I Should Have an AR-15, but not YOU! Gun grabber speaks honestly

[Seymour Flops]

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

Here it is: the government elitist mentality spelled out baldly by a true believer:

The AR-15 has the dubious distinction of being America's most popular semi-automatic rifle. I'm more familiar with the gun than most people: I own one. And one thing I know for sure is that this weapon doesn't belong in the hands of the average civilian.

He is more familiar with the gun than most people because he owns one? The AR15, as he mentions, is the most popular rifle in the United States. It is also a civilian version of the weapon that nearly all U.S. military veterans trained with. He's not exactly in a tiny minority for being familiar with it.

He goes on:

I purchased my AR-15 because I was assigned one as part of my police duties. But officers weren't allowed to take our department-issued weapons home. I felt it was my responsibility to become proficient with any weapon I'd been assigned, so I bought one. And I've spent hundreds of hours training so that I could properly use it.

Bull! He could have had plenty of time on the po-lice range to become proficient. One of the benefits of that rifle is how easy it is to learn to use. We were trained and qualified for the M16A1 during my second week of basic training, when we barely knew how to march in a straight line. It wasn't hard, and nearly everyone qualified.

No, his reason for buying an AR15 is the same as the one that he ridicules others for: he wanted one.

First, though, he ridicules the most important reason that every free American should own a semi-auto rifle with detachable magazine:

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.

That is not just "part" of our second amendment right, as his fictitious tinfoil hatters supposedly say. It is the stated purpose of our second amendment right. The second amendment is not for hunting birds, nor for biathlon training. It is to maintain a well-regulated militia as it explicitly states.

He goes to great lengths to explain why an AR15 is not the best weapon for home defense against an single intruder, not at all needed since I know of no one who thinks it is.

His enforcement solution is pretty optimistic:

And outlawing these AR-15s would not require confiscating them from people who already have them. Once you've made these weapons illegal, anyone found with one would be subject to arrest, since possession of these weapons would be a crime. I think it's likely that you would see a lot of people opting to turn them in.

So, it would be another law passed by the left, which would be unenforced or selectively enforced. People won't "turn them in," after having spent around a thousand dollars on rifle and ammo. The only people targeted for enforcement would be people at gun shows. Real criminals who use guns are now being released by liberal judges and liberal "prosecutors," so why are real criminals going to get an extra penalty if they use an AR in their crimes? Would that Ramos guy serve more than the several life sentences he has coming, if this proposed law were in effect? Nope. We will be lucky if he doesn't get found not guilty by reason of insanity, placed in a mental home for a few years and released.

Not to mention that of course, the law can't just say, "Models designated as 'AR15" by their manufacturer, because the manufacturers could just change the name. They will have to define "assault weapon," which the last two nominees for head of ATF have been at a loss to do. Here's what you get when liberals who know nothing about guns try to regulate them:

I feel safer already! /sarcasm

 

[johngaltshrugged]

They have never made a compelling argument that would make me turn over a single weapon I own, let alone the type we would need if we did have to exercise our 2A rights once the fed become overbearing tyrants.

Disarming or criminalizing law abiding citizens will never make a country safer, but they know this already.
It has never been about making us safer, it has always been about them feeling safer from consequences as they strip our rights & implode our country

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

What a self-important twat.

My response: No bitch, if we have to lose ours, we will fucking blow your goddamn head off and take yours.

I hope this miserable piece of cocksucking shit is one who volunteers to go round them up.

 

[Ringtone]

You write:

He goes to great lengths to explain why an AR15 is not the best weapon for home defense against an single intruder, not at all needed since I know of no one who thinks it is.​

On the other hand, it depends on the shooter. Most are going to be more comfortable taking a defensive posture than taking an active engagement posture in home defense. My HK45 or either one of my 9mms (S&W Classic 59 or Berreta M9A3) are perfect for home defense, especially when taking an active engagement posture for which I have the training. He's thinking like a seasoned combatant, not like your average shooter. In my experience, many if not most female shooters are more comfortable handling and controlling an AR-15 and taking a defensive posture when possible.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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

Here it is: the government elitist mentality spelled out baldly by a true believer:

The AR-15 has the dubious distinction of being America's most popular semi-automatic rifle. I'm more familiar with the gun than most people: I own one. And one thing I know for sure is that this weapon doesn't belong in the hands of the average civilian.

