US Supreme Court soon to decide on whether or not Assault Weapon Bans are Constitutional
146 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Jetfire;48914749]Isis pretty much proves that small arms make for a pain in the ass with numbers.
Wars can't really be won with drones, look at vietnam, full force air support and we still lost because they had the numbers and the will to fight.[/QUOTE]
We won just about every single battle in the Vietnam War.
The reason we "lost" is because instead of holding ground, we would drop troops into the jungle where we discovered enemy troops, have a shoot out, then pull the men back to base - the remaining enemy troops simply went back into their placements afterward.
That and we never invaded North Vietnam (for fear of Soviet and Chinese intervention) which was the source of all enemy troops and Viet Cong support.
Tactically, we won Vietnam. Overall strategy, it was a 10 year embarrassment from our generals.
[editline]16th October 2015[/editline]
[QUOTE=redonkulous;48915582]I kind of hope they rule that everyone's right to a musket can not be infringed upon, but everything else is fair game. Not that I want guns banned but I think it would be really funny watching the NRA react to that.[/QUOTE]
The Constitution doesn't say "musket" anywhere in the 2nd Amendment, only "arms" - which was a broad term for guns used for a reason: to cover all guns.
It's like you guys think the writers of the Constitution had no idea that technology can improve, that they thought muskets have always been around and always would be with no ability to produce better weaponry.
[QUOTE=redonkulous;48915582]I kind of hope they rule that everyone's right to a musket can not be infringed upon, but everything else is fair game. Not that I want guns banned but I think it would be really funny watching the NRA react to that.[/QUOTE]
Well then I'm sure the 1st only covers newspapers and soap box stands in the town square, so the government can freely restrict the news media on radio and television as well as shit all over net neutrality because, after all, when the constitution was written none of those existed, so it can't possibly cover them, right?
[QUOTE=InvaderNouga;48915408]The Taliban never went toe to toe with the United States since they almost entirely rely on things like IED's and VBIED's now, meant to harass and demoralize troops.[/QUOTE]
And you don't think that would happen in the United States? Asymmetric warefare is the bane of today's military doctrine. IEDs, hit and run tactics, and overall harassment takes its toll. The Revolutionary war was mostly just that, harass the enemy till you have a sizable force to go toe-to-toe with them.
Also, for everyone who talks about airstrikes, tanks, nukes, and drones. As it has been shown in the middle east, all those things mean nothing unless you have ground troops control the area.You can bomb the crap out of a city, but enemy forces will always come back, unless you have troops sent in to occupy the place. You cannot control a city with drones. Support helps win battles. Troops are what secure winning wars.
[QUOTE=Rossy167;48914157]Weren't all these laws invented when everyone was wielding hatchets and daggers and the really well equipped guys had muskets? It's not really a good idea to hold a fully automatic assault rifle to the same laws as a goddamn musket.[/QUOTE]
I think we need some sort of copypasta, or explanatory image, or something, that we could post in response to everyone who falls into this "assault weapons = assault rifles" trap set by the anti-gun folks.
It'd make them feel really silly. Like Stallman's GNU/Linux speech except not nonsense.
[QUOTE=Rossy167;48914157]Weren't all these laws invented when everyone was wielding hatchets and daggers and the really well equipped guys had muskets? It's not really a good idea to hold a fully automatic assault rifle to the same laws as a goddamn musket.[/QUOTE]
No.
At the time the 2nd amendment was passed, there were some pretty nasty guns available. They would literally rip you in two if you got hit with them.
Modern assault weapons are magnitudes more humane and safe than late 18th century weapons.
I think that the supreme court has evolved into the final say on legislation, rather than a court which enforces the law based on the constitution. Sure, in certain cases it's hard for them to vote with their political opinions, like Free Speech cases, but with things like Citizens United, Obergefell (Nearly half the court voted no), and other high profile cases that ought to be clear cut yes or no, politics get in the way.
That said, I think the second amendment doesn't give a free pass to own any gun you want unregulated (constitutionally, that is).
