Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Lie....the AR-15 is not a military weapon.....keep lying, we will keep correcting you....the AR-15 is a semi automatic, civilian and police rifle.....it was not a military weapon and has not been used in a war.....
The same is not true of these weapons...
The 6 shot revolver.....war weapon.
Lever action rifle....war weapon.
Bolt action rifle, current weapon of war.
Pump action shotgun....current weapon of war.
AR-15.....civiliain and police rifle, not a weapon of war.
Th AR15 was designed for the military, and slightly modified for civilian sales. As a gun nut, you should know that.
Armalite designated their new version of the Stoner design as the AR-15. It was a selective fire rifle, as the military specifications required. Armalite then sold the design to Colt, who produced the semi-auto version and designated it the AR-15. The two rifles are different enough to not be the same gun. The simple difference of one being capable of full auto fire, and the other is not, is difference enough.
The AR-15 being discussed is NOT capable of full-auto. That was a basic requirement of the military. So the AR-15, in this context, has never been used in a war.
There is more that makes that platform better suited for combat than auto fire. An M16 used in semi mode still a military assault weapon, and essentially identical to an AR15.
But the fact that the M16 CAN fire full auto makes it a different rifle. Period. When Eugene Stoner designed the rifle for military use, it was designed as a selective fire rifle. Producing one, even if identical in every other way, that is only capable of semi-auto fire makes it a different rifle.
Is a M16 less of a weapon in semi mode? Only an idiot would only use auto mode and run out of ammo that quickly.
Lie....the AR-15 is not a military weapon.....keep lying, we will keep correcting you....the AR-15 is a semi automatic, civilian and police rifle.....it was not a military weapon and has not been used in a war.....
The same is not true of these weapons...
The 6 shot revolver.....war weapon.
Lever action rifle....war weapon.
Bolt action rifle, current weapon of war.
Pump action shotgun....current weapon of war.
AR-15.....civiliain and police rifle, not a weapon of war.
Th AR15 was designed for the military, and slightly modified for civilian sales. As a gun nut, you should know that.
Armalite designated their new version of the Stoner design as the AR-15. It was a selective fire rifle, as the military specifications required. Armalite then sold the design to Colt, who produced the semi-auto version and designated it the AR-15. The two rifles are different enough to not be the same gun. The simple difference of one being capable of full auto fire, and the other is not, is difference enough.
The AR-15 being discussed is NOT capable of full-auto. That was a basic requirement of the military. So the AR-15, in this context, has never been used in a war.
There is more that makes that platform better suited for combat than auto fire. An M16 used in semi mode still a military assault weapon, and essentially identical to an AR15.
But the fact that the M16 CAN fire full auto makes it a different rifle. Period. When Eugene Stoner designed the rifle for military use, it was designed as a selective fire rifle. Producing one, even if identical in every other way, that is only capable of semi-auto fire makes it a different rifle.
Is a M16 less of a weapon in semi mode? Only an idiot would only use auto mode and run out of ammo that quickly.
Not really. Go back and read. You said the only thing an AR 15 can do is kill people. Fine, they was the idea when Eugene Stoner designed it. What you Fail to recognize is that ever since the us has been a country civilians typically used the exact same gun. For excample, the tommy gun not to mention the old bolt action Springfield’s, the M1 Garand the M1A (M15) the Krag Jurgenson the trap door Springfield conversion, not to mention a shit ton of hand guns and so on. You kind of changed what your implication was it seems which is that the AR15 is only a people killer.
You're adding words to my remarks. I said killing is the reason that gun was designed. Misrepresenting my words is the same as lying. Quit it.
Wasn’t trying to put words In your mouth. My bad, that shit is worse then lying.Point is, guns are obviously used solely for killing. And from the fist gun ever made to what we have now, every single gun ever made was designed to kill other people.
EVEN the AR15. But it is no more deadly then a Remington 700 in any caliber. It just ain’t.
