Why you need an AR 15

[Glitch]

The point being the civilian population at large was better armed than the government at the time and that the Second Amendment was not limited to just personal arms.

The civilian population at large is better armed than the government today. There is well over 200 million privately owned firearms in the US, and we have a federal military of 2,141,900, counting the reserves.

 

[TurtleDude]

Again, that is YOUR definition, not theirs. Why are you making this crap up? You should know better. All you are doing is pushing YOUR agenda. Try actually pushing what the founders had in mind for a change.

I think I am correct and your belief that a suitcase nuke or a vial of weaponized anthrax would be protected is plainly wrong. and I believe my views are consistent with the founders.

 

[PirateMk1]

you seem unable to understand that to the founders there were three types of weapons

arms-individual weapons
ordnance-bombs, grenades, petards, mines
artillery, cannon, rockets, howitzers

You seem to think that the founders did NOT write what they meant. "Arms" as defined by the dictionary of the time was quite specific in its non specificity. It said simply that anything could be used in the conduct of offence or defense is considered an arm. Literally everything under the sun and everything else. The founders we both agree were men of some note and education and knew how to write concisely and convey their meaning with great certitude. You mean to tell me they inadvertently put the word arms into the second amendment when they knew full well it would be interpreted as written to be literally anything one could use as an arm? I think not. I think they deliberately used the word Arms so the government could not ban particular arms legally.

 

[AGENT J]

"why I need an AR 15"??


currently I dont "need" one

but I certainly have one and theres no reason legal reason or valid argument why I shouldn't :shrug:

 

[Glitch]

I think I am correct and your belief that a suitcase nuke or a vial of weaponized anthrax would be protected is plainly wrong. and I believe my views are consistent with the founders.

You are mistaken. You views are consistent with the courts, but not the founders. The courts, and you, placed restrictions the founders never specified. So at least have the decency not to lie and claim your views are consistent with the founders because we both know it isn't true.

 

[PIPEWRENCH]

some anti gun definitions do make a revolver a "semi auto"

If it is a double action I guess they are correct. I see no problem with people owning semi-auto guns. This the 21st century. I am not going to use a blunderbuss for home defense. Of course the anti gun people probably think they are safer. That is until they get shot with one.

 

[PIPEWRENCH]

According to the illegal Assault Weapons Ban Act of 1994 it was. The English-made Henry repeating rifle, imported into the US beginning in 1865, was banned by the BATFE in 1998 because its tube magazine could hold 12 rounds. Any rifle that was capable of carrying more than 10 rounds was automatically considered an "Assault Rifle" by this illegal law.

Yea but I would hire him for home defense.

 

[Individual]

Really?

Absolutely!

Then banning all hunting is what you think the founders had in mind?

How would the "Right" to keep and bear arms ban hunting?

Or maybe you think they intended to ban everyone from target practicing?

Same as above, How would the "Right" to keep and bear arms ban target practice?

If the Second Amendment only exists for the purpose of self-defense then all other uses can be banned, right?

No where was it said the Second Amendment existed ONLY for the purpose of self defense, but the wording does imply "primarily" for self defense.

There ARE laws which prohibit misuse of the Second Amendment Rights.

Government has no Right to infringe upon the peoples Right to keep and bear arms, until/unless they abuse that right.

 

[Glitch]

Absolutely!


How would the "Right" to keep and bear arms ban hunting?


Same as above, How would the "Right" to keep and bear arms ban target practice?



No where was it said the Second Amendment existed ONLY for the purpose of self defense, but the wording does imply "primarily" for self defense.

You are right, nowhere does the Second Amendment say anything about self-defense. You and you alone stated the Second Amendment was only for self-defense, which is obviously untrue. The Second Amendment only states that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. You may desire to ban firearms, except for the purpose of self-defense, but that is not what the Second Amendment say or implies.

There ARE laws which prohibit misuse of the Second Amendment Rights.

Government has no Right to infringe upon the peoples Right to keep and bear arms, until/unless they abuse that right.

There are laws which prohibit the misuse of any right. What has that got to do with what the Second Amendment protects? The Second Amendment protects our individual right to keep and bear arms. That is all it says. There are no extra conditions or constraints, no matter how much you may desire them. If you can carry the weapon (and it doesn't have to be a firearm) then you have the right to own and keep the weapon without being infringed upon by government.

 

[Glitch]

Yea but I would hire him for home defense.

Firing from the hip is a good way of keeping the rifle steady while firing it rapidly, but you aren't going to hit much, unless you are pretty close to your target. I think I would prefer to take about one fifth the number of shots, but placed more accurately.

 

[Glitch]

If it is a double action I guess they are correct. I see no problem with people owning semi-auto guns. This the 21st century. I am not going to use a blunderbuss for home defense. Of course the anti gun people probably think they are safer. That is until they get shot with one.

I have a suggestion:

 

[Individual]

You are right, nowhere does the Second Amendment say anything about self-defense. You and you alone stated the Second Amendment was only for self-defense, which is obviously untrue. The Second Amendment only states that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. You may desire to ban firearms, except for the purpose of self-defense, but that is not what the Second Amendment say or implies.

What I said was "I don't think the founders gave any thought at all to the right to keep and bear arms for any reason other than a defensive purpose.'
That in no way was meant to imply "ONLY" for self-defense, but primarily the reason for a need of the Second Amendment,

There are laws which prohibit the misuse of any right. What has that got to do with what the Second Amendment protects? The Second Amendment protects our individual right to keep and bear arms. That is all it says. There are no extra conditions or constraints, no matter how much you may desire them. If you can carry the weapon (and it doesn't have to be a firearm) then you have the right to own and keep the weapon without being infringed upon by government.

