you hit on something that always bothered me about the current gun culture.....
darth maynard (Moderators; 19160)
Posted on: 04-15-2019 13:04.
Client: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/73.0.3683.103 Safari/537.36
Message views: 20 (Score: 0)
...go some 25-30 years back when I was a kid, guns that looked like what you could get in the military but still functioned as a semi-auto were rare is not non-existent. I think the civvie version of the M14/M16 came out in the early 90s (and I checked, it was 1990) and really spawned the "modern sporting rifle" movement as far as I can tell.
It created a whole new category also AFAICT. Prior to that what could you buy as a civvie? Shotguns, hunting guns, pistols, etc.
Everything else was Military and LE only to the best of my knowledge.
So yeah, while you can use your AKM and AR-15 to hunt and do sport shooting events, that isn't per se what they were designed for.
It's really odd for me, even someone who owns and enjoy's shooting said firearms, to hear some really bizarre mental gymnastics from the hardcore gun crowd about how "these weapons are really designed to wound and maim, not kill" or, "even though you can get a folding stock, fore grip, upgraded trigger package, optics, reflex sights, red dot sights, night sights, MLOK, KeyMod, Picatinny rail systems allowing for literally Lego-style modification options, and upwards of 75-100 round drum mags, AND bumpstocks, it's STILL doesn't change the lethality of the base of weapon that still only shoots one round as per trigger pull".
It almost seems to me the ability to own a civvie version of military hardware has emboldened the "wannabes" to a large degree.
Sometimes I don't know what to make of it.
“The shepherd always tries to persuade the sheep that their interests and his own are the same.”-Stendhal (Marie-Henri Beyle), novelist (23 Jan 1783-1842)
You do not have the required security level to post to this thread.
Report a Bug!