This is a reprint from way back after the Sandyhook shooting..

I think it is very accurate in what an AR-15 is and what it is designed for..

I would also like to have all of these Asault style guns out of civilian hands.. But that can never happen at this late date.. It is impossible to remove over 3.5 million guns of the type.


http://www.slate.com/blogs/crime/2013/01/02/gun_control_ar_15_rifle_the_nra_claims_the_ar_15_rifle_is_for_hunting_and.html


The NRA Claims the AR-15 Is Useful for Hunting and Home Defense. Not Exactly.
By Justin Peters


According to Broward County Sheriff Scott Israel, an AR-15 rifle was believed to be used in a school shooting Wednesday at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida, in which at least 17 people were k**led. The AR-15 is the same weapon used by Adam Lanza, who k**led 26 people, 20 of them children, at Sandy Hook Elementary School in 2012. After the Sandy Hook shooting, Justin Peters wrote that “the AR-15 is very good at one thing: engaging the enemy at a rapid rate of fire.” The original piece is reprinted below.

Justin Peters
JUSTIN PETERS
Justin Peters is a Slate correspondent and the author of The Idealist: Aaron Swartz and the Rise of Free Culture on the Internet.

On Dec. 24, in Webster, New York, an ex-con named William Spengler set fire to his house and then shot and k**led two responding firefighters before taking his own life. He shot them with a Bushmaster AR-15-style semi-automatic rifle—the same weapon that Adam Lanza used 10 days earlier when he shot and k**led 26 people at Sandy Hook Elementary. James Holmes used an AR-15-style rifle with a detachable 100-round magazine this past summer when he shot up a movie theater in Colorado. (Though the AR-15 is a specific model of rifle made by Colt, the term has come to generically refer to the many other rifles built to similar specifications.)

Three makes a trend, as we all know, and many people have reacted by suggesting that the federal government should ban the AR-15 and other so-called assault weapons. Gun advocates have responded with exasperation, saying that, despite appearances, AR-15-style rifles are no more dangerous than any other gun. In a piece today on humanevents.com titled “The AR-15: The Gun Liberals Love to H**e,” NRA president David Keene blasted those critics who “neither understand the nature of the firearms they would ban, their popularity or legitimate uses.” Keene noted there are several valid, non-murderous uses for rifles like the AR-15—among them recreational target shooting, hunting, and home defense—and argued that law-abiding firearms owners shouldn’t be penalized because of homicidal loners who use semi-automatics like the AR-15 for criminal purposes.

I generally consider myself a Second Amendment supporter, and I haven’t yet decided where I stand on post-Newtown gun control. I would own a gun if New York City laws didn’t make it extremely difficult to do so. But I nevertheless find Keene’s arguments disingenuous. It’s odd to cite hunting and home defense as reasons to keep selling a rifle that’s not particularly well suited, and definitely not necessary, for either. Bolt-action rifles and shotguns can also be used for hunting and home defense. Unfortunately, those guns aren’t particularly lucrative for gunmakers. The lobby’s fervent defense of military-style semi-automatic weapons like the AR-15 seems motivated primarily by a desire to protect the profits in the rapidly growing “modern sporting rifle” segment of the industry.

The AR-15 was designed in 1957 at the behest of the U.S. Army, which asked Armalite to come up with a “high-velocity, full and semi auto fire, 20 shot magazine, 6lbs loaded, able to penetrate both sides of a standard Army helmet at 500 meters rifle,” according to ar15.com. When it entered Army service in the 1960s, it was renamed the M16, in accordance with the Army Nomenclature System. “AR-15” came to refer to the rifle’s semi-automatic civilian equivalent. From 1994 to 2004, AR-15-style rifles were subject to the now-expired Federal Assault Weapons Ban. Since then, the rifle and others like it have become tremendously popular. Last month, I estimated that upward of 3.5 million AR-15-style rifles currently exist in the United States. People like the rifle because it is modular and thus customizable (one article calls the AR-15 “perhaps the most flexible firearm ever developed; in seconds, a carbine can be switched over to a long-range rifle by swapping upper receivers”), because it is easy to shoot, and because carrying it around makes you look like a badass.

But the AR-15 is not ideal for the hunting and home-defense uses that the NRA’s Keene cited today. Though it can be used for hunting, the AR-15 isn’t really a hunting rifle. Its standard .223 caliber ammunition doesn’t offer much stopping power for anything other than small game. H****rs themselves find the rifle controversial, with some arguing AR-15-style rifles empower sloppy, “spray and pray” h****rs to waste ammunition. (The official Bushmaster XM15 manual lists the maximum effective rate of fire at 45 rounds per minute.) As one h****r put it in the comments section of an article on americanh****r.org, “I served in the military and the M16A2/M4 was the weapon I used for 20 years. It is first and foremost designed as an assault weapon platform, no matter what the spin. A h****r does not need a semi-automatic rifle to hunt, if he does he sucks, and should go play video games. I see more men running around the bush all cammo'd up with assault vests and face paint with tricked out AR's. These are not h****rs but wannabe weekend warriors.”

