Why do you need an AR? My answer is,


PDA






nathan
January 18, 2013, 01:00 AM
I dont need an AR which, of course, is a great weapon no doubt. What i need is my AK 47 rifle with its big ole 7.62 x 39 caliber , a proven round to boot not to mention its mild recoil is a big plus during rapid fire. That is what i need when my life and limb is under threat.


So Pierce Morgan and anyone asking the same question, you can take it from there. If you dont get it, then call your vaunted Constabulary from Yorkshire to defend you from killers, robbers, thieves, rapists, rioters , looters, and what not. When order of society breaks down, it will be me and my AK 47 !! And if you dont get it, then be at the mercy of all of the above.

If you enjoyed reading about "Why do you need an AR? My answer is," here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
usmarine0352_2005
January 18, 2013, 01:04 AM
http://i47.photobucket.com/albums/f191/usmarine0352/NeedAR-15.jpg

BHP FAN
January 18, 2013, 01:08 AM
http://patdollard.com/2013/01/flashback-most-dishones-journalist-of-our-times-piers-morgan-fired-from-bbc-for-malicious-hoax-of-fake-iraqi-prisoner-abuse-that-caused-so-much-damage-served-as-al-qaeda-recruiting-pos/

hso
January 18, 2013, 01:16 AM
Most firearms evolution comes through military development of firearms. Just as the small crossover wagons/suvs are the evolution or the military Jeep, the AR is the current evolutionary stage of firearms designed to be rugged, reliable, simple and modular with excellent quality control to produce an easier to use rifle with more versatility.

A single gun can be purchased and by changing the top half for different calibers it can be used to shoot bottle tops to moving targets in competition, small game like rabbits to large game wild boar hunting, and it can be used to protect pets, livestock and homes. There literally is no more versatile rifle that allow an entire family to put one gun to so many different recreational, sporting, hunting and defensive uses. It is an American design with innovation and versatility designed into it. It is an American rifle supporting Americans in one of the few growing manufacturing fields in the United States. It is the American Rifle for this generation.

Queen_of_Thunder
January 18, 2013, 01:22 AM
I want
Therefore I Need.

sidheshooter
January 18, 2013, 01:26 AM
in these times, we should all be careful to double check the facts on our end (to say nothing of Morgan's perpetual stream of baloney). I love that Washington poster, but my understanding is that the quote itself is bogus:

http://www.guncite.com/gc2ndbog.html

We still need AR-15s. And AK-47s.

FWIW.

hso
January 18, 2013, 01:30 AM
Yep, here's the actual quote-
A free people ought not only to be armed but disciplined; to which end a uniform and well digested plan is requisite: And their safety and interest require that they should promote such manufactories, as tend to render them independent on others, for essential, particularly for military supplies.

Twisting the words of our Founding Fathers does neither them nor ourselves any credit.

mljdeckard
January 18, 2013, 01:33 AM
Because if bearing arms has a legitimate defensive purpose, those bearing them must not be given any disadvantage. We don't know who where, or how we will be fighting. It is preposterous to place some arbitrary limitation on the tools that will be required.

Repeat after me: Rights are not justified by NEED.

BHP FAN
January 18, 2013, 01:39 AM
> Subject: How to crush Democrats' dumbest (but pervasive) gun control argument
>
> FYI (copy below):
> http://wolffiles.blogspot.com/2013/01/how-to-crush-democrats-dumb-gun-control.html


