The thing about ‘military-style’ firearms?
Those who would ban what they like to call assault weapons like to portray them as automatic weapons designed for use on the battlefield simply because they look cosmetically like their military counterparts. In fact, they are semi-automatic firearms that are designed and built not for the military, but for the civilian market and function differently than their military counterparts. Were our soldiers outfitted with ARs, they would be at the mercy of every army in the world.
Well, not every army, but all the important ones, yes. Which gives the lie to this comment:
‘I also support the principle that we should reinstate an assault weapons ban, and I will carefully review any proposal to do that’, [Minn. Senator Al] Franken said. ‘We need to make sure we don't really have weapons out there that are really designed for the battlefield, and not for hunting.’
Sigh. Sometimes I despair for the sanity of the voters of my home state.
Like the term ‘assault weapon’, referring to an AR-15 as a ‘military-style’ rifle confuses (and is often meant to confuse) the issue due to ambiguity in the meaning of the word ‘style’. The AR-15 is styled – cosmetically and in basic design of its operating system – like the military M-16, but it is not an M-16, doesn't work like an M-16 (e.g., it does not have an automatic mode and can't easily – or legally – be modified to operate automatically), is subject to size (e.g., barrel-length) limitations not applicable to the military, and is thus not used by the military. The difference in designation signifies major differences.
Yes, I am aware of the many ‘modifications’ that are supposed (and advertised) to allow some semi-automatic rifles to operate like automatics. They don't work, advertising notwithstanding. Also, UFOs are fiction, Big Foot is a hoax, and that vortex device for your car won't really improve your gas mileage. I know it breaks your heart, but there it is, bark and all.