Why Liberals Want To Ban The AR-15

[Daryl Hunt]

And you are wrong. No other gun, freely available to civilians, is designed for or capable of killing as many people as possible in as short a time as possible as the AR-15.

Sure...but let's say your wet dream came true and ALL AR15's were gone.

Mass shootings would still occur......with other types of guns.....so then, on the heels of succeeding on taking away AR15's that exact same strategy would then be used to remove the NEXT "most dangerous gun"....and the next....and the next....until finally all we had to defend our homes with was a phone and a prayer.

Why don't we instead focus our energy on THE REAL PROBLEM....mental health issues?

Taking away Constitutional Rights does not solve the REAL problem.

Nonsense.

This fails as a red herring fallacy.

The regulation of AR 15s has nothing to do with Constitutional rights.

The notion that anyone seeks to ‘take away’ anyone’s Constitutional rights is a lie.

The courts have consistently upheld as Constitutional AWBs.

And the Supreme Court has never ruled as to the constitutionality of AWBs.

AWBs are unwarranted not because they ‘violate’ anyone’s rights, they’re unwarranted because they’re bad law and bad public policy.

Wrong...the courts have ignored the Supreme Court 2nd Amendment rulings over and over again.

Heller specifically states that all bearable arms are protected and Scalia, who wrote the majority opinion in that ruling, stated in Friedman v Highland Park, that the AR-15 by name and all such weapons are protected by the 2nd Amendment...

Alito, writing the opinion in Caetano v Massachusetts also dismissed any use of the dangerous and unusual argument against these rifles..........and affirmed their protection under Heller, and Miller...
You are wrong, and don't know what you are talking about...

Especially Miller has upheld that AR's and any military firearms are protected weapons.

Miller V used Heller V as the precedence to support hand gun ownership in the home. It didn't specifically name the AR-15 and it's various clones. And subsequent federal court rulings have singled out the AR-15 and it's various clones as being able to be either outright banned or highly regulated. You are quoting the Dissentions not the ruling. Now, unless you can get the AR-15 and it's various clones reclassified as handguns then neither the Heller V nor any of the other most recent rulings have any meaning. The lower court Federal Court Rulings stand and the Supreme Court has elected to to hear them.

 

[BrokeLoser]

The irony of this whole fucking thread is downright fascinating.
LefTard Logic:
“Please Father Government, please protect from our filthy, ignorant selves, protect us from the dangerous wetbacks we import and the murderous negroes we bend over backwards for day in and day out....please deprive us of the rights our founding fathers gave us.....PLEASE FATHER GOVERNMENT.....HELP!”

You see Golfing Gator and Mac1958 this is why you dumbmotherfuckers can never be taken serious by anyone even half sane.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Hate to break it to you but if they get the chance to ban AR's no firearm will be safe from the next ban.

In some areas, the AR is already banned. Or it's highly regulated. Where is your doomsday prediction? The Courts have already nixed what you are claiming that the future holds.

Yes in some areas it is it's shouldn't be but I can't help that because I am not a sheep that lives in those areas.

And the last Judge to make the ruling in favor of banning the AR for a specific area (Boston) agrees with you. She said that if you didn't like the law there, move to an area better to your liking.

The supreme court will be hearing a couple of cases that will be killing these gun bans. within the next couple of years.

Oh, no, another "We Got Her" that's been said for the last 30 years. The only reason the Supreme Court ruled on the Heller V case was that DC doesn't have a State Federal Court since it's not a state and it had to go directly to the Supreme Court. You bunch of Gunnutters have been trying to get the Supreme Court to not only rule but in your favor for about 40 years and have failed. Go back to trying to lock Hillary up since it's only been about 30 years worth of attempts there.

Here's one of those cases it's got the state of New York so shaken they changed the law hoping the supreme court would not hear it. But it didn't work.
Fearing Supreme Court Loss, New York Tries to Make Gun Case Vanish

 

[Harpy Eagle]

The irony of this whole fucking thread is downright fascinating.
LefTard Logic:
“Please Father Government, please protect from our filthy, ignorant selves, protect us from the dangerous wetbacks we import and the murderous negroes we bend over backwards for day in and day out....please deprive us of the rights our founding fathers gave us.....PLEASE FATHER GOVERNMENT.....HELP!”

You see Golfing Gator and Mac1958 this is why you dumbmotherfuckers can never be taken serious by anyone even half sane.

