Why do you need an AR? My answer is,

[geekWithA.45]

What's sillier?

The premise that Citizens don't need modern, militarily pedigree rifles, or

The premise that any government can be rendered permanently benevolent?

 

[cfullgraf]

Most of my AR platform rifles are long, heavy barrel hunting rifles. Not something easy to carry or conceal. Good for hunting furry varmints and predators from fixed positions.

They shoot wonderfully, are very accurate, and I prefer to shoot them over a bolt rifle.

It is too bad they get lumped into the assault rifle category with the mall ninjas' M4geries just because they are semi-automatic rifles with detachable magazines and pistol grips.

 

[Skribs]

Well, the anti's say we don't need "weapons of war" (I know the AR-15 is the civilian version, but bear with me), but the Founding Fathers made it clear in their papers that in order to deter defend against invasion or tyranny, the people need to be armed with weapons of war.

Why do we need these "high powered assault weapons that enable lunatics to mow down innocent kids?" Because the features that make a weapon attractive for mass murderers also make them attractive for self defense...a use that the Supreme Court has upheld. Ease-of-use, lightweight, low-recoil, high capacity makes for a good option for your 16-year-old daughter when she's home by herself and four guys break in through the back door. I'll also point out that (if it were possible to make criminals follow the law) reducing the legally-available features is a bigger issue for your "prepared enough" citizen than for your prepared attacker. The citizen limited to 10 rounds will have 10 rounds in the gun instead of 15. The attacker will have so many loaded magazines in his backpack that it's a non-issue. So when someone says a law will stop crime or reduce the number killed in a spree, but it will not affect the citizen defending itself, call bravo sierra on the spot.

Why do we need the same weapons that the police use? Because we fight the same criminals, except we are the ones caught by surprise and we are the ones without backup. Most of the time, the police respond after the crime has been commited, and are more focused on enforcing the law that was broken instead of preventing it from occuring. The supreme court has held that the police doesn't have a specific duty to protect any individual, only I have the responsibility for myself.

Why do we need weapons with no "legitimate hunting or sporting purpose"? Well, the idea that hunting/sporting purposes are the only legitimate reason to own a weapon ignores what the Founding Fathers meant with the 2A, and the semi-neutered version that the Supreme Court gives us today: protection. However, these weapons are used every day in hunting, due to their innate accuracy and the ergonomics of the platform. These are used in target and action shooting competitions, giving them a legitimate sporting use. To say they have no use in these fields, and therefore have no use, shows such ignorance on every level of the argument.

 

[we are not amused]

Actually, the AR-15 in the .223/5.56 cal. is a very effective self deference weapon, and is my weapon of choice for home defense.

The .223 cal bullet does not penetrate multiple walls of sheet rock well, make it far safer to use in a multi-occupancy building, or even a single home, especially in an urban setting. Yet it has good stopping power over virtually any hand gun made.

 

[Archaic]

Why does Jay Leno needs so many fast cars? Why does A-Rod date supermodels? Why isn't a five gallon bucket of Legos enough for my kid? Why does my wife need the patent leather boots with the zippers all the way up to ... well, you get the point.

The reason is because we do. Pretty simple, just BECAUSE.

 

[rust collector]

Well, for beginners they're light, pleasant to shoot, reliable, serviceable, accurate and readily modified for different objectives. They are infinitely adaptable in terms of sights, configuration, equipment and furniture. In fact, the biggest problem banners seem to have with them is that they seem to work well.

If they would just tune into the gun boards, they would learn that they're good only for shooting poodles.

 

[76shuvlinoff]

Why can't I have the same firepower as the guys with the body armor I just called to come save my ass? I might as well have something to do while I wait... and wait.

 

[hAkron]

http://www.guncite.com/gc2ndbog.html

 

[RockyMtnTactical]

We need AR15's and other rifles like that because that is what the 2nd amendment is all about and every red blooded American needs to have a weapon to defend the homeland from enemies, foreign and domestic.

 

[Guy B. Meredith]

Best response is that there is no excuse to deny ANYTHING to individuals acting responsibly and causing no harm. They don't need justification--those who would deny freedoms need to be able to justify the restriction. In this case the reason for denying freedoms is based on bigotry and ignorance and not justifiable.

 

[aerostar]

Saw this on ARFCOM, and couldn't resist to share it here:

"I don't 'need' AR15 more than Rosa Parks 'needed' to sit in front of the bus"

Well, maybe a little bit too hard to get to the point for sweet babies.

 

[Hacker15E]

The last name is "Parks".

 

[dprice3844444]

if women can have multiple shoes,we should be able to have multiple ar's

 

[2nd 41]

I rarely mention I have an AR(or any firearm) for security reasons. But if I do
reply... the AR is a great, accurate shooter. I do enjoy shooting it at an outdoor range at 50-100 yards. I also have few hc mags but rarely use them. I prefer to load 5 rds and shoot more deliberately at the target.
I tend to respond... I do not need it. Just added it to the collection. Also try to explain it no different than any semi rifle....don't judge the book by the cover.

 

[aerostar]

The last name is "Parks".

Thanks, revised.

 

[jimbeaux82]

As a citizen of Louisiana, and a homeowner in New Orleans, I can tell you for a fact exactly when you "need" an AR, AK or FAL. It is when your home and family is threatened by a gang of 20 plus looters, robbers and rapists as many were in New Orleans and surrounding area at the time of Katrina. I have many friends who are alive today only because they had this type of weapon available to defend themselves and family during Katrina. You cannot defend yourself successfully against gangs with bolt action deer rifles, revolvers or double barrel shotguns. But even a single home owner with an AR plus 4-5 mags in has pocket has the ability to send the gangs away looking for softer targets.

Try telling these people that they did not need an AR.

 

[Rezin]

Lol, that's MY answer...

"Nope, I don't need an AR....I've got an AK."

 

[jmorris]

What a silly question. I am not going to live long enough to be able to shoot all of the ammunition I have stock piled with a simple bolt action.

 

[zastavaez9compact]

We need them because goverment has them

"I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies. If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around [the banks] will deprive the people of all property until their children wake-up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered. The issuing power should be taken from the banks and restored to the people, to whom it properly belongs."

Thomas Jefferson



The Federal Reserve Bank is Private

 

[j.kramer]

i dont need an ak i have an ar10

the original and still the best

 

[fredseviltwin]

I have no idea who wrote this but I like it!

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 typeprinting 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. 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.

 

[Steel Horse Rider]

Do you suppose they had these types of arguments when the technology changed from smoothbores to rifled bores, when they changed from flint to percussion caps, or when they changed from muzzle stuffers to breach loaded cartridges? Each of these advances made a huge difference in the lethality of one man with a weapon, but the pants wetting crowd was not in abundance yet......

 

[fredseviltwin]

I disagree on that point, there have always been those that have been believers in non violence.
I don't believe, however, that the loud voices today calling for the destruction of the free use of arms, is truly the non-violence crowd .
The puppet masters would be enemies of "America" as founded. These people are bent on the destruction of a free republic. Stateists as Mark Levin labels them. Those that believe in government control rather than individual freedom!