NationStates Jolt Archive

http://blog.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.view&friendID=189954809&blogID=275124532

But seriously, which is better? (AR-15= M-16A1 with minor diffenences)

Mosin Nagant

lol which penis surrogate do think shoots more straight?? lol.

lol which penis surrogate do think shoots more straight?? lol.

Its more of a question of Durability vs. Acuraccy

Its more of a question of Durability vs. Acuraccy

course it is

M14.

I thought the Vietnam War decided this one. The AK has better stopping power and is much more durable and reliable in wartime conditions.

I thought the Vietnam War decided this one. The AK has better stopping power and is much more durable and reliable in wartime conditions.

Yeah the M16a1 was a piece of crap. The M16a2 couldn't come soon enough.

The AR-15, and M-16 original models, were pieces of crap. Even the M16A2 is a substandard weapon. The AK-47 is a better gun overall, excluding accuracy. The thing will fire in almost any conditions.

Honestly, however, I wouldn't use either, mainly because I have no use for a fully automatic assault rifle in a domestic environment. In a military environment, I would use an Israeli weapon.

Well a great quantity of US units in Iraq prefer to use the AK.

For domestic use: M14
For military use: M249 or MP7

There's ANOTHER one of these threads? I think it's even the same title as the last one.

As in the last thousand (not really, but it seems like it) threads on the matter, I'm going to have to vote for my rifle's (AR-15) big brother, the M-16.

The MP-7 is intended as a sidearm and personal defense weapon, not an assault weapon. It's not very accurate at long range. If I were in a combat situation, I certainly wouldn't want it as my primary weapon. Probably something else from H & K.

For domestic use

WTF?!? Domestic use?

How about no guns for 'domestic use'.

WTF?!? Domestic use?

How about no guns for 'domestic use'.

Domestic use can be hunting (the 7.62 nato/.308 win round is a good deer round), target shooting, collecting, etc.

WTF?!? Domestic use?

How about no guns for 'domestic use'.

Although I don't do it, hunting. The M-14 is an excellent rifle.

Domestic use can be hunting (the 7.62 nato/.308 win round is a good deer round), target shooting, collecting, etc.

All firearms should be banned, I agree with my countries on this policy.

All firearms should be banned, I agree with my countries on this policy.

Banning them only opens up the illegal market. That's another subject altogether.

All firearms should be banned, I agree with my countries on this policy.

And in your country, that works for you. In the US, a lot of people would be affected by banning firearms (upwards of 80 million people), so no politician would be stupid enough to vote for a ban.

M-16 is one of the worst rifles ever. i'd take an AK over it any day.

Banning them only opens up the illegal market. That's another subject altogether.

and yet, where firearms are legal there is still a black market in firearms. which begs the question: which orifice are you talkng through?

M-16 is one of the worst rifles ever. i'd take an AK over it any day.

It's been in service, in one form or another, for over 40 years, so I doubt it's one of the worst ever.

What don't you like about it?

and yet, where firearms are legal there is still a black market in firearms. which begs the question: which orifice are you talkng through?

U.S. Gun legislation is about as useful as ultra thin toilet paper. A blind man in Minnesota is legally able to obtain a gun where as my grand father, chief of police for twenty years was denied a gun permit for no reason (New Jersey Legislature).

Ban guns, and we have a bunch of illegal firearms. Keep them, we have a bunch of legal ones. Either way we have a shit load of guns, and poor discretion as to who can own them.

U.S. Gun legislation is about as useful as ultra thin toilet paper. A blind man in Minnesota is legally able to obtain a gun where as my grand father, chief of police for twenty years was denied a gun permit for no reason (New Jersey Legislature).

Ban guns, and we have a bunch of illegal firearms. Keep them, we have a bunch of legal ones. Either way we have a shit load of guns, and poor discretion as to who can own them.

regardless, the people that are going to use them illegally (with premeditation) are going to obtain them illegally so as to avoid the paper trail to them. so liberalisation of gun laws solves nothing in respect to gun crime.

