aggiebq03+ said:

---

docb said:

---

Aggie Jurist said:

---

Quote:

---

We never had them growing up and we did just fine. I'm with you. Fun to shoot but not necessary. I'm not sure our forefathers had these in mind when they wrote the amendments.

---

It's not about what's necessary. I don't need you to tell me what's necessary anyway. We live part-time on a mountain, far away from any help. We have 2 (wife and I) and we know how to use them. I can't (and shouldn't have to) rely on a small Sheriff's department 1/2 an hour away.

More importantly, the US Constitution isn't about specific items the founders could identify - I guess the 1st amendment doesn't apply to TV, or social media b/c the founders didn't have those things in mind either? If you want to amend the Constitution, go ahead and try. It was made difficult to change for a reason - b/c it's about the LIMITED powers of the government and those who run it. There's been no real effort to repeal the 2nd amendment for a reason - there isn't enough support. Good.

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

That's the entirety of the 10th Amendment, the final provision in the Bill of Rights. Those in DC should have that tattooed on their foreheads.

---

Well if you think you and your wife need them that's fine. I also live part time on a mountain as I'm sure a lot of people have over the years long before ARs were even available. I've never once thought I needed one for self defense. The only gun I have at my mountain home is a shotgun with slugs and 00 buckshot. I'm sure I'll be fine. I'm certainly not worried about anything. Not telling you what's necessary for you because I really don't care.

---

You've never thought more than 3-4 people might come after you at one time? How do you feel about handguns with more than 4 bullets?

And yes people lived a long time before AR was around since the company wasn't founded until the 1950s, and the current version was revived in 1996. What does that have to do with anything?

---

Never in my life would I consider 3-4 people coming after me. Hell I'm much more worried of dying in a car wreck or getting cancer as they both are exponentially more likely.

Fitch said:

---

Z Team said:

---

Because the police may wait one hour to provide assistance. And the world is full of AR15's.

Real questiono you really think that you can get all AR15's out of America. If you answer no, then a wise man would protect his home with one if the guy coming to the door might have one.

One more question: do you think this kid couldn't have killed just as many people with a bunch of buckshot and a shotgun?
Probably would have killed more actually.

---

So then the answer is give up and accept status quo with school children and churches being shot up as a fact of life because the supply and existing inventory of firearms is too hard to address? And thus the only logical solution is more firearms to have more firearms?

---

YES! Next question.

Fitch said:

---

Z Team said:

---

Because the police may wait one hour to provide assistance. And the world is full of AR15's.

Real questiono you really think that you can get all AR15's out of America. If you answer no, then a wise man would protect his home with one if the guy coming to the door might have one.

One more question: do you think this kid couldn't have killed just as many people with a bunch of buckshot and a shotgun?
Probably would have killed more actually.

---

So then the answer is give up and accept status quo with school children and churches being shot up as a fact of life because the supply and existing inventory of firearms is too hard to address? And thus the only logical solution is more firearms to have more firearms?

---

I'm just curious that if you do realize there are more guns in Australia now than there were when the Port Arthur massacre happened. Once you come to realize that, then maybe rethink your question.

//To counter the Salvador Ramos of the world. He was armed with two and no training, all I need is one with a opportunity.//Just my thoughts.//

docb said:

---

I wonder why no one in Uvalde did this brave act? Surely lots of AR owners there.

---

They made the incorrect assumption the police would handle it. Never again.

The ultimate purpose of government is to kill people.

The goal is ethical, weak, divided, small, constrained government so that it kills the right people and only the right people.

The purpose of this country and its constitution and bill of rights is to ensure that if the government tries to kill too many wrong people, the citizens are well armed and capable of killing the government.

Gun violence is irrelevant to that, except for the point that government should have killed most of the perpetrators long before they committed violent crimes. After due process of course.

Op completely misses the entire point of this country and everything that was ever good about it. Op also completely fails to understand basic human nature.

I primarily own mine to do things to government actors, officials, and other feds (demons) if they were to overstep their boundaries. I also like to shoot it at a range and take it hog hunting.

The Dirty Sock said:

---

---

I never knew Hupp testified before Congress. Thanks for sharing. Too bad Chuck Schumer's smarmy @ss couldn't have been in Luby's that day instead of her parents. Maybe his eyes would've been opened.

Fitch is technically correct. If there were no guns, there would no gun violence. Of course, that would mean the criminals would not have guns, but neither would normal law abiding citizens, or the police, or the military, or anyone in any other country. Because, if any guns exist any where, then criminals will get their hands on them.

Lonestar-aught-six said:

---

I was unaware I need a reason. When did this start?

---

It didn't.

It's none of your business. Only real reason is to try to match up against the military or law enforcement when they eventually come for us all.

Rockdoc said:

---

suture_scissors said:

---

These reasons aren't good enough.

Get rid of 2A, confiscate all these nuts' guns. I'd even vote for a Democrat if they had the guts to propose that.

---

Come and take it

---

But does he have the guts to try? It's a different story when it's your life in question. Agree come and take it.

