Why Do You Need An AR-15/AK-47/Military Style Rifle etc?

[MrMillspecer]

Are you expecting to have to deal with a situation like that? Sure, you have the right to defend yourself?

Do you have problems with illeagles on your island ? Our local law has stated they are 30 minutes out on most nights so you should be able to protect yourself. Plus I'm not the outskirts of town where people shoot and do drugs and now camping not far away. Yes I like my protection. It's my right.

We like watching true crime shows. And people will kill you for your truck if they like it. To think it can't happen to me is just silly. It called being prepared.

 

[Andy54Hawken]

Back when I was young and had good eyes...I could shoot and score hits out to 800 yards with a M16A2 , no scope no tweaking...just a as issued , to me Army rifle.

The issue of a rifle's accuracy really isn't the point...
And to state my oft argued against opinion:
All rifles are made with one thing in mind...to accurately place a bullet or ball on a given target.
That's it...doesn't matter if its the latest Infantry rifle , a antique Flintlock or any rifle in between...
Again , however...that doesn't matter...

What does matter is what the fella holding the rifle does...

If the AR15 was so damn dangerous and deadly....then why don't we hear of more shootings with them...?
After all I'd venture to say that the AR series of rifles and its clones are one of the most popular types of rifles to own and shoot....
Millions of these rifles are out there....and millions of law abiding gun owners , who own them are out there.
Why lump them in with the criminals who harm others...?
AR15's are simply semi auto rifles...no more , no less....

However..as I have said repeatedly:
Perceptions matter more than truth to some people...
And the AR15 has a evil perception to some people...unfairly and unfortunately.
Andy

 

[birdmove]

Not so much illegals. And, where we live, the police, when called, can take a looooong time to arrive. We're in the Puna District near Pahoa. This state is not firearms friendly. Self defense here is a lot different than self defense in other states. I had a carry permit in Washington State for over 35 years. Though they say you can apply for one here, the truth is nobody ever gets one approved. And, I mean nobody.

 

[Boboclown]

It is possible to make ARs accurate enough to give a bolt action a run for their money. However, just because a rifle is a bolt action does not mean it will be accurate. Case in point: My Ruger Hawkeye in .30-06 is doing 2-3 MOA with off the shelf soft points, while my FAL (STG58, the STG58s had the best barrels a FAL could ever get) has done better with off the shelf soft points. There are people who have gotten half MOA with ARs, some who even got better than that.

Ruger Hawkeyes can be made accurate, but out of box? More often than not you have to work on it yourself to make it accurate. Whereas an AR can be accurate out of box, or built to be accurate, and will not require any upkeep to maintain accuracy (no glass bedding or anything).

 

[birdmove]

Years ago I chose to buy a Thompson Center Contender Carbine, and I went with the .222 caliber, rather than the .223. It may be splitting hairs, but I had read the .222 showed a bit better accuarcy, so I went with it. Typical for me, I never fired a factory round in it. My handloads were quite good. The only experience I had with .223 was making wildcat loads, converting the .223 brass to 7mm TCU.

 

[MrMillspecer]

I enjoy TARGET SHOOTING with mine. Too bad its not accurate.

 

[birdmove]

Nice groups!

 

[MrMillspecer]

Nice groups!

Thank you. Its an AR I assembled and it gives me more satisfaction knowing i had my hands on that part and can service it. It has no threaded barrel or collapsible stock, but could be banned because people want to miss classify ALL semi autos now. Shooting small groups is a wonderful hobby. And i was able to sell my bolt .223 rifle because my build out shot it. Yes something fun that has nothing to do with assaulting people.

To make it clear I'm against any ban of these types of rifles. How ever it's dressed up.

 

[DuneHopper]