Any gun will kill. Some are just more suited to killing as many as possible in as short a time as possible than others. Our military decided that the AR15/M16 format was the most effective for that. I trust their judgement.
Yet you don't ever define what it is about that format that the military favors.
Why don't you ask them? They chose it as the goto military weapon. I trust their judgement.
Th AR15 was designed for the military, and slightly modified for civilian sales. As a gun nut, you should know that.
Armalite designated their new version of the Stoner design as the AR-15. It was a selective fire rifle, as the military specifications required. Armalite then sold the design to Colt, who produced the semi-auto version and designated it the AR-15. The two rifles are different enough to not be the same gun. The simple difference of one being capable of full auto fire, and the other is not, is difference enough.
The AR-15 being discussed is NOT capable of full-auto. That was a basic requirement of the military. So the AR-15, in this context, has never been used in a war.
There is more that makes that platform better suited for combat than auto fire. An M16 used in semi mode still a military assault weapon, and essentially identical to an AR15.
But the fact that the M16 CAN fire full auto makes it a different rifle. Period. When Eugene Stoner designed the rifle for military use, it was designed as a selective fire rifle. Producing one, even if identical in every other way, that is only capable of semi-auto fire makes it a different rifle.
Is a M16 less of a weapon in semi mode? Only an idiot would only use auto mode and run out of ammo that quickly.
And your argument changes now that you have been called out by a fairly neutral party...WinterBorn......now full auto mode is not that important when it was the feature you lied about to say the AR-15 was an "Assault Weapon."
An M16 is specifically a selective fire rifle. The US military has never used a semi-auto version in war.
Come on. You really think the M16 is ONLY used in full auto mode? That would be just nuts. The military emphasizes good management of ammo. Wouldn't do much good to run out of ammo in the first minute or two.
I don't think full auto is good for much of anything except cover fire. But that is not the point. If I buy an old GTO with a big V8, I can drive it slowly and get decent gas mileage. That does not make it a Prius.
True. Has nothing to do with this, but I like those old cars too.
M16 in semi mode = military grade combat weapon
AR15 = M16in semi mode
therefore
AR15 = military grade combat weapon.
The bigger question is whether all rifles are the same. They are not.
An M16 is capable of full auto fire. That is a fundamental part of its design. Anything that cannot fire full auto is not an M16, no matter how similar they are. The US Military has never carried an AR into war.
You are certainly allowed to have your opinion, but
Is the AR-15 a ‘Weapon of War’?
Is the AR-15 a ‘Weapon of War’?
Most of the time, the distinction is of little practical importance: these semiautomatic rifles are ubiquitous, widely available for sale in gun shops across much of America. But on Tuesday, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond, Virginia, came down squarely one side of this debate, with big implications for how states regulate assault weapons. In a 10-4 decision, the federal court upheld Maryland’s 2013 assault weapons ban, finding that guns like the AR-15 are weapons of war, and thus American civilians don’t have an unfettered right to buy and own them under the Second Amendment.
Th AR15 was designed for the military, and slightly modified for civilian sales. As a gun nut, you should know that.
Armalite designated their new version of the Stoner design as the AR-15. It was a selective fire rifle, as the military specifications required. Armalite then sold the design to Colt, who produced the semi-auto version and designated it the AR-15. The two rifles are different enough to not be the same gun. The simple difference of one being capable of full auto fire, and the other is not, is difference enough.
The AR-15 being discussed is NOT capable of full-auto. That was a basic requirement of the military. So the AR-15, in this context, has never been used in a war.
There is more that makes that platform better suited for combat than auto fire. An M16 used in semi mode still a military assault weapon, and essentially identical to an AR15.
But the fact that the M16 CAN fire full auto makes it a different rifle. Period. When Eugene Stoner designed the rifle for military use, it was designed as a selective fire rifle. Producing one, even if identical in every other way, that is only capable of semi-auto fire makes it a different rifle.
