The Left is Correct about 'Assault Rifles'

[BasicHumanUnit]

What I find fascinating is that when it comes to guns and gun violence so many want to focus on the AR-15 or semi automatic rifles in general when the vast majority of gun crime and violence is done with handguns.

Simple.
Hand guns aren't a tool capable of suppressing or fighting against tyranny. The AR is.
I predict this year a national ban on ARs will be passed by both houses. But they will make it look like they didn't want to do it.
And they will make it appear to be a bi-partisan accomplishment that both parties saw necessary.
Then will come the laws making compliance mandatory and enforced through fear tactics and property / asset seizures.
There is no true concern about crime. In fact, crime is one of their tools towards their overall agenda.

 

[eagle7-31]

LOL Really? Afghanistan, Iraq...pretty much any M.E. countries prove you wrong. Same with half a dozen countries in Africa, South America, etc.

More guns = more anarchy. At least the OP had it right... a heavily well-armed citizen is still no match for any modern army.

Guns are nothing but adult toys. The more you have, the more you want. And, that's ok. It's your money after all. A fool and his money...

But don't push the usual pablum about Second Amendment rights. Only self-delusion idiots buy into that stuff.

Have you checked out Switzerland and their gun laws?

 

[rightwinger]

1776, 2023

You still believe that nonsense that Minute Men won the Revolution?

 

[BULLDOG]

History proves time and time again......
A well armed society has a "well behaved" government...and when it misbehaves, those armed citizens can do their job

The "Point" of an AR-15 is to give the citizens some chance against tyrannical forces that may be better equipped, but would be hopelessly and vastly outnumbered. Remember that the US' superior capabilities still didn't prevail against a far lesser enemy in Vietnam and other conflicts.
Now given that government troops would be killing their own citizens on their own home land, the probability of collateral damage in terms of also killing government friendly citizens makes their task many times more difficult than Vietnam etc.
IF (a big if) enough American citizens decided enough is enough and were willing to defend their liberty, the government would have a hell of a hard time stopping them. Far harder than you might think. Factor in that many with access to advanced military weapons and vehicles might use them against the government.

Also, factor in China and Russia would likely use that time to attack targets that America has sworn to defend forcing military assets to be used overseas and against foreign attackers at the same time. I personally do not believe the government could pull it off and would be fractured to the point of being easily dismantled by Patriots at that point. Their ONLY chance government has is tricking citizens into willingly give up their arms through threats like taking away things and threats of prosecution. And that is precisely what the government is doing right now.

The US is entering a stage where government has become corrupted and tyrannical.
The most significant sign of this is it's current hard core push to disarm the citizens.

Right now, today is by far the most critical time in American history since 1776 that Americans must not give up their AR-15's or any weapons to government threats.

Great dissertation. You've earned that tinfoil hat, dumb ass.

 

[Winston]

LOL Really? Afghanistan, Iraq...pretty much any M.E. countries prove you wrong. Same with half a dozen countries in Africa, South America, etc.

More guns = more anarchy. At least the OP had it right... a heavily well-armed citizen is still no match for any modern army.

Guns are nothing but adult toys. The more you have, the more you want. And, that's ok. It's your money after all. A fool and his money...

But don't push the usual pablum about Second Amendment rights. Only self-delusion idiots buy into that stuff.

The whole support of an insurrection is complete historical revisionism. It ignores the Constitution in two places, first.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
They complete ignore the prefatory clause, actually complete ignore grammar. A prefatory clause announces the purpose of an operative clause. The founders were sticklers for words, grammar, and sentence structure. For more than two hundred, years it was understood that the purpose of the second amendment, as it was written, was to provide arms for a militia. And second,

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.

If treason was eventually expected, why would they codify a definition for it in the Constitution? Again, the founders were precise in their wording.

It goes much deeper within the Constitution as well.

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

and this,

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

 

[Winston]

Have you checked out Switzerland and their gun laws?

Please, tell us about them.

 

[Foxfyre]

The basic argument of the Left, that 'assault rifles' are not necessary for personal defense, is correct. (Let's define 'assault rifle' as a semi-automatic rifle which can take magazines of 20 rounds or more, and whose rounds carry more than XXX foot-pounds of kinetic energy. [A gun enthusiast can fill in 'XXX' -- in otherwords, excluding a .22].)

I've seen posts positing a woman using one to fend off a rapist in a park, but, come one, no one is going to carry their AR15 in public on a routine basis, not even Kyle Rittenhouse. If you're going out in public, you need a concealed-carry permit and good-calibre handgun. (Yes, I know liberals want to ban those too, but, it's like their child-grooming efforts: a step at a time. They're not stupid.)

