Why own an AR-15?

[CitadelGrad]

The overriding question here isn't about AR-15s and whatnot, but it's how can we take care of our fellow citizens, even the ones with deep psychological issues? You can ban guns as much as you want, but the safest societies are the ones that look out for their fellow men. The difference between the US and other countries which have similar gun laws and lower death rates is cultural, not political.

I agree, but you can't change a culture overnight. As I said in my very first post on this, our society has proven that we are not responsible enough to have the unchecked freedom of keeping these sort of deadly weapons.

What is so egregious about working on mental health issue while at the same time limiting access to the most dangerous weapons? Why do they need to be mutually exclusive?

When you're talking about deadly weapons, you mean automobiles, right?

[biobengal]

"Why own an AR-15", summary:

grizzaholic: kill shit for kicks!
Gil: scared of bears.
SH: blah, blah, blah.
DD: 2nd ammendment, bitch.
Col: I have needs... who are you to question my needs?

[danefan]

I agree, but you can't change a culture overnight. As I said in my very first post on this, our society has proven that we are not responsible enough to have the unchecked freedom of keeping these sort of deadly weapons.

What is so egregious about working on mental health issue while at the same time limiting access to the most dangerous weapons? Why do they need to be mutually exclusive?

When you're talking about deadly weapons, you mean automobiles, right?

C'mon man. That's intellectual laziness. The vast benefits provided by motor vehicles in our society greatly outweigh the danger they pose. Despite that great benefit we still have pretty strict limits on automobile use. Size, weight, speed, etc.

Can you identify a benefit of large capacity magazine as great as the benefit of automobiles?

If not, it's apples and oranges in my mind.

[DSUrocks07]

When you're talking about deadly weapons, you mean automobiles, right?

C'man man. That's intellectual laziness. The vast benefits provided by motor vehicles in our society greatly outweigh the danger they pose. Despite that great benefit we still have pretty strict limits on automobile use. Size, weight, speed, etc.

Can you identify a benefit of large capacity magazine as great as the benefit of automobiles?

If not, it's apples and oranges in my mind.

Protecting one's self against multiple intruders/assailants than just a single one? I would weigh the value of one's life to be more than the value of being able to get around easily. But that's just me...

[danefan]

C'man man. That's intellectual laziness. The vast benefits provided by motor vehicles in our society greatly outweigh the danger they pose. Despite that great benefit we still have pretty strict limits on automobile use. Size, weight, speed, etc.

Can you identify a benefit of large capacity magazine as great as the benefit of automobiles?

If not, it's apples and oranges in my mind.

Protecting one's self against multiple intruders/assailants than just a single one? I would weigh the value of one's life to be more than the value of being able to get around easily. But that's just me...

Cars don't just let us get around easily. They literally save lives. How man people would die if we didn't have vehicles to transport our ill in short order?

Not to mention the huge impact on our economy. Our country wouldn't be anywhere near where it is today without rapid movement provided by motor vehicles.

I'd love see anything other than irrational fear to support a need to protect yourself against multiple intruders. Scarface was a movie.

[Col Hogan]

By your question you indicate to me that you disapprove and most likely will dismiss any answer I give as inadequate due the needs of the many...

I shoot competitions based around (among other things) a 30 round standard military magazine...

I consider that very legitimate as it is a stress reliever for me and I enjoy it...you might or might not, but I won't judge that...

Col I respect you, but why can't you burn off stress without a 30 round magazine?

This is just my opinion, but I don't think stress relief is enough of a benefit to our society to outweigh the negatives. Maybe I'm just lost in this somehow.

How many kids get killed if he had to reload after 3 shots? I don't know. Maybe 10 less? Maybe 1?

Is it really worth it to even take this risk in our society?

After three shots? Is that what you want?

And, yes, I relieve stress many ways...like right now with a good scotch...or with my grandson tomorrow...

