TexasCHLforum.com

Liberty wrote:

cmgee67 wrote:I agree that if a battle comes and we have to fight the rifle could be considered a battle rifle. But we most likely will never be in a "battle". To me the Ar will be called whatever role it is in to me. And that's hunting and defensive. Don't get me wrong, I think we should be prepared should something ever happen but I'm not gonna live And worry like it will.

One of the things that drives me nuts is how us gun people get all defensive when someone refers certain styles of guns as Assault Rifles. So who cares if they have a scary name. I sure like the label Assault rifle a whole lot better than "Sporting Rifle" To me it makes the guns sound like a daisy airgun it's a terrible label. These guns are not about organized children's games, they are military styled weapons. We let the leftist media put us on the defensive instead of owning it. They push us around and set the narrative.

Stoner and ArmorLite didn't design the AR 15 to be a sporting gun they designed it for a fight whether it be for battle or assault. I actualy prefer the label "combat rifle" While most of us have no expectation to take these into combat we are all very much aware that this is what they were designed and intended for. We should take no shame in that, and be proud that such guns have this heritage. We don't owe anyone apologies over this heritage and we should remember that the 2nd amendment was all about military grade weapons. The modern quality AR15 we have today is a much better fighting machine than the Jammomatic that was forced on our troops in its day. The lack of automatic selection is a minor thing even the military has been trying to downplay.

I don't own a battle rifle or an assault rifle, I own a scout rifle. It was designed for scouting purposes, although it is doubtful I will ever use it for its intended role. The design for the common style black rifles is for assault, combat or battle. even if its user never intends to use them that way.