Beto - AR15 Super Powerful Weapon - Wants to Ban NEW Sales

GURPS

INGSOC
PREMO Member
He is now making gun control a central component of his push for the Democrat presidential nomination

In an interview published by the Hill, O’Rourke said current AR-15 owners ought to be able to keep their firearms, but further sales of the rifles in America ought to be prohibited. In the building up to his call for a ban O’Rourke described the AR-15 as super powerful weapon designed “for the express purpose of killing people as effectively as possible, in as great a number as possible.”

Ironically, Breitbart News took out an AR-15 and a lever action rifle to compare the power of the two weapons. We shot one concrete block four times with an AR-15, and it remains largely intact. We shot an identical block with the lever action and it crumbled in pieces.





Somebody get this man a bull horn
 

Gilligan

#*! boat!
PREMO Member
I wonder who first started the nonsense about the .223 round being "powerful"?? Or is it only "powerful" when fired from an AR-15 and still a weak sister fired from everything else?

Asking for a friend.
 

Clem72

Well-Known Member
Ironically, Breitbart News took out an AR-15 and a lever action rifle to compare the power of the two weapons. We shot one concrete block four times with an AR-15, and it remains largely intact. We shot an identical block with the lever action and it crumbled in pieces.
Look, im a fence sitter on the gun debate. I don't own them, but I also don't have an issue with people who do.

That said, this is a stupid argument. Beto defined "powerful" in that very same speech as the ability to kill efficiently, not how much force is imparted by a bullet.

So comparing which gun is more "powerful" per shot, rather than say a test that could show which gun can effectively kill multiple people quicker is disengenuous.
 

glhs837

Power with Control
Funny, we are not supposed to scared of color, but somehow a black gun is more dangerous than the silver or woody ones?
 

glhs837

Power with Control
Look, im a fence sitter on the gun debate. I don't own them, but I also don't have an issue with people who do.

That said, this is a stupid argument. Beto defined "powerful" in that very same speech as the ability to kill efficiently, not how much force is imparted by a bullet.

So comparing which gun is more "powerful" per shot, rather than say a test that could show which gun can effectively kill multiple people quicker is disengenuous.

But it's no more efficient at killing, or plinking, or shooting varmints than any other semi-automatic weapon. And thats the key, no matter what criertia you use, it's a semi-automatic firearm like millions upon million of others, and scare tactics like this are silly and counterproductive.
 

Kyle

Just being a fly in the ointment...
PREMO Member
I wonder who first started the nonsense about the .223 round being "powerful"?? Or is it only "powerful" when fired from an AR-15 and still a weak sister fired from everything else?

Asking for a friend.
I laugh every time I hear that nonsense.

"Powerful Weapon of War!" :killingme
 

Midnightrider

Well-Known Member
But it's no more efficient at killing, or plinking, or shooting varmints than any other semi-automatic weapon. And thats the key, no matter what criertia you use, it's a semi-automatic firearm like millions upon million of others, and scare tactics like this are silly and counterproductive.
well thats not really true either. The military precursor was indeed designed for the purpose of shooting people. It does a pretty good job of that. A 17hmr or 22lr semi auto isn't likely to be nearly as effienct in that task, just like there are going to some semiauto weapons that are more efficent than an AR is.

That being said, the 'why he wants to ban them' isn't the issue. The fact that he wants to ban them is. Of course what can we expect from a young up and coming liberal, particularly when we have a guy with a R after his name in the whitehouse banning things now and no one is up in arms about it because he is on their side. no one needs an AR anymore than they need a bumpstock. this is the slippery slope we are on
 

Kyle

Just being a fly in the ointment...
PREMO Member
The .223 is an underpowered cartridge and needs to be retired and replaced with the .308, 6.5mm or 30:06

It's only value IS the civilian market place. Shooting varmits and ripping paper.
 

Clem72

Well-Known Member
But it's no more efficient at killing, or plinking, or shooting varmints than any other semi-automatic weapon. And thats the key, no matter what criertia you use, it's a semi-automatic firearm like millions upon million of others, and scare tactics like this are silly and counterproductive.
Again, my issue was with the comparison of "power" vs a lever action rifle. Unless you are telling me a lever action rifle is classified as semi-automatic in which case I will admit I don't know what I am talking about and be quiet. This time.
 

