What is the NEED for an assult rifle? I understand the military use, but for the average Joe, why does he need an AR?


For a little background, I come from a family of hunters, but nobody in my family is an avid "gun collector". We have shotguns and rifles used strictly for hunting and my brother has a couple pistols, his CHL and used to do competitive tactical shooting. So help me, the niave one, understand why someone needs an assult rifle.


*I'm really not trying to start an argument here. I think we're all on the same side of this fence. I am one that feels gun control is not the answer. Cocaine, meth, etc is illegal and people still get high. Drinking and driving is illegal and people get issued DWIs all the damn time. Heck, with the Newtown shooting, the criminal wasn't even old enough to own guns, but he had 4 of them either on his person or in the vehicle. Banning stuff isn't going to help.

Fun, because I can, sport, home defense.....

My favorite from my dad...."So I can shoot them as they are coming over the hill" my parents live at the bottom of a hill

"When the government fears the people, you have liberty; when the people fear the government, you have tyranny."
Thomas Jefferson

www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2012/10/foghorn/the-truth-about-assault-weapons-and-assault-weapons-bans/

Here you go.

[This message has been edited by Cannew (edited 12/17/2012 12:17p).]

It's not a matter of need - it's a matter of market demand.

There are quite a few things that people "need". Markets arise and evolve around the demand of the consumer. I'm sure at some point people will ask whether you "need" your lasers and hover-chairs, but once available, there will be a market for them.

I can answer this question if you'll tell me your understanding of the purpose of the 2nd Amendment.

For the same reason you need a car, fake boobies, alcohol, dr.pepper and a toilet seat....It just makes life easier

Why do you need a lock on your doors?

I perceive that the time may come in my lifetime when I might need to engage aggressive human targets.

I anticipate the AR will be the most adequate to my needs at that time.

AC

"When the government fears the people, you have liberty; when the people fear the government, you have tyranny."
Thomas Jefferson

this thread is not going to blow up until Sean98 weighs in.

What does "need" matter?

I don't own an AR or an AK. But I have shot both and they're fun as hell. Even disregarding the hunting (esp hogs) aspect the fact that we have the 2nd amendment right to bear arms, why should such a weapon be illegal?

I'm not going to commit a crime with any of my firearms (1 .30-06, 1 .30/30, 3 shotguns, 1 .22, 1 .357 revolver) so why would anybody think my owning a so-called "assault rifle" suddenly become an issue?

Why is an AR or AK more of a threat than a Remington 750?


or a Ruger Mini-14:

Shifty, I promise, we're on the same side here. I believe in the right to bear arms. like I said, I've been raised around guns, hunting and shooting. I have a brother with his CHL and have considered getting mine, but currently don't feel the need. I, myself, am a hunter. Most importantly, I believe in the right to protect my home and family should the need arise. It it my government and God-given right to own guns.

/\
|
|

So because you don't see or feel the "need" you'd restrict others who do?

He doesn't say anywhere that he wants to restrict people's rights. He's simply asking a question at this point.

Twix, what I am getting to is that many of us believe that part of the 2nd Amendment's purpose is to protect against tyranny and foreign invasion.

While neither tyranny nor foreign invasion seems particularly likely today or tomorrow or next week, it is a hedge against this happening in the future.

Why shouldn't members of a militia be allowed to bear the same infantry arms as members of the armed forces?

As it is, for all intents and purposes, citizens in the US *cannot* bear the same small arms (i.e. auto M-16). Only semi-auto versions. (Yes, I know one can legally own an M-16, but new purchase is illegal, and the cost of an existing one is outrageous).

Any measure that seems to limit the effectiveness of the ability of guns to kill people means that those same guns will be less useful to a militia. The extreme example here would be black-powder rifles. Can be used for hunting, not terribly useful for self-defense.

Protection from those that would try to take your freedom away. Perhaps the same someone's that might try to take said guns away to possibly inhibit your ability to remain free,,, this is what started the whole 2nd amendment thing originally , right? I' m sure all those who would think of oppressing other people wish they only had to contend with slingshots.


*i am not a gubmint conspiracy theorist, but it does make me a little uncomfortable when they want to weaken the people's ability to defend themselves.....

While I was typing, shifty basically spelled it out for me..

People seem to feel like the government is their friend, like they only exist to look out for the little guys. That may be the case today, maybe tomorrow, maybe not........I am a bit cynical at times

quote:

---

Twix, what I am getting to is that many of us believe that part of the 2nd Amendment's purpose is to protect against tyranny and foreign invasion.

---

Not part of the 2A at all. It's the whole freaking reason it was drafted and implemented as an amendment to the constitution.

The 2A is not about hunting. It is not about shooting clays on the weekend. It is not about anything other than ensuring that the Federal government will never have the power or authority to remove firearms from the citizens of this country - it is the 4th checks and balances of our government.

Simple as that.

