Collapsable stock, pistol grip, flash suppressor on my AR.... I'm doomed!

it's amazing that the antis (and the media) portray a "flash suppressor" as some sort of accessory that makes the gun even more of a killing machine

Collapsable stock, pistol grip, flash suppressor on my AR.... I'm doomed!

it's amazing that the antis (and the media) portray a "flash suppressor" as some sort of accessory that makes the gun even more of a killing machine

they think that you might replace it with a silencer"

they think that you might replace it with a silencer"

Even if you did, the firearm would not be "more deadly"

Even if you did, the firearm would not be "more deadly"

I agree.... Buts BS are thinking too much about AR.... They even think its was EVIL! LoL

it's amazing that the antis (and the media) portray a "flash suppressor" as some sort of accessory that makes the gun even more of a killing machine

Silly.... Everybody knows it's the pistol grip that makes it more deadly

.

The AR should be a symbol of freedom, I think the best argument of why we should have a "miltary" style rifle is why not? If the rifle is good enough for our military and LE why shouldnt we have it to protect ourselves? This argument can go on in favor of gun owners. And what happened to the .223 argument of it being too ineffective? Now the media is saying how powerful the mouse gun is.

The AR should be a symbol of freedom, I think the best argument of why we should have a "miltary" style rifle is why not? If the rifle is good enough for our military and LE why shouldnt we have it to protect ourselves? This argument can go on in favor of gun owners. And what happened to the .223 argument of it being too ineffective? Now the media is saying how powerful the mouse gun is.

that wont win over anyone on the fence or on the anti gun side.

im not convinced that "why not" is ever a good argument.  at least not in a political debate. 

that wont win over anyone on the fence or on the anti gun side.

im not convinced that "why not" is ever a good argument.  at least not in a political debate. 

Title 10 USC 311...

(a)The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
 
(b)The classes of the militia are—
(1)the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
 
(2)the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

Why would the "Unorganized Militia" be armed with anything different that what the "Organized Militia" is armed with?  If anything, ban the fudd guns, nobody has a right to hunt.  The 2nd amendment goes hand in hand with this small sliver of US Code. "to keep and bear" for "the security of a free state" is the sole reasoning for the 2nd amendment, and the very reason why Americans should never be stripped of the same rifle the "Organized Militia" is equipped with.  If anything, it should be a federal requirement for all citizens fitting the criteria of "Unorganized Militia" to keep and maintain proficiency with an AR-15 type rifle.

stop acting like you're arguing with unbiased people.  an argument like "why not" is simply not going to fly.

cmon guys, you cant think like you, you have to think like them.  "why not" isnt even really a compelling argument for anything.