38 votes

UPDATE 2: Best Website to Forward to the Uninformed Anti-Gun Crowd: The Truth About Assault Weapons

I didn't see that anyone had posted this link, but I found it extremely straight-forward and informative. My only complaint is that they do not defend the right of citizens to own fully automatic weapons, something I do advocate.

http://www.assaultweapon.info/

Thoughts?

UPDATE: From DPer kingramon0 in the comments below:

I posted this on Facebook, and a friend of mine had this to say:

"Interesting message, but note that there are a lot of complete untruths in this slide show.

This is an M16A1, which was fully automatic
http://images.wikia.com/deadliestfiction/images/d/dd/M16a1.jpg
is not even produced anymore.

The M16A4, which is used by Marines today, is NOT automatic:
http://etbeasts.webs.com/photos/M16.jpg

Also, the M4 is the Marines' automatic version, but looks exactly like an AR-15 (which is not): http://img.redwolfairsoft.com/upload/product/img/RWC-DIY-038...

However, the M2, from the 1940s, was fully automatic, yet has no ominous look about it:
http://jamesdjulia.com/auctions/327/images/lrg/44984.jpg

Also the most important error is that a "machine gun" is by definition not a rifle at all, but a belt fed weapon which can actually fire those 800 rounds per minute---a rifle's barrel would overheat and bend or fuse, which is why those 100 round drums aren't even used."

Does anyone know how to contact the person that made that site? Maybe he would not mind some extra info.

And from DPer Tired of Tyranny also in the comments below:

They said there were 8583 'murders' in the USA in 2011 by guns but that is incorrect. There were 8583 homicides by guns, but that included 400 by the police that were justified and 260 by armed citizens that were justified. So the murders were of 7923 and this was not broken down by the stats into those involved in gang wars.

The USA ranks #1 in the world in the rate of armed citizens, but is only #28 in the world in gun homicides.

This was covered in the 'Reality Check' video that was posted several days ago:

http://www.dailypaul.com/269171/reality-check-gun-and-homici...

In comparison, about 115 people are killed in auto accidents in the USA Every Day. And, more people have been struck by lightening over the last 10 years in the USA than have been victims of mass shootings during that time period.

UPDATE 2: From DPer wvmarj in the comments below in response to kingramon0:

I was in the Marines...

The M16A1, was the only fully automatic M16 held by the Armed Forces (mainly Vietnam). The govt changed to a semi-automatic and three round burst model after Vietnam to prevent soldiers from doing the pray and spray and to require them to take more well-aimed shots. The next model of the M16 was the M16A2 which was used all the way until I joined. So they were still using the A2 in 2004-2007? Is my guess when my unit got M16A4's and a fair amount if M4's that were only given to NCO's and up.

The A2, A4, and M4 are ALL Semi-automatic/three-round burst weapons. The M4 IS NOT AN AUTOMATIC! And in my opinion it does not look like an AR-15. The traditional AR-15 more reflects the M16A2 model with no handrails and only two hand guards. However, I suppose the AR-15 can be modified to however you want it. The A4 has multiple handrails and hand guards, as does the M4 today, which allows for many more attachments and modifications. The only difference between the A2 and A4 (besides the handrails) is the A4 is slightly more accurate and has slightly different elevation and windage adjustments.

Visual differences in the M16A1, A2, M4, and A4 from top to bottom:
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:M16a1m16a2m4m16a45wi.jpg

The M2 referenced in that picture is not an actual M2 at all. Rather, it looks like an M1carbine (shorter version of the full-sized M1). The M1 Carbine was semi-automatic, not fully automatic. Since your friend is referencing the 40's. I'm guessing he's meaning an M1 Carbine and since he is indicating it's fully auto, he is most likely referencing the M2 CARBINE, which is not be confused with an M2 which I will explain below. The M2 CARBINE (emphasis added), is a fully automatic version of the M1 carbine, but is not simply known as an "M2".

An M2 looks nothing like that picture. In fact an M2 shoots .50 caliber rounds, is a fully automatic (also has a selector knob for semi-automatic), and can cause fleshly damage just passing you, albeit very closely. The M2 nomenclature is often referred to as the "Ma"-Deuce. Get it?

