AR’s kind of suck, now let’s fight for it!

I didn't have much desire for an AR15 until the government said I wasn't a responsible enough citizen to own one. Now I have a 6920 and it is a favorite rifle.
The same stuff was thrown around about AKs which I tried and didn't much care for. My SKS is much nicer.

Interesting take. Can't say you're wrong about any of it - especially the first few paragraphs.

Seems you did upset a few AR fanboys tho.

I'll upset a few more by suggesting that only a small % of the most extreme "anti's" want ALL guns banned. It's silly to think that there is an entire segment of our population that cannot discern between a useful hunting or sporting firearm, and one that was designed specifically for killing people. However, that doesn't fit the narrative. Black or white is much easier to understand.

Ah, OK. Gotcha. You came across, to me, as a newbie. Wasn’t chastising, just helping. I see hiw that could have across that way. Calm down, carry on, and get a bigger MSR. Something with a kick.

DeepSouth said:

And as a result, I argue, (now listen you who don’t like AR’s) the AR will be the absolute hardest to get, if they can get the AR-15 banned on a federal level then they have gotten the most popular gun in America banned... think about that for a second. They will have have one of the most popular (if not the most popular) hunting rifles banned, again... think about that...

Click to expand...

I think you may have some misconceptions about AR's. They are not the most popular gun in America. Pistols out sell AR's. 9 mm and 45 ACP alone make up 20% of all ammo sales. 5.56/223 is around 15%. According to what I read there are 5M AR's in the US. There were 10M guns manufactured in the US in 2013 (one year).

i am about in the same camp as you deepsouth. I own a few chambered in 556 mostly just to spite those who want them restricted or worse. I literally have never fired those (the 6.8 and the 9mm, 308 ar10 variants ect.. all get used). I dont think your post was silly at all. thanks for sharing.

jdc1244 said:

Actually not – this fails as a slippery slope fallacy.

And AR platform rifles won’t alone be subject to a ‘ban,’ as such measures would also include other semi-autos.

Attempting to ‘justify’ owning an AR is a poor strategy – it comes off as desperate and contrived.

Indeed, citizens are not required to ‘justify’ exercising a fundamental right as a ‘prerequisite’ to indeed do so.

The best course of action is to cite facts, such as the fact that less than two percent of gun crime and violence is committed with long guns, even fewer with AR and similar rifles, where 'banning' them would therefore have little, if any, effect on reducing overall gun crime.

Click to expand...

The gun grabbers are demonizing "semiautomatics". I had somebody say to me "What do you need a semi-auto for?" It's obvious this
person wasn't in the least aware of the massive amounts of auto-loaders, or that the action has been prevalent since WWII.

I’m in the camp with others rolling our eyes at the thread...

“Your wife is ugly and her cooking sucks, but hey, I support your right to marry her...”

Danoobie said:

The gun grabbers are demonizing "semiautomatics". I had somebody say to me "What do you need a semi-auto for?" It's obvious this
person wasn't in the least aware of the massive amounts of auto-loaders, or that the action has been prevalent since WWII.

Click to expand...

Actually they've been around since about 1885 with American rifles in the early 1900s. American civilians have been using semi auto firearms for well over 100 years.

http://www.montanaoutdoor.com/2014/10/early-semi-auto-rifles/

How do you eat an elephant? One bite at a time. Some say go ahead and ban the AR, not my favorite gun anyways. Then, now that they have a little rope, they ban semi auto pistols, then semi auto shotguns, and on and on until the only legal gun for "hunting" or anything else is a single shot .22 with subsonic rounds, that requires full registration and a two year waiting period.

I’m on a lot of forums like this. If folks spent the minutes of their day sending emails and letters, and making phone calls to their representatives instead of making the same statements on these threads, we wouldn’t have anything about which to worry.

Mine is very relevant. Necessary where I live too.

I will support 2A for every law abiding Constitutionalist.