Now, I'll propose a test for you...I'll shoot three rounds...once I start reloading, you have 5 seconds to get to me from 10 feet...can you do it...remember, you are ducking to get out of the line of fire...you have to realize I've stopped...react and start moving..,.so, answer your own question of how many kids would have been saved if he had to reload...it's an academic exercise...

I understand that scared Americans are willing to put what ever limits on freedoms that makes them comfortable..like the TSA...mostly a feel good measure that doesn't really address the fear...

So, in a moment of pure greed, let me say I have what I want, so go ahead and ban away...but don't delude yourself that once you ban, say, 30 round mags, that evil is now back in its cage...all you have done is made criminals of honest people...

You and I have the same desire...my response implies greater freedom, and yours implies less freedom...
.

[danefan]

You and I have the same desire...my response implies greater freedom, and yours implies less freedom...
.

I don't disagree with that. I'm just willing to accept it in trade for what I think will result in an increase in safety.

[Col Hogan]

You and I have the same desire...my response implies greater freedom, and yours implies less freedom...
.

I don't disagree with that. I'm just willing to accept it in trade for what I think will result in an increase in safety.

Once you start trading, where do you stop?? That is my greatest fear...although we may have already gone too far to stop...

[CitadelGrad]

When you're talking about deadly weapons, you mean automobiles, right?

C'mon man. That's intellectual laziness. The vast benefits provided by motor vehicles in our society greatly outweigh the danger they pose. Despite that great benefit we still have pretty strict limits on automobile use. Size, weight, speed, etc.

Can you identify a benefit of large capacity magazine as great as the benefit of automobiles?

If not, it's apples and oranges in my mind.

Autos could be much safer. Is there any real reason to let 16 or 17-year olds drive? They tend to have a much higher accident rate a pose a greater threat to young children than older drivers.

Let's be clear about the purpose of the 2nd Amendment. It was not designed to protect the rights of hunters or target shooters. It was designed to deter governmental tyranny. In the event that deterrence fails, it's purpose is to give citizens a means by which they can resist the government or change to government through violence. Keeping that in mind, large capacity magazines are essential.

[∞∞∞]

Let's be clear about the purpose of the 2nd Amendment. It was not designed to protect the rights of hunters or target shooters. It was designed to deter governmental tyranny. In the event that deterrence fails, it's purpose is to give citizens a means by which they can resist the government or change to government through violence. Keeping that in mind, large capacity magazines are essential.

Let's be honest though, if the government decided to turn against the citizens and and soldiers took up the orders (which I doubt), I highly doubt we're gonna be able to physically stop the the strongest military in the world with AR-15s and whatever else we can already own. Having a means to protect yourself against the possible tyranny of the government may have been a legit reason in the late 1700s and 1800s, but I find it to be a fantasy today (and a wet dream for those who really hate the government).

That said, I'm obviously against banning weapons, but I'm certainly up for making it much harder to acquire and possess it by having to go through a periodical mental/safety/etc. test.

[Col Hogan]

Let's be clear about the purpose of the 2nd Amendment. It was not designed to protect the rights of hunters or target shooters. It was designed to deter governmental tyranny. In the event that deterrence fails, it's purpose is to give citizens a means by which they can resist the government or change to government through violence. Keeping that in mind, large capacity magazines are essential.

Let's be honest though, if the government decided to turn against the citizens and and soldiers took up the orders (which I doubt), I highly doubt we're gonna be able to physically stop the the strongest military in the world with AR-15s and whatever else we can already own. Having a means to protect yourself against the possible tyranny of the government may have been a legit reason in the late 1700s and 1800s, but I find it to be a fantasy today (and a wet dream for those who really hate the government).

That said, I'm obviously against banning weapons, but I'm certainly up for making it much harder to acquire and possess it by having to go through a periodical mental/safety/etc. test.

And I feel voters need to prove they are knowledgable enough to wield the great power the ballot possess...

And I think members of the media need to be licensed, with annual renewal to include an ethics test...