M2: http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Machine_gun_M2_1.jpg
M1 Carbine: http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:M1_Carbine_Mk_I_-_USA_-_...

As far as his definition of fully-automatic, I'm not sure where he got that from and it could possibly be the real definition, but in my opinion, a fully automatic weapon does not have to belt-fed to qualify, but rather only needs to be able to continually fire upon squeezing and holding the trigger down until the need to reload or until you lift your finger off the trigger. So no semi automatic weapon or burst weapon would apply since it will not continually fire if trigger is squeezed and held. So any weapon that can do that, whether belt, magazine, or drum fed is an automatic weapon.

Anyway...just thought I would clarify and put my two cents in.

Let the constructive criticism [ <-- bad language warning on the 2nd link! ] continue...

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

He didn't say fully automatic

He didn't say fully automatic weapons were belt fed, he said Machine Guns were belt fed. He is partly correct. Technically, the fully-automatic rifles would be classified as sub-machine guns, since machine guns are mounted on something rather than hand-held.

Again he is still wrong...

For instance the M249 SAW (Squad Automatic Weapon) is considered to be a light machine gun. It fires .223 rounds as ammunition, it is easily portable and can be fired using it's bi-pod or can be fired from the standing position if need be. It is not a mounted machine gun yet still bears the title "machine gun". The SAW is both belt and drum fed and can also utilize M16 magazines to fire. Does that not make it a machine gun if you fire it using magazines instead of a belt?? No it doesn't.

Same thing with a M240G, which is considered a medium machine gun due to its firepower. It is heavier than a M249 and fires a 7.62 mm round, which packs a much heavier punch and extends the distance at which a target can be engaged. This is a belt-fed weapon that is still carried on patrols and can utilize a bi-pod or tri-pod. iIt was my favorite weapon to fire in the Marines and I loved going on humps with one and carrying it around. Since it does not need to be mounted all the time, does that not make it a machine gun? Is it's title incorrect? I don't think so.

Also, by that definition, a fully automatic M16A1 would be considered a sub-machine gun but it's not. Rather a sub-machine gun is any weapon that fires automatically and utilizes handgun cartridges, like a Thompson sub machine gun which utilizes .45 acp rounds and are generally utilized in closer combat scenarios.

The fact of the matter is, your friend is not ever fully right. Was he fairly close? Sure he had some truths, but it really is bothersome that it was passed off as correct and included in the original post when a majority of what he said wasnt really right. That's what frustrates me at times on any post. Something being passed off as truth when it's not. Moreover, when someone says something about the Marines and what we use/do that is completely wrong, such as his commentary on the M4 being an automatic and in regards to our beloved Ma-Deuce, it will bug any Marine. I'm sorry!

great info

I didn't think it was too long. I like a slide show that moves fast through many slides, without each slide being crowded.

“With laws shall our land be built up, but with lawlessness laid waste.”
-Njal Thorgeirsson

Incrementalism

Incrementalism is usually how you win in these things. We won't get legal automatics for a while. We're only just getting concealed carry and assault weapons. Now, we'll have to avoid any losses. Next we can push for constitutional carry and get rid of gun free zones. Only after existing legal guns are liberalized will we be able to get anywhere on automatic weapons.

Needs to be a 30 second Youtube with music

I mean we're talking about people who rely on Facebook or Obama for what to do.

BTW, I think we need to start arguing to get full auto and suppression back. You shouldn't even need a CHL in any state.

We need to start pushing back instead of trying to inform self-made ingorant people who mostly don't care.

================================
Fight the Ron Paul blackout on the Daily Paul (now 'P AU L'), put his removed poster back as your avatar:
http://www.mediafire.com/?9ir62bp8nshv83m

Rule 8!

Rule 8! :P

I'm a serial entrepreneur and liberty activist from Texas!

www.RevolutionCarBadges.com
www.NonNetwork.com

A few mistakes?

I posted this on Facebook, and a friend of mine had this to say:

"Interesting message, but note that there are a lot of complete untruths in this slide show.

This is an M16A1, which was fully automatic
http://images.wikia.com/deadliestfiction/images/d/dd/M16a1.jpg
is not even produced anymore.

