The AR-15 / M-16 was meant to create a tactical advantage over the AK-47, the weapon typically employed on the battlefield by America’s enemies. Now civilians can buy both in America, which is completely ridiculous.https://time.com/4371452/orlando-shooting-ar-15-military-civilian-family/ …
-
-
True. The OP deliberately confuses Colt’s semi-auto AR-15 that put on the market for civilians in 1969 with Armalite’s select-fire AR-15 that was developed for the military a decade earlier.
-
They are all versions of one another just like Chevy Trucks and GM Trucks and pretending otherwise is just a bullshit argument to confuse people who don't know about guns.
- Show replies
New conversation -
-
-
This is incorrect. There were about 1000 AR-15's used in Vietnam in 1962. They were field testing them. The DoD has a complete report on it including evaluations of the damage inflicted on enemy combatants.
-
Sorta true. The original Armalite AR-15 was used by the military. This is now a collector piece, never used in crime. But the semi-auto Colt AR-15 and its derivatives never were, and this is the version in the news.
- Show replies
New conversation -
-
-
They are all versions of each other and as different as Chevy Trucks are from GM Trucks. We all know what Jason is talking about, so lets stop the BS.
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
- Show replies
New conversation -
-
-
The AR-15 came first, in 1947; the M16 a decade later. They have the same magazine capacity: 30 rounds. The former is heavier, with a shorter range and slower rate of fire, but these are subtle differences. Overall, the weapons are pretty similar.
-
Eugene Stoner didn't start working on the AR-15 until 1959. There's no inherent weight difference between it and M-16. Rate of fire difference comes from the fact that former is semiautomatic and latter full auto, which is a pretty substantial difference. Good tweet, tho...
- Show replies
New conversation -
-
-
You are a liar. The AR-15 in the early days of the Vietnam war was issued and carried by officers. I know, because I WAS THERE!
-
So the AR-15 is a “weapon of war”? That’s not the pro-gun rhetoric I’ve heard before.
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.