[yeah, yeah, I know... "poor trigger discipline"...]

The AR-15 is the "Swiss Army Knife" of rifles.  I need it so I can adapt it to whatever I need to do -- on my own -- without the need for a gunsmith or buying another rifle.

It's a giant Lego kit for grown-ups.

Because that is most similar to the last thing the government issued me.  I like to be traditional and as far as I am concerned my oath is still effective and I need to be proficient..

And because I cannot afford a M!A, the M14 being my favorite issue arm..

I have yet to find any liberals who wanted to ban alcohol given the same (actually better) arguments can be made that alcohol is dangerous.

I have yet to find any liberals who wanted to ban alcohol given the same (actually better) arguments can be made that alcohol is dangerous.

False equivalence.  Banning alcohol is not the same as banning a type of gun that's in very common use in the US.

There is no Constitutional right to intoxicating substances.  Of course, if you believe the Roe v Wade decision was legally sound, then there is a right to get high/drunk based on "individual right to privacy". "My body - my choice".


Please answer the OP question.  Who needs an AR-15?

LE, the public, small game hunters, nobody?

False equivalence.  Banning alcohol is not the same as banning a type of gun that's in very common use in the US.

There is no Constitutional right to intoxicating substances.  Of course, if you believe the Roe v Wade decision was legally sound, then there is a right to get high/drunk based on "individual right to privacy". "My body - my choice".


Please answer the OP question.  Who needs an AR-15?

LE, the public, small game hunters, nobody?

True, there is no right to protect it, but IIRC the amendment for it states to basically follow state law.  So a state can deny or allow alcohol.  Compared to the 2a where it says "shall not be infringed".  Not let each state choose.  And IIRC, there are 2 amendments in the BOR.  The 1st one says ban, and then a few amendments later it says ok.

True, there is no right to protect it, but IIRC the amendment for it states to basically follow state law.  So a state can deny or allow alcohol.  Compared to the 2a where it says "shall not be infringed".  Not let each state choose.  And IIRC, there are 2 amendments in the BOR.  The 1st one says ban, and then a few amendments later it says ok.

Not all amendments are included in the Bill of Rights.  Only the first 10 Amendments are included. These rights exist even in the absence of a document or government protecting them.

Prohibition is a perfect example of why the Constitution and Bill of Rights should never be changed based solely on popular opinion.  Those pushing "temperance" wanted to solve what they believed was a major problem by banning the cause of the problem:  alcohol.  They couldn't force all states to comply without each one voting to ban it, so they had to go the federal route.  In reality, the ban caused more, even worse. problems, like organized crime.

Thus, the logical fix for these unintended consequences was to repeal it.  That required a new amendment.  We now have forever enshrined in our Constitution a colossal mistake and the correction of that mistake.  We should learn from that.

There are still federal laws regulating alcohol production and sales.  It's why we have the ATFBE.  The enforcement of regulations for Alcohol was originally a function of the IRS to protect tax revenue for the federal government under the guise of public safety. Agents hunting down illegal stills were called "Revenuers".

False equivalence.  Banning alcohol is not the same as banning a type of gun that's in very common use in the US.

There is no Constitutional right to intoxicating substances.  Of course, if you believe the Roe v Wade decision was legally sound, then there is a right to get high/drunk based on "individual right to privacy". "My body - my choice".


Please answer the OP question.  Who needs an AR-15?

LE, the public, small game hunters, nobody?

The point of the alcohol suggestion is to show the hypocrisy in their statement.

But that aside, no one "needs" an AR-15 but if you want one and you can afford it then you get to have one as long as you aren't of some list where you shouldn't have a firearm (dangerous felon, dangerously mentally ill, underage, etc.)

LE? Yes
The public? Yes
Hunters? Yes
Ammosexual? Yes.

The point of the alcohol suggestion is to show the hypocrisy in their statement.

But that aside, no one "needs" an AR-15 but if you want one and you can afford it then you get to have one as long as you aren't of some list where you shouldn't have a firearm (dangerous felon, dangerously mentally ill, underage, etc.)

LE? Yes
The public? Yes
Hunters? Yes
Ammosexual? Yes.

Please elaborate. What factors did you consider in your answer -- that "no one needs an AR-15" ?

Is it your position that an AR-15 has no unique qualities or capabilities that make it a better choice for specific applications or operators?

Being that the M4/M16 versions of the AR-15 have been used by thousands in the military, plus the number of law enforcement and gov't agencies, does it not follow that someone in need of a rifle would need the model they are more familiar with in terms of use, capabilities and maintenance?

Maybe your definition of "need" is more exclusive.  My definition equates "need" with "requirement", which is one or more specifications which a chosen rifle must meet.

I need a rifle I can afford.
I need a rifle for hunting small game (varmints) and which doubles for personal protection.
I need a rifle that doesn't cost me an arm & leg for ammo.
I need a rifle that is reliable.
I need a rifle with very light or manageable recoil.
I need a rifle with about a 600m max range.
I need a rifle that's easy to maneuver in close quarters.
I need a rifle I can adapt for a variety of circumstances and purposes.

Those are needs.  i.e. requirements.

We aren't talking about need in the sense that you can't survive without one, like "I need food, water and oxygen".  it's more in the vein of "I need a truck I can afford with a bed capable of carrying 4'x8' sheets of plywood and wallboard."  When evaluating what products exist you can afford, you'd eventually decide, "I need a Toyota Tundra", or a Ford F-150, etc.

