• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

A message from a veteran about the AR-15

Ganapathy

Banned
Joined
Jul 11, 2016
Messages
500
Reaction score
62
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Socialist
I am a veteran of the United States Army. I served as a 12B (Combat Engineer) in the 37th Engineer Battalion, part of the illustrious 82nd Airborne Division

I cannot, for the life of me, understand why any civilian needs or wants to own an assault rifle. During OSUT (a form of initial training where Basic and AIT are rolled into one course), we learned that our rifles were deadly weapons, designed solely for killing the enemy on a battlefield. When we trained with our weapons, we had to shoot a "qualification" test. We were presented with forty popup targets, one after another at different distances, from fifty to three hundred meters, all in very quick succession. We had to kill at least twenty three targets to pass the test, but most of us, including those of us who never fired a gun before, easily shot thirty or more targets. All this was in the span of less than two minutes, and we even had to reload once in that time. I don't get why any civilian needs to kill thirty people in two minutes, unless he is deliberately causing carnage and mass death.

The civilian AR15 is just a M-4 carbine by any other name. The only difference is that it does not have burst capacity. That is not nearly as big a difference as the NRA makes it out to be. We never, ever used burst mode in the military, since it wasted ammo, was inaccurate, and generally useless. Besides for that difference, the AR 15 is the exact same as the M4. The M4's features are designed to kill a large number of people in a short amount of time, including a detachable magazine which allows for rapid reloading and a buffer tube and muzzle brake which dampens recoil, so that a shooter can fire off a large number of rounds with minimal affect on accuracy.

All the arguments about " I need my AR 15 for hunting" or "I need my Ar15 for self defense" are entirely ridiculous. The 5.56 Nato round, which the Ar15 uses, is designed to pierce body armor. Which deer wears body armor? And your fantasies about shooting fifteen home invaders at once is just that: a fantasy which will likely never happen. The only real purpose of the AR 15 in American society is to kill large numbers of clubgoers, schoolchildren, or innocent bystanders at a time.

And for those of you who claim that "my Ar15 will protect me from tyranny," guess what, you're wrong. In my time in the military, I saw that no civilian rebellion would ever stand a chance against us. We have M1 Abrams tanks which can survive multiple rocket hits. We have drones which can bomb your house while being controlled by a person a thousand miles away. If worst came to worst, we have nuclear weapons which can quickly bring a seceding city or state into the stone age.

The right wing claims to respect veterans, so please listen to the words of a former soldier. I trained with assault rifles. I carried an assault rifle as part of my job. I can tell you that the military M-4 and the Ar-15 are nearly identical, and that no civilian needs a weapon designed to kill dozens of people in a matter of minutes.
 

Captain Adverse

Classical Liberal Sage
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 22, 2013
Messages
18,975
Reaction score
25,128
Location
Mid-West USA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
I am a veteran of the United States Army. I served as a 12B (Combat Engineer) in the 37th Engineer Battalion, part of the illustrious 82nd Airborne Division

I cannot, for the life of me, understand why any civilian needs or wants to own an assault rifle. During OSUT (a form of initial training where Basic and AIT are rolled into one course), we learned that our rifles were deadly weapons, designed solely for killing the enemy on a battlefield. When we trained with our weapons, we had to shoot a "qualification" test. We were presented with forty popup targets, one after another at different distances, from fifty to three hundred meters, all in very quick succession. We had to kill at least twenty three targets to pass the test, but most of us, including those of us who never fired a gun before, easily shot thirty or more targets. All this was in the span of less than two minutes, and we even had to reload once in that time. I don't get why any civilian needs to kill thirty people in two minutes, unless he is deliberately causing carnage and mass death.

The civilian AR15 is just a M-4 carbine by any other name. The only difference is that it does not have burst capacity. That is not nearly as big a difference as the NRA makes it out to be. We never, ever used burst mode in the military, since it wasted ammo, was inaccurate, and generally useless. Besides for that difference, the AR 15 is the exact same as the M4. The M4's features are designed to kill a large number of people in a short amount of time, including a detachable magazine which allows for rapid reloading and a buffer tube and muzzle brake which dampens recoil, so that a shooter can fire off a large number of rounds with minimal affect on accuracy.

All the arguments about " I need my AR 15 for hunting" or "I need my Ar15 for self defense" are entirely ridiculous. The 5.56 Nato round, which the Ar15 uses, is designed to pierce body armor. Which deer wears body armor? And your fantasies about shooting fifteen home invaders at once is just that: a fantasy which will likely never happen. The only real purpose of the AR 15 in American society is to kill large numbers of clubgoers, schoolchildren, or innocent bystanders at a time.