The M16A4, which is used by Marines today, is NOT automatic:
http://etbeasts.webs.com/photos/M16.jpg

Also, the M4 is the Marines' automatic version, but looks exactly like an AR-15 (which is not):
http://img.redwolfairsoft.com/upload/product/img/RWC-DIY-038...

However, the M2, from the 1940s, was fully automatic, yet has no ominous look about it:
http://jamesdjulia.com/auctions/327/images/lrg/44984.jpg

Also the most important error is that a "machine gun" is by definition not a rifle at all, but a belt fed weapon which can actually fire those 800 rounds per minute---a rifle's barrel would overheat and bend or fuse, which is why those 100 round drums aren't even used."

Does anyone know how to contact the person that made that site? Maybe he would not mind some extra info.

Your friend is a little wrong on some things...

I was in the Marines...

The M16A1, was the only fully automatic M16 held by the Armed Forces (mainly Vietnam). The govt changed to a semi-automatic and three round burst model after Vietnam to prevent soldiers from doing the pray and spray and to require them to take more well-aimed shots. The next model of the M16 was the M16A2 which was used all the way until I joined. So they were still using the A2 in 2004-2007? Is my guess when my unit got M16A4's and a fair amount if M4's that were only given to NCO's and up.

The A2, A4, and M4 are ALL Semi-automatic/three-round burst weapons. The M4 IS NOT AN AUTOMATIC! And in my opinion it does not look like an AR-15. The traditional AR-15 more reflects the M16A2 model with no handrails and only two hand guards. However, I suppose the AR-15 can be modified to however you want it. The A4 has multiple handrails and hand guards, as does the M4 today, which allows for many more attachments and modifications. The only difference between the A2 and A4 (besides the handrails) is the A4 is slightly more accurate and has slightly different elevation and windage adjustments.

Visual differences in the M16A1, A2, M4, and A4 from top to bottom:
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:M16a1m16a2m4m16a45wi.jpg

The M2 referenced in that picture is not an actual M2 at all. Rather, it looks like an M1carbine (shorter version of the full-sized M1). The M1 Carbine was semi-automatic, not fully automatic. Since your friend is referencing the 40's. I'm guessing he's meaning an M1 Carbine and since he is indicating it's fully auto, he is most likely referencing the M2 CARBINE, which is not be confused with an M2 which I will explain below. The M2 CARBINE (emphasis added), is a fully automatic version of the M1 carbine, but is not simply known as an "M2".

An M2 looks nothing like that picture. In fact an M2 shoots .50 caliber rounds, is a fully automatic (also has a selector knob for semi-automatic), and can cause fleshly damage just passing you, albeit very closely. The M2 nomenclature is often referred to as the "Ma"-Deuce. Get it?

M2: http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Machine_gun_M2_1.jpg
M1 Carbine: http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:M1_Carbine_Mk_I_-_USA_-_Armémuseum.jpg

As far as his definition of fully-automatic, I'm not sure where he got that from and it could possibly be the real definition, but in my opinion, a fully automatic weapon does not have to belt-fed to qualify, but rather only needs to be able to conintually fire upon squeezing and holding the trigger down until the need to reload or until you lift your finger off the trigger. So no semi automatic weapon or burst weapon would apply since it will not continually fire if trigger is squeezed and held. So any weapon that can do that, whether belt, magazine, or drum fed is an automatic weapon.

Anyway...just thought I would clarify and put my two cents in.

OK here's the deal. The

OK here's the deal. The definition of an automatic weapon is one that fires more than one round per squeeze of a trigger, I.E. both burst and fully-automatic. It doesn't matter if it's two rounds or infinite rounds. (Ever wonder why you never see burst-fire weapons in a retail store? They're Class 3 and defined as machine guns, hence the 1986 crap and NFA registration, etc.)

A machine gun is defined as any weapon which falls into the 'automatic' category, whether it is burst or fully-auto. If it fires more than one round per trigger pull, it is considered a machine gun.

These weapons are better defined by the ATF than I'm doing here. If it's more than semi-automatic, it's considered to be a machine gun. Period. That being said, the ATF does not differentiate in registration whether it is burst fire, fully automatic, or semi, burst, and full in your paperwork. All that matters is that it is A MACHINE GUN, and it is registered as such. The government has automatic and semi-automatic pretty well defined, I'll give them that.

