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

[C_Clayton_Jones]

They are already changing election laws to do just that.

And buying weapons.

Only an idiot would go out and purchase something they're convinced will be banned/confiscated.

Only an idiot would lie about 'needing' an AR 15.

 

[hadit]

‘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.

No one thinks a mob of people armed with AR-15s is going to stop the full might of the US military, that's not the point. The point is, when tens of millions of private citizens are in possession of hundreds of millions of firearms, they can make the cost of tyranny very high indeed, and when the cost of tyranny becomes too high, those who would wish to impose it do not.

 

[Concerned American]

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

IRRELEVANT.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

It was when it was written.
They didn't have takeout.

Don't hunt but have plenty of weapons?

You would be the person in my neighborhood that a watch who be established.

No it has never been

 

[Dagosa]

It's just an ugly deer rifle when comes right down to it. People who are not familiar with firearms go by the way it looks instead of what it is.



Is .223 and 5.56 ammo the same?




223 rounds are virtually identical in size to 5.56mm rounds. This means that the majority of the time, . 223 ammunition will chamber and fire in a 5.56mm chamber and vice versa. However, the biggest difference between the two is that 5.56x45mm ammunition is loaded to a significantly higher pressure than .May 12, 2014

It sucks as a dear rifle. Only People who are not familiar with firearms think they are.

 

[Concerned American]

Conservatives lie and fearmonger about ‘bans’ and ‘confiscations’ of guns that will never happen for the same reason conservatives lie and fearmonger about most everything else: keep the base ignorant, angry, and going to the polls.

Kind of like democrats that want to justify the murder of innocents, eh? Let's not be hypocritical.

 

[Nuthin' Fancy]

No it has never been

Really?
So, no one hunted, not even the Indians.
Thank god for takeout...................next to the airports.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Really?
So, no one hunted, not even the Indians.
Thank god for takeout...................next to the airports.

No the second amendment has never been about hunting

 

[Nuthin' Fancy]

No the second amendment has never been about hunting

It was about maintaining a militia.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

It was about maintaining a militia.

The government doesn't have a second amendment right.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

IRRELEVANT.

No where is need a requirement for a right.

 

[Nuthin' Fancy]

The government doesn't have a second amendment right.

Really?
They sure use them a lot.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Really?
They sure use them a lot.

You're an idiot. The government does not have a second amendment right. The bill of rights wasn't written for the government.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

No one thinks a mob of people armed with AR-15s is going to stop the full might of the US military, that's not the point. The point is, when tens of millions of private citizens are in possession of hundreds of millions of firearms, they can make the cost of tyranny very high indeed, and when the cost of tyranny becomes too high, those who would wish to impose it do not.

“Usually, the motivation for purchasing the AR-15 is simple: People want one because they want one.”

It is simple – and there’s nothing wrong with wanting to possess an AR 15; it’s dishonest and a lie to claim one ‘needs’ an AR 15.

And it isn’t necessary to lie about ‘needing’ and AR 15 to advance a dishonest, baseless argument against ‘banning’ AR 15s.

 

[Nuthin' Fancy]

You're an idiot. The government does not have a second amendment right. The bill of rights wasn't written for the government.

YES, it was you moron.
George Washington was part of the Virginia militia.

 

[Blues Man]

Really?
They sure use them a lot.

The government has no rights that are not given to it by the people.

THE PEOPLE have rights and our entire governmental philosophy is based on the premise that rights are not given to the people but are inherent in each person.

 

[Nuthin' Fancy]

The government has no rights that are not given to it by the people.

THE PEOPLE have rights and our entire governmental philosophy is based on the premise that rights are not given to the people but are inherent in each person.

Sure, "A philosophy" isn't reality.
No, rights are inalienable nor inherent.

The American Indians or black slaves never had these rights, until they were given by the government.

 

[Blues Man]

Sure, "A philosophy" isn't reality.
No, rights are inalienable nor inherent.

The American Indians or black slaves never had these rights, until they were given by the government.

And yet our entire system of government is based on that premise

And the government didn;t give those people rights they just stopped others from violating their rights.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Get your fascist hands off my civil rights, nazi.

AR 15s are accurate, reliable, and modular – tons of aftermarket stuff, mix-and-match complete uppers and lowers, build your own; it’s Barbie for men, who wouldn’t want one.

But nobody ‘needs' one, particularly to ‘defend against government tyranny,’ which is in fact ridiculous nonsense.

 

[Nuthin' Fancy]

And yet our entire system of government is based on that premise

Rights and amendments comprising of the CONSTITUTION.

And the government didn;t give those people rights they just stopped others from violating their rights.

You're FOS, idiot.

Passed by Congress June 4, 1919, and ratified on August 18, 1920, the 19th amendment granted women the right to vote.

The Indian Citizenship Act of 1924, signed into law by President Calvin Coolidge on June 2, 1924, granted U.S. citizenship to all Native American Indians.