For home defense, a handgun or shotgun -- depending on your ease of using them -- is better than an AR15, in my personal opinion -- you don't want a .556 round travelling three hundred yards into the bedroom of your neighbor's children. Biden is right about that, in my opinion. But you can look at a dozen videos arguing both sides if you go to YouTube and put in 'AR15 vs Shotgun'.

So ... what's the point of an AR15 (or AK or any other 'assault rifle')? It's to partially fulfill the intent of the men who wrote the Second Amendment: that the people should be as well-armed as the government.

Of course, the advance of military technology over the last 250 years has made that impossible. You and a few neighbors with AR15s will not be a match for an A10, or even a Marine rifle company. Any conflict between civilian patriots and the government will be over in three days, and the last two of them will be spent putting the patriots in body bags.

However, unless the patriots are very very stupid -- 6 January level stupid, which is not ruled out, as 6 January itself showed -- there isn't going to be any conflict between the united, cohesive forces of the government, and the patriot movement. So long as the US is a law-governed democratic republic, or is believed to be that by a majority of its citizens, there must not be any armed conflict between patriots and the government.

What there could be is the disintegration of a cohesive government, and general chaos. We can think of a hundred different scenarios leading to this. In which case, patriots should be as well-armed as possible.

And of course every patriot who has not done his military service yet, and is under the age of 36, should enlist in the National Guard. (Army National Guard)

Would you want your son or daughter to be in the military under authority of this administration? I sure wouldn't.
As for the AR-15, the bullet doesn't go any further than the average hunting rifle and even a hand gun bullet can travel 300 yards so the range isn't a good argument for not having one. In fact the AR-15 is no less or more deadly than most other firearms that can be found in the home. The main objection to the AR-15 is that it LOOKS so much more dangerous than the average rifle or hand gun. Ban them and you still have weapons just as dangerous in the wrong hands out there.

There is no logical or reasonable justification for a law abiding citizen, especially one trained in firearms, to not own an AR-15 or any other weapon they are constitutionally allowed to have.

 

[Magnus]

Have you checked out Switzerland and their gun laws?

Sure, have you? It isn't the gun paradise that the NRA wants you to believe.

 

[westwall]

Our society has a Constitution, a free press, free speech and a right to vote which has protected us against tyranny for over 240 years

We have not once needed armed citizens to protect us…..EVER

Your knowledge of history sucks.

 

[rightwinger]

Your knowledge of history sucks.

Prove me wrong Skippy

 

[Magnus]

But financially supported by your wife / husband who does ?

Nope. Both of us work in the private sector. We have never ever worked for the government. Again, why should we? Both of us make excellent income.

Your turn. Since you seem defensive about the government, I'll bet you live on the government dole, right? Scratch a right-wing nut job, you will find a hypocrite.

 

[JusticeHammer]

The basic argument of the Left, that 'assault rifles' are not necessary for personal defense, is correct. (Let's define 'assault rifle' as a semi-automatic rifle which can take magazines of 20 rounds or more, and whose rounds carry more than XXX foot-pounds of kinetic energy. [A gun enthusiast can fill in 'XXX' -- in otherwords, excluding a .22].)

I've seen posts positing a woman using one to fend off a rapist in a park, but, come one, no one is going to carry their AR15 in public on a routine basis, not even Kyle Rittenhouse. If you're going out in public, you need a concealed-carry permit and good-calibre handgun. (Yes, I know liberals want to ban those too, but, it's like their child-grooming efforts: a step at a time. They're not stupid.)

For home defense, a handgun or shotgun -- depending on your ease of using them -- is better than an AR15, in my personal opinion -- you don't want a .556 round travelling three hundred yards into the bedroom of your neighbor's children. Biden is right about that, in my opinion. But you can look at a dozen videos arguing both sides if you go to YouTube and put in 'AR15 vs Shotgun'.

So ... what's the point of an AR15 (or AK or any other 'assault rifle')? It's to partially fulfill the intent of the men who wrote the Second Amendment: that the people should be as well-armed as the government.

Of course, the advance of military technology over the last 250 years has made that impossible. You and a few neighbors with AR15s will not be a match for an A10, or even a Marine rifle company. Any conflict between civilian patriots and the government will be over in three days, and the last two of them will be spent putting the patriots in body bags.

However, unless the patriots are very very stupid -- 6 January level stupid, which is not ruled out, as 6 January itself showed -- there isn't going to be any conflict between the united, cohesive forces of the government, and the patriot movement. So long as the US is a law-governed democratic republic, or is believed to be that by a majority of its citizens, there must not be any armed conflict between patriots and the government.

