this post was submitted on 01 Nov 2023
112 points (92.4% liked)

politics

18917 readers
3619 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
  2. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  3. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  4. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
  5. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  6. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] BaldProphet@kbin.social 14 points 10 months ago (3 children)

Sure, but the rifle in question is not, and has never been a military weapon. The premise is that this is a "weapon of war", as the redcoats like to describe it.

Besides, the "assault-style features" are purely cosmetic and have no bearing on the functionality of the rifle.

[–] thisisawayoflife@lemmy.world 18 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (2 children)

I'm assuming you know who Eugene Stoner is. If you do, you would also be aware that he designed the AR10 in a competition to be a replacement for the M1 Garand. You'd also be aware that the South Vietnamese liked it so much that they asked him to design a smaller version, which resulted in another team at Armalite scaling the AR10 down in addition to Stoner himself designing a new cartridge based on the Remington 222 (IIRC). Smaller weapon was a lot easier for the smaller stature of the Vietnamese to handle and also caught the attention of Curtis LeMay for use as survival equipment for his pilots.

If you don't know any of that, perhaps you should educate yourself. A great place to start would be the Library of Congress interviews with Eugene Stoner, where he lays out the exact history I described above, which are on YouTube.

[–] chiliedogg@lemmy.world -1 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Stoner's AR-15 and the AR-15 of today are pretty different. Now it's a genericized term for a firearms platform.

Think of it like a PC. It's about parts being mostly compatible. Lots of parts are interchangeable, though not everything matches. For instance the ammunition dictate the barrel and bolt size, and the buffer tube determines which stocks can be used, etc.

The common feature on pretty much all of them is the lower receiver, which is different than it was for Stoner and for military guns.

AR-15 receivers don't accommodate a part that's required for full-auto or burst fire, and modding them to accept the part is a super duper ultra felony - even if you don't put the part in.

Oh - and the weapon from Armalite used for pilot survival is a COMPLETELY different firearm. It's the AR-5, and was a 22 hornet takedown rifle that is not useful for combat at all. You can buy one today in .22lr called the AR-7 or "Henry Survival Rifle."

The "AR" designation just means they were designed by the Armalite Rifle company - the AR-17 was actually a shotgun designed for bird hunting.

[–] HelixDab2@lemm.ee 4 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Point of fact: AR-15 is actually a trademark owned by Colt. That's why there's the Ruger AR-556, and the S&W M&P 15 Sport II, which are marketed as AR-15 style rifles. Kinda like Styrofoam; people misuse the trademark (esp. styrofoam cups; such a thing has never existed) regularly, but it's still owned by the Dow Chemical Corp. (Or was; I think they sold that division off to E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co.)

[–] chiliedogg@lemmy.world 1 points 10 months ago

The trademark probably won't last too much longer though, as it's become genercized AND Colt wasn't the inventor of the product or the name. They also no longer manufacture civilian AR-pattern rifles, so they're on really shaky grounds for defending the name.

Bayer lost the trademark for Aspirin. Xerox almost lost the trademark to their own name, and had to actually start advertising their products as "photocopiers" instead of "Xerox machines."

[–] Semi-Hemi-Demigod@kbin.social 11 points 10 months ago (1 children)

If they're just cosmetic and have no bearing on the functionality, does that make whoever uses them a lamewad cosplayer?

[–] Triple_B@lemmy.zip 5 points 10 months ago

I wanna say Mall Shooter (like Mall Ninja), but...

[–] spaceghoti@lemmy.one 4 points 10 months ago

Sure, but the rifle in question is not, and has never been a military weapon. The premise is that this is a “weapon of war”, as the redcoats like to describe it.

Yes, thank you for this demonstration of pedantism.