> ************************************************************
> "In truth, attempts to regulate the civilian possession of
> firearms have five political functions. They increase
> citizen reliance on government and tolerance of increased
> police powers and abuse; help prevent opposition to the
> government; facilitate repressive action by government and
> its allies; lessen the pressure for major or radical reform;
> and can be selectively enforced against those perceived to
> be a threat to government."
> ~gun-rights expert, Professor Raymond Kessler, J.D.
> ************************************************************
> Wednesday, January 16, 2013
> How to crush Democrats' dumbest (but pervasive) gun control argument
>
> Let's be clear. The Second Amendment was not written to
> protect your right to kill a deer. It was designed to
> protect your right to defend yourself against all enemies,
> foreign and domestic. Your right to bear arms is the only
> guarantor of your other rights to life, liberty, property,
> speech and all the rest.
>
> The never-let-a-crisis-go-to-waste Left is in assault mode
> on your Second Amendment rights. These gun grabbers think
> they're so clever with this line of questioning which
> (frustratingly) seems to stump the unprepared:
>
> The Framers didn't write the Second Amendment with
> AR-15's in mind. Where do you stop? Should citizens
> be allowed to have nuclear weapons?
>
> This is a hanging curve ball just waiting for you to crush
> it.
>
> First of all, remind Democrats that the Framers didn't write
> the First Amendment with cable television, Internet
> communications or even the telegraph in mind. Should we
> limit the press's freedom of speech to the movable type
> printing press which was the primary means of mass
> communication at the time of the Framers?
>
> More importantly, don't let the nuclear weapon ruse
> intimidate you. [For fun, pronounce it /nuke 'yuh ler/ just
> to show 'em who's boss.] The limits of the Second Amendment
> is a fair question that deserves an answer. It's simple:
> Law-abiding, free people should have the right to arm
> themselves with whatever weapons their government would use
> against them.
>
> If the world is sufficiently dangerous that the police
> require semi-automatic rifles with large-capacity magazines,
> then do not the free citizens who are sovereign over the
> police and who also live in the same dangerous world deserve
> to similarly protect themselves from it? In fact, are not
> the citizens -- not the police -- always the first ones who
> are forced to face those dangers?
>
> There is no justification for the public servant police to
> be more heavily armed than the law-abiding public they serve
> ... unless ... the government's intention is to be more
> powerful than the people. When the police are the only ones
> armed, then it is a police state.
>
> Nah, that's crazy talk. The next thing you know, you'll
> claim that even the Department of Education is arming
> itself. Oh crap...
>
>
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 2013.0.2890 / Virus Database: 2638/6038 - Release Date: 01/16/13

LevelHead
January 18, 2013, 01:41 AM
This blog post contains the right answer: http://www.grumpypundit.com/2013/01/defending-the-indefensible/

ontheroad
January 18, 2013, 07:07 AM
"...so my AK doesn't get lonely."

Evergreen
January 18, 2013, 07:18 AM
They should only ban AKs, because ARs are so much better than Aks. :p

Just kidding.. I have some Russian in me, well considering my family lived there for half a millennium, might qualify me there. So yeah, I love my Izhmash Kalashnikov. It's a lovely gun, but my ARs are simply better.

Being a hybrid myself, I like having a mix of ARs and AKs. Call it a mix of cultures. :rolleyes:



BTW.. Owning a gun is a right not a need.. We need to get rid of this "NEED" mentality. Nobody needs 100 pairs of shoes , a 5 bedroom house, 3 Mercedes Benzes or a meal at a 5-Star Restaurant. Those are luxuries. Owning a gun is a right and even though we may not "Need" it now, one day we might! It is an essential component to our freedom. Does that qualify as a need?

pockets
January 18, 2013, 07:20 AM
I don't need an AR. Wonderful guns, but not my cup of tea.
What I need is my AK-platform semi-automatic rifle with its 7.62x39 cartridge.
.

Bubba613
January 18, 2013, 08:11 AM
I dont know why anyone needs one. The cops all carry them. Maybe they don't need them either. But if they need one, I need one too.

radiotom
January 18, 2013, 08:13 AM
A better question, and it's for the government...

Why do you need my AR?

Pilot
January 18, 2013, 08:21 AM
A friend of mine yesterday reminded me the AR-15 was first developed for civilian use, as was the Thompson if memory serves. The AR, being semi-auto does not have the capability of the military M-16 or M-4, and we as civilians do not have the military weaponry of a standing army. However, we do have our muskets, and to me that is represented today by rifles like the AR-15, AK clones, and other, legal semi-autos.

