Supreme Court Allows Sandy Hook Families' Case Against Remington Arms To Proceed

[JoeB131]

And if you imagine that you've proven anything about anyone other than yourself, then you've just proven how delusional and batshit crazy you are. Not that that was ever in any doubt.

again, coming from a guy who thinks he's wearing Magic Underpants.... it's kind of meaningless.

 

[Ghost of a Rider]

No, she was nuts because she was stocking up on guns like the Zombies were about to show up.

You can keep using the word “zombies” for dramatic effect but it doesn’t change two fundamental truths: 1) She was not prepping for zombies and 2) You still don’t know that she was crazy.

It seems to me that going on and and on and on about “zombies”, as JoeB131 has been, when everyone knows there are no zombies, and nobody else has said anything about zombies, is a pretty good indication of who is crazy, and who is not; wouldn't you agree? Throw in his other bizarre obsessions and conspiracy theories about how Catholics and Mormons and Jews and conservatives, and everyone else are all out to get him, and I think it rather reinforces the point.

It’s just a cheap literary tactic he uses to reinforce his opinion that she was crazy. This sort of thing only works on the “‘tarded” (as he likes to call them) and people predisposed to agree with him that preppers are not quite right.

 

[Ghost of a Rider]

That she thought rampaging bands of Negroes were going to show up makes her nuts and racist. Thanks for clarifying.

Who the **** said anything about “negroes”?

JoeB131 did. Nobody else.

So, who's the real racist, here?

This is yet another cheap tactic of his. He did this with me talking about the Nick Sandmann and Nathan Phillips incident by asking me if I was scared of the “red man” when Phillips’ ethnicity had nothing to do with anything.
If he can make it about race - even when it’s not - he can more easily dismiss my arguments. Because if he allows himself to acknowledge that it’s not an issue of race with me, I just might have a legitimate argument. He can’t have that, especially when a Catholic is involved.

 

[Ghost of a Rider]

You may as well face the fact that there was no legal reason to bar Nancy Lanza from owning firearms. Your opinion that she was crazy for being a prepper is just that: opinion, and is not reason enough to prohibit a person from owning firearms in any case.

Trust me, after the jury takes Remington to the cleaners.... the gun industry will be the ones demanding to not sell to the Nancy Lanzas of the world.

Irrelevant. Nancy Lanza - with no criminal record and being a citizen of the U.S. - still had every legal right to own firearms. Deal with it.

Even if by some chance Remington loses the case or comes out on the short end, it would be unconstitutional to deny someone the right to keep and bear arms based on an individual’s opinions or views on anything. Especially given the fact that very few murders are committed by preppers anyway. And especially given the fact that Nancy Lanza is not the one who committed the killings; is the one who purchased the guns (not Adam) and; is a woman so was likely not swayed by the marketing that was directed at men, which this case is about.

Given these facts and assuming the court exercises objective adjudication, this case is likely to fail.

 

[Ghost of a Rider]

It seems to me that going on and and on and on about “zombies”, as JoeB131 has been, when everyone knows there are no zombies, and nobody else has said anything about zombies, is a pretty good indication of who is crazy, and who is not; wouldn't you agree? Throw in his other bizarre obsessions and conspiracy theories about how Catholics and Mormons and Jews and conservatives, and everyone else are all out to get him, and I think it rather reinforces the point.

Naw, Mormon Bob, I use the term "Zombie" to point out the absurdity of an average citizen owning ten guns and thousands of rounds of ammunition in a nice white suburb... that's just ******* crazy...

If owning multiple firearms and thousands of rounds of ammo is absurd in and of itself, why the cheap sensationalism?

 

[2aguy]

You may as well face the fact that there was no legal reason to bar Nancy Lanza from owning firearms. Your opinion that she was crazy for being a prepper is just that: opinion, and is not reason enough to prohibit a person from owning firearms in any case.

Trust me, after the jury takes Remington to the cleaners.... the gun industry will be the ones demanding to not sell to the Nancy Lanzas of the world.

I'm pretty sure that earlier in this thread, he claimed to have served as some sort of weapons specialist in the military, a position which, if he had really held it, would make it impossible for him to have the extreme degree of ignorance about firearms that he so blatantly displays. But the, I think it's already very solidly established that among his other issues, he's a pathological liar.

sorry, dude. MOS 76Y- Supply Specialist/Armorer... Could probably still field strip the M16A1 blindfolded. I just don't masturbate over guns like you nuts do.