Even if an assault weapons ban was unconstitutional, I don't think it should be. The constitution was written several hundred years ago when we didn't have the guns we have today. The dangers we have now didn't exist back then. honestly they should probably get together and rewrite the entire thing
[QUOTE=JoeSkylynx;48915377]At this current moment, the US military full expects a 40% desertion rate in the chances of any civil insurrection in the United States. In some areas, mostly the Midwest, that number increases from anywhere to 50% to 95%. Another thing to take into account is that the current infrastructure in the United States is utter shit thanks to decades of neglect and abuse. All it realistically would take for someone to fuck over a major city is throwing a small explosive satchel onto a transformer.
You also have to come to terms with the fact that most US households only have something like half a month's supply of food. If most of the agricultural hubs in the United States go rebel mode, you can expect that by the first winter, at least three to ten percent of the country will be starving in major US cities.
I don't realistically have any statistics, but it's also fair to say that most of the US Militia Movement is actually made up of military veterans, police officers(retired or otherwise), and members of the US National Guard. In otherwords, most of these guys already have training with military equipment and probably have more range time then the standard military.[/QUOTE]
I doubt the USA would survive something you're describing. It sounds like it would break down into a collection of warring states and the chances of reunification are doubtful at best. Many of the institutions developed over centuries would be likely destroyed or heavily transformed too most likely. It isn't too much of a stretch to imagine one of the successor states consolidating itself in one corner of the country and getting rid of the second amendment if it ever came to it.
[QUOTE=UncleJimmema;48914098]10 bucks says the supreme court will decline to hear it simply for the sake of not opening up a can of worms.[/QUOTE]
Supreme court doesn't grant writ unless someone has been harmed or wronged. It's hard to prove that when the worst harm is "I couldn't buy a gun". If you can conclusively state "I couldn't buy a gun and that's why my daughter was raped to death because I couldn't protect her", then that's a different story
[QUOTE=Morbo!!!;48915402]The difference is, with the UK at least, privately owned guns had never been anywhere near as prolific as in the US. As you said, comparing the two is kinda useless, it's easy to enforce restrictions on something when they're barely present to begin with, but if the US government were to suddenly try and implement the same firearms laws as the UK, what do you think would happen?[/QUOTE]
Untrue, before WW1 the UK had gun laws that made Texas look effeminate. Police would borrow guns from passers-by to shoot at anarchists.
[QUOTE=GunFox;48914037]Given that the second amendment blatantly exists to protect the private ownership of firearms for killing members of the militia, the answer is yes, it is unconstitutional. [/QUOTE]
[quote=The goddamn Constitution]A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.[/quote]
The second amendment doesn't exist for rebels to resist the government. It's for citizens to resist invaders.
The judicial debate over the second amendment comes down to whether the "well-regulated militia" clause is distinct from the "shall not be infringed" clause - in other words, is the right to bear arms intrinsic only to members of the militia, or is it truly universal?
If the two clauses are joined, then read-as-written the Second Amendment would permit a blanket ban on all gun ownership for those not in the armed forces, national guard, or police. If they are completely distinct, read-as-written any restriction on firearms is unconstitutional - in fact, a literal reading would permit civilian ownership of nuclear weapons.
Obviously, then, the clauses are neither wholly distinct nor contingent, because both of those extremes are ludicrous. As I interpret it, the "well-regulated militia" clause is there to permit restrictions surrounding gun ownership, but the amendment as a whole may not infringe the people's collective right.
[QUOTE=JoeSkylynx;48915377]At this current moment, the US military full expects a 40% desertion rate in the chances of any civil insurrection in the United States. In some areas, mostly the Midwest, that number increases from anywhere to 50% to 95%. Another thing to take into account is that the current infrastructure in the United States is utter shit thanks to decades of neglect and abuse. All it realistically would take for someone to fuck over a major city is throwing a small explosive satchel onto a transformer.
You also have to come to terms with the fact that most US households only have something like half a month's supply of food. If most of the agricultural hubs in the United States go rebel mode, you can expect that by the first winter, at least three to ten percent of the country will be starving in major US cities.
I don't realistically have any statistics, but it's also fair to say that most of the US Militia Movement is actually made up of military veterans, police officers(retired or otherwise), and members of the US National Guard. In otherwords, most of these guys already have training with military equipment and probably have more range time then the standard military.[/QUOTE]
bulllll shit. Some timothy mcveigh michigan militia rednecks wouldn't stand a chance.
