Feds admit in court that AR-15's are not weapons of war

[stanc]

You forgot to comment on this: Until the NFA tax law was adopted, there was no legal separation, class or distinction between civilian or military firearms. Marketing, "not law" for the potential customer was the only distinction.

I didn't see a need to comment on it, because it's true. The only reason that the semi-auto AR-15 even exists is due to Federal and State restrictions on full-auto firearms.

The point being made and used by the 2ndA foundation was the AR-15 was not designed specifically and used as a weapon of war.

I know. However, it's a distinction without a practical difference. The AR-15 was originally designed specifically for, and used as, a weapon of war. The semi-auto variant is just a slightly modified version of that weapon of war.

What exactly is combat capability??? I would gather it is material, items, adopted and used by the military and all Stoner type 5.56 rifles have full auto or burst capability. Semi auto only is not a function the military adopts for their 5.56 rifles...

Although 5.56 military rifles have full-auto capability, they are used almost exclusively in semi-auto mode. Since we're talking about virtually identical firearms, that fire the same ammunition, fed from the same magazines, combat capability is, for all practical purposes, the same.

Shoot, the reason you and others keep giving for having an AR-15 is to be able fight a tyrannical government. If the AR-15 doesn't have the same combat capability as the rifles that would be used by government forces, why on Earth would you want it to wage war??? Personally, I would want a "weapon of war" for that purpose, not a "sporting rifle."

The Remington bolt action is used by the military, so does that make bolt action rifles illegal for civilians use since it is a weapon of war adopted by the military??? Semi auto pistols and revolvers are used by the military so are they weapons of war which should be banned for civilians??? Knives, optics, night vision, etc are used as weapons of war. Should these items be banned as weapons of war???

I would prefer they not be banned. I like weapons of war.

It is the weapon of war that is protected under the 2ndA which you have argued against me on in the past claiming the 2A only protects the "militia" military and national guard since the unorganized militia is non existent. You are now using a straw man argument that the win for our gun rights by the 2A foundation is not a win since it separates sporting use "civilian" vs military firearms. So you are saying it is not a win for the 2A since it uses the flawed sporting use clause even though you believe the 2A only protects weapons of war for the militia, "being the national guard and military only" since the unorganized militia is no longer in existence or are you saying there are no legal firearms protected under the 2A for civilians???

1. I never said that the unorganized militia no longer exists. I said the militia system originally conceived and established by the Founders no longer exists.
2. My position on the 2A is that the wording indicates its intent and purpose was to ensure availability of military weapons to the members of State militias.
3. It is not a straw man argument to opine that it is a very bad idea to reinforce the anti-gun position which originally spawned the "sporting use" criteria.
4. I am saying it is not a win for the 2A because it won't affect anti-gun efforts, and (as LRRPF52 and JASmith noted) could potentially be damaging to us.