Is a M16 less of a weapon in semi mode? Only an idiot would only use auto mode and run out of ammo that quickly.
All Semi Auto weapons function the same way as the AR-15 which is why you are so desperate to establish the precedent of banning AR-15s.....if you can ban the AR-15 for how it fires......there is no argument against banning all other semi auto weapons.....your dream come true...........
And yet the Supreme Court protects these weapons with decision after decision........and you guys ignore them every single time...
You're adding words to my remarks. I said killing is the reason that gun was designed. Misrepresenting my words is the same as lying. Quit it.
Wasn’t trying to put words In your mouth. My bad, that shit is worse then lying.Point is, guns are obviously used solely for killing. And from the fist gun ever made to what we have now, every single gun ever made was designed to kill other people.
EVEN the AR15. But it is no more deadly then a Remington 700 in any caliber. It just ain’t.
Any gun will kill. Some are just more suited to killing as many as possible in as short a time as possible than others. Our military decided that the AR15/M16 format was the most effective for that. I trust their judgement.
Yet you don't ever define what it is about that format that the military favors.
Why don't you ask them? They chose it as the goto military weapon. I trust their judgement.
As Winterborn pointed out....several times...the AR-15 is not a military weapon, has never been used by the military........
it is not a weapon of war.....
6 shot revolvers are weapons of war, and were used, you will one day say...in the genocide of native Americans
lever action rifles are weapons of war, and were used, you will one day say, in the genocide of native Americans
muzzle loading rifles were weapons of war.
Bolt action rifles are current weapons of war.
pump action shot guns are weapons of war......
The AR-15 is not a weapon of war...
cars accidentally kill more people than rifles or all guns.......they kill more children than guns do every single day......
Incorrect barrel stroker
Gun Deaths Have Now Surpassed Motor Vehicle Deaths In 21 States (And Counting)
Just wanted to remind you per our agreement that if General Kelly is still on the job in three days that you are to take a one month sabbatical from this forum. Have you any plans for the month of March?
After all, with Hope gone and Little Jared on the sidelines, he's liable to blow his top. And if Kelly goes (with my luck today or tomorrow ;-) LOOK OUT.
Come on. You really think the M16 is ONLY used in full auto mode? That would be just nuts. The military emphasizes good management of ammo. Wouldn't do much good to run out of ammo in the first minute or two.
I don't think full auto is good for much of anything except cover fire. But that is not the point. If I buy an old GTO with a big V8, I can drive it slowly and get decent gas mileage. That does not make it a Prius.
True. Has nothing to do with this, but I like those old cars too.
M16 in semi mode = military grade combat weapon
AR15 = M16in semi mode
therefore
AR15 = military grade combat weapon.
The bigger question is whether all rifles are the same. They are not.
An M16 is capable of full auto fire. That is a fundamental part of its design. Anything that cannot fire full auto is not an M16, no matter how similar they are. The US Military has never carried an AR into war.
You are certainly allowed to have your opinion, but
Is the AR-15 a ‘Weapon of War’?
Is the AR-15 a ‘Weapon of War’?
Most of the time, the distinction is of little practical importance: these semiautomatic rifles are ubiquitous, widely available for sale in gun shops across much of America. But on Tuesday, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond, Virginia, came down squarely one side of this debate, with big implications for how states regulate assault weapons. In a 10-4 decision, the federal court upheld Maryland’s 2013 assault weapons ban, finding that guns like the AR-15 are weapons of war, and thus American civilians don’t have an unfettered right to buy and own them under the Second Amendment.
Yes......the 4th ignored every Supreme Court Precedent that came before and needs to be slapped down.......Weapons of war....are actually protected by the 2nd Amendment.....the majority on that court are clinton and obama appointees...
This is why Clayton won't address this issue.....he knows that with all of his preaching about Precedent and the courts...the left wing anti gunners are ignoring all of it...
cars accidentally kill more people than rifles or all guns.......they kill more children than guns do every single day......
