oh well if you look at the AR 15 a defferent way heck why not It can make a good back scratcher ,  my AR is a remote control for my TV when I'm 5 feet away, and you see those 30 round mags when you pile them up they make a good door stopper. Oh I can go fishing with it, its a fishing pole just put a line at the end of it, Oh the barrel makes a good jack for jacking up your car,  Hey if you put a hose in the back end you get a good Pressure washer now thats damn good, on the handle in the compartment don't tell anyone I keep it a secret , I keep my tooth brush in it you know those little menehunies they like to take my toothbrush. and when you extend the butt end you get a good paddle for a boat wow AR paddle, as for the 556 bullets well they make nice decoration on a Christmas tree and and the end of the year light it up and you get  fire works Happy new year, Hey it you can't get that mango 3 feet away you guest it a mango picker You see AR15 many uses for it, many ways to look at it as a tool. LOL,but hey the government is working on something big like how to use the ar as a tampon it's a big hush hush  hey  why the heck is this site promoting tampons anyway most of us are guys we don't need tampons the the heck, hey 2Ahawaii you goina advertise birthcontrol too. Gotta leave guys, this tampon ad is getting to me!

I guess you don't need more than a 5 round magazine then if you're just hunting and practicing.

Mag capacity is a different topic, this is about the design characteristics that make it effective for a broad range of uses.

I disagree. Semantics are important, and using the correct terms is not antithetical to the premise Tom G is advocating.

I just wanted to jump in here and applaud the way you slipped "antithetical" into a point about semantics!!!!

Mag capacity is a different topic, this is about the design characteristics that make it effective for a broad range of uses.

It's entirely within the topic; it's just one example.

Once you succumb to the notion that the purpose matters; then you open yourself up to all sorts of limitations on features a la California.

So if you're target shooting, why would you need a collapsible stock? It doesn't save any weight.

Hunting? 10 rounds are plenty.

Flash suppressor? What for? You're 3gunning at night?

Who needs a pistol grip? You're not breaching.

And so on..


I go back to the car example. Does anyone need a 500bhp car with "track features"? No of course not. People buy them because they want one. There is no practical need for one regardless of whether you're going to work or picking up kids. 0-60 in 3 seconds? It's a death machine!

.

There is no right protected by the Bill of Rights (note: not given, protected, as the Bill of Rights does not grant you any rights) that requires a demonstration of need in order to be exercised. Should there be?

I just wanted to jump in here and applaud the way you slipped "antithetical" into a point about semantics!!!!

Just for you buddy 

Once you succumb to the notion that the purpose matters; then you open yourself up to all sorts of limitations on features a la California.

<SNIP>

I go back to the car example. Does anyone need a 500bhp car with "track features"? No of course not. People buy them because they want one. There is no practical need for one regardless of whether you're going to work or picking up kids. 0-60 in 3 seconds? It's a death machine!

Woah, woah, woah, woah!  I so completely disagree! 

My view is that purpose does matter, and we are completely justified in wanting combat features.  I strongly feel that the attitude of "pretend it isn't so" is one of the primary reasons why we're in the pickle we're currently in today.  You're right to say that we don't need these features for hunting, which is why we should not pretend that hunting is the purpose of these weapons.  You're wrong (IMHO, of course!) to say there is no practical need for them.  We need to be defending that practical need, not ignoring it, and not pretending it isn't there.

There is no right protected by the Bill of Rights (note: not given, protected, as the Bill of Rights does not grant you any rights) that requires a demonstration of need in order to be exercised. Should there be?

Oh, that's such another can of worms! 

Woah, woah, woah, woah!  I so completely disagree! 

My view is that purpose does matter, and we are completely justified in wanting combat features.  I strongly feel that the attitude of "pretend it isn't so" is one of the primary reasons why we're in the pickle we're currently in today.  You're right to say that we don't need these features for hunting, which is why we should not pretend that hunting is the purpose of these weapons.  You're wrong (IMHO, of course!) to say there is no practical need for them.  We need to be defending that practical need, not ignoring it, and not pretending it isn't there.

Disagree. Need does not matter. I have the right to own a gun. Period.

Need is not the business of the state except to the extent where it serves the public interest (e.g. I do not believe people should be allowed to own personal WMDs or operate munitions factories in suburbs, etc..).

If I want to own 50 AR-15s I can. Does anyone need 50 rifles to defend their home?