Needs don't change just because there are other suitable options.  If I decide I need an AR-15 to fit my requirements, then it's a reasonable and logical conclusion that I need an AR-15.  No one is saying we'll die without an AR-15..

Please elaborate. What factors did you consider in your answer -- that "no one needs an AR-15" ?

Is it your position that an AR-15 has no unique qualities or capabilities that make it a better choice for specific applications or operators?

Being that the M4/M16 versions of the AR-15 have been used by thousands in the military, plus the number of law enforcement and gov't agencies, does it not follow that someone in need of a rifle would need the model they are more familiar with in terms of use, capabilities and maintenance?

Maybe your definition of "need" is more exclusive.  My definition equates "need" with "requirement", which is one or more specifications which a chosen rifle must meet.

I need a rifle I can afford.
I need a rifle for hunting small game (varmints) and which doubles for personal protection.
I need a rifle that doesn't cost me an arm & leg for ammo.
I need a rifle that is reliable.
I need a rifle with very light or manageable recoil.
I need a rifle with about a 600m max range.
I need a rifle that's easy to maneuver in close quarters.
I need a rifle I can adapt for a variety of circumstances and purposes.

Those are needs.  i.e. requirements.

We aren't talking about need in the sense that you can't survive without one, like "I need food, water and oxygen".  it's more in the vein of "I need a truck I can afford with a bed capable of carrying 4'x8' sheets of plywood and wallboard."  When evaluating what products exist you can afford, you'd eventually decide, "I need a Toyota Tundra", or a Ford F-150, etc.

Needs don't change just because there are other suitable options.  If I decide I need an AR-15 to fit my requirements, then it's a reasonable and logical conclusion that I need an AR-15.  No one is saying we'll die without an AR-15..

Need as in you need food, water, and shelter. A firearm is not a need in that sense. I was putting that disclaimer in my statement so that no one could later point out my statement as being inaccurate under that definition of need. To be technically accurate.

I want an AR-15 for all the reasons you mentioned too, and that is good enough in my book to have them.

Need as in you need food, water, and shelter. A firearm is not a need in that sense. I was putting that disclaimer in my statement so that no one could later point out my statement as being inaccurate under that definition of need. To be technically accurate.

I want an AR-15 for all the reasons you mentioned too, and that is good enough in my book to have them.

Look at it this way. Do you need a fire extinguisher?

There are many things we need for emergencies that we obtain and train to use in case we ever do need it to save lives or property.  Boating safety equipment, fire alarms, detectors & extinguishers, first aid kits & classes, etc.

So, based on the way you live your life, preparing for situations in advance, you could say you need those things now -- to be ready.

Look at it this way. Do you need a fire extinguisher?

There are many things we need for emergencies that we obtain and train to use in case we ever do need it to save lives or property.  Boating safety equipment, fire alarms, detectors & extinguishers, first aid kits & classes, etc.

So, based on the way you live your life, preparing for situations in advance, you could say you need those things now -- to be ready.

You are right, I could say that.

As in the memes leading this thread the word "need" is not used by those ("gun grabbers") who ask "Why do you need an AR-15" or "No one needs an AR-15" to mean "need as a necessity for life like air, food and water". Obviously. They mean "Why do you need one kind of firearm compared to some other kind of firearm". Which is total bullshit because they don't know what they are talking/asking about in the first place (and they really want to ban all civilian ownership of firearms if you follow their "logic" for banning ARs), most of them conflating fully-automatic with semi-automatic by using terms like "battlefield weapon of war" (not one single national military issues AR-15s as standard issue), "military-style weapons", "assault weapons", etc. etc. etc. The are dumb as fucking rocks, ignorant, lying, or all three. One thing they do NOT mean is "Why do you need an AR-15 in the same way you need air, water and food". I'd have thought that was obvious, but humans continue to, uh, amaze me.

As in the memes leading this thread the word "need" is not used by those ("gun grabbers") who ask "Why do you need an AR-15" or "No one needs an AR-15" to mean "need as a necessity for life like air, food and water". Obviously. They mean "Why do you need one kind of firearm compared to some other kind of firearm". Which is total bullshit because they don't know what they are talking/asking about in the first place (and they really want to ban all civilian ownership of firearms if you follow their "logic" for banning ARs), most of them conflating fully-automatic with semi-automatic by using terms like "battlefield weapon of war" (not one single national military issues AR-15s as standard issue), "military-style weapons", "assault weapons", etc. etc. etc. The are dumb as fucking rocks, ignorant, lying, or all three. One thing they do NOT mean is "Why do you need an AR-15 in the same way you need air, water and food". I'd have thought that was obvious, but humans continue to, uh, amaze me.

When someone's position is proven to be unsupportable, illogical, and just plain lies, they'll try controlling the narrative and assign their version of meaning to plain English.

"It depends on what the definition of 'is' is ..."

It's often called "quibbling", but in some cases it's compounding a faulty belief with lies -- the basis for cognitive dissonance.

Cognitive Dissonance (n.):

The mental discomfort (psychological stress) experienced by a person who simultaneously holds two or more
contradictory beliefs, ideas, or values. This discomfort is triggered by a situation in which a belief of a person
clashes with new evidence perceived by that person. When confronted with facts that contradict personal
beliefs, ideals, and values, people will find a way to resolve the contradiction in order to reduce their discomfort.