Conversation

Those suggesting the AR-15 was NOT developed as a weapon of war should read up on history. The AR-15 was developed as a military weapon to replace the M-14. Eugene Stoner designed it to be lighter and more lethal than the M-14. It was far deadlier than the M-16 used in Vietnam.

2,201

2,324

5,814

Joe Scarborough

@JoeNBC

Mar 18, 2019

Here’s an article from 1981 explaining how the Pentagon’s failure to use the AR-15 in Vietnam cost American lives. The AR-15 was proven to be lighter & more lethal than the M-14 or M-16. It was designed exclusively by Eugene Stoner to kill people in war.

theatlantic.com

M-16: A Bureaucratic Horror Story

Why the rifles jammed

463

964

2,173

Joe Scarborough

@JoeNBC

As a longtime gun owner and supporter of the Second Amendment, I agreed with the Supreme Court’s "Heller" holding that concluded Americans had the right to keep and bear arms. But that constitutional protection did not, and will not, extend to guns designed as weapons of war.

1:22 AM · Mar 18, 2019

Replying to

Why is it so hard for people to accept that balance? Oh yeah, money to be made.

Replying to

I don't get why ppl get defensive about guns, like a child whining about getting their toy taken away. Your ppl are getting massacred yet would rather chose to stand by rather than fight for innocent lives lost. How are u gonna fight a tyrannical govt when u can't protect ur ppl?

Replying to

and

I get a little upset when you want to take away my constitutional rights and the right to protect my family.

Show replies

Replying to

For most of history, the civilian population has had access to better, more lethal weapons than those issued by the military. The idea that civilians should not own “weapons of war” is both modern—and fundamentally belies the purpose of the Second Amendment.

257

You’re unable to view this Tweet because this account owner limits who can view their Tweets. Learn more

Show replies

Replying to

It's a false premise. SCOTUS says war/military weapons are specifically protected by the 2A. US v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 citing Aymette v. Tenn, 2 Humphreys 154, 158 upheld the banning of short-barreled shotguns because they were not "any part of the ordinary military equipment".

This Tweet is from a suspended account. Learn more

Show replies

Replying to

And yet the 2nd Amendment absolutists still have no real answer for the question of "A well regulated militia...." if the founders thought it an individual right, why did they include that language?

You’re unable to view this Tweet because this account owner limits who can view their Tweets. Learn more

Show replies

Replying to

I served in the U S Army, I used the weapons of war to defend this country with honor and distinction and pride. I would say that most Americans and legal gun owners should not own the AR-15. I enjoy my weapons as the law currently provides.

Replying to

and

What rifle were you issued in the Army?

Show replies