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

True – it isn’t an ‘argument,’ it’s a fallacy; confirmation bias, to be specific.

It’s also baseless political rhetoric – fearmongering and demagoguery; the lie that guns are going to be ‘banned’ and ‘confiscated’ as some nefarious plot to usher in a ‘totalitarian state.’

That’s why there’s no ‘need’ for an AR 15; there are other firearms far superior for effective self-defense.
NOT Trumptards "self-defense".
They never learned how to shoot, so they NEED 60 rounds to wound a turtle.
That makes them dangerous.
 
I have many things that I want, rather than need.

However I "need" an AR15 for three reasons:

1. For recreational purposes. I enjoy shooting and collecting and building ARs so it provides much enjoyed and needed recreation activity for me.

2. For self defense. I doubt I will ever have to use to for self defense but if I do then I would really need it bad.
Only an idiot would use an AR or AK for self defense.
Ever hear of a pistol?
You would get shot dead or wounded by one before you got the AR above your bellybutton.
3. I "need" it for the "security of a free state", as stated in the Constitution.
No, you don't.
If they need you, call you up, they will give/loan you a weapon to use.
If you don't need or want one then don't buy one. Nobody gives a shit. Just keep your nose out of my business, especially my Constitutional rights.
 
‘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.’


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.
What do they even need a reason for ?
Why am I not allowed to own brand spanking new factory freshb fully automatic military grade weaponry ?

My civil rights have been trampled
 
Only an idiot would use an AR or AK for self defense.
Ever hear of a pistol?
You would get shot dead or wounded by one before you got the AR above your bellybutton.

No, you don't.
If they need you, call you up, they will give/loan you a weapon to use.
The best weapon for self defense is the one you have and can shoot accurately.

It doesn't really matter if that is a rifle, a shotgun or a handgun.

Most defensive gun uses don't result in the firing of the gun at all. It's the threat of force that deescalates the situation
 
That you need someone to justify to you why they need any weapon they want is retarded and ridiculous
Roflmao

Bfytw
So, a bomb belt to protect yourself shouldn't be questioned?
Booby trapping your house with bombs shouldn't be questioned?
Rigging your vehicle to explode to prevent auto theft?
 
The best weapon for self defense is the one you have and can shoot accurately.
Hard not to be "accurate" with 60 rounds, eventually, you will hit something.
It doesn't really matter if that is a rifle, a shotgun or a handgun.
Depends on the situation, where the attempted crime occurs.
Most defensive gun uses don't result in the firing of the gun at all. It's the threat of force that deescalates the situation
In most cases.
 
My husband just signed up for one of those concealed carry classes. His friend got in (it's a circus here, hundreds of people trying to sign up) and somehow got him on the list.

You are losing, Mr. Irrelevant. There is no use in anyone arguing with people who have lost the argument.
How old is he and how many times in his lifetime he defended himself against armed home invaders and muggers on the street?

Thank goodness I live in the UK, you guys live in fear shitting your pants on a daily basis.

Covert posting is weak.
 
Last edited:
Only an idiot would use an AR or AK for self defense.
Ever hear of a pistol?
You would get shot dead or wounded by one before you got the AR above your bellybutton.

No, you don't.
If they need you, call you up, they will give/loan you a weapon to use.
You are confused Moon Bat.

There are better weapons for self defense depending up on the situation but there are many instances of an AR being used effectively for self defense. For instance, a couple of years ago a young pregnant woman here in Central Florida used an AR to fight off three home invaders. Ask Kyle Rittenhouse if his AR was effective for self defense. He sure as hell defeated that asshole that attacked him with a Glock pistol, didn't he?

Our Founding Fathers were like a million times more knowledgeable of what it take to provide for the security of a free state and that is why we have have the individual right to keep and bear arms. The oppressive government ain't gonna provide you with jackshit if they are the threat to the security of the free state, are they?
 
You are confused Moon Bat.

There are better weapons for self defense depending up on the situation but there are many instances of an AR being used effectively for self defense. For instance, a couple of years ago a young pregnant woman here in Central Florida used an AR to fight off three home invaders. Ask Kyle Rittenhouse if his AR was effective for self defense. He sure as hell defeated that asshole that attacked him with a Glock pistol, didn't he?
You're FOS, ALL were unarmed.
Glock pistol?
A fucking skate board you moron.
Our Founding Fathers were like a million times more knowledgeable of what it take to provide for the security of a free state and that is why we have have the individual right to keep and bear arms.
Yeah, IF you're in a militia.
The oppressive government ain't gonna provide you with jackshit if they are the threat to the security of the free state, are they?
WTF?
Typical, RWNJ, the US government is the "tyrannical" free state?
So, naturally, they will honor their commitment to let you keep and bear arms?

Doesn't even make sense.
 
You're FOS, ALL were unarmed.
Glock pistol?
A fucking skate board you moron.

Yeah, IF you're in a militia.

WTF?
Typical, RWNJ, the US government is the "tyrannical" free state?
So, naturally, they will honor their commitment to let you keep and bear arms?

Doesn't even make sense.
You are confused Moon Bat.

The Supreme Court says that the right to keep and bear arms is an individual right not connected to membership in any organization, including a militia. I shit you not. Go read Heller if you are confused.

Not only are you ignorant of the Constitution but you are also very ignorant of History, aren't you Moon Bat? There are numerous examples of government being oppressive to the people.

You are really confused about Rittenhouse. Gaige Grosskreutz admitted in court that he had pointed his Glock pistol at Kyle.

Then we had conclusive video evidence that Anthony Huber attacked Kyle using a heavy skateboard as a club.

Did not CNN or Democratunderground tell you the facts of the case?
 
You are confused Moon Bat.
No, you're the one confused.
The Supreme Court says that the right to keep and bear arms is an individual right not connected to membership in any organization, including a militia. I shit you not. Go read Heller if you are confused.
They're confused too.
They disregarded half of an amendment.
Of course, Trumptards cling to that.
Not only are you ignorant of the Constitution but you are also very ignorant of History, aren't you Moon Bat? There are numerous examples of government being oppressive to the people.
Really?
Enough where citizen's took up weapons, against the government?
SO, who won?
You are really confused about Rittenhouse. Gaige Grosskreutz admitted in court that he had pointed his Glock pistol at Kyle.
In self defense and STILL got shot.
Then we had conclusive video evidence that Anthony Huber attacked Kyle using a heavy skateboard as a club.



Did not CNN or Democratunderground tell you the facts of the case?
Still, NOT THE GOVERNMENT.
 
Hard not to be "accurate" with 60 rounds, eventually, you will hit something.

Depends on the situation, where the attempted crime occurs.

In most cases.
I don't know anyone who owns a 60 round magazine for any of their firearms.
 
I don't know anyone who owns a 60 round magazine for any of their firearms.
Two 30's taped together.

1658059842924.png



ProMag AR-15 / M16 .223 / 5.56 30-Round Magazine​

Nothing say's "I can't shoot" on full display.
 

Forum List

Back
Top