M

varminterror, i send the emails, never have written a physical letter. perhaps they are more effective? though somewhat antiquated in this day and age. as soon as someone organizes a march/public protest locally I will be there. heck i would even drive a couple states away to be at one.

Varminterror said:

I’m on a lot of forums like this. If folks spent the minutes of their day sending emails and letters, and making phone calls to their representatives instead of making the same statements on these threads, we wouldn’t have anything about which to worry.

Click to expand...

Yes and in addition make donations where they help. I'm retired and on a fixed income, but am spending what I can to ensure I can continue to enjoy personal freedoms.

Check out the most current SAF FB posting about school students calling them for support for anti firearms activities.

The SAF (Second Amendment Foundation) has been doing the heavy lifting including our Supreme Court wins under Heller and McDonald. They are a small group for all their accomplishments and could use support through membership or donations.

Robert said:

Gun control is not about guns...

Click to expand...

Shanghai McCoy said:

AK-47's, Saturday Night Specials, AR-15's, High Capacity Magazines, mail order bolt action Italian Carcano's ...
It's always going to be "something" until we are left with "nothing".

Click to expand...

CoalTrain49 said:

Every semi-auto with a hi cap magazine sucks if you're of the AG persuasion.

The AR is just their poster boy.

Click to expand...

This in a nutshell. Not to go off in the conspiracy weeds, but it's always been fairly obvious the gun control push has been about stability of government rather than prevention of street crime. There is a long term monolopization of force away from individual people and non-government groups.

A look at when these initiatives started in the 1930s at a time the whole social contract with DC was being changed (social safety nets, Federal Code of Regulations, etc.) helps provide context. Given the calamity of the depression, not so distant memories of the civil war and realization of the capabilites of modern weapons/communication/tactics shown in WWI its not surprising to want more controls. As time passed, it has become the standard response to potential civil unrest throughout most of the world.

Proponents here don't care which particular gun is being banned. It's simply a case they understand past attempts to ban all guns don't have popular support with the US public. So villainize some specific horrible extra scary one and try to pick away.

It's not that individual people are insincere in their hopes or beliefs that crime or insane acts could be prevented. It's a solution people have been told will help and when faced with such choices it seems like a reasonable idea.

Handgun bans have been proposed with fair regularity to protect the public from crime but thankfully never got through the Feds as just too many people actually see their usefulness and fought the proposals. All kinds of other restrictions and bans are offered up by local, state, and federal lawmakers in every legislative session. There have been tons of well funded propoganda disparing the ills of just about every flavor of firearm - handguns, assault weapons, sniper rifles, silencers - you name it, someone has a "research paper" showing how the public is at risk from it. Therefore it makes sense a lot of folks may be supportive of restrictions.

A quick look at federal laws: NFA 34 was sold as all about gangsters, but the reality of the measure was taxing to the point of prohibition real weapons of war like cannons, explosives, mortars, large caliber anti-material rifles and concealable long guns (at the time there was debate about including handguns). GCA 68 bans foreign guns without the "sporting exemption" and swept up all non-NFA guns from prohibited classes of people sold as as response to assassinations and civil unrest. We got the Hughes Amendment in a very dubious trade which prevented any new machine guns from reaching civilian hands. The now-expired AWB 94 was an attempt to get rid of any "military featured" guns sold as a response to gangs, drugs, and militias. The fact it sunset is a modern political miracle probably due in no small part to 9/11 awakening people to the reality of self protection, but the gun control groups view it as a serious error which needs to not only be fixed but improved with more coverage.

This is not a "slippery slope" situation because the AR-15 and rifles like it are not some tip of the iceberg. They are the most popular rifle in the country (10 million is the most commonly used ownership figure) and rifles in general are used in something like 1% of murders.

Banning guns which are commonly used for lawful purposes and very seldom used in crime, strikes at the heart of the RKBA. It's not nibbling around the edges. If that gun can be banned, any of them can.

On a slippery slope, such a ban would put us halfway down the hill and going 70mph, just in the first move. After the Heller ruling, a ban on commonly owned guns would seem to be on shaky ground at best.

