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

[SIG34]

100rds ?

I agree

 

[L84Cabo]

There's a problem with getting into discussions like this with liberals. It reinforces to them that our rights are negotiable and up for discussion. THEY ARE NOT! In a free society, there is no requirement to show need to exercise a right. It is my right. And the obligation is NOT on me to justify or substantiate why I should have this right and/or why I need it.

Liberals would do well to remember this as they are on the downhill side of this argument. The law, the constitution, and the right is all on our side. And given that they are literally asking/wanting people to give up their rights, you would sure think they would be a bit more respectful and courteous and that they would spend just a modest amount of time and energy educating themselves on the topic. This is seldom the case, however. The arrogance that most of them display is staggering.

But fine...we are supposed to be a civilized society and in a civilized society discussion and debate is how we move forward and resolve problems. Why does anyone need an AR15? Los Angeles, 1992. THERE IS YOUR ANSWER.

• 3767 buildings burned or destroyed
• Over $1 Billion in property damage
• 60 people murdered
• 4000 people injured

And the police were nowhere to be found.

We watched on TV as people were pulled out of their vehicles and murdered...and the police were nowhere to be found. We watched on TV as Korean shop keepers stood on their rooftops defending their lives, their businesses and their families from roving bands of looters and murderers, using the very gun (AR15) that liberals want to ban...AND THE POLICE WERE NOWHERE TO BE FOUND!

I'm talking about the LA Riots of course. And this should be example enough for any reasonable person. But I guarantee you that it won't be for liberals. They'll come back at you with some idiotic response like "that was 30 years ago," or "that the odds of something like that happening are incredibly small." Because this is the mentality of the people you are trying to "discuss" with. No answer you give them will ever be good enough. I promise you. You're just wasting your breath with these idiots.

But if you need more, Katrina is another perfect example. In that situation when the police actually did show up they confiscated weapons and left people defenseless to face the roving band of looters alone! THE POLICE!

If you need more, ask them to whip out their fancy phone and google Warren vs. DC. They'll quickly learn that the police have ZERO obligation to protect us. NONE.

If this still doesn't work for them, you should run away as fast as you can. Because you're dealing with an idiot.

 

[etrain16]

I get the responses about not having to explain why. I'm looking for rhetoric for use with the undecided and slightly left of center to see if I can sway their vote. They don't get the subject vs citizen argument and will simply tune you out. Likewise telling someone it's none of their business or to simply FO will motivate someone who might have been too lazy to vote to make sure they vote for the initiative.

When people say I don't need one for self defense, I like to point them to stories of folks that have actually done just that. Part of the problem is they don't consider what a self defense scenario involves. For example, there can be multiple attackers, and they can all be armed. They also think every shooter can put a single bullet in someone's leg and end the threat - yet seem to miss the fact that the police, who are expected to be better trained than your average citizen, often have to fire dozens of rounds to stop one bad guy. Shots will miss their target - under the influence of adrenaline, moving target(s), less than ideal lighting conditions, working to avoid getting shot yourself, it may take 5, 10, 15 or more shots to actually stop the threat.

Here are some links you can use with those that are willing to check them out:

This one made national news - a 23 year old man was confronted by 3 men in a home invasion - he used an AR-15 to kill all three, saving his own life:

Oklahoma home invasion shooting: No charges against man who killed 3 intruders

Of course the story of Stephen Willeford, the man that stopped the Texas Church Shooting from going any further - his AR allowed him to stop a threat, at distance, and to get some rounds through the man's truck door:

Man who opened fire on Texas church shooter hailed as 'good Samaritan'

Another good one out of Texas - 15 year old boy defends himself and younger sister from a burglary using their father's AR-15:

"Assault rifle" saves teenagers from home invasion burglars | Human Events

Some others:

Shootout at Inkster tax preparation business caught on camera

Man defends apartment with AR-15

No Shots Fired: Home Intruders Decide Not to Stick Around After Seeing Their 'Victim' Holding an AR-15

And who can forget the 1992 LA riots and the shop owners that had to use semi-auto rifles to protect their stores:

KING CASE AFTERMATH: A CITY IN CRISIS : Looters, Merchants Put Koreatown Under the Gun : Violence: Lacking confidence in the police, employees and others armed themselves to protect mini-mall.

 

[KKG]

Since so many people are being Killed by fast car maybe "WE" need to work at outlawing any car that can do more than 35MPH? Then "WE" can ask them why they "NEED" that Porche, or Audi, or whatever??? Same could be asked about their Cowpasture Pool Sticks. Why, Why, WHY!!!

