User talk:205.185.157.11

AR-15
Look, I understand what you're trying to do here, but it's inaccurate based on what the article is actually about, which is the AR-15 and derivatives. Firstly, Stoner's original AR-15 models (the ones with the FAMAS-style charging handle, ie this) were select-fire, as were the first batch of ARs sold to Malaya; hence, AR-15s have been assault rifles and started out that way. Before FOPA's "machine gun" ban there were also legally produced civilian ARs with M16 trigger packs or modified civilian trigger packs for select-fire (and Hollywood armourers are still allowed to do that today), and we can't exactly pretend those don't exist. Second, even if you limit the category of AR derivatives to just Colt-produced variants, you still have a blowback-operated SMG (Colt 9mm SMG, and all SMG / pistol-carbine ARs like the AR57 are blowback-operated), light machine guns (Colt Automatic Rifle, CAR-15 Heavy Assault Rifle, the CMG-1 with a belt-feed upper and lower, and there's also the Ares Shrike 5.56) and a DMR (the Vietnam-era "sniper" M16 with a scope mounted to the carry handle, and Armalite made a sniper version (Mk 12 Special Purpose Rifle), as well as Stoner designing the SR-25 himself). You can't exclude the M16 and M4 from the category either because the modern civilian AR-15 inherits incremental design improvements from the M16 and M4 families, and is far more a derivative of the M16 than it is of the original Stoner AR-15; it inherits the M16's sights, the A2 brass deflector, the charging handle placement, etc. As for shotguns and sniper rifles, granted Colt never did either of those, but there are ARs out there chambered for .410 and 7.62mm sniper rifles like the Marine Scout Sniper Rifle.


 * I get your point but they would best be called AR derivatives. Assault rifle only in the hyper panic driven world of politicized paranoia. I have personally fired JP enterprises Full Auto GMR-13 blow back AR-15 style weapon. Even though do not call it an AR-15 And their full auto 9mm would be rightly classified as a sub-machine gun not an AR or assualt rifle. The technical term used in the industry is the right one not crap created by politicians pandering to some intellectually deficient schizophrenics.

Personally, I think it's more in service of the anti-gun argument to pretend the AR-15 is one kind of rifle than it is to acknowledge that it's a huge, diverse group of firearms that fit into almost every category of weapon. Herr Gruber (talk) 07:47, 14 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Well, Ok you think that about that? Why did you eliminate MSR which it widely recognized as then and the direct quote from the sourced article? Does not add up? Just confusing verbiage.

No more wall of text Hans. You own it OK? 205.185.157.11 (talk) 08:00, 14 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Oh, well semi-auto rifle is a bit more specific and less political as to what it actually is in civilian use, if you put in MSR you're inviting people to stroll in and add "assault weapon" to the categories as well and I'd prefer to avoid that. I thought the full quote was a bit of a tangent for the article since it's not really about that and makes TheTruthAboutGuns look bad, and I do think it's a cute quote about mall ninjas with tacticool ARs even if Spitzer had to make it about sex for some odd reason. Herr Gruber (talk) 08:09, 14 August 2016 (UTC)


 * That is a pretty lame excuse for eliminating a quote. Their is no policy about not including quotes because they make the source of the quote look bad. You should revert that as you look pretty damn .... up there. 205.185.157.11 (talk) 08:15, 14 August 2016 (UTC)


 * I dunno, it's only a full quote of one of the sources anyway and the other two citations (Kansas City Star on February 2 2013 and a book published sometime in 2014) couldn't possibly be quoting an article Spitzer wrote in 2015. Herr Gruber (talk) 08:21, 14 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Bingo And they do not. Why are they even here as they are just sources listed that are irrelevant. Maybe they were sourcing something before that and they did a poor job placing references?
 * I'd assume they're sources for the "Barbie dolls for men" line since that's in the title of the Kansas City Star article. Spitzer can't have invented it for his article unless he has a time machine to tell the author of that article about it, and I think we'd know if that were the case since our article on John Browning would suddenly say he was murdered by a man in strange future clothes. Herr Gruber (talk) 08:29, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Nope, Felsic2 added all three of them together. So I guess yeah, they're all there to support that various people acknowledge the "Barbie dolls for guys" label. Herr Gruber (talk) 08:34, 14 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Assume Away Do not know what you want me to reply to your assumptions? Good chatting!!! Got to do other things, I do not live here. Felsic2 should argue her point then. Apparently you are just taking their word for it without fact checking. You do realize this makes you look extremely inexperienced in trust but verify editing?

I said you own it
Why continue to argue with me? I said you own it so do as you want. I am not making any changes in the near future. But do consider that quotes that are relevant, reliably sourced, and demonstrate context are important to further and clear understanding. 205.185.157.11 (talk) 08:33, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions
Felsic2 (talk) 01:12, 17 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Please don't make personal attacks, as you did here. Felsic2 (talk) 01:12, 17 August 2016 (UTC)