How does one now defend (in a nutshell) owning AR-15s?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Joined
Sep 15, 2007
Messages
9,311
Location
The Mid-South.
First, I do not own any, prefer my four imported AKs, two SKS, three Enfields and handguns.

My wife is very tolerant of gun ownership (her Dad spent 30 years as Army Quartermaster, attached to 101st in all of '44-'45), and in a very logical way, but has no interest in the shooting sports or carry.

But the news today about the FL massacre (on Fox News) prompted my single comments "The anti-gunners only want to take away, with no trade off, they expect everything to be on Their terms", which prompted her to say "We could ban them (ARs) for a while, then allow them again". "Something needs to be done".

So I calmy said "Should you be banned from renting a Ryder truck--you might run people over"? I didn't pursue it and left on errands.
The correct nutshell (it might sound cold) response to comments prompted by high emotions on televised tragedies always escapes me, at the wrong time.

And people don't want to Listen to more than two very short comments to contradict the deceptive emotional rhetoric on tv. Trying to correct wrong gun terminology on tv, they always seem to say "I've heard it before etc, but we've got to Do something".

A lady First Officer from Boston (now lives in Peachtree City! ...Irony here..) with whom I worked a little bit also said "...must do something..", following another school tragedy about three years ago, but those types won't voice their silent wish for partial or total bans on certain guns.

At least this time, even the FBI had their chance to help.
 
Last edited:
I'll take a stab "in a nutshell".
1) An AR15 is nothing more than another semi-automatic rifle. It just happens to be black and looks like the gun our troops carry into war.
2) If we lose the right to own AR15s the gun grabbers will come after other rifles next.
3) The AR15 is just as much a part of our right to "keep and bear arms" as any other gun.
4) If AR15s were no longer available the mentally crippled would just use another type gun.

I come from South Florida and feel for the loss of those 17 students and teachers. But, as we've heard so many times before, guns are not the problem. It's the people who pull the trigger unlawfully.
 
Call it the conspiracy nerve, but something about this story just stinks. FBI got tipped and did nothing. Local law enforcement got tipped and did nothing. Guy goes on rampage and kills a bunch of folks, and the story is just that he used an AR15? Sounds far too familiar. I truly hope I’m wrong, but I get a wierd feeling that these things are occasionally allowed to happen simply to support the cause of disarming the masses.

And although I agree with your comment about the rental car, I have come to believe that there may not be a way to break through to the liberals. It’s like trying to rationalize with a 3 year old.
 
To "do something" that would make any difference, you would have to move firearms technology itself back more than 150 years. Anybody with some experience shooting can do the same thing with any repeating firearm.
 
Many optional parts available that enable anyone to self modify for fit or function. Works well for left or right handed shooters.
Easily adaptable to a variety of sighting devices.
Consistent cheek weld and a fully floated barrel is easily done for fine accuracy.
Fun and affordable to shoot.
 
Call it the conspiracy nerve, but something about this story just stinks. FBI got tipped and did nothing. Local law enforcement got tipped and did nothing. Guy goes on rampage and kills a bunch of folks, and the story is just that he used an AR15? Sounds far too familiar. I truly hope I’m wrong, but I get a wierd feeling that these things are occasionally allowed to happen simply to support the cause of disarming the masses.

And although I agree with your comment about the rental car, I have come to believe that there may not be a way to break through to the liberals. It’s like trying to rationalize with a 3 year old.

As long as brain chemistry altering medications are being prescribed at the massive level that they are now...you are going to have a certain percentage of people go off and do unbelievably bizarre acts that will include killings. Read the warnings on the label! Most say something to the effect that 'suicidal or homicidal thoughts or actions' are side effects....and to this date I believe that the vast majority of mass killers have been on such drugs. Do the benefits of these drugs on people that they help outweigh the occasional person that kills because of them? I hope so...and the only real defense is to be prepared and carry.

To the OP question about AR's....I have two, one being the most accurate rifle in the safe, (Varminter) the other being the smallest/lightest carbine in 5.56 (Pre-ban Gov. Carbine). It might be worth mentioning to an 'Anti' that it's no different than any other semi-auto...but this mostly just gets them saying that ALL should be banned. I can normally tell if someone is actually asking for information while trying to formulate their opinion and not asking for you to join them in their gun hate. When you don't agree with a 'hater'....they normally get angry and can't carry on a decent conversation. It's because they likely don't understand WHY they believe what they believe...and when you try to find out what they used to formulate their opinion they would be forced to admit that they don't know jack squat about things and are just parroting an emotional conclusion given to them by someone else.
 
