Why Everyone Needs An AR-15

[HARK!]

Now let’s be honest here. This girl has ear protection, eye protection, and her barrel is pointing in a safe direction. You could honestly say you don’t think she has the right to enjoy the sport and safety a firearm can provide, but it’s reckless to accuse this girl of throwing caution to the wind, given the picture of her.

If I was faced with a gang of ANTIFA thugs; I'd pick her for my team, over the entire Uvalde Police force combined.

 

[Studyman]

Ammo prices are so right right now that I don't see myself throwing that much lead in the air; but I used to regularly spend all day plinking water jugs with 9 pellet .00 and 1 oz, slugs. Big fun! I would use my tactical shotgun with dual pistol grips; so my shoulder didn't come into play. One thing that I can say is that when I would shoot the magnum rounds; that it was hard on my wrists. I couldn't do that all day.

I have collected brass and bullets for my favorite calibers for years and reload most of my ammo. My grandkids and I spend a lot of time on my shooting range with 22s and 17 HMR and SM, both in AR package.

What I have found is that kids who are taught about and experience safe firearm practice and the sanctity of life never grow up to use them for anything other than sport or self defense. I also know that criminals seldom target rural America because most of us are armed and they know it. Instead they find liberal areas where people are helpless and willfully ignorant about the basic fundamentals of self defense.

Great topic Hark

 

[JosephZ]

I know a lot of veterans who love their high capacity magazines and don’t want them taken away.

So do I, but that doesn't mean the majority feel this way.

I don’t believe your article for a second because it doesn’t even remotely correlate to what I’ve actually witnessed with my own experiences with veterans on the subject.

I only quoted the findings of a study that was found in that article. The rest of the article's content is irrelevant. There are three veterans posting in this thread that I'm aware of, and while I can't speak for the other two, I am fairly confident that they, like myself, would have no problem with a ban on AR-15s and high-capacity magazines based on their past postings on this forum.

Right and according to the 7,500 homicides committed each year with pistols you’re looking somewhere in the neighborhood of 287 people killed in the last two weeks not counting how many incidents resulted in nonfatal injuries or crimes that didn’t result in death or injury.

Data on firearm homicides is incomplete. Not all law enforcement agencies report data to the FBI, including some from major cities, and the type of firearm used is often not included. While handguns are undoubtedly the most often used, the number of rifles, including "assault style" weapons used is actually much higher than what you find in the FBI's statistics.

The use of "assault style" weapons in mass shootings is increasing compared to years past.

 

[HARK!]

So do I, but that doesn't mean the majority feel this way.

I'm so glad that I live in a Republic, where the masses brainwashed by propaganda can't overthrow the government.

BTW, I never did see your source that supports your bare assertion.

 

[HARK!]

Data on firearm homicides is incomplete. Not all law enforcement agencies report data to the FBI, including some from major cities, and the type of firearm used is often not included. While handguns are undoubtedly the most often used, the number of rifles, including "assault style" weapons used is actually much higher than what you find in the FBI's statistics.

Couldn't we expect the same for the rest of their statistics?

Couldn't we expect them to be proportional?

 

[RDKirk]

I only quoted the findings of a study that was found in that article. The rest of the article's content is irrelevant. There are three veterans posting in this thread that I'm aware of, and while I can't speak for the other two, I am fairly confident that they, like myself, would have no problem with a ban on AR-15s and high-capacity magazines based on their past postings on this forum.

A ban on the AR-15 rifle in itself would not bother me...if it stopped there.

But I know the intention is not to stop there.

 

[PloverWing]

Why would you mind even go there? That speaks of a very strong prejudice on your part.

Yes, it probably does. The gun owner who keeps guns with the intent to use them on other human beings in everyday life is utterly baffling to me. Further, sometimes in these threads I sense a contempt for the value of human beings who aren't in one's family, as though they're less than human. That's why my mind went there.

But I will admit to the possibility of strong prejudice on this.

 

[JosephZ]

BTW, I never did see your source that supports your bare assertion.

