The Left is Correct about 'Assault Rifles'

[rightwinger]

An AR is just a run of the mill semiautomatic rifle no different than any other

Then why is it overwhelmingly favored to slaughter young children?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Why make their job easier Ray?

Gun shop: Could I interest you in a 50 round magazine? You would look bad assed in body armor.

So we should have a national ban on certain weapons because a nut case would only then kill 10 people instead of 12? This is how Democrats address a problem?

The only real difference between an AR and a semi-automatic handgun is you can aim better. But when you're shooting into a crowd of people, aiming is not that critical.

You people that never shot a gun before don't realize it only takes a few seconds to drop a spent magazine and replace it with another full one. The advantage of large capacity magazines is you don't have to stop and do that while at the range. When at the range, you want to concentrate on aiming and that concentration is broken when you have to stop and replace a magazine all the time.

Now I can understand a ban on something if it's going to stop or greatly reduce a problem. Banning these kinds of guns does neither.

 

[Blues Man]

Then why is it overwhelmingly favored to slaughter young children?

It's not it just happens to be the most popular style of rifle in the country.

Anyone with half a brain in his head realizes that since it happens to be the single most popular rifle in the country that it will probably be used in some crimes.

 

[SassyIrishLass]

Actually we are more concerned with unrestricted access to AR style weapons equipped with large capacity magazines.

Perfect weapon for slaughtering young children, churchgoers, shoppers or those attending a concert

Or you left loons trying to grab them

 

[Ralph Norton]

Did you ever consider the reason we don't is because we are armed?

No, that has never occurred to him.

 

[Pete7469]

Our own military with all of NATO and other countries could not succeed against the Taliban. I doubt half the US military will be willing to attempt to disarm the country. The other half will either revolt or otherwise support the resistance.

Some Americans are concerned about UN "troops" (LOL...) being used to take our guns. I'm part of the camp who is looking forward to collecting souvenirs they leave behind before the feral hogs and buzzards feed.

 

[SassyIrishLass]

Our own military with all of NATO and other countries could not succeed against the Taliban. I doubt half the US military will be willing to attempt to disarm the country. The other half will either revolt or otherwise support the resistance.

Some Americans are concerned about UN "troops" (LOL...) being used to take our guns. I'm part of the camp who is looking forward to collecting souvenirs they leave behind before the feral hogs and buzzards feed.

You ever see what an AR does to a wild hog?

I was duly impressed

 

[Pete7469]

Or you left loons trying to grab them

Please.... PLEASE... PLEASE.... Turn that fucking green light on.

 

[Pete7469]

You ever see what an AR does to a wild hog?

I was duly impressed

.300BLK is an even better cartridge IMO

 

[SassyIrishLass]

.300BLK is an even better cartridge IMO

I'd have to ask my husband. But yeah that was a fun weekend. Our son got his first hog. Mom was proud

 

[Doug1943]

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.

I won't quarrel about whether an AR15 is as deadly at several hundred yards as a .38. Let's assume they're equally lethal at long ranges. It's still not the case that for home defense, you MUST have an AR. Opinions can differ here, of course. I hope you do have one (or three).

My point is: if you think that the Founders were right, and are still right, that a central, national government might become a tyranny, then mere ownership of this weapon by a lot of citizens -- while infinitely better than their being disarmed -- is not fulfilling their intention of providing a counter-force. Times have changed.

We, as individuals, or even as individuals organized into a Community Defense Team (as I would urge we should be), a match for the national government, as we would have been 250 years ago.
This is obvious.

At a minimum, we should be in a State Defense Force, if your state has one. But we should also be inside the national military.

As for being in the national military, yes, you're going to have to put up with some insane indoctrination. The Marines are being told they must no longer say 'Sir' or 'Ma'am' because ... it might offend some sexual deviant, or something. But that's no big deal. Just grin and bear it, roll your eyes, make note of who agrees with you -- probably the great majority of your comrades.

Twenty years ago, if you were in the Guard, you were in danger of being shipped off to Iraq or Afghanistan to bring American-style democracy (complete with Transgender Outreach Centers) to them. Well, hopefully, we've learned from that.

We're still in danger of having to play the game where Putin called our bluff in Ukraine, though, so that's a consideration. But I suspect Biden will not want to risk sending the Guard into the runup to WWIII.

So, yes, join the Guard if you can. You'll have to put with with some crap, but you'll get to go through some useful training, fire several thousand rounds of .556 paid for by Uncle Sam, etc. I don't know if you can choose your MOS, but if you can, choose something useful, like an 11B specialization.