Incorrect barrel stroker
Gun Deaths Have Now Surpassed Motor Vehicle Deaths In 21 States (And Counting)
Just wanted to remind you per our agreement that if General Kelly is still on the job in three days that you are to take a one month sabbatical from this forum. Have you any plans for the month of March?
Well Dale - the day has come. Just Googled John Kelly and it's touch and go, but he made it past midnight So I'm out for two weeks my friend as we compromised. Thanks for being a gentleman and see y'all on the 15th.
Assuming of course, Trump doesn't have us into an international incident of some sort and gets trigger happy
Now - it would appear that JK is warring with Ivanka .. pissed of course that he kneecapped the hubby - But that's not all - and wait, there's MORE! .....
White House chief of staff John Kelly is growing increasingly frustrated with Ivanka Trump, CNN reported Tuesday.
The frustration comes on the heels of the first daughter's part diplomatic, part ceremonial trip to South Korea, where she met with South Korean President Moon Jae In and led the US delegation into Sunday's closing ceremony marking the end of the 2018 Winter Olympics.
In private conversations with other White House officials, Kelly has reportedly criticized Ivanka's shifting roles of presidential adviser and first daughter, and accused her of "playing government" when it suits her, per the CNN report.
Kelly was also reportedly one of a number of senior officials who felt uncomfortable with the decision to send Ivanka to South Korea, suggesting that Ivanka's presence trivialized the tension between the US and North Korea.
cars accidentally kill more people than rifles or all guns.......they kill more children than guns do every single day......
Incorrect barrel stroker
Gun Deaths Have Now Surpassed Motor Vehicle Deaths In 21 States (And Counting)
Just wanted to remind you per our agreement that if General Kelly is still on the job in three days that you are to take a one month sabbatical from this forum. Have you any plans for the month of March?
Well Dale - the day has come. Just Googled John Kelly and it's touch and go, but he made it past midnight So I'm out for two weeks my friend as we compromised. Thanks for being a gentleman and see y'all on the 15th.
Assuming of course, Trump doesn't have us into an international incident of some sort and gets trigger happy
Now - it would appear that JK is warring with Ivanka .. pissed of course that he kneecapped the hubby - But that's not all - and wait, there's MORE! .....
White House chief of staff John Kelly is growing increasingly frustrated with Ivanka Trump, CNN reported Tuesday.
The frustration comes on the heels of the first daughter's part diplomatic, part ceremonial trip to South Korea, where she met with South Korean President Moon Jae In and led the US delegation into Sunday's closing ceremony marking the end of the 2018 Winter Olympics.
In private conversations with other White House officials, Kelly has reportedly criticized Ivanka's shifting roles of presidential adviser and first daughter, and accused her of "playing government" when it suits her, per the CNN report.
Kelly was also reportedly one of a number of senior officials who felt uncomfortable with the decision to send Ivanka to South Korea, suggesting that Ivanka's presence trivialized the tension between the US and North Korea.
It is your decision being that I wasn't interested in "collecting" as it were..... and no one could give you any flack about it. You can change your mind any time you wish. Good on ya.
Armalite designated their new version of the Stoner design as the AR-15. It was a selective fire rifle, as the military specifications required. Armalite then sold the design to Colt, who produced the semi-auto version and designated it the AR-15. The two rifles are different enough to not be the same gun. The simple difference of one being capable of full auto fire, and the other is not, is difference enough.
The AR-15 being discussed is NOT capable of full-auto. That was a basic requirement of the military. So the AR-15, in this context, has never been used in a war.
There is more that makes that platform better suited for combat than auto fire. An M16 used in semi mode still a military assault weapon, and essentially identical to an AR15.
But the fact that the M16 CAN fire full auto makes it a different rifle. Period. When Eugene Stoner designed the rifle for military use, it was designed as a selective fire rifle. Producing one, even if identical in every other way, that is only capable of semi-auto fire makes it a different rifle.