Moron....you stated things out of your ass about why the military uses that specific round......I corrected your ignorance and stupidity...

No, I stated the ammo was designed SPECIFICALLY for combat... which it was. The "Tumbling" was a term that was used, probably not terribly accurately, within the military itself, to describe the wounds these weapons inflict.... Probably really sucks to be a six year old hit by one.

Yes...specifically for combat....because it was small, and light and they could carry more....and as the links pointed out, it wasn't as effective as the 7.62. You moron.

 

[JoeB131]

t’s just a cheap literary tactic he uses to reinforce his opinion that she was crazy. This sort of thing only works on the “‘tarded” (as he likes to call them) and people predisposed to agree with him that preppers are not quite right.

Actually, its ******* hysterical... that's why it's so effective and you are whining about it.

This is yet another cheap tactic of his. He did this with me talking about the Nick Sandmann and Nathan Phillips incident by asking me if I was scared of the “red man” when Phillips’ ethnicity had nothing to do with anything.
If he can make it about race - even when it’s not - he can more easily dismiss my arguments. Because if he allows himself to acknowledge that it’s not an issue of race with me, I just might have a legitimate argument. He can’t have that, especially when a Catholic is involved.

Privileged white kid smirking at an elderly minority... there's a reason the Entitled Little Bastard is suing everyone and his brother... he looks like a piece of shit.

Irrelevant. Nancy Lanza - with no criminal record and being a citizen of the U.S. - still had every legal right to own firearms. Deal with it.

And that's the problem. That's what we need to fix.

Even if by some chance Remington loses the case or comes out on the short end, it would be unconstitutional to deny someone the right to keep and bear arms based on an individual’s opinions or views on anything. Especially given the fact that very few murders are committed by preppers anyway. And especially given the fact that Nancy Lanza is not the one who committed the killings; is the one who purchased the guns (not Adam) and; is a woman so was likely not swayed by the marketing that was directed at men, which this case is about.

The marketing was directed towards crazy people... and once the lawyers get their hands on the internal marketing documents, it's game over for Remington.

Given these facts and assuming the court exercises objective adjudication, this case is likely to fail.

Um. No. You've got your silly arguments. We've got the autopsy photos of what a 5.56 round does to a small child. You lose.

If owning multiple firearms and thousands of rounds of ammo is absurd in and of itself, why the cheap sensationalism?

Why not? Why not point out that when you SPECIFICALLY MARKET military grade weapons to mentally unstable people, just how absurd and evil that is?

 

[2aguy]

t’s just a cheap literary tactic he uses to reinforce his opinion that she was crazy. This sort of thing only works on the “‘tarded” (as he likes to call them) and people predisposed to agree with him that preppers are not quite right.

Actually, its ******* hysterical... that's why it's so effective and you are whining about it.

This is yet another cheap tactic of his. He did this with me talking about the Nick Sandmann and Nathan Phillips incident by asking me if I was scared of the “red man” when Phillips’ ethnicity had nothing to do with anything.
If he can make it about race - even when it’s not - he can more easily dismiss my arguments. Because if he allows himself to acknowledge that it’s not an issue of race with me, I just might have a legitimate argument. He can’t have that, especially when a Catholic is involved.

Privileged white kid smirking at an elderly minority... there's a reason the Entitled Little Bastard is suing everyone and his brother... he looks like a piece of shit.

Irrelevant. Nancy Lanza - with no criminal record and being a citizen of the U.S. - still had every legal right to own firearms. Deal with it.

And that's the problem. That's what we need to fix.

Even if by some chance Remington loses the case or comes out on the short end, it would be unconstitutional to deny someone the right to keep and bear arms based on an individual’s opinions or views on anything. Especially given the fact that very few murders are committed by preppers anyway. And especially given the fact that Nancy Lanza is not the one who committed the killings; is the one who purchased the guns (not Adam) and; is a woman so was likely not swayed by the marketing that was directed at men, which this case is about.

The marketing was directed towards crazy people... and once the lawyers get their hands on the internal marketing documents, it's game over for Remington.

Given these facts and assuming the court exercises objective adjudication, this case is likely to fail.

Um. No. You've got your silly arguments. We've got the autopsy photos of what a 5.56 round does to a small child. You lose.

