Military grade?

[rickyrick]

I just tell people that gun ownership is a right because they are dangerous.

Arms and the bearing of them would useless if they are soft and fluffy.


I don’t own weapons because they are fun and recreational, even though that’s a side benefit.

[M88]

Originally Posted by USNRet93

..If the rifle looked like the second one(Ruger in 5.56)...most non gun people would say, 'so what'.

I have actually found THIS to be, so far, the most effective way to make my point when discussing the "assault weapon" issue with people that just have no clue. I pull out my phone, show them a pic of a hunting rifle, then show them the exact same rifle but black, full of tactical "stuff" that looks VERY scary to them, and explain that it's the same rifle inside, but dressed up differently. Sometimes they get it, but the scary rifle usually still turns them off. But when I use the VW Beetle turned into a Bradly GT sports car analogy, they at least get the point without being so "turned off". Below is the VW Bettle, and below that the SAME CAR, but with a Bradly GT fiberglass sports car body kit attached to the beetle "frame". (Beetles didn't really have a frame like most cars of that era).

[Skans]

OK, how would one DO that? What would be your approach the next time Suzy soccer mom tells you she doesn't approve of civilians having "weapons of war"? I'm honestly curious how that convo would go from your perspective.

There really is no one answer to this as it would depend on exactly what was said and who said it. Let's say for example someone I know says that she doesn't approve of civilians having "weapons of war", perhaps over a lunch or dinner conversation. I would probably ask "why not" to get a better understanding of where that person was coming from before blurting out a scripted reply. Let's say Suzy simply says "because they are evil, and people who have them commit evil with them" (I've actually had someone say something like that to me).

My response would go something like this: "I have a couple of AR-15's and even a semi-auto AK. I've owned them for over 20 years. I don't think I'm evil and I've certainly never committed any evil with them. In fact, I know dozens of people who own AR's, all of whom are quite peaceful and law abiding. Did you know that the AR-15 is one of the most common types of rifles owned by Americans?"

Suzy: "Well, you aren't evil and this is just a hobby of yours, but the XYZ shooter who killed innocent kids sure was evil".

Skans: "The XYZ shooter was evil - you and I 100% agree on that. But, the AR is just a rifle; one that has been available to civilians since the 1960's. Also, Firearms are more than just a hobby for me. I truly believe in the 2nd Amendment and that civilians have the same rights as people serving in the military to have access to the same types of firearms. I would be far more concerned about a government that furnishes its military and police with weapons of war, but prohibits its citizens from having any access to similar firearms.

Suzy: "Well the government already prohibits people from having machine guns, so they should prohibit AR-15's too."

I think you see where I'm going with this. The reason I don't shy away from the term "Weapons of War" or "Assault Weapons" is because that is exactly the type of weapons the 2nd Amendment guaranteed to the people, and for very good reason. Reasons which can be shown by a multitude of examples to be valid in the 20th and 21st centuries. But, what I do want from Suzy, before I address one of her talking points, is to know more about her position so that I can tailor my response to it. Then I want to hear more from Suzy.

Suzy may be stubborn and simply say "Well, I think AR's need to be eliminated so that we don't have shootings like XYZ..." I may decide to continue the conversation or stop there with a simple "We can agree to disagree; I understand that you are concerned about the occasional one-off crazy shooter. I am far more concerned about a violent government or group determined to massacre its own citizens. The ability to systematically murder millions will always be a far far greater concern to me."

At least I've planted the seed with Suzy and got her to think about the true evil to the flip side of government officials having all of the weapons of war with a perpetually vulnerable disarmed citizenry.

[rickyrick]

I still think that the days of semiautomatic weapon ownership in the US are numbered. How long before it ends, I can’t predict. But this is the what growing numbers the citizens of the US want. I see radical extremist politicians winning elections, it’s only a matter of time before enough people are in position to ban them.

[M88]

Originally Posted by Skans

At least I've planted the seed with Suzy and got her to think about the true evil to the flip side of government officials having all of the weapons of war with a perpetually vulnerable disarmed citizenry.

