politics

I'm assuming you know who Eugene Stoner is. If you do, you would also be aware that he designed the AR10 in a competition to be a replacement for the M1 Garand. You'd also be aware that the South Vietnamese liked it so much that they asked him to design a smaller version, which resulted in another team at Armalite scaling the AR10 down in addition to Stoner himself designing a new cartridge based on the Remington 222 (IIRC). Smaller weapon was a lot easier for the smaller stature of the Vietnamese to handle and also caught the attention of Curtis LeMay for use as survival equipment for his pilots.

If you don't know any of that, perhaps you should educate yourself. A great place to start would be the Library of Congress interviews with Eugene Stoner, where he lays out the exact history I described above, which are on YouTube.

If they're just cosmetic and have no bearing on the functionality, does that make whoever uses them a lamewad cosplayer?

Sure, but the rifle in question is not, and has never been a military weapon. The premise is that this is a “weapon of war”, as the redcoats like to describe it.

Yes, thank you for this demonstration of pedantism.

As if the kids aren't just as dead from "not an assault rifle."

Totally agree. I think the focus on a particular type of firearm is a distraction.

Because many of the things people cite as a reason to ban "assault weapons" are shared by many other firearms.

Many other rifle rounds are at least as powerful as the 5.56 NATO (in terms of delivered energy). Plenty of firearms can be loaded with 30 round magazines (even Glock pistols). And it's moot anyway because magazine changes are quick and easy. Pistol grips exist on some firearms (and all, you know, pistols) not that a rifle grip isn't entirely functional also. Nearly all modern firearms designs are semi-automatic. One shot per trigger pull, no action needed to chamber a round (versus lever action, bolt action, pump action, etc). Automatic weapons have been tightly controlled since the 1968 federal firearms act.

So let's all be honest with ourselves whatever side of this discussion we are on. It isn't really about the AR-15 or "assault rifles". If you want to ban or further restrict access to that style of weapon because of its capabilities in the hands of a nutjob, and you want to make an effective policy, you are really going to need to ban or restrict access to all firearms. Some already know this. The ones arguing against a particular type, I think, don't.

And since there are so many firearms already owned by Americans, the only way for the policy to be truly effective is getting guns out of people's hands, nationwide, via a combination of buy-back or confiscation.

There are still arguments for or against. Whatever. But let's not argue as if assault rifles are magic. They're more or less as deadly as any firearm.

This question is based on a false premise. Neither the Colt AR-15, nor the ArmaLite AR-15 have ever been used “on battlefields”.

I think it's based on "AR-15" being both a trademark describing specific products and a design pattern for a family of firearms where most components interchange between different manufacturers and models.

The US military M16 rifle and M4 carbine Are AR-15-pattern firearms, and military sales represented the bulk of early sales.

You write:

Neither the Colt AR-15, nor the ArmaLite AR-15 have ever been used “on battlefields”.

However, Wikipedia disagrees, citing use of the AR-15 by South Vietnam:

In October 1961, William Godel, a senior man at the Advanced Research Projects Agency, sent 10 AR-15s to South Vietnam. The reception was enthusiastic, and in 1962, another 1,000 AR-15s were sent.

How did the AR-15 go from being mainly used on battlefields to one of the most popular firearms among civilians in the US?

This incorrect statement that you pointed out is really, really important. I would say its blatant falsehood, written so plainly in an editorial, is the cornerstone of why gun control laws are not being taken seriously by everyone. Talking heads that rehearse talking points without credibility.

Let's be clear: everyone wants gun safety and responsible laws. What safety and laws mean varies between different people and different political spectrums, however, if responsible people obtain guns more of the time, and gun ownership is reduced in groups that shouldn't own them, then everyone wins. This would mean that there would be less legal hesitance for people to own a gun who want them, and less gun violence, which is ultimately the point.

If inaccurate rhetorics are repeated by politicians and the media (like how AR-15s are used "in the battlefield"), then gun owners and parties that align more with gun ownership will very quickly and appropriately dismiss these concerns, because they are inaccurate. Not only does it not make progress, but it discredits those looking to increase gun safety, because they very blatantly don't have their facts straight.

This question is based on a false premise. Neither the Colt AR-15, nor the ArmaLite AR-15 have ever been used “on battlefields”.

Nevertheless, I'm pretty sure you and everyone else understood the gist of the argument.

Gun bans aren’t going to make anyone, except for police and criminals, safer.

Funny how the rest of the First World disagrees, and somehow they have far, far fewer mass shootings. But why allow facts get in the way of a cherished rhetoric?