Why The AR15 IS A Weapon Of War

 Is the AR15 a weapon of war? Yes it is. There are many commentators online, some very knowledgeable people, and people that I personally like, who argue that it is not. In order to assess the argument, we need to define our terms first. So, the first thing we need to figure out is, what is an AR15? 

Contrary to popular belief, “AR” does not stand for Assault Rifle or Automatic Rifle, or anything like that. Rather, it stands for Armalite 15, Armalite being the company that designed the rifle. So it’s just a reference to the original company, which eventually got bought by Colt. Here is a photo of the prototype that Armalite designed. And the 15 just refers to the model number, a variant of the AR10, which shot a different caliber bullet. 

Over time, this style of gun, sometimes called a platform, of rifle has evolved over the years. In many modern versions, there is no carry handle, a delta ring, a fixed stock, or some other relatively minor feature. But the parts and the build are essentially the same. 

Okay, so, now that we know what the AR15 is, and what the AR platform is, we can now ask, is the AR15 a weapon of war? 

If you want to refer to the original AR15, then you have to say “Yes” that AR15 is a weapon of war, since it was used in the Vietnam War. This is a simple matter of historical record. Okay, so maybe what people mean to say is the modern AR platform, if not the AR15 specifically made by Armalite. Is it true that the modern AR platform is a weapon of war? 

Well, I think you would also have to say yes. Here is a photo of some soldiers marching, and they are clearly carrying AR’s. 

Here is a photo of Mike Glover, and he is carrying a rifle in the AR platform. 

Here is a photo of Medal of Honor recipient Dakota Meyer, and that is an AR platform rifle there in his hands. 

These are all contemporary pictures of modern warriors, in uniform, with AR platform rifles. Since they go to war, it must also be said that AR rifles are indeed weapons of war. 

So why then do some people insist that the AR15 is not a weapon of war? Well, the most common reason given is that military versions have a full auto feature, and civilian models do not. What does this mean? 

A rifle with a full auto feature means that if you were to keep the trigger pressed, bullets would keep firing out the rifle. In a semi auto rifle, which normal civilians like myself have, one pull of the trigger only fires one bullet out of the rifle. Nothing else happens if the trigger is kept pressed. So, militaries have the full auto feature, and civilians do not, and this, according to some people, is why the AR15 is not a weapon of war. 

But this is not a persuasive reason. The full auto feature is something that is not essential to an AR. That is to say, whether an AR has a full auto feature or not, it doesn’t change it from being an AR or not an AR. So, maybe an analogy would help here. 

Suppose I had a Honda Civic. And my Honda Civic has a manual transmission. That is to say, in order to gain speed as I press on the gas pedal, I need to shift gears manually. So, in order to increase speed, I let go of the gas, step on the clutch, and then shift gears, and then I continue to step on the gas pedal. This would be akin to a semi automatic rifle, where I have to let go of the trigger, like I have to let go of the gas pedal, in order to continue to fire, or in order to accelerate. Now suppose I changed the transmission in my Honda Civic from a manual to an automatic. That is, so long as I keep my foot on the gas pedal, then it will continue to accelerate. And this is akin to a full automatic, where I keep my finger pressed down on the trigger and it will continue to accelerate. 

The question is now this: does the changing of the manual transmission to an automatic transmission make the Honda Civic not a Honda Civic? Or is it still a Honda Civic? If you want to say that it is still a Honda Civic, no matter if it is a manual or automatic, then likewise, you would also have to say that an AR15 is still an AR15 no matter if it is semi automatic or fully automatic. And if it is the same AR15, then if one is used in war, then the other also counts as a weapon of war. Making it a semi automatic doesn’t disqualify it as a weapon of war. 

I think this becomes obvious when you look at some of the talking points that those who want to say AR15s are not weapons of war also raise. They also tend to be Second Amendment supporters, and they will say that we do not need these types of rifles for hunting deer, but for hunting tyrants. That sounds like an act of war to me. 

If you can think of any other reasons why someone would say that an AR15 is not a weapon of war, leave it down in the comments, and I’ll be happy to engage, no pun intended. I still have a very small channel, so I really have the time to talk with my commenters. Thanks for watching.