The AR is just the first step of common firearms to be banned. True full autos are regulated to virtual extinction. SBR, SBS, and supressor ownership is neutered because of the NFA. The AR is the common next step banned firearm on the list.
 
Banning so-called “assault-style” weapons would be neither Constitutionally permissible nor practical. Those who would ban all semi-automatic weapons, or even just AR-15s and AK-47s, quickly run afoul of the Second Amendment’s stated purpose of ensuring a “well-regulated militia” equipped with military-grade weapons. Even should this change, there are literally millions upon millions of AR-15s and AK-47-style firearms already in general circulation. Laws prohibiting their possession would be no more effective than laws prohibiting possession of cocaine, heroin, or other dangerous drugs. Moreover, such laws would have an unintended consequence: Instead of smuggling or home-building semi-automatic weapons, underground markets for fully automatic versions would flourish. While “law-abiding citizens” might turn in prohibited weapons, it is ludicrous to expect that a deranged person contemplating the murder of dozens of people would be in the least deterred by the thought of a penalty for possessing a prohibited weapon.
 
In Va the district that is home to Virginia Tech elected the reporter whose fiancé was killed on the air to our House of Delegates. He ran on a campaign to increase gun control. When asked what law would have stopped her killing he did a Pelosi and said NONE. After that it was clear he wouldn’t win so he backed off on his anti gun rhetoric but was elected against a very good moderate Republican who did a lot for the district.

We also had a very anti gun governor elected. Thankfully the GOP barely hung on to control of the house and Senate, the aforementioned delegate and others like him have introduced ed legislation that would make California seem like a free state. Thankfully they never made it out of committe.

My point is the fear of the anti gun left isn’t an exaggeration. They use every trick to attack us and they never give up. They prey on “do something”, they lie, they piviot and they’re getting better at getting elected. They see this as war and they don’t want to lose. Sadly we play nice and we out our guard down. Then when things like this happen, they gain more ground.

Sorry to sound like a rant but my state is in danger of being the next California and not enough people are fighting it.
 
Almost every single firearm crime is committed with a handgun.
AR-15's have been used in a very small number of high profile crimes.

If you want, you could also pull up crime statistics from the FBI.
Stats from Chicago are also interesting.
 
How does one now defend (in a nutshell) owning AR-15s?
Like many have said, ARs are just the start.
I'm not much of an orator and just end up going back to my theory that if we, as a Country
-Federal, State , Local just enforced the existing laws on firearms for a period of one year how different things might be.

I realize we'll never know, because as the past 40+ years of gun laws have shown, the goal is to make new laws, not enforce them.
But just tell me the last time you've heard of a convicted felon doing an additional 10 years because of a gun violation.

I gave you a like Hokie because you are deluded!
I'm in Oregon and things are much worse here than in 'ol Virginny.

Our legislature is passing a new law to keep ownership away from anyone charged with forms of abuse.
All sounds good until you read in on the terms of it and the power it gives the Court system over you.

Concerning new laws,
I have always been told the definition of insanity is when you repeatedly use the same means while expecting a different result.

JT

I appreciate the mods for leaving some of the posts up (in the past few days), when otherwise the posts are pulled quickly.
Talking after such a tragedy really is good therapy and many here, myself included,
do not otherwise have a way or platform at home to air their feelings after sad days like we've experienced.
Thank you, JT
 
Our ownership of weapons close to military quality is the only thing keeping the Washington elite from taking all our freedom instantly.
The politicians in Washington aren’t working for us. It’s painfully clear. Debt ceiling for instance. I know how much money I will have in 30 days (close anyway) so I spend less than that. The government can probably calculate the week of th next shut down but they are too dumb to not spend too much money.
My wife watches this show called “scandle” and I watched the first season of “house of cards” I’d bet that’s closer to how our government operates than what we see.
 
How many school children have been killed with a rental truck? Maybe raising the age for purchases of AR and AK platforms would help. I have owned AR15's in the past and I love shooting them, but is it worth having your grandson or granddaughter killed?
PS I am a gun owner, and not a Liberal.
 
Last edited:
How does one now defend (in a nutshell) owning AR-15s?

The argument I would use is this: "Weapons of war" are precisely what the 2nd Amendment is all about. It's not about sporting uses or even, really, about personal self defense. It's about civic defense by the citizenry against tyranny imposed either internally or by foreign enemies. We have lots of historic examples where this has come into play in other countries, most recently in occupied Europe under the Nazis. The Founders, in their wisdom, created this as a final fail-safe in our Constitution. I will concede that the AR-15 is a "weapon of war" "designed for killing." That's precisely the point. Despite isolated incidents of misuse, the wide distribution of such a weapon among the population is a good thing. The mere presence of such a weapon among the population -- never mind its actual use -- is enough to deter would-be usurpers. Bottom line: either we trust our citizens, or we do not. If we trust our citizens, the good guys with the guns will countervail against the few bad guys with guns.

