MSNBC’s Scarborough Gets Schooled by a Marine over His “Weapons of War” Comment

[rangerrebew]

MSNBC’s Scarborough Gets Schooled by a Marine over His “Weapons of War” Comment
Simon Daily
March 19, 2019
 

Morning Joecame out against AR-15s claiming they are “Weapons of War.” He had the gall to call himself a supporter of the 2nd Amendment after encouraging a ban.

He tweeted the following.

“Here’s an article from 1981 explaining how the Pentagon’s failure to use the AR-15 in Vietnam cost American lives. The AR-15 was proven to be lighter & more lethal than the M-14 or M-16. It was designed exclusively by Eugene Stoner to kill people in war.”

He then linked an article by the Atlantic about how the AR-15 is a superior weapon to the M-14 or M-16. But if you take the time to read it, they were talking about fully automatic AR-15s. Which is different than the semi-automatics they sell to civilians.

https://thepatriotchronicles.com/news-for-you/msnbcs-scarborough-gets-schooled-by-a-marine-over-his-weapons-of-war-comment/?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_content=subscriber_id:1431720&utm_campaign=MSNBC%E2%80%99s%20Scarborough%20Gets%20Schooled%20by%20a%20Marine%20over%20His%20%E2%80%9CWeapons%20of%20War%E2%80%9D%20Comment

[sneakypete]

“Here’s an article from 1981 explaining how the Pentagon’s failure to use the AR-15 in Vietnam cost American lives. The AR-15 was proven to be lighter & more lethal than the M-14 or M-16. It was designed exclusively by Eugene Stoner to kill people in war.”

Say WHAT?

Special Forces were being issued AR-15's in VN in 1964. I was issued one at Bragg in 1964. Had AR-15 stamped on the receiver,and no forward bolt assist. By the time the regular army started getting issued AR's,they had morphed into M-16's and CAR-15's.

In 1964 to PROBABLY sometime around 1968 conventional US troops in VN were issued the M-14,and anybody that thinks the .223 M-16 round has more killing power than the .308 cartridge used in the M-14 needs to take a look at both cartridges. The switch was made purely due to terrain travel issues. The M-14 was longer than the M-16,and more prone to get hung up in vines and bushes,making a soldiers response time to enemy fire slower. Also,most soldiers couldn't  handle a M-14 on full-auto,and would run through a 20 round magazine of ammo and mostly shoot holes in the sky. These same soldiers could handle the recoil of a M-16 on full-auto,and only shoot holes in maybe 50 percent of the sky. Plus the M-16 ammo was MUCH lighter when meant the typical soldier could carry more ammo on him.

[Cyber Liberty]

@sneakypete

Honest question.  I've been curious...how often did you ever flick the lever to "auto?" 

[sneakypete]

@sneakypete

Honest question.  I've been curious...how often did you ever flick the lever to "auto?"

@Cyber Liberty

Only in ambush when they are bunched up out in the open right in front of me,or "break contact" drills where I am trying to keep them from climbing up my back. Never been much of a fan of running through full magazines. Generally speaking,I can shoot as fast as I need to shoot with individual trigger pulls.

[Cyber Liberty]

@Cyber Liberty

Only in ambush when they are bunched up out in the open right in front of me,or "break contact" drills where I am trying to keep them from climbing up my back. Never been much of a fan of running through full magazines. Generally speaking,I can shoot as fast as I need to shoot with individual trigger pulls.

@sneakypete It sounds like the accuracy of semi-auto is better for most scenarios, but spray-and-pray has its uses.  And, BTW, anybody who thinks a .223 round is as deadly as a .308 has never hunted deer.

[verga]

Say WHAT?

Special Forces were being issued AR-15's in VN in 1964. I was issued one at Bragg in 1964. Had AR-15 stamped on the receiver,and no forward bolt assist. By the time the regular army started getting issued AR's,they had morphed into M-16's and CAR-15's.

In 1964 to PROBABLY sometime around 1968 conventional US troops in VN were issued the M-14,and anybody that thinks the .223 M-16 round has more killing power than the .308 cartridge used in the M-14 needs to take a look at both cartridges. The switch was made purely due to terrain travel issues. The M-14 was longer than the M-16,and more prone to get hung up in vines and bushes,making a soldiers response time to enemy fire slower. Also,most soldiers couldn't  handle a M-14 on full-auto,and would run through a 20 round magazine of ammo and mostly shoot holes in the sky. These same soldiers could handle the recoil of a M-16 on full-auto,and only shoot holes in maybe 50 percent of the sky. Plus the M-16 ammo was MUCH lighter when meant the typical soldier could carry more ammo on him.

One of the guys I worked with years ago was in the Marines. Basic Training on Paris Island .30 Cal carbine. Deployed to Viet Nam was handed the M-16 when they got off the plane. Told me he loved the M-16 com pared to the .30 Cal. for the same reasons you said.