Are AR-15's really necessary?

[HOOfan_1]

I saw one that said "Until we can have a rational discussion on guns in this country, guns will continue to strangle democracy."

how exactly are random acts of violence strangling democracy? The take take take of the antis is strangling liberty.

Guns are here to preserve liberty. The founding fathers made sure of that. The antis and their lackies in government would do well to remember that, and think hard about the consequences of chipping away at liberty.

They call the NRA a radical group. At least the NRA has a basis in the established for their stance. The antis only have their take take take mentality. The antis are the fringe radicals...not the NRA.

The antis complain about America's "sick gun fetish". Where is the outcry about America's "sick golf fetish"? There are people just as enamored with that past time which I don't understand, as I am with my guns. At least my right to my guns is spelled out in the Bill of Rights. I don't see any right to golf in there.

Nope, I am not preparing, nor willing to give up my ARs. In fact I am preparing and willing to insist on reducing restrictions on other weapons.

If I don't need it then the police don't need it. Pretty sure many of the authors of the Bill of Rights would say the Military doesn't need it either.

 

[Dreamliner787]

It's not a matter whether necessary or not, but the right to own and the reason for the 2nd admendment. They didn't question to limit or restrict the 2nd admendment when it was written, no need to do now.

 

[tuj]

US v. Miller:

"In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a 'shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length' at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument."

 

[Sgt.Murtaugh]

I love being educated in these threads. It's why I come here. I never knew the .223 penetration statistics as they compared to handguns. This is enough to make me reconsider my home defense setup.

 

[Certaindeaf]

.Necessary is not the criteria that freedom is looking to satisfy..

That rung well to me.
Maybe in preparation, we should re-write the Star-Spangled Banner.. "the laand of the necessary, and..". Sing it! ugh

 

[coloradokevin]

To the OP:

You may not see a "need" for your AR-15, at least as it pertains to defending your home. But, that doesn't mean that others don't see a need for theirs. Moreover, you need to research your ammo choices before deciding that an AR-15 over penetrates. I'd be more worried about your shotgun in this instance.

We use AR-15s as patrol rifles in my police department. I attended a wound ballistics seminar through my agency a few years ago, which demonstrated the fact that the ammo we were carrying at the time penetrated less than our handguns in many instances. We've switched to a more effective ammo now, which penetrates slightly more than the handguns, but still within the recommended 12-18" range. On the other hand, the shotgun slugs just went sailing right through the gelatin blocks, even after being shot through intermediate barriers.

All of this aside, I don't feel that I need to defend my desire to own an AR-15 anymore than I need to defend my desire to own a nail gun or a toaster oven. Some people may not think it is necessary for us to own these guns, but I can tell you a dozen different ways that I use mine. And, other guns could probably be used in each of these cases... just like a hammer could replace a nail gun, and a toaster or oven could replace a toaster oven.

 

[HOOfan_1]

US v. Miller:

Judicial review wasn't exactly written into the Constitution to begin with. The Supreme Court is just as capable of being WRONG as the President or legislature.

However, I would say that allowing the AR-15 has a much more "reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia".

 

[happygeek]

I will do anything that you are prepared to do to make sure my AR's remain safe and sound in my possession. Anything legal, that is.

What the founding fathers did was illegal. What the militia did at Lexington & Concord was illegal. The slaves who fled the South for a free state were breaking the law. Those that aided them were too.

To cite a more recent example, the movement for equal rights broke some laws on purpose too, the sit-in for example (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sit_in#Civil_Rights_Movement).

Is what's legal your only guide?

 

[gym]

You just never know, what seems real today could change tomorrow. Better to have and not need that the other way. If the worst case senario ever happens, I will have the best tool "in general" for the job. If not, I have spent more in a good restaurant for a lot less.

 

[Ky Larry]

Not everyone is financially able to own seperate guns for all occasions. The AR platform can be used for varmint controll, home defence, target shooting, and, in .308. can take almost any game animal in North America. If my finances limited me to only one gun, I'd probably choose an AR. The platform is just too handy for too many people to let it be banned.

