Comments by "Solo Renegade" (@SoloRenegade) on "Forgotten Weapons"
channel.
-
517
-
55
-
35
-
28
-
27
-
22
-
15
-
14
-
12
-
11
-
9
-
8
-
5
-
4
-
4
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
US doesn't have to simplify since we have the 2A and US citizens can just bring their own gear. We did it in OIF and OEF. We brought our own gear and modified our M16/M4 rifles heavily, and just returned them to issued state before turning them back in. Most guys I fought overseas with were better armed/equipped at home than in the Army.
We swapped grips, handguards, mags, triggers, selectors, mag releases, bolt catches, buttstocks, slings, sling mounts, optics, bipods, lights, and more.
1
-
@johnswoboda9809 "using the examples you've given, none of those firearms meet the criteria for an "assault rifle" as Ian defined it though."
Proving my whole point.
"The 10/22 yes can be made to operate as a select fire weapon although that is not a stock option from Ruger. "
nor does armalite sell select fire AR15, yet tons of select fire AR15 exist today none the less. Who manufactured it is not part of the definition. Do try to keep up.
" Also, the 10/22 was designed to be used as a sporting arm for small game and as an affordable, reliable, all-around farm/truck/camp etc gun. It was not designed for military use. "
use intent is ALSO Not part of the definition. INTENT doesn't apply, and you damned well know that. stop making up lame excuses. you're like a wok feminist, trying to justify her actions.
"Some states DO include the 10/22 under State level bans."
further proving me right, that the "definition" is arbitrary and not valid.
"It should also be noted that even though that even the original AR-10 design, in 7.62x51 NATO, is also not an assault rifle because of that full power cartridge. "
.308 is an intermediate cartridge. If you don't beleive me compare its size and effective range to teh .30-06, .338, .50, .416, .300, 7mm, and more. The fact you can't even identify an intermediate cartridge further proves the definition is ARBITRAY and invalid.
The rest of your comment just further validates that I am right. The defintion is invalid, subjective, arbitrary, and nobody can agree what is what, and we can also point to weapons that are not assault rifles yet have all teh definition features, and rifles that are LITERALLY assault rifles, yet aren't considered assault rifles. And if lethality is what they are seeking to control, then an assault rifle limitaion that doesn't apply to large caliber rifles is BS nonsense and proves the defintion is invalid and has nothing to do with safety or anything else.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@johnswoboda9809 No, I just felt like insulting you for your attitude, regardless of my argument.
" I was saying to try (and fail) to generate some sort of support for your position when you're comparing apples to oranges."
yes, you did fail, and no I wasn't comparing apples to oranges.
"You went on this bizarre tangent that compared .22LR to .338 Federal"
no I didn't, I never said anything of the sort liar. 1st, quote me where you claim I did. 2nd, I never said anything about .338 Federal even once, until just now.
.308, .338, .30-06, and more ARE considered intermediate cartridges. Do some research. Here is a quote,
"An intermediate cartridge is a rifle/carbine cartridge that has significantly greater power than a pistol cartridge but still has a reduced muzzle energy compared to fully powered cartridges (such as the .303 British, 7.62×54mmR, 7.65×53mm Mauser, 7.92×57mm Mauser, 7.7×58mm Arisaka, .30-06 Springfield, or 7.62×51mm NATO), and therefore is regarded as being "intermediate" between traditional rifle and handgun cartridges."
So stop making up your own irrelevant opinions on things. your opinion carries zero weight in court of law.
"and the fact that it's the parent cartridge to the .338 Federal that you yourself argued shouldn't be an "assault rifle" chambering in a hypothetical select-fire AR-10"
no, I'm proving that YOUR BS claims means no AR10 can be an assault rifle, even though that will never hold up in court. Again, I never once mentioned .338 Federal in any of my previoous comments. stop lying.
"You're just not making sense and above all you're missing my primary point in my initial response, which was that I was congratulating Ian on addressing a very touchy subject both within and without the shooting community without getting into the political more."