What there could be is the disintegration of a cohesive government, and general chaos. We can think of a hundred different scenarios leading to this. In which case, patriots should be as well-armed as possible.

And of course every patriot who has not done his military service yet, and is under the age of 36, should enlist in the National Guard. (Army National Guard)

One thing, an AR-15 is not an assault weapon.

 

[JusticeHammer]

Our society has a Constitution, a free press, free speech and a right to vote which has protected us against tyranny for over 240 years

We have not once needed armed citizens to protect us…..EVER

Bullshit. The constitution grants us the right to bear arms, any arms. Deal with it commie pussy.

 

[rightwinger]

Bullshit. The constitution grants us the right to bear arms, any arms. Deal with it commie pussy.

Actually it does no such thing

Try to buy a Rocket Launcher

 

[BULLDOG]

Your knowledge of history sucks.

You realize Red Dawn was just a movie, don't you? It didn't really happen.

 

[westwall]

You realize Red Dawn was just a movie, don't you? It didn't really happen.

And every day you prove to be every bit as ignorant as well.

 

[BasicHumanUnit]

Nope. Both of us work in the private sector. We have never ever worked for the government. Again, why should we? Both of us make excellent income.

Your turn. Since you seem defensive about the government, I'll bet you live on the government dole, right? Scratch a right-wing nut job, you will find a hypocrite.

I will humbly state (only because you ask) that I am 100% positive I have legally earned far more than you AND RW will combined in your lifetimes.
I will go no further as I see no reason for bragging or exposing my life to a few lightweights who don't know better.

 

[Silent Warrior]

The basic argument of the Left, that 'assault rifles' are not necessary for personal defense, is correct. (Let's define 'assault rifle' as a semi-automatic rifle which can take magazines of 20 rounds or more, and whose rounds carry more than XXX foot-pounds of kinetic energy. [A gun enthusiast can fill in 'XXX' -- in otherwords, excluding a .22].)

I've seen posts positing a woman using one to fend off a rapist in a park, but, come one, no one is going to carry their AR15 in public on a routine basis, not even Kyle Rittenhouse. If you're going out in public, you need a concealed-carry permit and good-calibre handgun. (Yes, I know liberals want to ban those too, but, it's like their child-grooming efforts: a step at a time. They're not stupid.)

For home defense, a handgun or shotgun -- depending on your ease of using them -- is better than an AR15, in my personal opinion -- you don't want a .556 round travelling three hundred yards into the bedroom of your neighbor's children. Biden is right about that, in my opinion. But you can look at a dozen videos arguing both sides if you go to YouTube and put in 'AR15 vs Shotgun'.

So ... what's the point of an AR15 (or AK or any other 'assault rifle')? It's to partially fulfill the intent of the men who wrote the Second Amendment: that the people should be as well-armed as the government.

Of course, the advance of military technology over the last 250 years has made that impossible. You and a few neighbors with AR15s will not be a match for an A10, or even a Marine rifle company. Any conflict between civilian patriots and the government will be over in three days, and the last two of them will be spent putting the patriots in body bags.

However, unless the patriots are very very stupid -- 6 January level stupid, which is not ruled out, as 6 January itself showed -- there isn't going to be any conflict between the united, cohesive forces of the government, and the patriot movement. So long as the US is a law-governed democratic republic, or is believed to be that by a majority of its citizens, there must not be any armed conflict between patriots and the government.

What there could be is the disintegration of a cohesive government, and general chaos. We can think of a hundred different scenarios leading to this. In which case, patriots should be as well-armed as possible.

And of course every patriot who has not done his military service yet, and is under the age of 36, should enlist in the National Guard. (Army National Guard)

You left out one very important part of the definition of assault rifle. To be classified as an assault rifle it has to have the ability to fire fully automatically. Calling semi-autos assault rifles is just a ploy by the left to increase the number of guns they can try and abolish. By the way, true assault rifles are already illegal to own without a specific and difficult to obtain FFL.

 

[Mr. Friscus]

Our society has a Constitution, a free press, free speech and a right to vote which has protected us against tyranny for over 240 years

We have not once needed armed citizens to protect us…..EVER

WTF? Armed citizens protect people every day.. Even though the stories are largely suppressed by the media, there are common instances of an armed civilian taking down a violent person who poses risk to the public.

You are completely and observably incorrect..

 

[JusticeHammer]

Actually it does no such thing

Try to buy a Rocket Launcher

Actually, you're wrong. The original intention is to. Commie scum like are to stupid to know it.