View attachment 293075

If owning multiple firearms and thousands of rounds of ammo is absurd in and of itself, why the cheap sensationalism?

Why not? Why not point out that when you SPECIFICALLY MARKET military grade weapons to mentally unstable people, just how absurd and evil that is?

The AR-15 is not a military grade weapon you moron.......the military doesn't use it. They do, however, use the bolt action deer hunting rifle, and the 5 shot, tube fed, pump action shotgun. Those weapons are actual military weapons you moron.

 

[JoeB131]

The AR-15 is not a military grade weapon you moron.......the military doesn't use it. They do, however, use the bolt action deer hunting rifle, and the 5 shot, tube fed, pump action shotgun. Those weapons are actual military weapons you moron.

Wow, you really think that convinces anyone?

Dick Tiny, no one should own an AR15. There's simply no good reason for you to have one.

 

[Ghost of a Rider]

t’s just a cheap literary tactic he uses to reinforce his opinion that she was crazy. This sort of thing only works on the “‘tarded” (as he likes to call them) and people predisposed to agree with him that preppers are not quite right.

Actually, its ******* hysterical... that's why it's so effective and you are whining about it.

You didn’t use it to make me whine about it, you used it to try to convince me she was nuts. It failed miserably because I saw right through it from the beginning.

This is yet another cheap tactic of his. He did this with me talking about the Nick Sandmann and Nathan Phillips incident by asking me if I was scared of the “red man” when Phillips’ ethnicity had nothing to do with anything.
If he can make it about race - even when it’s not - he can more easily dismiss my arguments. Because if he allows himself to acknowledge that it’s not an issue of race with me, I just might have a legitimate argument. He can’t have that, especially when a Catholic is involved.

Privileged white kid smirking at an elderly minority... there's a reason the Entitled Little Bastard is suing everyone and his brother... he looks like a piece of shit.

Like I said...

Irrelevant. Nancy Lanza - with no criminal record and being a citizen of the U.S. - still had every legal right to own firearms. Deal with it.

And that's the problem. That's what we need to fix.

There’s nothing to “fix” because she didn’t kill anyone.

Even if by some chance Remington loses the case or comes out on the short end, it would be unconstitutional to deny someone the right to keep and bear arms based on an individual’s opinions or views on anything. Especially given the fact that very few murders are committed by preppers anyway. And especially given the fact that Nancy Lanza is not the one who committed the killings; is the one who purchased the guns (not Adam) and; is a woman so was likely not swayed by the marketing that was directed at men, which this case is about.

The marketing was directed towards crazy people... and once the lawyers get their hands on the internal marketing documents, it's game over for Remington.

There’s no way anyone’s going to prove they marketed their product to crazy people. Which they didn’t anyway.

Given these facts and assuming the court exercises objective adjudication, this case is likely to fail.

Um. No. You've got your silly arguments. We've got the autopsy photos of what a 5.56 round does to a small child. You lose.

Any idiot knows what bullets do to human flesh. This case is not about the damage a bullet does, it’s about the marketing.

If owning multiple firearms and thousands of rounds of ammo is absurd in and of itself, why the cheap sensationalism?

Why not? Why not point out that when you SPECIFICALLY MARKET military grade weapons to mentally unstable people, just how absurd and evil that is?

They didn’t.

 

[2aguy]

The AR-15 is not a military grade weapon you moron.......the military doesn't use it. They do, however, use the bolt action deer hunting rifle, and the 5 shot, tube fed, pump action shotgun. Those weapons are actual military weapons you moron.

Wow, you really think that convinces anyone?

Dick Tiny, no one should own an AR15. There's simply no good reason for you to have one.

People like you running the government is exactly the reason to own an AR-15.... you guys are way to eager to put those people you clearly hate into mass graves...

 

[JoeB131]

You didn’t use it to make me whine about it, you used it to try to convince me she was nuts. It failed miserably because I saw right through it from the beginning.

Naw, man, you think there are literal zombies... or something.

There’s no way anyone’s going to prove they marketed their product to crazy people. Which they didn’t anyway.

Then what are you guys worried about?

Any idiot knows what bullets do to human flesh. This case is not about the damage a bullet does, it’s about the marketing.

Exactly... they marketed a military grade weapon to a crazy woman, and her even crazier son took that gun and shot these people with it.