Is a M16 less of a weapon in semi mode? Only an idiot would only use auto mode and run out of ammo that quickly.
All Semi Auto weapons function the same way as the AR-15 which is why you are so desperate to establish the precedent of banning AR-15s.....if you can ban the AR-15 for how it fires......there is no argument against banning all other semi auto weapons.....your dream come true...........
And yet the Supreme Court protects these weapons with decision after decision........and you guys ignore them every single time...
If you say so. Of course, I never said they all function the same way. That is your claim. When the Supreme court over rules the federal court of appeals, and says the AR15 is constitutionally protected, you might have something. Until then, you're just flapping your jaws.
Th AR15 was designed for the military, and slightly modified for civilian sales. As a gun nut, you should know that.
Armalite designated their new version of the Stoner design as the AR-15. It was a selective fire rifle, as the military specifications required. Armalite then sold the design to Colt, who produced the semi-auto version and designated it the AR-15. The two rifles are different enough to not be the same gun. The simple difference of one being capable of full auto fire, and the other is not, is difference enough.
The AR-15 being discussed is NOT capable of full-auto. That was a basic requirement of the military. So the AR-15, in this context, has never been used in a war.
There is more that makes that platform better suited for combat than auto fire. An M16 used in semi mode still a military assault weapon, and essentially identical to an AR15.
But the fact that the M16 CAN fire full auto makes it a different rifle. Period. When Eugene Stoner designed the rifle for military use, it was designed as a selective fire rifle. Producing one, even if identical in every other way, that is only capable of semi-auto fire makes it a different rifle.
Is a M16 less of a weapon in semi mode? Only an idiot would only use auto mode and run out of ammo that quickly.
And your argument changes now that you have been called out by a fairly neutral party...WinterBorn......now full auto mode is not that important when it was the feature you lied about to say the AR-15 was an "Assault Weapon."
There is more that makes that platform better suited for combat than auto fire. An M16 used in semi mode still a military assault weapon, and essentially identical to an AR15.
But the fact that the M16 CAN fire full auto makes it a different rifle. Period. When Eugene Stoner designed the rifle for military use, it was designed as a selective fire rifle. Producing one, even if identical in every other way, that is only capable of semi-auto fire makes it a different rifle.
Is a M16 less of a weapon in semi mode? Only an idiot would only use auto mode and run out of ammo that quickly.
All Semi Auto weapons function the same way as the AR-15 which is why you are so desperate to establish the precedent of banning AR-15s.....if you can ban the AR-15 for how it fires......there is no argument against banning all other semi auto weapons.....your dream come true...........
And yet the Supreme Court protects these weapons with decision after decision........and you guys ignore them every single time...
If you say so. Of course, I never said they all function the same way. That is your claim. When the Supreme court over rules the federal court of appeals, and says the AR15 is constitutionally protected, you might have something. Until then, you're just flapping your jaws.
They already did, it was Called Heller.....and Caetano, and Miller......
Armalite designated their new version of the Stoner design as the AR-15. It was a selective fire rifle, as the military specifications required. Armalite then sold the design to Colt, who produced the semi-auto version and designated it the AR-15. The two rifles are different enough to not be the same gun. The simple difference of one being capable of full auto fire, and the other is not, is difference enough.
The AR-15 being discussed is NOT capable of full-auto. That was a basic requirement of the military. So the AR-15, in this context, has never been used in a war.
There is more that makes that platform better suited for combat than auto fire. An M16 used in semi mode still a military assault weapon, and essentially identical to an AR15.
But the fact that the M16 CAN fire full auto makes it a different rifle. Period. When Eugene Stoner designed the rifle for military use, it was designed as a selective fire rifle. Producing one, even if identical in every other way, that is only capable of semi-auto fire makes it a different rifle.