All Blehing aside, they really arn't kidding about the Mosin Nagant. I have one from 1942, made in wartime conditions, with Soviet "high quality" manufacturing, and the damn thing is still more accurate then just about anything else on the shooting range. The thing kicks like a mule, too. I can only put about 40 rounds through it at the range before my shoulder becomes a limp noodle.

And the half meter long bayonet is good for poking people.

Banning them only opens up the illegal market. That's another subject altogether.

And yet in Australia the illegal market for firearms is all but non-existent, Port Arthur taught us a valuable lesson.

And yet in Australia the illegal market for firearms is all but non-existent, Port Arthur taught us a valuable lesson.

Yes, so tomorrow let's order an edict that all guns are banned in the United States. *props feet up and grabs popcorn*

Well a great quantity of US units in Iraq prefer to use the AK.

This might have less to do with the quality of the weapon, and more to do with a desire to blend into the background environment. The sound of an M16 in a sea of AKs is basically a huge "The Americans Are Over Here!!!!" signal. The sound of an AK in a sea of AKs, on the other hand, could be anyone.

Edit: This is why special forces-type operations tend to train extensively with the weaponry used by those they are going to face in the field.

All Blehing aside, they really arn't kidding about the Mosin Nagant. I have one from 1942, made in wartime conditions, with Soviet "high quality" manufacturing, and the damn thing is still more accurate then just about anything else on the shooting range. The thing kicks like a mule, too. I can only put about 40 rounds through it at the range before my shoulder becomes a limp noodle.

And the footlong bayonet is good for poking people.

There have been longer bayonets. There's a 17" bladed bayonet for the US 1917 Enfield, and IIRC, there was a type of german bayonet that was a 24" sawback type (used in WWI, and the sawback was used primarily for cutting brush for a machine gun emplacement).

There have been longer bayonets. There's a 17" bladed bayonet for the US 1917 Enfield, and IIRC, there was a type of german bayonet that was a 24" sawback type (used in WWI, and the sawback was used primarily for cutting brush for a machine gun emplacement).

This isn't a blade, though. This is the pokey kind the muzzleloaders used to have. The ones that are designed to leave unstichable wounds.

EDIT: The bayonet is actually 436mm long.

Yes, so tomorrow let's order an edict that all guns are banned in the United States. *props feet up and grabs popcorn*

For some reason, neither "collective [strength] in dignity and direction" (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13018173&postcount=17) nor "solidarity" (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13018173&postcount=17) include possession of arms by the people. Of course, the "soviet socialist" (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13018173&postcount=17) model is all about repressing the masses so that they do not threaten the established power of the political elite.

Throughout history, the armed citizenry has put the political elite in its place. Naturally, the political elite seeks to stop and prevent such from happening again.

This isn't a blade, though. This is the pokey kind the muzzleloaders used to have. The ones that are designed to leave unstichable wounds.

EDIT: The bayonet is actually 436mm long.

What, like a sharpened steel dowel?

What, like a sharpened steel dowel?

Pretty much. Just think of the old bayonets on the muskets in the Civil War. That's why I like the old skool rifles. They yell "I will kill you, rape your wymonz, and break your things."

For some reason, neither "collective [strength] in dignity and direction" (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13018173&postcount=17) nor "solidarity" (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13018173&postcount=17) include possession of arms by the people. Of course, the "soviet socialist" (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13018173&postcount=17) model is all about repressing the masses so that they do not threaten the established power of the political elite.

Throughout history, the armed citizenry has put the political elite in its place. Naturally, the political elite seeks to stop and prevent such from happening again.
Actually I do support a form of firearm ownership, I liked the idea in the Athenian Democracy that every member of the polity also was a soldier, so if you defended the state you also had a right to a share in it, and could bear arms, I support that notion of individual armed polity to prevent counter-revolution and defend the state, but I opposed private ownership in which private militias and interests when armed can be dangerous (eg Blackwater, KKK etc).

