Why, because you can't refute anything I've said with facts and reason?
I have not heard one even decent argument from the prog-gunners
I don't even know what that's supposed to mean.
I don't think I saw horses on the murder weapons lists--but guns I do see as the majority
Now you're moving goal posts. Did you not use the "used in war" standard? Did you say that, or not? You will be held accountable for the statements you make and the explanations you attempt to leverage toward your conclusions. They will be used against you. Which is exactly what has happened here. You made an argument that fails because an equivalent argument produces results you reject.
plain and simple---you say the AR 15 is not military grade/etc--but it does the SAME thing as the M16
False, but you don't really care about facts, do you?
we hardly ever used full auto or 3 round burst when I was in
it was mostly semi auto --EXACTLY like the AR 15
..even on 2 tap quick fire for close range training, it was semi-auto
That is correct. Nineteenth century technology continues to be the most effective and safest way to use a personal firearm. That does not justify you trying to distort the facts to twist them into lies in hopes of preying on ignorance.
Like I said, semiautomatic handguns are also used by the military "in war/for war." Horses are used in war in more or less the same kinds of way that they can be used for civilian purposes. Hell, food is used in war to nourish troops. The fact that something is used "in war/for war" is an absurd standard to use because nearly everything under the sun falls into that category.