This feature appears in the August ’16 issue of NRA America’s 1st Freedom, one of the official journals of the National Rifle Association. As the standard firearm of its day, the AR-15 does not represent some bizarre over-extension of the right to keep and bear arms. It is the very core of that right. In the middle of June, a self-described radical Islamist ruthlessly gunned down a room full of Americans in the worst terrorist attack on United States soil since 9/11. In response, the Obama administration joined the usual suspects within the media and inveighed relentlessly against the perpetrator of the crime. It was time, the president said, to get serious in fighting terrorism, and that meant “making it harder for people who want to kill Americans to get their hands on assault weapons.” Once again, the AR-15 was under the microscope. If it seemed a touch peculiar that the president would reserve his most vehement words of condemnation for a firearm, rest assured that it was. But, alas, it was also par for the course. In the eyes of America’s ever-zealous gun-controllers, the AR-15 represents all that is wrong with the right of the people to keep and bear arms, and, indeed, with the country’s culture at large. In consequence, banning it is imperative not only in the fight against “gun violence,” but as a means by which individualism itself can be checked. Time and time again, those who own AR-15s—or similar—are cast as reactionaries, or bitter clingers, or, worst of all, as full-on terrorists. “Why,” the critics invariably inquire, “are we allowing this supergun and its unbalanced owners to destroy the public peace?” It makes no logical or constitutional sense for the people’s employees (our politicians) to be permitted to disarm their employers (the voters).In pushing back against this rather ignorant way of thinking, I could marshal an almost endless supply of inconvenient facts. I could point out, for example, that despite all of the propaganda to the contrary, the AR-15 is not a “supergun,” a “machine gun,” an “automatic weapon” or an “assault rifle”; that it does not “spray bullets” indiscriminately, as one sees in the movies; that it is owned by a fascinating cross-section of American citizens; that it is not especially powerful, especially when compared to rifles that are primarily used for hunting; and that it is used so infrequently in crimes that the FBI doesn’t even bother to keep statistics. Read the rest here NRA-ILA | The AR-15 Is The Musket Of Its Era
The article NEVER said he used a AR-15 only the reaction was to continue to call for bans of "assault weapons"
Remember when the AK-47 was the hot topic? Any rifle, in the eyes of the press, used in a crime was an AK-47. I remember an article in the Charlotte Observer in the 90's that showed an A model Uzi used in a hold up and in bold print underneath it said "AK-47 used in slaying". As long as useful idiots get jobs as reporters this will be the case. I know this as fact as I work with reporters every day, and see a lot of facts overlooked in the name of deadlines. In this business it's better to be first than 100% right. Because the AR-15 is now so popular, it is now the villain of choice in most any gun crime. I think it's high time we saved the AR-15 and we all start buying M-60s. Soon that will be the buzzword and the AR will be forgotten by the press, like the AK seems to have been.
Spot on where the ignorance of the press is concerned. After the last shooting where the coward du jour used a Tavor the CBS anchor called it an "AR-15" after noting how extra scary it looked in the video. "AR-15" is the meme, and if I poked my eye while running with scissors, they would be "AR-15" scissors if they made the news. And they wonder why nobody trusts them anymore...