Actually I do support a form of firearm ownership, I liked the idea in the Athenian Democracy that every member of the polity also was a soldier, so if you defended the state you also had a right to a share in it, and could bear arms, I support that notion of individual armed polity to prevent counter-revolution and defend the state, but...


Again, as long as the political elite are safe, and the people adequately subjugated to the same...

This is the problem with the (state) left. It's the same elitist nonsense, only with a red flag.


I opposed private ownership in which private militias and interests when armed can be dangerous (eg Blackwater, KKK etc).

I didn't realize that owning a personal firearm meant automatic recruitment into Blackwater or the KKK. At any rate, the U.S. Government, Military, and other security forces and functions are Blackwater's customers, yes? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blackwater_USA#History) To whatever extent, Blackwater serves to "prevent counter-revolution and defend the state," at least from the perspective of the policy of the present Administration, does it not? Isn't that what you support?

Plus, I don't have any exact numbers or historical examples right off the top of my head, but if I were the target of violent attack by racist terrorists (like the KKK), the ability to defend myself, my family, or my property might come in handy (I could just wait for the police, but at the height of KKK activity, the local police were often actively involved in the local KKK anyway. Not only does this make your "private" == "KKK" equation rather dubious, but it also illustrates how relying on the "defenders of the state" might be extremely dangerous).

Every culture has association with weaponry, Andaras Prime, and some people find it harder to give up the concrete self protection a firearm will offer. I agree with you that firearms in organized use other than the state is indeed dangerous, but paramilitary use is a very small fraction of both use of firearms and possession. Most who own weapons (in the United States) use it for hunting, or for self protection. Its a historically prevalent thing to own a weapon in this country.

Other than self protection, a rifle/shotgun can be used for hunting, which some prefer as a confidence of their own self sufficiency and as a sport. Personally, use of firearms should not be denied to anyone (according to my politics, anyway), and the state leaves the decision of owning a firearm up to you.

Other than self protection, a rifle/shotgun can be used for hunting, which some prefer as a confidence of their own self sufficiency and as a sport. Personally, use of firearms should not be denied to anyone (according to my politics, anyway), and the state leaves the decision of owning a firearm up to you.

You forgot target shooting. I enjoy putting holes in paper from 100+ yards away. :D

Every culture has association with weaponry, Andaras Prime, and some people find it harder to give up the concrete self protection a firearm will offer. I agree with you that firearms in organized use other than the state is indeed dangerous, but paramilitary use is a very small fraction of both use of firearms and possession. Most who own weapons (in the United States) use it for hunting, or for self protection. Its a historically prevalent thing to own a weapon in this country.

Other than self protection, a rifle/shotgun can be used for hunting, which some prefer as a confidence of their own self sufficiency and as a sport. Personally, use of firearms should not be denied to anyone (according to my politics, anyway), and the state leaves the decision of owning a firearm up to you.

Well I do understand that the US has such a history and culture of gun ownership, but this does not detract from their inherent danger. For example in Australia gun ownership is all but non-existent outside the police and military, and yet go back to colonial times and even up to to 30's and the Australian populace were literally armed to their teeth, everyone was armed, this developed in much the same way as the US in the colonial times. So my point is, if Australia can do it, so can the US, all you need is a willing government and a few massacres (check), remember that in Australia gun control came about as much from a liberal (individual rights) government as from the labor party which is usually for gun control.

You forgot target shooting. I enjoy putting holes in paper from 100+ yards away. :D

Indeed, a great stress reliever. What do you have?

Indeed, a great stress reliever. What do you have?

I have a post-ban AR-15 in .223 cal/5.56mm (16" barrel, fixed A2 stock).

Modern M-16 variants for their accuracy, durability and versatility.

I have a post-ban AR-15 in .223 cal/5.56mm (16" barrel, fixed A2 stock).

Jeez, how much did that cost?

I got my Mosin at a gun show for about 60 bucks. All matching parts. Round reciever, Tula armory. Fantastic condition.

I'm looking to get a Yugo AK clone in the future.

Jeez, how much did that cost?

