Why does anyone need an AR15 ???

That seems to be a popular question from the anti-gun crowd. The question is a trap. It includes a premise that must be rejected.....that rights are based on need. To quote Thomas Paine from RIGHTS OF MAN: "Natural rights are those which appertain to man in right of his existence" and "Civil rights are those which appertain to man in right of his being a member of society". If you believe that the right to keep and bear arms is a natural right, then it is not and cannot be based on need.

I just ask them "Why don't we need them?"

I would say for the same reason a rich person "needs" 10 or 15 cars.

Sent from my A200 using Tapatalk 2

Armed4Life said:

That seems to be a popular question from the anti-gun crowd. The question is a trap. It includes a premise that must be rejected.....that rights are based on need. To quote Thomas Paine from RIGHTS OF MAN: "Natural rights are those which appertain to man in right of his existence" and "Civil rights are those which appertain to man in right of his being a member of society". If you believe that the right to keep and bear arms is a natural right, then it is not and cannot be based on need.

Click to expand...

First you should ask them if there were items that kill more people every year than firearms, if they would deem it neccesary to remove them from civillian possession, and then you go into the questioning below.

Ask them why they need a vehicle. Then inform them that vehicles are responsible for more deaths than anything in this country. Then ask them if they find it moral and neccesary to ban them from civillian possession so we can save the tens of thousands of lives they take each year. Being as they are serious death dealers, wouldn't it be better to walk than to kill all of those people?

Ask them if they believe this country is better because of physicians. Then inform them that medical mistakes kill more than 100,000 people every year in the United States. So, shouldn't we prohibit doctors from "possessing" patients since they kill so many of them each year -- many more people than firearms do.

Ask them if we need prescription medication. Tell them this kills more people every year than firearms, so we should ban all prescription medication from civillian possession.

Ask them why they need an iPhone or an alcoholic drink. Ask them if they believe we should go back to prohibition to save the tens of thousands of lives alcohol takes every year -- many more than firearms.

Ask them why they need anything. Ask them why they need a seat-belt or a fire-extinguisher. Ask them why they need car insurance or life insurance.

We need it for self-defense, hunting, sport, 3-gun, etc., etc.

We need it because we want it. Why is it any of their business? We could ask the same thing about numerous things they have I'm sure.

Why does anybody "need" to post things to the Internet and stir up nice people with all manner of radical conservative ideas?

Why does anybody "need" to listen to whatever they want on the radio or watch what they want on TV? Some of these radio guys don't like the government and some TV shows promote strange ideas.

Why does anybody "need" to go to the church of their choice? Just makes people who don't go to church feel guilty.

Maybe all of these "unneeded" behaviors should be banned for the good and comfort of the majority.

well, we NEED them so we can get as much practice as possible for clearing jams, double-feeds,stove-piping, slam-fires, cook-offs, barrel-warping, and pretty much everything BUT actually shooting them, when we need them most.

The real question is why does the government need to take guns away from law abiding citizens.

KYGlockster said:

First you should ask them if there were items that kill more people every year than firearms, if they would deem it neccesary to remove them from civillian possession, and then you go into the questioning below.

Ask them why they need a vehicle. Then inform them that vehicles are responsible for more deaths than anything in this country. Then ask them if they find it moral and neccesary to ban them from civillian possession so we can save the tens of thousands of lives they take each year. Being as they are serious death dealers, wouldn't it be better to walk than to kill all of those people?

Ask them if they believe this country is better because of physicians. Then inform them that medical mistakes kill more than 100,000 people every year in the United States. So, shouldn't we prohibit doctors from "possessing" patients since they kill so many of them each year -- many more people than firearms do.

Ask them if we need prescription medication. Tell them this kills more people every year than firearms, so we should ban all prescription medication from civillian possession.

Ask them why they need an iPhone or an alcoholic drink. Ask them if they believe we should go back to prohibition to save the tens of thousands of lives alcohol takes every year -- many more than firearms.

Ask them why they need anything. Ask them why they need a seat-belt or a fire-extinguisher. Ask them why they need car insurance or life insurance.

We need it for self-defense, hunting, sport, 3-gun, etc., etc.

We need it because we want it. Why is it any of their business? We could ask the same thing about numerous things they have I'm sure.

Click to expand...

This is not true. And you admit it when in the next paragraph you mention that doctors are responsible for over 100,000 deaths a year. No flaming or nitpicking... just pointing out a dichotomy here.

to answer the OP's question, ar-15's are the closest civilians can get to relative firepower that the military/police have in order to protect ourselves from an oppressive government.

if/when it happens that we have to stand up for our freedom and liberty, i certainly wouldnt want to be fighting with a 5rd bolt action or a .22

meet force with equal force (or as close to it)

The natural right is the right of self-defense. The RKBA is an enumerated right, an implementation of the right to self-defense that our Framers thought important enough to enshrine in the Constitution, based on the history of the English people and the recent past of the Colonies.

That there need be no need to carry any particular arm protected by the 2A in order for the right to exist is still a valid point.

As of two days ago, I now have one. I never felt the need to have one before. I now do.

"Why do you need scented body wash? Don't ask me stupid questions."

Sent from my EVO using Tapatalk 2

If the government really is concerned for the safety of the people they should disarm all federal agencies. Particularly take away actual assault weapons from the police, national guard, and military. If their heart is in the right place there is no need for a dozen police officers serving warrants with fully auto rifles with 30 round magazines. The intent for the 2A was for the people to be armed with the same weapons as the government, so if anyone is going stop using hi cap magazines it should be them. There is no need for "weapons of mass death" as they call them, for policing the people, NONE. Police and national guard should have no special privileges that are not afforded the people.

The 2A explicitly states why:

A well regulated militia being NECESSARY to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed

Click to expand...

necessary (adj.)

late 14c. "needed, required, essential, indispensable," from O.Fr. necessaire "necessary, urgent, compelling" (13c.), and directly from L. necessarius "unavoidable, indispensible, necessary," from necesse "unavoidable, indispensable," originally "no backing away," from ne- "not" + cedere "to withdraw, go away, yield" (see cede).

I bought my AR15 to shoot Nazis.

Funny how when I let that be common knowledge, none of them were able to decipher their own directions to my house that they themselves had put on the internet...

When asked why does anyone need an AR15 I ask them if they support 1st ammendment rights. When they say yes I ask them if they think i have the right to say anything i want or just the things they like and aggree with. If you think about it the AR15 issue is no different as they always say "I support 2nd ammendment rights but dont think you should have an assault weapon"

Why do children need violent video games? It seems it would be much more effective to ban them, then banning guns. Why does the media need to go on and on about violence? Surely if the Second amendment can be forsaken why not stop the media from inciting these incidents.

Someone asked this on a post on facebook. I asked them why they needed freedom of press/religion/speech. They are yet to answer.

Need an AR-15

I need food, air and water to live. I "WANT" any gun I feel that will properly defend me, my family and property. When I can obtain them lawfully than it is my right to do so.

SouthernBoy said:

This is not true. And you admit it when in the next paragraph you mention that doctors are responsible for over 100,000 deaths a year. No flaming or nitpicking... just pointing out a dichotomy here.

Click to expand...

I was refering to inanimate objects in the vehicle statement. Doctors are not inanimate objects. I guess I should've made that a little more clear.

To shoot, duh ... at least that's just me .. some may keep guns just to look at ...