Why Does Anyone Need an AR15

[Yamato]

"You don't need a machine gun. You don't need 30 rounds."

How does Joe Biden know how many rounds I'll need? I might need 21 rounds, and I'll be damn thankful I still had 9 rounds left in the magazine after I got done defending myself or my family. Biden's sales pitch in the wake of another gun control attempt is laughable.

[Harte]

Why question the feeling of the need to question the feeling of the need to question the need?

[F3SS]

New rule: We may not ponder the many derivatives of questioning the need.

[Skep B]

But what if we feel the need to question the need for new rules against questioning the need to question the need?

[Thorvir]

"You don't need a machine gun. You don't need 30 rounds."

How does Joe Biden know how many rounds I'll need? I might need 21 rounds, and I'll be damn thankful I still had 9 rounds left in the magazine after I got done defending myself or my family. Biden's sales pitch in the wake of another gun control attempt is laughable.

Biden is as clueless and out-of-touch as they come. Similar to many anti-self defense advocates in this and other threads. The only difference is Biden has a platform to air his agenda...and stupidity...publicly. He also provides a fine rallying point for the kooks...though they don't realize Biden does nothing but make their arguments look even more foolish.

[MiskatonicGrad]

why does someone need a AR15?

because the government that is responsible for running our "justice" system are just as inept at running it as everything else they try to fix. so much so that groups of people in our society feel they can walk into some ones house and take what they want and in return get a slap on the wrist. so instead of us using our AR15's as the founders intended (straightening out the government from time to time) we are left defending our homes from people hoping to become part of our tax burden instead of living an honest life.

[MiskatonicGrad]

sorry that last bit sounded like I was talking about politicians. I meant criminals.

[Thorvir]

sorry that last bit sounded like I was talking about politicians. I meant criminals.

Sometimes it's hard to tell the difference between the two...

[Yamato]

Biden is as clueless and out-of-touch as they come. Similar to many anti-self defense advocates in this and other threads. The only difference is Biden has a platform to air his agenda...and stupidity...publicly. He also provides a fine rallying point for the kooks...though they don't realize Biden does nothing but make their arguments look even more foolish.

Amen, Hida. Two shotgun blasts from outside the back door may well encourage burglars. I hope liberals aren't so gullible that they actually listen to Biden's advice literally.

[Thorvir]

I hope liberals aren't so gullible that they actually listen to Biden's advice literally.

Well, one can only hope.

But I think we can easily dismiss that hope as an utterly futile one.

[Alaric]

As has been said here, the AR-15 is no weapon of great magnitude. I personally am surprised at all the bad press that little gun has gotten. For real magnitude you would want something like my granddaddy's semi-auto Remington 30-06 deer rifle. Those rifles had actions modelled after the old M-1 Garand. The AR-15's military forebear, the M-16, was designed for the Air Force for use by downed airmen, hence the lightweight design & plastic hardware.

The 5.56 round itself is underpowered. As the legend goes, it was developed to "shoot to maim". SOCOM has moved away from it's use for this reason, brought on by continuing poor performance in Iraq & Aghanistan, especially against "highly motivated" opponents. The adoption of the 5.56 round used in the M-16s was more about logistics than terminal ballistics. My cousins in Georgia wouldn't use that round on anything larger than a coyote. In many states (I would say most, but don't have a tally), it's not even legal to use it on deer.

Speaking of "need". Why do you "need" to express your opinions? Why do you "need" to have faith in... whatever you have faith in? Why do you "need" to associate with the people you like to hang out with? Why do you "need" liberty? Pursuit of happiness? Why do we "need" any of this stuff? 3 words: inalienable human rights.

Why do we need the 2nd Amendment? Because without it, our other rights are only so many words scribbled on paper... without its protections to shield us and language to inspire us, we would have neither the means, nor the inclination to secure these rights.

The right to self defense is an inalienable human right. The right to keep and bear arms (of a sufficiently modern and effective form) is a necessary corollary, without which self defense cannot be effected. Defense can be either personal, or collective.

Regarding collective self defense, "Defense Against Tyranny" is not as abstract as some would like to think. Governments gone out of control are the #1 killer in the history of history. For a personal confirmation of how this can and does happen in the Good ol U.S. of A., ask any member of a First Nation tribe... watch Russell Means', "Welcome to the Reservation".

As far as the success of lightly armed, highly motivated guerilla forces against a better armed, better equipped adversary... ask the Russians how their tanks and Sikorsky heavy gunships did in Afghanistan against horses and world war two era rifles... or any Vietnam Vet how our Huey Cobras and Phantom jets did against some guys with AK-47s in flip flops and pajamas.

