Why You Need an AR-15 with a 30 Round Mag Part II

Send to Kindle
Daniel Defense M4A1.

Daniel Defense M4A1.  Check out Jacob’s review.  To be clear, he is running a 20 round magazine in this photo.

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.

{ 62 comments… add one }
  • Jimmy November 13, 2015, 2:43 pm

    If people think the government can or will take care of them and do a god job or even do it right or fairly; just take a real good look at the American Indian. They are starting to make a comeback, but that is in spite of the government not because of it!!

  • MarylandShooter May 19, 2015, 8:47 am

    Late to the party gents, but Mr. Moore would like the 1791 definition of “arms,” but would Mr. Moore care to extend that logic to the other amendments?

    The venerable 1st Amendment would then apply to only the hand-run printing press, not electronic mediums of any sort. I’m sure we can all see the logical fallacy at work behind these patently absurd claims.

    Last – let’s stick to facts, and as John Adams remarked “Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence; nor is the law less stable than the fact . . . ”

    CDC Data (2011)
    Age 15-25, causes of death:
    56% – Motor vehicle
    25% – Poisoning
    5.3% – Drowning
    1.8% – Other Land Transportation
    1.7% – Fall
    1.2% – Firearm

    There you have it. Not data from a biased source, but strictly facts. You are nearly 50X at greater risk of death from a motor vehicle, 20X from poison, 4X from drowning and pretty close to even money as far as death by a fall compared to death by firearm.

    This so-called gun death “epidemic” is fashioned from whole cloth by the media because it simply doesn’t exist as it’s presented.

  • Patrick Rutherford April 12, 2015, 2:18 pm

    regarding commentors view ” that anyone who trusts the govt. “Is suspect” I add the following : Where ever there’s a “gimme” there’s a ” gotcha”

  • Finger March 31, 2015, 1:57 am

    I wrote this about a year ago, but I’m going to share it now, given the topic at hand. My thanks in advance to anybody who takes the time to read it…

    I’ve heard, far too many times, the idea that a home-grown insurgency on US soil could never stand up to the might of the Federal Government, and that our military could instantly crush any opposition. Like every facet of the gun debate, this one is quite complex, and before one jumps to any conclusions on the matter, it is important to first understand the nature of insurgency (not forgetting that this country was, in fact, founded by insurgents). There’s much more to war than simply who has the biggest guns or the thickest armor.

    Shortly after the US-led invasion of Iraq and the subsequent destruction of its military and government, US military vehicles began receiving improvised explosive device (IED) attacks. In the years that followed, these attacks increased dramatically in frequency and lethality, as did US casualties. For a number of reasons, more and more people began to support the insurgency, and through trial, error, and careful observation, they were able to pinpoint not only the weaknesses of our tactics, but even those of our most sophisticated warfighting systems. Coalition forces had, at their disposal, M1 tanks, Apache helicopters, Predator UAV’s armed with guided missiles, HMMWV’s with frag-5 kits, Paladins, fighter jets from the Marines and Air Force, and a myriad of other very high-tech, very expensive and very deadly weaponry. Yet, the Iraqi insurgents, with little to no education, comparatively minuscule budget, crude weaponry, and very limited resources, managed to gain strength and momentum all the way up until the beginning of the awakening movement.

    Every day that went by, our enemies became stronger and more skilled. So how was that possible? That fact defies everything we’ve come to believe about the omnipotence of the American military. Well, simply put, combat power isn’t measured in microchips. It doesn’t take billions upon billions of dollars in warfighting assets to recognize that a bomb carefully hidden on the side of the road can do a lot of damage to a passing HMMWV.

    I came to be quite well-versed in the tactics and techniques of our enemies during my own service in Iraq. The greatest difficulty we faced was simply identifying our enemies. After all, they were dressed in plain clothes just like everyone else, and without the ability to readily identify targets, how could we eliminate them? Because of this, we relied heavily (almost entirely) on information gathered from locals to guide us toward the “bad guys.” But, even that process was greatly hindered by a wealth of misinformation provided by insurgents posing as well-intentioned civilians (and the kicker: we often paid them for that information).

    So where does the gun fit into all of this? Well, a gun is nothing more than a tool, and every tactical situation is a little different. Thus, different situations will call for different tools. Gaining ground in any tactical situation will inevitably require one side or the other to maintain some sort of presence on the turf in question, and doing so will require one to come within close proximity of his enemy. No military force can accomplish this with helicopters, drones, and guided missiles alone; the potential for the deaths of innocent people and collateral damage is far too great. So, fancy precision-guided missiles, no matter how sophisticated, are only useful to a certain extent. In Iraq, if a certain individual was targeted for detainment, we didn’t hover over their suspected location in a helicopter and lob explosives at them, or pepper them with hellfire missiles until they finally zip-cuffed themselves and surrendered. Not only would this have caused the deaths of countless innocents, but it would have been almost impossible to determine if the intended target was even in the target location. It wasn’t until a squad of brave men – with rifles – stacked up, kicked down the door, and went in, that we could successfully pull off a targeting mission.