Often the person I'm having discussions like this with are family I don't see often or friends I've known for years, although not close friends, as they already know I have guns and how I feel about them. Although has happened, rarely is it somebody I just met somewhere that I don't know and don't already have some sort of relationship with. Thus, things are usually pretty civil, and the "agree to disagree" deal is often how things end. But I always at least try and as you say, plant the seed. If the person knows me enough and respects me, they will at least usually listen to my point and that seed does get planted. Obviously, they key is not to ram anything down anybodies throat or insinuate that they are idiots because they don't know the facts. A calm counterpoint, or something they can easily understand like showing them a pic of a VW bug and then the Bradly "sports car" lookalike, causes them to stop and think more than anything you say.

Originally Posted by Skans

... I don't shy away from the term "Weapons of War" or "Assault Weapons"...

Back to my original post... this point has made me think some more about how I will frame my counterpoint when confronted with obvious (to me) incorrect information.

[M88]

Originally Posted by rickyrick

I still think that the days of semiautomatic weapon ownership in the US are numbered.

As I've said before, I'm a glass half FULL person, but on this I unfortunately agree. As the population of the US continues to shift urban, which tends to produce gun-unfriendly votes proportionally more than rural areas, and as hunting at least appears to be declining (although don't know that for sure), there will be more politicians trying to ban semi-auto weapons. Eventually, stuff will start to stick. I hope I'm wrong. Enlighten me if I am.

[kilotanker22]

I remember reading a comment earlier that said something like Mil spec means "Lowest bidder" However true that may be. Monetary costs are not the only considerations.

When I deployed to Afghanistan in 2007. I wasn't issued a beat up run down no name M4-A3. I was issued a Colt. Brand new one at that. With a Trijicon Acog. Now your mileage may vary, but I know of hundreds of AR style rifles and optics that are far less expensive than that setup.

I know that that is off of the intended topic of the thread, but I wanted to add this.

On the topic of the thread. Most people with a halfway decent head on their shoulders either do know the difference. Or they are competent enough to want to know why they are wrong, when the topic is introduced. You can not fault someone for ignorance. And you can't trust someone who knows and doesn't care.

[rickyrick]

Milspec is a minimum standard that is unique to each piece of equipment and must be met.

Milspec is not the highest standard, many civilian rifles far exceed milspec.

Military grade is basically just slang. Military ammunition pretty much sucks as compared to what civilians have access to.

[T. O'Heir]

"...don't think civilians should be able to buy "military grade" weapons of war"..." So no Brown Bess muskets? No M1903's or other bolt action battle rifles? No lever actions either? The issue is that the people you're talking to have no idea what they're talking about. They think "military grade" is a 20th Century thing.
“Mil-spec” is primarily a marketing buzz word. Like M88 says, everything the military uses from paper clips to missiles has a 'spec'. That can go right down to the brand name for some of it. The CF says 'pers docs' must be contained in the file folder by means of an "Acco fastener"(https://www.staples.ca/en/acco-prong...3_1-CA_1_20001). Acco is brand name just like Kleenex. Witnessed a huge argument over it long ago.
AR-15s only look like M16s. Nothing similar about 'em internally. And an M-16 is not and never has been an assault rifle by definition.

[zukiphile]

Originally Posted by T. O'Heir

And an M-16 is not and never has been an assault rifle by definition.

Perhaps you meant the current commercial AR. At least some M-16s should qualify as assault rifles.

assault rifle noun
Definition of assault rifle
: any of various intermediate-range, magazine-fed military rifles (such as the AK-47) that can be set for automatic or semiautomatic fire

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dict...ssault%20rifle

[rickyrick]

The AR15 in its standard form is an assault weapon as defined by many laws across the country now.

Many antigun politicians have dropped trying the assault weapon term and are just going after all semiautomatic weapons

[lordvader]

What also irks me is when politicians think that AR stands for assault rifle. Shows how stupid they are. What it stands for is ArmaLite Rifle-15. A rifle that was developed by the ArmaLite company and the patent sold to Colt. A true assault rifle is one that fires fully automatic. And that requires a Class III license for a civilian to own. Conservative politicians are typically pretty intelligent, but liberal politicians are just plain stupid when it comes to their knowledge on firearms.

[Skans]

AR-15s only look like M16s. Nothing similar about 'em internally.

You've got to be kidding! An AR-15 shares a lot in common with an M16; a heck of a lot more than a semi-auto "tommy gun" does with a full auto M1928. All but one M-16 part will easily drop right into an AR-15. The AR lower receiver is about 95% identical to the lower receiver of an M16

And an M-16 is not and never has been an assault rifle by definition.