Also, you really think that anyone would take up arms against the government? The people that would start oppressing Americans in some new world order dictatorship shit (republicans) are the exact same people who would gladly say "support our troops" when there's marines marching down main street USA. They're the same kind of right wing nutjobs that oppose gay marriage, think Obama's a socialist, and support NSA spying. In fact, when was the last time any militia opposed the government? Timothy Mcveigh, of the michigan militia, bombed a federal building because he didn't like BILL CLINTON.
Did the militias give a shit when Reagan was in power, doing all his super corrupt shit? When Bush 1 or 2 were in power breaking the law and invading foreign countries on false evidence? No, they supported them. Why? Because they don't like muslims.
Also, since when is a mob rule with a bunch of right wing nutjobs with guns a good thing? However crappy our government is, giving all the most radical elements of the right wing in our country the power to take control over the government would be WAY worse.
God I hope this goes through and it's deemed unconstitutional. Living in the northeast has been a complete nightmare trying to keep my collection from making me a felon. "Cut off this and get rid of that" and for what? The same fucking gun that hippies think "sounds" safer.
the simple solution is to define all fighting-age men as part of "the militia"
[editline]16th October 2015[/editline]
[QUOTE=proboardslol;48916092]bulllll shit. Some timothy mcveigh michigan militia rednecks wouldn't stand a chance.
Also, you really think that anyone would take up arms against the government? The people that would start oppressing Americans in some new world order dictatorship shit (republicans) are the exact same people who would gladly say "support our troops" when there's marines marching down main street USA. They're the same kind of right wing nutjobs that oppose gay marriage, think Obama's a socialist, and support NSA spying. In fact, when was the last time any militia opposed the government? Timothy Mcveigh, of the michigan militia, bombed a federal building because he didn't like BILL CLINTON.
Did the militias give a shit when Reagan was in power, doing all his super corrupt shit? When Bush 1 or 2 were in power breaking the law and invading foreign countries on false evidence? No, they supported them. Why? Because they don't like muslims.
Also, since when is a mob rule with a bunch of right wing nutjobs with guns a good thing? However crappy our government is, giving all the most radical elements of the right wing in our country the power to take control over the government would be WAY worse.[/QUOTE]
lol
i think some of you guys are overestimating how stable US infrastructure is. iirc you can knock out power to an entire county including any military bases within with, like, 6 bullets and good aim
Just because it's unconstitutional doesn't mean it isn't a good law. Didn't you guys also have slavery in the constitution? Also you'll never beat the American army, even with assault weapons.
[QUOTE=kurgan;48916098]the simple solution is to define all fighting-age men as part of "the militia"[/QUOTE]
Thats actually the current argument. Based on time period context, all men are a part of "the militia"
[QUOTE=Satansick;48916119]Just because it's unconstitutional doesn't mean it isn't a good law. Didn't you guys also have slavery in the constitution? Also you'll never beat the American army, even with assault weapons.[/QUOTE]
lmao it's a shit law, it literally just bans certain types of guns because they look scary
guns that are hardly used in crime in any case
[QUOTE=Satansick;48916119]Just because it's unconstitutional doesn't mean it isn't a good law. Didn't you guys also have slavery in the constitution? Also you'll never beat the American army, even with assault weapons.[/QUOTE]
slavery wasn't in the US Constitution. it was mentioned in the CSA constitution but the CSA is no more
[QUOTE=kurgan;48916126]lmao it's a shit law, it literally just bans certain types of guns because they look scary
guns that are hardly used in crime in any case[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Ninja Gnome;48916129]slavery wasn't in the US Constitution. it was mentioned in the CSA constitution but the CSA is no more[/QUOTE]
Haha shit.