On a broader view, the gungrabbers couldn't care less about AR/AKs, hand guns, or high cap mags. They want to bann all firearms. The banning of any firearm is just the first step in total confiscation of all guns.This is exactly what's mean by "Give 'em an inch and they'll take a mile."

 

[Ky Larry]

Not everyone is financially able to own seperate guns for all occasions. The AR platform can be used for varmint controll, home defence, target shooting, and, in .308. can take almost any game animal in North America. If my finances limited me to only one gun, I'd probably choose an AR. The platform is just too handy for too many people to let it be banned.

On a broader view, the gungrabbers couldn't care less about AR/AKs, hand guns, or high cap mags. They want to bann all firearms. The banning of any firearm is just the first step in total confiscation of all guns.This is exactly what's mean by "Give 'em an inch and they'll take a mile."

 

[Cosmoline]

AR-15's are a nearly ideal home defense firearm. They're easy to customize and mount lights on, very user-friendly and in spite of the pop culture nonsense, the 5.56 will not shoot through schools. If you use a light FMJ or heavier SP/HP, expansion or outright detonation will occur in defensive range shots. That means no or minimal overpenetration.

In contrast, a .357 slug out of a snub will shoot through multiple doors, interior walls and even exterior walls without stopping. A super high velocity 5.56 round will not hold together nearly that long. Only AP would and obviously you aren't using AP for that.

 

[Eric M]

Yes

 

[HoosierQ]

I've got some 60 grain HD hollowpoints loaded up in a mag at home. A Glock 17 is my primary HD weapon and another, a 19 is my CCW because they are handier. But I have a mag loaded up with 30 of the 60 grain hollow points. I wish I could remember what they are. I don't think they're Hornady because they don't have polymer tips. But they are made to break up quickly in wall board, doors, thick glass, etc. Low penetration and not overly hot but they work well in my 20" A2 style. The A2 style doesn't lend itself for HD due to LOA but an M4 style would.

 

[AlexanderA]

The AR-15 is the civilian-legal version of America's standard military weapon. It gives the population, on an individual basis, near-parity with the armed forces.

The Second Amendment is not about "sporting purposes." It's about guaranteeing the people the means to resist threats to their lives and freedoms. Remember, the entire population is the "militia."

That's why AR-15's are necessary.

 

[hso]

Sgt.Murtaugh,

The assumption that the AR rounds will overpenetrate less than your pistol has been shown to be incorrect. Check the tests done at BoxOTruth showing pistol rounds penetrate building materials greater than standard 5.56. I can personally add that friends and I ran these same sorts of tests years ago and found the 5.56 to be the least penetrating in standard interior wall construction. Those facts alone should allow you to objectively reevaluate your reasons for why you might choose different weapons for HD than you've chosen, but certainly they explain why I and so many others have chosen the AR for HD.

If you still think that you'd be willing to sacrifice your AR to the Antis and by supporting that decision sacrifice OUR ARs to the antis, in spite of the proof they're safer in homes to use than pistols, understand that the most dedicated Antis will not stop at my AR until they have Your pistols too. Please think about this oft quoted statement from Pastor Martin Niemöller's.

First they came for the communists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a communist.

Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a trade unionist.

Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a Jew.

Then they came for me
and there was no one left to speak out for me.

The people that you think can be appeased by throwing AR/AK owners to can not be appeased at all. It only whets their appetite for more because each "victory" we hand them allows them to claim justification for their desire to remove if not all, but nearly all firearm access to most Americans. The threat they claim exists to everyone is the same sort of Big Lie used over and over to gain power over your and my lives. These folks may be satisfied when all guns are restricted as they are in California, New Jersey and Illinois, but do you want those restrictions put on all of us when there's absolutely no statistical basis for that sacrifice?