Why limit one right, and let others alone???

[CID1990]

You should probably remember that purpose of the 2nd Amendment is not to protect hunters' rights.

What do you think the difference is between an AR-15 and any other semi-automatic rifle that fires a .22 round? Why do you focus on the AR-15?

You are correct that the 2nd Amendment is not for hunting. Its for well maintianed militias. I don't think many people fall into that. The Supreme Court ruled otherwise.

Like I said. I am for gun ownership. Just looking for where you draw the line with types of guns you can own. is it an AR-15? .50 cal sniper rifle? Fully automatic machine guns? Gattling guns?

Everybody falls into that category. You, me, everybody.

You scoff at the idea, but the entire Bill of Rights was based in a healthy mistrust of government. We do not swear to uphold and defend the government against all enemies foreign and DOMESTIC, we swear to uphold and defend the CONSTITUTION. Most people do not think that Obama is suddenly going to start throwing people in camps. The idea of an armed citizenry is an ongoing protection against any government that would seek to preserve itself through abrogating the Constitution. This has happened all over the world, hundreds if times since our founders conceived our document. Do not be so naive as to think that it can never happen here.

As for the AR-15 or any other weapon- hundreds of thousands of Americans own them without incident. An outright ban is not the way to keep them out of the hands of those exceedingly rare cases who would use them to do harm.

[Pwns]

Let's be honest though, if the government decided to turn against the citizens and and soldiers took up the orders (which I doubt), I highly doubt we're gonna be able to physically stop the the strongest military in the world with AR-15s and whatever else we can already own. Having a means to protect yourself against the possible tyranny of the government may have been a legit reason in the late 1700s and 1800s, but I find it to be a fantasy today (and a wet dream for those who really hate the government).

That said, I'm obviously against banning weapons, but I'm certainly up for making it much harder to acquire and possess it by having to go through a periodical mental/safety/etc. test.

Not saying that it's an overly likely scenario, but if the federal government were to truly turn on the people, there would be many in the military who would side with the insurrection. And in that case an armed militia of civilians that are crudely trained could turn the tide.

Also, guns in homes certainly can act as a deterrent against a government that would become completely arbitrary with its searches and seizures.

[Col Hogan]

Let's be honest though, if the government decided to turn against the citizens and and soldiers took up the orders (which I doubt), I highly doubt we're gonna be able to physically stop the the strongest military in the world with AR-15s and whatever else we can already own. Having a means to protect yourself against the possible tyranny of the government may have been a legit reason in the late 1700s and 1800s, but I find it to be a fantasy today (and a wet dream for those who really hate the government).

That said, I'm obviously against banning weapons, but I'm certainly up for making it much harder to acquire and possess it by having to go through a periodical mental/safety/etc. test.

Not saying that it's an overly likely scenario, but if the federal government were to truly turn on the people, there would be many in the military who would side with the insurrection. And in that case an armed militia of civilians that are crudely trained could turn the tide.

Also, guns in homes certainly can act as a deterrent against a government that would become completely arbitrary with its searches and seizures.

From 1946...not that distant in the past

http://voxvocispublicus.homestead.com/B ... thens.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

"On 2 August 1946, some Americans, brutalized by their county government, used armed force to overturn it. These Americans wanted honest, open elections. For years they had asked for state or Federal election monitors to prevent vote fraud -- forged ballots, secret ballot counts, and intimidation by armed sheriff's deputies -- by the local political boss. They got no help.

These Americans' absolute refusal to knuckle-under had been hardened by service in World War II. Having fought to free other countries from murderous regimes, they rejected vicious abuse by their county government. These Americans had a choice. Their state's Constitution - Article 1, Section 26 - recorded their right to keep and bear arms for the common defense. Few "gun control" laws had been enacted."

http://constitution.org/mil/tn/batathen.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[DSUrocks07]

Let's be honest though, if the government decided to turn against the citizens and and soldiers took up the orders (which I doubt), I highly doubt we're gonna be able to physically stop the the strongest military in the world with AR-15s and whatever else we can already own. Having a means to protect yourself against the possible tyranny of the government may have been a legit reason in the late 1700s and 1800s, but I find it to be a fantasy today (and a wet dream for those who really hate the government).