Just becasue you're too dumb to understand the logic, doesn't mean I'm not making sense, you're just not smart enough to follow the logic. Ian was WRONG, his claimed definition of assault rifle is invalid, no matter if I agree with it or disagree with it. If I agree with it, it doesn't include many very real assault rifle type weapons many which are in active military service. If I disagree with it, then we can't agree on an actual objective definition that properly describes all "assault rifles". You have to add too many qualifiers that then applies to non-assault rifles.
do try to keep up.
1
-
@johnswoboda9809 "Congress can pass a federal law that expands or limits the governments authority. In the case of the ATF, Congress conferred on the executive branch the ability to enforce federal firearms regulations. "
that's not true, at least one was made, just not as common. the point was that larger caliber AR10s of many calibers exist.
But go ahead, keep cherry picking and see how that works out for you.
"It IS available in .338 Federal, but as far as I've found, only in semi auto."
and all you have to do is swap out the selector lever and ad a part or two and it's converted. Or you could just run full auto with even less effort. Fact is, the M110 exists, and the SCAR, and others like it. And now we have the new Reaper from Ohio Ordnance.
"Insofar as your "I decided to argue with you because of your attitude" comment lol well buddy, congratulations, you've lowered yourself to the level of my ex-wife and her "I'm the victim! "
you're an idiot. the only one acting like a victim here is you. you whine and complain, cherry pick like a woke Democrat. You love making invalid comparisons.
"Everybody else is the jerk! You're wrong because I want everybody to see me as the victim!""
Oh no, I'm definitely being a jerk to you. If you want to be an a$$hole, I have no problem treating you like one. but this childish false accusation of me being a victim is you projecting your insecurities onto me. you're the one playing victim, and so you accuse me fo it.
"Everybody else is the jerk! You're wrong because I want everybody to see me as the victim!""
I know, but I like doing it for entertainment anyways. I love watching you idiots thrash around unable to engage in factual and logical debates. And it helps me to understand idiots like you.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@emberfist8347 No goalposts were moved. you claimed the "definition" to not be arbitrary, now you must prove it. You used terms in your defintiion that are also equally subjective and arbitrary.
"I got the definition from the literal mechanical definition of Assault Rifle starting with the original Sturmgewher which fired a 7.92x33mm Kurz cartridge."
so, what is that definition, word for word, and what dictionary can I find it in?
" If you don’t know what a full power rifle round is you need to watch the video again as Ian explains."
because there is no such thing, and no such objective nonarbitrary definition exists, otherwise you could cite it.
"If you can’t figure out if a round is a pistol round, you need to really to start doing more research as it is self-explanatory."
"it is what it is", is not a valid argument nor a valid definition.
So, you have failed to provide a citable source for your definitions, and you have more importantly failed to provide a valid nonarbitrary definition for any of the critical criteria you cling to.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@sauliluolajan-mikkola620 and here you show precisely how subjective the definition is, and how it really takes some more qualifiers.
Nothing in the definition excludes rimfire ammo. There is no objective legal definition of an "intermediate" cartridge.
If an AR10 is chambered in .338, is it still intermediate? And would a select fire AR10 then be legal to own without restriction? Is a select fire 10/22 legal to own without restriction?
The M1 Carbine is in every way an "assault rifle" according to those in gov. keep in mind that the M1, M1A, M14, Mini-14, Mini-30, etc. can all be made select fire, as they are all of the same platform, made from the same DNA. So, would it be legal to make a select fire M1 Carbine? According to you the M1 Carbine with select fire is not an "assault rifle", so it should be perfectly legal to own, make, or buy without restriction. Since what is in question here is the Legal definition.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@seanherrmann6301 .308 is intermediate. Compare it to 7mm, .30-06, .300, .338, .416, .50cal, etc. and prove me wrong, fi you can.
10/22 can be select fire and .22lr is a rifle round of the same size as .223 and has been used by military forces.
" You even mentioned the M1A which is the semi-auto only, civilian version of the M14."
you're such an idiot. Did you know the AR15 is the semi-auto only version of teh M16, yet can be made select fire with ease none the less? But according to you the M14 isn't an assault rifle, as .308 isn't intermediate, according to you.