I got my Mosin at a gun show for about 60 bucks. All matching parts. Round reciever, Tula armory. Fantastic condition.

I'm looking to get a Yugo AK clone in the future.

It cost me $265 for the complete lower, and $389 for the barreled upper with bolt carrier. I got 10 new, good quality 30 round mags at $10 each with free shipping.

I guess the most honest question is, you don't need assault rifles to hunt animals, and apart from shooting targets, what is the purpose? It's certainly not justified as to the risk of crime, massacres etc.

It cost me $265 for the complete lower, and $389 for the barreled upper with bolt carrier. I got 10 new, good quality 30 round mags at $10 each with free shipping.

Jeez. I wish I could spend that much money on one of my hobbies.

*curses self for being poor*

I guess the most honest question is, you don't need assault rifles to hunt animals, and apart from shooting targets, what is the purpose? It's certainly not justified as to the risk of crime, massacres etc.

In the US, you cannot aquire an Assault Rifle without a Class 3 license, typically reserved for ex-law enforcement and ex-military. Needless to say, very difficult for the average joe to get.

Jeez. I wish I could spend that much money on one of my hobbies.

*curses self for being poor*

It was back when I was working at a tribal casino as a slot attendant, pulling in $20+/hr working 40 hours a week. I wouldn't be able to do that now, making $17.55/hr, working anywhere from 17.6-40+ hours a week (most weeks, closer to 17.6 hours).

Indeed, I forgot target shooting. Such fun, I'm looking forward to getting started sometime, when I have time.

It all depends on your interpretations. Private ownership of guns is indeed dangerous. They are weapons, and designed to be weapons. Accidental death/injury from firearms is sadly a reality, but this is solved by proper care, operation, storage, and safety. When used offensively against other people, the person operating the weapon is committing a crime (excluding self defense), which is prosecuted by the state. Naturally enough, if someone wants to kill someone, they are going to do it, whether with a firearm or with a sharpened plastic spoon.

Massacres are examples of an event which has people always crying for gun control, but is one of those pesky situations where gun control would have no effect, mainly by the fact that one: the person perpetrating the massacre is generally an unstable individual; and two: the person is going to obtain a weapon by any means necessary unless restrained by able individuals recognizing the fact and stopping the individual.

Putting gun control into action into the United States is difficult and counterproductive (note: application in other countries is a solution, even though it restricts personal freedom, due to the nature of the culture) because law abiding citizens will obey all the laws, even if grudgingly, but criminals will not.

I guess the most honest question is, you don't need assault rifles to hunt animals, and apart from shooting targets, what is the purpose? It's certainly not justified as to the risk of crime, massacres etc.

It depends on what animal is being hunted, what caliber firearm is being used, and what hunting laws a particular state has. I've heard many stories of hunters in the southern states hunting feral hogs with AR-15s (feral hogs are considered a non-native nuisance animal, so the restrictions on what can be used to kill them is less than other animals, such as deer).

Also, why do firearms have to be justified by need?

It depends on what animal is being hunted, what caliber firearm is being used, and what hunting laws a particular state has. I've heard many stories of hunters in the southern states hunting feral hogs with AR-15s (feral hogs are considered a non-native nuisance animal, so the restrictions on what can be used to kill them is less than other animals, such as deer).

An AR for an animal is overkill by any standards.

Also, why do firearms have to be justified by need?
Well, you have something because you need it, you don't have something for the sake of it, although accumulation is alright with some products, hording weapons is dangerous and quite suspicious.

An AR for an animal is overkill by any standards.


It fires a bullet. How is that specific firearm different from others?


Well, you have something because you need it, you don't have something for the sake of it, although accumulation is alright with some products, hording weapons is dangerous and quite suspicious.

How is possession of anything inherently dangerous?

** clears throat ** (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13018348&postcount=35)

An AR for an animal is overkill by any standards.

