Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
epicdarkness

Why Does Anyone Need an AR15

765 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

supervike

My answer is one of the reasons that the founders intended, that everyone screams your crazy if you bring up.

Just in case you have to defend yourself against invaders or fight your government.

I think you are crazy.

But 100% right!

I fully believe this is why the founding fathers put that amendment in there.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Rafterman

The final wise words... besides that there is only one reason: What you don't have in the pants you need to have in the hands.

post-106978-0-51871400-1403199420_thumb.

post-106978-0-43956700-1403199429_thumb.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
questionmark

post-106978-0-51871400-1403199420_thumb.

post-106978-0-43956700-1403199429_thumb.

Not sexist at all, aintcha?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Einsteinium

I think you are crazy.

But 100% right!

I fully believe this is why the founding fathers put that amendment in there.

If you read the founding fathers arguments (yes a lot of it was written down at the time) they did not believe in standing armies:

James Madison: “A standing military force, with an overgrown Executive will not long be safe companions to liberty. The means of defence agst. foreign danger, have been always the instruments of tyranny at home. Among the Romans it was a standing maxim to excite a war, whenever a revolt was apprehended. Throughout all Europe, the armies kept up under the pretext of defending, have enslaved the people.”

Patrick Henry: “A standing army we shall have, also, to execute the execrable commands of tyranny; and how are you to punish them? Will you order them to be punished? Who shall obey these orders? Will your mace-bearer be a match for a disciplined regiment?”

Henry St. George Tucker in Blackstone’s 1768 Commentaries on the Laws of England:“Wherever standing armies are kept up, and when the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any color or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction.”

Commonwealth of Virginia in 1788: “… that standing armies in time of peace are dangerous to liberty, and therefore ought to be avoided, as far as the circumstances and protection of the community will admit; and that in all cases the military should be under strict subordination to and governed by the civil power.”

Pennsylvania Convention: “… as standing armies in time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; and that the military shall be kept under strict subordination to and be governed by the civil power.”

Source

They did not want standing armies, but they knew the country needed to be defended against potential invaders and domestic enemies. They also knew that in the future leaders might bring about a standing army. So their solution to this problem was to give the citizens the right to own weapons so that the citizens themselves become the defenders against an invader, and the citizens themselves can defend against the tyranny a future standing army might bring about.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yamato

A weapon of that magnitude? An underpowered unreliable plastic weapon prone to jam. But it looks scary and holds more bullets. So boo hoo, wah wah.

Never mind that almost all gun crimes are committed by handguns either, because Libs like handguns. And being politically correct for these people is being correct.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Rafterman

Not sexist at all, aintcha?

Well you're the one that opened the door by using that tired old cliche jab.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bama13

[/font][/size]

They did not want standing armies, but they knew the country needed to be defended against potential invaders and domestic enemies. They also knew that in the future leaders might bring about a standing army. So their solution to this problem was to give the citizens the right to own weapons so that the citizens themselves become the defenders against an invader, and the citizens themselves can defend against the tyranny a future standing army might bring about.

I agree with most of this except where you say "So their solution to this problem was to give the citizens the right to own weapons". We do not get any rights from our government, we get them at birth. They are inherent in all people, not just Americans. The 2nd Amendment doesn't give us the right, it says the government will not infringe upon the right we already have.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bama13

Not sexist at all, aintcha?

"What you don't have in the pants you need to have in the hands."

Pot meet kettle.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Einsteinium

I agree with most of this except where you say "So their solution to this problem was to give the citizens the right to own weapons". We do not get any rights from our government, we get them at birth. They are inherent in all people, not just Americans. The 2nd Amendment doesn't give us the right, it says the government will not infringe upon the right we already have.

Yes, I did not word that properly I apologize. I agree with what you are saying. They do not give us the right, they agree to not infringe on the right that we already have from birth, as an American citizen. However back then it was really just male landowners and since has been expanded.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Thorvir

Not sexist at all, aintcha?

It's clear you have no idea what that phrase means, since it was you who threw up the "sexist" post about things in pants:

The final wise words... besides that there is only one reason: What you don't have in the pants you need to have in the hands.

Remember that post?

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
questionmark

It's clear you have no idea what that phrase means, since it was you who threw up the "sexist" post about things in pants:

Remember that post?

So, you (and several posters on the top) are so sexist to claim that women don't have inferiority complexes to compensate?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
aztek

So, you (and several posters on the top) are so sexist to claim that women don't have inferiority complexes to compensate?

no one claimed anything, they just pointed out how dumb your post is. you are an instigator aintycha.

