JavaScript is disabled
Our website requires JavaScript to function properly. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser settings before proceeding.
Messages
12,804
Reactions
46,814
The question keeps coming up from liberal politicians and gun control activists and is becoming a meme in both news and increasingly among personal discussions.

I don't like to off put people with a flat "because it's my right" or "because I can" or a blatant "Eff you". None of those answers can possibly put a shred of doubt in their minds about the gun control position that's been drummed into their heads by the MSM or their teachers. All you get with that tactic is a closed mind that will now make certain they will vote in order to get even.

When I hear "nobody needs a military style rifle to hunt or defend themselves" I tell them that there is not a single firearm from the first black powder gun to the musket to the flintlock to the lever, bolt and semi automatic that wasn't at one time a military weapon. You name it, it started out as a weapon of war.

When I hear "you don't need an AR-15 to hunt deer" I tell them that they are correct, and while there are other choices many people use them to hunt. While I don't hunt with an AR-15, I do have an AR-15 for self defense.

When I hear "You don't need an AR-15 for self defense" I tell them that while they are free to choose how they want to defend themselves I want the most effective defensive weapon I can find to protect my family. Then I ask them if they would prefer to be under gunned if they were defending their family or if they would prefer to have an advantage over the attacker.

When I hear "I don't need guns the police will protect me!" I point out that the police, while not required to protect them, will make their best effort but will take 5 to 10 minutes to get there. I ask them how they are going to stay alive long enough to protect their families - remember the school shooting only lasted six minutes and 20 seconds.

These kind of questions are going to become more common over the next several months so I suggest we be prepared to answer them. We also IMO need to make the argument emotional because most people struggle to keep their eyes open when you dump a bunch of facts on them, so I let them open that door before reminding them that, for example, the crime rate in Australia was decreasing at the same rate before and after the mandatory gun buy back.

What do you tell people when asked "Why should anybody need..."?
 
Because everything beyond food, water and shelter is pretty much not a need. Its' a BS question because the person asking it does not think they need it. It's like asking women why they need a bra when I never needed one.

Why do we need...
Cigarettes? kills way more people per day
Children? There are already too many people
Alcohol? kills way too many people
Candy? Diabetes kills way more people if slow chop-your-limbs-off-piece-by-piece sort of way.
Religion? Sports cars? pools? snorkeling? race car driving? etc, etc

I dont argue with people anymore, it isnt worth even talking to them over the issue. But no one can win the cigarette defense.

Why are you working so hard to ban a type of rifle when Cigarettes kill 1100 people a day? They kill people who dont smoke them (second hand smoking), They have a stronger lobby than the NRA. Their businesses make billions off of addicting and killing people? Why do pharmacies make money off selling something that kills people? why does safeway beg you for cancer research while selling a product that causes cancer a few feet away? Why do most people with schizophrenia smoke cigarettes and are usually unable to quit? Why are we giving people with mental health disease access to something that will kill them?

why should I listen to anything you have to say about guns when you care so little about a much more dangerous product?
 
0E4A5BA9-680F-4AB0-B624-3DA31B2CC2B8.jpeg
 
I feel that a law abiding US citizen should be able to own the firearms of their choice , with the least amount of fuss or red tape.
The 2nd Amendment makes no distinction of what type of arms one can own...it simply states "Arms".
Arms according to the dictionary means :
Weapons and ammunition , armaments.

As to the argument : " Yes , but there were no AR15's then..."
I would say that at the time in question , US citizens were able , encouraged and in some cases required to own "Military Type* " firearms ...why shouldn't we be able to own the same today?
After all no one is required to only:
Use a pen and ink for free speech ...
Practice a religion that was only around during the 17th Century...
Be able to vote if you are a white male over the age of 21 that owns property...

*I use the term "Military type" only because of its common usage today.
The AR15 , Mini-14 or a AK clone etc... are not a "military type rifle"...they are simply rifles of the semi auto type...
But that might be a argument for another day...:D
Andy
 
As long as the bad guys have high capacity AR15 type firearms, I need one too to protect myself from them. I have no fear of the government, but I have minimal confidence they can protect me.
 
I feel that a law abiding US citizen should be able to own the firearms of their choice , with the least amount of fuss or red tape.
The 2nd Amendment makes no distinction of what type of arms one can own...it simply states "Arms".
Arms according to the dictionary means :
Weapons and ammunition , armaments.

As to the argument : " Yes , but there were no AR15's then..."
I would say that at the time in question , US citizens were able , encouraged and in some cases required to own "Military Type* " firearms ...why shouldn't we be able to own the same today?
After all no one is required to only:
Use a pen and ink for free speech ...
Practice a religion that was only around during the 17th Century...
Be able to vote if you are a white male over the age of 21 that owns property...

*I use the term "Military type" only because of its common usage today.
The AR15 , Mini-14 or a AK clone etc... are not a "military type rifle"...they are simply rifles of the semi auto type...
But that might be a argument for another day...:D
Andy
There you go again, Andy, using logic, reason and common sense. Just don't know what to think about you!!! Please, just keep us guessing.
 