Other than the fact that I am staunchly pro-second amendment this is funny as hell considering you started a thread about the government saving our children by teaching them "Christianity' in schools!

Damn, I wish you had the intelligence to see the irony of your post.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

im not twisting numbers to form a narrative just providing the most obvious reason for supporting regulation by most people. They hear AR15 and think of most the major mass shootings we’ve had in the USA. Schools, night clubs, churches... that’s why they support regulation. The OP left out the most obvious point.

And the only reason people think that way is due to propaganda pushed by the commiecrats and their lackey media. ARs have lower body counts than fist, feet and clubs, they just get all the publicity. Studies show the last AW ban had no measurable effect on crime. It's all planned to eventually disarm law abiding citizens. That's why I say, NO MORE COMPROMISE!!!!!!!!!!

.

How about you list the biggest mass shootings in the US over the past few years and the type of weapon used... I’m not talking about gang homicides in Chicago, I’m talking about mass shootings in public forums... you obviously need to do the research so have fun.

No, I don't need to do any research, you're doing the same thing the commies and media are doing, concentrating on the outliers that account for a very small percentage of overall homicides. Of course their solution is to disadvantage millions of law abiding Americans. I ain't buying it.

.

If I’m being dishonest then win the argument by showing a list of the largest mass shootings over the past few years and the guns that were used. Just give an honest response. No spin

The point has been made you don't need an AR to commit mass shootings

it just makes it easier for a Nerdie beginner to do and to obtain it legally.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

And you are wrong. No other gun, freely available to civilians, is designed for or capable of killing as many people as possible in as short a time as possible as the AR-15.

Sure...but let's say your wet dream came true and ALL AR15's were gone.

Mass shootings would still occur......with other types of guns.....so then, on the heels of succeeding on taking away AR15's that exact same strategy would then be used to remove the NEXT "most dangerous gun"....and the next....and the next....until finally all we had to defend our homes with was a phone and a prayer.

Why don't we instead focus our energy on THE REAL PROBLEM....mental health issues?

Taking away Constitutional Rights does not solve the REAL problem.

Nonsense.

This fails as a red herring fallacy.

The regulation of AR 15s has nothing to do with Constitutional rights.

The notion that anyone seeks to ‘take away’ anyone’s Constitutional rights is a lie.

The courts have consistently upheld as Constitutional AWBs.

And the Supreme Court has never ruled as to the constitutionality of AWBs.

AWBs are unwarranted not because they ‘violate’ anyone’s rights, they’re unwarranted because they’re bad law and bad public policy.

Wrong...the courts have ignored the Supreme Court 2nd Amendment rulings over and over again.

Heller specifically states that all bearable arms are protected and Scalia, who wrote the majority opinion in that ruling, stated in Friedman v Highland Park, that the AR-15 by name and all such weapons are protected by the 2nd Amendment...

Alito, writing the opinion in Caetano v Massachusetts also dismissed any use of the dangerous and unusual argument against these rifles..........and affirmed their protection under Heller, and Miller...
You are wrong, and don't know what you are talking about...

Especially Miller has upheld that AR's and any military firearms are protected weapons.

Miller V used Heller V as the precedence to support hand gun ownership in the home. It didn't specifically name the AR-15 and it's various clones. And subsequent federal court rulings have singled out the AR-15 and it's various clones as being able to be either outright banned or highly regulated. You are quoting the Dissentions not the ruling. Now, unless you can get the AR-15 and it's various clones reclassified as handguns then neither the Heller V nor any of the other most recent rulings have any meaning. The lower court Federal Court Rulings stand and the Supreme Court has elected to to hear them.

You mean Heller referenced miller about those in common use of the time firearms that are protected by the second amendment?

 

[OKTexas]

You do not deserve firearm ownership because your thinking will just get your firearm taken from you and your life taken by the one who took it
What is your qualitative experience in the use of deadly force? What gives you the ability to have an opinion on what an individual needs to prevail in a fight for their life?

When have you, in civilian life, ever had to fight for your life?

Perhaps you've been living in a fantasy world. Watching too many rambo movies.

Perhaps you're an advanced paranoid waiting for some boogey man to threaten you.

I'm a white middle-man who has lived and worked in some of the highest crime areas in the Untied States. I have NEVER felt the need for a weapon.

