In Part I of “Why You Need an AR-15 with a 30 Round Magazine” I argued from a position of self-defense, specifically home defense. I cited a news story that recounted a home invasion in which the owner of the residence had to fight off multiple intruders. Per one witness, “30 to 40” shots were fired during the encounter. That’s a lot of lead being exchanged. In that situation, I want a gun I don’t have to reload very often and one that I can positively shoot straight.
As someone who is admittedly not the best shot in the world with a handgun, I need an AR-15 with a 30-plus round magazine to protect myself, my family and my property. It’s really the only firearm I’d feel confident in a home invasion scenario.
Yet, there is another reason I need an AR-15 with a 30 round magazine. Simply put, it’s the closest thing I can get to a military-style firearm. I can’t afford a select-fire weapon with fully automatic capabilities. Though I’d sure like one, it’s just not in my budget. Plus the time it would take to actually get one, after filling out all the NFA-related forms, is discouraging. Why do I need a military-style firearm?
Before I answer that question, let me pause for a moment and say that there are many individuals who believe the Second Amendment is antiquated in the sense that it was written to protect the right of the people to keep and bear arms only as it pertains to 18th century weapons.
To give you an example, consider what Documentarian Michael Moore said while appearing on CNN.
… when [the Founding Fathers] said, the right to bear arms…you know, the “arm” back then was you could — you could only fire one shot at a time. You had a little — a little ball bearing-like bullet. You had to stuff it in the thing and then you had to do this, and the gun powder, and, you know, took 15 minutes before you could fire one shot.
Now, if the Founding Fathers could have looked into a crystal ball and seen AK-47s and Glock semiautomatic pistols, I got a feeling they wouldn’t — I think they’d want to leave a little note behind and probably tell us, you know, that’s not really what we mean when we say “bear arms.”
…I wish we would just live in this century. I think they’d want us to do that.
Moore’s way of thinking is popular, particularly amongst anti-gunners. But what Moore and his ilk fail to acknowledge or outright dismiss is that the Second Amendment not only protects one’s fundamental right of self-defense against evildoers, it also protects a free people’s right to defend against tyranny. They reject a need to safeguard against tyranny because they don’t believe it is possible in 21st century America. See, although the world is filled with tyrannical regimes and despotic rulers, they believe the U.S. is impervious to suffering a similar fate.
On some level, I wish they were right. But history tells a different story. Whether it was the logical Greeks or the lawful Romans, all civilizations eventually descend into chaos and disorder. The reason for this is because all governments are highly susceptible to tyranny and corruption. What this means for us is that our experiment with democracy in the form of a Constitutional Republic has a shelf life. When it expires is anyone’s guess. But make no mistake about it, the odds of it happening are almost certain.
So, when the shit does hit the fan, I want to have a firearm that is close to being on par with what militaries around the world are using. I want a weapon that I can use to defend against those fighting to propagate tyranny. Right now, in today’s day and age, I’d argue that that’s the AR-15, which is precisely why I need one.
Anti-gunners argue that this line of reasoning is stupid. They argue a military equipped with drones and tanks and smart bombs and fighter jets would easily and quickly squash an armed resistance consisting of a small group of men armed with rifles. But if that were true, the coalition of forces waging the War on Terror in Afghanistan and Iraq would have only been there 10 days, not 10 years. Terrorists groups like al-Qaeda and ISIS would have been vanquished shortly after they were conceived. Anti-gunners underestimate just how effective a small, armed, well-regulated militia can be when it believes it is fighting to protect its way of life from tyranny (It goes without saying, but al-Qaeda and ISIS have an ass-backward sense of “tyranny.” When they think of tyranny, they think of Western values, non-Muslims, Women’s rights, etc).
Anyone who believes in preserving liberty and protecting our way of life as we know it shouldn’t have a problem with patriots choosing to arm themselves with AR-15s. Quite the opposite, they should be, at the very least, suspicious of those who choose not to exercise their Second Amendment rights and those who are eager to place their trust, faith and security in the hands of government.