LightRoasted

If I may ...
If I may ...

I wonder who first started the nonsense about the .223 round being "powerful"?? Or is it only "powerful" when fired from an AR-15 and still a weak sister fired from everything else? Asking for a friend.
Dunno. But I bet a M1 Garand would give that AR-15 a run for its money. In distance and stopping power. Using less rounds as well.
 

nutz

Well-Known Member
well thats not really true either. The military precursor was indeed designed for the purpose of shooting people. It does a pretty good job of that. A 17hmr or 22lr semi auto isn't likely to be nearly as effienct in that task, just like there are going to some semiauto weapons that are more efficent than an AR is.

That being said, the 'why he wants to ban them' isn't the issue. The fact that he wants to ban them is. Of course what can we expect from a young up and coming liberal, particularly when we have a guy with a R after his name in the whitehouse banning things now and no one is up in arms about it because he is on their side. no one needs an AR anymore than they need a bumpstock. this is the slippery slope we are on
The military precursor ? Because they are so vastly similar in the fact they both can be chambered for the same round? I’d be happy to use up some ammo in .22LR or .17 HMR if you’d be willing to be the test subject showing that neither of these rounds are as effective as the military precursor.

BTW, what do you think AR stands for?
 

Midnightrider

Well-Known Member
The military precursor ? Because they are so vastly similar in the fact they both can be chambered for the same round? I’d be happy to use up some ammo in .22LR or .17 HMR if you’d be willing to be the test subject showing that neither of these rounds are as effective as the military precursor.

BTW, what do you think AR stands for?
There is a reason the US military chose and then stayed with that platform for so long, and it’s not because it was so ineffective.

It’s stupid to pretend all semiauto rifles are the same. They aren’t.
 

Midnightrider

Well-Known Member


Maybe not so effective.
And it only took them 50 years to figure out they were ineffective weapons?

That’s almost as stupid as you are :yay:
 

LightRoasted

If I may ...
If I may ...

And it only took them 50 years to figure out they were ineffective weapons?That’s almost as stupid as you are
Just proves that we aren't in wars to win them. If so, then we never would have diverged from the M1, and the BAR or the M60. Instead, today, there are so many 5.56 variants and other similar platforms being used. Nope. This is all about the military industrial complex's future funding. Under the category of, testing, design, research and development, and then more testing, design, research and development, with fielding of a new weapon systems pushed back a decade or so after contract modifications and so forth and so on. Until we are back right where we started.
 

Midnightrider

Well-Known Member
If I may ...


Just proves that we aren't in wars to win them. If so, then we never would have diverged from the M1, and the BAR or the M60. Instead, today, there are so many 5.56 variants and other similar platforms being used. Nope. This is all about the military industrial complex's future funding. Under the category of, testing, design, research and development, and then more testing, design, research and development, with fielding of a new weapon systems pushed back a decade or so after contract modifications and so forth and so on. Until we are back right where we started.
How do you explain the AR being one of the most popular rifles among civilians in American history?
 

black dog

Free America
PREMO Member
And it only took them 50 years to figure out they were ineffective weapons?

That’s almost as stupid as you are :yay:
You believe that The Dept of the Army and The Marine Corps haven't had the knowledge that the XM193 and the SS109 bullets loose yaw at 300 to 400 meters depending on rifle they are shot from?
You constantly prove stupid you are...
 

black dog

Free America
PREMO Member
If I may ...


Just proves that we aren't in wars to win them. If so, then we never would have diverged from the M1, and the BAR or the M60. Instead, today, there are so many 5.56 variants and other similar platforms being used. Nope. This is all about the military industrial complex's future funding. Under the category of, testing, design, research and development, and then more testing, design, research and development, with fielding of a new weapon systems pushed back a decade or so after contract modifications and so forth and so on. Until we are back right where we started.
The object in war in most cases is not to kill, its to wound. It takes many more to handle wounded than the dead.
The M16 platform works well for many purposes, desert warfare with long range shooting is not one of them. Jungle and Urban fits it to a T.
 
Top