Admiral Yamamoto said it on discussing the possibility of Japan invading mainland America as he had lived and gone to college here. "Behind every blade of grass" was his warning.

nathan
January 18, 2013, 10:52 AM
I dont need a freaking AR , i need my AK 47 .


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z4ngiQ8BH2U

Adam the Gnome
January 18, 2013, 11:09 AM
Great now I wanna trade my AR for an AK. Maybe after obomination is gone.

DeMilled
January 18, 2013, 11:09 AM
So, we opened with AR, got raised to AK and I'm throwing down FAL.

What do I win?




http://i263.photobucket.com/albums/ii134/desertford/motivator351126dc661258e466cfaa63b7.jpg

Adam the Gnome
January 18, 2013, 11:20 AM
I'll have one of each. Just ask them why they need the first amendment.

MedWheeler
January 18, 2013, 11:40 AM
I don't need an AR, nor any other firearm.

But, should that ever change, that change will likely be sudden.

Hacker15E
January 18, 2013, 01:49 PM
So, we opened with AR, got raised to AK and I'm throwing down FAL.

What do I win?

You win second place behind the "finest battle implement ever devised" (now illegal in NY*).

http://www.memorableplaces.com/m1garand/flagmaintitlephoto.jpg

Queen_of_Thunder
January 18, 2013, 01:52 PM
Ok I'll play your silly game. Why do I need an AR? After exhaustive research the AR platform is the most versatile and best value for the dollar spent. BTW Are you still beating the wife.

goldie
January 18, 2013, 02:09 PM
Lets face it , its fun to own, fun to shoot, fun to look through the catalogs & see what we can do to improve & personalize them,see the lastest gadgets & things that come out for them thats new, just like what women do with clothes, shoes, handbags.....

RockyTop
January 18, 2013, 02:20 PM
My answer is the 2nd Amendment is part of the Bill of Rights, not the Bill of Needs. If it ever evolves into the Bill of Needs then I'll let people know. The need argument is totally irrelevant.

geekWithA.45
January 18, 2013, 02:56 PM
What's sillier?

The premise that Citizens don't need modern, militarily pedigree rifles, or

The premise that any government can be rendered permanently benevolent?

cfullgraf
January 18, 2013, 03:24 PM
Most of my AR platform rifles are long, heavy barrel hunting rifles. Not something easy to carry or conceal. Good for hunting furry varmints and predators from fixed positions.

They shoot wonderfully, are very accurate, and I prefer to shoot them over a bolt rifle.

It is too bad they get lumped into the assault rifle category with the mall ninjas' M4geries just because they are semi-automatic rifles with detachable magazines and pistol grips.

Skribs
January 18, 2013, 04:14 PM
Well, the anti's say we don't need "weapons of war" (I know the AR-15 is the civilian version, but bear with me), but the Founding Fathers made it clear in their papers that in order to deter defend against invasion or tyranny, the people need to be armed with weapons of war.

Why do we need these "high powered assault weapons that enable lunatics to mow down innocent kids?" Because the features that make a weapon attractive for mass murderers also make them attractive for self defense...a use that the Supreme Court has upheld. Ease-of-use, lightweight, low-recoil, high capacity makes for a good option for your 16-year-old daughter when she's home by herself and four guys break in through the back door. I'll also point out that (if it were possible to make criminals follow the law) reducing the legally-available features is a bigger issue for your "prepared enough" citizen than for your prepared attacker. The citizen limited to 10 rounds will have 10 rounds in the gun instead of 15. The attacker will have so many loaded magazines in his backpack that it's a non-issue. So when someone says a law will stop crime or reduce the number killed in a spree, but it will not affect the citizen defending itself, call bravo sierra on the spot.