    Now, it could be said that the war in Iraq was entirely different from any would-be conflict here on American soil. With that, I would agree- to an extent. There are, no doubt, major cultural, geographical, economic, and infrastructural differences between the US and Iraq that would be enormous factors in the outcome of any armed conflict held in either country. However, to make such a statement would be to miss the point that was made at the very beginning of this piece (without over-simplifying it): Victory doesn’t necessarily go to the side with the biggest guns. It’s the side that most effectively plays their strengths against the weaknesses of its opponent, that wins.
    Thus, I illustrate the utility of the rifle, not for any particular group or organization, but in any tactical environment. It is a tool that provides its user with the means to cast a lethal projectile toward his enemy, and no one else; an ability that any warfighter, regardless of allegiance or alignment, will find themselves in need of.

    Before I finish, I’d like to make a few things clear. This writing is not a call for revolution. If that has been your take-away, you’ve misunderstood me. I, and most everyone else in this country, have plans for the future which require stability and will never come to fruition in a war zone. I’m simply trying to inform the two people who will ever read this that, once again, the gun debate is not as “black and white” as some believe, and many of the arguments against guns are based entirely in ignorance and hearsay. My only goal is to provide a drop of truth in a sea of fallacy and misinformation. Rest assured, anybody who claims that guns should be further restricted or banned in this country because, “You can’t beat the government anyway,” has no real understanding of the issue.

    Those who founded this country were able to do so only after waging war against their own government, which had become irreversibly oppressive and corrupt. Being well aware of the dangers of concentrated power and its detrimental effect on personal freedom, they wanted only to erect a system of government that could be kept in check by limiting its power, and its ability to acquire it. The rights outlined in the Bill of Rights were included because they are the rights that, among others, have the most profound impact on the peoples’ ability to remain free in mind and body. And, indeed, they are the same rights that must first be lost in order for those who seek power and true control to achieve that goal.

    • S.H. Blannelberry March 31, 2015, 7:36 am

      Great response! Do you mind if I republish this on the site as an article?

      • Finger March 31, 2015, 11:42 am

        Jeez. I’m flattered! Please do!

        • S.H. Blannelberry March 31, 2015, 1:51 pm
          • Finger March 31, 2015, 8:04 pm

            Again, I’m flattered. I don’t know what to say, except… thank you!

          • Finger April 1, 2015, 2:25 am

            I’m going to throw one more in. I wrote the bulk of this a few months after Sandy Hook, when I started to notice the national debate going awry. I’ve edited it a couple times to take out some very coarse, condescending language. I think the logic is very sound. Again, my thanks to you, or anyone who takes the time to read it…

            First off, I know what an assault rifle is. I know how it’s defined, and I know that the object over which this debate is centered does not technically meet the definition of “assault rifle.” I don’t care. I still call it an assault rifle. Moving on…

            This writing is geared toward those in the anti-gun movement. I don’t wish to persuade those who already share my views; it’s those who don’t share them that concern me.

            It’s important to do some critical thinking on the nature of freedom and how it relates to your life. Freedom is not “needs-based.” It’s not a privilege that must be justified to anyone else, and it’s not a state of being that is granted to you only after you’ve met a specific set of criteria; it’s a birth right. Provided that you’re not hurting another or impeding their right to live as they see fit, freedom is something that you have the innate right to enjoy.

            With respect to the question of whether or not we should have the right to own assault rifles, I beg of you not to make the mistake of buying into the current rhetoric which would have you believe that legislative action aimed at restricting or banning them is “common sense.” This is a very cleverly chosen buzzword that has proliferated in this debate and has done nothing but mislead otherwise sensible, thoughtful people. Use of this term makes many Americans (who may be less than informed on the topic) heave a sigh of relief, knowing that they really need not take time to examine the issue. After all, why would you? It’s common sense!

            True understanding of the issue of assault rifles and, indeed, the right to own guns as a whole demands not only critical thinking, but more fundamentally, a working knowledge of human history and the many philosophical arguments regarding the relationship between government and governed. Our Constitution is not the product of common sense; it is the product of debate, education, intelligence, and sound reason. To suggest that the loss of any freedom should come from the realm of common sense is an insult to the spirit of liberty, as true liberty can only exist among the informed.

            If you want to see assault rifles banned, then let’s take a look at the very core of the issue: Ownership of assault rifles is a right that Americans currently have. Of those who exercise that right, a very small portion (really, a tiny fraction of a percentage) misuse or abuse that right. You argue that because they’re killing people, and we don’t need them, it’s “common sense” to ban them, and take away that right. Then you ask me, “What do you say to the parents of the innocent children killed at Sandy Hook?” The following is my rebuttal to those arguments, and to that intensely offensive question (which I have been asked).

