I’ve already mentioned this, the AR15 is one of the most common civilian firearms in the USA, it is the common use firearm of civilians.
And have you ever wondered why that is, today??
I think the major reason is because the govt banned them (new ones) from 1994-2004. They became forbidden fruit, and so highly attractive to people who previously had little or no interest in them.
the AR-15 hit the civilian market in the early 60s and while sales were enough to keep civilian sales going, they were not terribly popular.
My 1974 Gun Digest shows the AR-15, only available in .223 listing for about $235, which was pretty spendy in those days, and at that time, .223 was not legal for deer hunting in the majority of states.
For comparison, in 1974 a Remington 742 listed for about $180, and could be had in a variety of deer legal calibers including .30-06. Legal for deer hunting everywhere that allowed rifles for deer hunting at that time.
Fast forward to the mid 80s and changes in the AR resulted in a generally more accurate rifle, and its modular contstuction was being exploited much more fully (primarily by aftermarket manufacturers) and it was being adapted to other calibers some of which were legal for deer in most of the country. SO despite their greater cost over more traditional deer rifles, the AR gained some in popularity.
Move to the late 80s and the beginning of the still ongoing mass shootings and the govt's interest in restricting and banning the type of rifles defined in the 94 AWB law as "assault weapons".
prior to that law's passing AR sales skyrocketed. Prices soared into outer space, people were asking, and GETTING double or more. I happily sold an AR clone that I paid $450 for, for $900 shortly before the ban was passed.
In 2004, When the 94 law sunset (because Congress did not pass its reauthorization) lots and lots of people who "missed out before" could now get new AR15s and lots of them went right out and did so, before another ban got passed. many times not because they were all that interested (at first) in the rifle, but because they wanted to get what the govt was trying to ban, while they could. As time went on, with more and more of them in private hands, their usefulness and popularity became firmly established in the private sector.
So, I think one of the big reasons the AR is so popular these days can be laid squarely at the feet of the anti-gun people (in and out of govt) who tried to ban them. And the news media for endlessly talking about their criminal misuse as if it were the only reason for owning one? Or the entertainment industry for showing us nearly everyone (heroes and villains) using them, constantly in "action" films?? In the early 60s about the only time you saw machineguns in movies were war movies (and the occasional gangster movie set during the era of Prohibition. Today, its tough to find an action movie WITHOUT full auto weapons being used in it.
One of my other pet peeves is people who use the THEIR concept of "need"
to decided what I should be allowed to have. So far, I have managed to suppress my gag reflex and restrain my impulse to slap some sense into them. Which doesn't stop me from sometimes replying "just who the hell are you to decide what I, or anyone else, needs??"
There are two levels to this as I see it, first being what human needs actually are. At the lowest level, you need enough food not to starve, and enough shelter not to die from exposure (heat or cold). That's it. Some people will argue that people need some level of companionship, but I don't think that is an individual need. Procreation for the survival of the species is a need, but not an individual one. Everything beyond that is a want or desire, and while we might feel they are needs, because they increase our quality of life, they arent needs for individual survival, as I see it.
The second part when someone says "nobody needs ....(whatever it is) to me, is about moral authority, and individual liberty.
I don't care if you have billions of dollars or claim to be speaking the will of the Almighty on high, you DON'T have the moral authority to decide what I need, unless I directly and personally give it to you.
One of my counter arguments when someone pulls the "need" card is to ask them how much money they make. We have minimum wage laws. That says to me the minimum wage is what the govt says we need to be paid. THEREFORE, any and every penny you make above that isn't something you "need" and therefore you shouldn't be allowed to have it.
They don't like that, even though its the exact same logic they are using about firearms....
as often said, its the bill of RIGHTS, not the bill of NEEDS....
(and, just to be clear on this, as well, the Bill of Rights grants no rights, it is a list of restrictions on the Federal govt regarding SOME (but not all) of our rights.
Thoughts??
