Why are we able to own ASSAULT RIFLES
- Thread starter mister308
- Start date
Tell them you own an assault rifle to look cool and just incase the zombie nations rise up and try to steal your hoarded ammo . Don't forget to mention your cammo PJ's you wear to the range and full tacticool loadout vest you have to wear each time you "train" . Or respond you are a responsible law abiding canadian and the firearms you may or may not own are none of anyone else's concern.
back Blaxsun!
- Location
- Fleeing the Regime
Yeah...exactly... Nothing more to add here. Couldn't have put it better myself.
Assault weapons have been used by civilians, police & military for decades for sport and to defend themselves, others & keep the peace. It's what 99.99998% of people do with assault weapons. Why would you deny that to 99.99998% of the people because of the misdeeds of the anomalous few?
To people like the OP's "friend" who are so horrified by the thought of "civilians" having the dread power of the so-called "assault rifles" in their hands: rifles with the exact same capabilities have been in the hands of civilians throughout North America for well over 125 years now.
The first truly effective self-loading rifle was probably the Mondragon, which was invented by General Manuel Mondragon of the Mexican Army. He patented it in 1887, although he wasn't able to get it into production until 1901, the same year it went into service with the Mexican Army, which continued to use various models of it until 1949.
Now, just for fun, let's compare the 126-year-old Mondragon rifle used as a military weapon by the Mexican Army with that quintessential terrible, evil modernday tool-of-the-devil "black rifle", the AR-15:
Modern AR-15:
The AR platform is a gas-operated self-loading rifle. It uses gas piped back from near the muzzle to unlock and open a rotating bolt. The rifle comes in both semi-auto only and selective fire versions. (Only the semi-auto versions are available to civilians in Canada). It is loaded with 20- or 30-round box magazines (and also 5-round ones in Canada, where the standard ones must also all be pinned to hold only 5 rounds for civilians.) The most common chambering for the AR (and the one that all the anti-gunners fear because it is "military") is 5.56x45mm Nato / .223. Originally a varmint cartridge and has an effective range of about 400m. The AR also is available chambered in 7.62x51mm Nato / .308 Winchester, a more powerful cartridge with a somewhat greater range.
The AR comes made with a barrel and mechanism of steel, and a stock made of the most modern composite materials in a frightening black colour with a pistol grip.
19th Century Mondragon:
The Mondragon was a gas-operated self-loading rifle. It used gas piped back from near the muzzle to drive a piston system to unlock and open a rotating bolt. The rifle came in both semi-auto and selective fire versions. It was loaded with 8- or 20-round detachable box magazines when it was first introduced into service in 1901, and after 1911, was also available with 100-round drum mags. The most common chambering for the Mondragon was the Mexican service cartridge, the 7x57mm Mauser. However, the Germans experimented with the Mondragon on the Western Front during WW1, and those rifles may have fired the standard German 8x57mm service cartridge. Both these cartridges are at least as powerful and long-ranged as 7.62mm Nato if not more so, and far more powerful than 5.56mm Nato.
The Mondragon was built with a steel barrel and mechanism and a tasteful wood stock of "traditional" appearance.
Conclusion:
In terms of function as a weapon - and in particular, as a dangerous "mass killing" weapon in civilian hands - there is no effective difference whatsoever between the scary black AR "modern sporting rifle" (or "assault rifle" if you're on that side of the fence) and the wood-stocked Mondragon, some of which have been in civilian hands for over a century now.
The Mondragon can fire as fast as the AR; the Mondragon uses detachable magazines as big if not bigger than the standard-capacity AR magazines; and the Mondragon actually fires a round considerably more powerful and longer-ranged than the one most commonly used in the AR.
The only other difference is that the Mondragon, although it was first patented 126 years ago and was used as a military weapon for 48 years, was never demonised as an "assault rifle" that was "too dangerous and too powerful to be trusted in civilian hands".
Now, let's talk about the first commercially successful self-loading hunting rifle - the Remington Autoloading Rifle, later renamed the Remington Model 8. Patented by John M. Browning in 1900, and made in various forms by Remington from 1906 to 1950. Fired various deer-calibre cartridges. Loaded either into a fixed 5-shot magazine, or else used detachable box magazines holding either 15 or 20 rounds. Sold in the thousands in the US and Canada as a hunting rifle and also sometimes as a police weapon.
Effective difference between this rifle and the AR? The modern AR has a plastic stock with a pistol grip; the 100-year-old Remington 8 has a wood stock - that's it.
Semi-auto? Check.
"Large capacity" box magazines for rapid reloading? Check.
More powerful cartridges with greater killing capacity and range than most ARs? Check.
The only other major difference between the rifles? The Remington 8 has never been demonised as an "assault rifle too dangerous to be allowed to remain in civilian hands" - even though it could do anything an AR can do if used in a shooting spree and has been in those civilian hands for over a century.
Last edited:
The correct response would be, "How conceited are you, that you think that you should control me or tell me how to live?".
Follow that up with, "How paranoid are you, in that you think the public needs to be disarmed?".
Beware people who spew on about 'public safety'.
It hasn't worked in any country where they disarmed their citizens yet.
Be it the USSR, Germany, Rwanda or currently in Southern Sudan.
Follow that up with, "How paranoid are you, in that you think the public needs to be disarmed?".
Beware people who spew on about 'public safety'.
It hasn't worked in any country where they disarmed their citizens yet.
Be it the USSR, Germany, Rwanda or currently in Southern Sudan.
I am so copying that
dangertree
Business Rep
- Location
- NL/ON/FL/PL
I doubt the OP owns an assault rifle.
Last edited:
I flatly refuse to get sucked into these discussions. I don't need to justify myself, I don't need an anty's approval. If you argue, you are offering them legitimacy which is counter productive. If you argue with a fool, they will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience.
The answer I use for that one is, "I guess every man with a functioning #### is just one lonely Saturday night away from a rape. By that reasoning we shouldn't be allowed to have functioning testicals." You should ask your friend if would be willing to start the ball rolling by being the first one in line for mandatory castration.
Key word is don't argue. Provide the facts, let them decide for themselves. Many are anti from ignorance. The majority of my contacts are shocked upon knowledge of my firearm ownership, get that "Didn't realize you were violent" stare. Satisfy the curiosity, give them the facts firearms are fun and educational tools.
Refuse to have discussion, the day they come to take your firearms away they won't want to discuss it.
Refuse to have discussion, the day they come to take your firearms away they won't want to discuss it.
