Are AR-15's really necessary?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Is a Big Gulp necessary? Salt on your food? Having the right to make choices about your own health and children's education? How about your right to work and enjoy the fruits of your labor without having it confiscated and distributed to the interests of a few elected officials? Is your right to defend yourself and your family important?
I don't see how something being a necessity has anything to do with this debate. There are hundreds of things I have that you may not consider a necessity. This does not give you or anyone else the right to take them. Nor do I have a right to take anything from you.
What all are you willing to give up?
Note that none of the trolls are willing to give up their place under the bridge, where they hope to ambush the Three Billy Goats Gruff.:D
 
The AR-15 is a battle rifle. Unless your going to war, it would make a poor self defense choice, but...... WHO CARES? We all have the right to own an AR-15 or any other gun we choose. We DON"T need to prove that to ANYONE.
This is the common misconception among the uneducated. This rifle is one of the best platforms for SD, Yote hunting, and Pdog hunting. It is also a geat hunting rifle in general. I think the guys including myself that shoot 3 gun would be mad as hell if the AR was not an option.
 
The AR 15 is not a battle rifle..the m16 is a battle rifle...the AR 15 is just a look alike....no different than putting an archangel kit on a 10/22..the 10/22 is semi auto u can make it look like an assualt rifle so does that make it a battle rifle...nope
 
Oh, what's a battle rifle? The Turks used good ol' lever action guns from the USA and cleaned the Russians clock with them, IIRC.

Bolt guns - Mausers, Springfields, Enfields, Krags, Mosins?

The AR isn't a battle rifle because it's a semi - Garand, anyone.

The term is ridiculous. Battle rifle is a perjorative term for anti PR purposes. The Abrams is a battle vehicle as compared to my Corolla. I grant you that.
 
406371_4406140439812_406024155_n.jpg


These are two of my firearms. Which one do you think is the weapon of war from a battlefield, and which one will never see combat? Which one fought through some of the bloodiest battles in human history and which one punches holes in paper on the weekends? Which one mounts a bayonet able to run a man completely through the torso and which mounts a medium size camping knife? Which one has a buttplate that can (and possibly has) cracked skulls open and which one would collapse if you tried such a thing? Which one has sights calibrated for volley fire out past half a mile and which one is good for about 400 meters tops? Which one likely already been used to take human life, and which one likely never will? Which one was used in battles where over 2,000 soldiers per day were killed for months on end, and which one has a history of fun plinking? Which model introduced a new era in human carnage, and which model helped reduce back problems?
 
Last edited:
Very good post, Cosmoline.

GEM, I think the term "battle rifle" tends towards a rifle that is intended to fire one round at the target at a time. Even though it is capable of full-auto, the M-14 is a "battle rifle" because it's generally used in semi-automatic. I don't think the M-16 or M-4 are a battle rifle, because I attribute that term to a medium-power weapon, not a light weapon like these. I would consider them to be "assault rifles". The AR-15 doesn't really fit either category - it fires a light cartridge, and it isn't fully automatic.

Of course, this dichotomy is one I use in gaming, not really in real life.
 
Every time the anti-gunners say there needs to be some "common sense compromises," we lose some of our rights. Every. Time. They say "we want them all banned," we say "we want none of them banned," and the "compromise" is that something - not all, just one "little" thing - gets banned. And then they say it again, and again, and again...

How do you eat a whale?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top