, he had to do a project on terrorism. He told me that some of the stuff he was researching would be sending out red flags. He warned....if big guys with big guns and government ID come in and want the computer LET THEM TAKE IT. We'll talk it out later....just don't argue.

 

[Neesy]

Not the picture I was looking for. But it will suffice. I don't know if it's an M16. But I do know it's a big freaking gun to protect his cookies.
View attachment 8293

My point (and I do actually have one) is that the average layman is not the only people who live in your country.

Interesting - I noted he is wearing a T-shirt that says "Hope"

 

[Neesy]

When my son was taking a college course to be a firefighter, he had to do a project on terrorism. He told me that some of the stuff he was researching would be sending out red flags. He warned....if big guys with big guns and government ID come in and want the computer LET THEM TAKE IT. We'll talk it out later....just don't argue.

 

[M&P15]

I'm not sure what we're debating, but if I Google "how to convert an AR15 to full auto," I get some handy-looking sites, including at the top two Youtube videos that claim to show me how.

And now I wait for the courtesy call from Homeland Security.

Oh, I don't think we're debating at this point, just talking.

Some years ago at gun shows, I used to see these manuals for sale on how to convert semi autos to full autos. A gunsmith I knew, said they were a waste of money because those methods didn't work, not to mention that even if they did, it was a serious felony to do it. You know, ATF siege, killing your whole family serious.

I'm sure there are some methods that work, but I don't think this country has a huge problem with fully auto guns out on the street except maybe in the case of drug cartels who seem to be able to get any kind of military grade ordinance.

 

[shookme]

The problem with banning M855 rounds is there is really no point. The smaller AR's that are legal are still not really concealable. Unless someone was wearing a duster, in which case anything could be concealed. Any rifle round such as a .308 or .30-06 could easily penetrate body armor without any special steel tip. A small AK rifle that have been around forever that fires a 7.62x39 could probably penetrate armor.

The "gun guys" know this, the ATF knows this. This is where the paranoia comes from; that this is the first ban of many to come.

 

[M&P15]

The problem with banning M855 rounds is there is really no point. The smaller AR's that are legal are still not really concealable. Unless someone was wearing a duster, in which case anything could be concealed. Any rifle round such as a .308 or .30-06 could easily penetrate body armor without any special steel tip. A small AK rifle that have been around forever that fires a 7.62x39 could probably penetrate armor.

The "gun guys" know this, the ATF knows this. This is where the paranoia comes from; that this is the first ban of many to come.

Yep, paranoia seems pretty justified when gov't is inventing problems so they can impose a "solution."

Unapologetically American / The ATF’s Green Tip Hysteria
The final fallacy is that the M855 round doesn’t even meet the legal definition of “armor piercing.” As stated above, the bullet used is not constructed entirely of any of the substances stated.

The M855/SS109 bullets are in fact a lead core with a steel tip. In reading the 18 USC Sec. 921 (a) (17) code, the M855 bullet falls outside of this definition, but that matters little to the ATF. Instead, using intelligence only capable of federal bureaucrats, they chose to narrowly view the legal definition to the “may be used in the handgun” portion of the code and ignore all other defining language within. Again, “We are the government, we do what we want” mentality takes hold here.

 

[M&P15]

I googled AR pistol and I'm pretty worried about someone secretly packing one of these.