The AR-15, a great tool to stop a violent mob from burning and looting your home or business...or murdering you and your family. Democrats hate this.

Why we need the AR-15......

The democrat party turned loose blm and antifa into black neighborhoods to hurt President Trump during an election year.

The brownshirt mob of democrat party backed, supported and defended blm and antifa thugs burned, looted and murdered in black neighborhoods for 7 months, killing over 40 Americans and causing 2 billion dollars in damages....to primarily black owned businesses and homes......

This is why we need AR-15 rifles.....and all the other semi-automatic rifles.....they keep the democrats from burning, looting and killing when they try to gain power.....ask the Korean Store owners in California..who kept their businesses unburned, unlooted, and they kept themselves and their families alive...

Ask Kyle Rittenhouse, who was almost murdered by 3 democrat party thugs, all 3 felons...one a child molester.....

One of the first, modern gun control pushes happened in New York....the gun control law was created because the gangs working for the democrat party were complaining that some of their victims, the enemies of the democrat party....had guns and shot at them....

The democrat party created the gun law in order to disarm those victims...

Why do Americans need AR-15s with a high capacity magazine? Because too often, mobs inflamed by planted rumors are allowed (even encouraged) to rampage through American communities. Ask Kyle Rittenhouse. The AR-15 is a jury-approved tool of self-defense against a mob of attackers.

Mobs like these don’t materialize in a vacuum. Tyrants, dating back to the Romans, have employed mobs to influence politics. Mussolini, Mao, Hitler, the Ayatollah Ali Khamenei of Iran, all developed an “on and off” switch for their street goons. And no, it’s not different when the mob is inflamed by social justice concerns. Every mob since before the Romans claims to be fighting for justice of some kind.

Recall that Kamala Harris rather conspicuously pledged to “stand by” Kenosha rioters and helped raise money for Minneapolis rioters who burned down an entire police facility. Biden excused the Kenosha riots on the grounds of “the original sin in this country . . . slavery, and all the vestigages of it.” One should not hold one’s breath for help from the Biden Administration if one’s city descends into chaos.


Mark and Patricia McCloskey and Kyle Rittenhouse have demonstrated that the AR-15 with a conspicuous high-capacity magazine is the appropriate tool to deter a mob (in the case of the McCloskeys) and may be wielded as a legitimate instrument of self-defense (in the case of Rittenhouse). And, as I pointed out in 2020,



The Sullivan laws........disarming the political victims of the democrat party....

The strange birth of NY’s gun laws

Problem was the gangs worked for Tammany. The Democratic machine used them asshtarkers (sluggers), enforcing discipline at the polls and intimidating the opposition. Gang leaders like Monk Eastman were even employed as informal “sheriffs,” keeping their turf under Tammany control.

The Tammany Tiger needed to rein in the gangs without completely crippling them. Enter Big Tim with the perfect solution: Ostensibly disarm the gangs — and ordinary citizens, too — while still keeping them on the streets.

In fact, he gave the game away during the debate on the bill, which flew through Albany: “I want to make it so the young thugs in my district will get three years for carrying dangerous weapons instead of getting a sentence in the electric chair a year from now.”

Sullivan knew the gangs would flout the law, but appearances were more important than results. Young toughs took to sewing the pockets of their coats shut, so that cops couldn’t plant firearms on them, and many gangsters stashed their weapons inside their girlfriends’ “bird cages” — wire-mesh fashion contraptions around which women would wind their hair.


----Ordinary citizens, on the other hand, were disarmed, which solved another problem: Gangsters had been bitterly complaining to Tammany that their victims sometimes shot back at them.

So gang violence didn’t drop under the Sullivan Act — and really took off after the passage of Prohibition in 1920.


Spectacular gangland rubouts — like the 1932 machine-gunning of “Mad Dog” Coll in a drugstore phone booth on 23rd Street — became the norm.

Also.......the democrat party made it illegal for slaves, and free blacks to own guns ....never forget that...
This is a lie and fails as a strawman fallacy.

Democrats fully support citizens defending themselves.
 
Hmmm...did he know that? Considering he was surrounded by democrat party brown shirts who had been burning and looting all night long, and who knew, may have been murdering people?

You truly are an idiot...
The thread premise is ridiculous idiocy – a moronic attempt to ‘justify’ owning an AR 15.

Owning an AR 15 is a want, not a ‘need.’
 
Why would a mob attack your house? Rittenhouse's home was not under attack.

Good point and answer to those who think AR-15s — or other semi-automatic weapons with 30-bullet clips and body armor — somehow are really appropriate for home defense.