Not ONE person in the comments of this video has been able to prove me wrong with their childish understanding of defintions, law, and firearms.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@GB-zi6qr "I refute everything you've said."
your refusal to face facts refutes nothing. You provide zero valid evidence to the contrary.
" By your original comment and this latest one you're just agitating to create an argument"
yes, I'm creating an argument, one which I can defend, and you cannot defeat. That is what court cases and science are/is. They are arguments. And for an argument to win, it must be logically consistent, valid, and objective, the so called defintion is none of those things.
I am teaching people how to win the argument that assault rifles are BS and made up concepts, which can be defeated in court, and which do not serve the purpose they are purported to be for. What even is the point of having a legal definition and distinction for "assault rifles"? Why even bother? What purpose is served other that to strip people of their 2A freedoms?
"You've intentionally misstated the subject matter of the video just to start an argument."
in what way? Quote me where I did that, if you can. I think you're just a sore loser.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@bigredgunnut 10/22 can be had with select fire.
AR10 are also available select fire. Are you claiming the FAL, SCAR, and more are not assault rifles?
"An AR10 is no more an assault rifle than an old magazine fed Enfield 303."
proving the definition in this video is arbitrary, invalid, and subjective. it's not a valid defintion as it cannot be objectively and consistently applied. the fact you think a .308 is a large caliber is laughable.
"to be an "Assault Rifle" it MUST be select fire."
and AR10s are select fire, as are 10/22. not all of them, but nor are most AR15 select fire either but you count them. M2 is select fire as well. M249 is NOT select fire, so I guess those are legal, huh? Is a STEN gun legal too, since they aren't select fire?
the fact you tried to reduce the defintion to a SINGLE variable, select fire, and then try to claim AR10 select fire rifles aren't assault rifles due to their intermediate caliber size, proves me right and you wrong.
1
-
SBRs, Braces, silencers, are in widespread common usage, and therefore cannot be regulated by the ATF.
SBRs, Silencers, SBSs, etc. have military application and thus cannot be regulated by the ATF.
The $200 tax is a Poll Tax on a Constitutional Right and thus illegal.
The Federal gov cannot create a firearms registry.
Braces make pistols LESS concealable. Knives are also concealable, deadly, legal, and used in a great many murders.
A long barrel silences a rifle as does a silencer. A bow and arrow is even quieter, and it's also legal to put silencers on them.
Legal to own an air rifle silencer.
A victimless crime is not a crime.
Braces are still legal to own, buy, and sell.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@patrickbateman312 define "factory"?
Notice the defintion doesn't specifiy where it was made. stop being a child.
"7.62 NATO is an intermediate cartridge? I mean, compared to .50 BMG maybe, but not to anyone with 2 brain cells rattling around their skull who understands the classification of rifle ammunition. It's a full power cartridge, full stop. "
the .223 is a powerful cartridge too. It can pierce body armor and has devastating affect on humans.
Give me the OBJECTIVE criteria for determining what is and is not "intermediate" cartridge. define it. I dare you.
"but not to anyone with 2 brain cells rattling around their skull who understands the classification of rifle ammunition."
that would be an accurate description of you. That's probably why you can't understand it, becasue it does take more than 2 brain cells, to understand this.
"It is a lightweight select fire rifle fed by a detachable magazine. "
lighweight? I didn't see that in teh definition. now you're making stuff up. Many .223 type military rifles are NOT lightweight at all.
Yet a .308 SCAR, FAL, AR10, etc. are all rather lightweight options. and the .308 pales in comparison in both size and capability to the .300, .338, .30-06, .416, 7mm, and many more, many of which are in active military use for the very reason teh intermediate .308 wasn't enough.
"An assault rifle is a purpose built weapon."
now you're altering the defintion again. Purpose and intent have NO bearing on the function of a weapon.
it doesn't matter what the NAME of the Stg44 is, as it's just a NAME. that rifle did not Define anything. The AK-47 came out shortly after as well, and the M14 and M16 even later. And yet laws are drafted to limit the AR15 and other such designs.
"How does it feel, I wonder, to be so spectacularly wrong on every count?"
that's a good question, feel free to answer.
1
-
You know guns.
