This doesn't help our education efforts:

[tombogan03884]

From American Rifleman Ten Rifles You Must Own Before You Die.  The first sentence introducing the AR-15 goes as follows:
Quote
This rifle has been the standard military-issue rifle for U.S. Armed Forces for more than 50 years, serving mostly as the selective-fire M-16.

I believe that was the prototype name.

The AR is ArmaLite Rifle.  M16 is the military designation.  The fact that the 1934 and 1968 Acts heavily regulated the function separates the final products AR 15 and M 16.

In other words the sentence you object to is perfectly accurate and correct .

That is the sort of Fudd mentality that has cost us so badly over the last 50 years.

[Solus]

It is accurate and we all know what is meant, but if that line is misused, it can be inferred, wrongly, by those without much firearms knowledge that the military weapon, M16, and the civilian rifle, AR-15, are the same.

The effort should be to insure that there is no ambiguity, even when wrongly inferred, for those not versed in firearms lore because they are where much of the battle will be fought.

[MikeBjerum]

Tom,

What is being argued politically is the modern AR15, and it is being described as an M16.

The original development was done as an AR15, but when it became a military weapon it was labeled as M16, and when a non-military version went on the market it was given the AR15 which is semi-automatic only.

To say the firearms being compared are the same because of historical name use is like saying that a 1969 Cheverolet Malibu muscle car with 396, four speed and a posi-rearend are the same as the 21st century econo-box, front wheel drive, v-6 with a resurrected Malibu name are the same car.

[Warrior1256]

I see m58's point. We don't want to confuse the public more than the antis already have over semi-auto and full auto.

[tombogan03884]

What's confusing about "You ain't taking my effing guns, magazines, or any more of my rights with out bloodshed" ?
Seems pretty straight forward to me .

The Constitution says "Shall not be infringed".
If we were talking religion M58 would argue pages about a little detail like that .
Does he only have absolute principles when there is no risk of anything worse than ridicule ?

[Sponsor]