TAKtical
Member
Well said Derek. I doubt there is much else to be said on this topic.
Why an AR-15 or similar?
- Thread starter Driveway
- Start date
- Status
josiewales
Member
- Joined
- May 1, 2011
- Messages
- 694
Ok here's one. Any infringment on the RKBA is against federal law. It is stated so specifically in the constitution that I cannot believe anyone would advocate gun control of any kind.What I'm saying is we should be able to buy real M4s over the counter, not just M4 lookalikes. Any restriction is totally in violation of the the 2nd amendment. Period. And yes I like italics.
Deciding on buying one is a personal decision you have to make. This is why I bought mine.
A lightweight carbine AR with a telescoping stock is only slightly larger than a handgun. It is far more accurate and powerful. The cost is about the same as a quality handgun.
They make a better home defense weapon than a shotgun. Once again far lighter and more compact, they hold about 6x more ammo and generate around 4-5 ft lbs of recoil vs a shotguns 26-28 ft lbs when loaded with buckshot or slugs.
When I first got into shooting my 1st Rem 700 cost me $175. An AR cost around $700 at the time. Before all the AWB talk a comparable AR was still selling for $700 and comparable Rem 700 was selling for closer to $900. They are one of the best bargains in firearms (or were,things are crazy right now).
They are very versatile. In addition to being the best possible HD weapon if they are set up right they are one of the more accurate rifles out there. For just plinking at the range they are the cheapest option above 22 LR. I can buy FMJ 223 ammo for about 1/2 what 30-30 ammo costs and 1/3-1/4 what most other centerfire ammo costs.
I can understand your concerns as a poor hunting rifle in Alaska, but for deer at close to moderate ranges a 223 with good bullets is a deadly combination. I wouldn't use it for anything larger than deer or pronghorn, but the target versions are becoming the premier long range coyote gun of choice.
If none of those reasons are appealing to you, then you don't need an AR. But for myself and many others they are the reason AR's have become the most popular rifle in America right now.
A lightweight carbine AR with a telescoping stock is only slightly larger than a handgun. It is far more accurate and powerful. The cost is about the same as a quality handgun.
They make a better home defense weapon than a shotgun. Once again far lighter and more compact, they hold about 6x more ammo and generate around 4-5 ft lbs of recoil vs a shotguns 26-28 ft lbs when loaded with buckshot or slugs.
When I first got into shooting my 1st Rem 700 cost me $175. An AR cost around $700 at the time. Before all the AWB talk a comparable AR was still selling for $700 and comparable Rem 700 was selling for closer to $900. They are one of the best bargains in firearms (or were,things are crazy right now).
They are very versatile. In addition to being the best possible HD weapon if they are set up right they are one of the more accurate rifles out there. For just plinking at the range they are the cheapest option above 22 LR. I can buy FMJ 223 ammo for about 1/2 what 30-30 ammo costs and 1/3-1/4 what most other centerfire ammo costs.
I can understand your concerns as a poor hunting rifle in Alaska, but for deer at close to moderate ranges a 223 with good bullets is a deadly combination. I wouldn't use it for anything larger than deer or pronghorn, but the target versions are becoming the premier long range coyote gun of choice.
If none of those reasons are appealing to you, then you don't need an AR. But for myself and many others they are the reason AR's have become the most popular rifle in America right now.
henschman
Member
Putting all the constitutional stuff aside, just as a matter of basic morality, I don't think anyone has the right to initiate force (and let's face it, government is nothing but organized force) against anyone as long as the other person is not threatening anyone else's equal rights. People ought to be able to do whatever they want as long as they don't hurt other people. The mere possession of a weapon, by itself, is not a threat to anyone's rights. If you use it in a certain way, or if you are mentally unstable enough, it could rise to that level, and then other people would be justified in using force/government to stop the threat.
Gun control schemes are overbroad remedies. They restrict the rights of the 300-some million people in this country who didn't violate anyone's rights with a gun yesterday, just to TRY to keep a few madmen from getting a hold of something that they are likely to be able to find anyway if they want it bad enough.
This kind of legislation is called a "prior restraint," and in the context of First Amendment law, has been declared unconsitutional. "Prior restraint" means that anyone who wants to exercise a certain right has to jump through some hoop. Prior restraints are unconstitutional as applied to speech because they are overbroad... impacting everyone with legitimate speech just to catch the few perpetrators of "bad speech" out there... and also because the government should have very limited power to say what is "bad speech" in the first place, since the main political function of the right to free speech is to be able to keep the government under control.
Prior restraints should not be tolerated on the right to bear arms either, and for the exact same reasons. Politically, the 2A serves the same purpose as the 1A, and all the other amendments in the BOR... to keep the government from getting too powerful. I don't know why you are sarcastic about being armed to prevent the police from violating your rights... that is precisely the main reason for the people to be armed.
Ultimately, it is all about preventing this: http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/20TH.HTM
- Status