 

[JoeB131]

People like you running the government is exactly the reason to own an AR-15.... you guys are way to eager to put those people you clearly hate into mass graves...

And this is the kind of crazy person that Remington is marketing to... maybe the Families can call you as a witness. You can scream "moron" at the prosecutor when he mocks you.

 

[2aguy]

You didn’t use it to make me whine about it, you used it to try to convince me she was nuts. It failed miserably because I saw right through it from the beginning.

Naw, man, you think there are literal zombies... or something.

View attachment 293272

There’s no way anyone’s going to prove they marketed their product to crazy people. Which they didn’t anyway.

Then what are you guys worried about?

Any idiot knows what bullets do to human flesh. This case is not about the damage a bullet does, it’s about the marketing.

Exactly... they marketed a military grade weapon to a crazy woman, and her even crazier son took that gun and shot these people with it.

View attachment 293273

Not a military grade weapon....you doofus. The bolt action deer hunting rifle is a military grade weapon, on active duty right now. The pump action shotgun is a military grade weapon on duty with all branches of the U.S military right now.

The AR-15 is a civilian and police rifle, not used by any military anywhere in the world.

 

[JoeB131]

Not a military grade weapon....you doofus. The bolt action deer hunting rifle is a military grade weapon, on active duty right now. The pump action shotgun is a military grade weapon on duty with all branches of the U.S military right now.

The AR-15 is a civilian and police rifle, not used by any military anywhere in the world.

History lesson for you buddy.

M16 rifle - Wikipedia

As a result, the Army was forced to reconsider a 1957 request by General Willard G. Wyman, commander of the U.S. Continental Army Command (CONARC) to develop a .223 inch caliber (5.56 mm) select-fire rifle weighing 6 lb (2.7 kg) when loaded with a 20-round magazine.[27] The 5.56 mm round had to penetrate a standard U.S. helmet at 500 yards (460 meters) and retain a velocity in excess of the speed of sound, while matching or exceeding the wounding ability of the .30 Carbine cartridge.[51]

This request ultimately resulted in the development of a scaled-down version of the Armalite AR-10, named ArmaLite AR-15 rifle.[52][53][18] In the late 1950s, designer Eugene Stoner was completing his work on the AR-15. The AR-15 used .22-caliber bullets, which destabilized when they hit a human body, as opposed to the .30 round, which typically passed through in a straight line. The smaller caliber meant that it could be controlled in autofire due the reduced recoil. Being almost one-third the weight of the .30 meant that the soldier could sustain fire for longer with the same load. Due to design innovations, the AR-15 could fire 600 to 700 rounds a minute with an extremely low jamming rate. Parts were stamped out, not hand-machined, so could be mass-produced, and the stock was plastic to reduce weight.[26]

Throughout 1962 and 1963, the U.S. military extensively tested the AR-15. Positive evaluations emphasized its lightness, "lethality", and reliability.[26] However, the Army Materiel Command criticized its inaccuracy at longer ranges and lack of penetrating power at higher ranges.[52][46][26] In early 1963, the U.S. Special Forces asked, and was given permission, to make the AR-15 its standard weapon. Other users included Army Airborne units in Vietnam and some units affiliated with the Central Intelligence Agency. As more units adopted the AR-15, Secretary of the Army Cyrus Vance ordered an investigation into why the weapon had been rejected by the Army. The resulting report found that Army Materiel Command had rigged the previous tests, selecting tests that would favor the M14 and choosing match grade M14s to compete against AR-15s out of the box.[26] At this point, the bureaucratic battle lines were well-defined, with the Army ordnance agencies opposed to the AR-15 and the Air Force and civilian leadership of the Defense Department in favor.[26]

In January 1963, Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara concluded that the AR-15 was the superior weapon system and ordered a halt to M14 production.[52][46] In late 1963, the Defense Department began mass procurement of rifles for the Air Force and special Army units. Secretary McNamara designated the Army as the procurer for the weapon with the Department, which allowed the Army ordnance establishment to modify the weapon as they wished. The first modification was the additions of a "manual bolt closure," allowing a soldier to ram in a round if it failed to seat properly. The Air Force, which was buying the rifle, and the Marine Corps, which had tested it both objected to this addition, with the Air Force noting, "During three years of testing and operation of the AR-15 rifle under all types of conditions the Air Force has no record of malfunctions that could have been corrected by a manual bolt closing device." They also noted that the closure added weight and complexity, reducing the reliability of the weapon. Colonel Howard Yount, who managed the Army procurement, would later state the bolt closure was added after direction from senior leadership, rather than as a result of any complaint or test result, and testified about the reasons: "the M-1, the M-14, and the carbine had always had something for the soldier to push on; that maybe this would be a comforting feeling to him, or something


Short version, the AR15 was developed for MILITARY use. Not police. Not hunting. Not so you can compensate for your shortcomings.

