Why Liberals Want To Ban The AR-15

[Daryl Hunt]

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?

The actual AR-15 has never been used by the military has never been used in war...it is no different than any other semi-automatic rifle on the civilian market. You guys keep lying making it easier and easier to see your end game.

The Bolt action deer hunting rifle is a current military weapon.

The pump action, 5 shot, shotgun is a current military weapon.

The AR-15 has never been used by the military.

The AR-15 is a semi-automatic version of the M16 dumbass!

So technically it's never been used by the military - they use the fully automatic version.

But other than that, it's the same weapon.

Actually, the US Army has purchased a few of them. You'll find them used for some standing guard positions. As for semi versus full, the normal operation of a M-16 in combat is in the single shot setting. The reason the full auto was changed to the 3 shot burst was the conservation of ammo. And in the 3 shot burst, the only shot that will be on target will be usually the first. That means you are going to waste 66% of all you ammo. So they generally use the M-16 in the single shot setting. Meaning, in combat, there ISN"T any difference.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

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"?

.

I was in the AF for over 20. The AR-15 model 601 was in "General Military Use" since about 1963. And it was still the primary combat rifle in the USAF until 1992 when it finally retired. I believe that a number over 14,000 makes it in general military use.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

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.

Red herring

 

[bigrebnc1775]

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.

No you didn't answer the question heller reaffirmed Miller and Miller established the laws.

 

[OKTexas]

so libs want to ban an AR-15

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

~S~

Poor little commie, it's called the bill of rights, not the bill of needs. No one has to justify their personal choices to you or anyone else.

.

Not my Query , is it Tex...

Yes i've the right, my Q was WHY would i want one

~S~

No, your question was "why would anyone need one?", I can't tell you why you should want one. I bought mine to take care of a wild hog problem, it's easily capable of handling IR night and day sights.

.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

A quick story...I broke my foot so my daughter is here taking care of me...she just read your post and asked me if I laugh inside when people I could buy many times over claim I lack intelligence...I laughed and told her not at all.

Dude, your daughter has been told her whole life that she is inferior to you just because you are man, of course she thinks you are intelligent, she is really no different than a cult member.

There you go again with your own fabricated bullshit....She has however been taught that a husband and father is the leader of his household. God gave man testicles for reasons beyond procreation. You new-era LefTarded types wouldn’t understand as you prefer your wife hold your nuts for you.

Oh no little man, there is an entire thread where you spent days arguing that women are inferior to men merely because they are women. You cannot walk it back now. You used the word early and often to describe women.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

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...

.

I guess you never read the opposite?
Terrific researcher
http://www.cjcj.org/uploads/cjcj/documents/jpj_firearm_ownership.pdf

ph3 has a huge flaw in his work. I dug a bit deeper on where they got their information and low and behold what came up as the basis? You guessed it (Kleck and Gertz, 1995). This information has been debunked by almost every criminal scientists in existence yet they still try and sneak that past us by buring it.

The fact remains that there is NO corrolation between the number of guns in civilian hands versus the number of gun crimes.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Moreover, citizens are not required to ‘justify’ the exercising of a fundamental right as a ‘prerequisite’ to indeed do so; citizens have the right to possess firearms – including AR 15s – without having to justify or legitimize owning such a weapon where they are lawfully allowed to do so.

no one needs to Clay

i'm asking , not demanding...

~S~

No one needs to justify to government why he wishes to exercise a fundamental right; indeed, the burden falls on government to justify why it seeks to place limits and restrictions on citizens’ rights.

The fact is there is no ‘need’ to own an AR 15, where the absence of a need doesn’t justify prohibiting possessing AR 15s.

Otherwise, there are three general aspects to AR 15s that make them desirable to own.

First, they’re modular – there are at least a half-dozen upper receiver chamberings for the AR platform; meaning that you can use one mil-spec AR 15 complete lower to accommodate those complete uppers.

And because the complete lower alone is considered to be the firearm, one can have complete uppers delivered directly to his front door – no background checks or transfer fees required.

A complete upper chambered in .300 BLK, for example, can use the same BCG and magazine as the 5.56 mm upper.

That AR 15s are modular also means that there is an endless supply of accessories available – which is why the AR is often referred to as ‘Barbie for men.’

Second, AR 15s are a very accurate semi-automatic rifle/carbine; serious target shooters will invariably own at least one AR to take to the range.

Last, they’re reliable – which wasn’t always the case.

However trite, it was nonetheless true: the AR platform was decades ahead of its time, and as such it often suffered from functionally issues.

That’s changed over the last ten years or so with advancements in computer design and manufacturing along with the availability of advanced materials.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

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

And where does it say in the 2nd that they can't place a limit to the age of ownership? Everything done within reason is the answer. You don't like it, move to Yemen where you can have any weapon your little black heart desires but you will also get plenty of chances to use them just before they kill you dead by dousing you with gasoline.

The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed

But it can be regulated. Regulation is not infringement. And the more something is abused, the more it's going to be regulated.

 

[BrokeLoser]

A quick story...I broke my foot so my daughter is here taking care of me...she just read your post and asked me if I laugh inside when people I could buy many times over claim I lack intelligence...I laughed and told her not at all.