No that's totally absurd. You could be in an outright lawless state where you are actively defending your home and owning 50 rifles would probably still be absurd.*

The minute you concede the debate to one of necessity you have lost. Period. Because then it becomes about what you need XYZ for and why.. and blah blah blah.

* Obviously if you have a bunch of people.. I mean a single individual.

Disagree. Need does not matter. I have the right to own a gun. Period.

Need is not the business of the state except to the extent where it serves the public interest (e.g. I do not believe people should be allowed to own personal WMDs or operate munitions factories in suburbs, etc..).

If I want to own 50 AR-15s I can. Does anyone need 50 rifles to defend their home?

No that's totally absurd. You could be in an outright lawless state where you are actively defending your home and owning 50 rifles would probably still be absurd.*

The minute you concede the debate to one of necessity you have lost. Period. Because then it becomes about what you need XYZ for and why.. and blah blah blah.

* Obviously if you have a bunch of people.. I mean a single individual.

Lemme chew on this a while. 

.

I'll just offer one thought before I rack out.

When's the last time you heard a mainstream discussion questioning the core need for freedom of speech?

Never.

Sure we place sensible limits on certain speech. I can say untrue things but bear liability - as for any weapon if employed to criminal ends.

The difference is we presume a lawful driver will do the right thing, whereas a lawful gun owner is presumed to shoot up a school.

If you go buy a big hummer, nobody assumes you intend to run people off the road with it "oh that one has assault car features.. Sorry bud", but when you buy a normal 30rd mag you're a nut.


(FWIW, I actually do assume every driver is an idiot trying to run me off the road while texting, but hopefully my point is clear)

It's entirely within the topic; it's just one example.

Once you succumb to the notion that the purpose matters; then you open yourself up to all sorts of limitations on features a la California.

So if you're target shooting, why would you need a collapsible stock? It doesn't save any weight.

Hunting? 10 rounds are plenty.

Flash suppressor? What for? You're 3gunning at night?

Who needs a pistol grip? You're not breaching.

And so on..


I go back to the car example. Does anyone need a 500bhp car with "track features"? No of course not. People buy them because they want one. There is no practical need for one regardless of whether you're going to work or picking up kids. 0-60 in 3 seconds? It's a death machine!

Sorry I thought the topic was about designs and operation. The capacity of the magazine makes no difference to its design or operation, it's a box magazine, it goes in, feeds rounds, push the button it comes out regardless of capacity. Not sure about you, but I use my pistol grip for more than just breaching. It's a great support when shooting prone and more ergonomic to boot. Collapsible stock for weight savings? Your right, you won't save much weight, but it's like adjustable seats in a car, one size doesn't fit all. As far as the car analogy, if youre comparing an ar to a sports car. One could just as easily compare it to a sport utility vehicle, seeing as its well suited to many tasks.  It appears we agree on rights regarding owning these rifles, but what we may not see eye to eye on is how we choose to educate people of their place in society. I just don't believe the "because it's my right" or "because I want one" excuse will get you very far with people not already on your side.

Sorry I thought the topic was about designs and operation. The capacity of the magazine makes no difference to its design or operation, it's a box magazine, it goes in, feeds rounds, push the button it comes out regardless of capacity. Not sure about you, but I use my pistol grip for more than just breaching. It's a great support when shooting prone and more ergonomic to boot. Collapsible stock for weight savings? Your right, you won't save much weight, but it's like adjustable seats in a car, one size doesn't fit all. As far as the car analogy, if youre comparing an ar to a sports car. One could just as easily compare it to a sport utility vehicle, seeing as its well suited to many tasks.  It appears we agree on rights regarding owning these rifles, but what we may not see eye to eye on is how we choose to educate people of their place in society. I just don't believe the "because it's my right" or "because I want one" excuse will get you very far with people not already on your side.

I wouldn't tell them it's my right - you're correct that would be a poor play. I'd pick something they owned and ask them why they need it. Of course to persuade someone you must guide them to your position not merely state it.

Again, it's about controlling the narrative. When you respond with a list of needs, you validate their notion that need matters and that need is the basis for your justified usage/possession/etc.

Instead you must illustrate how need is irrelevant.

How you choose to do that varies. Pretty much everything we worry about is a luxury though so you don't have to think hard.

That answer of "because I wanted one" will fly right back at them pretty soon.

