NRA President David Keene Pens a Reasonable Defense of the AR15

[Justin]

I found this via the always readable Shall Not Be Infringed.

The Gun Liberals Love to Hate

Politician after politician have joined the television talking heads in calling for a new “assault weapons ban” patterned after the ten-year Clinton ban that was allowed to lapse in 2004 after Justice Department and private studies concluded it had no impact whatsoever on murder and violent crime rates and had become a symbol of wrong-headed governmental attempts to restrict firearms ownership in this country.

California Democratic Sen. Dianne Feinstein has called for reinstituting the old Clinton ban to outlaw the sale, transfer and possession of such guns in the future while grandfathering those already in the hands of private parties. Others, like New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo, have gone so far as to suggest “confiscation” or forced “buy back” programs “to get these weapons off the street.” In the last week dozens of commentators, reporters and politicians have said they support the 2nd Amendment, but would support an “assault weapons” ban because such weapons aren’t used for hunting and have no purpose other than to kill people.

 

[kwguy]

That's a good read. It's very accurate and can be understood even by non gun owners. We need more stuff like this to get out there.

 

[1911 guy]

Yup. Good read.

 

[DeMilled]

I have to disagree with this article and many others like it.

Defending the 2nd by pointing out that the rifles are popular for target shooting, competition or hunting is a cop out.

It's a weak defense and one easily invalidated by the left leaning fellow citizens who will say "So, you care soo much about running around shooting targets and competing against other whack jobs like you that it is more important than public safety?" "We don't care about your desire to go kill animals, you must be sick to enjoy that anyway."

This sort of defense was used before; it failed.

I remember how a lot of hunters didn't give a darn about the last gun ban because it didn't effect their deer rifles, a position that has not changed for many of them.

I like how they educate people on the medias ignorance of the rifle in question, that was good of them.

 

[1911 guy]

You and I agree on the purpose of the 2A. It's not about target shooting or hunting. However, the article was aimed specifically at the "assault weapon" term and attempting to provide fact and context to those who simply don't know any better.

 

[kwguy]

Exactly. It was just to educate those who may be mis-informed about that weapon in particular, and to counter those who try to demonize the AR15.

 

[DeMilled]

You and I agree on the purpose of the 2A. It's not about target shooting or hunting. However, the article was aimed specifically at the "assault weapon" term and attempting to provide fact and context to those who simply don't know any better.

That was the part of the article I liked and they also brought up a tid bit about the FBI info on how the AR 15/M4gery is just not used by criminals nearly as much as the media would like to imply.

 

[throdgrain]

I dont understand why you call them liberals. They clearly aren't liberal are they?

 

[Westfair]

I feel this might be a good thread to post this video in - War of the Words

 

[Carl N. Brown]

Publicly defending AR15 against the lynch mob after the Newtown school massacre would be like defending tire tools after the kidnapping in India that included rape with a tire tool. There is no reasoning with moral outrage that has claimed the high ground.

 

[kwguy]

That is true, it is tough to reason with a lynch mob, but that still doesn't make them right.

 

[Plan2Live]

Good points but too long and too wordy. Like it or not we are living in a text and tweet world. Your message needs to be brief, succicnt and have a clear one-line take away. The two standout points I saw were;

1. If the military used civilian ARs in battle they would be at the mercy of the enemy.

2. We have proved, via the 1994-2004 ban, that a ban on these firearms has no effect on crime.

Just my take.

 

[Dentite]

Pretty good article. I see a couple typos but otherwise pretty good. I do think more empasis on the real purpose behind the second ammendment would have made it more complete.

Thanks for posting it.

 

[MErl]

I take issue with

1. If the military used civilian ARs in battle they would be at the mercy of the enemy.

Making the assumption they still had things like the saw for suppression fire we would do just fine.


question I have about all these articles though. Who reads them? If it is just us they don't do any good, preaching to the choir.

 

[skwab]

Thanks Westfair for posting that video - that was incredible.

But I was watching the former marine cpl who posted the letter to Feinstein, and he brought up a point when the CNN interviewer mentioned something about Feinstein's willingness to protect hunting and sporting rights - he said, and I'm paraphrasing, nowhere in the second amendment does it limit the right to bear arms solely for hunting and sporting purposes.

This article was good, the video Westfair posted was better, but I agree with DeMilled and I pose the question, do we lessen, or water down the right to bear arms by the way we attempt to justify it to those who disagree? I think sometimes we do.

 

[SidRon]

Yeah, somehow I think our military would still do just fine if they had semi auto AR's. Isn't the standard US Marine AR only 3 round burst or semi auto? I haven't seen them losing lately.

 

[beeb173]

good video in post 9. it talks about the deceptive practices that both the right and left have used in recent past and focuses on the term "weapons of war". it probably should have focused on the term "assault weapons" but it doesnt lose it's meaning.

 

[Ryanxia]

Pretty good read. Too bad common sense doesn't work on most of the sheeple.