I feel the OP writer made it clear that he, like many right wingers, does not mainly think about the AR-15 as a weapon for home defense, but as a good weapon to wage some kind of necessary civil war against imagined political enemies — to “keep the democrats from burning, looting and killing when they try to gain power.”

Everyone knows it is the right that is most heavily armed in this country, that looters are usually mostly unorganized criminals or vandals out to “shop for free.” Of course everyone has the right to defend life and property and their own homes when necessary. But some gun nuts now seek to become … vigilantes and political activists.

The result of such fantasies accompanied by widespread arming with assault-like weapons not only is that these weapons are ever more frequently used by nutters to kill children in schools, but they are also used by outright racists against minorities, e.g. in Churches and shopping centers. Both have special and horrifying emotional resonance. The conscious effort of some of these lunatics is to be “vanguard warriors,” to start a civil war, or a “Helter Skelter” race war. THAT is especially dangerous and disastrous to our multi-ethnic society & Republic.

Those on the right who call AR-15s a weapon “to fight Democrats” are treading on dangerous ground. It is unfortunate but guns — the AR-15 serving as a symbol — are becoming subliminal tools for intimidation and terror in our life and politics.

That doesn’t mean semi-auto weapons or the AR-15 should or can be “banned.” I can understand those who call for this after terror attacks like the recent ones in Buffalo and Uvalde, but I don’t think people or politicians who speak this way are being realistic — not in today’s U.S.A. anyway.

But there are a host of regulations, from strict registration to banning large clips, to insisting on waiting periods, to serious background checks (etc.), that are eminently reasonable and supportable under a strict originalist interpretation of the 2nd Amendment. Many would even be supported by police and responsible Republicans and private gun owners.

What is NOT appropriate is irresponsible talk about needing assault weapons to defeat political (or racial) opponents.
 
Why would a mob attack your house? Rittenhouse's home was not under attack.

Good point and answer to those who think of AR-15s — or other semi-automatic “assault weapons” with 30-bullet clips and body armor — are somehow really appropriate for home defense.

I feel the OP writer made it clear that he, like many right wingers, does not mainly think about the AR-15 as a weapon for home defense, but as a good weapon to wage some kind of necessary civil war against imagined political enemies — to “keep the democrats from burning, looting and killing when they try to gain power.”

Everyone knows it is the right that is most heavily armed in this country, that looters are usually mostly unorganized criminals or vandals out to “shop for free.” Of course everyone has the right to defend life and property and their own homes when necessary. But some gun nuts now seek to become … vigilantes and political activists.

The result of such fantasies accompanied by widespread arming with assault-like weapons not only is that these weapons are ever more frequently used by nutters to kill children in schools, but they are also used by outright racists against minorities, e.g. in Churches and shopping centers. Both have special and horrifying emotional resonance. The conscious effort of some of these lunatics is to be “vanguard warriors,” to start a civil war, or a “Helter Skelter” race war. THAT is especially dangerous and disastrous to our multi-ethnic society & Republic.

Those on the right who call AR-15s a weapon “to fight Democrats” are treading on dangerous ground. It is unfortunate but guns — the AR-15 serving as a symbol — are becoming subliminal tools for intimidation and terror in our life and politics.

That doesn’t mean semi-auto weapons or the AR-15 should or can be “banned.” I can understand those who call for this after terror attacks like the recent ones in Buffalo and Uvalde, but I don’t think people or politicians who speak this way are being realistic — not in today’s U.S.A. anyway.

But there are a host of regulations, from strict registration to banning large clips, to insisting on waiting periods, to serious background checks (etc.), that are eminently reasonable and supportable under a strict originalist interpretation of the 2nd Amendment. Many would even be supported by police and responsible Republicans and private gun owners

What is NOT appropriate is irresponsible talk about needing assault weapons to defeat political (or racial) opponents.Tell that to the Folks who arrested Roger Stone and the Guy from trumps cabinet a few days ago at an Airport
 
Good point and answer to those who think AR-15s — or other semi-automatic weapons with 30-bullet clips and body armor — somehow are really appropriate for home defense.

I feel the OP writer made it clear that he, like many right wingers, does not mainly think about the AR-15 as a weapon for home defense, but as a good weapon to wage some kind of necessary civil war against imagined political enemies — to “keep the democrats from burning, looting and killing when they try to gain power.”

Everyone knows it is the right that is most heavily armed in this country, that looters are usually mostly unorganized criminals or vandals out to “shop for free.” Of course everyone has the right to defend life and property and their own homes when necessary. But some gun nuts now seek to become … vigilantes and political activists.