And for those of you who claim that "my Ar15 will protect me from tyranny," guess what, you're wrong. In my time in the military, I saw that no civilian rebellion would ever stand a chance against us. We have M1 Abrams tanks which can survive multiple rocket hits. We have drones which can bomb your house while being controlled by a person a thousand miles away. If worst came to worst, we have nuclear weapons which can quickly bring a seceding city or state into the stone age.

The right wing claims to respect veterans, so please listen to the words of a former soldier. I trained with assault rifles. I carried an assault rifle as part of my job. I can tell you that the military M-4 and the Ar-15 are nearly identical, and that no civilian needs a weapon designed to kill dozens of people in a matter of minutes.

Then don't own one. :shrug:

However, just because YOU can't see why a civilian might wish to own one is irrelevant.

The right to keep and bear arms is based in a MILITARY ideal in support of freedom, the right of the PEOPLE to act as a MILITIA in time of need.

To oppose enemies of freedom, both foreign and domestic. The history of guerilla warfare argues against your "no chance against a modern army" argument, as it always has historically.

You want to live in a society where only the police and military have weapons? Move to China. :coffeepap:
 
Last edited:

Casper

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 14, 2015
Messages
26,734
Reaction score
11,521
Location
Elsewhere
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Independent
I am a veteran of the United States Army. I served as a 12B (Combat Engineer) in the 37th Engineer Battalion, part of the illustrious 82nd Airborne Division

I cannot, for the life of me, understand why any civilian needs or wants to own an assault rifle. During OSUT (a form of initial training where Basic and AIT are rolled into one course), we learned that our rifles were deadly weapons, designed solely for killing the enemy on a battlefield. When we trained with our weapons, we had to shoot a "qualification" test. We were presented with forty popup targets, one after another at different distances, from fifty to three hundred meters, all in very quick succession. We had to kill at least twenty three targets to pass the test, but most of us, including those of us who never fired a gun before, easily shot thirty or more targets. All this was in the span of less than two minutes, and we even had to reload once in that time. I don't get why any civilian needs to kill thirty people in two minutes, unless he is deliberately causing carnage and mass death.

The civilian AR15 is just a M-4 carbine by any other name. The only difference is that it does not have burst capacity. That is not nearly as big a difference as the NRA makes it out to be. We never, ever used burst mode in the military, since it wasted ammo, was inaccurate, and generally useless. Besides for that difference, the AR 15 is the exact same as the M4. The M4's features are designed to kill a large number of people in a short amount of time, including a detachable magazine which allows for rapid reloading and a buffer tube and muzzle brake which dampens recoil, so that a shooter can fire off a large number of rounds with minimal affect on accuracy.

All the arguments about " I need my AR 15 for hunting" or "I need my Ar15 for self defense" are entirely ridiculous. The 5.56 Nato round, which the Ar15 uses, is designed to pierce body armor. Which deer wears body armor? And your fantasies about shooting fifteen home invaders at once is just that: a fantasy which will likely never happen. The only real purpose of the AR 15 in American society is to kill large numbers of clubgoers, schoolchildren, or innocent bystanders at a time.

And for those of you who claim that "my Ar15 will protect me from tyranny," guess what, you're wrong. In my time in the military, I saw that no civilian rebellion would ever stand a chance against us. We have M1 Abrams tanks which can survive multiple rocket hits. We have drones which can bomb your house while being controlled by a person a thousand miles away. If worst came to worst, we have nuclear weapons which can quickly bring a seceding city or state into the stone age.

The right wing claims to respect veterans, so please listen to the words of a former soldier. I trained with assault rifles. I carried an assault rifle as part of my job. I can tell you that the military M-4 and the Ar-15 are nearly identical, and that no civilian needs a weapon designed to kill dozens of people in a matter of minutes.
Well this Vet, 11B, Infantry, says if you do not want to own a semiautomatic rifle then do not buy one. That is far as your opinion goes when it comes to me exercising my Rights. The rest of your post was pure fantasy and not worth further reply. Dismissed.
 

Ganapathy

Banned
Joined
Jul 11, 2016
Messages
500
Reaction score
62
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Socialist
Well this Vet, 11B, Infantry, says if you do not want to own a semiautomatic rifle then do not buy one. That is far as your opinion goes when it comes to me exercising my Rights. The rest of your post was pure fantasy and not worth further reply. Dismissed.

It goes further than not wanting to own one. It is about not wanting any innocent civilian, like the 50 people recently killed in Orlando, to be shot with one.
 

