Family of AR-15 Inventor: He Didn't Intend It for Civilians

Internal fixed magazines with capacities of less than 10 rounds.

 

He stood down the column of tanks and, at least temporarily, halted their progress. Because the tank driver was not willing to run down his own countryman.

Our military, doubly so. The vast majority of them would never take up arms against their own countrymen, and would defect, with their weaponry, to the side of The People, as they have sworn an oath to do. If you are ever near enough to a soldier, ask him what he would do. Every one I have asked has told me the same thing. This is something every soldier has thought through.

 

I'm not aware of a AR-15 in the military...

Can you please point one out to me

Thanks

 

The Mini-14 was first introduced in 1974 by Ruger. The name Mini-14 is derived from the military M14 rifle.[8] It incorporated numerous innovations and cost-saving engineering changes. The Mini-14 proved popular with small-game hunters, ranchers, law enforcement, security personnel, and target shooters.

 

Which is why they refused to fire at Kent State.

 

Didn't stop the military from winning a war.

 

There are millions of AR-15 derived rifles in use by the US military right now.

- - - Updated - - -

It helped that nearly every enemy was equipped identically.

 

Can you post a link to a miltary that uses a AR-15

Thanks

 

There were 28 guards, 25 of these guards fired 55 rounds into the air and into the ground, 2 of the guards fired .45cal pistol shots, 2 into the crowd, and 3 into the air, one guard fired birdshot into the air.

TWO of the 28 national guardsmen actually fired at the crowd. We can expect about the same ratio of soldiers to take up arms against their countrymen; 1 in 14.

 

Will you acknowledge an AR-15 derived design (i.e. One based on the original AR-15 designed by Eugene Stoner) is an AR-15?

 

The same way the AK's did in Afghanistan, Iraq, Viietnam, etc.

Tanks, those are cool. Not very good against solely infantry units. Especially in guerilla wars. Nothing in our military is built for a guerilla war other than a few SEAL teams and Delta.

That tank cost how much to run an hour on idle? Ok, let's take one guy let him shoot a few rounds from a hillside and then runaway. What happened? The entire convoy stops. Burning resources, time, and money's.

Hrlicopters? Neat. Not very useful against few and far between targets. In fact,they waste a lot more resources than they'd be worth. (Remember, no taxes at this time. Civil war has broken out.)

Drones? If the military starts droning citizens on US soil you and I will both watch millions of people storm DC. Probably walking away with the head of whatever politician they could carry.

Now again, anything else?

Edit. You also forget that about half of the soldiers would tell the government to (*)(*)(*)(*) off, so now not only do we have firearms, we have whatever military goodies the defectors bring over.

 

So only 100,000 soldiers would directly fire on their countrymen while the rest would be willing to use force to intimidate the.

 

I remember years ago I could have bought one new for $105. They marketed it as a "ranch rifle" - throw it in the truck while you were out on the back 40 in case you encountered a coyote or snake. I was a cartridge snob at the time and didn't like anything less than 308/7.62x51NATO. Wish I could have that decision back.

 

So people can storm DC without fighting a war, then why do we need to be prepared for a war with the government?

 

The answer is no.
The reason is that no military uses the commercially sold AR15
The pre-M16 AR15 rifle, from which the M16 derives, is not the same rifle as the AR15 and so while a small number of pre-M16 AR15 rifles were used by the US military for evaluation, these rifles do not meet the requirements of your challenge.

Everyone knows this, of course.

 

In case our government ever starts nightly raids while pooling troops to areas of tactical value.

You know, so your neighbors can stop them from dragging your family to the road and executing them before tossing them in the ditch.

Say it won't happen, it always does. History never fails to repeat itself.

Hell, ask Poland. Or any Cambodian. You know what, how about a Rawandan? They would all agree..

 

Oh, they will. Once they get the AR-15, they will be looking to take that evil M1, a semi-automatic evil "weapon of war" that fires a deadly high power round as fast as you can pull the trigger.

Then, that Springfield, which fires a deadly high power round as fast as you can work the bolt and can KILL, KILL, KILL innocent children from half mile away will be rising to the top of their list.

Then your single shot .410 shotgun that can murder little babies with one pull of the trigger by firing multiple pieces of hot lead will somehow be deemed an "assault" shotgun.

That's the progression outlined by Josh Sugarmann of the VPC wayyy back in the 80's. Little by little, small change by small change until private ownership of firearms is eliminated.

 

And they wonder why we won't give an inch.

 

Just pray tell, what history of civilian controlled military, democratic government, and peaceful transition of power did those nations have?

By all means, I support the right of people to own guns, but saying that American need guns to protect them from our government is stupid. We didn't even turn tyrannical in the middle of a civil war, elections were still held and no one was talking about postponing them with any real interest.

 

A tiny minority of our military TODAY would actually turn their weaponry against The People in the unlikely event that a rogue government took power here. A tiny fraction of them. Speak to a soldier or two. None I have ever asked this question to have said they would.

 

While at ArmaLite and Eugene Stoner, designed a series of prototype small arms, including the AR-3, AR-9, AR-11, AR-12, during the 1950's none of which saw significant production. Their only real success during this period was the AR-5 chambered in 22 Hornet survival rifle, which was adopted by the United States Air Force. In 1956 Armalite/Stoner submitted the AR-10 chambered in 7.62x51mm (.308 cal) to the U.S. Army for testing.

 

I'm still waiting on the Military that uses a AR-15...

Poster must be busy finding the information....

 

Can rifles derived from the AR-15 be fairly called AR-15's similar to the way rifles derived from the AK-47 are commonly called AK's?

 

It's also chambered in 7.62x39mm too. I have one in that caliber. It's a good deer round and kills coyote in mid step.

 

Does any Military in the world use a AR-15 or not...

It's not a difficult question..

It's a Yes or No answer...