The result of such fantasies accompanied by widespread arming with assault-like weapons not only is that these weapons are ever more frequently used by nutters to kill children in schools, but they are also used by outright racists against minorities, e.g. in Churches and shopping centers. Both have special and horrifying emotional resonance. The conscious effort of some of these lunatics is to be “vanguard warriors,” to start a civil war, or a “Helter Skelter” race war. THAT is especially dangerous and disastrous to our multi-ethnic society & Republic.

Those on the right who call AR-15s a weapon “to fight Democrats” are treading on dangerous ground. It is unfortunate but guns — the AR-15 serving as a symbol — are becoming subliminal tools for intimidation and terror in our life and politics.

That doesn’t mean semi-auto weapons or the AR-15 should or can be “banned.” I can understand those who call for this after terror attacks like the recent ones in Buffalo and Uvalde, but I don’t think people or politicians who speak this way are being realistic — not in today’s U.S.A. anyway.

But there are a host of regulations, from strict registration to banning large clips, to insisting on waiting periods, to serious background checks (etc.), that are eminently reasonable and supportable under a strict originalist interpretation of the 2nd Amendment. Many would even be supported by police and responsible Republicans and private gun owners

What is NOT appropriate is irresponsible talk about needing assault weapons to defeat political (or racial) opponents.

These pissant misfits are playing fantasy games.. pretend masculinity. A shotgun works for home security even loaded with bird shot.
 
Good point and answer to those who think AR-15s — or other semi-automatic weapons with 30-bullet clips and body armor — somehow are really appropriate for home defense.
An AR pistol/carbine in 9/10mm is almost always a better for home defense than a shotgun.
But there are a host of regulations, from strict registration to banning large clips, to insisting on waiting periods, to serious background checks (etc.), that are eminently reasonable and supportable under a strict originalist interpretation of the 2nd Amendment.
How do you get past "shall not be infringed"?
 
You're right....it was Colt. It's been over 30 years since I retired.
Here is my Mattel M-16.


1654713434919.png
 
How do you get past "shall not be infringed"?
The same way we got beyond “A well regulated militia …”

The same way “bearing” stinger anti-aircraft missiles and bazookas and suitcase-sized nuclear arms were outlawed — none of which were available in the 18th century.

Hey, I’ve only been talking about “regulations” here, as in “well regulated militia.” For regulation purposes, why can’t firearms be re-categorized into many more than the common three classes?
 
The same way we got beyond “A well regulated militia …”
OK.... why do you think the court will rule "strict registration" and "banning large clips" and "waiting periods" and "serious background checks" do not infringe on the right to keep and bear arms?
The same way “bearing” stinger anti-aircraft missiles and bazookas and suitcase-sized nuclear arms were outlawed — none of which were available in the 18th century.
These are not in common use for the traditionally legal uses of a firearm - and thus, are not "bearable arms".
Apples/oranges.
Hey, I’ve only been talking about “regulations” here, as in “well regulated militia.”
The states and the federal government have the power to regulate the militia how they want.
Except, of course, for regulations that violate the 2nd Amendment.
For regulation purposes, why can’t firearms be re-categorized into many more than the common three classes?
"All bearable arms". What you -call- them doesn't matter.
 
Last edited:
Then you are probably doing something wrong. Most soldiers and civilians find malfunctions in the AR/M-16 platform to be rare.
No....I wasn't doing anything wrong.
I was well trained on my weapons.
Fire a few blanks thru them and they become practically worthless.
You have to clean them immediately after a blankfire mission.
 
AR-15s jam too often.
Perfect target rich parking spot for terrorist & a trunk load of 100 round mags. 50,000 beer drinking hot dog eating sitting ducks just prime targets. There will be 100's dead & 10 times more wounded & injured.
SLP2020102610.jpg


Yeah....you really are a dumb ass......

The las vegas shooter, firing from a concealed, fortified, elevate position, into a tightly packed concert area....not like this, but packed in the center of the floor.........with total surprise....

Killed 60 people out of 22,000

So no, not hundreds dead, not even in that situation......you dumb ass.....



The muslim terrorist in Nice, France, with a rental truck, no police scrutiny, no background check, in 5 minutes of driving.....murdered 86 people and injured 450 others....

You idiots don't understand the issues......you are filled with fear, ignorance and stupidity....
 
One man's "terrorist" is another man's "freedom fighter".


No......a terrorist who specifically targets innocent people to murder is just a fucking murderer....you dumb ass......
 

Forum List

Back
Top