I suspect that the biggest challenge you have is finding the bottom of a beer can - which explains your paranoid delusions!

According to the CDC Americans use their legal guns 1.1 million times a year to stop criminals and save lives....don't like that number? The Department of Justice research showed the number to be 1.5 million....

I have never had a house fire, but we have fire insurance...

The Republicans bared the CDC from collecting data on gun violence years ago.

So I guess that makes you a lying bag of shit!

Gun rights advocates have long defended their right to bear arms out of a need for self-defense. And now they have a new report from the Centers for Disease Control that says they make a darn good point.

The $10 million study commissioned by President Barack Obama as part of 23 executive orders he signed in January says “self-defense can be an important crime deterrent.”

Sorry, Liberals! Even the CDC's New Report Suggests Guns are Great for Self Defense...

.

Holy Crap! You'll believe ANYTHING you find on the internet!

The CDC has long been banned from collecting data on gun violence:

Dickey Amendment - Wikipedia

Try researching before spreading your BULLSHIT!

Poor thing, here's some links from Forbes and CBS, the last major CDC study was done in 2013. The CBS article reported on a study published in 2018.

That Time The CDC Asked About Defensive Gun Uses

Gun death statistics: CDC study says gun deaths are on the rise after years of decline

.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

And the only reason people think that way is due to propaganda pushed by the commiecrats and their lackey media. ARs have lower body counts than fist, feet and clubs, they just get all the publicity. Studies show the last AW ban had no measurable effect on crime. It's all planned to eventually disarm law abiding citizens. That's why I say, NO MORE COMPROMISE!!!!!!!!!!

.

How about you list the biggest mass shootings in the US over the past few years and the type of weapon used... I’m not talking about gang homicides in Chicago, I’m talking about mass shootings in public forums... you obviously need to do the research so have fun.

No, I don't need to do any research, you're doing the same thing the commies and media are doing, concentrating on the outliers that account for a very small percentage of overall homicides. Of course their solution is to disadvantage millions of law abiding Americans. I ain't buying it.

.

If I’m being dishonest then win the argument by showing a list of the largest mass shootings over the past few years and the guns that were used. Just give an honest response. No spin

The point has been made you don't need an AR to commit mass shootings

it just makes it easier for a Nerdie beginner to do and to obtain it legally.

innocent until proven guilty

 

[Daryl Hunt]

***\\\This Is My Opinion///***

I believe Liberals want to ban the AR-15 for two reasons...

1. The AR-15 is scary looking, it's that simple. The AR-15 is scary looking and it's easy to get people to think the AR-15 is bad because of the way it looks.

2. Here's the main reason why Liberals want to ban the AR-15. If Liberals are successful, they can then point to other guns as more powerful and say "We banned the AR-15 so we should ban all of these other weapons because they are more powerful and accurate."

That's why the big push to ban the AR-15.

And you are wrong. No other gun, freely available to civilians, is designed for or capable of killing as many people as possible in as short a time as possible as the AR-15.

Except for this little ranch rifle.

The Mini14's barrel heats up lots faster than the AR15, and it isn't nearly as dependable under extended use. That's mostly due to the metal used in the barrel. Later models are some better, but still don't compare with te AR. AR sights don't suck like on the mini.

What?

You just make shit up with no regard for facts or reality.

No, the barrel doesn't "heat up faster."

The AR is lighter due to a composite stock and has a pistol grip. Those are really the only functional differences.

You leave out the fact that it reloads blindingly fast in comparison to the Mini-14 when under duress by a non combat trained person. The very reason it's the primary gun used by MOST Militaries around the world today.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Typical rightwing lies and demagoguery.

No one seeks to ‘take away’ anyone’s guns; no one seeks to ‘disarm’ citizens.

And no one seeks to deny citizens the ability to defend one’s property or life.

Liar

Spoiled brat!

I'm neither I am a well-armed law-abiding citizen not willing to allow my rights to be taken away.

Sounds like your a paranoid nut case.

So according to your earlier post, you should not be qualified to own a gun.

Of course your earlier post was inaccurate. Colombia vs. Heller is the law of the land.

Talk about a spoiled brat
Here you go one more time
The Supreme Court ruled that in order for a firearm to be protected by the second amendment, it must have some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia, in common use of the time, and supplied by the citizen.
So tell me what firearm is there that is in common use that would have some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia?

In your opinion – not as a fact of Constitutional law.

