1
1
0
Finally, I'm not the only one making this case. The idea that the AR-15 wasn't designed as a military rifle has always been a bad argument based on a poor understanding of the history of these weapons. Originally the AR-15 was created specifically to obtain a military contract. In the beginning they were all AR-15s and they were all select fire.
It's always amazed me that we give people who are not familiar with firearms a hard time about their lack of knowledge of them but then come up with our own mythology around the AR-15/M16 relationship.
It's always amazed me that we give people who are not familiar with firearms a hard time about their lack of knowledge of them but then come up with our own mythology around the AR-15/M16 relationship.
"The AR-15 isn't a military weapon..."
Posted from gatdaily.comPosted in these groups: 
Firearms and Guns
Firearms and Guns
Posted 8 mo ago
Responses: 3
4
4
0
So what? The 2nd Amendment was not written to guarantee the rights of hunters and sport shooters. It was written to provide the common man with means of self-defense and to allow for the common man to individually and collectively protect the community and the nation from all enemies foreign and domestic. Read the 2nd Amendment "A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." I say again "security of a free state."
To head off the "well-regulated militia" argument as a pre-requisite for the right to bear arms, show me where the post-revolutionary government disarmed those who were not part of an organized militia under local, state or federal control.
Democrats/liberals/progressives are continually banging the war drum that a re-elected President Trump will be a threat to American democracy. If they truly believe that, would they rather face down his oppressive armed government with 5 round pea shooters or with an AR-15 and some 30 round magazines?
To head off the "well-regulated militia" argument as a pre-requisite for the right to bear arms, show me where the post-revolutionary government disarmed those who were not part of an organized militia under local, state or federal control.
Democrats/liberals/progressives are continually banging the war drum that a re-elected President Trump will be a threat to American democracy. If they truly believe that, would they rather face down his oppressive armed government with 5 round pea shooters or with an AR-15 and some 30 round magazines?
(4)
(0)
3
3
0
There is lots of history about the Armalite Rifles that people don't know. Including the fact that the military contract they were first sold to was an Air Force contract to replace aging M1 and M2 carbines for Air Force Security Police. The Army only looked at it due to political pressure from a handful of congressmen who were pushing the idea that all the military services should be required to use the all same equipment.
But all this debate over obscure things that happened seventy years ago doesn't honestly contribute to any intelligent discussion of whether or not the "AR-15" is a "Weapon of War"
The "AR-15" as most people know it today LOOKS LIKE an M4A1 -- neither of which look much like either the original Armalite Rifle 15 or the XM-16 or the M16
NO ONE today is going to war with an "AR-15" regardless of whether you use that term to mean the original Armalite Rifle or any of the fancy new AR-pattern semiauto rifles. Would the "AR-15" work in war? Actually, in most situations it would work fine for well trained shooters (who are only a small percentage of our military force).
The real question is whether civilians should have access to "weapons of war" -- the history of this country is absolutely clear on that question. Up until the 1930s there were no restrictions whatsoever on what weapons a civilian could own. For most of our history, civilians routinely owned BETTER firearms than those used by the military. Up through the 1930s it was quite common for officers to buy their own firearms because they could buy better guns than anything the Army issued. Even today, civilians can still own real "weapons of war" -- civilians in most states can still own machine guns, mortars, and cannons simply by passing a background check and paying a nominal tax, but somehow people want to panic at the idea that someone who could legally own a machine gun might own a low powered semiautomatic rifle that LOOKS LIKE what the military uses. I can own an M1918 Browning Automatic Rifle, but a bunch of suburban soccer moms want to ban my AR because it looks scary to them.
The AR-15 is demonized as a "weapon of war" strictly on the basis of its silhouette that looks a lot like the gun that people in the military carry. Yes, most of the internals are identical, but that doesn't really have anything to do with it. No one is saying we need to ban bolt carrier groups or we need to ban buffers and buffer springs. The only parts of the AR-15 that the anti-gun crowd are interested in are the exterior parts that make it look like the military rifle.
Lately we have seen several ads saying that most common civilian ARs use "exactly the same ammunition" as the military rifle. That much is true, but no one mentions that the military adopted 5.56x45mm ammunition specifically because it is LESS POWERFUL than either of the previous calibers used in US military rifles. No one mentions that 5.56 ammunition is one of the LEAST POWERFUL centerfire rifle rounds in current production, or that 5.56/.223 ammo is banned for hunting in several states because it is considered not powerful enough to reliably take a deer.
But all this debate over obscure things that happened seventy years ago doesn't honestly contribute to any intelligent discussion of whether or not the "AR-15" is a "Weapon of War"
The "AR-15" as most people know it today LOOKS LIKE an M4A1 -- neither of which look much like either the original Armalite Rifle 15 or the XM-16 or the M16
NO ONE today is going to war with an "AR-15" regardless of whether you use that term to mean the original Armalite Rifle or any of the fancy new AR-pattern semiauto rifles. Would the "AR-15" work in war? Actually, in most situations it would work fine for well trained shooters (who are only a small percentage of our military force).
The real question is whether civilians should have access to "weapons of war" -- the history of this country is absolutely clear on that question. Up until the 1930s there were no restrictions whatsoever on what weapons a civilian could own. For most of our history, civilians routinely owned BETTER firearms than those used by the military. Up through the 1930s it was quite common for officers to buy their own firearms because they could buy better guns than anything the Army issued. Even today, civilians can still own real "weapons of war" -- civilians in most states can still own machine guns, mortars, and cannons simply by passing a background check and paying a nominal tax, but somehow people want to panic at the idea that someone who could legally own a machine gun might own a low powered semiautomatic rifle that LOOKS LIKE what the military uses. I can own an M1918 Browning Automatic Rifle, but a bunch of suburban soccer moms want to ban my AR because it looks scary to them.
The AR-15 is demonized as a "weapon of war" strictly on the basis of its silhouette that looks a lot like the gun that people in the military carry. Yes, most of the internals are identical, but that doesn't really have anything to do with it. No one is saying we need to ban bolt carrier groups or we need to ban buffers and buffer springs. The only parts of the AR-15 that the anti-gun crowd are interested in are the exterior parts that make it look like the military rifle.
Lately we have seen several ads saying that most common civilian ARs use "exactly the same ammunition" as the military rifle. That much is true, but no one mentions that the military adopted 5.56x45mm ammunition specifically because it is LESS POWERFUL than either of the previous calibers used in US military rifles. No one mentions that 5.56 ammunition is one of the LEAST POWERFUL centerfire rifle rounds in current production, or that 5.56/.223 ammo is banned for hunting in several states because it is considered not powerful enough to reliably take a deer.
(3)
(0)
SPC Kevin Ford
I don't disagree with most of what you say here. My commentary was on the myth that the M16 is a derivative of the Colt AR-15 meant as a "varmint rifle". i.e. the myth is it was developed for civilian use to shoot "varmints" and any later military use was incidental.
(0)
(0)
2
2
0
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google