A great illustration of so called "assault weapons"

Status
Not open for further replies.
It's sad that 2 pages of this thread were on technical issues with the site.

I disagree with the notion that the AR-15 can fire 45-60 RPM but a full-auto M16 can fire at 800 RPM. Those numbers assume reload times for the semi-auto but not for the fully-automatic version. This is why the antis are pushing for bans on semi-automatics with a capacity of over 10 rounds.

I didn't like how the NFA act of 1934 wasn't mentioned, especially because it pertains to the current discussion.

I also didn't like how there was no mention that "weapons of war" banned in 1986 should be legal; that NFA and the GCA were both unconstitutional.

I did like calling the AR-15 the "modern musket".
I liked "outlawing guns that are popular today will mean different guns will be popular tomorrow."

Overall more good than bad, but there are some points I disagree with.
 
Is there any way to obtain a copy that doesn't require getting on the net?

I realize that you might want to protect the thought, creativity and hard work that went into it, but I just thought I would ask.

It would be nice to be able to send as an attachment to email to some folks.

Ron
 
Skribs said:
It's sad that 2 pages of this thread were on technical issues with the site.

I disagree with the notion that the AR-15 can fire 45-60 RPM but a full-auto M16 can fire at 800 RPM. Those numbers assume reload times for the semi-auto but not for the fully-automatic version. This is why the antis are pushing for bans on semi-automatics with a capacity of over 10 rounds.

I didn't like how the NFA act of 1934 wasn't mentioned, especially because it pertains to the current discussion.

I also didn't like how there was no mention that "weapons of war" banned in 1986 should be legal; that NFA and the GCA were both unconstitutional.

I did like calling the AR-15 the "modern musket".
I liked "outlawing guns that are popular today will mean different guns will be popular tomorrow."

Overall more good than bad, but there are some points I disagree with.
Click to expand...
I think you're getting too bogged down in semantics, this is aimed at the anti 2A person that has no clue, or someone who is uneducated but is still on the fence with the matter. Don't over think it, this is a great tool for us.
 
That is precisely why I want it to be as accurate as possible; especially with regards to the RPM. If we are in error, and that error is pointed out, then it makes the majority of the argument that these weapons are entirely different invalid. The comparison of the "assault weapon" to a ranch rifle, semi-auto pistol, and a double-action revolver was good, but the comparison to a machine-gun was not.

A semi-automatic rifle can theoretically fire as fast as a fully-automatic variant. In practice, you're probably looking at split times better than you are from a pistol...and people can fire a pistol FAR faster than 60 RPM. In order to make an accurate comparison, you need to either take the rate at which a person can empty a magazine and reload with both weapons, or you take the rate at which you can fire if uninterrupted with both weapons.
 
The last couple of days I was arguing in a thread about the Great Clips vs. Magazines Debate, mostly for fun, but this is deadly serious. When we allow the use of fake terms like ''assault weapon'' to blur the line between machine guns and legal semi-autos, we allow the antis to wield great power to mislead and confuse the general public.
 
Last edited:
Worked fine for me with IE. Great presentation and one which I will forward to friends who are fence sitters. One very liberal friend just bought a 10/22 to shoot snakes and I ribbed him quite a bit about his wanting some biggermmags after having to stop and reload the 10 round mags that come with the rifle. Hey, he now has one of those evil "assault rifles with high capacity clippie things".
 
Skribs:

I can see where you're coming from on the right of fire, but the point we're trying to make is that the AR-15's rate of fire is based on the skill of the operator, whereas the M-16's rate of fire is decided by the auto sear's design limits. In trying to come up with a realistic rate of fire for the AR-15, we went with what a U.S. military manual describes as the M-16's rate of fire in semi-automatic mode. Perhaps it would be preferable to state that the AR-15 can fire about one round per second, while the M-16 can fire at least thirteen?

As for your other criticisms, we were working from the assumption that our target audience would easily get lost if we delved too deeply. If anything, we're talking about ways to make this presentation even shorter, and the information easier to digest. As for technical issues--yeah, it sucks. But until people start using it and giving feedback, it's hard to kill all the bugs.
 
That was an excellent presentation and the facts therein should be the core of any public debate involving a pro gun position.

RC if you can't access that, I'll package it into a Powerpoint for you, just PM me your email address.
 
Probably the most descriptive reading I've seen on the topic.

This should be required reading for the media but as it wouldn't fall in line with their agenda of sensationalism, I doubt it'd change their average presentation of so called assault weapons.
 
Last night it wouldn't load on IE. Today it worked perfectly.

It is well written and well thought out. If we can get this out to the general public, some way, like the anti-gun people get their agendas aired we may be able to make a difference. Information like this is only valid if we can get the message to the masses. The networks use their airways to get their message out. How do we get the message out to the most people? One at a time is a good thing but we need to get to millions, not thousands.
 
larryh1108 said:
Last night it wouldn't load on IE. Today it worked perfectly.

It is well written and well thought out. If we can get this out to the general public, some way, like the anti-gun people get their agendas aired we may be able to make a difference. Information like this is only valid if we can get the message to the masses. The networks use their airways to get their message out. How do we get the message out to the most people? One at a time is a good thing but we need to get to millions, not thousands.
Click to expand...
Social networking. As much as I despise it, messages can be spread very quickly through the use of it.
 
A quick note to people:

I was able to view this on my home laptop, which has IE9. If you're using an earlier version and can't view it, then either switch to a later version or try another browser, like some others here have indicated.

What I really liked about this presentation, in addition to it's straight forward presentation of facts and definition, along with illustrations, is that the spelling and grammar didn't look like an idiot put it together.

Very nice.
 
It worked for me.

It took a while to load.

The first clue it is ready run is when the Tweet and Share logos pop-up. (For what seemed like a long time there was a light blue blank screen. That is usually when I hit Esc and Alt-left (backup); no patience.)

And that's with me set up to block ads and most autorun thingies.

Once running it is a good exposition. Nothing new to me, but probably news to the folks unaware of the issues until the politicians started the Menace of Assault Weapons Stalking the Streets Moral Panick.
 
Last edited:
ran it on chrome and it worked fine.

This is OUTSTANDING. Thank you for sharing.

One note, since cosmetics of a gun is part of the ridiculous argument anti's are using, why not add an additional screenshot of a camouflaged hunting/Varmint version to further demonstrate the wide application of AR15-styled rifles. The SCAR and the dude shooting from a bench are good, just maybe add one more to show that people use AR15s for lots of different application.

Thanks again for posting.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

A
  • Locked
Show everyone this simple guide on "assault weapons"
Replies
10
Views
959
1 old 0311-1
1
A
  • Locked
What is an assault weapon? Presentation slides
Replies
8
Views
860
psyopspec
P
D
  • Locked
Inspire More People
Replies
6
Views
487
ThorinNNY
T
1stmarine
  • Locked
The truth about assault weapons
Replies
4
Views
739
PhotoBiker
P
mljdeckard
  • Locked
It wasn't an 'assault weapon'.
2 3
Replies
53
Views
3K
CZguy
C
Back
Top