Need has nothing to do with any thing, an AR is no different then a tire iron, or a piece of wood, it's a simple tool. And while I can use any tool with in reach, a Firearm may be the best tool to deal with a threat in finality! The name of, or type of tool is irrelevant, it' the use of that makes all the difference! Tbose that say no pay needs such and such have no clue about whay they are talking about, a big lever action might actually be a better defensive tool then the modern AR equivalent, and while the AR design has been a Military arm, it's never been a particularly good one, so that argument dosnt fly! Speed and ease of handling make it handy in close, but the lack of power and performance leaves a lot on the table! Still, I have the right to make that choice, and I will continue to have that right, and if you push me far enough, I will use mine to take yours, savy!!!
 
HD- low recoil, lite weight, high ammo capacity, low over penetration.
Basically the best tool for an untrained shooter, I.e. your wife.

Milita - nuff said. They probably won't agree with this on principal, point to all the guerilla wars we have lost the last 40 years!
 
I personally believe that I don't need a high-capacity semiautomatic rifle for any legitimate reasons. That's not to say I don't really want one, or that I want them banned, but I personally feel safe with my revolvers, semi-pistols, single shot rifles, and pump-action shotguns to defend myself. But I believe we should all have the choice to decide what level of firepower we desire for our own defense, recreation, and hunting. I oppose a ban on "assault-style" rifles, and before they start enacting more restrictive legislation, they need to work on actually enforcing the current laws we have before they start making any more.
 
The question keeps coming up from liberal politicians and gun control activists and is becoming a meme in both news and increasingly among personal discussions.

I don't like to off put people with a flat "because it's my right" or "because I can" or a blatant "Eff you". None of those answers can possibly put a shred of doubt in their minds about the gun control position that's been drummed into their heads by the MSM or their teachers. All you get with that tactic is a closed mind that will now make certain they will vote in order to get even.

When I hear "nobody needs a military style rifle to hunt or defend themselves" I tell them that there is not a single firearm from the first black powder gun to the musket to the flintlock to the lever, bolt and semi automatic that wasn't at one time a military weapon. You name it, it started out as a weapon of war.

When I hear "you don't need an AR-15 to hunt deer" I tell them that they are correct, and while there are other choices many people use them to hunt. While I don't hunt with an AR-15, I do have an AR-15 for self defense.

When I hear "You don't need an AR-15 for self defense" I tell them that while they are free to choose how they want to defend themselves I want the most effective defensive weapon I can find to protect my family. Then I ask them if they would prefer to be under gunned if they were defending their family or if they would prefer to have an advantage over the attacker.

When I hear "I don't need guns the police will protect me!" I point out that the police, while not required to protect them, will make their best effort but will take 5 to 10 minutes to get there. I ask them how they are going to stay alive long enough to protect their families - remember the school shooting only lasted six minutes and 20 seconds.

These kind of questions are going to become more common over the next several months so I suggest we be prepared to answer them. We also IMO need to make the argument emotional because most people struggle to keep their eyes open when you dump a bunch of facts on them, so I let them open that door before reminding them that, for example, the crime rate in Australia was decreasing at the same rate before and after the mandatory gun buy back.

What do you tell people when asked "Why should anybody need..."?

Thank you. I have been looking for this type of answers for to educate and inform my peers.
 
Guns in general:
Because the cops job really isn't to protect specifically your family....
.... it's only too try and catch the ones that hurt/killed them.
If it was to protect them, you'd have a policeman living in your spare bedroom and sitting in your kid's classroom!

Modern Rifle in particular;
Because it can have an adjustable stock so everyone in my family can shoot each others gun well.
Because it can have a barrel-shroud (that thing that goes up?) so you won't burn yourself.
Because it can have a light attached to see who you're shooting at in a dark home in the middle of the night.
Because it can have a fore-grip if you are more comfortable and accomplished shooting with one.
Because it is adaptable and available in several calibers for hunting/plinking/target/self defense/pest control...
Because it has so many options and light recoil it can be used by almost everyone from the aged to physically challenged.

etc....etc....etc....

upload_2018-3-29_16-37-31.png
 
I'll answer if the snowflake asking has the slightest clue as to what any of those rifles are, and if they have ever had any experience shooting one.
 
I've though about this a lot, 'specially lately. The only conclusion I come to is, the person that asks that question already has their mine made up and there is nothing you can say to those people that will make one little bit of difference. Depressing huh?
 

Upcoming Events

Oregon Arms Collectors March Gun Show
Portland, OR
Tillamook Gun & Knife Show
Tillamook, OR
"The Original" Kalispell Gun Show
Kalispell, MT
Teen Rifle 1 Class
Springfield, OR
Kids Firearm Safety 2 Class
Springfield, OR

New Resource Reviews

Back Top