Enlisted with a unique job of AFSC 9S100, Scientific Applications Specialist. We maintain the U.S. Atomic Energy Detection System to monitor foreign compliance with various international treaties limiting nuclear testing in the atmosphere, underwater, underground (think earthquakes), and in space to determine if the event is nuclear in nature. I later went to OCS as an engineer, and then got out just before 9/11.
Meaning the AR-15 was not built to military specification. If it is not built to military specification, then it is not a military weapon.
And thus the AR-15 is not, cannot, and will not, be considered a military weapon, as it is not constructed to the specifications demanded by the untied states military.
Military specifications, what the hell does built to military specifications mean for a rifle? It becomes a military rifle when they adopt it and removing the full auto function doesn't change that.
That's a ridiculous argument, claiming a rifle is no longer a military weapon, because the auto select option is removed, allowing it to be sold to the public.
It's quite simple. The M-16 that I was issued long ago was a select fire, military weapon. The AR-15 and its semi-automatic only variants sold at many civilian gun stores is a civilian firearm. What's the confusion?
That's nonsense and anyone who honestly looks into the development of the M 16 knows it. The AR-15 is the same weapon as the M 16 with the select fire option of full auto removed, so it can be sold to the US public, based on US laws. A military weapon is simply any weapon used extensively by any military in the world.
Have you ever used an M 16 and AR-15? Since when has a military weapon had the requirement to have full auto capability? Are you claiming no rifle existed as military weapon before 1959?
No i am primarily saying that whether it's axweapon of war is irrelevant to the 2nd ammendment. However the ar/ m16 platform is very very very far from being the first semi autimatic rifle. There were semi automatic firearms when the 2nd ammendment was written. The writers of the ammendments intended that the American people were 1 better armed than the military 2. That the American people are the military all on their own without government assistance. I also find it funny that at least from what i read ar 15s were bought by the airforce and that m 16s went to the army and marines. Question? Why?
It's about people lying because they can't use a forum properly and there is no way you can know someone wasn't in the service. It is possible to determine if someone was, but that would require having the brain to do so. Every branch of the service has things so unique to it that an intelligent person can use to determine if they were in that branch. You just like trolling forums with your nonsense.
Built in physical compliance with the standards requested by the united states military for the rifle to be considered acceptable for issuance and use. If it is not built to these specifications, each and every single line of specification, then it is not a military rifle. Except for the simple fact that no AR-15 rifles on the private market are built from surplus or reconditioned M16 rifles with the fully-automatic components removed. Rather they are built from the ground up for sale on the private market exclusively, therefore they were never designed nor intended to utilize M16 components for fully-automatic functioning.
Except for the fact that such is not what is being claimed or argued. It has never been stated on the part of myself that M16 rifles are converted into AR-15 rifles for sale on the private market, as such is simply not the case. Rather such is the claim of yourself, as demonstrated by the sentence structure. The AR-15 rifle on the private market was never designed nor intended to make use of the fully-automatic components, as there was no intention on the part of the manufacturers for the AR-15 of today to be submitted for testing by the united states military.
What the hell is a military weapon? Don't you think every country has a history of the military weapons they used? It's nonsense to claim a weapon that was obviously designed to be a military weapon suddenly stops being one if it's rendered semi-auto and has the full auto removed. The USA is not the only country in the world. Read what you wrote. "There were semi automatic firearms when the 2nd ammendment was written. The writers of the ammendments intended that the American people were 1 better armed than the military" How can you not be better armed than a military that doesn't exist? "2. That the American people are the military all on their own without government assistance." The second Amendment prohibited the disarming of the people and only mentioned militias, because the prevailing attitude of the time was not to have a standing army, for fear it could be used by a tyrant. The government was given power to raise a standing Army or Navy by design in the articles. They just didn't want to have a standing army until the War of 1812. Attitudes change when your capitol is burned and the foreign threat outweighs concerns about internal tyrants. If you really want to know the Constitution, read the minutes of the discussions for the Constitution and it will tell you the reasons for including something. The second Amendment says the people have a right to not be disarmed and the militia was used for justification while expressing their preference for national defense. The first war changed the militia preference, because it didn't work.
