Here’s the reason people tell me they want to buy an AR-15. And it’s simply ludicrous

[marvin martian]

It says no such thing in the constitution. The 2@ refers to the militia which is an arm of the government…..maybe you can’t read. You guys are foolish. You think the central gov provides rights to individuals to mutiny vs the central gov. What a bunch of nimrods.

You're a moron.

§246. Militia: composition and classes​

(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.

(b) The classes of the militia are—

(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and

(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

It says no such thing in the constitution. The 2@ refers to the militia which is an arm of the government…..maybe you can’t read. You guys are foolish. You think the central gov provides rights to individuals to mutiny vs the central gov. What a bunch of nimrods.

The 2@ refers to the militia which is an arm of the government…..

Where does it say it is part of the government?

 

[LuckyDuck]

‘Usually, the motivation for purchasing the AR-15 is simple: People want one because they want one. Most times, the person who buys an AR-15 comes into the store already knowing that they intend to purchase one.

I’ve pressed some customers about why they want an AR-15, but no one could ever come up with a legitimate justification for needing that particular weapon.

Some members of the tinfoil hat brigade have come up with the reply, “We need these weapons because we want to be effective against the government if it becomes tyrannical. That’s part of our Second Amendment right.” Personally, I think that’s ludicrous, but it has become an increasingly popular justification for purchasing a semi-automatic rifle.

[…]

If banning them outright seems like too extreme a solution to be politically palatable, here’s another option: Reclassify semi-automatic rifles as Class 3 firearms.’

Opinion: Here's the reason people tell me they want to buy an AR-15. And it's simply ludicrous | CNN

No weapon has been more in the public eye than the AR-15, in large part because of the tragic role it has played in some of this country's deadliest shootings, former DC police officer Michael Fanone writes. Fanone, who owns one of the weapons, writes that the AR-15 has the dubious distinction...

www.cnn.com

I disagree with the article’s author about ‘banning’ AR 15s or subjecting them to the provisions of the NFA. ‘Bans’ don’t work, they’re unwarranted government excess and overreach and likely un-Constitutional.

But he’s correct about wanting to own an AR 15 to ‘defend against government tyranny’ as being ridiculous nonsense.

Possessing an AR 15 is a want, not a ‘need.’

And there’s nothing wrong with that; citizens are not required to ‘justify’ exercising a fundamental right as a ‘prerequisite’ to indeed do so.

As is always the case after a mass shooting or similar event, we see inane, baseless reasons contrived to ‘justify’ owning an AR 15 in a pathetic and unnecessary attempt to fend-off a ‘ban’ of such weapons where there is no political will to do so.

I own semi-automatic rifles that hold detachable magazines, as well as pistols/revolvers. Here's my reason regarding the rifles. It is the only sport I found I was really good at, at the range. So, quite simply, it's a sport for me.
As to the "defend against a tyrannical government" concept, I see nothing wrong with it.
The US and its fancy military, with its tanks, jet fighters, bombers, attack helicopters, C-130 gunships, missiles, mortars, artillery and highly trained, armored and armed troops, "LOST" to a guerilla campaign waged by persons wearing the equivalent of pajamas, sandals, head scarves and armed with AK-47's, AK-74's, RPG's, some Mortars, and Improvised Explosive Devices.
The way to win when up against a better armed and resourced military, is to "wear the military and government down, not go up against it directly. That's why the US lost in Vietnam. The North Vietnamese, hitting through a combination of regular troops, but large numbers of Viet Cong guerillas, hitting various units.
Here in the US, those determined to fight and not let Communism win, would need to just continue a regular guerilla campaign to wear down the will of the government to the point where they would be forced to compromise.
The Art of War, a book by Sun Tzu, between 475 and 221 BCE, is an excellent read and required reading in the War College.

 

[AZrailwhale]

You’re laughable.

At least I amuse people, you are just an idiot who couldn't pour piss out of a boot if the instructions were printed on the bottom of the heel.

 

[Dagosa]

At least I amuse people, you are just an idiot who couldn't pour piss out of a boot if the instructions were printed on the bottom of the heel.

How original. Get that from your MAGA friends of the trite and uninformed.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Actually, it's a civil right, so want vs. need is irrelevant.

There’s nothing wrong with wanting an AR, I have three; but it’s not a ‘need.’

There are other firearms as good or better for self-defense and the notion of ‘defending against government tyranny’ is ignorant nonsense.

Conservatives need to stop lying about ‘needing’ an AR in a failed and pathetic effort to ‘justify’ possessing one.