If you can't join the Guard, you should do your best to get close to serving military. Volunteer for the USO, for example. [ https://volunteers.uso.org/?nd=m_home ] When a Democrat President orders the military to kill Americans, they should know some of us personally.

Put it this way: the last thing we want is a professional military isolated from the people.

Now that the Republicans lead the House there is much less to worry about. And the commies won't be worried about guns for a while now that these classified documents are popping up everywhere. Seems like some in-fighting going on in the Democrat party.

Yes, those leaked documents of Mr Biden's were great! Made my day -- okay, not so much as the day Kyle Rittenhouse was acquitted, but still a good one nonetheless.

Surely the Left has some excuse? Although I haven't read one yet.

 

[Doug1943]

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.

Okay, this is an excellent reply, and the kind of discussion patriots should be having.
You make some good points, re the problems a government would have in getting its own military to wage war against its own citizens. (That's one reason liberals are now so quick to use the word 'traitor' against their fellow citizens. Its psy-war softening up.).

My point is that however well-armed our side is as individuals, it's no longer like 1776. Then, our militias were nearly as well-armed (though not as well-disciplined) as the King's professional mercenary army. Today that is no longer true.

And ... since we no longer live in or near small villages where we all know each other, we need to make a special effort to organize. 500 isolated individuals are weaker than 50 people who have organized and have taken advantage of the range of experiences you'll find in any group of several dozen ordinary Americans (ie not snotty 25-year-old college grad website designers).

Most people's thinking about war comes from Hollywood, and features the great hero, a Rambo or similar. In reality, a real army -- as I am sure you and most patriots reading this know -- is a machine ... yes, a fraction of it is at the sharp end, but they're supported by groups of specialists in intel, medical, comms, logistics, engineering. And so must we be. (I think the former Oathkeepers in Arizona have got the right idea here: they're at https://YCPT.org .... in particular, they know that the scary 'militia' image is an albatross around our necks, just attracting unstable individuals and informants -- and sometimes the former turn into the latter. A rose by any other name, etc.)

So, we must organize. And given what's likely to happen in the future, including natural disasters, we'll get a chance to practice deploying in situations which have some of the characteristics of combat ... where your transport, intel, logistics, medical and engineering skills get put to the test.

But more than that. We must not let the Left just take over the military and shape it to their ends. We need to be there when we can, and be in touch with the rank and file as much as possible. (I've quoted this before, but Trotsky was right: revolutions are not a struggle WITH the army, but a struggle FOR the army.)

With respect to our failed overseas wars in Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan ... important as these are to know about, they're not entirely relevant. In all of them, especially Vietnam [where we were defeated by the NVA, not the NLF, ie by professional soldiers], our enemy had safe havens across a border, with sponsorship in terms of money and weapons from governments. (Even in Afghanistan, sections of the treacherous Pakistani state supported the Taliban, some for religous/tribal and some for anti-India strategic reasons.)

AND ... even pure combat experiences in Iraq and Afghanistan are probably only partially relevant. I can't see an American civil war being anything like the Iraq situation, (but I could be wrong). And our experience in Afghanistan has not translated at all to the experience of our volunteers in Ukraine, other than there being highly-motivated people out there trying to kill you.

But that's not really important. What's important is that every patriot should
--- acquire the best technical means of self-defense he can; and should 'prep' so that his family could sit out a prolonged economic/social crisis which saw the supply chain seriously disrupted and utilities become unreliable.

-- get together with like-minded people in his area to form a Neighborhood Protection Group which should develop specialist sub-groups in the relevant disciplines (intel, medical, comms, engineering, logistics) with reserves of supplies;

-- do whatever they can to be in, or in close touch with, the 'official' military -- which might include being part of their State Guard, if they're lucky enough to live in a state which has one. (And if they're in an incorrigibly 'Blue' state, they should consider immigrating.)

 

[DigitalDrifter]

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)

"The basic argument of the Left, that 'assault rifles' are not necessary for personal defense, is correct"

In YOUR opinion. And it's an opinion that I do not agree with. They are currently legal, and it's really none of your or the government's business that I own them.

 

[Foxfyre]

I won't quarrel about whether an AR15 is as deadly at several hundred yards as a .38. Let's assume they're equally lethal at long ranges. It's still not the case that for home defense, you MUST have an AR. Opinions can differ here, of course. I hope you do have one (or three).

My point is: if you think that the Founders were right, and are still right, that a central, national government might become a tyranny, then mere ownership of this weapon by a lot of citizens -- while infinitely better than their being disarmed -- is not fulfilling their intention of providing a counter-force. Times have changed.

We, as individuals, or even as individuals organized into a Community Defense Team (as I would urge we should be), a match for the national government, as we would have been 250 years ago.
This is obvious.

