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

[USMC-03]

That's the unanswerable 2A argument in a nutshell - every other reason can be disputed.

Until 2A supporters cut to this simple chase - and the core reason the 2A exists - we're wasting our time and effort defending the bark on the trees while ignoring the forest.

Folks opposed to the 2A can argue that we don't need to - or can't - resist a tyrannical government, but isn't resistance to a tyrannical government the origin story of this country? Let's ask them to defend their repudiation of an act - rebellion against a "duly constituted government" - we celebrate almost daily. That may be more difficult than citing statistics about how fast 911 responds to a call for help to show I don't need a gun in my night stand.

Can a reasonably armed populous defeat the full combat power of a modern military? No. Resist to varying degrees, yes. But let's consider recent history.

Over 200 million people were killed by their own governments in the last 120 years; the Ottoman Empire, Soviet Russia, Red China, the Cambodian Killing Fields, North Korea, and on... The one common denominator is that almost none of these people had the practical means to defend themselves.

Does this mean that if arms were in the hands of citizens in these countries they would have lived? But the equation would have been radically different. The effort of tyrants would be much increased.

And if anyone thinks Western Society, and especially the United States, has advanced beyond the possibility of mass genocide - think again, sunshine...

 

[The Heretic]

Can a reasonably armed populous defeat the full combat power of a modern military? No. Resist to varying degrees, yes.

Defeat? No.

Make their life hell? Drive them out of the country eventually? Yes: Afghanistan. The Soviets and the USA. We are at a standstill there and will be until we elect "leaders" who say enough is enough. And they are often armed with homemade guns or hand me downs.

What any resistance needs is the support of a significant part of the populace. Without that they will fail. We don't have that.

 

[The Heretic]

Zombies

 

[ma96782]

Why does anyone need an AR-15?

Aloha, Mark

 

[wired]

Can a reasonably armed populous defeat the full combat power of a modern military? No. Resist to varying degrees, yes.

Vietnam and Afghanistan ( Soviets AND The US ) beg to differ.


Modern wars stopped being all out conflicts when the atomic bomb was invented. Now they are just stalemates until public opinion swings one way or the other. We waste a LOT of money preparing for total war.

 

[asbtg]

And more recently, with the near total ban on guns in Australia, the cops are getting increasingly-more-heavily-armed to combat criminals out-gunning them. So how'd that work out for ya there, mate?

 

[USMC-03]

Defeat? No.

Make their life hell? Drive them out of the country eventually? Yes: Afghanistan. The Soviets and the USA. We are at a standstill there and will be until we elect "leaders" who say enough is enough. And they are often armed with homemade guns or hand me downs.

What any resistance needs is the support of a significant part of the populace. Without that they will fail. We don't have that.

Exactly so.

The equation tyrants aim for is a population of sheep; i.e. compliant subjects. We can't allow that framework to be set up; citizens have say, rights and the capacity to back them both up with the virtious possession of arms. This is how a free people are maintained.

 

[USMC-03]

Vietnam and Afghanistan ( Soviets AND The US ) beg to differ.

The U.S. and Russian militaries weren't defeated; those wars were decided in the political realm.

 

[wired]

The U.S. and Russian militaries weren't defeated; those wars were decided in the political realm.

As almost all wars are.

 

[Ura-Ki]

And in Australia, the black market for crooks to get guns has exploded! all the while, it's a crime to defend your self with a gun, pretty bad

 

[DuneHopper]

I'm Sorry the definition of some one asking why I need something is the prime example of control and tyranny.
Translated.....
In other words screw you gov none ya business why possess anything legal.

 

[3MTA3]

The U.S. and Russian militaries weren't defeated; those wars were decided in the political realm.

As almost all wars are.

Soldiers don't start or end wars, politicians do. IMO politicians should be selected randomly to be on the front lines when they vote to declare war.

 

[Geardo]

Can a reasonably armed populous defeat the full combat power of a modern military? No. Resist to varying degrees, yes. But let's consider recent history.

Over 200 million people were killed by their own governments in the last 120 years; the Ottoman Empire, Soviet Russia, Red China, the Cambodian Killing Fields, North Korea, and on... The one common denominator is that almost none of these people had the practical means to defend themselves.

Does this mean that if arms were in the hands of citizens in these countries they would have lived? But the equation would have been radically different. The effort of tyrants would be much increased.

And if anyone thinks Western Society, and especially the United States, has advanced beyond the possibility of mass genocide - think again, sunshine...

It isn't about the military IMO. It is about the POLICE state and what that can become.

 

[3MTA3]

It isn't about the military IMO. It is about the POLICE state and what that can become.

At least until posse comitatus is suspended by declaring a state of emergency

 

[Geardo]

At least until posse comitatus is suspended by declaring a state of emergency

Good point, but I don't think that is the way it will go down.

 

[USMC-03]

It isn't about the military IMO. It is about the POLICE state and what that can become.

Yes, at least in the U.S.; historically though it's been a centralized government with the military fully backing it and this is how the neo-Marxist frames the argument.

 

[Ura-Ki]

But in this case, the military make up such a large percentage of the population, it would be likely for them to side with the people, it' in their families best interests!

 

[The Heretic]

But in this case, the military make up such a large percentage of the population, it would be likely for them to side with the people, it' in their families best interests!

When I went to boot camp (in '77) I was still naive and shared some of my knowledge of firearms with the younger kids (I was 23) while showing them how to strip and clean their rifles (AR-15s and M16s). There were more than a few recruits who were opposed to civilian gun ownership. I distinctly remember one saying he would use a bat when asked how he would defend his home.

On FB there are more than a few ex-military who do not support private gun ownership, especially "military" firearms.

You have to remember, that logistics and other non-front line enlisted outnumber the war fighters by 2-3:1 and not every combat war fighter supports gun rights just because they may have carried a gun in the military.

We are a minority inside a minority. Gun owners make up about a third of the US population, and only about 20% of gun owners are really into guns and gun rights, if that.

 

[The Heretic]

Yes, at least in the U.S.; historically though it's been a centralized government with the military fully backing it and this is how the neo-Marxist frames the argument.

That is what scares me about Trump and all his talk about loyalty, putting his incompetent unqualified friends and sycophants in positions of power and firing those who try to speak the truth to him.

 

[wired]

I joined the Army so I could shoot guns more often with someone else picking up the ammp costs. Then I figured out that you hardly ever get to shoot and when you do they make it as tedious as possible.