The secondary argument that I would make is that, in any case, it's too late to do anything about it. Literally millions upon millions of AR-15's are already in private hands. You can't eliminate these without severe social dislocation. Those who are advocating that we "do something" about this "problem" need to be pinned down as to exactly what measures they would be willing to take. Notice that they are extremely vague, knowing that any specific proposals will generate a storm of protest when people realize that they are personally adversely affected.
 
I think that there are two drumbeats concerning the Florida shooting; one being controlling/ banning the AR 15 platform and the other being the gross failure of our government to take action when the citizenry practiced the government’s recommended process and then Uncle Sam recklessly dropped the ball. It just seems to me that the black rifle issue will fall subordinate to the FBI blunder on this one; the grassroots process was very well executed and Big Brother failed - lots and lots of egg on the FBI face. Leans much more toward incompetence of our government than the AR but, the spinners are hard at work and the implulse emotion can move the needle in a very short time - as DJT always says, “We’ll see what happens.”
 

I gave you a like Hokie because you are deluded!
I'm in Oregon and things are much worse here than in 'ol Virginny.
/QUOTE]

Try living in NY under Cuomo who seems to think the entire state is New York City......SAFE act is bad and passed in the middle if the night....Everytime something awful happens involving a gun it makes me wonder what that snake is going to do next.
 
Well as we all know the underlying issue is mental health and how to keep ANY weapons away from them. Until we can effectively identify and restrict people with these "mental health issues" it's all just "lip service", because none of us are going to be willing to invest the amount of revenue it will take to address it. The government recognized it back in the 60's when they discontinued institutions set up for just these people.
 
How many school children have been killed with a rental truck?
Some.

In Oklahoma City, a rental truck carried the explosive and the building housed a day care center.

While they were not school children, a rented Home Depot truck was used to kill people in New York.

Seems more common in Europe, where they have fewer guns. The tool used changes but the result is the same--innocent people are killed.
 
Maybe raising the age for purchases of AR and AK platforms would help.
An AR, an AK, a 10/22, ANY rifle is just that, a rifle.
Firearm ownership age is tied to legal age, ADULT age, the age at which an individual is recognized by the government and society to be able to enter into legal contracts, etc., and in my opinion they can do something inherently more dangerous than owning a firearm -- the right to Vote.
At 17 I was in the Marines, turned 18 in boot camp. Where I was issued an M16, not AR15, but the genuine deal complete with the fun switch. By the way, I was only a Resident, so could not vote, but I could defend my adoptive country.

BTW, the 18 for long guns, 21 for handguns is an ATF restriction on FFL sales, NOT on ownership. An adult (18) can legally buy and possess a handgun as well.

It's not the AR, the AK, the insert popular gun here, that is the problem. It's a very complex issue and it is unfortunately nearly impossible to prevent. This school had armed police, so that did not prevent the tragedy, though I understand that it did mitigate it and was part of the reason the casualty count is not higher.

A coworker who is not Anti-Gun, but is just, by his own admission, ignorant of guns as he has never been exposed to them, was discussing this issue with me yesterday. He asked about the "new AR15 and has that changed things". I explained that the AR15 is at least 50 years old, that it is by no means new. He digested that, said "Oh, I didn't know that". For the record, the conversation shifted and I wasn't able to explain the there has been a surge in popularity in the last 20+ years for them. But we did discuss how any gun being used in such an environment would be lethal as it's a mass of people in a confined area.
I further commented that the AR15 caliber is actually less powerful than the military calibers before it.

Again, he is ignorant, but he is willing to learn. And I hope to be able to take him to the range sometime.
 
This school had armed police, so that did not prevent the tragedy, though I understand that it did mitigate it and was part of the reason the casualty count is not higher.
Not saying you're wrong, but how did the armed guard/mitigation occur? The murderer left on his own, as I understand it.
 
I'm not sure how to defend, or justify ar15 ownership to someone who does not understand what exactly a semi automatic rifle is. The design of the platform and the round it fires is designed for effective defense from multiple threats. There is a practical and legal use for such a weapon in our society. However, to change someone's mind who is terrified of firearms in general, through misunderstanding or ignorance is a daunting, if not impossible task. I believe as gun owners, it is our responsibility to first and foremost frame any debate we may have in a sane, rational and understanding manner. I disagree with those that call for an outright ban on any specific firearm. However, i support someone's right to call for reform.
In light ofthis most recent event, and this may be unpopular in this venue, it may be time to classify the AR15 and similar platforms differently, and raise the minimum age to acquire one to 21. This may help, but the underlying issue is not the weapon used, but the person using it. Many aspects of our society failed allowing this event to happen, law enforcement, healthcare, civic and personal responsibility all failed.
The answer to solving these failures can not, and will not be solved by any single approach. It will require a change in the culture, which includes responsible gun owners.
 
