Wow. Where to begin on this one? We all know the MSNBC’s sole purpose in life is to ensure the out-of-touch liberal that they’re okay; that their garbage opinions are mainstream. It’s meant to keep liberal blood pressures at healthy levels. So, in the wake of the horrific shootings in New Zealand that targeted Muslims, the AR-15 is once again coming under fire from anti-gunners. That’s what the shooter used to murder some 50 Muslims reportedly at separate mosques in the city of Christchurch.
Host Joe Scarborough said he’s a Second Amendment supporter and a gun owner but supports banning so-called weapons of war. That’s an anti-gun Left talking point. It’s replaced the previous made up term "assault weapon," which has lost its punch due to conservatives rightfully mocking and shredding it as a meaningless politically charged phrase aimed at masking the Left’s ignorance of firearms and instilling fear in voters. In other words, “assault weapon” is liberal code for ‘a gun that looks scary, but we can’t say that because we would look like pansies to the electorate’—too late. Sorry, when you use the Left’s language, you’re out. You’re pretty much saying you’re for the Second Amendment, except that you’re not. A ‘weapon of war’ is an equally idiotic term. To make his argument even more laughable, Scarborough tried to say that the AR-15 is “more lethal” than the M-14, the service rifle that briefly replaced the M-1 Garand, and the M-16. The M-14 didn’t last long in service, but just looking at the calibers these weapons fire is enough to debunk this insane claim.
Those suggesting the AR-15 was NOT developed as a weapon of war should read up on history. The AR-15 was developed as a military weapon to replace the M-14. Eugene Stoner designed it to be lighter and more lethal than the M-14.
— Joe Scarborough (@JoeNBC) March 18, 2019
It was far deadlier than the M-16 used in Vietnam.
Here’s an article from 1981 explaining how the Pentagon’s failure to use the AR-15 in Vietnam cost American lives. The AR-15 was proven to be lighter & more lethal than the M-14 or M-16. It was designed exclusively by Eugene Stoner to kill people in war.https://t.co/lAKA6USUlj
— Joe Scarborough (@JoeNBC) March 18, 2019
As a longtime gun owner and supporter of the Second Amendment, I agreed with the Supreme Court’s "Heller" holding that concluded Americans had the right to keep and bear arms. But that constitutional protection did not, and will not, extend to guns designed as weapons of war.
— Joe Scarborough (@JoeNBC) March 18, 2019
Joe Scarborough Butchers Description of the AR-15, Falsely Claims It’s ‘More Lethal’ Than the M-14 Used in Vietnam https://t.co/lWZ6SwAvJ8
— Katie Pavlich (@KatiePavlich) March 18, 2019
On a side note, the M-14 fires a .308 Winchester, which is much more powerful than the .223/5.56 round that the AR-15 fires. Also, the M-14 and M-16 have an automatic fire setting; the AR-15 can only fire semi-automatic. The AR-15 is certainly lighter, but the selective firing aspect certainly cuts down on Scarborough's claim that the AR-15 is more lethal. Julio Rosas, a U.S. Marine, detailed the differences on Mediaite. Yet, The Washington Free Beacon’s Stephen Gutowski was the person who really torched Scarborough in a lengthy Twitter thread, dissecting every point the MSNBC host made.
Oh man. Where to begin with this one...
— Stephen Gutowski (@StephenGutowski) March 18, 2019
First off, the AR-15 (as we know it) is a semi-automatic-only variant of the select fire (semi-automatic and fully-automatic) M-16. So, no, the AR-15 is not "far deadlier" than the M-16 since they're the same basic design. https://t.co/FMvLjuFdPh
Other than certain parts of the trigger group, M-16 and AR-15 parts are interchangeable. Colt quite literally used older M-16 parts in the AR-15s they sold on the civilian market way back in 1963. Here's a good video on early AR-15s/M-16s: https://t.co/Ahqr55bF59
— Stephen Gutowski (@StephenGutowski) March 18, 2019
The AR-15, or really the original AR-10, was designed to be very light. The concept was to use aircraft-grade materials to produce a light rifle. The idea that the AR-15, chambered for a much smaller 22 caliber round, is more "lethal" than the 30 caliber M-14 is highly dubious.
— Stephen Gutowski (@StephenGutowski) March 18, 2019
In fact, the M-14's larger round was considered one of its main advantages over the AR-15/M-16 when they were initially tested by the Army. Lethality is something of a matter of opinion. It's just that the vast majority of people tend to believe the larger round is more lethal.
