Magazine-fed semi-automatic rifles were originally a civilian product (Winchester model 1907 in .351 caliber). The first U.S. military selective fire rifle was the Browning Automatic Rifle of 1918, not a commonly-issued item.
Eugene Stoner originally designed the AR-15 as a military rifle with selective fire capability. The rights and patents were subsequently sold to Colt, who went on to produce the M-16 and a semi-auto-only version of the AR-15 for civilian sale. The AR-15 was designed from the AR-10 which definitely was a selective-fire military weapon, sold to Portugal and Sudan.
It is unwise to get emotionally wrapped up in an irrelevant argument. The Colt model 1911 pistol was a "military" pistol, no question about it. And, so what? Military clothing? So what? Military truck? So what? Military food? So what? That response will force the anti-gunners to back away from anti-military bigotry and attempt other arguments. (The 2nd Amendment was intended to protect the ownership of militia-suitable weapons. In those days and later, there was no real distinction between "civilian" and "military" firearms.)
"Oh, it's more powerful!" Than what? The 5.56mm NATO round is much less "powerful" than most deer hunting ammo, and certainly less powerful than the preceding rifle ammo (7.62mm NATO and .30-'06). Or we could revert to the Winchester model 1886 lever-action rifle chambered in .45-70, suitable for taking down bison. Or muskets firing .50-caliber lead balls. Just make them look stupid.
You can cut to the chase and say "The real reason you dislike the AR-15 is because it has a pistol grip...and you think that is an unnatural perversion of a firearm. Everything else about it makes no difference." I think they might have a mental hiccup at this point, because they are (in my opinion) probably putting the AR-15 into the same mental category as a Thompson submachine gun---which also has a pistol grip. Kinda like all bad guys wear black hats...
The AR-15 was designed by Armalite a defense contractor. It was born out of the failed AR-10 competition of 1957. The design was licensed to Colt which first sold AR-15's to the USAF for base security. Colt then sent a batch to the US Army for use in the field during the early stages of Vietnam and they were impressed with it. At the SAME TIME Colt introduced a civilian SPORTER model for public sale. When the US Army adopted it under the designation M-16 Colt was already selling them to the public.
The whole point of the 2A is a check against a tyrannical government. The Constitution is "we the people", not we the government. The 2A is simple and straight forward.
It has nothing to do with hunting, but that's another story.
The National Guard is not a "well regulated militia" either, it is a government military force primarily controlled by individual states under separation of powers.
The 2A allows us the right to "correct" our government when it trashes "our" Constitution. It is the hinge pin of the power of WE THE PEOPLE.
There is NO argument for limiting the RIGHT FOR THE PEOPLE TO BEAR ARMS.
Magazine-fed semi-automatic rifles were originally a civilian product (Winchester model 1907 in .351 caliber). The first U.S. military selective fire rifle was the Browning Automatic Rifle of 1918, not a commonly-issued item.
Eugene Stoner originally designed the AR-15 as a military rifle with selective fire capability. The rights and patents were subsequently sold to Colt, who went on to produce the M-16 and a semi-auto-only version of the AR-15 for civilian sale. The AR-15 was designed from the AR-10 which definitely was a selective-fire military weapon, sold to Portugal and Sudan.
It is unwise to get emotionally wrapped up in an irrelevant argument. The Colt model 1911 pistol was a "military" pistol, no question about it. And, so what? Military clothing? So what? Military truck? So what? Military food? So what? That response will force the anti-gunners to back away from anti-military bigotry and attempt other arguments. (The 2nd Amendment was intended to protect the ownership of militia-suitable weapons. In those days and later, there was no real distinction between "civilian" and "military" firearms.)
"Oh, it's more powerful!" Than what? The 5.56mm NATO round is much less "powerful" than most deer hunting ammo, and certainly less powerful than the preceding rifle ammo (7.62mm NATO and .30-'06). Or we could revert to the Winchester model 1886 lever-action rifle chambered in .45-70, suitable for taking down bison. Or muskets firing .50-caliber lead balls. Just make them look stupid.
You can cut to the chase and say "The real reason you dislike the AR-15 is because it has a pistol grip...and you think that is an unnatural perversion of a firearm. Everything else about it makes no difference." I think they might have a mental hiccup at this point, because they are (in my opinion) probably putting the AR-15 into the same mental category as a Thompson submachine gun---which also has a pistol grip. Kinda like all bad guys wear black hats...
I ask them, "How would you feel if you got pulled over by a cop, and he gave you a ticket because your car 'looked fast'?"
This whole argument is INANE.
The AR-15 was designed by Armalite a defense contractor. It was born out of the failed AR-10 competition of 1957. The design was licensed to Colt which first sold AR-15's to the USAF for base security. Colt then sent a batch to the US Army for use in the field during the early stages of Vietnam and they were impressed with it. At the SAME TIME Colt introduced a civilian SPORTER model for public sale. When the US Army adopted it under the designation M-16 Colt was already selling them to the public.
The whole point of the 2A is a check against a tyrannical government. The Constitution is "we the people", not we the government. The 2A is simple and straight forward.
It has nothing to do with hunting, but that's another story.
The National Guard is not a "well regulated militia" either, it is a government military force primarily controlled by individual states under separation of powers.
The 2A allows us the right to "correct" our government when it trashes "our" Constitution. It is the hinge pin of the power of WE THE PEOPLE.
There is NO argument for limiting the RIGHT FOR THE PEOPLE TO BEAR ARMS.
Period!