[QUOTE=Ninja Gnome;48916129]slavery wasn't in the US Constitution. it was mentioned in the CSA constitution but the CSA is no more[/QUOTE]
[url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three-Fifths_Compromise[/url]
sort of
[QUOTE=proboardslol;48916158][url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three-Fifths_Compromise[/url]
sort of[/QUOTE]
that wasn't really saying slavery was constitutional, more of a reaction to slavery already ongoing, but i stand corrected
[QUOTE=TheTalon;48915636]Something like 98% of gun crimes are with handguns. Or it might have even been 99.3% I don't recall. They're easy to conceal, while a rifle isn't concealable at all, and more dangerous than an 'assault weapon' like an AR-15 because the rounds are bigger (Even 9mm) and travel slower. You can get hi-caps for handguns and even with 15 round 9mm magazines your rate of fire because of reloading will be negligible to a 30 round assault rifle. They both fire as fast as you can pull the trigger and it doesn't take 3 seconds to reload when you're holding your mags, even for an inexperienced shooter
Banning these types of weapons doesn't do shit. It's just a LOOK WE'RE DOING SOMETHING TO DESERVE OUR $180,000 A YEAR SALARY type of thing. If they really cared, they'd go after handguns
In either case, good luck trying to enforce strict gun regulation now. It's really too late to go that route. We have 42% of the planet's firearms[/QUOTE]
The danger argument is completely invalid, a .223 round has more energy upon impact than a 9mm, enough to cause hydrostatic shock, and if a hollowpoint is used the round will cause a much larger wound channel than a 9mm. Due to the shape of the bullet a rifle caliber has a higher ballistic coefficient, they can travel long distances and still be lethal, and can penetrate objects much better due to increased muzzle energy. The longer barrel also leads to higher muzzle velocities.
That being said, I'd rather not see them banned. I'm fine with Chicago banning assault weapons, but where I live the murder rate is no problem to me, people are rarely being killed with assault weapons and they're good fun. Pistols are the obvious choice for self-defense and also crime, so what do we do about that? It wouldn't surprise me if crime rates with assault weapons were to increase following legislation to restrict handguns. There's no right answer.
[QUOTE=gman003-main;48916057]The second amendment doesn't exist for rebels to resist the government. It's for citizens to resist invaders.
The judicial debate over the second amendment comes down to whether the "well-regulated militia" clause is distinct from the "shall not be infringed" clause - in other words, is the right to bear arms intrinsic only to members of the militia, or is it truly universal?
If the two clauses are joined, then read-as-written the Second Amendment would permit a blanket ban on all gun ownership for those not in the armed forces, national guard, or police. If they are completely distinct, read-as-written any restriction on firearms is unconstitutional - in fact, a literal reading would permit civilian ownership of nuclear weapons.
Obviously, then, the clauses are neither wholly distinct nor contingent, because both of those extremes are ludicrous. As I interpret it, the "well-regulated militia" clause is there to permit restrictions surrounding gun ownership, but the amendment as a whole may not infringe the people's collective right.[/QUOTE]
Read the constitution. Like the entire thing.
The militia is an arm of the government. In fact, it is the primary military force of the government. They are obligated to arm and train the militia because thebmilitia works for the federal government. Today we call them the national guard.
So the constitution lays out that the militia is an arm of the government, which isn't surprising as standing armies were rare at the time and militias were actually official government forces, and then we come to the amendments. The first amendments being rights exclusively reserved by the people. The bill of rights. What you suggest would be an amendment that informs the government that it can't disarm....the government... In a section of the constitution reserved for rights of the people.
The reality is that they just finished fighting the militia. Britain sent regulars over, but much of our time was spent fighting British loyalists, not regulars. This gave them quite the distaste for government forces.
So the amendment was put in. They point out that, because you need a militia for the security of a free state, as in it is a necessary evil, the right of the people to own armaments shall not be infringed.
People talk about the phrasing and bullshit, but it really boils down to the simple fact that an amendment saying the government can't disarm the militia, which is a branch of the government and would be how the government would enforce the law, is so fucking ridiculous that I am saddened that anyone entertains the idea. Basically holding that opinion means you haven't read the actual body of the constitution. The militia is mentioned a fair amount.
[QUOTE=Satansick;48916119]Just because it's unconstitutional doesn't mean it isn't a good law. Didn't you guys also have slavery in the constitution? Also you'll never beat the American army, even with assault weapons.[/QUOTE]
The American army would collapse within itself if it was ever ordered to attack American civilians. Those soldiers are Americans with friends and family here as well. Not some government entity that would do its bidden perfectly.
You forget how stubborn some Americans are, it would be a really bad fight but the people would come out on top, especially considering how many in the Military would turn on the government, who would probably also take some nifty high grade weapons with them.
[QUOTE=Satansick;48916119]Just because it's unconstitutional doesn't mean it isn't a good law. Didn't you guys also have slavery in the constitution?