The findings indicate that veterans (and particularly combat veterans) are more supportive than nonveterans of expanding civilians' gun carrying rights. On the other hand, veterans with and without combat experience are more likely to favor banning AR15 and military-style rifles and high-capacity ammunition clips. Veterans are also more likely to favor a 14-day waiting period for all gun purchases, but they do not have unique positions on mental health screening for gun purchases.

Loading…

onlinelibrary.wiley.com

 

[dogs4thewin]

Actually the difference between homicides with pistols and “assault rifles” is more than 15 times. I can’t find anything saying how many homicides are committed each year with “assault rifles”. The only thing I can find is how many are committed with handguns which is around 7,500 per year and how many are committed with rifles which is around 500 per year and that’s with ALL rifles not just “assault rifles”. So I would have to conclude that some of those 500 are being committed with rifles other than “assault rifles” therefore I would have to conclude that handguns account for more than 15 times more homicides than so called “assault rifles”.

that was my point you are far more likely to be killed by a handgun than you are by an AR or any assault weapon. I was not trying to use real numbers only trying to show that in terms of just body count handguns take FAR more lives, and yet fairly few people are for banning them.

 

[dogs4thewin]

A ban on the AR-15 rifle in itself would not bother me...if it stopped there.

But I know the intention is not to stop there.

that is my other issue.

 

[Studyman]

Never say never. The Japanese invaded and held a few Aleutian Islands for about a year in WWII. That said, the Chinese have long held the principle of vassal states, longer than there's been a US, which is different than occupation. A state that has vassal status is as desirable, perhaps more so, than possessing territory. Given how US companies kowtow to China in hopes of preserving market access, we may already be well on that path.

There's also, sadly, a question: If the Chinese did invade and occupy the US, would it really make much of a difference?

I've thought about this a lot. And considered the Scriptures to help me navigate through it. If someone came to my home to threaten my wife, kids or grandkids, I would protect them and myself with whatever defense mechanisms I had. (sword, handgun, AR, etc.)

If the Government sent officers to confiscate my tools of self-defense I wouldn't stand in their way. Nor would I fight against them. And if China conquered the USA, I would be carried away just as Jeremiah was to Babylon. Now I have come to believe I have already been carried away, and am in Babylon even now, planting Vinyards and such. So I don't expect such a thing to happen. Nevertheless, a person should consider carefully as he would not want to be fighting God Himself.

 

[dogs4thewin]

So do I, but that doesn't mean the majority feel this way.


I only quoted the findings of a study that was found in that article. The rest of the article's content is irrelevant. There are three veterans posting in this thread that I'm aware of, and while I can't speak for the other two, I am fairly confident that they, like myself, would have no problem with a ban on AR-15s and high-capacity magazines based on their past postings on this forum.


Data on firearm homicides is incomplete. Not all law enforcement agencies report data to the FBI, including some from major cities, and the type of firearm used is often not included. While handguns are undoubtedly the most often used, the number of rifles, including "assault style" weapons used is actually much higher than what you find in the FBI's statistics.

View attachment 346728

The use of "assault style" weapons in mass shootings is increasing compared to years past.

View attachment 346729

It is not about just mass shootings. Do you want to save MORE lives or appear to be saaaving more lives? Also, very few gun deaths are the resault of true blue mass shootings.

 

[HARK!]

But I know the intention is not to stop there.

"We can't be so fixated on our desire to preserve the rights of ordinary Americans.." —Bill Clinton USA Today--3-11-93, page 2a

"Waiting periods are only a step. Registration is only a step. The prohibition of private firearms is the goal"--Janet Reno


SARAH BRADY (Chairman, Handgun Control, Inc.) "There is no personal right to be armed for private purposes unrelated to the service in a well regulated militia." (Richmond Times-Dispatch, 6 June 97, pg. 6)

DIANE FEINSTEIN (California Senator, author of "Feinstein Amendment" which became the ’94 gun ban): "If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them… ‘Mr. and Mrs. America, turn ‘em all in,’ I would have done it." (60 Minutes episode, CBS) [Sen Feinstein holds a CCP]

 

[Qubit]

The use of "assault style" weapons in mass shootings is increasing compared to years past.

View attachment 346729

What the heck is an "Assault Weapon"?