He is more familiar with the gun than most people because he owns one? The AR15, as he mentions, is the most popular rifle in the United States. It is also a civilian version of the weapon that nearly all U.S. military veterans trained with. He's not exactly in a tiny minority for being familiar with it.

He goes on:

I purchased my AR-15 because I was assigned one as part of my police duties. But officers weren't allowed to take our department-issued weapons home. I felt it was my responsibility to become proficient with any weapon I'd been assigned, so I bought one. And I've spent hundreds of hours training so that I could properly use it.

Bull! He could have had plenty of time on the po-lice range to become proficient. One of the benefits of that rifle is how easy it is to learn to use. We were trained and qualified for the M16A1 during my second week of basic training, when we barely knew how to march in a straight line. It wasn't hard, and nearly everyone qualified.

No, his reason for buying an AR15 is the same as the one that he ridicules others for: he wanted one.

First, though, he ridicules the most important reason that every free American should own a semi-auto rifle with detachable magazine:

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.

That is not just "part" of our second amendment right, as his fictitious tinfoil hatters supposedly say. It is the stated purpose of our second amendment right. The second amendment is not for hunting birds, nor for biathlon training. It is to maintain a well-regulated militia as it explicitly states.

He goes to great lengths to explain why an AR15 is not the best weapon for home defense against an single intruder, not at all needed since I know of no one who thinks it is.

His enforcement solution is pretty optimistic:

And outlawing these AR-15s would not require confiscating them from people who already have them. Once you've made these weapons illegal, anyone found with one would be subject to arrest, since possession of these weapons would be a crime. I think it's likely that you would see a lot of people opting to turn them in.

So, it would be another law passed by the left, which would be unenforced or selectively enforced. People won't "turn them in," after having spent around a thousand dollars on rifle and ammo. The only people targeted for enforcement would be people at gun shows. Real criminals who use guns are now being released by liberal judges and liberal "prosecutors," so why are real criminals going to get an extra penalty if they use an AR in their crimes? Would that Ramos guy serve more than the several life sentences he has coming, if this proposed law were in effect? Nope. We will be lucky if he doesn't get found not guilty by reason of insanity, placed in a mental home for a few years and released.

Not to mention that of course, the law can't just say, "Models designated as 'AR15" by their manufacturer, because the manufacturers could just change the name. They will have to define "assault weapon," which the last two nominees for head of ATF have been at a loss to do. Here's what you get when liberals who know nothing about guns try to regulate them:

View attachment 659196


I feel safer already! /sarcasm

This is lie.

Nowhere does the article’s author advocate for ‘grabbing guns.’

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

‘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.’ ibid

Correct.

It is tinfoil hat Red Dawn nonsense.

There’s nothing in the history, text, or case law of the Second Amendment that authorizes insurrectionist dogma.

No one ‘needs’ an AR 15, it’s a want – and that’s fine; if someone wants to possess an AR 15, he should be allowed to do to.

But don’t try to ‘justify’ possessing an AR 15 as some sort of a ‘need’ – it’s not.

 

[Seymour Flops]

This is lie.

Nowhere does the article’s author advocate for ‘grabbing guns.’

Really?

So, after his proposed ban on AR15s is passed and he - as a police officer sees someone open carrying an AR15 (many states are much more lenient about carrying rifles than handguns), what will he do?

 

[AZrailwhale]

Really?

So, after his proposed ban on AR15s is passed and he - as a police officer sees someone open carrying an AR15 (many states are much more lenient about carrying rifles than handguns), what will he do?

He will not only seize the rifle but arrest the person as well.

 

[Seymour Flops]

You write:

He goes to great lengths to explain why an AR15 is not the best weapon for home defense against an single intruder, not at all needed since I know of no one who thinks it is.​

On the other hand, it depends on the shooter. Most are going to be more comfortable taking a defensive posture than taking an active engagement posture in home defense. My HK45 or either one of my 9mms (S&W Classic 59 or Berreta M9A3) are perfect for home defense, especially when taking an active engagement posture for which I have the training. He's thinking like a seasoned combatant, not like your average shooter. In my experience, many if not most female shooters are more comfortable handling and controlling an AR-15 and taking a defensive posture when possible.