Dude, your daughter has been told her whole life that she is inferior to you just because you are man, of course she thinks you are intelligent, she is really no different than a cult member.

There you go again with your own fabricated bullshit....She has however been taught that a husband and father is the leader of his household. God gave man testicles for reasons beyond procreation. You new-era LefTarded types wouldn’t understand as you prefer your wife hold your nuts for you.

please continue to enlighten us towards Gods light. Why exactly did god give us testicles again? You are off your rocker!

Again, you wouldn’t understand...I’m certain you surrendered your balls years ago. You are way to soft, fragile and FEELZ based to possess a scrotum.

 

[BrokeLoser]

A quick story...I broke my foot so my daughter is here taking care of me...she just read your post and asked me if I laugh inside when people I could buy many times over claim I lack intelligence...I laughed and told her not at all.

Dude, your daughter has been told her whole life that she is inferior to you just because you are man, of course she thinks you are intelligent, she is really no different than a cult member.

There you go again with your own fabricated bullshit....She has however been taught that a husband and father is the leader of his household. God gave man testicles for reasons beyond procreation. You new-era LefTarded types wouldn’t understand as you prefer your wife hold your nuts for you.

Oh no little man, there is an entire thread where you spent days arguing that women are inferior to men merely because they are women. You cannot walk it back now. You used the word early and often to describe women.

Link?

 

[Daryl Hunt]

Moreover, citizens are not required to ‘justify’ the exercising of a fundamental right as a ‘prerequisite’ to indeed do so; citizens have the right to possess firearms – including AR 15s – without having to justify or legitimize owning such a weapon where they are lawfully allowed to do so.

no one needs to Clay

i'm asking , not demanding...

~S~

No one needs to justify to government why he wishes to exercise a fundamental right; indeed, the burden falls on government to justify why it seeks to place limits and restrictions on citizens’ rights.

The fact is there is no ‘need’ to own an AR 15, where the absence of a need doesn’t justify prohibiting possessing AR 15s.

Otherwise, there are three general aspects to AR 15s that make them desirable to own.

First, they’re modular – there are at least a half-dozen upper receiver chamberings for the AR platform; meaning that you can use one mil-spec AR 15 complete lower to accommodate those complete uppers.

And because the complete lower alone is considered to be the firearm, one can have complete uppers delivered directly to his front door – no background checks or transfer fees required.

A complete upper chambered in .300 BLK, for example, can use the same BCG and magazine as the 5.56 mm upper.

That AR 15s are modular also means that there is an endless supply of accessories available – which is why the AR is often referred to as ‘Barbie for men.’

Second, AR 15s are a very accurate semi-automatic rifle/carbine; serious target shooters will invariably own at least one AR to take to the range.

Last, they’re reliable – which wasn’t always the case.

However trite, it’s was nonetheless true: the AR platform was decades ahead of its time, and as such it often suffered from functionally issues.

That’s changed over the last ten years or so with advancements in computer design and manufacturing along with the availability of advanced materials.

Actually, the USAF version didn't suffer from all those ills. And not a single ill was attributed to the AR-15 Model 601. The Army didn't impress cleaning, even though the cleaning storage area is included in ALL versions of the M-16 the army left the cleaning kit out, the army used their old ball power and reloaded or loaded their own.

Meanwhile, the AF had always included a cleaning kit with each AR-15 Model 601, heavily preached keeping it clean, and purchased factory ammo.

Don't blame the Army's stupidity on the weapon.

 

[OKTexas]

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.

So which of the 3 links I posted are your referring to? They are all reporting on CDC studies.

.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

There you go again with your own fabricated bullshit....She has however been taught that a husband and father is the leader of his household. God gave man testicles for reasons beyond procreation. You new-era LefTarded types wouldn’t understand as you prefer your wife hold your nuts for you.

by the way, if you have never had a woman hold your nuts, you might want to give it a try...feels damn good. Just tell them not to squeeze too hard

 

[BrokeLoser]

so libs want to ban an AR-15

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

~S~

Poor little commie, it's called the bill of rights, not the bill of needs. No one has to justify their personal choices to you or anyone else.

.

Not my Query , is it Tex...

Yes i've the right, my Q was WHY would i want one

~S~

No, your question was "why would anyone need one?", I can't tell you why you should want one. I bought mine to take care of a wild hog problem, it's easily capable of handling IR night and day sights.

.

This is definitely on the bucket list for me.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

Yeah but bear with me for a second...practically speaking...if you are in close quarters (office, school...mosque...etc.) and wish to effect max damage...a handgun is just as effective a tool as an AR.
I mean there is a reason police carry handguns and not rifles. You have a valid point Bulldog not arguing just saying.

In practical situations one can maximize the kill ratio with a handgun on concealment and a greater element of surprise alone.

Yep...

In 2018 there were a total of 5 attacks with rifles, either AK-47 civilian models or AR-15s, which are civilian rifles.........

Total killed.... 39 people.

numbers killed in the attacks...

4
11
4
3
17

Virginia Tech...2, 9mm pistols....32 killed.