The AR-15 is .223 cal/5.56mm (in its most common caliber). In CT, I am not allowed to hunt deer with less than a .243 round, as the CT Department of Environmental Protection considers less than .243 not powerful enough to quickly and humanely kill a deer. The fact is, due to its accuracy, an AR-15 is a good rifle for killing nuisance animals, such as feral hogs (which tear up land) and groundhogs (which dig tunnels that livestock may break their legs in).

Well, you have something because you need it, you don't have something for the sake of it, although accumulation is alright with some products, hording weapons is dangerous and quite suspicious.

What you call hording, some people call collecting. My brother in law has somewhere in the neighborhood of 15 firearms (a conservative guess). He is a hunter and a collector (in fact, one of the reasons he has so many is he bought a firearms collection from the widow of a collector). I doubt he's ever fired (or plans to fire) some of the firearms he currently owns.

... hording weapons is dangerous and quite suspicious.

Except when it serves Andaras Prime's purposes (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13018306&postcount=34), of course.

In CT, I am not allowed to hunt deer with less than a .243 round, as the CT Department of Environmental Protection considers less than .243 not powerful enough to quickly and humanely kill a deer.

That's why you use an M95. ;)

ak-47 of course.

Depends on what kind of weapon you want.. long range/high accuracy the AR-15 family is for you, high durability and stopping power you want an AK Variant. Add in the fact that an AK variant can be equipped to a trained monkey it means most places choose the AK family.

AK-47. Not sure what I'd want/need it for, but I like my things to be reliable, and the difference in accuracy probably wouldn't be important to my purposes.

Except when it serves Andaras Prime's purposes (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13018306&postcount=34), of course.

Of course, when it serves the united community, how is that my purpose, it is the purpose of all to defend that which ensures our survival, the state.

Of course, when it serves the united community, how is that my purpose, it is the purpose of all to defend that which ensures our survival, the state.

Why are you trying to turn this into a gun control thread?

The subject is which you'd choose. AK-47 or M16

Why are you trying to turn this into a gun control thread?

The subject is which you'd choose. AK-47 or M16
Wow, that's what this thread was about!? :eek:

I'd say AK.

Wow, that's what this thread was about!? :eek:

I'd say AK.

I mean, you're perfectly welcome to start a gun control thread if you want.

But debating the issue in a thread that's supposed to be about M16 vs. AK-47 is kinda like going into a thread about the merits of ham sandwiches as opposed to salami sandwiches and declaring that we shouldn't eat meat at all and all become vegetarians/vegans.

http://blog.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.view&friendID=189954809&blogID=275124532

But seriously, which is better? (AR-15= M-16A1 with minor diffenences)

Reality check: Noone gives a damn!

Hey, it's the same topic as last time, almost exactly!

In the circumstances than an AK and an M16 go head to head (as in 3rd world nations, which are almost all made of jungles and deserts and such) then I'd probably pick an AK, mainly because it doesn't jam up and all that.

Were the US invaded, the M16 would be a better tool for the job, seeing as it's more accurate and has comparable hitting power, and the reliabilty loss from being in a rainforest or sandstorm or what have you is pretty much negated.

I mean, you're perfectly welcome to start a gun control thread if you want.
Incidentally, this is a lie. Please, for fuck's sakes, don't start another gun control thread. Make something amusing and light-hearted instead.

which is better is in the eye of the beholder and the hands of the operator.
the AK-47 is a robust, reliable rifle designed for an army of illiterate peasants. it functions quite well in sand, mud, dirt and snow because the operating mechanisms are "loose" inside the reciever. you could throw this rifle out in your yard for a year, force the bolt open and it would work. the drawback, accuracy is sacrificed for reliablity.
the M-16 is a compact, lightweight rifle capable of engaging the enemy at distances of 700 yards. this rifle is accurate, match-quality specimens of this rifle can produce 1" groups at 200 yards in the hands of a good operator. the drawbacks, the gas system is has its problems, no forward assist, this rifle performs best in a "clean room", lacks the stopping power of a .30 caliber rifle.
both have their pro`s and con`s. i do not prefere one over the other.
My choice for best rifle is the M-14, returning to duty after 40 years of retirement.