In terms of repelling a home invasion—which is what most people mean when they talk about home defense—an AR-15-style rifle is probably less useful than a handgun. The AR-15 is a long gun, and can be tough to maneuver in tight quarters. When you shoot it, it’ll overpenetrate—sending bullets through the walls of your house and possibly into the walls of your neighbor’s house—unless you purchase the sort of ammunition that fragments on impact. (This is true for other guns, as well, but, again, the thing with the AR-15 is that it lets you fire more rounds faster.)

AR-15–style rifles are very useful, however, if what you’re trying to do is sell guns. In a recent Forbes article, Abram Brown reported that “gun ownership is at a near 20-year high, generating $4 billion in commercial gun and ammunition sales.” But that money’s not coming from selling shotguns and bolt-action rifles to pheasant h****rs. In its 2011 annual report, Smith & Wesson Holding Corporation announced that bolt-action hunting rifles accounted for 6.6 percent of its net sales in 2011 (down from 2010 and 2009), while modern sporting rifles (like AR-15-style weapons) accounted for 18.2 percent of its net sales. The Freedom Group’s 2011 annual report noted that the commercial modern sporting rifle market grew at a 27 percent compound annual rate from 2007 to 2011, whereas the entire domestic long gun market only grew at a 3 percent rate.

As the NRA’s David Keene notes, a lot of people do use modern sporting rifles for target shooting and in marksmanship competitions. But the guns also appeal to another demographic that doesn’t get nearly as much press—paranoid survivalists who worry about having to fend off thieves and trespassers in the event of disaster. Online shooting message boards are rife with references to potential “SHTF scenarios,” where SHTF stands for “s**t hits the fan”—governmental collapse, societal breakdown. (Adam Lanza’s mother, Nancy Lanza, has been described as “a gun-hoarding survivalist who was stockpiling weapons in pr********n for an economic collapse.”) An article on ar15.com titled “The Ideal Rifle” notes that “the threats from crime, terrorism, natural disaster, and weapons of mass destruction are real. If something were to happen today, you would need to have made a decision about the rifle you would select and be prepared for such an event. So the need to select a ‘survival’ rifle is real. Selecting a single ‘ideal rifle’ is not easy. The AR-15 series of rifles comes out ahead when compared to everything else.” Depending on where you live, it’s perfectly legal to stockpile weapons to use in the event of Armageddon. But that’s a far different argument than the ones firearms advocates have been using since the Newtown shootings.

Top Comment

. More...

679 CommentsJoin In
As I said, I generally think of myself as a Second Amendment supporter, and a month ago, I would’ve probably agreed with the NRA’s position. But the Newtown shooting caused me to re-examine my stance—as is, I think, fitting—and to question some of the rhetoric advocates use to defend weapons like this. In his piece at Human Events, Keene ridiculed the notion that AR-15-style rifles ought to be banned just because “a half dozen [AR-15s] out of more than three million have been misused after illegally falling into the hands of crazed k**lers.” But the AR-15 is very good at one thing: engaging the enemy at a rapid rate of fire. When someone like Adam Lanza uses it to take out 26 people in a matter of minutes, he’s committing a crime, but he isn’t misusing the rifle. That’s exactly what it was engineered to do.

You might wan'na re-read that part of the article, PR.....

'In his remarks to reporters, Rosenstein also specified that the indictment doesn't determine whether Russia's interference effort changed the results of the 2016 e******n. He said there was “no allegation in the indictment of any effect on the outcome of the e******n.”

Some Trump allies quickly got excited about that, thinking that it meant Russia didn't win the race for Trump. But that's not what Rosenstein said. He was merely saying that the indictment doesn't make a determination — just as the intelligence community's report back in January 2017 made no determination. (Nor would we expect either the special counsel or the intelligence community to make such a determination, given that it's almost completely unknowable what impact Russian interference had.)'

'Update: Sure enough, the White House also claims in a new statement that the indictment "further indicates ... that the outcome of the e******n was not changed or affected." This is a bogus claim.'

You might want to read the article again, PR, as you either skipped parts of it, or miscomprehended them. You even misquoted what Rosenstein said. He said there was “no allegation in the indictment of any effect on the outcome of the e******n.”

Update: Sure enough, the White House also claims in a new statement that the indictment "further indicates ... that the outcome of the e******n was not changed or affected." This is a bogus claim.

IMO, the Russians would have liked to see Hillary exposed for the deals she made with countries that are bent on destroying
American interests around the globe. They hoped that the interference would not be recognized by our country so that everything
would look legitimate in the eyes of our government.
Basically, they wanted to throw Hillary under the bus for any wrong doing. She did everything for personal gain, and didn't expect
to be caught. She had no intention of following through with her billion dollar deals.
So many representatives are involved, that there is a race to cover for their participation in these crimes.
The only way they can make everything disappear is to take down Trump.
If they don't, there will be many going to prison for their involvement!