— Stephen Gutowski (@StephenGutowski) March 18, 2019
Scarborough is right that many historians believe the M-16, after its own problems that mostly stemmed from some bad logistical changes being made when it was first adopted, was a far superior combat rifle than the M-14 due mainly to its reduced weight and improved reliability.
— Stephen Gutowski (@StephenGutowski) March 18, 2019
For some bizarre reason, though, he claims several times in his thread that the AR-15 is more deadly than the M-16 which is pretty bizarre since the AR-15 sold on the civilian market since 1963 is literally just a semi-automatic-only version of the M-16.
— Stephen Gutowski (@StephenGutowski) March 18, 2019
It is true that the AR platform was originally designed by Eugene stoner with a military contract in mind. And it's true that a variant was eventually produced for military service (the M-16). This is also true for pretty much every kind of gun you can think of.
— Stephen Gutowski (@StephenGutowski) March 18, 2019
Bolt action rifles, pump action shotguns, semi-automatic pistols, and revolvers have all been adopted by the US military and pretty much every military on the planet. Many designs popular on the civilian market today were originally designed for military contracts.
— Stephen Gutowski (@StephenGutowski) March 18, 2019
The 1911 is an example of this. The M1A is a semi-automatic-only variant of the M-14. The Remington 870, America's most popular pump-action shotgun, is used by the US military. Variants of the bolt-action Remington 700, a popular hunting rifle, is used by the military. An so on.
— Stephen Gutowski (@StephenGutowski) March 18, 2019
I would be interested to know what guns @JoeNBC owns because it's likely their basic design was created with a military contract in mind or they've been used by the military. I'd also be happy to calmly discuss this further with him. There is a lot of interesting history here.
— Stephen Gutowski (@StephenGutowski) March 18, 2019
Also, I want to note something important to @JoeNBC's point on military use. The select fire AR-15 as designed by Armalite became the select fire M-16 after being sold to Colt and adopted by the military. Colt then released the semi-automatic-only AR-15 for the civilian market.
— Stephen Gutowski (@StephenGutowski) March 18, 2019
In @JoeNBC's thread, there's a conflation of the early select fire AR-15 design with the semi-automatic-only variant that was designed for civilian use and which has been sold in the US for 56 years. To my knowledge, the military has never adopted the semi-automatic-only AR-15.
— Stephen Gutowski (@StephenGutowski) March 18, 2019
Here's an early ad for Colt's AR-15 Sporter, by the way. Gives you an idea of how the company originally marketed it. pic.twitter.com/F58xNZjVPc
— Stephen Gutowski (@StephenGutowski) March 18, 2019
If you're wondering why these details matter, SCOTUS briefly describes the M-16 & weapons "specifically designed for military use" as not "arms" in Heller. It doesn't provide a guide for what that means. It also describes guns "in common use" as protected. https://t.co/UHNvq1BMYI pic.twitter.com/bm2ZGfdCMt
— Stephen Gutowski (@StephenGutowski) March 18, 2019
So, there is certainly some debate over exactly what weapons are protected arms under the Second Amendment. SCOTUS explicitly said in Heller than the select fire M-16 is not. It didn't say anything about the semi-automatic-only AR-15 and similar rifles.
— Stephen Gutowski (@StephenGutowski) March 18, 2019
Given that the semi-automatic-only AR-15 is the most popular rifle in the country, it certainly seems to be "in common use."
— Stephen Gutowski (@StephenGutowski) March 18, 2019
Given that the semi-automatic-only AR-15 was not submitted for consideration nor ever adopted by the military, it doesn't seem to be "specifically designed for military use."
— Stephen Gutowski (@StephenGutowski) March 18, 2019
But this is an ongoing debate in federal court with federal judges coming down on both sides of the question thus far. SCOTUS has yet to weigh in.
— Stephen Gutowski (@StephenGutowski) March 18, 2019
Heller is much more of a compromise ruling than people realize. It seems tailored to overturn DC's handgun ban without wiping out most other federal and state gun laws like the National Firearms Act or Gun Control Act.
— Stephen Gutowski (@StephenGutowski) March 18, 2019
Yeah, this is why Gutowski is one of the best on this beat. This is a thorough drumming of the anti-AR-15 talking point here.
Join the conversation as a VIP Member