I think there are a lot of gun owners that are not for civilians owning. and I won't say "assault weapons", because that will then bring out haters who quibble about definitions, semi autos with replaceable magazines (woe be it to the man who says "clips"). I'm ready to give in on availability of these types of firearms. I also recognize that, let's take the AR-15, the on;ly use where that gun excells is killing large numbers of people as quickly as possible. You have to agree that it is not in the running as far as accuracy goes. A bolt action of half the price will out shoot it. I could go on, but I can already hear the responses.
I am willing to consider possibly outlawing high capacity mostly after market magazines for these guns. What if they did that instead of actually limiting the firearms?
I draw the line on outlawing or confiscating hunting, target firearms. I have owned a bunch of guns, which I mostly sold before moving to Hawaii, which is not very firearm friendly. We moved here because someone in my family that lives here needed help, and to be with our grandaughter. Here is what I kept and brought: 1-Colt Model 1911 .45 acp. 1-Charter Arms Bulldog Pug in .44 special, which was my carry gun in Washington state for many years. 1-Marlin Model 1894 lever action in .357 magnum. 1- Stevens Model 311 12 gauge side by side. 1-ancient Savage .22 pump action takedown rifle. 1-Pedersali Remington Rolling Block, unfired in 45-70 (you never know when you might be charged by an elephant).
To recap. I think there are valid arguments to limit semi automatic rifles with high capacity magazines available. They won't take my firearms while I still breath. But, I"m not willing to draw that line for those of you that want the firearms in question. I'll use the Las Vegas massacre as an example of what an efficient tool for a mass shooter with a well thought out plan can do. The fact that this weapon configuration is often the choice of these people says it. If I wanted to take out as many as possible, I'd choose an SR-15 with multiple high capacity mags, and choose a spot as he did, where accuracy isn't needed. Just fast shooting into a dense crowd at what, 300+ yards? Would banning these stop all murders with firearms? Hell no. But it would help to take the best tools for mass shooters away.
The firearms I have, at least the 1911, .44 special, 12 gauge, and the lever action Marlin, cover my self defense needs just fine. And, even at 64 with prostate cancer, a blown up right knee, and old eyesight, I can still hit these. An AR-15 (or other rifle of the type I mentioned above) sucks for your typical self defense, which is a home invasion. I've been through one of these on my 22nd birthday, and a revolver was the perfect choice. An AR fires a .22 caliber bullet at about 3250 fps. Is that really what you would choose to shoot bad guys in your house, or yard? Do you really believe your country is going to have a military takeover where you'll be fighting against heavily armed trained fighters?

Taken right from the Brady Playbook. Tell people that the problem is not firearms,
but is why they want them, then try and convince them they don't want them
because nobody needs one. Well played but easily seen I don't buy one word see this play before
allot try and befriend people all the while moving in for the kill.

 

[slimmer13]

I'll use the Las Vegas massacre as an example of what an efficient tool for a mass shooter with a well thought out plan can do. The fact that this weapon configuration is often the choice of these people says it.

Whenever I think about the LV massacre, I thank God it wasn't a proficient rifleman with a big magnum bolt action. The casualties could have been MUCH worse.

We are losing liberties because some among us buy in to the philosophy that if you ban an object, it will deter evil. Truck, gasoline, whatever, it doesn't matter. A motivated madman hellbent on mass murder, who is willing to die in the process cannot be stopped. Period.

 

[Boboclown]

Laws are a punitive measure, not a preventive one. So they aren't going to do anything other than define the crime and punishment.

 

[pharmseller]

1. You have to agree that it is not in the running as far as accuracy goes. A bolt action of half the price will out shoot it.

2. I am willing to consider possibly outlawing high capacity mostly after market magazines for these guns. What if they did that instead of actually limiting the firearms?

3. I draw the line on outlawing or confiscating hunting, target firearms.

4. They won't take my firearms while I still breath.

5. But it would help to take the best tools for mass shooters away.

6. Is that really what you would choose to shoot bad guys in your house, or yard?

7. Do you really believe your country is going to have a military takeover where you'll be fighting against heavily armed trained fighters?

I'll take these one by one, my apologies for cutting up your reply, but it was necessary.

Point one I categorically deny. I was at the Elk's Club 600 yard range two summers ago, spotting for my brother. Another shooter showed up without a spotter so I agreed to mark his targets. Long story short, he was shooting an AR into 3" groups at most, consistently. Sometimes I didn't even adjust the disc because he shot it. I can't do what he did with any of my bolt rifles, and I shoot a lot.

Point two, high cap mag restriction is pointless. Millions of them are already in circulation, banning new ones is a feel-good measure at best. The kid in Florida wasn't using high cap, his were 10 rounders.

3. The people who oppose gun ownership love this perspective. Once we start the outlawing and confiscation process, they get to decide what a hunting or target rifle is, so they get to decide what gets outlawed and confiscated. We start with the scary ARs, next is the scary "sniper rifle." And who needs six shots in a revolver? Single shots only!

4. Sure they will, because you let them.

5. The best tool is the tool the crazy guy has. For the Virginia Tech shooter it was a Glock 19 and a Walther .22 pistol. He was darned efficient. For the YouTube shooter it was a S&W. For the Columbine animals is was shotguns and 9mms. For Timothy McVeigh it was fertilizer. For the Muslim fanatics it was jet planes. For the crazies in China it was knives, 5 crazies attacked a crowd of people at a train station, killing 29 before they were stopped. By cops. With guns.