If you can get them to the point of understanding how something they may not consider necessary would be something a person would reasonably want.. it's not too difficult to hook in the whole rights thing.. of.. hey not only is it totally reasonable for me to want this thing that you don't think I need  -  which is pretty much like how I don't think you need to spend $500 on a handbag you want - I actually have this constitution right to own one!

I wouldn't tell them it's my right - you're correct that would be a poor play. I'd pick something they owned and ask them why they need it. Of course to persuade someone you must guide them to your position not merely state it.

Again, it's about controlling the narrative. When you respond with a list of needs, you validate their notion that need matters and that need is the basis for your justified usage/possession/etc.

Instead you must illustrate how need is irrelevant.

How you choose to do that varies. Pretty much everything we worry about is a luxury though so you don't have to think hard.

That answer of "because I wanted one" will fly right back at them pretty soon.

If you can get them to the point of understanding how something they may not consider necessary would be something a person would reasonably want.. it's not too difficult to hook in the whole rights thing.. of.. hey not only is it totally reasonable for me to want this thing that you don't think I need  -  which is pretty much like how I don't think you need to spend $500 on a handbag you want - I actually have this constitution right to own one!

IMO, owning a firearm is not really a luxury item.  It could be a need.  As in, unless a person is totally fit, trained in hand to hand unarmed combat, disarming a bigger thug of weapons by hand, etc...  a firearms is an equalizer, not fashion items, as in your examples.  That is why, i believe, the framers included the 2nd Amendment, so that the people are "equal" to their elected rulers, the people can be "equal" to the 300lb thug trying to take your property or your life, and "equal" to the tyrants who would take your rights away from you. Purposefully not a luxury.  IMHO, this is why the need argument is nonproductive. 

You might say, "why do you need 50 AR15's?"  Well, you could argue redundancy....  things break, things jam, things wear out...  Why does the DHS need ukuhundredsofthousands of rounds of JHP ammo? 

BigBlue, you really have got me thinking.  Every time I try to formulate a response, it turns ridiculously verbose, which means I haven't gotten to the end of my thought process yet.  I'll check back in after Labor Day.

IMO, owning a firearm is not really a luxury item.  It could be a need.  As in, unless a person is totally fit, trained in hand to hand unarmed combat, disarming a bigger thug of weapons by hand, etc...  a firearms is an equalizer, not fashion items, as in your examples.  That is why, i believe, the framers included the 2nd Amendment, so that the people are "equal" to their elected rulers, the people can be "equal" to the 300lb thug trying to take your property or your life, and "equal" to the tyrants who would take your rights away from you. Purposefully not a luxury.  IMHO, this is why the need argument is nonproductive. 

You might say, "why do you need 50 AR15's?"  Well, you could argue redundancy....  things break, things jam, things wear out...  Why does the DHS need ukuhundredsofthousands of rounds of JHP ammo?

I have a right to own these things under the second amendment.

I have a need to preserve that and all other basic rights.

You have a right to question that need, also protected under the same laws that protect the second amendment.

You do NOT have a right to dictate to me what I need or do not need.  Case in point: number of rounds in a magazine.

The fact that we have a 10-rd limit on handgun magazines that is both arbitrary and ineffective with regard to improving anyone's safety speaks loudly as to the emotional, illogical, and agenda-driven tactics of the antis.  How we as citizens allow these kinds of attacks on our rights is amazing to me.  Our society as we knew it is crumbling, and it's the low-information voters who are blindly enabling these lawmakers to further restrict our individual rights and freedoms.  From AW Bans to magazine limits to ammunition restrictions banning hollow points, and letting bureaucrats determine when we are "mentally unsafe" so our guns can be confiscated ... the death by a thousand cuts is continuous ...

Tom,

It just seems people go on the defensive when you call their farce.

Most of the weapons I've seen purchased by people on this this forum are intended are for combat or pretend/fantasy combat applications; period. If someone is going honestly sit here and say 'yeah... I bought an Ar15 and put all this magpul shit and put a red dot on it for hunting reasons or for target practice', you are full of shit.

Like blue said: the reason you should own stuff is simply because you can. Don't try and his behind the whole 'modern sporting rifle' defense, because no one will buy it anymore.

I realize you qualified your statement with "most", and truth be told, I agree with you and Tom_G on this. But......... I did build this specifically to hunt pigs, just sayin'.

.