AR-15 Inventor’s Family: This Was Meant to Be a Military Weapon

S

Seahawk

12
AR-15 Inventor’s Family: This Was Meant to Be a Military Weapon

In the wake of the Orlando shooting that left 49 victims dead, the family of the inventor of the AR-15 rifle says that the gun was not intended for civilian use but for military purposes.

“Our father, Eugene Stoner, designed the AR-15 and subsequent M-16 as a military weapon to give our soldiers an advantage over the AK-47,” the Stoner family told NBC News. “He died long before any mass shootings occurred. But, we do think he would have been horrified and sickened as anyone, if not more by these events.”

https://www.yahoo.com/news/ar-15-inventor-family-meant-145455435.html?nhp=1
 
The fully automatic version of the AR-15 is the M-16....and it IS a military weapon....

The semi automatic version is no different that dozens of other high power semi automatic rifles....

.308 Springfield M1A...
Ruger Mini Thirty , Semi-automatic, 7.62x39mm
Browning Mark II Safari, Semi-automatic, .30-06
Ruger Mini-14 Ranch Rifle, Semi-automatic, .223 Remington
FNH FN 15 Sporting, Semi-automatic, .223 Remington

and many many others....
 
Family of AR-15 Inventor: He Didn't Intend It for Civilians

Well duh? Military grade assault rifles are for warfare!
86a00563832a93d96520f74c5f5d16bf.jpg
 
Quite a bunch of nonsense . . .

Because the AR/AK (or generalized "assault weapon" platform) has military usefulness (is effective in killing people efficiently) is a central reason why the US civilian possession and use (keep and bear) of those types of arms is protected by the 2nd Amendment.

The US Supreme Court has established the criteria to decide if a type of arm is protected by the 2nd Amendment (US v Miller).

The arms must be of a type usually employed in civilized warfare / that constitute the ordinary military equipment and/or if its use could contribute to the common defense and/or of a type in common use by the citizens.

If any of those criteria are met, the weapon is protected and any power claimed by government to restrict the possession and use (keep and bear) of the weapon must be repelled (or invalidated if a law has been enacted).

As anyone can see, an AR platform rifle meets all the protection criteria . . . There really is no possible legal argument that would allow it to be banned (constitutionally that is).
 
Abatis said:
Quite a bunch of nonsense . . .

Because the AR/AK (or generalized "assault weapon" platform) has military usefulness (is effective in killing people efficiently) is a central reason why the US civilian possession and use (keep and bear) of those types of arms is protected by the 2nd Amendment.

The US Supreme Court has established the criteria to decide if a type of arm is protected by the 2nd Amendment (US v Miller).

The arms must be of a type usually employed in civilized warfare / that constitute the ordinary military equipment and/or if its use could contribute to the common defense and/or of a type in common use by the citizens.

If any of those criteria are met, the weapon is protected and any power claimed by government to restrict the possession and use (keep and bear) of the weapon must be repelled (or invalidated if a law has been enacted).

As anyone can see, an AR platform rifle meets all the protection criteria . . . There really is no possible legal argument that would allow it to be banned (constitutionally that is).
Click to expand...

You are correct but the gun grabbers are afraid of how it looks while ignoring the real problem. Because you know if a muslime can't get a gun he will probably just give up and go home.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top