Why do we need the same weapons that the police use? Because we fight the same criminals, except we are the ones caught by surprise and we are the ones without backup. Most of the time, the police respond after the crime has been commited, and are more focused on enforcing the law that was broken instead of preventing it from occuring. The supreme court has held that the police doesn't have a specific duty to protect any individual, only I have the responsibility for myself.

Why do we need weapons with no "legitimate hunting or sporting purpose"? Well, the idea that hunting/sporting purposes are the only legitimate reason to own a weapon ignores what the Founding Fathers meant with the 2A, and the semi-neutered version that the Supreme Court gives us today: protection. However, these weapons are used every day in hunting, due to their innate accuracy and the ergonomics of the platform. These are used in target and action shooting competitions, giving them a legitimate sporting use. To say they have no use in these fields, and therefore have no use, shows such ignorance on every level of the argument.

we are not amused
January 18, 2013, 05:38 PM
Actually, the AR-15 in the .223/5.56 cal. is a very effective self deference weapon, and is my weapon of choice for home defense.

The .223 cal bullet does not penetrate multiple walls of sheet rock well, make it far safer to use in a multi-occupancy building, or even a single home, especially in an urban setting. Yet it has good stopping power over virtually any hand gun made.

Archaic
January 18, 2013, 07:13 PM
Why does Jay Leno needs so many fast cars? Why does A-Rod date supermodels? Why isn't a five gallon bucket of Legos enough for my kid? Why does my wife need the patent leather boots with the zippers all the way up to ... well, you get the point.

The reason is because we do. Pretty simple, just BECAUSE.

rust collector
January 18, 2013, 08:33 PM
Well, for beginners they're light, pleasant to shoot, reliable, serviceable, accurate and readily modified for different objectives. They are infinitely adaptable in terms of sights, configuration, equipment and furniture. In fact, the biggest problem banners seem to have with them is that they seem to work well.

If they would just tune into the gun boards, they would learn that they're good only for shooting poodles. :rolleyes:

76shuvlinoff
January 18, 2013, 09:01 PM
Why can't I have the same firepower as the guys with the body armor I just called to come save my ass? I might as well have something to do while I wait... and wait.

hAkron
January 18, 2013, 09:10 PM
http://i47.photobucket.com/albums/f191/usmarine0352/NeedAR-15.jpg

http://www.guncite.com/gc2ndbog.html

RockyMtnTactical
January 19, 2013, 01:26 AM
We need AR15's and other rifles like that because that is what the 2nd amendment is all about and every red blooded American needs to have a weapon to defend the homeland from enemies, foreign and domestic.

Guy B. Meredith
January 19, 2013, 01:28 AM
Best response is that there is no excuse to deny ANYTHING to individuals acting responsibly and causing no harm. They don't need justification--those who would deny freedoms need to be able to justify the restriction. In this case the reason for denying freedoms is based on bigotry and ignorance and not justifiable.

aerostar
January 19, 2013, 02:45 AM
Saw this on ARFCOM, and couldn't resist to share it here:

"I don't 'need' AR15 more than Rosa Parks 'needed' to sit in front of the bus"

Well, maybe a little bit too hard to get to the point for sweet babies.

Hacker15E
January 19, 2013, 07:12 AM
The last name is "Parks".

dprice3844444
January 19, 2013, 07:16 AM
if women can have multiple shoes,we should be able to have multiple ar's

2nd 41
January 19, 2013, 07:42 AM
I rarely mention I have an AR(or any firearm) for security reasons. But if I do
reply... the AR is a great, accurate shooter. I do enjoy shooting it at an outdoor range at 50-100 yards. I also have few hc mags but rarely use them. I prefer to load 5 rds and shoot more deliberately at the target.
I tend to respond... I do not need it. Just added it to the collection. Also try to explain it no different than any semi rifle....don't judge the book by the cover.

aerostar
January 19, 2013, 09:21 AM
The last name is "Parks".
Thanks, revised.