Yes, very true.

The author of that article was talking about AR15s being likely to penetrate walls and harm a family member or apartment neighbor, which people who actually understand guns are well aware of. Alone in an isolated house, I would prefer a short barreled AR15 with collapsing stock for home defense. In the 'burbs, I have a shotgun with a pistol holster on the butt for home defense.

I use a .380 for carry, having switched from a J-frame .38. I've seen studies showing that this is the most likely caliber to fully disable an attacker, to which I attribute the relative ease of a double tap.

I actually don't have an AR15 yet. I need to get one. A liberal poster convinced me (without meaning to) that I have a duty to have a semi-auto rifle with detachable magazine, in case the government goes full on authoritarian.

 

[Jarlaxle]

He will not only seize the rifle but arrest the person as well.

Or murder the person in cold blood.

 

[2aguy]

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

Here it is: the government elitist mentality spelled out baldly by a true believer:

The AR-15 has the dubious distinction of being America's most popular semi-automatic rifle. I'm more familiar with the gun than most people: I own one. And one thing I know for sure is that this weapon doesn't belong in the hands of the average civilian.

He is more familiar with the gun than most people because he owns one? The AR15, as he mentions, is the most popular rifle in the United States. It is also a civilian version of the weapon that nearly all U.S. military veterans trained with. He's not exactly in a tiny minority for being familiar with it.

He goes on:

I purchased my AR-15 because I was assigned one as part of my police duties. But officers weren't allowed to take our department-issued weapons home. I felt it was my responsibility to become proficient with any weapon I'd been assigned, so I bought one. And I've spent hundreds of hours training so that I could properly use it.

Bull! He could have had plenty of time on the po-lice range to become proficient. One of the benefits of that rifle is how easy it is to learn to use. We were trained and qualified for the M16A1 during my second week of basic training, when we barely knew how to march in a straight line. It wasn't hard, and nearly everyone qualified.

No, his reason for buying an AR15 is the same as the one that he ridicules others for: he wanted one.

First, though, he ridicules the most important reason that every free American should own a semi-auto rifle with detachable magazine:

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.

That is not just "part" of our second amendment right, as his fictitious tinfoil hatters supposedly say. It is the stated purpose of our second amendment right. The second amendment is not for hunting birds, nor for biathlon training. It is to maintain a well-regulated militia as it explicitly states.

He goes to great lengths to explain why an AR15 is not the best weapon for home defense against an single intruder, not at all needed since I know of no one who thinks it is.

His enforcement solution is pretty optimistic:

And outlawing these AR-15s would not require confiscating them from people who already have them. Once you've made these weapons illegal, anyone found with one would be subject to arrest, since possession of these weapons would be a crime. I think it's likely that you would see a lot of people opting to turn them in.

So, it would be another law passed by the left, which would be unenforced or selectively enforced. People won't "turn them in," after having spent around a thousand dollars on rifle and ammo. The only people targeted for enforcement would be people at gun shows. Real criminals who use guns are now being released by liberal judges and liberal "prosecutors," so why are real criminals going to get an extra penalty if they use an AR in their crimes? Would that Ramos guy serve more than the several life sentences he has coming, if this proposed law were in effect? Nope. We will be lucky if he doesn't get found not guilty by reason of insanity, placed in a mental home for a few years and released.

Not to mention that of course, the law can't just say, "Models designated as 'AR15" by their manufacturer, because the manufacturers could just change the name. They will have to define "assault weapon," which the last two nominees for head of ATF have been at a loss to do. Here's what you get when liberals who know nothing about guns try to regulate them:

View attachment 659196


I feel safer already! /sarcasm

Massad Ayoob is both an expert in firearms, a master instructor and he is also an expert witness for self defense cases...

 

[Flash]

This is lie.

Nowhere does the article’s author advocate for ‘grabbing guns.’

No he is just saying that the Bill of Rights apply to him but not to you.

I suspect I know a lot more about ARs than he does.

I used the military version of an AR in a war. I have been shooting ARs and M-16s for about 55 years. I am a certified firearms instructor and range officer. A few years ago I worked a contract with the Sheriff's office to train deputies on the AR. I shoot ARs almost every week and own 29 ARs and a M-16 myself.