I always tell people that if they want to be technical about the definition of "assault rifle", there is only one and it is the Sturmgewehr MP44, a/k/a "storm rifle".

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by lordvader

Conservative politicians are typically pretty intelligent, but liberal politicians are just plain stupid when it comes to their knowledge on firearms.

They are smart enough to use words to confuse the general public. Notice that in just a few posts above yours we can find the terms "assault rifle" (which has a standard definition), and "assault weapon" (which is a created term that once had a common definition established by the 1994 AWB but which now has multiple definitions, depending on which state you ask). They are smart enough to know that the general public doesn't know the difference between an "assault rifle" and an "assault weapon," so they can use the latter term and be certain that many of their constituents will be absolutely certain they're talking about the former.

[rickyrick]

Most of our leaders no matter the party affiliation or political beliefs really don’t want us to have weapons. The only difference is some can get a bunch of free votes by simply saying that they are for gun rights and some garner votes by saying that they support gun control.

I simply don’t trust any of them, they’ve all said things that are untrue about topics in which I have knowledge or experience; therefore I can only assume that they are being dishonest about things in which I am ignorant.

[USNRet93]

Originally Posted by rickyrick

Most of our leaders no matter the party affiliation or political beliefs really don’t want us to have weapons. The only difference is some can get a bunch of free votes by simply saying that they are for gun rights and some garner votes by saying that they support gun control.

I simply don’t trust any of them, they’ve all said things that are untrue about topics in which I have knowledge or experience; therefore I can only assume that they are being dishonest about things in which I am ignorant.

I disagree..they don't want to be on the receiving end of criticism if there's a mass shooting in their district or state, using a scary black 'assault rifle'. Most look to reelection and support those things that will help in that endeavor, whether or not it is 'pro' or 'anti' gun..I think very few have the courage of their convictions..most just want to be re-elected.

But generally I agree..

[44 AMP]

"The militia of these free commonwealths,
entitled and accustomed to their arms,
when compared with any possible army,
must be tremendous and irresistible.
Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves?
Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms
each man against his own bosom.
Congress have no power to disarm the militia.
Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier,
are the birth-right of an American ...
the unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands
of either the federal or state governments,
but, where I trust in God it will ever remain,
in the hands of the people."

Quote by:
Tench Coxe
(1755-1824) American political economist
Source:
Pennsylvania Gazette, February 20, 1788

is there really any more that needs to be said on the matter?

[M88]

Originally Posted by 44 AMP

...is there really any more that needs to be said on the matter

Boy do I have a few people in my circle I want to show THAT to!

[44 AMP]

Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier,
are the birth-right of an American ...

I always felt this was the heart of the matter.

And I feel that the stupid, or criminal behavior of some does not invalidate anything for the rest of us.

[USNRet93]

Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier,
are the birth-right of an American ...

Originally Posted by 44 AMP

I always felt this was the heart of the matter.

And I feel that the stupid, or criminal behavior of some does not invalidate anything for the rest of us.

It does not but it sure makes it complicated...

[rickyrick]

Pretty much what I always say is in line with the above quotes. We have a right to own weapons because they are dangerous. But that’s an old idea that is not compatible with the way our country is turning. We are in a soft revolution, the old republic is dying one lost freedom at a time. There’s no patriots left, no one willing to stand up. The USA is slowly dissolving. The new country is being installed one piece at a time, at an
Ever increasing rate, each piece sooner than the last. The population doesn’t want the “Good Ol’ USA” any longer; anyone that doesn’t realize that is simply in denial.
Ban after ban passes with no real challenge, a few fringe characters speak up, but that’s about it.
The leaders don’t want us to have guns.
The population doesn’t want us to have guns.
The corporations do not want us to have guns.
The media.
The celebrities.
The world.
The only thing that is stopping them is a few lines scrawled on an ancient outdated document that is increasingly disregarded.

[M88]

Originally Posted by rickyrick

...The leaders don’t want us to have guns.
The population doesn’t want us to have guns.
The corporations do not want us to have guns.
The media.
The celebrities.
The world.
The only thing that is stopping them is a few lines scrawled on an ancient outdated document that is increasingly disregarded.

