AR-15: Let's have some debating points

[Alabama Shooter]

What struck me, was that my Fraternity Brother, who isn't necessarily anti-gun, but anti-scary looking guns, responded that by virtue of my military service I should be allowed to own whatever I wanted.

I hear that a lot and could not disagree more. I think it is wonderful that some people serve in the military but it do not think that should entitle them to special gun rights in private life. Many people can not serve for whatever reason. Does this mean they should be denied?

[PawPaw]

Let's not lose sight of the fact that in a great many minds, we don't even need to make the argument. We've been making it since 1968, and we've been winning steadily. Gun rights are stronger now in many states than they've been in many decades. We've won in the Courts, we've won in the state legislatures, we've won in the popular opinion.

The only folks pushing for a ban now are the mainstream media. And they're having to argue some fairly ridiculous points. One of th best roundups I've seen so far is over at Townhall magazine.

We don't need to argue among ourselves. Sit back, be calm and relax. This too will pass. Harry Reid's not going to let this get anywhere in the Senate, and the blue Representatives from Red states know that this is a sure way to lose their job. I don't see it happening, guys. Simply don't see the political will. Sure, they'll bang the drums and make a lot of noise, but there's nothing there but sound and fury.

It's hard to argue that 30 round magazines are bad, when the standard magazine for the AR is a 30-round magazine. Those aren't "HIGH CAPACITY", they're standard magazines. It's hard to argue that the AR is a "killing machine" when the vast majority of the American people know that is simply not the case, and the AR platform is one of the largest selling rifles in the US.

I am reminded of Macbeth: It is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.

[Justice06RR]

Defense, yes they could be used for. I'm not debating that. That's exactly what they were made for. Killing people.

Hunting, sure they can be used for hunting in the sense that they fire bullets and are capable of killing. But there are better guns for that. And 30 round mags just get in the way when accuracy is important. And I've never needed a semi-auto rifle to hunt with. And I don't know many that have.

Competition, sure I suppose they could be used for that, but competition is not a practical matter either.

Recreation, same as competition



I'm not against people owning them, I've said so plenty. I've shot them and thought it was cool, but I stand by my statement that the only thing they are really useful for killing people.

Your statements just don't add up.

Lets generalize: all guns are made to kill. If you can own the most effective tool to kill (for whatever reason i.e. self defense, hunting, military uses,etc) why would you not want the most effective tool there is?

It doesn't matter if you use a shotgun, pistol, bolt-action or AR15. All those firearms are made to kill. You are somehow saying that the AR15 is made to kill, when all other guns are made to kill. The AR15 is just a more effective tool in doing that. So why not?


The rest of your reasoning from hunting, competition, recreation is subjective. The AR15 is quite capable of doing all of that and more. I really don't see why you would not want an effective tool that can fulfill multiple tasks. If I can own a rifle I can use for SD/HD, hunting, recreation, and competition, you bet I'm using an AR15.

Now i'm not being biased. I own 2 bolt-action rifles, a shotgun, a 22lr rifle, and a handgun. The problem with those is that they are limited in their uses one way or another. The AR15 provides a good balance and middle-ground IMO.

[4runnerman]

I'm not against people owning them, I've said so plenty. I've shot them and thought it was cool, but I stand by my statement that the only thing they are really useful for killing people

Seems to me i saw a show about the accuracy and shooting one in full auto.
If i remember right hit ratio was down to like 30%. Umm Not to good at the killing people thing. I do not own one and the bug has not hit me yet either,But i do think they are a sport rifle as is the bolt and auto is. Therfore i group them as just that. This would be just a stepping stone for the anti-gunners to begin there mass assult on all guns. We need to stop them ASAP.
Stick up for your rights even if it is not a gun of your choice.

[spaniel]

"I hear that a lot and could not disagree more. I think it is wonderful that some people serve in the military but it do not think that should entitle them to special gun rights in private life. Many people can not serve for whatever reason. Does this mean they should be denied?"

The Univ of Texas tower shooter, the Ft Hood shooter....former and current military, respectively. I think I posted on here somewhere recently that in high school I had a pistol pointed at my head who later went into the Marines, came out, and was shortly in prison for crimes involving a firearm.

Kudos to our veterans but it's a flawed argument.

[Webleymkv]

I consider myself pro-gun. However, if AR's get banned I won't lose sleep because they aren't good for anything. There are better hunting rifles and better target rifles. They're made to kill people.