Notice.....in only one of those attacks did the killer with the rifle kill more people than the guys with the pump action shotguns......

..the Russian shooter....Killed 20, injured 40 with a tube fed, 5 shot, pump action shotgun.

The Navy Yard shooter killed 12 with a pump action shotgun..

The Santa Fe shooter used a pump action shotgun and .38 revolver and killed 10

Yep,
Progressives have absolutely zero credibility when it comes to firearms knowledge, political correctness has made them fucking retarded

Are you saying that I have zero knowledge? That the majority of the retired Military Personnel have zero knowledge because we disagree with you and you gunnutters?

Disagree all you want. You're not getting the guns.

Ever.

It's not up to me. If it were up to me, you would be left stranded on a desert island with your AR and just left to perish while you carressed your AR. But it's up to the area you live in. And if they decide (the voter) to get rid of the ARs then they will also get rid of you by whatever means necessary.

 

[Rustic]

Yes, in some situations, but not as consistently as the AR. The AR's accuracy doesn't degrade any where near as quickly as any other commonly available gun, including pistols, and concealment isn't always an issue.

Yeah but bear with me for a second...practically speaking...if you are in close quarters (office, school...mosque...etc.) and wish to effect max damage...a handgun is just as effective a tool as an AR.
I mean there is a reason police carry handguns and not rifles. You have a valid point Bulldog not arguing just saying.

In practical situations one can maximize the kill ratio with a handgun on concealment and a greater element of surprise alone.

Yep...

In 2018 there were a total of 5 attacks with rifles, either AK-47 civilian models or AR-15s, which are civilian rifles.........

Total killed.... 39 people.

numbers killed in the attacks...

4
11
4
3
17

Virginia Tech...2, 9mm pistols....32 killed.

Notice.....in only one of those attacks did the killer with the rifle kill more people than the guys with the pump action shotguns......

..the Russian shooter....Killed 20, injured 40 with a tube fed, 5 shot, pump action shotgun.

The Navy Yard shooter killed 12 with a pump action shotgun..

The Santa Fe shooter used a pump action shotgun and .38 revolver and killed 10

Yep,
Progressives have absolutely zero credibility when it comes to firearms knowledge, political correctness has made them fucking retarded

Are you saying that I have zero knowledge? That the majority of the retired Military Personnel have zero knowledge because we disagree with you and you gunnutters?

Lol
Anti-gun nutters like yourself need to mind your own business... It’s best if you stay in your safe space

 

[Daryl Hunt]

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?

No, it doesn’t.

But whatever its original intent doesn’t justify banning AR 15s.

That a law might be Constitutional doesn’t necessarily mean it’s a good law or its enactment is warranted.

The Ar-15 was not designed for civilian use - there is no reasonable justification for civilians to have one.

In the words of Justice Scalia:

" “Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited…”. It is “…not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.”"

The AR-15 falls under the category of "any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose"

Wrong.

The Supreme Court has made no such ruling; the High Court has never ruled on the constitutionality of AWBs, it has made no determination as to whether an AR 15 is ‘in common use,’ where its possession is entitled to Constitutional protections, or ‘dangerous and unusual,’ whose possession is outside of the scope of the Second Amendment.

Moreover, citizens are not required to ‘justify’ the exercising of a fundamental right as a ‘prerequisite’ to indeed do so; citizens have the right to possess firearms – including AR 15s – without having to justify or legitimize owning such a weapon where they are lawfully allowed to do so.

That’s the mistake conservatives make: they come up with ridiculous reasons in an attempt to ‘justify’ owning an AR 15 – when no such ‘justification’ is needed.

The supreme court has, however, ruled what guns are protected by the second amendment.

Guns, as in a generic term. The Courts have also ruled that a specific area can outright ban or heavily regulate an "AR-15 and it's various clones".

 

[Rustic]

***\\\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.

Incorrect..just puttin' it out there. The AK--the BAR....any semi-auto really..with a large capacity...will do just the same....as the AR. It really is the user.....and their skill-set + their intent. The AR..and the AK..and the SKS and the....fill in the blank..are designed to 'look scary' it's part of the appeal. My old deer rifle is a BAR semi... .30-06 ...it looks as plain as dirt...and will send rounds downrange just as fast as an AK...and anything I hit..well..it won't get back up.

On this issue...I'm on the side of the 2nd...as interpreted by the SCOTUS---i have no issue with red flag laws..and I'd register every gun in the country after filing their lands and grooves..if they have such. I think crazy folk need not have guns..and I include in that group any who advocate the violent overthrow of my govt.---I'd have everyone run a background check every time a gun is transferred. So..the NRA hates me..and I'm sure many here think I'm a lib...LOL. But,, once someone has a legal weapon..they should be able to carry concealed and open..with out permit or hindrance..saving the obvious...schools and such.

Lol
Buy more guns and ammo... MAGA

 

[OKTexas]

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"?

.

I was in the AF for over 20. The AR-15 model 601 was in "General Military Use" since about 1963. And it was still the primary combat rifle in the USAF until 1992 when it finally retired. I believe that a number over 14,000 makes it in general military use.

No general military use means DOD wide.

.