Ganapathy

Banned
Joined
Jul 11, 2016
Messages
500
Reaction score
62
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Socialist
Then don't own one. :shrug:

However, just because YOU can't see why a civilian might wish to own one is irrelevant.

The right to keep and bear arms is based in a MILITARY ideal in support of freedom, the right of the PEOPLE to act as a MILITIA in time of need.

To oppose enemies of freedom, both foreign and domestic. The history of guerilla warfare argues against your "no chance against a modern army" argument, as it always has historically.

You want to live in a society where only the police and military have weapons? Move to China. :coffeepap:

The second amendment talks about a "well regulated militia." Well regulated means uniformed, trained, and with a clear cut rank structure and chain of command. Basically, it has always referred to the national guard, and of 4 out of 9 Supreme Court Justices had the common sense to interpret the constitution as it was intended. One of the other five, Scalia, is dead now (good riddance) and will soon be replaced with a more intelligent justice.
 

Ganapathy

Banned
Joined
Jul 11, 2016
Messages
500
Reaction score
62
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Socialist
Exactly. It's the same way I view abortion: If you don't like it, then don't get one.

Yeah, tell those mass shooting victims and their families that "if you don't want to be shot with an Ar15, then don't own one, lol."
 

Casper

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 14, 2015
Messages
26,734
Reaction score
11,521
Location
Elsewhere
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Independent
It goes further than not wanting to own one. It is about not wanting any innocent civilian, like the 50 people recently killed in Orlando, to be shot with one.
A very rare occurrence and if the streets actually did turn into a war zone you are going to want that M4 back.
 

Ganapathy

Banned
Joined
Jul 11, 2016
Messages
500
Reaction score
62
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Socialist
A very rare occurrence and if the streets actually did turn into a war zone you are going to want that M4 back.

Or I could be like the intelligent BLM protester last week, who, when the shooting started, turned in his rifle to police, knowing that trying to be a hero would only get himself killed and get in the way of the professionals trained to handle such situations.
 

Captain Adverse

Classical Liberal Sage
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 22, 2013
Messages
18,975
Reaction score
25,128
Location
Mid-West USA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
The second amendment talks about a "well regulated militia." Well regulated means uniformed, trained, and with a clear cut rank structure and chain of command. Basically, it has always referred to the national guard, and of 4 out of 9 Supreme Court Justices had the common sense to interpret the constitution as it was intended. One of the other five, Scalia, is dead now (good riddance) and will soon be replaced with a more intelligent justice.

Jeez, how many times is this incorrect argument based on projecting a modern paradigm onto the past going to come up?!? :doh

Maybe this link will help:

Well, your disagreement notwithstanding....The inherent right of a citizen to keep and bear arms forms the foundation of a militia, not vice versa.
 
Last edited:

Casper

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 14, 2015
Messages
26,734
Reaction score
11,521
Location
Elsewhere
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Independent
Or I could be like the intelligent BLM protester last week, who, when the shooting started, turned in his rifle to police, knowing that trying to be a hero would only get himself killed and get in the way of the professionals trained to handle such situations.

Is that what he was thinking? He was being looked for and he called in later after he had left because his picture was all over the news, they interviewed him and found nothing wrong and he went his merry way. Your point is what?
 

Ganapathy

Banned
Joined
Jul 11, 2016
Messages
500
Reaction score
62
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Socialist
Jeez, how many times is this incorrect argument based on projecting a modern paradigm onto the past going to come up?!? :doh

How is it incorrect? And please don't link me to John Lott or the NRA website.
 

Casper

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 14, 2015
Messages
26,734
Reaction score
11,521
Location
Elsewhere
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Independent
The second amendment talks about a "well regulated militia." Well regulated means uniformed, trained, and with a clear cut rank structure and chain of command. Basically, it has always referred to the national guard, and of 4 out of 9 Supreme Court Justices had the common sense to interpret the constitution as it was intended. One of the other five, Scalia, is dead now (good riddance) and will soon be replaced with a more intelligent justice.

You rally do like to reading your own opinions into clearly written words, don't ya. Sorry but that is not how it works, nothing in the 2nd A says anything about the militia being Government controlled or run and no a militia is not the National Guard, which in reality are State controlled.
 

Ganapathy

Banned
Joined
Jul 11, 2016
Messages
500
Reaction score
62
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Socialist
You rally do like to reading your own opinions into clearly written words, don't ya. Sorry but that is not how it works, nothing in the 2nd A says anything about the militia being Government controlled or run and no a militia is not the National Guard, which in reality are State controlled.

Guess who disagrees about not being a militia. The national guard. Part of their very existence is to serve as the militia for the states in the union, in accordance with the second amendment.
 