Let's look at this from a different angle. It could be argued that nearly all guns are made to kill people since the vast majority of firearms were originally designed or at the least derived from designs that were intended for use by the military. For example, a Winchester Model 70, which most people would look upon as a sporting rifle, is based heavily upon the Mauser 98 which was a military rifle designed and used extensively to kill people. Likewise, a Ruger No. 1 is based heavily upon the Martini-Henry which was the standard rifle of the British Empire for decades and thus used for killing lots of people. This is because the firearms industry has always catered heavily to the military because the military has always been among the largest and most lucrative customers.

Also, while not the most politically correct thing to say, "killing people" can be a valid purpose. No one seems to lose sleep when a soldier kills a terrorist with a gun or when a police officer kills a violent criminal with one, so why does the notion of an armed citizen killing a would-be rapist, murderer, or other violent attacker provoke a different reaction? According to the Supreme Court, the right to lawful self-defense is the central reason behind the Second Amendment and, as inconvenient or uncomfortable as the fact may be, lawful self-defense entails a fairly high likelihood of the aggressor being killed.

[tobnpr]

The Second Amendment provides the right to bear arms in defense of a tyrannical government. SCOTUS recently upheld this opinion, in confirming that the citizenry is a "militia"....

Think it can't happen here?
Who knows...
Might be the fact that there ARE several hundred million weapons here that has prevented any government from contemplating it.

If soldiers with M-16's come knocking at my door to confiscate my property some day, I want an AR-15 with 30 round clips to defend my property and my Constitutional rights.

Once you start whittling away at what we can, and cannot, own, where do you draw the line? Select fire weapons are already largely banned. What's next after 30 round mags? Ten round?

Will we eventually be relegated to single-shot, break-open .22 LR rifles?

Main point is, there are no FACTS, or STATISTICS, to back up the anti-Second Amendment loons....

If they had them, they might have a rational argument.

After the recent Florida case, the nutjobs came out in force. Facts be damned, they don't matter to them...

Violent, gun related crimes have DECREASED 50% in Florida since it became a shall-issue state.

'NUFF SAID?

[drail]

Banning an AR makes about as much sense as banning Hummers and Escalades because they kill more people and cause more damage than a Honda Civic or a Prius. Who really "needs" a Hummer? If soldiers with M 16s come knocking on my door to confiscate my property I want a crate full of Claymores. Much more effective than 5.56 rounds. None of this current noise is about "need". It's about "will". The 2nd Amm. is about limiting Government, not people or things.

[Ben Towe]

In say 1960: you had to be able to pass a simple eye test with or without corrrective lenses, . . . and a simple physical, . . . take a test and pass it for a chauffer's license, . . . and you were good to go with almost any truck, bus, or other vehicle you could get hired to drive. The employers were responsible, and did what they needed to do.

Today, . . . a license to drive a big rig in Ohio, . . . it'll cost you 4 grand, and a couple months of your life, etc. all because the gov't got it's fingers in the pie, . . . because some one who didn't know better opined "I'd like to see a more vigorous waiting period, where mental health is checked, and there are minimum standards that have to be met."

I can back this from experience. Only it cost me about $6,000, all said, and that was 5 years ago.

You want a real world experience in government regulation run amok, get your Class A license and climb behind the wheel of a road tractor. They change the Hours of Service regs every two weeks, it's now something like a $13,000 fine to talk on your cell phone while driving a CMV, and you've got to pull in a weigh station every hundred miles and jump through hoops for them. It's insane. So, before you give in to "reasonable" regulations, you better remember what we told you...

[Pilot]

Hardworker wrote:

I am simply calling a spade a spade. And yes, I also believe most pistols were made to kill people. I and many others use them to shoot bottles and stuff but that doesn't change why they were designed and built.

Guns don't know why they were designed and bulit only people do. You are deminizing an inanimate object that does not know intent, design, nor reason it is being used. Only people are concerned with these things. What difference does it make what something is designed to do without the intent, and use of an individual? AR-15's and other military looking semi auto rifles are used in a statisically insignificant amount of crime yet there are emotional cries for banning them.

SUV's, hammers, screw drivers, swimming pools, bath tubs, chainsaws, tall buildings, bridges, bolt action hunting rifles, etc have all been used to kill people. Those object cared not what they were designed to do yet still were able to kill. So, what's your point?