Edited by aztek
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
questionmark

no one claimed anything, they just pointed out how dumb your post is.

Ah, you also refuse to think... I am not surprised.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Thorvir

So, you (and several posters on the top) are so sexist to claim that women don't have inferiority complexes to compensate?

What? Where are you coming up with that drivel? Show me where I posted that, exactly.

You got called out making a sexist statement after failing to do so to another poster, that's the bottom line, now you're quibbling over it. Just fess up to it.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Michelle

So, you (and several posters on the top) are so sexist to claim that women don't have inferiority complexes to compensate?

I will admit men can more likely overpower me, if I am caught off guard, but inferiority complex? I don't think so. :innocent:

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Michelle

Did not remember you having that self-assurance tool called AR-15....

As with everyone else that's commented, I neither confirming nor denied.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
aztek

Why does anyone need 30 bullets in a clip which fire automatically. .

why not???

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Rafterman

So, you (and several posters on the top) are so sexist to claim that women don't have inferiority complexes to compensate?

Oh please, you know EXACTLY the intent of your original comment.

I was simply pointing out that many women enjoy both competitive shooting and hunting using Modern Sporting Rifles and it really has nothing to do with the type of genitalia they possess.

Besides, if you really want to know what an inferiority complex feels like, why don't you sign on at the National Matches at Camp Perry next month, grab you Modern Sporting Rifle, and plant your ass 600-1,000 yards away from the target. I'm not a psychic, but I think there might be a little shrinkage.

Edited by Rafterman
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
spartan max2

Perhaps QuestionMark is implying that only men should be allowed in memes that involve guns :innocent: lol.

No one else had a problem with a girl in the picture just saying, no one else even thought to bring it up

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
questionmark

Oh please, you know EXACTLY the intent of your original comment.

I was simply pointing out that many women enjoy both competitive shooting and hunting using Modern Sporting Rifles and it really has nothing to do with the type of genitalia they possess.

Besides, if you really want to know what an inferiority complex feels like, why don't you sign on at the National Matches at Camp Perry next month, grab you Modern Sporting Rifle, and plant your ass 600-1,000 yards away from the target. I'm not a psychic, but I think there might be a little shrinkage.

If you know as much about sport rifles as you claim you are well aware of the fact that any $300 bolt action rifle beats an AR 15 in precision any day of the week with two hand tied behind its back.

The original for that rifle was designed for just one purpose: to have a relatively light spraying instrument for the infantry, and given that the AR variety has been castrated of that possibility the only thing that is left is the bragging rights having one. No other purpose left.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yamato

I agree with most of this except where you say "So their solution to this problem was to give the citizens the right to own weapons". We do not get any rights from our government, we get them at birth. They are inherent in all people, not just Americans. The 2nd Amendment doesn't give us the right, it says the government will not infringe upon the right we already have.

That's true, he used the wrong verb, but to Einsteinium's point, the govt acknowledged that right.

If our rights aren't identified, how do we know that we have them? I'd love to have a protracted discussion with the forum about civil liberty and what rights we, and all people, do have. I think it would be instructive and helpful for many peoples' consistency.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
aztek

If you know as much about sport rifles as you claim you are well aware of the fact that any $300 bolt action rifle beats an AR 15 in precision any day of the week with two hand tied behind its back.

if you knew at least half as much about ar as you think, you'd know, there are ar rifles out there, that use cartridge that is not .223, but 308, and 6,8mm, and even some magnum cartridges, accuracy wise, some can put 5 round group inside a nickel from 100yards, and they are no longer represent what original AR was designed for. some ar platform based rifles are made for hunting, and competition shooting.

stop making look like you know everything, your knowledge is very outdated and irrelevant at present time.

please stop showing entire world how little you really know, and how large your ego is,

lol compensating for something small?? lmao.

Edited by aztek
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Capt Amerika

Because i damn well feel like it.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Capt Amerika

Why does anyone need 30 bullets in a clip which fire automatically. What is the purpose of assault weapons in the hands of civilians.

I have never seen a 30 bullet clip fire automatically.

I do however have a 30 round magazine in my AR-15 which fires once for each time i squeeze the trigger.

Funny about that gun of mine, it has never shot anything i didnt aim it at.

Makes me wonder about all these guns running around unsupervised shooting people. (because we blame the gun, not the shooter)

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hawken

I don't understand why people make a fuss about an AR-15 as opposed to a 30-30 used to hunt large game.

Both guns are capable of killing but the AR-15 gets more scrutiny just because it looks wicked.

The looks of the gun doesn't kill.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.