[/quote]
No. In fact there isnt a single mention of "slave" or "slavery in the original document. The 3/5ths clause states that for census and representation that "all other persons" (Taken to mean slaves, non citizens e.t.c) There was a sort of silent agreement that after the period of troubles that followed the original articles of confederation that slavery would just sort of be swept under the rug in order to mantain unity for a couple decades. The next time slaves were actually mentioned, it was the 13th amendment, and that was the abolishment of slavery.
[QUOTE=Satansick;48916119]Also you'll never beat the American army, even with assault weapons.[/QUOTE]
"Assault weapons" taking a bolt action single shot hunting rifle and adding a pistol grip makes it into an "assault weapon" in some jurisdictions. The nature of the ban itself is idiotic fear mongering designed to make the public feel like the authorities are doing jack shit to adress the root issues of gun violence. Giving a firearm a scary name to justify a ban based on arbitrary things such as the type of handle or muzzle break, accomplishes nothing save wasted bureaucracy. Assault WEAPONS, you know the fully automatic actually military grade firearms have been banned for a while and as others have said, caused something like 2 deaths in 100 years. This is functionally a ban on aesthetics in some areas with black plastic being assault grade, and wood being 100% fine to own.
Also, you'll never beat the redcoats, not even with muskets. The goal of the framers was never to ensure that every American can marshall themselves into a resistance army, it was to make it less viable to encroach upon natural rights for the government in power. However, that is a whole nother issue in of itself, and not the substance of this ban.
[QUOTE=Lone_Star94;48915759]And you don't think that would happen in the United States? Asymmetric warefare is the bane of today's military doctrine. IEDs, hit and run tactics, and overall harassment takes its toll. The Revolutionary war was mostly just that, harass the enemy till you have a sizable force to go toe-to-toe with them.
[/QUOTE]
I never understood why people think the Revolutionary War was fought primarily with guerrilla warfare. That's simply not true. In fact, Revolutionary generals and military commands [I]rarely[/I] put much faith into such actions.
People like to prop up the few battles that were won through that way, such as the Saratoga Campaign and say it was the standard when it was often the exception to the rule. And a lot of fighting with the British came through French and Spanish support, not just "good ol' American fighting spirit".
[editline]16th October 2015[/editline]
[QUOTE=JoeSkylynx;48915377]
You also have to come to terms with the fact that most US households only have something like half a month's supply of food. If most of the agricultural hubs in the United States go rebel mode, you can expect that by the first winter, at least three to ten percent of the country will be starving in major US cities. [/QUOTE]
Actually the average amount of food in the average household is only 3 to 9 days, not even close to half a month.
Just pointing out that little correction, not disagreeing or agreeing with your point.
[editline]16th October 2015[/editline]
[QUOTE=kurgan;48916098]the simple solution is to define all fighting-age men as part of "the militia"
[/QUOTE]
[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militia_Act_of_1903]Actually, they already did that. All able-fighting men from the age 17 to 45, which are all counted as part of the Reserve.[/url]
[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;48916345]I never understood why people think the Revolutionary War was fought primarily with guerrilla warfare. That's simply not true. In fact, Revolutionary generals and military commands [I]rarely[/I] put much faith into such actions.
People like to prop up the few battles that were won through that way, such as the Saratoga Campaign and say it was the standard when it was often the exception to the rule. And a lot of fighting with the British came through French and Spanish support, not just "good ol' American fighting spirit".[/QUOTE]
modern guerrilla wars are far more indicative of the efficacy of that style than anything revolutionary period.
[QUOTE=GunFox;48916238]So the amendment was put in. They point out that, because you need a militia for the security of a free state, as in it is a necessary evil, the right of the people to own armaments shall not be infringed.[/QUOTE]
Plus by the [URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militia_Acts_of_1792"]Second Militia Act of 1794[/URL] all able-bodied white male citizens from ages 18 to 45 are eligible for conscription into the militia by order of the President, and, an important detail, are expected to supply their own weapons and ammo.
So the Second Amendment really has two purposes- it's there to ensure that everyone is armed so that they can contribute to the militia in a time of need, and it's there to ensure that everyone is armed so that the militia itself is not the sole possessor of military force once the immediate need for an army is gone, dealing with the necessary evil as you put it.
