Poll: "Weapons of war"

[Yarome]

This is from DoD. 10 AR-15 rifles were shipped to Vietnam in '61, and 1000 in '62, for a combination of standard testing (accuracy, reliability, ease of training, etc.) and actual combat trials where they were used on the enemy.

Seriously? So.... any firearm that ever landed on the desk of the research and development office you are counting as "historically used in military combat"?

That is a massive stretch. It still holds that no military has ever issued the AR-15 for general combat use among it's fighting forces. It's also true that any number of firearms completely unsuitable for general combat did also cross their desk for evaluation and potential military application. Either "in form" or as a prospect platform or innovatation that may be incorporated or modified in future specifications suitable to military need.

That in no way constitutes "historical combat use" in any military.

The fact that the AR-15 was presented for evaluation (and subsequently modified to meet military need) suprises me none at all. That's SOP.

 

[Paolung]

Seriously? So.... any firearm that ever landed on the desk of the research and development office you are counting as "historically used in military combat"?

That is a massive stretch. It still holds that no military has ever issued the AR-15 for general combat use among it's fighting forces. It's also true that any number of firearms completely unsuitable for general combat did also cross their desk for evaluation and potential military application. Either "in form" or as a prospect platform or innovatation that may be incorporated or modified in future specifications suitable to military need.

That in no way constitutes "historical combat use" in any military.

Did you see Annex A where actual historical combat use by military is described?

I'm not saying it was general issue. Again, I'm disputing the notion that it's never been used by any military fighting force - because that's incorrect, and we can rest assured that the gun grabbers will use it against us if we make that claim.

That's it.

However- while we're on that topic, 80,000 AR—15s were ordered for the Air Force. If they were never issued, what happened to them?

The M-16 was standardized for all U.S. armed forces later.

 

[Andy54Hawken]

Speaking only for myself...

Calling the AR15 a weapon of war is kinda like seeing those pictures of the P51 Mustang that was captured by the Germans during WWII...it just looks ( sounds ) wrong....

I say wrong here , because the folks that want to ban the rifle , use that term...
And yeah , I read where the OP wants to "own" the term...which is fine for him....but like the captured P51 mentioned above , wrong for me.
Its wrong for me , because it is a term that is also used against me..and what I enjoy.
Andy

 

[Paolung]

Speaking only for myself...

Calling the AR15 a weapon of war is kinda like seeing those pictures of the P51 Mustang that was captured by the Germans during WWII...it just looks ( sounds ) wrong....

I say wrong here , because the folks that want to ban the rifle , use that term...
And yeah , I read where the OP wants to "own" the term...which is fine for him....but like the captured P51 mentioned above , wrong for me.
Its wrong for me , because it is a term that is also used against me..and what I enjoy.
Andy

Completely reasonable and fair reply, thank you.

I think what's really going on here is that we're all (those of us who support 2A) opposed to terminology being used to demonize guns of any variety. We just differ in how we plan to address said terminology.

 

[Yarome]

The AR-15 HAS been used, by military, in actual combat, and this is an indisputable fact that is easily proven. You're just ignorant of it.

This... based on what you presented as proof is "technically" true.

I remain unswayed though. Having a few AR-15's present at one point in time during research and development of the M16 does not constitue general combat use by a military.

As another mentioned, a lot depends on it's intended use. It's purpose from the start, and continues to be, a rifle for civilian use. That's all it will ever be to me. "A rifle".

 

[Paolung]

This... based on what you presented as proof is "technically" true.

I remain unswayed though. Having a few AR-15's present at one point in time during research and development of the M16 does not constitue general combat use by a military.

As another mentioned, a lot depends on it's intended use. It's purpose from the start, and continues to be, a rifle for civilian use. That's all it will ever be to me. "A rifle".

I'm in full agreement that it is currently a rifle intended for civilian use.

 

[Yarome]

However- while we're on that topic, 80,000 AR—15s were ordered for the Air Force. If they were never issued, what happened to them?

There is a big difference between "ordered" and "delivered" and "issued". The air force had, issued, far more AR-5's (which makes my AR-7 22lr a weapon of war). Before that, over 1 million liberator pistols where distributed by the U.S. military.

In that sense, I would consider the AR-7 and the liberator, moreso, "weapons of war" and, therefore, much more "evil" than the AR-15.

I wouldn't give an anti-2A'er that satisfaction either, though.

Besides... Brandon already exonerated my AR-7. It's barely above "less-than-lethal".

 

[Paolung]

Looks like Gen. LeMay encountered the Ordnance Corps' reluctance to adopt the "plastic rifle", so his order for the ARs was put on hold (yay bureaucracy) according to this

Remembering The Air Force General Who Helped Usher In The M16 Rifle

In the long list of Airmen who’ve made significant contributions to the Air Force, the military and the nation’s wars, you’ll find an entry for Gen. Curtis LeMay, the fifth Chief of Staff of the Air Force. General LeMay is best known as the architect of strategic airpower, a fiery and...

www.nrablog.com

 

[Andy54Hawken]

Something screwy is going on around here...

In the link above it has a picture captioned :
"US soldier using M16 in Vietnam"...however the "soldier" in the picture is Charlie Sheen when he was in the movie "Platoon"...

