Doc110 Loc: York PA

June 18, 2016 Why should anyone need or want an AR-15?

Howard Hyde

While Democrat legislators splatter us with saliva that they fraudulently pass off as tears in their quest for gun-and Bible-clinger control during moments of silence for the victims, liberals are lighting up the internet and Facebook with indignant rhetorical questions intended to shame us into retreat, like "Why should anyone need or want an AR-15" (variously described to liberals and other impressionable children as a "military-style assault rifle")?

No actual, thoughtful answer is desired, of course. But I'll give a few.


A semiautomatic carbine is a legitimate and appropriate weapon for a law-abiding citizen to own for personal or home defense.

The suitability to task increases in proportion with the size of one's home, lot, farm, or ranch, as a handgun is neither precise nor powerful enough to guarantee stopping a lethal threat the farther away that threat is – and we don't apologize for wanting to keep the threat as far away as possible.

With a carbine, a person defending himself or his family has two to five times greater chance of placing rounds on target at moderate distance.

How important is that?

It can make the difference between life and death.



Consider that the hit ratio for cops – trained professionals – with handguns in real-life officer-involved shootings, at short distances, hovers around 15 percent.

It's incredibly difficult to hit the bad guy when you're scared to death.

Unlike The Hunger Games, we really do intend to tilt the odds in our favor.



Compared to shotguns, whether of the tactical or duck-hunting variety, which can pack a wallop of three times the kinetic energy on the target and commensurate rotator cuff-tearing recoil to the shooter, carbines are small, light, and maneuverable. (Yes, they are loud.)

In fact, it's hard to think of a weapon more suitable to the task than an AR-15, if one could have been under the bartender's shelf at the Pulse club last week.

Dozens of lives might have been saved if just one good guy had had one at the ready at that moment.


Those of us who have friends or family members who have been crime victims or are under real threat of harm or death understand perfectly well why an AR-15 might be a candidate tool for personal protection.

If you live in some idyllic part or social stratum of America where no one has been robbed, raped, or murdered in a hundred years, may God continue to bless you.

But don't render helpless those of us who are not as fortunate. We live here.



Thousands of Americans are murdered every year.

While some of the victims are criminals or gangsters who but for the chance of circumstance might just as well have been the perpetrators, most are innocent.

All of those innocent victims might have had their chances of survival increased via the possession and mastery of a firearm, including a carbine.

If you had the power to rewind time and put an AR-15 in the hand of every murder victim just before their appointment with destiny, would you decline to do it because "nobody should have a weapon of war"?


Of course, we can't rewind the clock to save victims who are already dead.

And we also can't ensure that no bad guy ever gets a hold of a gun again no matter how strictly we legally control guns, any more than we can stop all drug abuse via drug prohibition laws.

Addicts and narco-traffickers find a way, to the great profit of the latter.

At the moment of the inevitable assault, the best thing we can do is to even the odds for potential future victims.

The right to bear arms is the right to self-preservation, the primordial moral imperative that trumps (sorry) all other law.



The reasons we baked this right into the Constitution are as valid today as they were in 1787.

Any law or regulation that infringes upon this right, even if it increases hurdles by degrees for criminals and terrorists, puts the latter at a relative advantage over their victims.

Innocent Americans are hurt more by gun control laws than the scumbags are.

Why should anyone need or want an AR-15?

To save innocent lives, like those in Orlando, San Bernardino, and Paris.

As the French say, parce que c'est bon – because it's good.

Hemiman Loc: Communist California

We should have them because we want them,that's all anyone has to know.We don't have to justify this kind of thing to any Jackoff liberal.

Doc110 Loc: York PA

We should have them because we want them, that's all anyone has to know.

We don't have to justify this kind of thing to any Jackoff liberal.


And yet Hemiman, they, the Jackoff liberal want to take away your 2nd Amendment rights and your Semi-Automatic AR-15.

Because they think an AR-15, it's a Automatic military grade assault rifle.

It's the liberal poster child e.g. Semi-Automatic AR-15.


That what gets their silva and sexual g*****ls all excited with every shooting and mass murder in the U.S.