You don't know simple math, manufacturing, and the realities of such a conflict.
The US will NEVER run out of AR15 platform parts, rifles, accessories, optics, etc. in ANY WAR for the foreseeable future. IT WILL NEVER HAPPEN. One, the number of parts made every year in the US in peace time is staggering, let alone ramp up for war. Two, there are already tens of millions of these rifles in the US not counting military stockpiles, far more than we'd ever need. Three, your comprehension of manufacturing is rather limited. Nobody is going to stop production of adjustable length stocks, springs, buffers, buffer tubes, etc. to retool for fixed stocks. Fixed stocks take more time/material to make and there is, and never will be, a shortage of the parts in the US in wartime for adjustable stocks. Few companies even make fixed stocks/parts anymore. Also, CNC manufacturing is a thing. Most of the parts you rag on like rear sights are actually rather easy to make these days compared to Vietnam before CNC became almost the exclusive manufacturing machining method (manual machining being nearly extinct in manufacturing, not even counting 3D printing and other methods).
1
-
1
-
@BaritoneMonkey you're adding manufacturing status and criteria. Also, you're adding some sort of arbitrary claim that since not all are capable, then none can be classified as something that fits teh definition. You're also adding an "intent" criteria.
"An M249 is not an assault rifle - it's a freaking squad-based Light Machine Gun."
yet it serves teh same role as a Heavy M16 variant does. the Marines even did this trading in M249 for open bolt HKs. it's not select fire, but otherwise fits teh definition, but since it is stuck on full auto you treat it differently. the M249 is used as an individual weapon, just like an M16. M240B is treated differently.
What do you classify the BAR as?
Intent of use doesn't matter. How it is actually used matters.
"Look, I understand you're coming in with the legal definition of "assault weapons" in mind. Also, I think I understand where you're coming from emotionally"
no, you clearly don't understand. One, if you understood, we wouldn't be having this debate. two, I'm am coming at this with ZERO emotion. Just cold hard facts and logic. My nickname in Basic Training was "Data" from Star Trek, and in Iraq my nickname was "Spock". That's how logical and unemotional about these things I am.
"If you're coming in here to argue with your mind made up - you're wasting your time. This is not how you win anybody over to your way of thinking."
you spend a lot of time and energy avoiding the actual question. I come here to correct people's ignorance and stupidity. If you can manage to prove me wrong, Great! then I'll have learned something new and useful today. But thus far you've failed to do so.
1
-
1
-
@jamesnorland1552 There were 3 criteria stated in the video for an assault rifle. none of them say anything about how manufacturing was done, what the intended use was, nor the %manufactured that were or were not select fire. so to discriminate based upon such criteria requires altering the 3-item defintion to add more criteria, thus invalidating the 3-criteria definition.
Select fire AR10 exist, and are used by the US military. We had them when I was in Iraq and Afghanistan, and they are still in use today. M1 garand and its derivatives were select fire, and if one can be made select fire, any who share similar parts can be made such as well. the M1 was essentially the US military's first assault rifle. Look at WW2 testimonials of soldiers and generals regarding how important and effective it was. It wasn't select fire, but the jump to semiauto was that big, and later the M1 became the M14 select fire mag fed rifle, using the same parts/design, and always used the .30-06 or .308.
"M249 (the full-auto version) is not an assault rifle since it doesn't have select fire (only full auto and doesn't have semi). It is a machine gun, or more specifically a light machine gun."
and yet it is an individual weapon, just like the BAR. it is not crew served. And it was replaced in the USMC by "heavy M16", with select fire and open bolt operation, serving the same purpose as the M249. And you can fire 1 round at a time from the M249, I've done it many times, as it's more accurate and wastes less ammo. Not as easy as the select fire M2, but still doable without difficulty. ALL M249 can take a mag.
And making full auto weapons is easier than making semiauto. so any semiauto can easily be converted to full or select fire.