At a minimum, we should be in a State Defense Force, if your state has one. But we should also be inside the national military.

As for being in the national military, yes, you're going to have to put up with some insane indoctrination. The Marines are being told they must no longer say 'Sir' or 'Ma'am' because ... it might offend some sexual deviant, or something. But that's no big deal. Just grin and bear it, roll your eyes, make note of who agrees with you -- probably the great majority of your comrades.

Twenty years ago, if you were in the Guard, you were in danger of being shipped off to Iraq or Afghanistan to bring American-style democracy (complete with Transgender Outreach Centers) to them. Well, hopefully, we've learned from that.

We're still in danger of having to play the game where Putin called our bluff in Ukraine, though, so that's a consideration. But I suspect Biden will not want to risk sending the Guard into the runup to WWIII.

So, yes, join the Guard if you can. You'll have to put with with some crap, but you'll get to go through some useful training, fire several thousand rounds of .556 paid for by Uncle Sam, etc. I don't know if you can choose your MOS, but if you can, choose something useful, like an 11B specialization.

If you can't join the Guard, you should do your best to get close to serving military. Volunteer for the USO, for example. [ https://volunteers.uso.org/?nd=m_home ] When a Democrat President orders the military to kill Americans, they should know some of us personally.

Put it this way: the last thing we want is a professional military isolated from the people.

Yes, those leaked documents of Mr Biden's were great! Made my day -- okay, not so much as the day Kyle Rittenhouse was acquitted, but still a good one nonetheless.

Surely the Left has some excuse? Although I haven't read one yet.

My point was that an AR-15 in the hands of a law abiding, responsible citizen is no more dangerous than a sling shot or kitchen knife in the hands of that citizen unless it is needed to defend one's home, property, life, other citizens from those who would commit murder or other mayhem. As for whether such citizen should own one, that I will leave up to the citizen. My husband and I have never wanted such a weapon, but we do have means to protect ourselves should we have to do that. And if we wanted an AR-15, there is absolutely no reason we should not have one.

As for the military, I am speaking strictly from the standpoint of a parent who loves her children. I would not trust this current administration to not send them into some senseless possibly lethal situation. I would not trust this current administration to manage that situation competently. When more emphasis is put on social engineering and indoctrination than military readiness, I believe that puts them at unacceptable risk. Purely selfish motives, yes, but I would not want my children put at that kind of unnecessary risk.

I would and have trusted them to a military under leadership that understands that the purpose of the military is to defend the country and its allies, period end. And toward that end, that military should have the best training and equipment that the USA can afford and be under leadership that wants personnel to be lean, mean, dedicated, responsible, ethical, lethal as necessary. And when they are put at risk, they should know exactly why and what they are fighting for and how victory will be defined. Social engineering, 'wokeness', political correctness should have no place in all that. And the soldiers/sailors would still be saying 'yes ma'am and yes sir.'

 

[Doug1943]

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.

Okay, let's agree that the definition of 'assault rifle' requires that it be able to be fired fully auto. The gun-banners won't agree with this defintion, and it doesn't really matter anyway. They want to ban rifles which lunatics can use to easily mow down schoolkids, being able to fire 30 (or even 50, with a drum magazine) rounds without having to reload or change magazines.

In a different world, where we were all nice people except for a tiny handful of psychos, and we were absolutely certain we would have a sweet kind government for the next five centuries, their ideas would be at least worth considering.

But we don't live in such a world. We live in a world where many brainwashed younger people like AntiFa -- and where college professors, Teen Vogue, etc. recommend them as good people, to be emulated. And when one of us, like Aaron Danielson, was killed in cold blood by an AntiFa supporter, the rest of them laughed and cheered when they heard the news. We live in a world where we are called 'traitors' by the other side. (Nor is our side innocent of this nonsense.)

So ... please, sweet liberals, don't ask us to disarm ourselves. If you want to lower the death-by-gun rate, why not propose legislation to cut the trigger finger off everyone that uses a gun to commit a felony? This won't be popular with a certain section of your voting base, but ... hey, be principled!

By the way, here's the Wikipedia entry on Danielson. The initial paragraphs are an example of clever, partisan editing, to minimize the reality and whitewash AntiFa, but the article as a whole seems pretty fair. [ Killings of Aaron Danielson and Michael Reinoehl - Wikipedia ]

 

[Doug1943]

My point was that an AR-15 in the hands of a law abiding, responsible citizen is no more dangerous than a sling shot or kitchen knife in the hands of that citizen unless it is needed to defend one's home, property, life, other citizens from those who would commit murder or other mayhem. As for whether such citizen should own one, that I will leave up to the citizen. My husband and I have never wanted such a weapon, but we do have means to protect ourselves should we have to do that. And if we wanted an AR-15, there is absolutely no reason we should not have one.