The ridiculous liberal news media assumed that a AR-15 was used in the Orlando Florida Terrorist Shooting-K*****gs

ORLANDO SHOOTER DID NOT USE THE GUN REPORTED
http://patriotupdate.com/orlando-shooter-not-use-gun-reported/?bt_alias=eyJ1c2VySWQiOiAiOWE4OTRlZDctODFiNy00Y2QwLTg1OWQtMWQwZGM1Y2MwMDJhIn0%3D

As more details emerge about the shooter in the Orlando massacre, the myth that he used an AR-15 has finally been refuted.

Omar Mateen, the new liberal poster child for the anti-gun movement, did not use an AR-15 in the fracas, contrary to the liberal media who loves to use that particular weapon as the scapegoat in their never-ending tirade against so called “assault’ weapons.

“The rifle used by the Islamist terrorist in Orlando was instead a Sig Sauer MCX carbine, a modular, multi-caliber (able to swap to different calibers, including 5.56 NATO, 300 BLK, and 7.62×39) rifle system that sometimes utilizes STANAG magazines common to more than 60 different firearms, but otherwise has no major parts that interface with AR-15s in any way, shape or form.

“This of course, will make no difference at all to the anti-gun politimedia, who don’t particularly care about factual accuracy and who likely wouldn’t be able to tell an AR-15 from a toaster oven if their lives depended on it.”

As the l*****t mainstream media continues their campaign to outlaw the AR-15 it should be noted that this was NOT the firearm used to massacre nearly 50 people in Orlando.

Hemiman Loc: Communist California

You have to wonder if this a reporters mistake or was it intentionally done.

Doc110 Loc: York PA

Both . .

PeterS

What a bunch of bulls**t. There are any number of guns that are as effective or more effective than an AR-15. My old 30-06 would sure as hell keep them a lot further away than an AR-15 and if its close up stopping power a 12 gauge with buck shot or a 44 mag with hollow points are a far better choice. I've seen what buck shot will do to someone's head and it ain't a pretty sight and I saw a 44 mag nearly take a guys leg off. And we've had bans on semi-autos before and guess what--that was the era when the crime rate started coming down.




Semi-autos have no purpose other than mass murder. From 94 to 2004 mass murders averaged 1.5 per year. After the ban was lifted mass murders shot up 200% to 3.5 per year.

For the average citizen it takes less than 7 minutes to buy a AR-15 with enough bullets and magazines that the ambitious shooter can go for the US record with utmost confidence. Think about that--it will take less time for you to buy the gun than it will take for you to shoot up a dance club. Only in America.

Shalom aleichem, and if you can't find peace than get a Semi-automatic rifle and make it yourself....

PeterS

No, it was a gun far more effective than a AR-15. If we ban all semi-auto's we don't need to worry about what type was used do we. And are you really worried about that or is this just a pathetic attempt at protecting AR-15's?

Hemiman Loc: Communist California

I guess you need it explained to you,it's not about automatic weapons of any kind.The fact is that it's just a starting point for Obama to ban all weapons, that's his agenda.He gets automatic weapons banned and all of a sudden it's something else,another situation conveniently pops up and yet another firearm absolutely has to be banned,and on and on until all firearms are gone.Conservatives,we must not let him get his hooks in,he has to be stopped now no matter what the cost.We need to to keep our ARs. And all the mag fed rifles.Today the AR,tomorrow the BB gun.

lpnmajor Loc: Arkansas

Do you know why it is illegal to hunt in the city limits or near roads? That's right, because high velocity rounds just keep on going until they hit something or their kinetic energy drops below the gravity threshold. Sure, you can defend yourself with an assault weapon, but most people will continue firing until the 30 round clip is empty, because they're scared. As you mentioned with police accuracy, civilian accuracy will definitely be more dismal - making it highly likely that stray rounds will enter your neighbors house or the house behind THEM.

Responsible citizens must think of more than just the convenience of their own safety, when choosing a home defense weapon, they must consider the distinct possibility of becoming an inadvertent murderer in a moment of panic.

Life is not a video game. There is no "reset" button for when you screw up and k**l your own people.

archie bunker Loc: Texas

Any knowledgable, and responsible gun owner will consider over penetration when choosing their primary home defense weapon. Common sense.