6. You don't get to choose what someone else uses to protect himself or his family. I think a revolver is a poor choice but by golly that's your choice, not mine.

7. The Second Amendment is predicated upon this very point. An armed populace is the deterrent to any attempt at tyranny.

But you never answered my question. Given that the agenda for the left includes ending at worst or severely limiting at best, private gn ownership, what makes you think they'll stop, once the wall that is the Second Amendment cracks?

They don't want you to have that revolver. If you give them the AR, you're telling them it's okay to take guns away. Then it's just a matter of time before the argument includes your revolver.

So if you wouldn't mind, please reply. If we give up ARs (and any gun that looks like an AR, or functions like an AR) it will stop there because...

And giving up ARs (and any gun that looks like an AR, or functions like an AR) will reduce gun violence in a meaningful way because...





P

 

[birdmove]

See point 4 above. But, I'm not willing to throw my life away so someone else can own an AR or fac simile.

 

[Boboclown]

Fixing media portrayal would do far more than a nonsensical ban in preventing further mass shootings. Copycat criminals copy a crime for the shock value as it gets their name spread around. Copycat crime is a term that was coined in 1916, when people were copying Jack the Ripper. The only difference now is not only do news need to sensationalize everything to keep up with views (and money), but their portrayal of the crime puts the name and often the face of the shooter all over the news.

Whereas laws, as stated before, are a punitive measure and not a preventative one.

I already lived in a country with strict gun control, rather not go back to living in a country with strict gun control. Don't own an AR, that's on you. But stay out of my life.

 

[DB is Here]

But, I'm not willing to throw my life away so someone else can own an AR or fac simile.

What are you saying here? I'm failing to see the connection.

 

[USMC-03]

See point 4 above. But, I'm not willing to throw my life away so someone else can own an AR or fac simile.

I've made note of this idea in one of my other recent posts but it bears repeating. The second most important day in a man's life is when he finds out what he has to live for. The most important day is deciding what is worth dying for.

Asking rhetorically, to all here, what is the hill you will make your last stand on? In word and in deed.

My family's safety is worth dying for; so is preserving the liberty embodied in Western Civilization in general, and the United States in specific, for future generations. That doesn't mean I will throw my life away, nor will I ever expect that from anyone else. But if you are backed into a corner and selling your life is the only option then sell it as dearly as possible. This is why we train.

What we're living through is the latest in a clash of ideologies that left 200 million dead during the 20th century. The battle over firearms is just a small piece of it. This clash will end in blood, it always does. My prayers to the gods is that I'm wrong, but the lessons of history point in a very bad trajectory.

I'm in no way advocating violence, in fact I'm making my arguments in hope to avoid it if at all possible by encouraging engagement, philosophy in lieu of ideology and a position of principled strength. Hopefully enough people will see the benefits of individualism and liberty in time to make a difference.

 

[DuneHopper]

See point 4 above. But, I'm not willing to throw my life away so someone else can own an AR or fac simile.

But @birdmove you already have thrown it away and you don't even know it.
Funny thing is you have no idea what I am even saying that's the scary part.
I will tell you your vote wont matter so why bother trying to convince anyone as you can see there
are many here alone that will cancel out your choice to vote on this in the rare place it makes it to the ballot.
But you are helping by sharing these insane ideas evey one that read them knows they will fight harder
so people like you are shut down at the polls should it ever get there.

 

[USMC-03]

Here's a pretty good article on need as an argument for restricting the right to self defense.

Need as a Strawman - Robert Charlton - Liberty.me

Further, need, as a test for ownership of property, in straight from Marxist ideology. From each according to their ability, to each according to their need. The concept is that no individual shall decide how to expend the fruits of their labor and by extension be the master of his own life.

 

[BMF]

For any of these arguments to be understood by the "feelings rule over facts" side of the isle, we must first appeal to their feelings. Or disrupt the broken logic within them, so that they may look upon the world with new eyes.

 

[BMF]

Ask any of them if they "need" to attend church, or to pray? Ask them if they "need" to be innocent until proven guilty by a jury of their peers, or is hear say enough to make one a criminal? Ask them the right way about any of the other amendments in the bill of rights, or constitution for that matter, can disarm their disillusion of "need". Mostly dig to find out what their passion is and ask if they need it or want anyone regulating it.