There is a reason why in 2020 twenty two million firearms (a 64% in crease from the previous year) were sold. The BLM riots and civil unrest. People were frightened and wanted a firearm to protect themselves, family and property. AR 15's and AK's and their variants along with 9mm handguns were the most sought after and by July were pretty scarce as was the ammunition. After that it was any firearm in any caliber that could be found.

Civil unrest is a reality and having a magazine fed rifle, although not the ultimate equalizer, it does even the odds against multiple persons with bad intent. Most of us have seen the empty shelves at the grocery stores. If the supply chain breaks down completely, no food, no gas, no baby formula there are going to be a lot of anti firearm anti AR 15 types that wish they had one.

RGLAG85 said:

---

Fitch said:

---

Z Team said:

---

Because the police may wait one hour to provide assistance. And the world is full of AR15's.

Real questiono you really think that you can get all AR15's out of America. If you answer no, then a wise man would protect his home with one if the guy coming to the door might have one.

One more question: do you think this kid couldn't have killed just as many people with a bunch of buckshot and a shotgun?
Probably would have killed more actually.

---

So then the answer is give up and accept status quo with school children and churches being shot up as a fact of life because the supply and existing inventory of firearms is too hard to address? And thus the only logical solution is more firearms to have more firearms?

---

Absolute ignorant take. The gun is not the problem just like the match isn't the problem to the arsonist or the car is not the problem to the drunk driver. The best way to deal with evil force is good force, so yes, we need more good force not less and our founders understood this.

IT'S A SOCIAL, MENTAL HEALTH ISSUE, NOT A GUN ISSUE!!! HTH

---

I agree. But by the same token it is not the answer either.

Why, therefore, is a seemingly common solution more firearms to combat the symptom instead of addressing the underlying disease?

To kill people intending to do harm to me or my family.

Dr. Teeth said:

---

To kill people intending to do harm to me or my family.

---

To deter is the best outcome, but kill, if necessary.

Fitch said:

---

RGLAG85 said:

---

Fitch said:

---

Z Team said:

---

Because the police may wait one hour to provide assistance. And the world is full of AR15's.

Real questiono you really think that you can get all AR15's out of America. If you answer no, then a wise man would protect his home with one if the guy coming to the door might have one.

One more question: do you think this kid couldn't have killed just as many people with a bunch of buckshot and a shotgun?
Probably would have killed more actually.

---

So then the answer is give up and accept status quo with school children and churches being shot up as a fact of life because the supply and existing inventory of firearms is too hard to address? And thus the only logical solution is more firearms to have more firearms?

---

Absolute ignorant take. The gun is not the problem just like the match isn't the problem to the arsonist or the car is not the problem to the drunk driver. The best way to deal with evil force is good force, so yes, we need more good force not less and our founders understood this.

IT'S A SOCIAL, MENTAL HEALTH ISSUE, NOT A GUN ISSUE!!! HTH

---

I agree. But by the same token it is not the answer either.

Why, therefore, is a seemingly common solution more firearms to combat the symptom instead of addressing the underlying disease?

---

If the government will not do their primary job of enforcing the laws, and will not do anything to get help for the huge population of mentally ill folks, I will arm myself for self defense. I don't know anybody saying that more guns will stop the cause of mentally ill people shooting up schools, but having properly armed and trained personnel who are not cowards at the schools will certainly reduce the body count for the next one.

txags92 said:

---

Fitch said:

---

RGLAG85 said:

---

Fitch said:

---

Z Team said:

---

Because the police may wait one hour to provide assistance. And the world is full of AR15's.

Real questiono you really think that you can get all AR15's out of America. If you answer no, then a wise man would protect his home with one if the guy coming to the door might have one.

One more question: do you think this kid couldn't have killed just as many people with a bunch of buckshot and a shotgun?
Probably would have killed more actually.

---

So then the answer is give up and accept status quo with school children and churches being shot up as a fact of life because the supply and existing inventory of firearms is too hard to address? And thus the only logical solution is more firearms to have more firearms?

---

Absolute ignorant take. The gun is not the problem just like the match isn't the problem to the arsonist or the car is not the problem to the drunk driver. The best way to deal with evil force is good force, so yes, we need more good force not less and our founders understood this.

IT'S A SOCIAL, MENTAL HEALTH ISSUE, NOT A GUN ISSUE!!! HTH

---

I agree. But by the same token it is not the answer either.

Why, therefore, is a seemingly common solution more firearms to combat the symptom instead of addressing the underlying disease?

---

If the government will not do their primary job of enforcing the laws, and will not do anything to get help for the huge population of mentally ill folks, I will arm myself for self defense. I don't know anybody saying that more guns will stop the cause of mentally ill people shooting up schools, but having properly armed and trained personnel who are not cowards at the schools will certainly reduce the body count for the next one.

---

The government? How about one neighbor for another to start. Or direct engagement with young men (as it seems so often to be) to provide examples of character or else refuges from abuse? Interceding before a situation evolves into dire straights is an easier course than waiting until a boiling point.

Yes of course you have the right to defend yourself, as do I and any free person. That's not the point. The point is preventing the situation from occurring is better than just limiting its destructiveness - aka "reducing the body count for the next one."