As for the military, I am speaking strictly from the standpoint of a parent who loves her children. I would not trust this current administration to not send them into some senseless possibly lethal situation. I would not trust this current administration to manage that situation competently. And when more emphasis is put on social engineering and indoctrination than military readiness, I believe that puts them at unacceptable risk. Purely selfish motives, yes, but I would not want my children put at that kind of risk.

I would trust them to a military under leadership that understands that the purpose of the military is to defend the country and its allies, period end. And toward that end, that military should have the best training and equipment that the USA can afford and be under leadership that wants personnel to be lean, mean, dedicated, responsible, ethical, lethal as necessary. And when they are put at risk, they should know exactly why and what they are fighting for and how victory will be defined. Social engineering, 'wokeness', political correctness should have no place in all that. And the soldiers/sailors would still be saying 'yes ma'am and yes sir.'

Where one's children are concerned, a different reality exists. I would never ever argue with a mother about why she should expose her children to danger.

Consider encouraging them to enlist in the State Guard, if your state has one. A State Guard cannot be federalized.

I completely agree with you about not wanting to see them (or anyone) sent abroad to bring LGBQT+ rights to Bongo-bongo Land. As Robespierre, of all people, said: "No one loves missionaries with bayonets."

And the neo-cons and their liberal allies are still in charge in Washington, and in the Republican Party. It will be a lot harder for them to repeat what they did in Iraq and Afghanistan, but they're subtle and know how to work slowly. It took about 30 years for their plans for Russia to mature.

 

[Foxfyre]

Where one's children are concerned, a different reality exists. I would never ever argue with a mother about why she should expose her children to danger.

Consider encouraging them to enlist in the State Guard, if your state has one. A State Guard cannot be federalized.

I completely agree with you about not wanting to see them (or anyone) sent abroad to bring LGBQT+ rights to Bongo-bongo Land. As Robespierre, of all people, said: "No one loves missionaries with bayonets."

And the neo-cons and their liberal allies are still in charge in Washington, and in the Republican Party. It will be a lot harder for them to repeat what they did in Iraq and Afghanistan, but they're subtle and know how to work slowly. It took about 30 years for their plans for Russia to mature.

They're both beyond military age now. Our son was in officer's candidate school in the Navy for awhile but had to drop out due to a medical issue. Our daughter works for the DOD now but she's pretty 'woke' so it doesn't bother her.

But yes. On other threads I keep warning everyone that the neoMarxist 'woke' now control most of the media, education, scientific institutions, big business, government in a very long but intentional 'coup' of the American ideal. Anything MAGA is deemed corrupt and evil and to be condemned. And if this continues, it won't be long before America is just another large stagnant/declining Marxist/socialist country. The only ones who will prosper are those in a totalitarian government and the relative few they will favor as useful to that government.

 

[Doug1943]

They're both beyond military age now. Our son was in officer's candidate school in the Navy for awhile but had to drop out due to a medical issue. Our daughter works for the DOD now but she's pretty 'woke' so it doesn't bother her.

But yes. On other threads I keep warning everyone that the neoMarxist 'woke' now control most of the media, education, scientific institutions, big business, government in a very long but intentional 'coup' of the American ideal. Anything MAGA is deemed corrupt and evil and to be condemned. And if this continues, it won't be long before America is just another large stagnant/declining Marxist/socialist country. The only ones who will prosper are those in a totalitarian government and the relative few they will favor as useful to that government.

Yes. I think that if no huge cataclysm happens, and we just softly continue to degenerate, we'll become like Brazil. It's the curse of Latin America that the client-patron model is the dominant one. And even here, the worshipful attitude towards Mr Trump should make Constitutional conservatives uneasy, at the least.

We need to organize. That, above all. If someone is a patriot, and is not in a group of patriots that meets at least once a month, then ... they should try to join one, or organize one. Or move to a Red State.

The internet has made it all too easy to sit and home, and find fellowship with like-minded people on line. But if there are dramatic events in our future, they'll need to be dealt with by organized on-the-ground groups.

 

[BothWings]

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

And there are people who have hated that from the beginning and want to change one small law, ordinance and mandate at a time. They have no choice to do it that way, but they have alot of advances in their agenda over the years. That really needs to be nipped in the bud. Problem is, the bud is getting pretty big.

 

[iamwhatiseem]

Just more white noise bullshit.
Assault rifles, according to FBI statistics, account for less than 3% of gun deaths.
Shotguns about 1%
All the rest are handguns.