 

[rainbowbob]

I do, however, understand where antis are coming from

OK, I'll bite: Where are they coming from? Seriously. Are you suggesting they have a rational argument for banning AR-15s that you understand (even if you disagree)? If so please, explain it for the rest of us.

There is such thing as a gun-nut (like myself) who doesn't blindly spew NRA talking points.

The use of the pejorative "spew" indicates your distaste for the talking points made by the NRA. Can you explain the points you disagree with and why?

I guess I understand some of the public backlash against AR's.

Again, if you really understand the "public backlash against ARs", perhaps you can explain them to those of us who don't.

 

[Warp]

I've got some 60 grain HD hollowpoints loaded up in a mag at home. A Glock 17 is my primary HD weapon and another, a 19 is my CCW because they are handier. But I have a mag loaded up with 30 of the 60 grain hollow points. I wish I could remember what they are. I don't think they're Hornady because they don't have polymer tips. But they are made to break up quickly in wall board, doors, thick glass, etc. Low penetration and not overly hot but they work well in my 20" A2 style. The A2 style doesn't lend itself for HD due to LOA but an M4 style would.

Sounds like a round with a below-average chance of stopping an attacker.

 

[JustinJ]

From a practical stance, no, AR's are not necessary. Everything they do in the civilian world can be accomplished with something else. Those who think an AR with 16" barrel makes the ideal home defense weapon should try firing one indoors sometime. Actually, don't because you will experience permanent hearing damage and temporary loss of sight if done in the dark. Smoke detectors will go off but that's not a problem as you won't be able to hear anything anyways. Unless run with a sound suppressor you better make the first shot count because it will be hard to make another so disoriented.

While i do believe we should have a right to own them i do at least acknowledge there is a downside to society by their presence as we just witnessed. There are in fact down sides to most liberties but i believe the costs are worth it. Nor do i believe my rights should be taken for the actions of a very small few.

What i do wonder though is how many would change their opinion had it been one of their loved ones killed at this shooting.

 

[Warp]

From a practical stance, no, AR's are not necessary. Everything they do in the civilian world can be accomplished with something else. Those who think an AR with 16" barrel makes the ideal home defense weapon should try firing one indoors sometime. Actually, don't because you will experience permanent hearing damage and temporary loss of sight if done in the dark. Smoke detectors will go off but that's not a problem as you won't be able to hear anything anyways. Unless run with a sound suppressor you better make the first shot count because it will be hard to make another so disoriented.

While i do believe we should have a right to own them i do at least acknowledge there is a downside to society by their presence as we just witnessed. There are in fact down sides to most liberties but i believe the costs are worth it. Nor do i believe my rights should be taken for the actions of a very small few.

What i do wonder though is how many would change their opinion had it been one of their loved ones killed at this shooting.

Not only that, but don't forget the positives. One of the ways antis argue is by picking a select few negative events and focusing solely on them, ignoring any and all positives. Weigh the pros against the cons and, oftentimes, you don't even need to go to the "liberties have some downsides" talk because the liberty in question has a net positive impact on society.

 

[12131]

The antis have only a singular goal, and that is the eventual complete ban of private firearm ownership. It's unbelievable to me that there so many gun owners who are so naive to think they (the antis) only want to ban certain guns. Quite sad.

 

[SilentStalker]

Wow, I cannot believe what I have read by the OP. This is scary. I will write my response when I get home tonight.

 

[medalguy]

The issue has been raised about what do we do if the government comes around to collect all the guns. Seems to me this happened once before, and this quote kinda puts this issue in perspective:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

 

[Coop45]

First they came for the communists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a communist.
Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a trade unionist.
Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a Jew.
Then they came for me
and there was no one left to speak out for me.

 

[ns66]

i don't know what's so special about ar-15 compared to other semi-auto long guns, they all shoot bullets

necessary is very hard to define, gun didn't exist for thousands of years yet world population grown and we lived fine and today most nations without guns they are doing fine as well, but so are cars and computers