Casper

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 14, 2015
Messages
26,734
Reaction score
11,521
Location
Elsewhere
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Independent
Yeah, tell those mass shooting victims and their families that "if you don't want to be shot with an Ar15, then don't own one, lol."
You are far more likely to be killed in an auto accident than to be shot with any gun and being shot by an AR is so unlikely the statistic is not even really measurable when compared to the many other ways you can be killed.
 

Ganapathy

Banned
Joined
Jul 11, 2016
Messages
500
Reaction score
62
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Socialist
You are far more likely to be killed in an auto accident than to be shot with any gun and being shot by an AR is so unlikely the statistic is not even really measurable when compared to the many other ways you can be killed.

Cars get people places. Assault rifles are designed solely to kill people. There is plenty of reason to own a car, but zero to own an ar15.
 

Casper

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 14, 2015
Messages
26,734
Reaction score
11,521
Location
Elsewhere
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Independent
Guess who disagrees about not being a militia. The national guard. Part of their very existence is to serve as the militia for the states in the union, in accordance with the second amendment.
Wrong again buckaroo, the militia mentioned in the 2nd A talks of armed Citizens and says nothing about being government controlled or regulated.
 

Casper

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 14, 2015
Messages
26,734
Reaction score
11,521
Location
Elsewhere
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Independent
Cars get people places. Assault rifles are designed solely to kill people. There is plenty of reason to own a car, but zero to own an ar15.
Gets Many of them in the cemetery. Wrong again, they are excellent varmint rifles and we have lots of them out here in the country.
 

CMPancake

No gods, no masters.
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 13, 2014
Messages
6,250
Reaction score
6,257
Location
Tacoma
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Socialist
Wrong again buckaroo, the militia mentioned in the 2nd A talks of armed Citizens and says nothing about being government controlled or regulated.

Don't some National Guard units offer firearms training to civilians? I'm active duty military Intel so I wouldn't know.
 

Casper

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 14, 2015
Messages
26,734
Reaction score
11,521
Location
Elsewhere
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Independent
That's your opinion. What are you gonna do, try to take everyone's AR-15's or something?

But I get to keep my AR 10 and Mini 14, right? He just hate AR 15s, so we need to all up arm to the .308 AR 10, or maybe a nice AK or SKS instead,
Like they could even accomplish it no less ever have the nerve to try.
 

instagramsci

economically ☭ socially ☭
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 22, 2013
Messages
2,228
Reaction score
803
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
I am a veteran of the United States Army. I served as a 12B (Combat Engineer) in the 37th Engineer Battalion, part of the illustrious 82nd Airborne Division

I cannot, for the life of me, understand why any civilian needs or wants to own an assault rifle. During OSUT (a form of initial training where Basic and AIT are rolled into one course), we learned that our rifles were deadly weapons, designed solely for killing the enemy on a battlefield. When we trained with our weapons, we had to shoot a "qualification" test. We were presented with forty popup targets, one after another at different distances, from fifty to three hundred meters, all in very quick succession. We had to kill at least twenty three targets to pass the test, but most of us, including those of us who never fired a gun before, easily shot thirty or more targets. All this was in the span of less than two minutes, and we even had to reload once in that time. I don't get why any civilian needs to kill thirty people in two minutes, unless he is deliberately causing carnage and mass death.

The civilian AR15 is just a M-4 carbine by any other name. The only difference is that it does not have burst capacity. That is not nearly as big a difference as the NRA makes it out to be. We never, ever used burst mode in the military, since it wasted ammo, was inaccurate, and generally useless. Besides for that difference, the AR 15 is the exact same as the M4. The M4's features are designed to kill a large number of people in a short amount of time, including a detachable magazine which allows for rapid reloading and a buffer tube and muzzle brake which dampens recoil, so that a shooter can fire off a large number of rounds with minimal affect on accuracy.

All the arguments about " I need my AR 15 for hunting" or "I need my Ar15 for self defense" are entirely ridiculous. The 5.56 Nato round, which the Ar15 uses, is designed to pierce body armor. Which deer wears body armor? And your fantasies about shooting fifteen home invaders at once is just that: a fantasy which will likely never happen. The only real purpose of the AR 15 in American society is to kill large numbers of clubgoers, schoolchildren, or innocent bystanders at a time.

And for those of you who claim that "my Ar15 will protect me from tyranny," guess what, you're wrong. In my time in the military, I saw that no civilian rebellion would ever stand a chance against us. We have M1 Abrams tanks which can survive multiple rocket hits. We have drones which can bomb your house while being controlled by a person a thousand miles away. If worst came to worst, we have nuclear weapons which can quickly bring a seceding city or state into the stone age.