jimbeaux82
January 19, 2013, 11:40 AM
As a citizen of Louisiana, and a homeowner in New Orleans, I can tell you for a fact exactly when you "need" an AR, AK or FAL. It is when your home and family is threatened by a gang of 20 plus looters, robbers and rapists as many were in New Orleans and surrounding area at the time of Katrina. I have many friends who are alive today only because they had this type of weapon available to defend themselves and family during Katrina. You cannot defend yourself successfully against gangs with bolt action deer rifles, revolvers or double barrel shotguns. But even a single home owner with an AR plus 4-5 mags in has pocket has the ability to send the gangs away looking for softer targets.

Try telling these people that they did not need an AR.

Rezin
January 20, 2013, 10:20 AM
Lol, that's MY answer...

"Nope, I don't need an AR....I've got an AK."

jmorris
January 20, 2013, 10:25 AM
What a silly question. I am not going to live long enough to be able to shoot all of the ammunition I have stock piled with a simple bolt action.

zastavaez9compact
January 20, 2013, 04:54 PM
"I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies. If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around [the banks] will deprive the people of all property until their children wake-up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered. The issuing power should be taken from the banks and restored to the people, to whom it properly belongs."

Thomas Jefferson



The Federal Reserve Bank is Private

j.kramer
January 20, 2013, 05:07 PM
i dont need an ak i have an ar10

the original and still the best

fredseviltwin
January 27, 2013, 12:45 PM
Let's be clear. The Second Amendment was not written to protect your right to kill a deer. It was designed to protect your right to defend yourself against all enemies, foreign and domestic. Your right to bear arms is the only guarantor of your other rights to life, liberty, property, speech and all the rest.

The never-let-a-crisis-go-to-waste Left is in assault mode on your Second Amendment rights. These gun grabbers think they're so clever with this line of questioning which (frustratingly) seems to stump the unprepared:
The Framers didn't write the Second Amendment with AR-15's in mind. Where do you stop? Should citizens be allowed to have nuclear weapons?
This is a hanging curve ball just waiting for you to crush it.

First of all, remind Democrats that the Framers didn't write the First Amendment with cable television, Internet communications or even the telegraph in mind. Should we limit the press's freedom of speech to the movable typeprinting press which was the primary means of mass communication at the time of the Framers?

More importantly, don't let the nuclear weapon ruse intimidate you. The limits of the Second Amendment is a fair question that deserves an answer. It's simple: Law-abiding, free people should have the right to arm themselves with whatever weapons their government would use against them.

If the world is sufficiently dangerous that the police require semi-automatic rifles with large-capacity magazines, then do not the free citizens who are sovereign over the police and who also live in the same dangerous world deserve to similarly protect themselves from it? In fact, are not the citizens -- not the police -- always the first ones who are forced to face those dangers?



There is no justification for the public servant police to be more heavily armed than the law-abiding public they serve ... unless ... the government's intention is to be more powerful than the people. When the police are the only ones armed, then it is a police state.

Nah, that's crazy talk. The next thing you know, you'll claim that even the Department of Education is arming itself.

Steel Horse Rider
January 27, 2013, 02:39 PM
Do you suppose they had these types of arguments when the technology changed from smoothbores to rifled bores, when they changed from flint to percussion caps, or when they changed from muzzle stuffers to breach loaded cartridges? Each of these advances made a huge difference in the lethality of one man with a weapon, but the pants wetting crowd was not in abundance yet......

fredseviltwin
January 27, 2013, 02:51 PM
I disagree on that point, there have always been those that have been believers in non violence.
I don't believe, however, that the loud voices today calling for the destruction of the free use of arms, is truly the non-violence crowd .
The puppet masters would be enemies of "America" as founded. These people are bent on the destruction of a free republic. Stateists as Mark Levin labels them. Those that believe in government control rather than individual freedom!

If you enjoyed reading about "Why do you need an AR? My answer is," here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!