That said, I'm obviously against banning weapons, but I'm certainly up for making it much harder to acquire and possess it by having to go through a periodical mental/safety/etc. test.

Not saying that it's an overly likely scenario, but if the federal government were to truly turn on the people, there would be many in the military who would side with the insurrection. And in that case an armed militia of civilians that are crudely trained could turn the tide.

Also, guns in homes certainly can act as a deterrent against a government that would become completely arbitrary with its searches and seizures.

The benefits of an all volunteer military force.

Sent from my VM670 using Tapatalk 2

[death dealer]

Let's be honest though, if the government decided to turn against the citizens and and soldiers took up the orders (which I doubt), I highly doubt we're gonna be able to physically stop the the strongest military in the world with AR-15s and whatever else we can already own. Having a means to protect yourself against the possible tyranny of the government may have been a legit reason in the late 1700s and 1800s, but I find it to be a fantasy today (and a wet dream for those who really hate the government).

That said, I'm obviously against banning weapons, but I'm certainly up for making it much harder to acquire and possess it by having to go through a periodical mental/safety/etc. test.

Not saying that it's an overly likely scenario, but if the federal government were to truly turn on the people, there would be many in the military who would side with the insurrection. And in that case an armed militia of civilians that are crudely trained could turn the tide.

Also, guns in homes certainly can act as a deterrent against a government that would become completely arbitrary with its searches and seizures.

Very unlikely to happen, almost impossible. But if it did, you'd see mass desertions and insurrection. I can't see the military backing an outright overthrow of the system, which is the only way you could get anywhere near the scenario where a citizen militia would become necessary.

Again, could conceivably happen I guess, but I don't see it.

[AZGrizFan]

Let's be clear about the purpose of the 2nd Amendment. It was not designed to protect the rights of hunters or target shooters. It was designed to deter governmental tyranny. In the event that deterrence fails, it's purpose is to give citizens a means by which they can resist the government or change to government through violence. Keeping that in mind, large capacity magazines are essential.

Let's be honest though, if the government decided to turn against the citizens and and soldiers took up the orders (which I doubt), I highly doubt we're gonna be able to physically stop the the strongest military in the world with AR-15s and whatever else we can already own. Having a means to protect yourself against the possible tyranny of the government may have been a legit reason in the late 1700s and 1800s, but I find it to be a fantasy today (and a wet dream for those who really hate the government).

That said, I'm obviously against banning weapons, but I'm certainly up for making it much harder to acquire and possess it by having to go through a periodical mental/safety/etc. test.

Even if they ultimately prevailed, the potential bloodshed and body count alone is enough of a deterrent. And that deterrent is removed if guns are made illegal.

[AZGrizFan]

You are correct that the 2nd Amendment is not for hunting. Its for well maintianed militias. I don't think many people fall into that. The Supreme Court ruled otherwise.

Like I said. I am for gun ownership. Just looking for where you draw the line with types of guns you can own. is it an AR-15? .50 cal sniper rifle? Fully automatic machine guns? Gattling guns?

Everybody falls into that category. You, me, everybody.

You scoff at the idea, but the entire Bill of Rights was based in a healthy mistrust of government. We do not swear to uphold and defend the government against all enemies foreign and DOMESTIC, we swear to uphold and defend the CONSTITUTION. Most people do not think that Obama is suddenly going to start throwing people in camps. The idea of an armed citizenry is an ongoing protection against any government that would seek to preserve itself through abrogating the Constitution. This has happened all over the world, hundreds if times since our founders conceived our document. Do not be so naive as to think that it can never happen here.

