Family of AR-15 Inventor Eugene Stoner: He Didn't Intend It for Civilians

[olddav]

Gabe1972
I could not find where you offered an opinion on the topic, could you repost or direct me to it so that I may have a better understanding of your position on the topic.
Again all the best.

[Gabe1972]

I never gave an opinion on the topic. I only gave an opinion on the reactions to what was stated in the title and the first post.

If you want my opinion about the actual subject that started this thread, including the full story on the linked site, I think the veiled blame of the AR-15 being responsible for the recent spate of mass killings is ridiculous, and I find it interesting that he only intended the rifle for military use. That's it.

Let's just drop it. This is becoming pointless.

[mehavey]

Ahem.....
http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2...colt-ar-15-ad/

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by Gabe1972

BTW, I never made any reference, nor comment, about their veiled accusation of the AR-15 being responsible for the spate of mass killings, only my utter surprise at people's supposed better knowledge of how he intended his invention to be used, and how it was funny for his family to be wrong in expressing his thought on his invention while inheriting his money.

Originally Posted by Gabe1972

I didn't go to the site and read the story in its entirety.

Perhaps you should have read the article ...

It could also be argued that John Moses Browning only "intended" the M1911 to be for military use, too. After all, he designed it for Colt in direct response to a specific set of criteria established by the Ordnance Department for a new handgun for the military. That, too, is fact. But you don't see John Browning's descendants whining that civilians shouldn't have 1911s because Grandpa John only "intended" the M1911 to be for the military.

[olddav]

Done.

[kraigwy]

Springfield Armory didn't intend their rifles go to civilians either, but Teddy Roosevelt thought different.

In 1904 he pushed for and got congress to create the National Board for the promotion of civilian Marksmanship, creating the Division of Civilian Marksmanship, and the National Matches were the Army was required to sell surplus military rifles to US Citizens and train them in their use.

This program was expanded in 1996 where the operation was turned over to the civilians to manage, changing the name to the Civilian Marksmanship Program. Funded by sales of surplus military arms. The Army is still required to conduct their Small Arms Firing Schools instructing citizens in the use of Military arms, currently used by the military.

So I wouldn't put a lot of stock in what Mr Stoner intended. Its what Roosevelt and Congress wants since they make the laws.

[Dashunde]

Originally Posted by Gabe1972

I only gave an opinion on the reactions to what was stated in the title and the first post.

Whats the point of that, aside from being obnoxious?

Originally Posted by Gabe1972

Let's just drop it. This is becoming pointless.

Lets not. It was pointless the second you began offering your opinions on our opinions, so why quit now?

You know what I find interesting... that Gabe has been around right at 2 years with only 36 posts with 7 of them (so far) being troll'ish responses to ours on a very politicized subject (AR's in general).
Maybe "interesting" is not the right word for Gabe's activities.. "odd" and "suspicious" is more accurate.

[Gabe1972]

It was pointless the second you began offering your opinions on our opinions, so why quit now?

No more or less pointless or obnoxious than your own or anyone else's opinions. With regard to them being obnoxious, I actually find my replies to be much less obnoxious because I based my comments on what was said, not on something I couldn't possibly know.

You REALLY don't like dissent, do you? Anyone who doesn't agree MUST be a troll, right? What's next for you? Crying?

[Gabe1972]

So I wouldn't put a lot of stock in what Mr Stoner intended. Its what Roosevelt and Congress wants since they make the laws.

Right. In the end it didn't matter what he did or did not want or originally intend.

That I wasn't debating. I only found it surprising that people believe they know better than his family about what the man felt. What DID end up happening and the fact that the family made a ton of money from his design is inconsequential. Their veiled blame on it being responsible for the spate of gun violence is ridiculous, though. It is no more responsible than the gunpowder in the cartridges. To blame an inanimate object is a bit stupid on their part.

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by Dabe1972

I only found it surprising that people believe they know better than his family about what the man felt.

But the article (which you acknowledged you have NOT read) doesn't appear to provide any evidence regarding what Eugene Stoner actually felt about civilians owning AR-15s. What does the article actually say?

But the AR-15's creator died before the weapon became a popular hit ...

If he died before it became a popular civilian rifle, he could not possibly have held ANY opinion on that eventuality.

The ex-Marine and "avid sportsman, hunter and skeet shooter" never used his invention for sport. He also never kept it around the house for personal defense. In fact, he never even owned one.

And though he made millions from the design, his family said it was all from military sales.

He made millions from military sales because that's where they were being sold. Colt bought the patent rights from Armalite, and as long as the patent was in force only Colt could build them -- and Colt built them for the military. The fact that Eugene Stoner never used an AR-15 for sport is irrelevant.

"After many conversations with him, we feel his intent was that he designed it as a military rifle," his family said, explaining that Stoner was "focused on making the most efficient and superior rifle possible for the military."

Sure, his intent was to design a new military rifle. John Browning's intention in 1910 was to design a new semi-automatic military handgun. Both succeeded. The fact that Eugene Stoner set out to design a military rifle in no way suggests that he would have disapproved of civilians owning semi-automatic, visual clones of the full-automatic military rifle.

A rented semi truck just killed 85 people and injured another 200 in France. Should we now ban civilian ownership of semi trucks because the designer didn't intend his trucks to be used for killing innocent people?

[Evan Thomas]

Enough, I do believe.