Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Are you sure about that first point? The Armalite then Colt AR-15 sold to The US military, which is probably what you are talking about*, was the M-16.
In a way it's too bad Colt continued to use AR-15 nomenclature for the civilian version.
*The chances that you trained with a civilian version, government issued AR-15 as a military member are slim.........not zero but slim.
Original trials were done with the rifles still called the AR-15, so if that person participated in those trials, then they would have technically shot an AR-15. Even then however, that "AR-15" would have been select fire, which is the key differentiator these days between what is referred to as an AR-15 vs M16/M4, so while he may have technically shot an "AR-15", it was basically the pre adoption version of the M16, _not_ what is commonly referred to as an AR-15 today. Clear as mud.
Honestly I wish folks would just stop playing the name game, anyone inclined to think of the AR-15 as an "assault rifle" is going to do so, the press will continue to do so, and the protestations of a few folks on C-D or arfcom will do nothing to stop it, it's a losing battle and IMHO, one not worth fighting. I get that names are important in this day and age where no one actually reads past a headline, but I honestly think this is exactly what antigun folks want is to have a bunch of folks focusing on a name while they slowly but surely get their ducks in a row and at some point the actual name will be irrelevant because the anti-gunners would have long since moved past that.
Aug 13, 2019 — It prohibited the manufacture or sale for civilian use of certain semi-automatic weapons. The act also banned magazines that could accommodate ...
Aug 12, 2019 — Assault weapons and high-capacity ammunition magazines are weapons of war that have no place in America's communities and should be banned.
The claim: AR-15 rifles were used in 12 recent mass shootings ... as certain semi-automatic firearms and high-capacity ammunition magazines.
Apr 22, 2021
Jan 16, 2013 — It was the gun industry that. The July 1981 issue of Guns & Ammo. It was the gun industry that adopted the term “assault weapon,” an author ...
Jun 30, 2016 — One solution that became popular during the First World War was the submachine gun, which is a machine gun that fires pistol ammunition rather ...
Courage to Fight Gun Violence. ... weapons ban resulted in a marked decrease in the use of assault weapons and large capacity ammunition magazines in crime.
Speaking of the lying lefter media. Besides being no such thing as an "assault weapon" there was never an actual ban. I bought more of these weapons during that ten years then ever.
The M14 did not jam a easy as the M16. And who wanted a rifle to jam in combat? I understand they fixed that problem after I got out.
An M16 had to kept perfectly clean, not easy to do in Vietnam.
The same news stands that track the Kardashians and people getting pregnant from aliens? That's some pretty uneven turf to stand on.
Ummm, I am as pro 2nd amendment as they come, but the user you were responding too clearly linked 5 different covers from real gun magazines which featured glaring headlines about "Assault Rifles" and "Assault Weapons". It's not like this person just linked an article from Newsweek or People magazine. He provided proof that these gun magazines have been using the term "assault rifle" when discussing weapons like the AR 15 after being told that wasn't the case. And by doing this, those magazines have contributed to the fog of misunderstanding which surrounds weapons like the AR-15. No matter what news stands he's frequenting, the proof was right there in the post.
Original trials were done with the rifles still called the AR-15, so if that person participated in those trials, then they would have technically shot an AR-15. Even then however, that "AR-15" would have been select fire, which is the key differentiator these days between what is referred to as an AR-15 vs M16/M4, so while he may have technically shot an "AR-15", it was basically the pre adoption version of the M16, _not_ what is commonly referred to as an AR-15 today. Clear as mud.
Honestly I wish folks would just stop playing the name game, anyone inclined to think of the AR-15 as an "assault rifle" is going to do so, the press will continue to do so, and the protestations of a few folks on C-D or arfcom will do nothing to stop it, it's a losing battle and IMHO, one not worth fighting. I get that names are important in this day and age where no one actually reads past a headline, but I honestly think this is exactly what antigun folks want is to have a bunch of folks focusing on a name while they slowly but surely get their ducks in a row and at some point the actual name will be irrelevant because the anti-gunners would have long since moved past that.
Per your first paragraph we agree the other guy might have "trained" with an AR-15 but it was very, very unlikely that he trained with a civilian version AR-15.
Per your second point I disagree. People, generally on the left as they are, need to be called out every single time they lie, oversimplify or distort.
Call it what you will. The AR15 that killed my friend's partner and made her unrecognizable is and will always be considered an assault weapon.
Couldn't you simply say that about any weapon which kills or severely maims a human being? If a person is intentionally run over by a car, should cars now be labeled "assault weapons". A man stabs a friend to death over a card game. Should knives now be labeled "assault weapons". A teenager is severely beaten with a baseball bat by a gang of thugs on the streets. Should baseball bats now be labeled "assault weapons"? I will always be sorry for the personal losses suffered by innocent people at the hands of criminals. But you can't just go around labeling everything that hurts someone something scary simply because you view it a certain way. If a .22 pistol had been the murder weapon used against your friend's partner, I suppose you would always consider that to be an assault weapon as well. Bottom line, if we use the term "assault weapon" too freely, pretty much anything you could lay your hands on right now could be an "assault weapon" if you used it while engaged in an assault.
Per your first paragraph we agree the other guy might have "trained" with an AR-15 but it was very, very unlikely that he trained with a civilian version AR-15.
Per your second point I disagree. People, generally on the left as they are, need to be called out every single time they lie, oversimplify or distort.
Biden doesn't care about rights that the Founding Fathers proclaimed.
You give up your rights, for the socialism cause.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