And keep in mind that during the Revolution, most citizens actually had better weapons than standing army. Most standing army issue weapons were musket/smoothbores whereas a large percentage of the weapons held in private hands were rifles with superior range, accuracy and ballistics.

why does anyone need a car that can drive over 65 m.p.h. ?

And those that would let it happen are either

a) too ignorant to understand the effect of more and more gun control

Or

b) naive ( with relation to government / politics)

Or

c) empathetic to the situation which is MOST dangerous of all

And as a sidenote, ARs are increasingly used for hunting. And not just varmints or pigs. But also deer. I own a 6.8mm SPC version of the AR-15, with the intention of one day taking my first deer with it. Check out 68forums.com for multiple threads on hunting with the AR platform.

Disappointing that a supposedly pro-gun Senator just said this:

quote:

---

“I don’t know anybody in the sporting or hunting arena that goes out with an assault rifle,” Mr. Manchin said, speaking on the MSNBC program “Morning Joe.”

“I don’t know anybody who needs 30 rounds in a clip to go hunting. I mean, these are things that need to be talked about,” he added.

---

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/12/17/renewed-and-some-new-support-for-gun-control/?hp

Declaration of Independance

Read the text below and answer these 2 questions:
1. What is the responsibilty of the People?
2. How to they fullfill that responsibilty when it comes to those terms when voting no longer works?

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, -That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.--Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

They are just plain cool! And which would you rather have on 12-22-12 when the world as we know it is gone
These:



Or this:

Twix, I'll start off by saying I don't own an AR, but have family members that have multiple calibers, so I'll try to answer your original question.

- Easily modified/functionality....they can be modified in so many different ways. From self defense, to plinking, to long range shooting, to different hunting scenarios.

-Accuracy...this is also a part of the functionality, but a well maintained AR is extremely accurate.

-Magazine Capacity....a big draw, as well as the big knock against them is that you can spend more time shooting, and less time loading up a magazine.

Once again, do I own one, no, but I have nothing against them. I would rather spend money on shooting clays and shotguns. However my family members and friends enjoy going every weekend and shooting targets from multiple distance/targets/etc.

For me, I would get one because I want one. I can think of other rifles in my arsenal that I personally would deem more useful than an Ar-15 if I really needed it. Id probably leave it behind if I had to, but GD it...I like it and its cool.

Short of a Zombie invasion or a collapse in societal order, is an AR really a proper home defense weapon?

Seems like the potential collateral damage from squeezing off a bunch of .223 rounds is pretty high if you are not somewhere out in the sticks or have concrete walls in your home.

[This message has been edited by Windy City Ag (edited 12/17/2012 1:30p).]

When my alarm goes off at the office in the middle of the night I take my AR. I usually beat the sheriff there by 10 minutes.

You never know what you may be walking into.

quote:

---

Seems like the potential collateral damage from squeezing off a bunch of .223 rounds is pretty high if you are not somewhere out in the sticks or have concrete walls in your home.

---

Because they travel at such high velocity, .223 rounds fragment pretty much upon impact with the first thing they come into contact with, vs. a slower moving pistol round that would be more likely to stay in one piece after going through a barrier. There are pros and cons to both, but in essence, neither one is really more dangerous or worse than than the other in terms of collateral damage. They are both very dangerous. Know your target, and what's behind it.

[This message has been edited by drummer0415 (edited 12/17/2012 1:39p).]

quote:

---

What is the NEED for an assult rifle? I understand the military use, but for the average Joe, why does he need an AR?

---

agree 100% and i own an ar 15 and ar 10.

other than for killing hogs, there really is no use for civilians to have these weapons.

that being said, pretty wild to think about the LA shootout in 96 or so when the cops were out gunned, considering the weapons folks own nowadays.

What's an assault rifle?

Technically an assault rifle is a select-fire rifle that shoots an intermediate cartridge from a magazine. VERY few people in this country have a true assault rifle.

You give a mouse a cookie, he'll want a glass of milk.

If we restrict "assault rifles" this year, then next year they will want to restrict all semi auots.
Then, it will be bolt action "sniper rifles". Then, it will be glock "saturday night specials".
Then, short barreled "riot shotguns".

For what it's worth, rumor is the libtards are pushing to classify double action revolvers as semi-auto's since they go bang every time you pull the trigger.

Before you know, we will have an unimaginable level of restricted fire arms ownership. However, I predict violent crime will remain unaffected.

The real curse to gun control is that it creates the false illusion that you have actually done something to curb violent crime when you really havent.
In reality, all you have really done is put blinders on to the real cause of America's violent crime.
In reality, you allow the evil to continue to fester and the good and law abiding are punished by your laws.

[This message has been edited by Neches21 (edited 12/17/2012 2:18p).]

quote:

---

other than for killing hogs, there really is no use for civilians to have these weapons.

---

I'm sure Thomas Jefferson and James Madison will be glad to know you think their opinion is crap.

We should ban these types of weapons in some of the inner cities up North first, like Chicago, DC, New York and see how their crime rates fare.

Oh wait...