What I find scarry is that this comparison is made by a "kid" of 16...
16... nuff said...

I have used both the AK and the M-16A2 and I have found that the M-16 has a lower recoil and more comfortable to shoot.
The Ak is much simpler to operate and you can teach a chimp to use it in about an hour.
As a DI explained to me once if you are taking trained soldiers into combat the M-16 is better. On the other hand if your arming untrained militia then the AK is far better.

AKs are fun...*slightly devilish look in eyes*

BFG9000>All

Add in the fact that an AK variant can be equipped to a trained monkey it means most places choose the AK family.



The Ak is much simpler to operate and you can teach a chimp to use it in about an hour.


We agree :D

What I find scarry is that this comparison is made by a "kid" of 16...
16... nuff said...
Eh. He's old enough to get behind the wheel of a Hummer and drive it through the front window of a preschool.

Incidentally, this is a lie. Please, for fuck's sakes, don't start another gun control thread. Make something amusing and light-hearted instead.

Like this thread :p .

If I had to choose I'd take an AK47, due to a lack of training on how to perform proper upkeep on a weapon.

ENOUGH WITH AK-47 VS M-16!

THESE THREADS ARE NO LONGER NEEDED! ONE IS ENOUGH!

:headbang:

ENOUGH WITH AK-47 VS M-16!

THESE THREADS ARE NO LONGER NEEDED! ONE IS ENOUGH!

:headbang:
I take it you like neither of the two, then? :p

We should have a thread comparing two types of building material. That'd be a nice change.

But debating the issue in a thread that's supposed to be about M16 vs. AK-47 is kinda like going into a thread about the merits of ham sandwiches as opposed to salami sandwiches and declaring that we shouldn't eat meat at all and all become vegetarians/vegans.

That's happened before as well.

I guess the most honest question is, you don't need assault rifles to hunt animals, and apart from shooting targets, what is the purpose? It's certainly not justified as to the risk of crime, massacres etc.

The really most truly honest question is, you don't need Cheetos to maintain life, and apart from eating when stoned, what is the purpose? They're certainly not justified as to the risk of high blood pressure, heart attack risk, etc. etc.

ANYTHING THAT ANDRAS PRIME FINDS NO USE IN IS TO BE BANNED NOW!

BFG9000>All

Reflex Cannon > BFG9000.

:D

First. Why the hell are we talking about this. Second, M16.

I take it you like neither of the two, then? :p

No.

I own an AK and I loves her. :D

We should have a thread comparing to types of building material. That'd be a nice change.

I concur.

Reflex Cannon > BFG9000.

:D

Blasphemy!

First. Why the hell are we talking about this. Second, M16.

We're talking about this because history repeats itself. This is a very common topic, popping up every month or two.

We should have a thread comparing to types of building material. That'd be a nice change.

I prefer wood for structural building, and Bamboo for flooring.

Well I do understand that the US has such a history and culture of gun ownership, but this does not detract from their inherent danger. For example in Australia gun ownership is all but non-existent outside the police and military, and yet go back to colonial times and even up to to 30's and the Australian populace were literally armed to their teeth, everyone was armed, this developed in much the same way as the US in the colonial times. So my point is, if Australia can do it, so can the US, all you need is a willing government and a few massacres (check), remember that in Australia gun control came about as much from a liberal (individual rights) government as from the labor party which is usually for gun control.

Do that, and you take away the thing that defines america, angry locals with guns.

That's happened before as well.

On NSG? I wouldn't doubt it.

Incidentally, this is a lie. Please, for fuck's sakes, don't start another gun control thread. Make something amusing and light-hearted instead.

You'll notice I never mentioned myself posting in it, ha ha.

It fires a bullet. How is that specific firearm different from others?

Full automatic fire?

The really most truly honest question is, you don't need Cheetos to maintain life, and apart from eating when stoned, what is the purpose? They're certainly not justified as to the risk of high blood pressure, heart attack risk, etc. etc.