Is a M16 less of a weapon in semi mode? Only an idiot would only use auto mode and run out of ammo that quickly.
And your argument changes now that you have been called out by a fairly neutral party...WinterBorn......now full auto mode is not that important when it was the feature you lied about to say the AR-15 was an "Assault Weapon."
No. Actually I said the AR15 was slightly modified to disable the full auto capability from the first. I had already proven the M16 and AR15 were essentially the same gun, other that full auto, and that all guns are not the same. I saw no need to repeat that again.
There is more that makes that platform better suited for combat than auto fire. An M16 used in semi mode still a military assault weapon, and essentially identical to an AR15.
But the fact that the M16 CAN fire full auto makes it a different rifle. Period. When Eugene Stoner designed the rifle for military use, it was designed as a selective fire rifle. Producing one, even if identical in every other way, that is only capable of semi-auto fire makes it a different rifle.
Is a M16 less of a weapon in semi mode? Only an idiot would only use auto mode and run out of ammo that quickly.
And your argument changes now that you have been called out by a fairly neutral party...WinterBorn......now full auto mode is not that important when it was the feature you lied about to say the AR-15 was an "Assault Weapon."
No. Actually I said the AR15 was slightly modified to disable the full auto capability from the first. I had already proven the M16 and AR15 were essentially the same gun, other that full auto, and that all guns are not the same. I saw no need to repeat that again.
So your goal, or what you want to see is an outright ban on the AR15? No civilians can buy or own one?
Crowder nails it....
He demonstrates the rate of fire with a .357 lever action rifle.....he shows a semi auto shotgun....
.
The anti gunners want them too....
Charles Whitman didn't have an AR-15. He used an M-1 carbine. People give the AR-15 too much credit.
So why did the US military pick the fully auto version of the AR to be their goto combat weapon? The AR and the M16 are identical other than the full auto capability. ARs weren't even built until the M16 patent ran out.
AR-15 was the prototype to the M-16. The AR-15 didn't have a forward assist assembly and the Army wouldn't buy it. A forward assist assembly was added, the Army bought it and the AR-15 was re-designated M-16 because Army weapons have an M preceding the number. I was issued one of the first M-16s in July 1965.
Bottom line, the AR15 is the same design as an M16 with the multiple fire disabled. The US military chose that design as it's goto combat weapon. If it's just like any other semiauto, why did the military pick that particular design over any other simiauto?
Crowder nails it....
He demonstrates the rate of fire with a .357 lever action rifle.....he shows a semi auto shotgun....
.
The anti gunners want them too....
Charles Whitman didn't have an AR-15. He used an M-1 carbine. People give the AR-15 too much credit.
So why did the US military pick the fully auto version of the AR to be their goto combat weapon? The AR and the M16 are identical other than the full auto capability. ARs weren't even built until the M16 patent ran out.
AR-15 was the prototype to the M-16. The AR-15 didn't have a forward assist assembly and the Army wouldn't buy it. A forward assist assembly was added, the Army bought it and the AR-15 was re-designated M-16 because Army weapons have an M preceding the number. I was issued one of the first M-16s in July 1965.
Bottom line, the AR15 is the same design as an M16 with the multiple fire disabled. The US military chose that design as it's goto combat weapon. If it's just like any other semiauto, why did the military pick that particular design over any other simiauto?
I should have been more explicit. I was in Ft Benning in 1964 when the AR-15 was brought for demonstration. It was a fully automatic rifle with a selector switch. It had a muzzle velocity of over 4800 FPS. The Special Forces had them in Vietnam. The SF had complained the bolt would not fully seat after it got hot from long periods of firing and carbon buildup. Also in thick jungle and bushes the bullets would not penetrate the foliage without disintegrating into small pieces (because of the high muzzle velocity and was deemed not suitable for jungle operations. The Army said they needed one with less muzzle velocity and something to seat the bolt. The AR 15 was designed for for military combat use only and civilians couldn't buy one. When the modifications were made the AR-15 had the MV reduced and automatic capability disabled and then and only then could a civilian buy them. When modifications were made the Army bought the design and re-designated it as M-16. That's the story of the progression and there is no other explanation.