 

[L84Cabo]

Why does anyone need an AR15?

Because we live in a free society...and I want one. The fact that it pisses you off, is just an added bonus!

 

[Ranger90]

We need an AR15 so we can shoot communists, fascists, and other tyrants, should they choose the F with us.

 

[Ranger90]

Also works great for putting down violent criminals.

 

[Medic!]

''You don't need an AR-15 to hunt deer''.


That's right we don't. The second amendment has nothing to do with hunting.
We need an AR-15 [and all our other 2nd amendment guns] for fighting people. Tyrannical people!

That is what the founding fathers wanted us to have guns for.




If you don't like the 2nd. Then try to change or get rid of it.
But don't pretend it doesn't mean what it means.

 

[Ranger90]

Haha, Medic, you crack me up! So true!

 

[pharmseller]

You're all missing the point.

The question involves the "need" for one of the amendments in the Bill of Rights. If one of the amendments is in question, they all are. So answer the question with another question:

Why do you need the First Amendment?

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Let's just focus on the freedom of speech component, since that's what most people think the First Amendment is all about. Why do we need that protection?

Well, we have the right to express ourselves without fear of suppression.

Suppression, you say? Suppression by whom?

Why, the government, of course! Without that protection the government can stop us from speaking our minds, stop our right of free expression, control what we read, what we print, everything!

Now we're getting somewhere. You need the First Amendment to protect your rights from the government, in case the government decides to try to take your rights from you. We have something in common, then, since we also need the Second Amendment in case the government tries to take our rights from us. Think of the Second Amendment as the enforcement arm that protects the rest of your rights.

Will we ever really need to protect ourselves from our own government? Probably not, at least I hope not, but history teaches us otherwise. In the meantime, we have more in common than you thought. We both want to preserve our rights from the same government. As a result, you should support the Second Amendment, too, if you really support our rights.




P

 

[pharmseller]

Anyone can use what I wrote, but I get five bucks every time you do.

 

[CountryGent]

I know OP, with good reason, is looking for compelling arguments or at least ready answers to this question. One can make fine points about home protection, hunting, recreational shooting, providing for the common defense, etc., that, quite literally, millions of Americans do peaceably and safely all the time. The overwhelming majority of firearm owners are law-abiding and would never use their firearms (any of them) for illegal purposes. Not to mention that firearms, like all technologies, evolve over time and the modern sporting rifles, that the sniveling anti-freedom crew want to ban, are just a manifestation of that progress.

However, I just can't get past the premise of the question they ask and that it is indicative of how conditioned people have become. "Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" means I decide what are and are not my needs. As long as said pursuit is not causing harm to another citizen, it is nobody's business but my own. And one can check out the history of societies in which the government decided what their citizens "needed" and see how well that worked out.

There are a lot of folks in this country that do or own a lot of things in the pursuit of happiness that I have zero interest in nor, in some cases, can even fathom. But it is their right and I won't question it. You know, that notion that responsible adults, provided they aren't harming anyone else, can run their lives as they see fit. Or as Penn Jillette put it: "My whole take on libertarianism is simply that I don't know what's best for other people."

The Socialist, at his/her core, believe they should be able to use the state to force others to live as they believe they should, and I categorically reject that because, well, that is a pretty good definition of tyranny.

 

[oli700]

Foreign and domestic ..... and hope I make it through at least one mag .
For me personally
1. It's one of the reasons we have not been invaded with conventional warfare..... behind every blade of grass

2. I suppose if someone wants to change the way we live bad enough we have a mechanism that says we have to be reasoned with......

 

[Lindy]

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!!!

Killing is a matter of will, not weapons.You can't control the act itself by passing laws about the means employed.

 

[Hawaiian]

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

Because the voices tell me I need to have them!

 

[Diamondback]

"Nobody needs a lying sack of dogcrap, and yet here YOU are..."

 

[clearconscience]

To ensure I have the ability to fight against tyranny.

Examples:
Clinton
Pelosi
Bloomberg
Immigration
Not punishing criminals
FBI, BLM, IRS, media all used as political weapons against conservative Americans
Other BLM
Among others

 

[notazombie]

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

No need to answer because no answer will satisfy them. Anyone who poses that question already has their mind made up so why try? I'm tired of being on the defensive and having to justify my rights.

 

[partsed]

Anyone can use what I wrote, but I get five bucks every time you do.

 

[nammac]

Why do I need to have an AR, AK, BMG etc?

Why do you need to have that question?