The right wing claims to respect veterans, so please listen to the words of a former soldier. I trained with assault rifles. I carried an assault rifle as part of my job. I can tell you that the military M-4 and the Ar-15 are nearly identical, and that no civilian needs a weapon designed to kill dozens of people in a matter of minutes.

Civilians should be able to acquire the same arms that the state can use against them. Engaging meaningfully in class struggle is impossible without guns. You arent a very good maoist
 

Casper

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 14, 2015
Messages
26,734
Reaction score
11,521
Location
Elsewhere
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Independent
Don't some National Guard units offer firearms training to civilians? I'm active duty military Intel so I wouldn't know.
Yes a few have, not that I would be interested, since I was an instructor in the Army. But it might be worthwhile for some, there are also excellent public schools around the country that offer some fine training and experience.
 

Mycroft

Genius is where you find it.
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 27, 2011
Messages
91,700
Reaction score
39,409
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
I am a veteran of the United States Army. I served as a 12B (Combat Engineer) in the 37th Engineer Battalion, part of the illustrious 82nd Airborne Division

I cannot, for the life of me, understand why any civilian needs or wants to own an assault rifle. During OSUT (a form of initial training where Basic and AIT are rolled into one course), we learned that our rifles were deadly weapons, designed solely for killing the enemy on a battlefield. When we trained with our weapons, we had to shoot a "qualification" test. We were presented with forty popup targets, one after another at different distances, from fifty to three hundred meters, all in very quick succession. We had to kill at least twenty three targets to pass the test, but most of us, including those of us who never fired a gun before, easily shot thirty or more targets. All this was in the span of less than two minutes, and we even had to reload once in that time. I don't get why any civilian needs to kill thirty people in two minutes, unless he is deliberately causing carnage and mass death.

The civilian AR15 is just a M-4 carbine by any other name. The only difference is that it does not have burst capacity. That is not nearly as big a difference as the NRA makes it out to be. We never, ever used burst mode in the military, since it wasted ammo, was inaccurate, and generally useless. Besides for that difference, the AR 15 is the exact same as the M4. The M4's features are designed to kill a large number of people in a short amount of time, including a detachable magazine which allows for rapid reloading and a buffer tube and muzzle brake which dampens recoil, so that a shooter can fire off a large number of rounds with minimal affect on accuracy.

All the arguments about " I need my AR 15 for hunting" or "I need my Ar15 for self defense" are entirely ridiculous. The 5.56 Nato round, which the Ar15 uses, is designed to pierce body armor. Which deer wears body armor? And your fantasies about shooting fifteen home invaders at once is just that: a fantasy which will likely never happen. The only real purpose of the AR 15 in American society is to kill large numbers of clubgoers, schoolchildren, or innocent bystanders at a time.

And for those of you who claim that "my Ar15 will protect me from tyranny," guess what, you're wrong. In my time in the military, I saw that no civilian rebellion would ever stand a chance against us. We have M1 Abrams tanks which can survive multiple rocket hits. We have drones which can bomb your house while being controlled by a person a thousand miles away. If worst came to worst, we have nuclear weapons which can quickly bring a seceding city or state into the stone age.

The right wing claims to respect veterans, so please listen to the words of a former soldier. I trained with assault rifles. I carried an assault rifle as part of my job. I can tell you that the military M-4 and the Ar-15 are nearly identical, and that no civilian needs a weapon designed to kill dozens of people in a matter of minutes.

Here's a message from another Veteran...of two wars:

You are free to make your own decision about whether you want or need to own an AR-15. I am also free to make my own decision. However, your implied desire to curtail my freedom is in direct violation of the 2nd Amendment of our Constitution.

I don't want and I don't need your permission to choose if I want to acquire a firearm and what kind...and I reject your opinion about whether I need one or not. In fact, I don't even have to tell you why I think I "need" any firearm.


on a side note...did you really only have to qualify out to 300 yards with the M-16...or whatever variation you used? I qualified at 350 yards with the M-16 and out to 450 yards with the M-14. Times change, I guess. And...I wonder if the Army taught you to call a rifle a gun. I was taught the difference between the two.
 
Last edited:

Tigerace117

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 30, 2016
Messages
64,681
Reaction score
17,071
Location
Chicago
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Civilians should be able to acquire the same arms that the state can use against them. Engaging meaningfully in class struggle is impossible without guns. You arent a very good maoist

But if people have guns they might decide they don't want a tolitarian form of government after all. Then it's harder to kill the dissenters.
 
Top Bottom