AR-15: Let's have some debating points

[ohiomossyoak]

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.

Does the same apply to a mini 14?Or a pistol caliber carbine an so on and so on?.......I can do most everything I want a gun to do with a AR.I can hunt various game everything from ground hog,up to large game(caliber depending)..I can shoot paper or steel FOR GUN,I can defend my life or my familys life an property if it was needed....

.I shoot vertical bows as well...Another weapon of war from the past used for killing people correct? The crossbow was DESIGNED for killing people for that matter..Does your argument apply to anything that was originally designed for a military?

 

[testuser]

I'd say these rifles are most useful for defense of large expanses of property and in the case of the break down of law and order, like the aftermath of a natural disaster or during a riot. I've watched a party spill into a street and turn into a destructive mob before...no fun!

Well, what good does any repeater serve? Heck, why do you even need metallic cartridges? Couldn't you successfully hunt with an in-line muzzleloader and defend your property with 1860 Colt Army? Can't some form of self defense be achieved with a stun gun, pepper spray sword, club, axe or bare hands?

Better yet, why couldn't you just own ONE gun? Isn't that all you need?

They seem like silly questions, but it's definitely the kind of arguments anti-gunners use. The real answer is, good people have the right to self defense and should be allowed weapons that are common for that purpose.

The best analog, to guns, I find, is alcohol. What purpose does alcohol serve in our society? It causes more deaths than firearms, is dangerous to the user and those surrounding him, serves no practical purpose. (Alcohol was also unsuccessfully banned at one point.) Perhaps beer should be legal and whiskey banned, since it has a higher alcohol content?

 

[jimbob86]

Well, what good does any repeater serve? Heck, why do you even need metallic cartridges? Couldn't you successfully hunt with an in-line muzzleloader and defend your property with 1860 Colt Army? Can't some form of self defense be achieved with a stun gun, pepper spray sword, club, axe or bare hands? /QUOTE]

The Second Amendment was not written to defend your property against burglars, either. It was to be proof against a tyrannical government.

Those that would rule over us would be positively DEE-LIGHTED to see us limited to inline MLs and C&B revolvers .....

I'll keep the AR, just to make Sarah Brady cry and keep Chuck Schumer nervous, thankee.

 

[Sport45]

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.

So, hardworker, where should they start? Are you okay with them banning 1911's, M1 carbines, M1 Garands, M9 Pistols? How about 6-shot revolvers, bolt action rifles, and pump shotguns? All were designed for or have seen much use in war for the act of killing people.

By that standard, we'd have to give up the muzzle loaders too.

What would you be thinking if your favorite firearm type was on the chopping block and everyone around was saying "no big deal" I don't have much use for those anyway.

You don't sound "pro gun" at all to me.

 

[Webleymkv]

OK, if you really want to explain the utility of an AR-15 or similar firearm to a non-gun person, how about this:

Semi-automatic weapons are preferable for use in self-defense because they negate the need to perform multiple operations when under stress. While manually working a pump, lever, or bolt may seem easy enough when one is at the range and not under duress, doing so under the pressure of someone trying to kill you or your loved ones is another matter entirely. The fact that a semi-automatic weapon requires the user to perform only one operation, pulling the trigger, makes it less prone to user induced malfunction at a critical time. Also, the manner in which a semi-automatic firearm works also absorbs some of the recoil of the cartridge thus making it easier to shoot accurately.

As far as high-capacity magazines are concerned, they are preferable because an extremely determined individual or one under the influence of mind-altering chemicals can be shot a surprisingly high number of times before being stopped. For example, Michael Lee Platt had to be shot 12 times before he was stopped during the infamous 1986 Miami Dade Shootout. This compounded with the fact that violent criminals often work in groups of two or more means that there is no guarantee that 10 rounds or less will be sufficient to stop a threat.