 

[Ghost of a Rider]

You didn’t use it to make me whine about it, you used it to try to convince me she was nuts. It failed miserably because I saw right through it from the beginning.

Naw, man, you think there are literal zombies... or something.

Don’t be an idiot. I was trying to convey to you how ******* ridiculous and lazy it is.

There’s no way anyone’s going to prove they marketed their product to crazy people. Which they didn’t anyway.

Then what are you guys worried about?

I’m not. For two reasons: 1) It’s not what the case is about. 2) They’ll never be able to prove.

The case is about whether or not marketing was a factor in Adam’s using the Remington to kill.

Any idiot knows what bullets do to human flesh. This case is not about the damage a bullet does, it’s about the marketing.

Exactly... they marketed a military grade weapon to a crazy woman, and her even crazier son took that gun and shot these people with it.

Nope. They marketed the gun to men with a penis complex. You know, people like you.

 

[2aguy]

Not a military grade weapon....you doofus. The bolt action deer hunting rifle is a military grade weapon, on active duty right now. The pump action shotgun is a military grade weapon on duty with all branches of the U.S military right now.

The AR-15 is a civilian and police rifle, not used by any military anywhere in the world.

History lesson for you buddy.

M16 rifle - Wikipedia

As a result, the Army was forced to reconsider a 1957 request by General Willard G. Wyman, commander of the U.S. Continental Army Command (CONARC) to develop a .223 inch caliber (5.56 mm) select-fire rifle weighing 6 lb (2.7 kg) when loaded with a 20-round magazine.[27] The 5.56 mm round had to penetrate a standard U.S. helmet at 500 yards (460 meters) and retain a velocity in excess of the speed of sound, while matching or exceeding the wounding ability of the .30 Carbine cartridge.[51]

This request ultimately resulted in the development of a scaled-down version of the Armalite AR-10, named ArmaLite AR-15 rifle.[52][53][18] In the late 1950s, designer Eugene Stoner was completing his work on the AR-15. The AR-15 used .22-caliber bullets, which destabilized when they hit a human body, as opposed to the .30 round, which typically passed through in a straight line. The smaller caliber meant that it could be controlled in autofire due the reduced recoil. Being almost one-third the weight of the .30 meant that the soldier could sustain fire for longer with the same load. Due to design innovations, the AR-15 could fire 600 to 700 rounds a minute with an extremely low jamming rate. Parts were stamped out, not hand-machined, so could be mass-produced, and the stock was plastic to reduce weight.[26]

Throughout 1962 and 1963, the U.S. military extensively tested the AR-15. Positive evaluations emphasized its lightness, "lethality", and reliability.[26] However, the Army Materiel Command criticized its inaccuracy at longer ranges and lack of penetrating power at higher ranges.[52][46][26] In early 1963, the U.S. Special Forces asked, and was given permission, to make the AR-15 its standard weapon. Other users included Army Airborne units in Vietnam and some units affiliated with the Central Intelligence Agency. As more units adopted the AR-15, Secretary of the Army Cyrus Vance ordered an investigation into why the weapon had been rejected by the Army. The resulting report found that Army Materiel Command had rigged the previous tests, selecting tests that would favor the M14 and choosing match grade M14s to compete against AR-15s out of the box.[26] At this point, the bureaucratic battle lines were well-defined, with the Army ordnance agencies opposed to the AR-15 and the Air Force and civilian leadership of the Defense Department in favor.[26]

