Posted on 03/19/2019 9:31:46 AM PDT by Para-Ord.45
The New York Times says that after last week’s horrific shooting attack on two mosques, New Zealand is having “its gun-debate moment.” And of course, since New Zealand is having a gun-debate moment (despite already having stringent gun control laws), the U.S. anti-gun crowd has to jump in too, once again spreading disinformation about anti-gun activists’ favorite boogeyman: the AR-15.
Every time a semi-automatic rifle with modern-looking aesthetics is used by a bad person to do evil, anti-gun politicians and pundits flood the zone with misinformation and misleading talking points. Sunday night, MSNBC host Joe Scarborough jumped into the fray with a misleading historic take on why the AR-15 modern sporting rifle (MSR) platform is supposedly a battlefield weapon that shouldn’t be protected by the Supreme Court’s Second Amendment cases.
Those suggesting the AR-15 was NOT developed as a weapon of war should read up on history. The AR-15 was developed as a military weapon to replace the M-14. Eugene Stoner designed it to be lighter and more lethal than the M-14. It was far deadlier than the M-16 used in Vietnam.
— Joe Scarborough (@JoeNBC) March 18, 2019
And 2020 Democratic presidential candidate Robert O’Rourke said something similar over the weekend, calling the AR-15 a “weapon of war.”
Beto O'Rourke: "If you own an AR-15, keep it. Continue to use it responsibly and safely. I just don't think that we need to sell anymore weapons of war into this public." pic.twitter.com/uqMA1jWOTf
— The Hill (@thehill) March 17, 2019
So let’s clear up a few facts:
As I’ve explained before, in the late 1950s, small-arms whiz Eugene Stoner started designing prototypes for the United States military, with a heavy focus on making issued rifles lighter and theoretically allowing troops to carry more ammunition. In 1956, Stoner and his team at Armalite started work on the AR-15 prototype, which followed the AR-10 prototype. AR stands for “Armalite Rifle,” not “assault rifle” or “automatic rifle.”
-The company had a hard time selling the original design and licensed it to Colt in 1959. -In 1963, the original fully automatic, select-fire Armalite turned into to Colt’s design for the newly commissioned M16. That same year, Colt released a semi-automatic version of the AR-15 modular platform to the law enforcement and civilian market. -When the patent expired in 1977, other manufacturers got in on the MSR game. -The typical MSR you’ll find on the wall at your nearest gun store is semi-automatic and fires a .223 round. That means a smaller cartridge and one bullet fired per trigger pull, compared to what became the M16, which used a bigger 5.56 cartridge. -Some MSRs fire both 5.56 rounds and .223 rounds. The main difference is that the 5.56 has more powder behind the bullet. A .223 can be fired out of a 5.56-chambered rifle (although with diminished pressure) but not vice versa. But they’re still semi-automatic either way. -This means that in both the ammunition it fires and the rate at which it fires, the AR-15 is more akin to the famous Ruger Mini14 ranch rifle than the M4 carbine, which is what’s been putting rounds downrange for the Department of Defense since 1994. No AR-15 marketed for civilian use is an automatic rifle. -If you want to legally purchase an automatic firearm made before 1986, there are a ton of prohibitive bureaucratic hoops you have to jump through (plus, they’re incredibly expensive because of the 1986 ban). If you want to buy one made after 1986, you either need to be a law enforcement officer with a reason to have it or a Federal Firearms Licensee (FFL). -Despite the hype, rifles killed fewer people than knives, blunt objects, and fists in the U.S. in 2016, according to FBI stats.
Furthermore, people who like to point out that MSRs are popular with shooters need to realize that that’s probably because MSRs are just popular in general. The design is light, low-recoil, and – because of its modular design – easily customizable. That means that no matter how your body is configured or what your specific needs are, you can typically find a way shoot comfortably. Those are features that all kinds of shooters, from target shooters to farmers and hunters, find useful.
But saying such features themselves somehow make it easier for evil people to shoot up innocents is like saying that a popular model of motor vehicle should be banned because the seat-warmers, adjustable steering column, and extra cup holders make it more popular among drunk drivers.
The fact that so many prominent anti-gun people think that the modern sporting rifle available to civilian purchasers today is a weapon that is used or even proposed for use in combat just shows how little they understand about guns. And if you’re going to try to ban something or criminalize people’s legally purchased property, you’d better at least have your facts straight about it.
How many guns did the Romans have? Even I was staggered to read about how much killing they did an all of the wars.