Finally, the AR-15 in particular has several features that make it a wise choice for a home-defense firearm. The lightweight, high velocity bullet of the the .223 Remington cartridge which most AR-15's are chambered for often destabilizes and/or breaks apart upon impact with interior walls. This means that the .223 Remington actually penetrates less, and thus poses a lower risk to bystanders, than most common handgun and shotgun cartridges. Likewise, the .223 Remington cartridge is not particularly powerful when compared to rifle cartridges commonly used for hunting such as .308 Winchester or 30-06 Springfield instead being roughly equivalent in energy to some of the more powerful handgun cartridges like .454 Casull and .475 Linebaugh. The AR-15 is also light in weight, particularly mild recoiling, and many models have stocks which can be lengthened or shortened thus making it suitable for use by people of varying statures and levels of strength. Finally, the longer barrel and better sights of an AR-15 make it much easier to shoot accurately than a handgun and the fact that it fires a single projectile rather than several pellets as a shotgun does combine to ensure that, if used properly, it is one of the firearms least likely to be used to unintentionally shoot an innocent bystander.

 

[12GaugeShuggoth]

The man that designed ARs did so because he thought we needed a better combat rifle.

Do you realize how many rifles that sentence could be used to describe? If the issue is that a particular rifle was designed in part to help our service men stay alive during combat, then you better be ready to take issue with a lot of rifles out there. For that matter, a lot of firearms, period. ....................

 

[Shane Tuttle]

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

OK, hardworker, stay with me. I know you're taking on a pack of wolves here.

Your premise here alone is plenty reason enough for a claim on the government they're infringing the right of the individual. With that, here are my questions to you. If they're loaded, I apologize in advance.

1. Aside from "race guns" as an example, just about every single firearm IS made for killing. I sure didn't buy my 1911 so I could shoot off an assailant's pinky toe. Do you think 1911 variants should be banned as well? Keep in mind the 1911 was designed specifically for use in war...to kill people.

2. Do you believe we should exercise our 2nd Amendment rights with firearms that aren't designed to kill?

3. If you answer "yes" to the previous question, can you give examples of which firearms you think we have the right to possess/use without government intrusion?

4. I think with sincerity there are people on a tight budget and an AR15 type rifle is the only firearm they can afford to own in order to make use in a one size fits all solution. IOW, he/she uses it for home defense, hunting (such as feral hogs), and such. Maybe he/she was trained in the military on the M16/M4 and it's the only option in civilian life use due to, again, lack of funds and using what the person is most proficient. Safety is a good byproduct of proficiency.

 

[Bamashooter]

Shane you beat me to it. Some people cant afford more than one firearm. I will submit that my AR type semi auto sporting carbine has killed hogs, deer, coyote which is all I hunt. It can be used for home and personal defense. Its also a cheap to shoot plinker when you want to take your kids out shooting. There are literally tons of manufacturers that make spare parts that with a little skill can be installed in a defective AR type sporting carbine by almost anyone so the carbine doesnt have to be sent back to the manufacturer or a gunsmith. These carbines and rifles arent the problem anyway.

 

[raimius]

I bought mine because it is great for competition shooting, fun to shoot for recreation, and the controls are the same for the M4 that I might carry overseas. Besides that, it's cheap to shoot for a centerfire rifle.

We should not even be debating why we "need" particular rifles. Why does the government want to limit our rights based upon us not needing something? We don't "need" automobiles that can go over 80mph, as that is the highest speed limit around. We don't "need" 60 inch HD flat screen televisions. We don't "need" to be able to buy large axes. Most people don't "need" SUVs.
Are we going to start banning things just because some of us don't "need" them?

 

[Ben Towe]

+1 Raimius

You start limiting things based on need and pretty soon you aren't going to have much.

I don't "need" that big Dodge diesel sitting in my driveway. I could get by with a Toyota pickup, I suppose, if I drove my tractors everywhere they needed to be.

Sounds crazy right? This is exactly what is being asked of us, except it's worse than that.

Could we get by without ARs, 30 round magazines, handguns that hold over 10 rounds, and AKs? Sure. Hell, odds are I'll never need that 1911 that rides on my right hip. But I might, and if I ever need that AR or that 1911, I'm gonna need it badly and right then, with plenty of magazines and ammo.

See, if the government tells me I have to trade the Dodge for a Toyota tomorrow, the worst it will effect my life is by annoying me. It won't make me less safe in any way. But that first scenario is preposterous you say? Of course it is. So tell me how taking my right to buy or own a certain kind of weapon (which will make me less safe) is any less preposterous?

 

[hardworker]

OK, hardworker, stay with me. I know you're taking on a pack of wolves here.

Your premise here alone is plenty reason enough for a claim on the government they're infringing the right of the individual. With that, here are my questions to you. If they're loaded, I apologize in advance.

