Well…let’s dig into the history of the AR, shall we? Aside from the part where you’re trying to make the argument about Class III bullshit and not the point of the discussion which is that the AR and M-16 are essentially the same rifle.
The AR is “ArmaLite”, of which I am sure you are abundantly aware. How long has ArmaLite been around? Since the ‘50s. Guess what…they’re the ones originally trying to sell the AR-15 to the military. Note that I said AR-15, not M-16. And it did sell, but not too well at the time. But guess what? It was the ArmaLite rifle the military bought…so guess what? That makes the AR-15 a military rifle. Of course, obviously they re-designated it M-16. And when the AR patent expired, other manufacturers jumped in making copies but we still generically call them “AR”.
No? Not good enough? How about a quote right from ArmaLite themselves:
The ensuing rifle was called the AR-15 and was produced with aircraft grade aluminum receivers, weighing less than seven pounds. In 1959, the AR-10 was licensed to the Dutch Arsenal, Artillerie Inrichtingen, for sale on the international market and then to Colt’s Patent Firearms Manufacturing Company, along with the AR-15.
Seeing as you’re so obsessed with technicalities, this should make you happy. But somehow I don’t think it will, even though the AR-15 being a “military rifle” is 100% correct.
Actually yes that is my point exactly, they’re not essentially the same rifle. Are a nuke and a grenade “essentially the same” because they both explode? No because despite having similarities there are a few key differences between the two ordanences. Similarly, the AR15 and M16 are different rifles despite cosmetic similarities, because the key differences in the functional parts, namely the auto sear (or burst ratcheting system for the M4). For a civilian to have what you’re trying to dress AR15s up as they have to have that class III SOT bullshit.
Yes yes the military got them to add a forward assist and bought like 1,000 of them under the designation of AR-15 between 1957 and 1961, when they changed the designation to M16 for full adoption. Who’s the pedant now? They were still select fire, so fine, “there were about 1,000 ‘military grade’ ones in 1959ish,” but why pretend that everyone has one in their closet today if we both know it isn’t true? The ones owned by people without a class III SOT today are all invariably “not military grade,” so why pretend that they are? You and I both know the functional parts are different, yet you pretend they aren’t.
Yes yes, a total of 1,000, whoopty doo, I was under the impression that since it wasn’t officially adopted only purchased by the designation of “ar15” in the same configuration as an m16, I could get away with saying “use.” I was mistaken, I can admit when I was wrong.
So you agree this problem was already addressed in 1986 then, which is a refreshing change.
Well…let’s dig into the history of the AR, shall we? Aside from the part where you’re trying to make the argument about Class III bullshit and not the point of the discussion which is that the AR and M-16 are essentially the same rifle.
The AR is “ArmaLite”, of which I am sure you are abundantly aware. How long has ArmaLite been around? Since the ‘50s. Guess what…they’re the ones originally trying to sell the AR-15 to the military. Note that I said AR-15, not M-16. And it did sell, but not too well at the time. But guess what? It was the ArmaLite rifle the military bought…so guess what? That makes the AR-15 a military rifle. Of course, obviously they re-designated it M-16. And when the AR patent expired, other manufacturers jumped in making copies but we still generically call them “AR”.
No? Not good enough? How about a quote right from ArmaLite themselves:
Seeing as you’re so obsessed with technicalities, this should make you happy. But somehow I don’t think it will, even though the AR-15 being a “military rifle” is 100% correct.
Actually yes that is my point exactly, they’re not essentially the same rifle. Are a nuke and a grenade “essentially the same” because they both explode? No because despite having similarities there are a few key differences between the two ordanences. Similarly, the AR15 and M16 are different rifles despite cosmetic similarities, because the key differences in the functional parts, namely the auto sear (or burst ratcheting system for the M4). For a civilian to have what you’re trying to dress AR15s up as they have to have that class III SOT bullshit.
Yes yes the military got them to add a forward assist and bought like 1,000 of them under the designation of AR-15 between 1957 and 1961, when they changed the designation to M16 for full adoption. Who’s the pedant now? They were still select fire, so fine, “there were about 1,000 ‘military grade’ ones in 1959ish,” but why pretend that everyone has one in their closet today if we both know it isn’t true? The ones owned by people without a class III SOT today are all invariably “not military grade,” so why pretend that they are? You and I both know the functional parts are different, yet you pretend they aren’t.
ArcaneSlime said:
but wait…
ArcaneSlime also said:
Oh, so you agree? Just wanted to memorialize that for you. Keep arguing about the technicalities on your own.
Yes yes, a total of 1,000, whoopty doo, I was under the impression that since it wasn’t officially adopted only purchased by the designation of “ar15” in the same configuration as an m16, I could get away with saying “use.” I was mistaken, I can admit when I was wrong.
So you agree this problem was already addressed in 1986 then, which is a refreshing change.