"BAR is at worst battle rifle, and by definition, a light machine gun."
biased and false. the soldiers who used it loved it, and many have called for a BAR or similar weapon return to service for decades. the BAR was so good the US withheld it from service in WW1. It was no more a light machinegun than the M16A1 was. And there is nothing "light" about the .30-06 round. It shoots a bigger round than most medium to heavy machineguns these fires these days. It was merely a full-auto M1 Garand. same caliber, just full auto. It's clear you have no clue about weapons or their history, or their inner workings. Your criteria and arguments are wildly inconsistent and in direct contradiction with existing gun laws and ATF prosecution.
But even if the BAR was truly a bad battle rifle (assault rifle), that is yet another criteria that is not part of the original defintion you're now adding. whether something is or is not an assault rifle doesn't depend upon how good it was, or how well it performed its role. You're constantly changing the criteria and proving me right, that the defintiion is arbitrary, subjective, and false.
Many of the greatest assault rifles in history weren't select fire.
Here's something interesting, Wiki listing of what is intermediate, and many larger .30 cal rounds are listed, but no .223/5.56. How curious. Note the Stg44, Ak-47, M14, FAL, and more were all .30cal.
"An intermediate cartridge is a rifle/carbine cartridge that has significantly greater power than a pistol cartridge but still has a reduced muzzle energy compared to fully powered cartridges (such as the .303 British, 7.62×54mmR, 7.65×53mm Mauser, 7.92×57mm Mauser, 7.7×58mm Arisaka, .30-06 Springfield, or 7.62×51mm NATO), and therefore is regarded as being "intermediate" between traditional rifle and handgun cartridges.[1]"
"SCAR and M110, M14, FAL are all battle rifles and/or rifles. "
no such distinction exists. they are assault rifles in every sense fo the word. Otherwise you're also claiming the Ak-47, and STG44 are also battle rifles, and thus not assault rifles.
"And no just because you can shoot a target effectively at 300m and can be "served the same function of an assault rifle" doesn't means they are by definition."
only 300m? you need to learn to shoot. M16 can hit out to 600m easy, and some people can hit out to 1200m with an M16. And all the .30cal can hit even further. That was big gripe about the smaller rounds when the military switched from .303, .30-06, .308, etc. was the loss of effective range. You need to do more research. your ignorance is wide ranging.
But once again, effective range is not one of the 3 criteria stated in teh defintion. How many new criteria do you intend to add?
"There are other classifications out there and they overlaps sometimes"
exactly, the defintion is arbitrary and subjective. thus it is invalid as a legal defintion since a person cannot know for sure what is or isn't an assault rifle.
oh, and your opinions, don't count. you don't make nor interpret laws. so you don't get to decide.
"You can shoot an assault rifle at 20m effectively too, does that makes it a sub-machinegun?"
only you would claim something so stupid.
"Now like Ian had said the most gray area of the assault rifle classification is the cartridge. "
you've proven otherwise, as you used a wide range of secondary criteria to try to discriminate, even as I provide clear proof that your understanding of intermediate cartridge alone is false.
1
-
@jamesnorland1552 "I genuinely don't get your point when you keep going against your words. You said "your opinions, don't count. you don't make nor interpret laws. so you don't get to decide." but somehow the criteria should include "how manufacturing was done, what the intended use was" like the designer of the weapon is qualified to make such laws?"
Are you having a stroke?
I am not expressing my opinions. I'm expressing verifiable facts. I'm using logical reasoning and discussing actual defintions, or lack thereof. And I never claimed what you're trying to insinuate, you and others claimed such things, and I was pointing out teh error of it.
try again.
My quote of Wiki proves me right, it proves teh AR10, AK-47, FAL, M14 and more are intermediate cartridge assault rifles per the 3-point defintion. you're not disproving anything but yourself.
M27 IAR wasn't teh only version designed. HK416 is 100% an AR15/M16 derivative in every sense of the word, with common parts.
Battle Rifle is not a valid nor legally recognized defintion. you're just making up more subjective opinions to suit your narrative. ATF would be so proud of you.
" But the AR10 is not an assault rifle."
ALL AR10 can be made select fire in minutes. But that's not the point, some legally owned AR10 are in fact select fire.