1. Aside from "race guns" as an example, just about every single firearm IS made for killing. I sure didn't buy my 1911 so I could shoot off an assailant's pinky toe. Do you think 1911 variants should be banned as well? Keep in mind the 1911 was designed specifically for use in war...to kill people.

2. Do you believe we should exercise our 2nd Amendment rights with firearms that aren't designed to kill?

3. If you answer "yes" to the previous question, can you give examples of which firearms you think we have the right to possess/use without government intrusion?

4. I think with sincerity there are people on a tight budget and an AR15 type rifle is the only firearm they can afford to own in order to make use in a one size fits all solution. IOW, he/she uses it for home defense, hunting (such as feral hogs), and such. Maybe he/she was trained in the military on the M16/M4 and it's the only option in civilian life use due to, again, lack of funds and using what the person is most proficient. Safety is a good byproduct of proficiency.

1.

I don't think any gun should be banned, ARs included. I have never said that. 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.

2. Yes, and I do so frequently. Tomorrow I plan on burning through some ammo.

3. I am in favor of no government intrusion, and I think they've got a say in far too much as it is. Most of it has been given to them on a silver platter by the people. We spend so much time arguing about the second amendment that we ignore the rest of them.

4. I don't have pricing of every firearm available or memorized so I can't answer this one, but I suspect that given a fixed amount of money, a better hunting gun could be bought. For HD, I'll give it to the AR. That's what it is meant for. If it's all they could afford then so be it.



I'm not agreeing with the anti's, I think that given the chance they'd grab every gun they could. I'm just saying that as gun owners we do not do ourselves a favor when we just deny everything.

Forget the guns for a moment, imagine if I said "books aren't meant for reading, that's just what people do with them." Does anyone here agree with that statement?

 

[Sport45]

Forget the guns for a moment, imagine if I said "books aren't meant for reading, that's just what people do with them." Does anyone here agree with that statement?

Of course books were meant for reading. The ones with words in them, anyway.

And by and large firearms were developed as a better means for us to kill each other. They made sticks, stones, swords, and the long bow obsolete.

But we have to stand together or we'll fall apart.

I don't own or picture myself ever owning a single action revolver again. But that doesn't mean I'd be okay with having them banned.

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.

I do however realize that such a ban could be the beginning of a slippery slope which we will need to be on guard against.

You admit that banning AR-15 type rifles could be the start of our journey down the slippery slope, but that doesn't seem to bother you since you don't like AR-15's anyway. Don't you know you'll be sliding down the slippery slope with the rest of us if you allow it to begin?

 

[Lon308]

Quote from Sport45

"The real question isn't why anyone needs one it's why they should be taken away.

If 30% of Americans really liked the AR style rifles and had no use for anything else and,
30% of Americans liked bolt action rifles and had no use for anything else and,
30% of Americans liked handguns and had no use for anything else then:

It becomes easy for the folk that want to ban firearms altogether to divide and conquer since no individual group represents a majority of the populace even though together they may. "

Excellent Point!!!

I have a Cousin (about 64 years old) who is one of the bigest ourdoorsmen whom I know. He is almost a professional Hunter, Trapper, and Fisherman.

One day, folks in the family were talking about gun laws and AR-15's. He said, "Aw. People don't need those Assault Rifles."

What he doesn't understand is that,
After the "Assault Rifles will be High Capacity Pistols (entirely)"
After them: Pistols for anything other than hunting.
After them: 300 Magnum Sniper Rifles that can go through 3/4 inch of soft steel.

After all, "People don't need them."

 

[Metal god]

I agree with you hardworker in only one way . The AR/M16 platform was designed for the military which by default means it was designed to kill people . That in no way means that's all it's good for or all it's intended for now . There are hundreds , even thousands of things that were designed for one thing and over time people have found many other uses for them .

Although the original design was for military use . That is no longer it's only use or purpose .

I stand by my statement that the only thing they are really useful for killing people.

This statement is untrue pure and simple . I'm about to start a build for NRA high power competition . I'm not sure of the rules when it comes to the rifle configeration . I am going to a match this weekend to get the specs I need to follow .I do know it's very close to the military configeration though. That sounds to me like I will be building a AR15 for the sole purpose to punch holes in paper and not killing people .