And yet again: the Supreme Court has not ruled as to the status of AR 15s: ‘in common use’ or ‘dangerous and unusual.’

The lower courts have consistently held the latter.

Until such time as the Supreme Court makes that determination, prohibitions of AR 15s are perfectly lawful and consistent with the Second Amendment.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

In some areas, the AR is already banned. Or it's highly regulated. Where is your doomsday prediction? The Courts have already nixed what you are claiming that the future holds.

Yes in some areas it is it's shouldn't be but I can't help that because I am not a sheep that lives in those areas.

And the last Judge to make the ruling in favor of banning the AR for a specific area (Boston) agrees with you. She said that if you didn't like the law there, move to an area better to your liking.

The supreme court will be hearing a couple of cases that will be killing these gun bans. within the next couple of years.

Oh, no, another "We Got Her" that's been said for the last 30 years. The only reason the Supreme Court ruled on the Heller V case was that DC doesn't have a State Federal Court since it's not a state and it had to go directly to the Supreme Court. You bunch of Gunnutters have been trying to get the Supreme Court to not only rule but in your favor for about 40 years and have failed. Go back to trying to lock Hillary up since it's only been about 30 years worth of attempts there.

Here's one of those cases it's got the state of New York so shaken they changed the law hoping the supreme court would not hear it. But it didn't work.
Fearing Supreme Court Loss, New York Tries to Make Gun Case Vanish

The adhered to the Law established by Heller V. Just like DC had to do. Fear hasn't a thing to do with it. It's called "Law Abiding". Another Dog and Pony act on your part.

 

[BrokeLoser]

The irony of this whole fucking thread is downright fascinating.
LefTard Logic:
“Please Father Government, please protect from our filthy, ignorant selves, protect us from the dangerous wetbacks we import and the murderous negroes we bend over backwards for day in and day out....please deprive us of the rights our founding fathers gave us.....PLEASE FATHER GOVERNMENT.....HELP!”

You see Golfing Gator and Mac1958 this is why you dumbmotherfuckers can never be taken serious by anyone even half sane.

Other than the fact that I am staunchly pro-second amendment this is funny as hell considering you started a thread about the government saving our children by teaching them "Christianity' in schools!

Damn, I wish you had the intelligence to see the irony of your post.

Haha...your ignorance is unreal.
The thread you speak of is well understood by children...I never once said I wanted or needed government intervention in schools....you said that. Remember now?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Moron, beto stated he supports door to door confiscation and not one democrat called him out...

Pretty much everyone in the Democratic party has in some way stated that forced buy backs is a very very bad idea. We may agree with the sentiment - but it would be a disaster.

Most of us cringed when he said it (not those in the auditorium). It's an unworkable idea.

That was the point I ruled out supporting Beto.

No need to back step what Robert Frances said because it's already known and has been known that is the end game for you leftist confiscate all guns.

No democrat has ever said that they want the confiscation of all guns. NOT ONE!

This falls under the category of right-wing PARANOID DELUSIONS!

Hell. I don't own or want to own a gun, but if they ever tried outlawing ALL gun ownership I'd be fully on the side of the gun owners and would probably purchase one just to show support.

Believe it or not, I'm fully supportive of the right to own guns - just not ridiculously destructive weapons like the AR-15

If you support one gun ban you'll support the next one
When they say common-sense gun laws that is what they are saying because what they propose will have no effect on crime
When you support banning people under 21 the right they have protected by the second amendment you are supporting gun bans.
Don't lie

You first.

Otherwise, this fails as a slippery slope fallacy.

Conservatives have been lying for decades how necessary, proper, and Constitutional firearm regulatory measures will eventually result in ‘confiscation’ – it hasn’t happen, it never will, and no one seeks to have it happen.

I've noticed you never respond to any of my posts that I directly quote you that you know I'll hand your ass to you. Why is that?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Yes in some areas it is it's shouldn't be but I can't help that because I am not a sheep that lives in those areas.

And the last Judge to make the ruling in favor of banning the AR for a specific area (Boston) agrees with you. She said that if you didn't like the law there, move to an area better to your liking.

The supreme court will be hearing a couple of cases that will be killing these gun bans. within the next couple of years.