That guy don't know jackshit about what he is talking about.

 

[Flash]

 

[miketx]

He should have got an ar 10. They are 5 Ar's safer. Guy sounds like a real nice nazi cop.

 

[miketx]

‘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.’ ibid

Correct.

It is tinfoil hat Red Dawn nonsense.

There’s nothing in the history, text, or case law of the Second Amendment that authorizes insurrectionist dogma.

No one ‘needs’ an AR 15, it’s a want – and that’s fine; if someone wants to possess an AR 15, he should be allowed to do to.

But don’t try to ‘justify’ possessing an AR 15 as some sort of a ‘need’ – it’s not.

Liar.

 

[Mac-7]

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

Here it is: the government elitist mentality spelled out baldly by a true believer:

The AR-15 has the dubious distinction of being America's most popular semi-automatic rifle. I'm more familiar with the gun than most people: I own one. And one thing I know for sure is that this weapon doesn't belong in the hands of the average civilian.

He is more familiar with the gun than most people because he owns one? The AR15, as he mentions, is the most popular rifle in the United States. It is also a civilian version of the weapon that nearly all U.S. military veterans trained with. He's not exactly in a tiny minority for being familiar with it.

He goes on:

I purchased my AR-15 because I was assigned one as part of my police duties. But officers weren't allowed to take our department-issued weapons home. I felt it was my responsibility to become proficient with any weapon I'd been assigned, so I bought one. And I've spent hundreds of hours training so that I could properly use it.

Bull! He could have had plenty of time on the po-lice range to become proficient. One of the benefits of that rifle is how easy it is to learn to use. We were trained and qualified for the M16A1 during my second week of basic training, when we barely knew how to march in a straight line. It wasn't hard, and nearly everyone qualified.

No, his reason for buying an AR15 is the same as the one that he ridicules others for: he wanted one.

First, though, he ridicules the most important reason that every free American should own a semi-auto rifle with detachable magazine:

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.

That is not just "part" of our second amendment right, as his fictitious tinfoil hatters supposedly say. It is the stated purpose of our second amendment right. The second amendment is not for hunting birds, nor for biathlon training. It is to maintain a well-regulated militia as it explicitly states.

He goes to great lengths to explain why an AR15 is not the best weapon for home defense against an single intruder, not at all needed since I know of no one who thinks it is.

His enforcement solution is pretty optimistic:

And outlawing these AR-15s would not require confiscating them from people who already have them. Once you've made these weapons illegal, anyone found with one would be subject to arrest, since possession of these weapons would be a crime. I think it's likely that you would see a lot of people opting to turn them in.

So, it would be another law passed by the left, which would be unenforced or selectively enforced. People won't "turn them in," after having spent around a thousand dollars on rifle and ammo. The only people targeted for enforcement would be people at gun shows. Real criminals who use guns are now being released by liberal judges and liberal "prosecutors," so why are real criminals going to get an extra penalty if they use an AR in their crimes? Would that Ramos guy serve more than the several life sentences he has coming, if this proposed law were in effect? Nope. We will be lucky if he doesn't get found not guilty by reason of insanity, placed in a mental home for a few years and released.

Not to mention that of course, the law can't just say, "Models designated as 'AR15" by their manufacturer, because the manufacturers could just change the name. They will have to define "assault weapon," which the last two nominees for head of ATF have been at a loss to do. Here's what you get when liberals who know nothing about guns try to regulate them:

View attachment 659196


I feel safer already! /sarcasm

He’s a democrat appointed police chief in waiting

 

[Batcat]

Yes, very true.

The author of that article was talking about AR15s being likely to penetrate walls and harm a family member or apartment neighbor, which people who actually understand guns are well aware of. Alone in an isolated house, I would prefer a short barreled AR15 with collapsing stock for home defense. In the 'burbs, I have a shotgun with a pistol holster on the butt for home defense.

I use a .380 for carry, having switched from a J-frame .38. I've seen studies showing that this is the most likely caliber to fully disable an attacker, to which I attribute the relative ease of a double tap.

I actually don't have an AR15 yet. I need to get one. A liberal poster convinced me (without meaning to) that I have a duty to have a semi-auto rifle with detachable magazine, in case the government goes full on authoritarian.