Probably Wayne LaPierre's fault...
Andy

 

[Wombat of Doom]

@Wombat of Doom @Yarome

You are both making inaccurate assumptions about me that are taking away from productive discussion on this; including but not limited to the idea that I'm confusing an AR15 with an M16, that I don't know the value of selective fire, don't know the rifle, want to "endanger" rights, etc.

When you do this, I have to backtrack and correct your incorrect assumptions, which is a waste of everyone's time.

If you aren't sure where I stand on something, just ask - don't assume. Neither of you knows me from Adam, or my positions (other than what I've already gone over here), so please - I'm asking as politely as I can - let's discuss this in good faith and not come with preconceived notions about who cares about gun rights or who knows things about rifles.

Tempers get heated at times, and I'm as guilty of this as anyone else, but we're on the same side (presuming you both care about 2A, which I feel confident is the case based on what's been already said).

I didn't make inaccurate assumptions. You are talking out both sides of your mouth. You don't have to correct my assumptions because frankly you are using anti gun language inaccurately, to prove anti gun talking points. An m16 is not an ar15 and they are not similar in capabilities. You acknowledged this and then deny it. I am aware a few ar 15s were used in trials and then not used again.

Your talking points give ammo to the enemies of civil rights.Do I need to spell out how? Using manufactured anti-civil rights terms make them more acceptable. And pointing to a minimal military trial from the 60s does not change the fact that the US military functionally rejected the ar15 as a semi auto, moving to the m16.

It is like saying a Nascar model is the same as a street legal car with a governor set at 65.

I am pretty sure our soldiers have at some point beat someone to death with a rock. Per this argument that makes my gravel a weapon of war.

 

[Wombat of Doom]

That's not what I said.

The AR-15 HAS been used, by military, in actual combat, and this is an indisputable fact that is easily proven. You're just ignorant of it.

Furthermore, if your assertion is that 2A protects our right to keep and bear "weapons of war" (as is mine), what's the objection? Because it doesn't have select fire? Nonsense.

Your assertion that select-fire is superior is agreed with. So what? That doesn't mean a semi-automatic is useless in combat. See practically every sidearm issued for the past century for details.

If bolt actions are used by militaries now and in the past (note, I never claimed "primary") - AND THEY ARE, by your own admission - and those are weapons of war, what's your criteria for a "weapon of war"? Still waiting for a coherent definition from you rather than attacking mine.

If you truly think a simple thread is a "danger to our rights", we have nothing to discuss because we aren't even on the same plane of reality. We both know the leftists and liberals will want to take ALL firearms away - THAT is the threat. They're trying to make it sound "oh-so-scary" with their terms, and I'm not buying it.

So you can stop trying to make me out to be the bad guy here, because I'm not. 2A constitutionally protects my right to keep and bear arms, without restriction, period - "weapon of war" or otherwise, and I'm not afraid to call my AR-15 a "weapon of war" because some liberal or leftist snowflake is scared of the term (undefined as it may be). Your nonsensical claim that my calling it that is somehow "fundamentally harmful to our rights" is ridiculous - I'm not the one going after 2A.

Nope. Rocks have been used in combat. The fact that a minimal number of ar15s were used briefly in Vietnam and they were not adopted shows the sophistry.

 

[Paolung]

@Wombat of Doom - I have nothing more to say to someone who grossly misconstrues my intent and my words short of

 

[Xaevian]

@Wombat of Doom - I have nothing more to say to someone who grossly misconstrues my intent and my words short of

Maybe better to just to not interact than resort to finger pointing. Is whether or not an AR15 was used in wartime really that key of an issue?

 

[Paolung]

Maybe better to just to not interact than resort to finger pointing. Is whether or not an AR15 was used in wartime really that key of an issue?

My issue was with how I was treated by the individual, not with the disagreement about whether it was used in wartime. I won't have my integrity or support for 2A questioned by some bad faith mind reader who warps what I say. He's ignored, so problem solved.

 

[Howard1955]

Interesting conversation.

The gun-grabbers use the terms "weapon of war", "assault rifle", etc simply because those are useful terms to advance their agendas. And propaganda really does work.

But if we were to sit down and talk with a few of those folks, I think we would learn that very few of them know much - at all - about firearms. And they're not really interested in educating themselves about the difference between semiauto and full auto. Their only interest is in furthering their agendas.

But for us, the distinctions are clearly understood. It's when we get drawn into arguing with the gun grabbers - or in debating the accuracy of their terminology, that things can get confusing.

I'm thinking that almost anything can be labeled a 'weapon of war', if it's been used for fighting in a war. Fists, rocks, arrows, swords - whatever is available can become a weapon. If the citizens of the continental USA ever have to fight a war here at home again, then a whole lot of AR's, deer rifles, shotguns, crossbows, etc are going to become weapons of war.

My rifles won't become "assault rifles" until they're used to assault someone. It could be an AR15 - or a bolt-action .22 - or a black powder rifle.

The push to disarm and de-fang us isn't a new thing. It's been done many times around the world - with predictable and disastrous results. Whatever we decide to call our firearms, just make sure you never surrender them to anyone.



Available from Amazon.com:

 

[ma96782]

Forgive me if this has been posted already.

Aloha, Mark