In January 1963, Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara concluded that the AR-15 was the superior weapon system and ordered a halt to M14 production.[52][46] In late 1963, the Defense Department began mass procurement of rifles for the Air Force and special Army units. Secretary McNamara designated the Army as the procurer for the weapon with the Department, which allowed the Army ordnance establishment to modify the weapon as they wished. The first modification was the additions of a "manual bolt closure," allowing a soldier to ram in a round if it failed to seat properly. The Air Force, which was buying the rifle, and the Marine Corps, which had tested it both objected to this addition, with the Air Force noting, "During three years of testing and operation of the AR-15 rifle under all types of conditions the Air Force has no record of malfunctions that could have been corrected by a manual bolt closing device." They also noted that the closure added weight and complexity, reducing the reliability of the weapon. Colonel Howard Yount, who managed the Army procurement, would later state the bolt closure was added after direction from senior leadership, rather than as a result of any complaint or test result, and testified about the reasons: "the M-1, the M-14, and the carbine had always had something for the soldier to push on; that maybe this would be a comforting feeling to him, or something


Short version, the AR15 was developed for MILITARY use. Not police. Not hunting. Not so you can compensate for your shortcomings.

From your link...you moron..

The M16 rifle, officially designated Rifle, Caliber 5.56 mm, M16, is a family of military rifles adapted from the ArmaLite AR-15 rifle for the United States military. The original M16 rifle was a 5.56mm automatic rifle with a 20-round magazine.

Also...

AR-15 style rifle - Wikipedia

In 1964, Colt began selling its own version with an improved semi-automatic design known as the Colt AR-15.[14]
--------
Comparison to military versions[edit]

The semi-automatic civilian AR-15 was introduced by Colt in 1963. The primary distinction between civilian semi-automatic rifles and military assault rifles is select fire.

Military models were produced with firing modes, semi-automatic fire and either fully automatic fire mode or burst fire mode, in which the rifle fires several rounds in succession when the trigger is depressed.


The bolt action dear hunting rifle is an actual military weapon...in use today. The pump action shotgun is an actual military weapon, in use today....you doofus.

 

[SavannahMann]

You didn’t use it to make me whine about it, you used it to try to convince me she was nuts. It failed miserably because I saw right through it from the beginning.

Naw, man, you think there are literal zombies... or something.

View attachment 293272

There’s no way anyone’s going to prove they marketed their product to crazy people. Which they didn’t anyway.

Then what are you guys worried about?

Any idiot knows what bullets do to human flesh. This case is not about the damage a bullet does, it’s about the marketing.

Exactly... they marketed a military grade weapon to a crazy woman, and her even crazier son took that gun and shot these people with it.

View attachment 293273

Prove Nancy was crazy. Post one link.

 

[JoeB131]

Don’t be an idiot. I was trying to convey to you how ******* ridiculous and lazy it is.

Not lazy at all. The belief you'll be attacked by ravenous undead is just as silly as being attacked by your neighbors because the economy got a little worse.

I’m not. For two reasons: 1) It’s not what the case is about. 2) They’ll never be able to prove.

The case is about whether or not marketing was a factor in Adam’s using the Remington to kill.

Sure it was. If they hadn't preyed on Nancy's brand of batshittery, that weapon never would have been in the house for him to use.

In 1964, Colt began selling its own version with an improved semi-automatic design known as the Colt AR-15.[14]

Point is, the MILITARY version preceeded the civilian version. Thank you for proving my point, Dick Tiny. They designed it for a battlefield, and THEN started marketing it to crazy people, only making a slight modification to prevent it from firing full auto.

 

[2aguy]

Don’t be an idiot. I was trying to convey to you how ******* ridiculous and lazy it is.

Not lazy at all. The belief you'll be attacked by ravenous undead is just as silly as being attacked by your neighbors because the economy got a little worse.

I’m not. For two reasons: 1) It’s not what the case is about. 2) They’ll never be able to prove.

The case is about whether or not marketing was a factor in Adam’s using the Remington to kill.

Sure it was. If they hadn't preyed on Nancy's brand of batshittery, that weapon never would have been in the house for him to use.

In 1964, Colt began selling its own version with an improved semi-automatic design known as the Colt AR-15.[14]

Point is, the MILITARY version preceeded the civilian version. Thank you for proving my point, Dick Tiny. They designed it for a battlefield, and THEN started marketing it to crazy people, only making a slight modification to prevent it from firing full auto.

Moron..the civilian model, the AR-15 is just that, a civilian model not used by the military, you doofus.....it is not military grade as you just pointed out you dumb ass.

The bolt action deer hunting rifle is a military grade weapon currently in use by the U.S. military.....

The pump action shotgun is a military grade weapon currently used by the U.S. military.....

The AR-15 is not a military grade weapon and is not currently used by the U.S. military.