The M-16 had one more fatal flaw that caused the Marines to distrust and hate it but as usual the Army infantrymen fixed the problem and all was OK from then on. But that's a story for another time.
One more thing about auto fire. It's futile to outlaw the bump stock because I or any other knowledgeable person can make the AR15 fully automatic in less than 30 minutes.
Th AR15 was designed for the military, and slightly modified for civilian sales. As a gun nut, you should know that.
Armalite designated their new version of the Stoner design as the AR-15. It was a selective fire rifle, as the military specifications required. Armalite then sold the design to Colt, who produced the semi-auto version and designated it the AR-15. The two rifles are different enough to not be the same gun. The simple difference of one being capable of full auto fire, and the other is not, is difference enough.
The AR-15 being discussed is NOT capable of full-auto. That was a basic requirement of the military. So the AR-15, in this context, has never been used in a war.
There is more that makes that platform better suited for combat than auto fire. An M16 used in semi mode still a military assault weapon, and essentially identical to an AR15.
But the fact that the M16 CAN fire full auto makes it a different rifle. Period. When Eugene Stoner designed the rifle for military use, it was designed as a selective fire rifle. Producing one, even if identical in every other way, that is only capable of semi-auto fire makes it a different rifle.
Is a M16 less of a weapon in semi mode? Only an idiot would only use auto mode and run out of ammo that quickly.
All Semi Auto weapons function the same way as the AR-15 which is why you are so desperate to establish the precedent of banning AR-15s.....if you can ban the AR-15 for how it fires......there is no argument against banning all other semi auto weapons.....your dream come true...........
And yet the Supreme Court protects these weapons with decision after decision........and you guys ignore them every single time...
Yeah so easily that it's done all the time and every criminal has a fully auto AR 15AR-15 was the prototype to the M-16. The AR-15 didn't have a forward assist assembly and the Army wouldn't buy it. A forward assist assembly was added, the Army bought it and the AR-15 was re-designated M-16 because Army weapons have an M preceding the number. I was issued one of the first M-16s in July 1965.Charles Whitman didn't have an AR-15. He used an M-1 carbine. People give the AR-15 too much credit.
So why did the US military pick the fully auto version of the AR to be their goto combat weapon? The AR and the M16 are identical other than the full auto capability. ARs weren't even built until the M16 patent ran out.
Bottom line, the AR15 is the same design as an M16 with the multiple fire disabled. The US military chose that design as it's goto combat weapon. If it's just like any other semiauto, why did the military pick that particular design over any other simiauto?
I should have been more explicit. I was in Ft Benning in 1964 when the AR-15 was brought for demonstration. It was a fully automatic rifle with a selector switch. It had a muzzle velocity of over 4800 FPS. The Special Forces had them in Vietnam. The SF had complained the bolt would not fully seat after it got hot from long periods of firing and carbon buildup. Also in thick jungle and bushes the bullets would not penetrate the foliage without disintegrating into small pieces (because of the high muzzle velocity and was deemed not suitable for jungle operations. The Army said they needed one with less muzzle velocity and something to seat the bolt. The AR 15 was designed for for military combat use only and civilians couldn't buy one. When the modifications were made the AR-15 had the MV reduced and automatic capability disabled and then and only then could a civilian buy them. When modifications were made the Army bought the design and re-designated it as M-16. That's the story of the progression and there is no other explanation.
The M-16 had one more fatal flaw that caused the Marines to distrust and hate it but as usual the Army infantrymen fixed the problem and all was OK from then on. But that's a story for another time.
One more thing about auto fire. It's futile to outlaw the bump stock because I or any other knowledgeable person can make the AR15 fully automatic in less than 30 minutes.
They are easily converted.