In the United States, assault weapon is a controversial term applied to different kinds of firearms. There is no clear, consistent definition.

Assault weapon - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Well, isn't that convenient. An "Assault Weapon" means whatever someone wants it to mean.

Have fun debating that.

 

[Studyman]

If you were a Jew, living in Israel last Oct 7, 2023, you'd have a better understanding then you do now.

Or, if you wake up at 3am, in your Country.... and 5 hooded robbers are in your house, and they are going to do more to your family then rob them... = at that point, you'll understand why protecting your family with a gun is the "smart play", and its Biblical, as the NT says that if you dont provide for your Family = you are "worse then an Infidel".

So, to PROTECT YOUR FAMILY< ... is one of the things you PROVIDE for them.

Only the uneducated can't understand this common sense.

And if you dont, . ... READER. then wishing you'd "had a gun" later, is not going to help you sleep better at night.


Figure it out.

I once had a guy tell me regarding this same issue, "Didn't Jesus say to turn the other cheek"? I guess if a criminal comes to my house to rape and kill one of my daughters, I'm obligated by Jesus to offer him the other daughter after he's done.

Somehow I don't believe that is what Jesus meant.

 

[dogs4thewin]

Yes, it probably does. The gun owner who keeps guns with the intent to use them on other human beings in everyday life is utterly baffling to me. Further, sometimes in these threads I sense a contempt for the value of human beings who aren't in one's family, as though they're less than human. That's why my mind went there.

But I will admit to the possibility of strong prejudice on this.

Yes if they have the INTENT to use them on other human beings just because or to commit other crimes all I have to say is we live in a fallen world and people are crazy. On the other hand, if they only have the intent to use them on fellew humans as a matter of defense then that isaa not crazy at all. In fact, I have NO respect for people not willing to protect others and yes this includes violently if need be.

As for pigs yes there are places who have MAJOR issues with wild pigs doing things like destroying crops.

 

[HARK!]

The findings indicate that veterans (and particularly combat veterans) are more supportive than nonveterans of expanding civilians' gun carrying rights. On the other hand, veterans with and without combat experience are more likely to favor banning AR15 and military-style rifles and high-capacity ammunition clips. Veterans are also more likely to favor a 14-day waiting period for all gun purchases, but they do not have unique positions on mental health screening for gun purchases.

Loading…

onlinelibrary.wiley.com

Moving the goalposts? OK so by what ratios are veterans in favor of banning AR15s?

I heard that the military is no longer required to take an oath to defend the Constitution.

So glad, for my own well being, that we don't live in a Democracy.

 

[JosephZ]

What the heck is an "Assault Weapon"?

I didn't say assault weapon. I said "Assault style" weapon. Below is how I described the AR-15 which I consider to be an "assault style" weapon.

First and foremost, the AR-15 was designed to kill humans in the most efficient way possible. All of the following features of an AR-15 are there for that purpose: The AR-15 forward grip is designed so the shooter can release the magazine with their trigger finger without ever removing their hand from the grip. This allows someone with a little practice to exchange an empty magazine with a full one in around a second. Try doing that with a standard fixed-stock semi-automatic rifle. A forward grip and a detachable high-capacity magazine allow a shooter to literally drill bullets accurately into a group of people and reload without giving anyone the opportunity to disarm them. The high muzzle velocity of an AR-15 combined with a light bullet causes catastrophic damage when it enters a human body, and the AR-15's light weight and short length make it an excellent weapon for maneuvering in closed quarters.

 

[JosephZ]

I heard that the military is no longer required to take an oath to defend the Constitution.

You heard wrong. As of today below is the oath that is taken by all individuals entering the US military.

I, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God.”

 

[JosephZ]

Moving the goalposts? OK so by what ratios are veterans in favor of banning AR15s?

No moving of goalposts, that is from the same study that was in the article I linked to earlier. The study also found that veterans with combat experience are 78% more likely than non-vets to favor banning AR-15s and high-capacity magazines.

An unrelated poll found 61 percent of veterans back banning high-capacity ammunition magazines, and 58 percent support banning assault-style weapons.