Technically speaking the modern M16 series rifles have a 3-round burst setting that civilian AR-15s don't have. Gun-nuts like to use this "distinction" to claim their civilian rifles are NOTHING LIKE the military versions.

Don't let this fool you! Infantrymen (like me in earlier years) are taught NOT to use the 3-round burst function, as it is generally regarded as a waste of ammo. Besides, we have larger, belt-fed automatics in our infantry squads that are perfectly capable of laying down suppressing fire.

Wait for a lecture on "safety" and the danger of knives...the childish deflections are awesomely hilarious.

...if you've noticed the way pro-gun people argue, they basically just throw word salad out to keep the debate going in endless circles. Wouldn't matter if you could match them caliber-for-caliber and screw-for-screw. You'd end up discussing the fine points of, oh, I dunno, Siberian permafrost, or some such damn thing.

assault weapons ban from 1985 to bait him into it. Of course I got the, "those guns were already banned, you already couldn't own fully auto weapons..." the usual bullshit. I counter with that is what it is commonly known as and only you guys seem to be confused with what we're talking about. I posted a link and some of the text of the actual House bill.

I then pointed out that for the purposes of the bill, they were called semi-automatic assault weapons (SAW) and that was in bold text from the bill right there too. He jumps in with, "no. SAW stands for squad automatic weapon....." More bullshit. Then I told him, for the purposes of legislation, any kind of training you might ever have had at a company, any technical documents you might ever read, you can use an acronym for brevity any time you want. If my blood center has some equipment or a procedure where it would make sense to use SAW, it makes no difference whatsoever what the army calls one of it's light machine guns. If I'm learning to maintain some blood collection equipment, I'm not going to be confused and wonder if they are talking about a machine gun.

'National Recovery Act'.

Thanks

adults, police, innocent people, animals, etc., if we don't know the difference between a magazine and clip (to their satisfaction).

I've seen that BS right here among people who can't even read the 2nd or 5th Amendment correctly.

and its interpretation into an organized religion, and we all know how that mindset twists an adherent's perception of the truth.

1 - handguns for personal protection and rifles/shotguns for hunting; and,
2 - military weapons such as AR-15s that should be limited to military and police use only.

And the type 1 guns should be regulated like cars, meaning required training, licensing and insurance. Concealed carry should of be highly regulated and permitted only when a true need can be demonstrated.

I think this would fully comply with the Founder’s intent when they included “well-regulated militia” in the language of the Sevind Amendment.

would quickly agree with you. Irrational people would argue that unless you know the complete nomenclature and characteristics of the weapons you wish to regulate, and successfully passed the Second Amendment purity test, you could not possibly be trusted to recommend such measures, and should be dismissed as an "anti."

unless we became proficient with guns ourselves.

I called him out on that pile of bullshit.

promoted on DU as we speak...

I refuted him directly, citing my firearms training in the Army, and my unshakeable anti-gun position.