There should not be a next one!

Fitch said:

---

txags92 said:

---

Fitch said:

---

RGLAG85 said:

---

Fitch said:

---

Z Team said:

---

Because the police may wait one hour to provide assistance. And the world is full of AR15's.

Real questiono you really think that you can get all AR15's out of America. If you answer no, then a wise man would protect his home with one if the guy coming to the door might have one.

One more question: do you think this kid couldn't have killed just as many people with a bunch of buckshot and a shotgun?
Probably would have killed more actually.

---

So then the answer is give up and accept status quo with school children and churches being shot up as a fact of life because the supply and existing inventory of firearms is too hard to address? And thus the only logical solution is more firearms to have more firearms?

---

Absolute ignorant take. The gun is not the problem just like the match isn't the problem to the arsonist or the car is not the problem to the drunk driver. The best way to deal with evil force is good force, so yes, we need more good force not less and our founders understood this.

IT'S A SOCIAL, MENTAL HEALTH ISSUE, NOT A GUN ISSUE!!! HTH

---

I agree. But by the same token it is not the answer either.

Why, therefore, is a seemingly common solution more firearms to combat the symptom instead of addressing the underlying disease?

---

If the government will not do their primary job of enforcing the laws, and will not do anything to get help for the huge population of mentally ill folks, I will arm myself for self defense. I don't know anybody saying that more guns will stop the cause of mentally ill people shooting up schools, but having properly armed and trained personnel who are not cowards at the schools will certainly reduce the body count for the next one.

---

The government? How about one neighbor for another to start. Or direct engagement with young men (as it seems so often to be) to provide examples of character or else refuges from abuse? Interceding before a situation evolves into dire straights is an easier course than waiting until a boiling point.

Yes of course you have the right to defend yourself, as do I and any free person. That's not the point. The point is preventing the situation from occurring is better than just limiting its destructiveness - aka "reducing the body count for the next one."

There should not be a next one!

---

Sounds like you don't have much experience with true mental illness. The government has made it nearly impossible to get people help, even when they are very clearly not well, and potentially a danger to themself or others. The idea of being able to just reach out to a neighbor suffering from paranoid schizophrenia (for example) would be laughable if it weren't so deadly serious. Families and professionals need better tools to get sick people the long term help they need, and right now the government is failing at providing them.

No arguments from me on that end.

My earlier remarks still stand, though.

If you don't fix the mental illness problems that are the root cause, then you have to treat the symptoms. The best antidote for the bad guy with a gun is multiple good guys (or gals) with a gun (who aren't too cowardly to run towards the sound of the gunfire). Banning certain types of gun sales or creating a red flag system that violates due process and will be badly abused by divorce courts won't stop mentally ill people from obtaining guns when there are hundred of millions of guns already in circulation. And wholesale gun confiscation ala Canada or Australia is a non-starter here that will 100% trigger a civil war (and rightfully so).

We should start by enforcing our existing gun laws and actually putting people in jail for violent crimes. Beyond that, streamline the process for long term treatment of mental illness instead of short term stabilizing treatments, particularly when there are family members trying to help somebody that badly needs it. Those things will make a meaningful difference in violent crime statistics, while all of the currently contemplated "reasonable first steps" will not.

Good luck with fixing mental illness

docb said:

---

Good luck with fixing mental illness

---

Start with banning liberals and Democrats

cctexagMD said:

---

Because if an AR-15 is enough to keep 19 "trained" cowards with bulletproof vests and guns standing in a hallway for an hour while children are being slaughtered by an untrained 18 year old, then maybe it's enough to keep my home safe from any other evil *******s out there, so I don't have to rely on 19 cowards with bulletproof vests to do jack plop while I am potentially being slaughtered inside my own home.

Along with every other logical reason put forward in this thread.

---

Not bad

JSKolache said:

---

I would buy an M16 tomorrow if Ronald Reagan hadn't caved to democrats in 1986. But he did, and now they are essentially unattainable @ $30k minimum.

So I got an AR.

---

Thank you for posting the truth
Reagan failed hard here

It's not
It's less restrictive on law abiding citizens to protect self and others

jteAg said:

---

I own two shotguns and 3 rifles, all for the purpose of hunting.
I'm asking why anyone sees the rationale of owning an AR-15?
Any comments…..

---

Tell me you don't actually own guns without telling me you don't actually own guns.

Because it's nobody's business what I legally own…

jteAg said:

---

I own two shotguns and 3 rifles, all for the purpose of hunting.
I'm asking why anyone sees the rationale of owning an AR-15?
Any comments…..

---

Dear troll, the 2nd amendment had NOTHING to do with hunting.

A musket at the time the 2nd was written WAS a weapon of war.

Also, you could own a cannon for just because.

ApachePilot said:

---

I love to shoot. But more importantly I only trust myself to defend those I love. Besides it reminds me of my M4…nostalgia

---

ApachePilot, M4...you're just showing off at this point

So after 6 pages, the OPs conclusion is "no one needs an AR".
Guaranteed.