Also, the A3 was not ever fully adopted, but used by certain units for certain missions. It is actually two different versions of the M16 that in both editions is fully-automatic. The only difference is the rail system. I'm not sure why somebody said the A4 is not automatic. It is burst fire. I carried one for a few years before I got an M4. Trust me, I know. If it has an auto sear, it's considered automatic.

The M4 IS CONSIDERED TO BE FULLY AUTOMATIC. The only difference between full auto and three round burst is the array of disconnectors in the trigger that engage the stop on the hammer. If you left the same auto sear in the same place and put in a slightly different trigger and one disconnector instead of 3, you would have a fully automatic weapon. Again, 3 round burst is considered to be fully automatic. The reason civilian ARs are not considered this way is because it takes quite a bit of work to convert a semiautomatic one to fully automatic. You have to get a different safety, trigger, disconnector, hammer, and drill out the back of the receiver so it will accept an auto sear. (Or you can get drop-ins, which are actually considered to be the machine guns and are registered as such, or lightning links, etc.)

Plus, you have to get a full-auto bolt instead of the cut-out standard semi-autos that come in almost all civilian ARs.

That being said, I wish the site would have provided a visual reference to pre v. post ban weapons to show the difference, or the lack thereof. Most people are extremely stupid and won't read anything. They need pictures to keep their attention.

You just realized that 4/6 faces on federal reserve notes all opposed a central bank.

There is a difference in terms here

While the ATF CFR says, "Machine gun. Any weapon which shoots, is designed to shoot, or can be readily restored to shoot, automatically more than one shot, without manual reloading, by a single function of the trigger. The term shall also include the frame or receiver of any such weapon, any part designed and intended solely and exclusively, or combination of parts designed and intended, for use in converting a weapon into a machine gun, and any combination of parts from which a machine gun can be assembled if such parts are in the possession or under the control of a person," you're correct that it does not differentiate between the types of "automatic" or types of "machine guns." You and I will have objectively different meanings for some things, but personally, I have never ever in my service in the Marines seen what I would consider a fully automatic M16/M4. Nor have i ever heard of them referred to as that. I carried an A2 for 2 years, an A4 for about 2 years, and an M4 for 3 years. You would have to modify it for it to be what I would say is "fully automatic", i.e. firing continually while depressing and holding the trigger until the need to reload, a stoppage occurs, or until you willfully release your finger off the trigger. I have never heard of an M16 or M4 be referred to as an "Automatic". Nor would i consider a burst weapon to be "fully automatic". It has only been to described as a semi-auto and burst weapon. Never fully automatic. What has always been referred to as a a fully automatic and an actual machine gun, have even exactly what I would consider a machine gun, with the definition I stated before, i.e. SAW, 240, .50, M60 and MK19 (withholding machine gun w/AUTOMATIC grenad launcher instead."

Anyway...that being said, that's just my opinion despite what the CFR definition is. I think it's wrong and we're just nit picking at terms, so it doesn't really matter much whether we agree or not. Take care man.

Thank you for saving me the lengthy reply

I think the original poster put in good effort -but you damn well better have your facts straight if you are going to play in the big leagues on such a hot issue. There is no room for mistakes.

Your post is spot on. The real reason for the M4 was the need for a shorter weapon that was more tailored to the urban warfare of Iraq.

Semper Fi from the A2 era - lol.

Haha!

Thanks bro...Semper Fi from everything but the A1 era! Haha

good

very helpful

Very informative.

But I refuse to have anything to do with nra. They are part of why we are in this situation in the first place.

http://gunowners.org "The ONLY no-compromise gun lobby in Washington" - Ron Paul

http://revolutioncarbadges.com

"What if the American people learn the truth" - Ron Paul

Anti-gun liberals

Acknowledge our government sends our troops to die and kills people in other countries in massive numbers for corporate interests, then they say trust that same government with all the guns here at home. Where's the logic?

I mean, it's not like we have any resources on private land, here at home, those corporations might want to pillage. Ground water (Nestle), farm land (Monsanto), oil (Exxon Mobil).

Good explanation. But theres

Good explanation. But theres a ridiculously way too many slides to keep my attention. I kept sliding just to see how long it was. This is too long for anybodys attention span. Im a supporter of firearms and the 2nd amendment, and i was already disinterested.