"Since you have stated with your acclaimed marksmanship,"
you're stupid. learn to read. I never made any references nor claims to my own skills. Yes, I can hit 300+m with EASE with an M4/M16, but I was citing USMC standards, which require shooting out to 600m, and many youtubers who are shooting consistently at 1200m with AR15 platform rifles and .223/5.56.
"So the U.S Army have defined it way narrower than what Ian actually do in the video that it has to be "short, compact" which is very ambiguous not gonna lie."
that's not "narrower", that's, more broad, more ambiguous. Further proving my point that nobody has properly defined an "Assault Rifle" yet, including Ian. The 1994 assault rifle ban had a different definition, CA, has still another definition. Even the law cant agree what it is.
"fully powered cartridges"
and yet .30-06 is an intermediate, which is what the BAR and M1 fire. Also, the things you call battle rifles have very small intermediate cartridges. and that cited defintion of battle rifle is BS nonsense and even more subjective.
There is no such thing as a "fully powered" cartriddge. this is just childish nonsense written by politicians with no comprehension of reality. Define these terms if you think they are real.
Pretty sure ATF is going to be calling you for a job interview. they love gun haters and people ignorant of firearms like you.
1
-
@random.3665 doesn't matter what the definition is for, it's not valid as far as teh 2A is concerned.
"The weapons you listed would not be considered assault rifles by any western military"
Wrong. My unit had the M14/M1A and M110 in Afghanistan, FAL and SCAR are also military weapons, just to name a few. They are select fire or can be had as such. The definition of Intermediate Cartridge also includes the like of .30-06, .338, .308, etc.
"There is nothing "false" about those definitions from that perspective, and there are not any more arbitrary than ANY definition"
wrong, if a definition leaves people confused and unable to apply that definition as is happening now, then it is an invalid and arbitrary definition. Definitions are required to be objective and logically consistent, not logically self-contradicting.
You cannot exclude the likes of teh M1A, M14, AR10, M110, FAL, SCAR< and more from be declared an "assault rifle" per the three criteria alone. Not unless you intend to alter the definition. They meet the 3 criteria in every regard.
so are you claiming that we require more than 3 criteria, or less, to define an assault rifle?
1
-
@random.3665 Wrong, this debate is ENTIRELY about the 2A, whether you like it or not. Without the 2A, nobody would bother arguing about this.
so, define an "intermediate cartridge". Someone designs a new rifle cartridge, how do we know if it's an "intermediate" or "full power" cartridge? What is the objective criteria?
"A definition being flawed, and therefore invalid, and being arbitrary, is NOT the same thing. "
yes, it is. arbitrary definition is a flawed definition, is an invalid definition.
"The fact that the definition Ian gave (which again, is pretty much the definition all western militaries use as well) confuses YOU doesnt mean its an invalid definition."
it doesn't confuse me at all. it's arbitrary and logically inconsistent.
"As long as people have the same understanding of what the words "intermidiate cartrige", "select fire" and "magazine" mean, the definition is pretty solid, and anybody could easily tell whether a firearm meets that definition or not."
then define those terms.
"When you are telling your troops things like:
"The enemy is almost exclusively armed with assault rifles", your troops - knowing the definition of assault rifle - can instantly tell that the enemy 1) will have trouble fighting at ranges exceeding 500m, 2) will not be able to lay down the same volume of suppressive fire as a machine gun could, 3) will be effective in urban environments.
All of that, without knowing which specific firearms the enemy actually has, just by knowing its an assault rifle. That is a useful definition."
not true at all. I'm a combat vet and this is utter BS nonsense. you clearly have no clue what you're talking about. never once has this been a factor. Assault rifle or not, everything you just stated can be both true or false for any given type of rifle we've discussed thus far. Knowing what you choose to classify some unknown rifle as, tells me NOTHING useful about teh enemies' capabilities. Everyone in teh military knows the M4, M14, AK47, FAL, SCAR, M110, and more are "assault rifles" And most soldiers on both sides lack the skill to hit at 300m even if you gave them a .30-06 sniper rifle. And most "assault rifles" can hit accurately well beyond 500m. Hitting 500m with my M4 and EOTech in Afghanistan was child's play. Marines were required to shoot 600m with their M16 using Iron Sights.
1
-
1