A rifle is not the best choice for self defense in an urban environment or in the suburbs.

 

[marvin martian]

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

Here it is: the government elitist mentality spelled out baldly by a true believer:

The AR-15 has the dubious distinction of being America's most popular semi-automatic rifle. I'm more familiar with the gun than most people: I own one. And one thing I know for sure is that this weapon doesn't belong in the hands of the average civilian.

He is more familiar with the gun than most people because he owns one? The AR15, as he mentions, is the most popular rifle in the United States. It is also a civilian version of the weapon that nearly all U.S. military veterans trained with. He's not exactly in a tiny minority for being familiar with it.

He goes on:

I purchased my AR-15 because I was assigned one as part of my police duties. But officers weren't allowed to take our department-issued weapons home. I felt it was my responsibility to become proficient with any weapon I'd been assigned, so I bought one. And I've spent hundreds of hours training so that I could properly use it.

Bull! He could have had plenty of time on the po-lice range to become proficient. One of the benefits of that rifle is how easy it is to learn to use. We were trained and qualified for the M16A1 during my second week of basic training, when we barely knew how to march in a straight line. It wasn't hard, and nearly everyone qualified.

No, his reason for buying an AR15 is the same as the one that he ridicules others for: he wanted one.

First, though, he ridicules the most important reason that every free American should own a semi-auto rifle with detachable magazine:

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.

That is not just "part" of our second amendment right, as his fictitious tinfoil hatters supposedly say. It is the stated purpose of our second amendment right. The second amendment is not for hunting birds, nor for biathlon training. It is to maintain a well-regulated militia as it explicitly states.

He goes to great lengths to explain why an AR15 is not the best weapon for home defense against an single intruder, not at all needed since I know of no one who thinks it is.

His enforcement solution is pretty optimistic:

And outlawing these AR-15s would not require confiscating them from people who already have them. Once you've made these weapons illegal, anyone found with one would be subject to arrest, since possession of these weapons would be a crime. I think it's likely that you would see a lot of people opting to turn them in.

So, it would be another law passed by the left, which would be unenforced or selectively enforced. People won't "turn them in," after having spent around a thousand dollars on rifle and ammo. The only people targeted for enforcement would be people at gun shows. Real criminals who use guns are now being released by liberal judges and liberal "prosecutors," so why are real criminals going to get an extra penalty if they use an AR in their crimes? Would that Ramos guy serve more than the several life sentences he has coming, if this proposed law were in effect? Nope. We will be lucky if he doesn't get found not guilty by reason of insanity, placed in a mental home for a few years and released.

Not to mention that of course, the law can't just say, "Models designated as 'AR15" by their manufacturer, because the manufacturers could just change the name. They will have to define "assault weapon," which the last two nominees for head of ATF have been at a loss to do. Here's what you get when liberals who know nothing about guns try to regulate them:

View attachment 659196


I feel safer already! /sarcasm

Fuck this fascist piece of shit. He's the reason we need these weapons.

 

[2aguy]

A rifle is not the best choice for self defense in an urban environment or in the suburbs.

That depends….,,,,,against what, when?

 

[woodwork201]

Yes, very true.

The author of that article was talking about AR15s being likely to penetrate walls and harm a family member or apartment neighbor, which people who actually understand guns are well aware of. Alone in an isolated house, I would prefer a short barreled AR15 with collapsing stock for home defense. In the 'burbs, I have a shotgun with a pistol holster on the butt for home defense.

I use a .380 for carry, having switched from a J-frame .38. I've seen studies showing that this is the most likely caliber to fully disable an attacker, to which I attribute the relative ease of a double tap.

I actually don't have an AR15 yet. I need to get one. A liberal poster convinced me (without meaning to) that I have a duty to have a semi-auto rifle with detachable magazine, in case the government goes full on authoritarian.

Can you quote/link those studies that you've seen that said a .380 is the most likely caliber to fully disable an attacker? I'd like to get that forwarded to people who need to know; you know, like the SEALs, the Army and the Marines, the FBI, every police department in America, etc.

Seriously, I'm not challenging your choice, every one should make their own choices on what tools they use for which job, but that's a new one on me so I would like to see the links.