That is total nonsense. I was alive before 1959, so I'm aware the world existed then, too. The AK-47 was around back then with auto capability, it's obviously a military assault rifle and is still a military weapon if produced without auto capability. The only specification for acquiring a military rifle for most countries is finding someone who will sell it to you. Colt had designs to make a civilian version without auto before it landed it's major contract with the government. Again, there is no requirement a military rifle weapon has to have auto capability. It's still a military weapon, just like an AK-47 with auto removed is still a military weapon. AR-15s are not that hard to convert to full auto, so they were designed so similar to the M 16 that they can't prevent being converted. I hear a bunch of crap about being in the military, but one thing someone should know who has a need for rifles or machineguns in combat is the effectiveness of auto fire. Auto fire can be very deadly in circumstances that permit it, but it's different with other situations. M60s slow mobility. In combat, having auto fire capability is important, but it isn't used most of the time. Soldiers are limited by what they can carry at times and being resupplied isn't always available. When I used the M16A1, it was very easy to do two or three round bursts and I don't buy into the nonsense that it was changed for training purposes. They changed it for logistical purposes. Real life isn't TV and full auto isn't that important in a military weapon. A mass murderer wouldn't want to use full auto, because he only has so many rounds and that's a stupid way to waste them.
My rifle has to have a gas cylinder with a gas piston like found on the M-14 and M-1 Garand. Why I have never been a fan of the AR-15 / M-16 When you pull the trigger you never know if it's going to pop. AR's blows a whole crap load of crap into the breech and the bolt and lower receiver groups. The main disadvantage of direct impingement is that the breech of the firearm's firing mechanism becomes fouled more quickly due to being exposed to the residues of the burned cartridge propellant. This is caused by particles suspended in high-temperature gas condensing on the bolt face and primary operating mechanism. The combustion gases contain vaporized metals, carbon, and impurities in a gaseous state until they contact the relatively cooler operating parts. These deposits increase friction on the bolt's camming system leading to malfunctions, so that frequent and thorough cleaning is required to ensure reliability. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct_impingement
Which countries are purchasing semi-automatic only AK-47 rifles? If a military is not actually purchasing a particular rifle, due to it lacking fully-automatic capabilities, then it is not a military firearm. So stop claiming to the contrary. Then why did the united states military demand a rifle with fully-automatic capabilities, if a semi-automatic is exactly the same thing. Except for the fact that such is not actually the case, as the internal components of an M16 will nor work in an AR-15. Thus an admission on the part of yourself that the AR-15 is not a military firearm. More accurately, such an individual would not want a fully-automatic firearm because they are simply too cumbersome to be used for what they have in mind. That is why the majority of all mass shootings in the united states utilize handguns, rather than any other type of firearms. Do be sure to stay on topic, rather than diverting for some off topic and unrelated nonsense about an entirely different subject.
The early problems in Vietnam didn't happen until they changed to ball powder ammo and sent those early M 16s into Vietnam without cleaning kits. It wasn't so much the cleaning that caused the problems, it was the ball ammo altering the timing that caused the weapon to jam. That problem was solved by adding weights that moved within the bolt carrier. The chamber and barrel were chrome plated to avoid corrosion. The early models had a chrome plated bolt carrier and parts, but that was changed later to molybdenum phosphate plating. By the time I laid my hands on an M 16 in 1972, it was a dependable weapon. The weapons sent to Vietnam after the initial test were not dependable weapons. https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/2859676/ARPA-AR-15.pdf
Countries with laws like ours that prohibit owning full auto weapons order semi auto military weapons when the government allows imports. The militaries of friendly countries don't have to order semi auto weapons, Colt can sell them the M 16. There probably isn't much difference in the manufacturing costs of the M 16 and AR-15, because the difference is a few parts and extra things are done to prevent an AR-15 from being easily converted to full auto. Full auto doesn't have a damn thing to do with making a weapon a military weapon and never has. In the case of the M 16, the initial design had full auto capability and a civilian version without it was planned. It was designed to be a military weapon with civilian versions that were only semi-auto. Being a civilian version does not stop it from being a military weapon, there are plenty of things making it a military weapon besides having full auto capability.
I assume that you support the banning of the civilian AR-15 and its variants however it is still a civilian version of the military M-4 & M-16. Would you support the banning of all semi-automatic rifles including the Ruger 10-22 and how would this ban be enforced?
