1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Why do you need an AR? My answer is,

Discussion in 'General Gun Discussions' started by nathan, Jan 18, 2013.

  1. nathan

    nathan New Member

    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.
    Last edited: Jan 18, 2013
  2. usmarine0352_2005

    usmarine0352_2005 New Member

  3. BHP FAN

    BHP FAN New Member

  4. hso

    hso Moderator Staff Member

    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.
    Last edited: Jan 18, 2013
  5. I want
    Therefore I Need.
  6. sidheshooter

    sidheshooter New Member

    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:


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

  7. hso

    hso Moderator Staff Member

    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.
  8. mljdeckard

    mljdeckard New Member

    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.
  9. BHP FAN

    BHP FAN New Member

    > 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
  10. LevelHead

    LevelHead New Member

  11. ontheroad

    ontheroad New Member

    "...so my AK doesn't get lonely."
  12. Evergreen

    Evergreen New Member

    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?
  13. pockets

    pockets Active Member

    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.
  14. Bubba613

    Bubba613 member

    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.
  15. radiotom

    radiotom New Member

    A better question, and it's for the government...

    Why do you need my AR?
  16. Pilot

    Pilot Active Member

    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.
  17. nathan

    nathan New Member

  18. Adam the Gnome

    Adam the Gnome New Member

    Great now I wanna trade my AR for an AK. Maybe after obomination is gone.
  19. DeMilled

    DeMilled New Member

    So, we opened with AR, got raised to AK and I'm throwing down FAL.

    What do I win?

  20. Adam the Gnome

    Adam the Gnome New Member

    I'll have one of each. Just ask them why they need the first amendment.

Share This Page