While this sounds pretty damning, and for the most part I agree with who doesn't want us to have guns, what keeps be from being more pessimistic is that there are still millions and millions of American citizens that DO want their right to own and defend themselves with their guns, and the majority of them from what I can see vote accordingly. Are there more of them than us, and is that ratio increasing? I think yes. Back to my original post, that is precisely why I try and tactfully correct false narratives from the folks that are spreading them. Explaining that the made up term "military grade" is just that, a marketing tool, is one thing I can correct and plant the seeds of truth.

I certainly agree that our constitution is "ancient" from the perspective of the history of this country, but I don't necessarily agree that it is outdated. But that's another discussion, that has little to do with my original post.

[rickyrick]

I do sometimes post doom and gloom.
But, that’s because I live in a state that passes or at least attempts to pass gun restrictions every election.
I do believe in the constitution and the bill of rights as written, but large numbers of the population do not.

The constitution in no way limits a particular type of weapon or any weapon features. Any restriction is a violation of the second amendment.

[M88]

I hear your pain Rickyrick. I live in the RELATIVELY gun friendly state of Pennsylvania. We actually have open carry here, although 95% of the people don't seem to know that. So, while I CAN strap my Vaquero on my waist and walk around in public WITHOUT a permit, at least here in SW PA, I would attract unwanted attention and there is really no need to do that. The Sig P938 in my pocket is my peace of mind. As one heads west to more rural PA, it would be OK, and I see people open carry as soon as I get couple hours west of the Philadelphia area. For those that have tried that in SE PA, people call 911 and they have been confronted by police pretty quickly. My personal take on that? While it is perfectly legal, unless absolutely necessary, why do that and attract that kind of attention other than to make a point! Also, as I said any PA citizen CAN strap a gun on their waist without a CC permit. HOWEVER, according to a cop I talked to at a gun show, as soon as you get into your car with that weapon (unless you're heading to the range or a gun shop), it is now concealed once you close your car door, even if it is on the seat next to you exposed. I live in PA, but am surrounded on three sides by MD, NJ and NY, which are not gun-friendly, and don't recognize PA permits. That is why I often do not carry every day, as I need to run across the border into those states for various reasons, and I would be a felon in that case.

Again... back to my original post, THAT is precisely why I try and tactfully correct false anti-gun narratives from the folks that are spreading them. I've planted lots of seeds and even changed peoples mind by TACTFULLY simply telling them the truth.

[44 AMP]

HOWEVER, according to a cop I talked to at a gun show, as soon as you get into your car with that weapon (unless you're heading to the range or a gun shop), it is now concealed once you close your car door, even if it is on the seat next to you exposed.

I'd suggest that a cop at a gun show is NOT qualified legal advice. No cop anywhere is, and there's nothing penalizing them if they give you completely inaccurate information. Look at the laws, yourself, or get a lawyer to do it and give you a qualified professional legal opinion (and for a fee) but don't take a cop's advice as fact just because they are a cop. Trust, but VERIFY!

Lots of people have been busted for a crime that existed only in the cop's interpretation of the law, and we seldom hear of it, simply because the DA tossing the charges out isn't newsworthy.

It would seem to me that a gun in plain sight inside a vehicle isn't concealed, but I don't know the exact law in your state, all I'm saying is not to take the cop's word alone.

There is a situation where a gun can legally be "loaded" without any ammunition physically in the gun. Sounds stupid, but its true, in some places because of the way the laws are worded. Some places, a gun isn't loaded unless there is ammunition inside it. Other places, if the gun, ammo, and you are all in the same compartment of the vehicle, the gun is legally loaded, even though it may not be physically loaded.

Cop A may tell you something, and Cop B bust you for doing exactly what Cop A said. Get independent advice from other sources, and you are better informed.

one thing about military grade, it is often not what most people think it is. I have no idea what it is today, but I do remember the "military grade", overseas shipment acceptance standard for accuracy of the M16A1 rifle in the 70s. 8 MOA. EIGHT MINUTE OF ANGLE was acceptable accuracy for the rifle to be shipped overseas for combat use. Rifles that shot worse than that were retained in the states, for training use.

And, interestingly enough, no unit I was ever involved with ever tested their rifles to see if they met that standard. including units overseas.

There is a "military grade" standard for everything the military uses and does. Whether or not items meet that standard, or are even tested against it, is another matter.