As for the AR-15 or any other weapon- hundreds of thousands of Americans own them without incident. An outright ban is not the way to keep them out of the hands of those exceedingly rare cases who would use them to do harm.

[JohnStOnge]

Because you want to. Not me. I don't particularly want one. But some people do. And if we really stuck to the language and original understanding of the second Amendment we'd say the Federal government is prohibited from telling you you CAN'T own one. The fact that the Supreme Court says something really only means that as a practical matter we have to live by it. Supreme Court decisions are most certainly NOT consistently reliable indications of what the Constitution says or how given language was understood and intended when it was generated. And I don't think any Supreme Court Justice would say that they are. In the world view of most of those who have served in that capacity, that's not how it's supposed to be.

Anyway, I think gun ownership rights people fall into an unnecessary trap when they start trying to give a "reason" for owning a particular type of record other than that they want to and the Constitution really says that they have a right to. The question should be why one would say you do NOT have a right to. Because somebody else might get one and do something wrong? What does that have to do with YOU? Why should YOU be denied a right the Framers thought was important for you to have because somebody ELSE might do something?

[Gil Dobie]

"Why own an AR-15", summary:

grizzaholic: kill **** for kicks!
Gil: scared of bears.
SH: blah, blah, blah.
DD: 2nd ammendment, bitch.
Col: I have needs... who are you to question my needs?

Respect for bears and common sense in the woods when there may be wounded animals in the area.

[Gil Dobie]

"Why own an AR-15", summary:

grizzaholic: kill **** for kicks!
Gil: scared of bears.
SH: blah, blah, blah.
DD: 2nd ammendment, bitch.
Col: I have needs... who are you to question my needs?

Respect for bears and common sense in the woods when there may be wounded animals in the area.

What is your perspective on owning an AR-15?

[JohnStOnge]

Let's be honest though, if the government decided to turn against the citizens and and soldiers took up the orders (which I doubt), I highly doubt we're gonna be able to physically stop the the strongest military in the world with AR-15s and whatever else we can already own. Having a means to protect yourself against the possible tyranny of the government may have been a legit reason in the late 1700s and 1800s, but I find it to be a fantasy today (and a wet dream for those who really hate the government).

That said, I'm obviously against banning weapons, but I'm certainly up for making it much harder to acquire and possess it by having to go through a periodical mental/safety/etc. test.

Maybe that wouldn't be the case if the Courts has not whittled away at the right and allowed the Federal government to ban ownership of certain weapons. The right was to "keep and bear arms." It wasn't just guns.

I understand why people would say they're glad the Courts did that. Like, nuclear weapons are "arms." So on and so forth. Not sure anybody would want for anybody who could afford to and who knew how to set them off to be able to buy nuclear weapons if they could find someone willing to sell them to them.

But I think that's what it meant. I don't think it meant just guns, or just certain types of guns. I think it meant cannons and whatever else was available at the time. I don't think they wanted for the Federal government to be able to exclude the most effective weapons. The whole Bill of Rights was specifically about setting out what the Federal Government could NOT do. Whatever else one might say about the second Amendment, it was in there because it was thought important to say the Federal government would NOT have a monopoly on military weapons.

And we're obviously a long, long way away from that situation.

[eagleskins]

Because you can't fight.

[BDKJMU]

You should probably remember that purpose of the 2nd Amendment is not to protect hunters' rights.

What do you think the difference is between an AR-15 and any other semi-automatic rifle that fires a .22 round? Why do you focus on the AR-15?

You are correct that the 2nd Amendment is not for hunting. Its for well maintianed militias.I don't think many people fall into that. The Supreme Court ruled otherwise.

Like I said. I am for gun ownership. Just looking for where you draw the line with types of guns you can own. is it an AR-15? .50 cal sniper rifle? Fully automatic machine guns? Gattling guns?

In the 18th century "we'll regulated militia" meant proficient in arms. You need to read it through an 18th century lens, not a 21st century one.

[YoUDeeMan]

Because you can't fight.

Because YOU can't think.