Oh Joe, you, and your hair, and your egregious lies. First up, Joe, his hair, and his lies
Oh no, no Joe, you simpleton, you got it all wrong
Scarborough needs to go back and re-read that piece from The Atlantic. The AR-15 was considered the better firearm, not because it was more deadly than the M-16, but because it was more reliable and a lighter. The M-16 was modified to have a manual bolt-closure, for example. Further, some of the Army’s “improvements” made the weapon less reliable.
The AR-15 was preferred over the M-14 for many of the same reasons. It was accurate, reliable, and light. That’s great if you have to carry a firearm around with you all day as soldiers do.
Or, you know, like many hunters.
Despite the claims by Scarborough, nothing in that article makes the AR-15 a “weapon of war,” and his claims of supporting the Second Amendment ring hollow after he parroted a noted anti-gun talking point in that. After all, show just one military that issues the AR-15.
Claiming that the M-16/M-4 is close enough to the AR-15 for the term to apply leads us down a very slippery slope. That same logic could label something like the Remington 700, a bolt-action rifle-as a “weapon of war” too. After all, it’s the chassis for the Marine Corps sniper rifles. Functionally, there’s little difference between the two, even less difference between one of them than between the AR-15 and the M-4.
Go read the rest of Knighton correcting Joe “Educated Beyond His Hat Size” Scarborough