SEMPER FI

By Aaron Blake February 16

We have the first indictment in the investigation by Robert S. Mueller III that actually has to do with Russian meddling in the 2016 e******n. The special counsel on Friday indicted 13 Russians in connection with a large-scale troll farm effort aimed at influencing the e******n in violation of U.S. law.

The indictment of the Internet Research Agency comes on top of two Trump advisers having pleaded guilty to lying to the FBI — Michael Flynn and George Papadopoulos — and two more being indicted on charges of alleged financial crimes that predated the campaign — Paul Manafort and Rick Gates. Nobody is in custody and Russia does not extradite to the United States, but the document from the secretive Mueller investigation does shed plenty of light where there previously wasn't any.

So what does the new indictment tell us? Here's what we can say right away:

1. It doesn't say the Trump campaign colluded with Russia, but doesn't rule it out either.

Anybody looking for clues about the collusion investigation into the Trump campaign won't find much to grab hold of. If anything, the indictment may hearten Trump allies in that it doesn't draw a line to the campaign, which suggests there was a large-scale effort independent of any possible collusion. Perhaps that's the real meddling effort, some folks in the White House may be telling themselves right now. Deputy Attorney General Rod J. Rosenstein even specified that Trump campaign officials who were contacted by the Russian nationals “did not know they were communicating with Russians.”

But that's about as much insight as anyone can draw; we simply don't know what else is coming down the pike, and any ties to Trump campaign officials may have been withheld from this indictment to avoid disclosing details of an ongoing investigation. The president hasn't even been interviewed yet, so we wouldn't expect any ties to the campaign at this juncture.

Asked whether campaign officials had knowledge of the scheme or were duped, Rosenstein chose his words carefully. “There is no allegation in this indictment that any American had any knowledge,” Rosenstein said.

The words “in this indictment” mean Rosenstein's comments are pretty narrow.

Update: In a statement, Trump and the White House suggested that the announcement "further indicates ... that there was NO COLLUSION between the Trump campaign and Russia." Again, it doesn't provide any direct indication.

2. It just got a lot harder for Trump to dismiss Mueller's probe as a “witch hunt.”

At one point in the indictment, a price tag is put on the effort: $1.25 million in one month, as of September 2016. To put that in perspective, that's as much as some entire p**********l campaigns were spending monthly during the primaries. And that lends credence to the idea that this was a large-scale effort connected to the Russian government.

President Trump has often sought to downplay the idea that Russia interfered in the 2016 e******n — even suggesting he believed Russian President Vladimir Putin's assurances that it didn't happen. This document lays it out in extensive detail.

The argument that this is a “witch hunt,” which Trump has argued and more than 8 in 10 Republicans believe, just became much more difficult to make. And the document would seem to make pretty clear that the Mueller investigation isn't just targeted at taking down Trump, either.

3. We still have no idea whether Russia flipped the 2016 e******n (despite Pence's claim).

In his remarks to reporters, Rosenstein also specified that the indictment doesn't determine whether Russia's interference effort changed the results of the 2016 e******n. He said there was “no allegation in the indictment of any effect on the outcome of the e******n.”

Some Trump allies quickly got excited about that, thinking that it meant Russia didn't win the race for Trump. But that's not what Rosenstein said. He was merely saying that the indictment doesn't make a determination — just as the intelligence community's report back in January 2017 made no determination. (Nor would we expect either the special counsel or the intelligence community to make such a determination, given that it's almost completely unknowable what impact Russian interference had.)

Some in the White House have misrepresented that intelligence community report, up to and including Trump, CIA Director Mike Pompeo and Vice President Pence. Even this week, Pence said at an Axios event that it was “the universal conclusion of out intelligence communities that none of those efforts had any impact on the outcome of the 2016 e******n.”

That's just flat wrong. And you can bet that bogus claim will be repeated following Rosenstein's comments today. The good news: Now, you know better.

Update: Sure enough, the White House also claims in a new statement that the indictment "further indicates ... that the outcome of the e******n was not changed or affected." This is a bogus claim.

4. The effort wasn’t just pro-Trump or anti-Clinton.

The troll farm wasn't just focused on Trump and Hillary Clinton. In fact, it picked sides in both primaries and opposed and supported multiple other candidates.

“They engaged in operations primarily intended to communicate derogatory information about Hillary Clinton, to denigrate other candidates such as Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio, and to support Bernie Sanders and then-candidate Donald Trump,” the indictment says. It says the troll farm had decided whom it was supporting by February 2016, when the primaries were getting off the ground, and it instructed its specialists to "use any opportunity to criticize Hillary and the rest (except Sanders and Trump — we support them.)”

It’s possible the primary advocacy was simply meant to boost Trump and hurt Clinton, but it’s notable that the troll farm effort played in those primaries too.