Liberal Forum

Blackvegetable » 13 Jun 2022, 8:03 am » wrote: ↑

13 Jun 2022, 8:03 am

Huey » 13 Jun 2022, 8:01 am » wrote: ↑

13 Jun 2022, 8:01 am

Here is an interesting article you won't read:

Read more: https://www.ammoland.com/2021/12/origin ... z7W604w2X0
Under Creative Commons License: Attribution
Follow us: @Ammoland on Twitter | Ammoland on Facebook

Original ATF AR-15 Classification Refutes Claim that Rifle ‘Not Meant’ for Civilians.



So much for the argument that this rifle was never intended for the civilian market. Now a FOIA production of the original classification letter proves even ATF agreed at the time. (“A 1963 Colt AR-15 Advertisement”/Soldier Systems.)

That should clear up any confusion you have concerning the issue and your question.

I don't see the answer.


You LIE about reading citations.
 

 

I don't see where you specified which weapon you are discussing.  I highly recommend you click the link.  Even the ATF, or what the ATF was in 1963, views them as two separate weapons.  The citation also will tell when the Colt AR 15 was classified as a civilian weapon. It will also tell when the Colt AR 15 went on the market and when the M 16 was issued to the troops.  If you read the citation you might ask yourself "if the Colt AR 15 was designed for the battlefield why was it sold to civilians BEFORE the M 16 was issued to troops why didn't they just issue the Colt AR 15?"

Game.  Set.  Match.