 

[Markle]

Arms, are only those you carry….get with the program. Are you just figuring that out ?

That's just goofy!

A weapon, arm or armament is any implement or device that can be used to deter, threaten, inflict physical damage, harm, or kill. Weapons are used to increase the efficacy and efficiency of activities such as hunting, crime, law enforcement, self-defense, warfare, or suicide. In broader context, weapons may be construed to include anything used to gain a tactical, strategic, material or mental advantage over an adversary or enemy target.

 

[Markle]

It says no such thing in the constitution. The 2@ refers to the militia which is an arm of the government…..maybe you can’t read. You guys are foolish. You think the central gov provides rights to individuals to mutiny vs the central gov. What a bunch of nimrods.

Obviously, you missed English class when they were teaching punctuation. It would serve you well to do a bit of remedial learning.

 

[Lord Long Rod]

What a fucking dickless OP.

 

[AZrailwhale]

How original. Get that from your MAGA friends of the trite and uninformed.

Nope, I‘ve just been observing you for awhile.

 

[Smokin' OP]

Are you having trouble comprehending my statement that means the government can't infringe on the right of citizens to bear arms of all types? Now, what sort of regulations get in my way if I want to walk into Home Depot and buy an axe? The last I checked, there were no forms to fill out, no background check, nothing like that. Do you live in a leftist paradise where every purchase is registered to be sure you're not a nutcase?

So, why hasn't the NFA of 1934 been repealed, it only been 89 years?
Teabaggers think they should be able to own any destructive weapon known to exist

 

[Dagosa]

Are you having trouble comprehending my statement that means the government can't infringe on the right of citizens to bear arms of all types?

That’s ignorant. There is no such thing as any right being absolute. All your rights are regulated. What rock are you living under that you can’t even read read the notices on a door of many businesses that say, “no firearms allowed”. You haven’t traveled by commercial airline have you ? What stupid pill have you bern taking.

 

[Dagosa]

Nope, I‘ve just been observing you for awhile.

Naw, doubtful.

 

[Dagosa]

Now, what sort of regulations get in my way if I want to walk into Home Depot and buy an axe?

None dufus. But you can’t take it under your arm on a plane or cruise ship. Axes are regulated from being carried in many places bozo. You have a rock you’ve been hiding under ?

 

[LibertyKid]

It says no such thing in the constitution. The 2@ refers to the militia which is an arm of the government…..maybe you can’t read. You guys are foolish. You think the central gov provides rights to individuals to mutiny vs the central gov. What a bunch of nimrods.

Not sure why you resort to name calling. It really makes you sound more ignorant.
The 2A doesn't have to make any such claim when historical context, that framed the 2A, along with post 2A historical context supports the actions of the gov't in coordination of the public.

And yes, the gov't was framed for when the people decide that the gov't in tyrannical, if needed, the people can challenge the gov't through various means, one of which, is through force where guns are needed. That hasn't changed. If the people shouldn't be armed, then we would not have seen post war arms sold to the public. The only nimrod is the logic that you attempt to espouse.

 

[LibertyKid]

There are other firearms as good or better for self-defense and the notion of ‘defending against government tyranny’ is ignorant nonsense.

Why is this nonsense?

 

[Blues Man]

There’s nothing wrong with wanting an AR, I have three; but it’s not a ‘need.’

There are other firearms as good or better for self-defense and the notion of ‘defending against government tyranny’ is ignorant nonsense.

Conservatives need to stop lying about ‘needing’ an AR in a failed and pathetic effort to ‘justify’ possessing one.

The best firearm for self defense is the one you can use and fire accurately. That is the only thing that matters.

I for one would prefer a handgun because I am far more comfortable with my handguns than my rifles or shotgun

 

[Dagosa]

Dagosa

And yes, the gov't was framed for when the people decide that the gov't in tyrannical, if needed, the people can challenge the gov't through various means, one of which, is through force where guns are needed.

Where ? The only place in the constitution where we are encouraged to change the govt; it is in free and fair elections and the first amendment. Where does it say we get to arm ourselves with jet fighters and nukes ?

This is more made up shit.

 

[LibertyKid]

Sell it and get an AR15.

That could have been interesting!

 

[LibertyKid]

Dagosa

Where ?

What do you mean where? It's call historical context and it's well documented that the framers, coming out of the Revolution, coming out of an attempt to be disarmed by the British army, knew how important it was that in order to keep the gov't in check, needs a well armed citizenry. History, pre and post constitution speaks to this.