ANYTHING THAT ANDRAS PRIME FINDS NO USE IN IS TO BE BANNED NOW!

Decadent Americans...

Full automatic fire?

*sigh*

A citizen cannot acquire an Assault Rifle (or any other firearm capable of fully automatic fire) without a very hard to get Class III license. Joe Somebody in Arkansas does not have access to fully automatic firearms.

Full automatic fire?

An AR-15 is NOT a full auto firearm. It is semi only, whereas the M-16 is select fire.

*sigh*

A citizen cannot acquire an Assault Rifle (or any other firearm capable of fully automatic fire) without a very hard to get Class III license. Joe Somebody in Arkansas does not have access to fully automatic firearms.

Actually, all it takes is the proper paperwork (signed by the chief law enforcement officer of your town/city) as well as a $200 fee for a tax stamp once your paperwork is approved by the BATFE.

The Ak is much simpler to operate and you can teach a chimp to use it in about an hour.


I can't resist. Must post.

http://wiki.owsupport.com/images/thumb/0/06/Gamestar.jpg/250px-Gamestar.jpg

Actually, all it takes is the proper paperwork (signed by the chief law enforcement officer of your town/city) as well as a $200 fee for a tax stamp once your paperwork is approved by the BATFE.

Getting your paperwork approved by the ATF is the trick. They don't grant those licenses to normal people. Hell, it's easier to get a FFL then it is to get a Class III. Less expensive, too.

EDIT: I guess you could go the C&R route...

An AR-15 is NOT a full auto firearm. It is semi only, whereas the M-16 is select fire.

My bad.

Getting your paperwork approved by the ATF is the trick. They don't grant those licenses to normal people. Hell, it's easier to get a FFL then it is to get a Class III. Less expensive, too.

EDIT: I guess you could go the C&R route...


Actually they do. They also approve paperwork for other restricted items, such as silencers (silencers have the same procedure, and cost the same amount once the paperwork is approved).

The real limiting factor for owning a full auto/select fire weapon is the price (the fact that full auto/select fire firearms manufactured after 1986 can only be owned by law enforcement or manufacturers is a major reason for this). A select fire M-16 costs upwards of $14,000, whereas a semi-auto AR-15 can be had for as little as $700.

Also, the cost for getting an FFL is $200 for the first 3 years, and a $90 renewal. A tax stamp for a class III item is a one time fee of $200. A C&R won't help for purchasing full auto/select fire firearms, it's good for purchasing enfields, mausers, mosin-nagants, garands, etc.

Actually they do. They also approve paperwork for other restricted items, such as silencers (silencers have the same procedure, and cost the same amount once the paperwork is approved).

The real limiting factor for owning a full auto/select fire weapon is the price (the fact that full auto/select fire firearms manufactured after 1986 can only be owned by law enforcement or manufacturers is a major reason for this). A select fire M-16 costs upwards of $14,000, whereas a semi-auto AR-15 can be had for as little as $700.

That's simply not true. If any yahoo can get a Class III for 200 bucks and a clean record, why haven't more of them been issued? Class III's are issued by ATF on a very limited basis.

That's simply not true. If any yahoo can get a Class III for 200 bucks and a clean record, why haven't more of them been issued? Class III's are issued by ATF on a very limited basis.

They're not as prevelant because it costs so much for the firearm. Like I said, an example is the M-16, which costs around $14,000, whereas the AR-15 can cost as little as $700.

ETA: Another example is this: An AC-556 (full auto Mini-14) can cost over $7,000, whereas the Mini-14 costs less than $600 if you shop around.

All guns should be banned but not really because I also believe that everyone has the right to use weapons to protect themselves!

lolz

You silly goose.

All firearms should be banned . . ..

. . . I do support a form of firearm ownership . . .

Can you stop being stupid in the thread now?

I prefer wood for structural building, and Bamboo for flooring.

The classic structural material? Wood is alright, but steel is much better for the taller buildings (of which I'd like more).

As for the floor I'd say tile with the capability to have a carpet held in place.