"Ridiculously" is a bit much....

I'd have to respectfully disagree. I mean, yes there's several 1-2 sentence slides (to keep it within the average American's attention span), but if you strung all them together, I bet it would be just as long as a typical article. I thought the interactive format was fine, and not too lengthy, but I'm sure some people will feel it was too long. As the saying goes...well I don't know the saying, but something about the attention span of a gnat!

I'm a serial entrepreneur and liberty activist from Texas!

www.RevolutionCarBadges.com
www.NonNetwork.com

Thank you

Shared on Twitter.

LL on Twitter: http://twitter.com/LibertyPoet
sometimes LL can suck & sometimes LL rocks!
http://www.dailypaul.com/203008/south-carolina-battle-of-cow...
Love won! Deliverance from Tyranny is on the way! Col. 2:13-15

School Security

Armed Janitor = Man with gun around kids, potentially could go psychotic.

Security Guard = Responsible man with gun who keeps your kids safe.

Security Guard, who also cleans = Armed Janitor.

The point is, my and many other's initial reaction to armed janitors, is can we trust them. It made me nervous. This indisputable logic showed me how ridiculous my initial reaction was.

Obviously another argument is that there is nothing stopping a psychotic janitor from bring a gun to school now, and it doesn't happen.

Idea is sound, execution fails.

I really highly approve of the idea, I just dont think it will make an impact.

Dont all bite me at once.

The flow is too slow. Anyone not already in the know is going to get bored or frustrated. There is nothing gripping, compelling to cause someone that HATES ASSAULT WEAPONS to actually read thru to the end, of even past the first couple slides.

reworked to be gripping, maybe a little entertaining, with more visual impact, and unfortunately less reading, and I think you might be able to get a larger audience to progress through your slides.

Good point...

I should have suggested we send it to people who know little, are neutral, or want to learn more about gun control rather than those who are already anti-gun!

BTW, I did not make this website.

I'm a serial entrepreneur and liberty activist from Texas!

www.RevolutionCarBadges.com
www.NonNetwork.com

Emotions

I concur... I'm recognizing more an more that most of us are governed by emotions. This web presentation is clean, but I doubt anybody who is already emotionally swayed toward the banning of guns will likely not be swayed the other way with logic / reason. That being said, those who are neutral or uneducated about the categories or variations on guns and labels might be well served with the info.

In short...

It's a term formulated by a politically motivated group and perpetuated by the media to have a desired result!

When Fascism goes to sleep, it checks under the bed for Ron Paul!

Very informitive

Very good presentation.

Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.

John Adams

Errors . . . but good website

They said there were 8583 'murders' in the USA in 2011 by guns but that is incorrect. There were 8583 homicides by guns, but that included 400 by the police that were justified and 260 by armed citizens that were justified. So the murders were of 7923 and this was not broken down by the stats into those involved in gang wars.

The USA ranks #1 in the world in the rate of armed citizens, but is only #28 in the world in gun homicides.

This was covered in the 'Reality Check' video that was posted several days ago:

http://www.dailypaul.com/269171/reality-check-gun-and-homici...

In comparison, about 115 people are killed in auto accidents in the USA Every Day. And, more people have been struck by lightening over the last 10 years in the USA than have been victims of mass shootings during that time period.

SPECATACULAR Website!

..And a concise, comprehensive collection of the facts.

Thanks for posting this.
Please check out my channel:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TkS2BRoCd2I&list=PLtgXgpa2i2W...

Britain's Gun Ban...overwhelmingly viewed in retrospect with much lament on the part of their citizens...except the fugitive known as:
PIERS MORGAN...now working the same disinfo that precipitated the draconian laws now woefully regretted by UK Citizenry.

Thanks again for your post...I will share this most certainly.
The parallels are mind-blowing!

"Beyond the blackened skyline, beyond the smoky rain, dreams never turned to ashes up until.........
...Everything CHANGED !!

cool

bump

"The two weakest arguments for any issue on the House floor are moral and constitutional"
Ron Paul

Agreed! BUMP!

This cannot go un-noticed.

"Beyond the blackened skyline, beyond the smoky rain, dreams never turned to ashes up until.........
...Everything CHANGED !!