 

[ligonierbill]

Lots of good discussion, folks. It's unfortunate that these EBRs are so devisive, but they obviously are. Here is my own take. The AR is the civilian version of the primary small arm carried by our armed forces. Rather than dance around that, we should be proud of it. It's a combat weapon. If we are an armed citizenry, shouldn't we all be proficient with one? Do I need one? You know, I sure hope I never do. Hope I never need my pistols for their intended purpose either. If only we could keep them away from the wackos, the latest being this nut in New York. Real poster case, isn't he. Paroled killer (that's something we should ban!) that managed, in "enlightened" NY, to arm himself. What are we going to do about that?

 

[carguychris]

The Second Amendment was not written to defend your property against burglars, either. It was to be proof against a tyrannical government.

I believe it was written for both purposes, and the Supreme Court endorsed this view in D.C. v. Heller.

IMHO there are two major problems with justifying the 2A on "Defense Against Tyranny" grounds alone.

1. When the Constitution was written, the states had strong, active, and independent militias, and it's fairly clear that the founders intended for the militias to serve as a hedge against central government tyranny. This is the reason for the prefatory or militia clause in the amendment. However, the militia system today is only a faint shadow of what it was in colonial times, and the idea of states standing together against federal government overreach pretty much died at the end of the Civil War. Without strong and independent state militias, the Defense against Tyranny argument implicitly endorses rebellion and anarchy; in this light, it's easy to argue why it's a bad idea to give citizens the means to conduct an armed insurgency. (Some of our restrictive state gun laws were justified by fear that racial or labor groups would do just that.) More of my thoughts here: http://thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=509535
2. This view implies that the use of deadly force for self-defense and defense of the home are not protected by the 2A and possibly not by common law either. This is the ultimate slippery slope; it's even worse than what I like to call the Sporting Goods Arguments (the statements that begin with "Hunters and target shooters will still be able to..." or "A competent hunter doesn't need..."). We need the self-defense argument; it's strong, it's legally justifiable, and most importantly, it's popular.

 

[Webleymkv]

Quote:
The Second Amendment was not written to defend your property against burglars, either. It was to be proof against a tyrannical government.

I believe it was written for both purposes, and the Supreme Court endorsed this view in D.C. v. Heller.

The way I see it, tyranny comes in many forms. In the most basic sense of the word, a tyrant is someone who malevolently exercises the most absolute power, the power of life and death, over another person. As such, I fail to see how a violent criminal standing over a cowering, helpless victim is any less a tyrant than a despotic dictator. As such the Second Amendment enumerates the right for the people not to have to submit to tyranny regardless of what form it takes.

 

[Shane Tuttle]

The Second Amendment was not written to defend your property against burglars, either. It was to be proof against a tyrannical government.

Arms in the hands of citizens [may] be used at individual discretion… in private self-defense … – John Adams

Among the natural rights of the Colonists are these: First, a right to life; Secondly, to liberty; Thirdly, to property; together with the right to support and defend them in the best manner they can. These are evident branches of, rather than deductions from, the duty of self-preservation, commonly called the first law of nature. – Samuel Adams

Looks like a couple of our own Founding Fathers disagree with your fallible statement.

And more to read here by others' arguments regarding the true intent of the 2nd Amendment...

http://ajbulava.wordpress.com/2011/10/20/original-intent-the-2nd-amendment/

 

[JimDandy]

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

Yeah other than those pesky service rifle categories at the competitions...

While I wouldn't use an AR to hunt pheasant or elk, there's a middle ground they are effective hunting rifles on. Equally as "viable" as bolt or lever action. The round is a wonderful varmint round. Coyotes for example.

I have no interest in one of the pistol grip'ed semi-auto or pump shotguns. But I'm not about to say my ignorance on the platform makes it ok with me for them to be banned.

 

[chris in va]

I think for many owners the AR is simply a range toy. Plink, target shoot, competition etc. Yes, I have one.

I also think the term 'made for killing' should be ammended to 'designed'. It's original purpose was to put down the enemy. Current AR's are extremely similar to the original, just semiauto. Don't try to dance around it's original intended design. Rather, embrace and promote how it has evolved into a modular platform for hunting, competition, HD, and target.

I cringe every time someone says these powerful tools are merely semiauto rifles. Come on. The Garand had a similar purpose, but now we keep them for nostalgia reasons.