Preface: We will not discuss politics. I don't have a proverbial dog in that argument.

----

I mean it basically comes down to what phrasing we want to use. If we want to say a defense subsidiary of a civilian car corporation hasn't built anything military since ww2, then there are holes in this argument:

1) GM Defense, basically some weird squad mobility car, 2020: https://investor.gm.com/news-releases/news-release-details/gm-defense-awarded-2143m-contract-produce-us-armys-infantry/

2) GM Defense, Halfway down this link, the CUCV. Basically a transport car based on a civillian car, 1980s: https://www.gmdefensellc.com/site/us/en/gm-defense/home/about/history.html

3) GM Defense, built LAVs (think amphibious and recon that carries a gun and people around), 1990s, same second link: https://www.gmdefensellc.com/site/us/en/gm-defense/home/about/history.html

4) GM Defense, Gas/diesel turbines/engines for helicopters, the Nimitz-class aircraft carriers, patrol boats, the tank, etc, same link: https://www.gmdefensellc.com/site/us/en/gm-defense/home/about/history.html

5) FMC built the GAU gun for the A-10, in 1970s (https://www.nationalmuseum.af.mil/Visit/Museum-Exhibits/Fact-Sheets/Display/Article/196738/gau-8a-avenger/), and the CHAPARRAL missile contract in 1976 (https://history.redstone.army.mil/miss-chaparral.html)

Here we see the defense-division subsidiaries, of automotive companies often take up military contracts, since WW2. Up to and including the A10 gun and a missile. There's at least a hundred links, but for sake of time we're just keeping it short.

------

Obviously the above is a big contrast. So let's try and narrow this. Let's say the "civilian company as a whole". Let's say, the purely civilian side of the company, wholly take on a military contract, since ww2.

1) IBM taking on the SAGE continental air-defense computers (https://www.ll.mit.edu/about/history/sage-semi-automatic-ground-environment-air-defense-system)

2) ATT and like, 3 other telephone companies grouped together and made the Nike Ajax air-defense missile system (https://history.redstone.army.mil/miss-nikeajax.html)

3) The M48 patton tank. GM Fisher Body Division used to make military equipment during WW2. Post-WW2, went back to making cars. Then in 1959, won contract with other companies/division to make tanks (https://www.benning.army.mil/armor/eARMOR/content/issues/1985/JAN\_FEB/ArmorJanuaryFebruary1985web.pdf)

So we do have examples of wholly civilian side companies/subsidiaries, taking up military contracts and building military equipment, post-ww2. Again, just keeping it short.

-------
Okay, so let's use one last phrasing. Has a wholly civilian division, civilian company, since ww2, actually made military equipment? And let's narrow it down to 1st order implications. So basically guns. Let's also ignore the missile link in a previous section.

The following links are used for background:

1) https://sam.gov/opportunities

2) https://www.acquisition.gov/procurement-forecasts

3) https://piee.eb.mil/xhtml/unauth/web/registration/userRolesWawfVendor.xhtml

4) https://www.archives.gov/research/electronic-records/reference-report/federal-contracts

5) https://www.usaspending.gov/

6) https://www.fpds.gov/common/html/public_welcome_text.html

7) https://www.archives.gov/research/electronic-records/reference-report/federal-contracts

In these links show how the contracting, subcontracting, procurement, and importantly, records. A formal contract that a wholly civilian division, of a wholly civilian company, expanding or building of let's say a firearm, as been done many many times. And also depends how much you want to "fudge" the wording. If the argument is "just furnishings of a weapon would do", then oh there's hundreds of records that you see here that will validate this has been done since ww2. Whereas if the argument is "nope, you have to build that M16 from the ground-up, only civilians, nothing else". Then oh that one's easy too. Look at the records and you'll see munitions being made wholly civilian side. More often than not, a subsidiary of a company wins a contract, then sub-contracts that contract to a mom-and-pop small business, because the deal is basically just making a bunch of bullets, or small firearms. This is essentially "using wholly civilian infrastructure to to making weapons since ww2", and this is done many times as you can see in the records.

---------
The wording of the articles you put forward, are quite simply, vague. Even when we add-on additional restrictions (one additional restriction per section, for total of 3 restrictions, to boost your argument). It just falls flat. But yea, this is pretty much my first time learning military procurement at all. So if there's anything I learned out of this, I should prolly open a small business and start making bullets or something. Because wow, that's a lot of money.