Specifically ARs.  I got into a debate with a rather intelligent ex marine who supports Assault Rifle bans and wanted to go through a document/article describing the availiblity of such guns throughout the 20th century.  He indicates they were unavailable until right before the chool shootings started.  I say there's no better way to enlighten somebody than with cold hard facts.  any help would be appreciated.

Specifically ARs.  I got into a debate with a rather intelligent ex marine who supports Assault Rifle bans and wanted to go through a document/article describing the availiblity of such guns throughout the 20th century.  He indicates they were unavailable until right before the chool shootings started.  I say there's no better way to enlighten somebody than with cold hard facts.  any help would be appreciated.

He's nuts, ARs as in the AR 16 was a result of Nam, so the fact that they are relatively new on the scene is the only reason they recently became available.
School shootings or any other mass murder has nothing to do with guns and everything to do with mentally disturbed individuals.

The public has always access to Military weaponry, I can still own a full auto M-16 if I want to deal with all the paper work, but what I learned in the Military, is auto is merely a waste of ammo, an M-16 can burn through a full mag in seconds, then you have issues with over heating if you burn too much
The ideal fire rate is three round bursts, which anyone can perfect easily, even with semi autos.

He is trying to make a connection of a certain type weapon availability to mental illness, that's like claiming rap music was the result of the modern PC.

Tell him that Eric Harris used a Hi-Point 995 carbine with great effect at Columbine HS. The Hi-Point is a 9mm semi auto using 10 round magazines, Harris carried 13 magazines (130 rounds) and discharged 96 rounds.

Good point and the Sandyhook shooter only used handguns, not an AR.

You know, those are good points, esp since he is so quick to only focus on the AR gunmen, like James Holmes.

I'd still like an article, but these points may help.  He's a great debator, almost a sophist, but he occasionally slips; like how he said Bush brought about a recession.  Even in Sociology books, near-the-most liberal textbooks around, agree that Bush had stimulated growth (only they say it was growth for the rich and not the poor).

I'd make him explain the meaning behind the 2Nd, regarding a Militia and that every member needs to supply his own arms.
What good is a militia if the Govt restricts our right to arm ourselves? The whole point of a militia was to fight alongside our very own military and or against an invader, even our own Govt.

"It only proves your distrust in our government, and our military.  We both served:  Do you distrust our military and brothers?"

He had a fairly plausible, economic-based logic behind his position before that.

That is a cop out answer, I would retort with "Do you buy insurance"?
Point is, the 2nd is insurance that the Govt will not interfere with the Bill of Rights, the Rights came before the institution of the US Govt. They are Rights instituted by God, they are inalienable Rights.
Ask him why he hates the Founders? That's about the same as his question as to why you distrust your brothers in arms.

Better yet, invite him over here, we'll set him straight as to what the Founding Documents mean.

The AR15 is a semi-automtic military look alike and has been available for a number of years.  I have a ruger ranch rifle, semi automatic and it is capable of holding a 30 round clip but only looks like a small M1 which is an older military rifle.  Guns are not the issue it is the people and we just don't want to deal with it.  The number of death attributed to responsible legal gun owner is all most ZERO.

There are conflicting reports about that. Actually, there's mostly NO information about that. At first, I heard that the shooter used two handguns, and an AR was found in the trunk of the car he drove to the school. Later, it was claimed that he used a Bushmaster AR-15 clone. But the details have not been available, and the Bushmaster claim came from exactly one person -- a deputy coroner, I believe, who did some of the autopsies.

Can anybody link to a credible source that says the Sandy Hook shooter definitely used an AR-15 or something like it?

Actually my post is correct, look up the coroners report after incident, turns out his on scene assumptions were just that ASS-umptions, turns out there were three pistols used and no rifle round were found in any of the victims.

Understood, but again, I haven't seen any legitimate, reliable info on that particular subject. Obviously, the media message has always been assault weapon, assault weapon, assault weapon, but I'm not coming up with credible sources that say what weapons were used. There is a serious clamp-down on this entire incident.

It's hard not to wonder whether that's a political move.

BINGO!!! That's exactly what is behind it, I still see the lie repeated in the news every week.

I'll see if I can find it, I know it's here on the forum, I posted it as a thread.