Yes, the Second Amendment protects our Right to keep and bear arms. It does not contain any limitations upon that right, but other laws impose upon the extent to which that Right can be employed.

 

[holbritter]

I agree.

Plus, I have no issues with my penis size.

That's a very sexist remark. I didn't know you were like that.

The number of women who own guns has been and still is growing. That insult is no longer relevant...time for a new one.

 

[Utility Man]

 

[Airyaman]

the stupidity in this post is beyond idiotic. why do so many police departments issue AR 15s? 14-15 inch barrels are ILLEGAL for private citizens unless you register the firearm pursuant to the 1934 NFA.

You clearly prove you really don't understand this subject. It is interesting seeing someone claim to be libertarian, also be anti gun

I was going from memory. It's 16" minimum for citizens. Woah, stop the presses, 1" more! Same concept as before. It makes the gun much easier to handle for most people than a longer barreled rifle, and more accurate without the need to be precise with a handgun. The 16" barrel allows for greater bullet velocity than a handgun, which is what the .223 ammo needs because it is such a small caliber. Maximum velocity means the small projectile is moving very fast when it strikes it's target. Going up to 20" doesn't really net you much more velocity, so 16" is best for maneuverability.

 

[AlphaOmega]

I live in a free society where I don't need any gun, because the odds of my ever meeting a gunman are vanishingly small. Some of our police are armed, but they discharge their weapons fewer times in a year than American toddlers kill people.

So in your free society what would you have preferred your wives and children have done in this situation?
Georgia Mom Shoots Home Invader, Hiding With Her Children - ABC News

 

[Manc Skipper]

I went with the AR12 instead.

View attachment 67272811

Very butch and mean-looking. I can see that hanging off some militiaman's back as he stands in line for a cheezeburger. Black is the new dead?

 

[Manc Skipper]

So in your free society what would you have preferred your wives and children have done in this situation?
Georgia Mom Shoots Home Invader, Hiding With Her Children - ABC News

I only have one wife, and the children grew up and left home. My society is more civil that that. That situation would be almost unheard of so not a worry.."Home invasion" is so dramatic!
Here we call it "burglary" when someone breaks into a home to steal stuff. Living in a handgun gun free society means not having to worry about armed burglary, which happens around 100 times a year, in a country of 66 million. It'd be like winning the lottery! Such freedom from fear is not a small thing.

 

[AlphaOmega]

My society is more civil that that. That situation would be almost unheard of so not a worry.."Home invasion" is so dramatic!
Here we call it "burglary" when someone breaks into a home to steal stuff. Living in a handgun gun free society means not having to worry about armed burglary, which happens around 100 times a year, in a country of 66 million. It'd be like winning the lottery!

The burglar wasn't armed only with a crowbar. I asked you what you preferred your family have done in the same situatuon.

 

[Manc Skipper]

The burglar wasn't armed only with a crowbar. I asked you what you preferred your family have done in the same situatuon.

Like I said, burglars in my country don't carry guns, or generally, weapons of any kind. They come sneakily in to steal your stuff, not violently, and generally escape if discovered/confronted. If the police don't catch them then your insurance buys new stuff. People coming into your home planning to hurt you suggests you have a bigger problem than simple breaking and entering!
Most burglaries happen to empty business premises anyway. Your "terrifying" hypothetical is simply so unlikely to happen that it doesn't concern me. I don't make plans to combat an alien invasion either. .

 

[Manc Skipper]

I'm glad you feel safe. I'll keep my weapons just in case of the small chance that I experience a gunman intent on doing me or my family harm. Now I feel safer.

I'm so safe, I don't need a metal comforter. How free is that? Burglars here don't carry guns either, so everyone's safer.
I don't get a malaria shot unless i go on holiday to Africa, because it's almost impossible to get it here where I live. I'm free!

 

[Glitch]

What I said was "I don't think the founders gave any thought at all to the right to keep and bear arms for any reason other than a defensive purpose.'
That in no way was meant to imply "ONLY" for self-defense, but primarily the reason for a need of the Second Amendment,

Yes, the Second Amendment protects our Right to keep and bear arms. It does not contain any limitations upon that right, but other laws impose upon the extent to which that Right can be employed.

The Second Amendment is not about self-defense, it is about preserving the ancient right to keep and bear arms. Any law that imposes restrictions on the weapons an individual can bear is an infringement and therefore illegal.

 

[Glitch]

Very butch and mean-looking. I can see that hanging off some militiaman's back as he stands in line for a cheezeburger. Black is the new dead?

The blue-black appearance is the result of its protective finish, called "Bluing." It is very obvious that you are completely ignorant about firearms. Don't look now but your hoplophobia is showing.

 

[Helix]

I'd rather have a 0.22 LR and a handgun if I ever own weapons again. I've fired an assault rifle which I think was an AR, and while it was interesting, it wouldn't be my go to for self defense.

 

[AlphaOmega]

Like I said, burglars in my country don't carry guns, or generally, weapons of any kind. They come sneakily in to steal your stuff, not violently, and generally escape if discovered/confronted. If the police don't catch them then your insurance buys new stuff. People coming into your home planning to hurt you suggests you have a bigger problem than simple breaking and entering!
Most burglaries happen to empty business premises anyway. Your "terrifying" hypothetical is simply so unlikely to happen that it doesn't concern me. I don't make plans to combat an alien invasion either. .

You don't even realize how crazy this post is^ do you?