Thread by @JasonKander

THREAD: I'm tired of hearing this fraudulent argument against an assault weapons ban. If someone makes this argument to you, consider the following response:

https://twitter.com/crobedeaux/status/1173727740509523968

1. The AR-15 was originally designed for the military as a smaller replacement for FOUR different rifles.
2. It was a tactical answer to the AK-47, which was (and still is) the preferred rifle of our enemies. No one argues an AK is anything other than an assault weapon.

3. Everything about assembling and maintaining the AR-15 is the same as the M-16. I was trained on the M-16 and the M-4, yet I can (as is well documented) break down and reassemble an AR-15 blindfolded BECAUSE THE PARTS ARE EXACTLY THE SAME.

4. The only noticeable difference between the M-16/M-4 and the AR-15 is the select fire feature, meaning you can flip from semi-auto to three-round burst and/or full-auto . . . but that doesn't cease to make the weapon an ASSAULT weapon.

5. Can't speak for others, but I was trained to almost never employ burst or full-auto, because they were an inefficient waste of ammunition.

Burst/auto is undeniably useful when laying down suppressive fire, which, in layman's terms, is when you try to force the enemy to keep their head down and not return fire momentarily while your ASSAULT element moves on them from the flank, likely on semi-auto themselves.

Other times when we were taught to potentially use burst or auto would be when clearing a bunker, performing certain room clearing techniques, etc.

6. 95% of the time, in my experience, Army marksmanship instructors would consider firing on burst/auto to be poor ammo discipline.

7. Point being, the only truly noticeable distinction between the AR-15 and its "military" counterpart, the M-16 or M-4, has nothing to do with whether it's an assault rifle.

8. Therefore, IT'S A WEAPON OF WAR.

9. Goodnight.