Easy to defend by just looking at history. I have seen so-called experts on Fox news state a crime like this could only have been performed with a " high-power assault" rifle which immediately informs me the person is only an expert in his mind and the mind of the so-called Fox news talking head.

Every anti-gun or just an anti-AR-15 expert seems to forget that the same number of people can be killed just as easily with just a handgun or two. They do not mention Virginia Tech, 2007, when a person named Cho, using two HANDGUNS (Walther P22 and Glock 19), a multiple number of magazines (largest I believe was 15 rds) shot approx. 49 people, and 32 of that number died. And he did it in two different attacks an hour or longer apart.
And one fact that many forget is these were college students, you could say all were adults not middle school, young high school or kindergarten kids; but people who actually might have been able to defend against this assault by Cho.

So many people have forgotten about VT shooting, and most who still remember it, forget Cho only used two handguns.

So, a person does not need a big black rifle to kill multiple people, they just need to know how to shoot and aim and reload quickly (and quickly is not always a requirement).

And you can bet that if they do another AR-15 ban (such as another assault weapons ban....or like I called it, a ugly rifle ban) they will come next for your "semi-auto" handgun.

So the screaming to ban the AR-15 is ludicrous cause a mean looking black rifle is not needed to commit mass murder.

And the biggest disaster in US history for a school was committed with dynamite (1927, Bath MI).

Personally, I see no reason someone needs to defend the AR-15, it is just a tool and there are thousands of other tools that can do the same job. They must give a reason why banning it would stop mass shootings, cause it won't.

Back to my coffee.....
 
Easy to defend by just looking at history. I have seen so-called experts on Fox news state a crime like this could only have been performed with a " high-power assault" rifle which immediately informs me the person is only an expert in his mind and the mind of the so-called Fox news talking head.

Every anti-gun or just an anti-AR-15 expert seems to forget that the same number of people can be killed just as easily with just a handgun or two. They do not mention Virginia Tech, 2007, when a person named Cho, using two HANDGUNS (Walther P22 and Glock 19), a multiple number of magazines (largest I believe was 15 rds) shot approx. 49 people, and 32 of that number died. And he did it in two different attacks an hour or longer apart.
And one fact that many forget is these were college students, you could say all were adults not middle school, young high school or kindergarten kids; but people who actually might have been able to defend against this assault by Cho.

So many people have forgotten about VT shooting, and most who still remember it, forget Cho only used two handguns.

So, a person does not need a big black rifle to kill multiple people, they just need to know how to shoot and aim and reload quickly (and quickly is not always a requirement).

And you can bet that if they do another AR-15 ban (such as another assault weapons ban....or like I called it, a ugly rifle ban) they will come next for your "semi-auto" handgun.

So the screaming to ban the AR-15 is ludicrous cause a mean looking black rifle is not needed to commit mass murder.

And the biggest disaster in US history for a school was committed with dynamite (1927, Bath MI).

Personally, I see no reason someone needs to defend the AR-15, it is just a tool and there are thousands of other tools that can do the same job. They must give a reason why banning it would stop mass shootings, cause it won't.

Back to my coffee.....

Thank you

11 miles From Va Tech the New River Community College satellite campus was shot up by a student with a 12 ga. Two people were shot and one other later killed herself. The story didnt get much press as the next day the Boston Marathon bombing occurred, and no one was killed on campus and a shotgun was used.
 
Not saying you're wrong, but how did the armed guard/mitigation occur? The murderer left on his own, as I understand it.
I'm in South East Florida, the local news here has reported that the shooter did his shooting in the three rooms, put the rifle down, and blended in with the students and walked out. BTW, that HS is the largest in the county and has approximately 3200 students across a large campus. I don't know the number of buildings, but it isn't a one building school by any stretch.
He had been a student there, so he knew the buildings, he knew the school resource officer was there, he knew the response times. Another local mention is that the SRO either saw him coming on campus, or saw him on one of the video feeds, and called it in. That's possibly why the Broward Sheriff's Deputies responded as quickly as they did.
IMHO, as bad as it was, without an SRO on scene, it might have been much worse. Think VA Tech mentioned above, where Cho had an hour for his attack. I don't remember the details on Columbine, but they were at it for a while as well.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top