Here’s the reason people tell me they want to buy an AR-15. And it’s simply ludicrous

[miketx]

Gunning down school kids, got it.

Yeah, the favorite pastime of leftist scum like you!

 

[Failzero]

A

Why is that? I am not going bankrupt buying guns or ammo. I am a shooter, hunter and collector. And I have things that will help me protect my life and property. Much like a fire extinguisher.

A Glock is no more a tool than a Vintage antique dueling pistol set

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

How about this for justification--"Because the 2nd amendment says I can." BTW, there is nothing in the constitution that says I have to demonstrate a "need" for any weapon and I certainly don't owe you, or any fascist, ANY explanations,

It’s as true now as it was over a year ago – as true now as always:

There is no ‘need’ to possess an AR pattern rifle/carbine; it’s a want, not a need.

And there’s nothing wrong with wanting to possess an AR 15 for whatever personal, subjective reason – target shooting or personal defense.

But one shouldn’t try to advance the ridiculous lie that one ‘needs’ an AR 15 to defend against ‘government tyranny,’ it’s factually untrue.

Indeed, there’s nothing in the history, text, or case law of the Second Amendment that recognizes insurrectionist dogma; nothing that recognizes the wrongheaded notion that armed citizens alone, absent government authorization, not members of a government authorized and regulated militia, are sanctioned to ‘take up arms’ against a Federal government incorrectly perceived to have become ‘tyrannical.’

What Second Amendment case law does say is that private citizens cannot unilaterally declare themselves a ‘militia’ – only state governments and the Federal government have that authority (Presser v. Illinois (1886)).

With private citizens alone lacking the authority to form a militia and ‘take up arms’ against ‘the government,’ they also lack the ‘need’ to possess particular firearms, such as AR 15s.

Consequently, the ‘need’ argument in opposition to AWBs is devoid of merit.

The argument of merit against AWBs is that they constitute government excess and overreach, that they fail even a rational basis justification, and that they would not have the desired outcome of reducing gun crime and violence.

 

[Failzero]

Yeah, the favorite pastime of leftist scum like you!

Especially sexually confused Liberals

 

[WinterBorn]

A

A Glock is no more a tool than a Vintage antique dueling pistol set

Every firearm is a tool. It is nothing without the shooter.

 

[Failzero]

So you think you can withstand a frontal assault by infantry?

You mean California National Guard ?

 

[M14 Shooter]

So you think you can withstand a frontal assault by infantry?

What do I have to defend?
How many enemy infantry? Light? Mechanized? Expected support?
Where / when am I?
How many people do I have? Equipment? Support?
How long do I have to hold?
Friendlies to worry about?

 

[WinterBorn]

You mean California National Guard ?

Ok, if that is what you want to change it to. Previously you were fight the Chinese special forces. CA National Guard would be easier.

 

[WinterBorn]

What do I have to defend?
How many enemy infantry? Light? Mechanized? Expected support?
Where / when am I?
How many people do I have? Equipment? Support?
How long do I have to hold?
Friendlies to worry about?

Good tactical thinking.

 

[miketx]

A

A Glock is no more a tool than a Vintage antique dueling pistol set

You're a fucking idiot. Adios cockroach.

 

[Dagosa]

Everyone will have to get tactical and be an Operator in SHTF

Another loser looking scared.

 

[Failzero]

Every firearm is a tool. It is nothing without the shooter .

Ok, if that is what you want to change it to. Previously you were fight the Chinese special forces. CA National Guard would be easier.

The Chinese overseas Commandos are gonna go after Dams , Power infrastructure , Rail , Bridges ... when they are green lighted ( as they are already here by the thousands thanx to our open border policy ) not some poor schlub inFar Nor Cal

 

[Failzero]

You're a fucking idiot. Adios cockroach.

Your carrying water for Commies and don’t even know it

 

[Dagosa]

Nah, that's YOUR desire.

We stop sick fucks, like you.

certainly not you Gunaholics. You never have. Lot of bragging and toy soldiering. Why don’t you fking enlist instead of thinking you’re defending the homeland vs a herd of wild pigs in heat.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

The 2nd amendment is the only right that the opposition requires we show a need. No one is asked to show a need for free speech.

Wrong.

No one is required to document a ‘need’ to take possession of an AR 15, or any other firearm.

Indeed, the Bruen Court made that clear last year.

 

[Failzero]

A Weapon & a tool are not the same

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

The 2nd amendment does say the federal government shall make no laws regarding firearms at all.
It gave total jurisdiction to the states and municipalities.
All federal gun laws are totally illegal.

Wrong.

The Second Amendment wasn’t incorporated to the states and local jurisdictions until 2010.

Prior to that it applied only to the Federal government.

And the Federal government has always had the authority to regulate firearms.

 

[WinterBorn]

Wrong.

No one is required to document a ‘need’ to take possession of an AR 15, or any other firearm.

Indeed, the Bruen Court made that clear last year.

You misunderstood me.

"The 2nd amendment is the only right that the opposition requires we show a need. No one is asked to show a need for free speech.

I was talking about people demanding we show a need for certain firearms, but no need to show a need for any other right. Free Speech can get more killed.

 

[Dagosa]

A Weapon & a tool are not the same

Tool- a device or implement, especially one held in the hand, used to carry out a particular function:

Sounds like it.

 

[Wild Bill Kelsoe]

‘Usually, the motivation for purchasing the AR-15 is simple: People want one because they want one. Most times, the person who buys an AR-15 comes into the store already knowing that they intend to purchase one.

I’ve pressed some customers about why they want an AR-15, but no one could ever come up with a legitimate justification for needing that particular weapon.

Some members of the tinfoil hat brigade have come up with the reply, “We need these weapons because we want to be effective against the government if it becomes tyrannical. That’s part of our Second Amendment right.” Personally, I think that’s ludicrous, but it has become an increasingly popular justification for purchasing a semi-automatic rifle.

[…]

If banning them outright seems like too extreme a solution to be politically palatable, here’s another option: Reclassify semi-automatic rifles as Class 3 firearms.’

Opinion: Here's the reason people tell me they want to buy an AR-15. And it's simply ludicrous | CNN

No weapon has been more in the public eye than the AR-15, in large part because of the tragic role it has played in some of this country's deadliest shootings, former DC police officer Michael Fanone writes. Fanone, who owns one of the weapons, writes that the AR-15 has the dubious distinction...

www.cnn.com

I disagree with the article’s author about ‘banning’ AR 15s or subjecting them to the provisions of the NFA. ‘Bans’ don’t work, they’re unwarranted government excess and overreach and likely un-Constitutional.

But he’s correct about wanting to own an AR 15 to ‘defend against government tyranny’ as being ridiculous nonsense.

Possessing an AR 15 is a want, not a ‘need.’

And there’s nothing wrong with that; citizens are not required to ‘justify’ exercising a fundamental right as a ‘prerequisite’ to indeed do so.

As is always the case after a mass shooting or similar event, we see inane, baseless reasons contrived to ‘justify’ owning an AR 15 in a pathetic and unnecessary attempt to fend-off a ‘ban’ of such weapons where there is no political will to do so.

Should this rifle be classified as a Class 3 firearm?...