[Sport45]

Somebody does something bad with an object.

The answer? Take that object away from everyone who didn't do it.

Silly.

[carguychris]

SCOTUS recently upheld this opinion, in confirming that the citizenry is a "militia"....

I believe you are incorrect. Show me.

According to my reading, the Heller majority opinion clearly holds that the 2A protects a pre-existing common-law right to keep and bear arms independent of militia service, and that the militia clause simply clarifies that this right also applies to personally owned arms used by the militia. IOW the militia clause is meant to be incidental and explanatory, NOT to make the RKBA or 2A conditional. (See my prior posts.)

The general citizenry is defined as an "unorganized" militia by statute in order to give Congress the power to conduct a military draft, a power it otherwise lacks. Statute law does not give the unorganized militia any rights, privileges, or duties other than the duty to show up when drafted into active military service.

Violent, gun related crimes have DECREASED 50% in Florida since it became a shall-issue state.

Correlation does not imply causation. The jury is still out regarding whether shall-issue CHL laws directly lead to a decrease in crime.

I absolutely support such laws and believe they have been successful, but there are stronger arguments to support them than nebulous and debatable crime stats.

[22-rimfire]

I think the anti-gun agrument amounts to... if a child does something naughty with a toy and can not be reasoned with, you take away the toy.

Well, children aren't allowed to own AR's, AK's and so forth. You can reason with adults and it is clear from the homicide rate (and stats) that rifles are not the firearm of choice for criminals. They are essentially the same guns that have been used since John M Browning invented the self loading mechanism with a few modifications for sporting purposes.

IF the proposed legislation is about crime, then it misses the mark. If it is about restricting your 2A rights, it hits the mark. People should not stand for politicians trying to restrict their God given 2A rights. Governments all over the world have restricted firearm ownership claiming crime is the reason. The reality is that they restrict firearm ownership to concentrate their statist power over the people. Governments are not to be trusted to always have the people's interest as foremost in their minds.

[drail]

The absurdity of the "guns were made to kill people" argument still amazes me. The problem with that logic is that there are times when certain people desperately need to be killed. A gun is simply the most efficient tool for that purpose. Why do they accept the idea that law enforcement should have guns but not anyone else?

[kraigwy]

how is it more than a lethal toy?........ Other than, "I want it and I have the right", what argument would you put to a skeptical neutral?.......... They're thinking, "What harm would it do to ban these things?" Help make the case.

Try This;

US Law: Title 36 U. S. Code, 0701-40733

Created the Corporation for the Promotion of Rifle Practice and Firearms Safety, Inc. (CPRPFS, the formal legal name of the CMP) mandates these key “functions for the corporation: (this is actually a carry over from the DCM, Division of Civilian Marksmanship from the early 1900s.)

(1) To instruct citizens of the United States in marksmanship;

(2) To promote practice and safety in the use of firearms;

(3) To conduct competitions in the use of firearms and to award trophies, prizes, badges, and other insignia to competitors.

The law specifically states: In carrying out the Civilian Marksmanship Program, the corporation shall give priority to activities that benefit firearms safety, training, and competition for youth and that reach as many youth participants as possible.

The firearms used MUST be USGI Military issue or civilian equivalent. The law also directs the army to turn surplus military weapons over to the CMP to be sold to citizens of the US, to fund the CMP programs.

So in reality Congress commands the CMP to sell and instruct citizens (including kids) in the use of the same weapons they are trying to ban.

[drail]

Yes, but that's one of those "bad old antiquated" laws and must be circumvented. And they're always trying to figure how how to do that. And they've gotten pretty good at it. It's just "common sense", right?

[stevelyn]

Originally Posted by hardworker
Defense, yes they could be used for. I'm not debating that. That's exactly what they were made for. Killing people.

All guns were made for killing people. Every advancement made in small arms were motivated by trying to gain a military advantage.

Those precious bolt-action rifles the hunters hold near and dear? All begat from the Mauser 88 Commision rifle and refined in what became the 98 Mauser. It and it's derivatives were used to kill millions starting in the late 19th Century through the 20th and into the 21st. Every bolt gun made since 1898 was either a blatent copy or modified copy of it.

