Modern Sporting AR vs. M-16 on TV?

[Glenn E. Meyer]

I recently watched a piece on one of the gun TV shows - maybe Guns and Ammo where the hosts compared a fully auto M-16 or M4 vs. an AR - making the point that the latter was a modern sporting rifle - a euphenism, etc.

I looked for the clip casually on line but too much comes up. I think it was Dick Metcalf and some other guy.

Any hints?

Thanks

Glenn

[Nine the Ranger]

It was Semi-Auto vs Full Auto I believe. On Guns and Ammo

The hosts were Dick Metcalf and James Tarr.

I hope that helps :)

[seanc]

A couple shows had similar themes:

Here's a link for Gun Talk TV's version:
http://www.outdoorhub.com/news/this-week-on-gun-talk-tv-modern-sporting-rifles/

[Mobuck]

Even the so-called experts really know very little about the AR vs M4/M16 differences.
In my opinion, anyone who wears makeup and talks to a TV camera has about as much knowledge of firearms as I do about quantum physics.

[seanc]

These shows were making a statement about controlling the semantics in our 2nd Amendment fight, making it clear that the phrase 'assault weapon' isn't what the antis say it is. These shows are trying to re-enforce the re-branding of modern semi-auto firearms and remind folks that prior to AR-15s, there were Springfield 1903 and M1-A1 rifles that may have started as military rifles but they have a long tradition as legitimate sporting uses as well.

The advertisers and producers of these shows obviously are of the opinion that "sporting purposes" is an actual concept they think we need to be respectful of as they try to grow their market.

[Art Eatman]

Mobuck, anybody going in front of a TV camera in a studio setting will at least have face powder applied, to cut the shine.

seanc's points are spot-on.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

Thanks - I was wondering if their presentation would be convincing to someone outside our circles? Empirical question of interest to me.

[Boomer58cal]

Most anti gun people have an irrational fear of firearms due to the lack of knowledge and experience. The wave of anti gun media has just exaggerating this. Those with an open mind can be educated and those with the closed mind are lost in the world.

Ignorance can be cured by education. Stupidity is permanent. That said no matter how smart you are you can learn something new with a closed mind.

Too many people these days allow our schools and our media to teach our kids to be tolerant but not think for themselves. You cannot be tolerant of things that are against your beliefs. Morals are the things which all our beliefs are based on. You cannot compromise on your beliefs or your beliefs meen nothing.

If we teach our kids the truth, good morals, and to think for themselves they cannot be indoctrinated with irrational beliefs.

These guys are on the right path, but if we don't teach our children properly from birth by adulthood it's generally too late.

My 2¢ Boomer

[seanc]

These shows attempt to "normalize" ownership of modern, semi-automatic firearms. For that, these shows are fine. Of course, they're likely preaching to the choir, but it's worth the effort. Part of the antis plan book is to marginalize what they don't like.

I was trying hard not to make this a left vs. right argument, but the antis are generally left of center and the weak minded right of center that have accepted the "out of the mainstream" portrayal of firearm ownership. The left uses this tactic often to marginalize their opponents positions rather than argue the facts. That's also why I believe they are trying to marginalize firearm ownership, since that is considered part of the "right". It's just another way to marginalize their opponents.

[g.willikers]

Most folks who aren't already on our side probably won't consider the differences between a semi-auto AR and a full auto military version as a very important distinction.
Especially if they see a 3 gun competition video.
We might be better off selling the idea that the 2nd Amendment isn't about the sporting uses of firearms.

[Boomer58cal]

We might be better off selling the idea that the 2nd Amendment isn'tabout the sporting uses of firearms. _________________

Totally agree with you. The 2nd amendment isn't about hunting.

I was trying hard not to make this a left vs. right argument, but the antis are generally left of center and the weak minded right of center that have accepted the "out of the mainstream" portrayal of firearm ownership. The left uses this tactic often to marginalizetheir opponents positions rather than argue the facts. That'salso why I believe they are trying to marginalize firearm ownership, since that is considered part of the "right". It's just another way to marginalize their opponents.

Its not a right vs left Debate. Its a freedom lovers verses Protectionist debate.

The Constitution does not guarantee safety, it guarantees freedom. Without the right to protect ourselves, our families and our country we are not safe.

As it states in my signature below this post the number one cause of death in the 20th century was normal citizens being first disarmed and then murdered by their own governments. That is the reason our founders wrote the 2nd amendment.

Boomer

[IdahoG36]

In my opinion, anyone who wears makeup and talks to a TV camera has about as much knowledge of firearms as I do about quantum physics.

Soooooooo very true hahaha!!:D

[Art Eatman]

IdahoG36, see Post #6.