Oh, no, another "We Got Her" that's been said for the last 30 years. The only reason the Supreme Court ruled on the Heller V case was that DC doesn't have a State Federal Court since it's not a state and it had to go directly to the Supreme Court. You bunch of Gunnutters have been trying to get the Supreme Court to not only rule but in your favor for about 40 years and have failed. Go back to trying to lock Hillary up since it's only been about 30 years worth of attempts there.

Here's one of those cases it's got the state of New York so shaken they changed the law hoping the supreme court would not hear it. But it didn't work.
Fearing Supreme Court Loss, New York Tries to Make Gun Case Vanish

The adhered to the Law established by Heller V. Just like DC had to do. Fear hasn't a thing to do with it. It's called "Law Abiding". Another Dog and Pony act on your part.

If that were true why did Heller use Miller as a reference?

 

[Harpy Eagle]

The irony of this whole fucking thread is downright fascinating.
LefTard Logic:
“Please Father Government, please protect from our filthy, ignorant selves, protect us from the dangerous wetbacks we import and the murderous negroes we bend over backwards for day in and day out....please deprive us of the rights our founding fathers gave us.....PLEASE FATHER GOVERNMENT.....HELP!”

You see Golfing Gator and Mac1958 this is why you dumbmotherfuckers can never be taken serious by anyone even half sane.

Other than the fact that I am staunchly pro-second amendment this is funny as hell considering you started a thread about the government saving our children by teaching them "Christianity' in schools!

Damn, I wish you had the intelligence to see the irony of your post.

Haha...your ignorance is unreal.
The thread you speak of is well understood by children...I never once said I wanted or needed government intervention in schools....you said that. Remember now?

Yeah, because the government has nothing to do with our schools!



are you trying to prove you are nothing but some 16 year old in their parent's basement?

you are doing a good job of acting like it

 

[Daryl Hunt]

When have you, in civilian life, ever had to fight for your life?

Perhaps you've been living in a fantasy world. Watching too many rambo movies.

Perhaps you're an advanced paranoid waiting for some boogey man to threaten you.

I'm a white middle-man who has lived and worked in some of the highest crime areas in the Untied States. I have NEVER felt the need for a weapon.

I suspect that the biggest challenge you have is finding the bottom of a beer can - which explains your paranoid delusions!

According to the CDC Americans use their legal guns 1.1 million times a year to stop criminals and save lives....don't like that number? The Department of Justice research showed the number to be 1.5 million....

I have never had a house fire, but we have fire insurance...

The Republicans bared the CDC from collecting data on gun violence years ago.

So I guess that makes you a lying bag of shit!

Gun rights advocates have long defended their right to bear arms out of a need for self-defense. And now they have a new report from the Centers for Disease Control that says they make a darn good point.

The $10 million study commissioned by President Barack Obama as part of 23 executive orders he signed in January says “self-defense can be an important crime deterrent.”

Sorry, Liberals! Even the CDC's New Report Suggests Guns are Great for Self Defense...

.

Holy Crap! You'll believe ANYTHING you find on the internet!

The CDC has long been banned from collecting data on gun violence:

Dickey Amendment - Wikipedia

Try researching before spreading your BULLSHIT!

Poor thing, here's some links from Forbes and CBS, the last major CDC study was done in 2013. The CBS article reported on a study published in 2018.

That Time The CDC Asked About Defensive Gun Uses

Gun death statistics: CDC study says gun deaths are on the rise after years of decline

.

Wow, another Kleck cite. Kleck has been debunked over and his original "Study" turned out to false. Yet you gunnutters still try and sneak that by us. Get a better cite. On that is not based on any of Klecks fraudulent works.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

How about you list the biggest mass shootings in the US over the past few years and the type of weapon used... I’m not talking about gang homicides in Chicago, I’m talking about mass shootings in public forums... you obviously need to do the research so have fun.

No, I don't need to do any research, you're doing the same thing the commies and media are doing, concentrating on the outliers that account for a very small percentage of overall homicides. Of course their solution is to disadvantage millions of law abiding Americans. I ain't buying it.

.

If I’m being dishonest then win the argument by showing a list of the largest mass shootings over the past few years and the guns that were used. Just give an honest response. No spin

The point has been made you don't need an AR to commit mass shootings

it just makes it easier for a Nerdie beginner to do and to obtain it legally.

innocent until proven guilty

Then why can't he buy a van load of Nitrogen Fertilizer and 200 gallons of Diesel or Kerosene all at once? You want' to make it easy on him, get the federal regulations changed on those two items. Then your nerd can really do some killing. But since the OKC bombing, those two ingredients have been regulated heavily.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

And the last Judge to make the ruling in favor of banning the AR for a specific area (Boston) agrees with you. She said that if you didn't like the law there, move to an area better to your liking.