[Harte]

why does someone need a AR15?

because the government that is responsible for running our "justice" system are just as inept at running it as everything else they try to fix. so much so that groups of people in our society feel they can walk into some ones house and take what they want and in return get a slap on the wrist. so instead of us using our AR15's as the founders intended (straightening out the government from time to time) we are left defending our homes from people hoping to become part of our tax burden instead of living an honest life.

Our system of justice is aptly named. It is not supposed to prevent crime. Its sole purpose is to prevent innocent people from being convicted of committing a crime.

That's what they mean by "justice." They don't mean prevention or revenge.

Harte

[Alaric]

The "need" for a 30 round magazine is a matter of elementary math.

Studies on officer involved shootings in the real world show that a trained officer will have an average hit percentage somewhere between15 and 20% at point blank range (5-15 ft). In other words, approximately 1 out of 5 bullets will hit their target. Studies also show that, in most cases, it takes multiple hits to stop a single attacker. This is why the round counts always seem so ridiculously high in most police shootings.

So let's do the math. Your house is invaded by 3 armed robbers (about average for this kind of thing). In order to hit each attacker twice, you would need to fire (on average), about 30 rounds (6 rounds out of thirty hit for two hits each). Looks like you might actually "need" a 2nd 30 round magazine... just in case.

BTW, this "need" is not as abstract as some would think either. My buddy lives in Casa Grande, AZ in one of the busiest drug/ human smuggling corridors in the country. The cartels are VERY well armed, and they come in groups.

[Alaric]

Regarding the AR pattern rifle as a long range precision rifle, see the US Army's M110 Semi Automatic Sniper System which has been in use for almost 10 years. Soldiers who've used it say it compares favorably with the bolt action M24.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/M110_Semi-Automatic_Sniper_System

[+DieChecker]

Regarding collective self defense, "Defense Against Tyranny" is not as abstract as some would like to think.

When people here post that it would be idiotic to resist the US military, I usually point out Afghanistan, and mention the couple million people who own and are experienced with hunting rifles. If you got 10,000 guys with hunting rifles on one side and 10,000 guys with M16s on the other, my bet would be on the guys with hunting rifles, regardless of bodyarmor.

[questionmark]

When people here post that it would be idiotic to resist the US military, I usually point out Afghanistan, and mention the couple million people who own and are experienced with hunting rifles. If you got 10,000 guys with hunting rifles on one side and 10,000 guys with M16s on the other, my bet would be on the guys with hunting rifles, regardless of bodyarmor.

Your problem will only be the 50 guys with drones.

If there is ever any way to get at the Army it will be exactly the same way the Islamist fight: improvised explosives, suicide bombers and similar. Everything else would not have the slightest chance. For that you don't need any kind of rifle.

And a civil war, or revolution, has very little chance if the ones bearing the brunt of the casualties are the civilians because the winner at the end always is who the civilians believe to be the winner.

[+DieChecker]

When, at the end of the day, the drones return to base, the land that has been conquored still needs those 10,000 guys with M16s to hold what was gained. Or will 50 or 100 drones really be enough to put down 150 million people on their own?

[aztek]

If there is ever any way to get at the Army it will be exactly the same way the Islamist fight: improvised explosives, suicide bombers and similar. Everything else would not have the slightest chance. For that you don't need any kind of rifle.

lmao, so islamist do not have\use guns? so our forces never get fired upon?? vietnam forces did not have guns?? the more you say things like that the more you convince me, your engine is running but the driver is long gone.

[Alaric]

When people here post that it would be idiotic to resist the US military, I usually point out Afghanistan, and mention the couple million people who own and are experienced with hunting rifles. If you got 10,000 guys with hunting rifles on one side and 10,000 guys with M16s on the other, my bet would be on the guys with hunting rifles, regardless of bodyarmor.

I'm reminded of that old Patrick Swayze film, "Next of Kin".

[questionmark]

lmao, so islamist do not have\use guns? so our forces never get fired upon?? vietnam forces did not have guns?? the more you say things like that the more you convince me, your engine is running but the driver is long gone.

And in which part of my post did you gather the afore bull sh!t?

[questionmark]

When, at the end of the day, the drones return to base, the land that has been conquored still needs those 10,000 guys with M16s to hold what was gained. Or will 50 or 100 drones really be enough to put down 150 million people on their own?

150 million, as a rule, don't participate in revolutions except with their throats should it be successful. No matter where, revolutions are always something run by minorities.

Later everybody was for it if successful or against it if it fails.

[aztek]

And in which part of my post did you gather the afore bull sh!t?

lmao, your entire post is bullsht.

[questionmark]

lmao, your entire post is bullsht.

See, if you learned to read you would not have to scream so much at people that they are lying.

[aztek]

See, if you learned to read you would not have to scream so much at people that they are lying.

i still would, because they are

[Yamato]

You really need two Wal-mart AR-15s, in case the first one jams.