Either way you want to look at it, the purpose of the Second is about making sure ordinary citizens have access to military-grade hardware.
[QUOTE=Rixxz2;48914764]The military's got tanks, helicopters, explosives, and apart from hardware, training
civilians can't really match them either way[/QUOTE]
Its not like the Military can't have defectors. [I]Oh wait...[/I]
[editline]16th October 2015[/editline]
[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;48916345]I never understood why people think the Revolutionary War was fought primarily with guerrilla warfare. That's simply not true. In fact, Revolutionary generals and military commands [I]rarely[/I] put much faith into such actions.
People like to prop up the few battles that were won through that way, such as the Saratoga Campaign and say it was the standard when it was often the exception to the rule. And a lot of fighting with the British came through French and Spanish support, not just "good ol' American fighting spirit".
[/QUOTE]
And the only times we ever won fights during the Revolution is when we used Guerilla Warfare.
Washington was noted to be a horrible general and put every effort to follow British military tactics when we really really didn't have the training or equipment for it.
[editline]16th October 2015[/editline]
[QUOTE=proboardslol;48916092]bulllll shit. Some timothy mcveigh michigan militia rednecks wouldn't stand a chance.
Also, you really think that anyone would take up arms against the government? The people that would start oppressing Americans in some new world order dictatorship shit (republicans) are the exact same people who would gladly say "support our troops" when there's marines marching down main street USA. They're the same kind of right wing nutjobs that oppose gay marriage, think Obama's a socialist, and support NSA spying. In fact, when was the last time any militia opposed the government? Timothy Mcveigh, of the michigan militia, bombed a federal building because he didn't like BILL CLINTON.
Did the militias give a shit when Reagan was in power, doing all his super corrupt shit? When Bush 1 or 2 were in power breaking the law and invading foreign countries on false evidence? No, they supported them. Why? Because they don't like muslims.
Also, since when is a mob rule with a bunch of right wing nutjobs with guns a good thing? However crappy our government is, giving all the most radical elements of the right wing in our country the power to take control over the government would be WAY worse.[/QUOTE]
You obviously don't realize a lot of militias have vets in their ranks. Infact, that's probably one of the biggest worries is those 'militia rednecks' now veterans providing advice and training to them.
[QUOTE=Craigewan;48914879]I do love America. "We have a gun problem. We can solve this by unbanning some guns!"[/QUOTE]
'Assault weapon' bans are [I]completely[/I] arbitrary in what they ban, being usually cosmetic bullshit. Criminals don't use 'assault weapons' in robberies, they use pistols.
Under the Federal Assault Weapon Ban, any semi-automatic weapon with two of the following were banned:
[b]Telescoping or folding stock[/b]: I can fit my gun into a smaller gun case, big whoop. An AK-47 with a folding stock is still impossible to conceal on your person.
[b]Pistol grip[/b]: Completely arbitrary. The only differences between a pistol grip (i.e. what's on an AK47) and a thumb grip (i.e. any old WW2 bolt action) is user comfort and a thumb grip makes the gun slightly 'taller' when unloaded. Ironically, I like thumb grips more than pistol grips because it makes it easier to carry a heavy weapon and makes follow-up shots somewhat easier as the heavier weight dampens the recoil.
[b]Bayonet mount[/b]: When was the last time someone got bayoneted in a crime? For the matter, how often do people get bayoneted in [I]war[/I]? I remember it was a Big Thing when some British soldier bayoneted some Taliban insurgents a few years back.
[b]Flash Suppressor[/b]: My gun doesn't blind the guy next to me at the range, big whoop.
[b]Grenade Launcher:[/b] Absolutely hilarious. Rifle-launched grenades require tax specific forms to even acquire (and AFAIK 40mm grenades are impossible to get without government connections) and then you're basically put on a government watchlist.
Some states like New York, added even more stupid [I]bullshit[/I] onto the restrictions like limited magazine capacity (usually 10 or less) and non-detachable magazines.
[t]http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_mckjc1OHTw1r9khx4o1_1280.jpg[/t]
This is legal.
[t]https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/d9/Modified_AR-15.jpeg/1280px-Modified_AR-15.jpeg[/t]
This isn't. Completely identical mechanically.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.