The supreme court will be hearing a couple of cases that will be killing these gun bans. within the next couple of years.

Oh, no, another "We Got Her" that's been said for the last 30 years. The only reason the Supreme Court ruled on the Heller V case was that DC doesn't have a State Federal Court since it's not a state and it had to go directly to the Supreme Court. You bunch of Gunnutters have been trying to get the Supreme Court to not only rule but in your favor for about 40 years and have failed. Go back to trying to lock Hillary up since it's only been about 30 years worth of attempts there.

Here's one of those cases it's got the state of New York so shaken they changed the law hoping the supreme court would not hear it. But it didn't work.
Fearing Supreme Court Loss, New York Tries to Make Gun Case Vanish

The adhered to the Law established by Heller V. Just like DC had to do. Fear hasn't a thing to do with it. It's called "Law Abiding". Another Dog and Pony act on your part.

If that were true why did Heller use Miller as a reference?

Already answered. Sit back, get a cup of coffee and think about it.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

so libs want to ban an AR-15

can the gun nuts here tell me why anyone would need one?

~S~

With the exposure of DNC hack Eric Ciaramella as the fraudulent "whistleblower" the latest attempt at the coup to undo the 2016 election has failed. Pelosi will shut it down. The desperation of democrats to undo the election and protect the embezzlement of foreign aid payments by the well connected is at a fevered pitch.Every trick the democrats have tried has failed.

One last ditch effort by the democrats, assassinate president Trump. WE ALL know you're going to try it. IF you succeed, we ALL need AR-15's to put you traitor fucks down.

Rump is finished. He's either finished today, sometime this year of he might be reelected and still be finished further down the road. In his wake, the Republican Party is finished many times over. I suggest you spend less time defending Rump and more time rebuilding the GOP. If you can't get started soon, your worst fears just might become a reality. I would prefer a strong GOP with Strong Values instead of what we have today.

 

[OKTexas]

The AR-15 was originally designed as the Armalite AR-15 (aka the M-16):

ArmaLite AR-15 - Wikipedia

This was designed as a military weapon with devastating firepower - far greater than any reasonable civilian weapon.

"had to penetrate a standard U.S. M1 helmet at 500 yards (460 meters) and retain a velocity in excess of the speed of sound, while matching or exceeding the wounding ability of the .30 Carbine cartridge"

That doesn't sound like a defensive weapon or a hunting rifle now does it?

Yet it was approved for civilian sale long before the military adopted an upgraded version for general use.

.

The Armalite AR-15 was designed in 1959 and adopted by the U.S. miltary in 1964 as the M16.

The civilian Colt AR-15 was marketed starting in 1977.

ArmaLite AR-15 - Wikipedia

Please stop making things up!

The facts are the AR15 platform was approved for sale to civilians in 1963, the upgraded version known as the M16 wasn't adopted for general military use till 1969. When I went through basic training in 1969 we had M14s. I didn't see an M16 till just before I went to Vietnam in 1970.

Colt sent a pilot model rifle (serial no. GX4968) to the BATF for civilian sale approval on Oct. 23, 1963. It was approved on Dec. 10, 1963, and sales of the "Model R6000 Colt AR-15 SP1 Sporter Rifle" began on Jan 2, 1964. The M16 wasn't issued to infantry units until 1965 (as the XM16E1), wasn't standardized as the M16A1 until 1967, and didn't officially replace the M14 until 1969. Colt had been selling semi-automatic AR-15's to civilians for 5 years by the time the M16A1 replaced the M14. Going off of the serial number records for the SP1, Colt had sold at least 2,501 rifles to the civilian market by 1965, 8,250 rifles by 1967, and 14,653 rifles by 1969.

More on the Military and Civilian History of the AR-15

.

You forgot the one service that had them in 1962. USAF had begun buying them and ended up buying a total of just over 14,000 units. Stamped on the sides of those was "AR-15 Model 601". It was the same model that was sold to various Asian Countries starting in 1959 by Stoner. If you find an original Model 601 today, it will be restamped around the early 70s as "AR-15 Model 601 (M-16).

What did you not understand about "general military use"?

.