Step back to an earlier era. The lever-action repeater? That hunters also have a warm spot for? They were attempts at military small arms superiorority too. From the Henry rifle to the Winchester 1873 were arms companies attempts to gain a military advantage. Both Henry and later Winchestwer triesd to sell the army on repeaters....... for combat use.......to kill people with. The military didn't get them mainly due to the complicated mechanisms. However, most students of history are well aware that there were units in the Civil War armed with Henry repeaters and Spencer repeater.

Every weapon ever fashioned from a rock, to a spear, bow & arrow, sword dirk, dagger, sling to the powder burners were all originally designed to kill people. They also killed animal for food, clothing and protection.

So your arguement doesn't wash. An AR is no different from a Garand, from a Springfield, from a Mauser, from a Krag, from a Spencer, from a Winchester from a Henry. The only thing different is the operating mechanism and that's not new either. Semi-auto rifles and pistols have been in use for more than 100 years. It's just a part of the evolution that comes with technological advancement.

The 2nd Amendment exists to give us small arms parity with the standing military and govt forces.

[kraigwy]

All guns were made for killing people

Horse pucky.

My Super Match M1A was build for one thing. High Power Rifle Shooting, poking little holes in paper targets working me toward my distinguished rifle badge and got me there.

I had a Single barreled Ithaca trap gun, 34 inch barrel. Super tight choke, only good for breaking little clay targets.

Same with my Ithaca 600 only it was a double barreled skeet gun, only good for skeet shooting, neither of these guns even had safeties.

My model 70s, Featherweights, 257 Rbts and 270 Win. were designed for hunting not shooting people.

My 416 Rigby is not something one would pack tracking down people.

I have a Model 52 S&W wad cutter gun, it will only function with and shoot super mild 38 WC bullets seated flush. Good only for punching holes in paper as in Bullseye Shooting. Try to beef up the loads and it would jam. Not a people shooting gun by a long shot.

Same with my Anschutz M-1807 single shot 22 TARGET rifle. Its a Standard Rifle built for ISU position shooting, not shooting people.

I could go on and on but you get the point.

Saying guns are only for shooting people is feeding the trolls.

Why can't people understand that guns can be nothing more then a sporting implement just like golf clubs, tennis rackets, bowling balls etc.

Not all guns are made for shooting people.

[Metal god]

I DO NOT WANT mentally unstable people being able to purchase weapons of any type. so YES, I want a more complete background check

I agree as well , how ever there is a HUGE but in there .

1) What is the legal definition of mentally unstable .

2) Who gets to write that definition ? ( the government )

3) How do we find these people ? do we expand the patriot act so the government can watch ,listen, tap and read all of your correspondence and private writings .

4) Who's to say I'm crazy and not just eccentric .

5) there are all kinds of people that at first glance seem like they should not be operating a firearm but would never go shoot up a school or use them in a malicious way . Should they not have the right to defend them selves ?

6) would one ever be able to earn there way off the list ?

This could go on and on . I think to have a real working , almost nobody slips through the cracks mentally unstable back ground check . We would have to give up quite a bit of privacy rights .

[stevelyn]

Horse pucky.

My Super Match M1A was build for one thing. High Power Rifle Shooting,

And the progenitor of your Super Match M1A was what? That's right, the select-fire M-14 rifle that was the standard military issue rifle for about 10 years give or take.

Your rifle was specifically made in semi-auto because of the BATFEces rule about once a machinegun, always a machinegun or whatever rule they're making up this week.

Of course you aren't going to use it on people, but my point is that they were all designed initially for a martial purpose and anything "sporting" came after the fact. The black rifle owners have the same 2A right to own their guns as the elitist hunters have to own theirs.

[Dr Big Bird PhD]

stevelyn, i agree with you.. however, but kraigwy point wasn't that.

There are plenty of rimfire firearms that have no business being made for defense or assault.

His main point however was that HIS specific M1A was made to be purchased by a civilian. It's purpose was to be designated by the owner, and thus that rifle's purpose is to shoot paper.

[TheoShooter]

All my guns were made to poke holes in targets, hit clay birds, knock over tin cans, hit metal targets,etc, etc,etc. you mean I could kill someone with them?

[5RWill]

Well lets see the economy will lose a good bit of jobs so add that to the unemployment rate. Think about it, the companies that aren't on military contracts will go under. Competition will take a hit including high cap mags because that's ultimately a big concern of the anti-gunners. I want it not only because i enjoy shooting my ARs. Call me paranoid or whatever but i want my ARs, and i've done nothing wrong to lead to them being taken away from me.