Go back a LOT LESS further in time to the Hutus and the Tutsis. Nary a gun was used, but machetes killed half a million people.
Beto O’Rourke: “If you own an AR-15, keep it.”
This is the equivalent of sitting at a 4-way stop, and then another car approaches, stops, and waves you through.
Gee. Thanks numb nuts.
The NY Times feeds and survives on the ignorance of people. How enlightened of them.
here’s an idea- change the looks of the AR-15 and make itr really dorky looking, but just as functional- make it look silly, like a nerf gun, or cartoon prop- or something-
Not that we should have to- but just to piss off the left- make it completely silly looking, but just as functional, and the left will have nothing to complain about because it won’t ‘look like’ a weapon of war- then require everyone in the US- legal citizen, to own one-
It’s just unreal to me that the left have succeeded in twisting the constitution to basically imply that weapons that ‘look like’ military weapons aren’t constitutionally legal. The left are bastardizing the constitution- gay marriage, gun restrictions, free speech regulations-
Ultimately we NEED a supreme court decision that states that “Just because a weapon ‘looks like’ a weapon of war does not make it a weapon of war. Nothing about civilian AR-15’s make them weapons of war. It is therefore unconstitutional to demand that AR-15’s be taken off the market or restricted. The makers of AR-15’s are perfectly within their rights to design and produce these guns!”
Weasel words like MSR is just political correctness on our side. Of course an AR-15 is a weapon of war. And that is precisely WHY we have them.
Sophistry won’t help us. Being honest will. An AR-15 in the hands of a citizen allows us to prevail against a government that has turned towards tyranny. It will be the same as the weapons the soldiers will have except for the superfluous detail of three shot burst.
According to RJ Rummel in death by government, around 260 million people were killed by government since 1900. So there is not the slightest thing wrong in saying my AR is a weapon of war, that is the main reason I have it, and i will not let someone take it.
But childish nazi firearms law based “sporting purpose” sophistry is the opposite of what we need.
In the Tet Offensive, a friend of mine turned an entrenching tool into a weapon of war. The dictionary definition of the word ‘weapon’ depends upon how something is used, not how it’s designed.
The 5.56 mm is not “bigger” than the .223. Bullet diameter is identical.
L
“If you own an AR-15, keep it.”
......
Mighty white of you, Scarecrow.
This whole ‘weapon of war’ argument is silly. 12 gauge shotguns are used in war, as are common pistols in .45 and 9mm. Every weapon in existence could be used ‘in war’ if that’s all you’ve got. My 1937 Mosin Nagant was likely used in war and there’s a good chance my 1898 6.5mm Swedish mauser was as well.
lol
exactly- the whole purpose of the 2n’t amendment, in the words of our founders themselves, was for us to be able to protect ourselves from ALL enemies, foreign and domestic- and from a rogue domestic government- They did NOT have single shot muzzle-loaders in mind when they wrote the 2n’d amendment- They wanted us to have adequate firepower to be able to effectively protect ourselves and our country-
The reason foreign invaders don’t storm our country is because they’ve tried it in the past and were met with fierce furious firepower that drove them out-
and you’re right- i need to revise my first statement that the SC should make- i had originally said
“Just because a weapon ‘looks like’ a weapon of war does not make it a weapon of war.”
But that should read:
“Just because a weapon ‘looks like’ a weapon of war does not mean it is unconstitutional. All weapons are ‘weapons of war’ and that is the point- Our founding fathers wanted our citizens to be well armed with adequate firepower so that we can defend ourselves and our nation from all enemies, foreign and domestic”
“The 5.56 mm is not “bigger” than the .223. Bullet diameter is identical.”
The .22LR rimfire round is actually .223 also.
This article is just packed full of stupid. From ole Joe right down to the author.
This article is just packed full of stupid. From ole Joe right down to the author.
I've read that historically, the gladius has been used to kill more people than firearms. I doubt that it's true, but it's plausible.
Exactly right. My tirade wasn’t aimed at you, but the brain-dead left who’ve coined the ‘weapon of war’ term because it scares all the little snowflakes.
I had to laugh at that...we had 12 gauge shotguns on Swift Boats when I was in Nam and ended up removing them because of so many accidental discharges.
I used to be terrified at the inability of my crewmates to handle small arms competently.
Many, many of my fellow sailors had never even held a firearm before our very brief small arms familiarization course we went through at Camp Pendleton prior to deployment.
I worried much more about getting shot by my own crew than the VC.
Wow.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.