You didn't build that... AR
- Thread starter Frankly
- Start date
Uzi
.308 Win
It maybe a rifle or pistol in a legal sense, but it's no operational firearm.
A person has to build the stripped lower receiver into something that functions as a firearm. A multi caliber lower doesn't shoot anything anything until the conscious decision to build an actual pistol or rifle and caliber choice is made. You can use many words to substitute build, some are better suited, but the word build qualifies in definition for that action too, and that's a fact jack. Whether it's difficult or you completed your own fabrication with it doesn't matter. Not even my opinion, just the reality of things....
Marine Cpl
.577 Tyrannosaur.
In that case if laws are not to be followed, an AR pistol is no pistol at all if you want to get down to it even though it is according to the law. So in all reality, you are building a short barreled rifle with an inferior stock.
Or if you follow the law, you are assembling a pistol from a firearm that was built by someone else.
So which is it. Are you a law abider or a law breaker?
spat
.700 Nitro Express
Gun laws confusing ? Couldn't be.....
How about this, you can build a machinegun or silencer out of parts that themselves are machinegun and silencers.....
But a bare receiver is a firearm (ATF, NOT NY), even though you can't even load a bullet into it, let alone fire one.
A paper clip can *be* a machinegun if you turn it into a part that will allow a rifle to fire full auto....
You can build a rifle or shotgun from a pistol by adding a longer barrel and a stock, but you can't build a pistol out of a rifle by removing the stock and shortening the barrel....
You can have 2 identical firearms where one is legallying a pistol and the other is an SBR that must be registered, the only difference being that one receiver was once assembled as a rifle and the other wasn't.
Marine Cpl
.577 Tyrannosaur.
So since you guys are lawbreakers because you want to get down to reality and call a spade a spade regardless of what the law says, then you didn't build anything. You assembled a rifle with built parts.
ECU Pirates
.308 Win
The legal sense is all that matters for guns. If one wishes to stay legal that is. Sig 320. If I just buy the frame then make my own slide, barrel and grip it's still a sig made by sig. My permit will say Sig 320.
Uzi
.308 Win
I do follow the law, and I already confirmed that it is designated by law. The discussion was aimed at the construction process to make a functional ar-15, not what a receiver is declared by law.
Uzi
.308 Win
Again, this was a great way to steer away from the premise of the thread. I'm not disagreeing with what a stripped receiver is considered by law. I'm again, very well aware.
Uzi
.308 Win
Nope, not me. I've used two multi caliber receivers. Neither receiver was constituted as a rifle or a pistol before I made the decision and built them into a rifle and a pistol. It was a just a lonely ol' couple of receivers until I came around and built them into something they weren't. You don't like that, but it's true. Deal with it.
ECU Pirates
.308 Win
Back to my scotch and hockey. This tread is as pointless as Will's cinder block threads.
Marine Cpl
.577 Tyrannosaur.
I don't think anyone is steering away from anything. The law says you didn't build it.
And I didn't agree to anything. That was pure sarcasm.
At the end of the day, you assembled. You didn't forge and build anything. Krieger did all the research and built the barrel. You just played legos.
And I didn't agree to anything. That was pure sarcasm.
At the end of the day, you assembled. You didn't forge and build anything. Krieger did all the research and built the barrel. You just played legos.
Marine Cpl
.577 Tyrannosaur.
You mean assembled into a pistol or rifle.
Marine Cpl
.577 Tyrannosaur.
Wait a minute. @ECU Pirates has my back? 
ECU Pirates
.308 Win
Unless the guy made his own receiver I agree with you. This is the time you are right like a broken clock. Danm you who ever started this thread.Wait a minute. @ECU Pirates has my back?
Uzi
.308 Win
Hahaha! "the law says you didn't build it" okay a ghost built the guns Will, not me....
That's too bad that even though the word build qualifies as also assembling and vice versa within the definitions, you ignore it continuously. You can say whatever you'd like, but I'm still correct if I want to use the term build. By the way, I made the receivers both physically and legally myself into a rifle and pistol whether or not the receivers were already considered a "firearm". It was me and only me that created a pistol and rifle because they were never designated as anything other than a firearm that can be built into something, so once again you're wrong. That's why a background check needs to be done, because they can be built into something, but it was of my choice.
as·sem·ble
/əˈsembəl/
verb
- 1.(of people) gather together in one place for a common purpose:"a crowd had assembled outside the gates"synonyms:gather, collect, get together, congregate, convene, ... moreantonyms:disperse
- 2.fit together the separate component parts of (a machine or other object):"a factory that assembled parts for trucks"synonyms:construct, build, fabricate, manufacture, erect, ... moreantonyms:dismantle
Speaking of legos, I use to enjoy building with legos, that was fun.
Last edited:
Oh my god I feel like I'm at a hipster bar in Brooklyn. You guys have ironic beards?
Uzi
.308 Win
Nope. Since I can properly use the word built, I chose that. I could argue an equally retarded debate about "assembling a receiver" too, but that's not what the focus of the discussion was even about.
spat
.700 Nitro Express
You know what the thread has devolved into, but you still clicked on it
Uzi
.308 Win
The funny thing about it all is I wouldn't normally use the term "built" either, but since the word meets the criteria of the action quite well, It makes sense.
Marine Cpl
.577 Tyrannosaur.
Not according to the law and that's the only thing that counts.
spat
.700 Nitro Express
I don't believe the word "built" or "build" appears anywhere in the law. Most of what the law regulates is "manufacturing" and "assembly". And according to the law, you can illegally do that by just replacing an upper, or removing a stock (or until a recent change, just holding something wrong).
Looking to the law for clarification about anything other than what will keep you out of prison is worthless.....
Marine Cpl
.577 Tyrannosaur.
And Spat, a ghost didn't build anything. Rock River Arms built the receiver, Gissele built the trigger, Krieger built the barrel, Magpul built the rail, grip, and stock, and you assembled it into a rifle.
Nobody built the rifle. It was assembled via parts into one.
Nobody built the rifle. It was assembled via parts into one.
Marine Cpl
.577 Tyrannosaur.
I love these threads.
Uzi
.308 Win
The only thing that counts is recognizing that the word built qualifies as an accurate description and in place of assembled if decidedly chosen for the original post. What really didn't matter is your choice to steer away from that fact towards the irrelevancy that you keep pushing of what a stripped lower receiver is regarded by law. again. again. and over again.
Uzi
.308 Win
Nobody built the rifle. It was assembled via parts into one.
Just as though it was built into one.
You know what the thread has devolved into, but you still clicked on it
Can't avoid it. It's sad that this keeps happening here lately.
We know.
I'm doing a midnight tonight on a rainy night sitting on the desk. I'm about to ass... I mean buil... I mean. Oh who knows or cares! I'm doing Polymer 80 Glock arts and crafts tonight on the desk.
Acceptable?
Acceptable?
Marine Cpl
.577 Tyrannosaur.
Why is it sad? It's a bunch of guys drinking beer and having fun debating shit. If everyone agreed all the time, there would be no thread.
NY Chamorro
.357 mag
does anybody have a cz75 sp-01 shadow target II that they want to get rid of?