Guy B. Meredith said:

it is not about the AR, semi autos or anything else. The debate is about personal freedoms and free choice.

Click to expand...

If we fight the ensuing battle as if the war the leftists are waging against us is just about guns, we will lose the battle and the war with it. But if we insist, instead, that the war is about liberty, we may win the battle and give the forces of liberty a fighting chance to win the war. To do so we must promote the simple truth: The alternative to gun control is self-control; the key to self-control is moral understanding and self-discipline; and the key to both is citizen education. That course of education must be implemented at the level of self-government closest to home, and it must have first among its stated objectives the formation of a citizen body armed, educated and morally capable of being the “well-regulated militia” the Second Amendment prudently proclaims to be “necessary to the security of a free State.”

yokel said:

If we fight the ensuing battle as if the war the leftists are waging against us is just about guns, we will lose the battle and the war with it. But if we insist, instead, that the war is about liberty, we may win the battle and give the forces of liberty a fighting chance to win the war. To do so we must promote the simple truth: The alternative to gun control is self-control; the key to self-control is moral understanding and self-discipline; and the key to both is citizen education. That course of education must be implemented at the level of self-government closest to home, and it must have first among its stated objectives the formation of a citizen body armed, educated and morally capable of being the “well-regulated militia” the Second Amendment prudently proclaims to be “necessary to the security of a free State.”

Click to expand...

The other pillar of that argument is Individual Responsibility. When a person abuses their freedoms THEY are held responsible.

Whether they are mentally unstable or just an amoral habitual criminal, society needs to deal with them properly and NOT try to turn our world into a padded cell as another member said recently. Imposing restrictions fit for criminals and lunatics on the general public results in a poorly functioning society and poor quality of life. That is pretty much the left's gun policy.

plinky said:

...
Banning guns which are commonly used for lawful purposes and very seldom used in crime, strikes at the heart of the RKBA. It's not nibbling around the edges. If that gun can be banned, any of them can.
...
After the Heller ruling, a ban on commonly owned guns would seem to be on shaky ground at best.

Click to expand...

Don't be too sure of current court precedents. We have just recently had AWB laws declined review and language in Heller specifically sites dangerous weapons being ok to ban. All the mass shooting coverage makes potentially convincing arguments ARs could be viewed as dangerous and unneeded for personal protection (the rulings dont say anything about hunting or target shooting).

"dangerous weapons" oxymoron anyone ?

Gordon said:

"dangerous weapons" oxymoron anyone ?

Click to expand...

I think that would be a "non-dangerous weapon"...?

illinoisburt said:

Don't be too sure of current court precedents. We have just recently had AWB laws declined review and language in Heller specifically sites dangerous weapons being ok to ban. All the mass shooting coverage makes potentially convincing arguments ARs could be viewed as dangerous and unneeded for personal protection (the rulings dont say anything about hunting or target shooting).

Click to expand...

That would be the argument for a ban of course. It would depend on the makeup of the Court.

The Court could easily cite bans on dangerous weapons to uphold bans on most firearms...because they are supposed to be dangerous.

Weapons which would be overly dangerous are those which are not appropriate for lawful purposes. Explosives, area fire weapons, etc, because they are less selective and truly designed for the battlefield. A semi-auto firearm is just as controllable and selective as any other common type.

Heller did not rule on "assault weapons" but what was written regarding handguns and the general type of weapons protected seems to fit the AR to a tee. One exception might be openly carrying one in public. Like the headsman's axe example, it might be seen as overly threatening. It is very unusual to see people carrying a rifle...because it's not very practical. A person might reasonably get the suspicion that if you are carrying a rifle, you plan to use it. A lot of states already ban open carry of long guns.

Chose I had no reason to read, only reply, after seeing this; AR’s kind of suck

Gordon said:

"dangerous weapons" oxymoron anyone ?

Click to expand...

I think you mean redundancy not oxymoron.