            Let’s draw a comparison to something else that Americans have access to that also meets the criteria that the anti-gun movement has set forth as grounds for banning assault rifles: Alcohol. Now, take it easy- I realize that an AR-15 and a bottle of vodka are not the same thing. However, for the purposes of this discussion, they are one and the same, and I’ll prove it.

            (Before I continue, know that I absolutely do not want to ban alcohol. I’m using it in a hypothetical context to give the anti-gun movement an important question to chew on)

            There is no argument that anyone can make as to why we need alcohol for recreational consumption (that is need, as opposed to want). You will not suddenly become mute if you stand at a bar without a drink in your hand, nor will you keel over and die if you don’t drink a few beers every day. I understand that you might want it for recreation, but as you’ve argued with assault rifles, we’re talking about what we need, not what we want. Your body requires proteins, calcium, and countless other nutrients, none of which come solely from alcoholic beverages.

            Now, let’s talk death. By the CDC’s estimate, from 2006 – 2010, there were an average of 88,000 alcohol-related deaths in the US each year. That’s 88,000 lives lost each year due to the abuse of something that Americans have the right to own and use.

            Sound familiar?

            So, on top of the fact that you don’t need it, it’s killing people in the tens of thousands and if you’re reading this, chances are, you drink alcohol recreationally. So I ask you, those of the anti-gun crowd, as you sip your PBR or your vintage Bordeaux, why don’t you want to ban alcohol? How can you justify its use when you know in your heart that it kills so many thousands of people every year?

            Our stomachs turned at the unspeakable murder of 20 children at Sandy Hook Elementary, but what do YOU say to the parents of the 239 children killed by drunk drivers in the same year? What do you, Mr. & Mrs. Happy Hour, say to the parents whose children were struck and killed by some dumb college kid who did 15 beer bongs and drove home? Are you going to look them in the eye and say, “I’m terribly sorry for your loss, but I really just do not have enough self-confidence to engage in conversation without a few vodka tonics”?

            I’ve heard, “Assault weapons are made for one purpose, and that is to KILL PEOPLE. Alcohol is made so people can have fun! Duh!”
            Whatever their intended use might be is wildly irrelevant. Dead is dead. If a person is hit and killed by a drunk driver, would you argue that it’s less tragic or less significant than a person who is shot with a rifle? More to the point, would you tell the family of either victim that they should have an easier time coping with the death of their loved one than the other family should? Certainly not. Death is about the person that is lost, it’s not about how they died. The deep sadness, the grieving and the sorrow we feel is about who they were, and who they could have been. It’s about their personality, their sense of humor, their achievements, the experiences we shared with them, and the eventual realization that you and that person will never be able to enrich each others’ lives again.

            I’ve also heard, “But I drink responsibly. Nobody, not even myself, has ever been hurt as a result of my drinking.” To that, I say, “Thank you.” But, it’s not about what a single person does. We’re talking about sweeping federal legislation, which demands numbers, especially when the rights of millions of harmless people are in question.

            I pulled all of this data directly from the FBI’s Uniform Crime Reports. I intentionally left out the Virgin Islands, because the numbers for that territory weren’t available for every year in question. Apart from that, nothing was altered, twisted, or otherwise “cherry-picked” to make my point. Even if I wanted to, I wouldn’t need to- the data speaks for itself. I encourage you to go to their website and take a look if you think I lack integrity.

            In the entire US in 2009, there were a total of 348 people killed by rifles. It is important to note that that number represents ALL types of rifles (bolt action, pump action, lever, etc.), of which, assault rifles are a sub-category for which exact numbers aren’t even tracked. Now, that’s a very small number, but to help put it into perspective, I also tallied the number of people killed by hand, with no weapons of any kind. The grand total for that? 801 (that’s eight hundred and one). That’s right. In 2009, there were more than twice as many people killed by hand than shot with rifles. For 2010, 357 killed with rifles, and 745 by hand. For 2011, same story: 323 by rifle, 728 by hand. What does this tell us? Americans, who have access to rifles, choose bare hands over rifles to commit murder by a ratio of more than two to one. More importantly, it tells us that a murderer doesn’t require an assault rifle, or even so much as a butter knife to kill somebody. Clearly, they’re perfectly capable of doing it without such tools. Where there’s a will, there’s a way.

            So you say you should be able to drink alcohol because you’re responsible about it? Well, I own guns responsibly. In fact, with the exception of a few gutless psychos, all of the other millions of Americans who own them do too. My rifles have never been used to kill anybody, and I truly hope they never will. I use them to shoot target, but they’re also there if a more dire situation happens to present itself. That’s it.

            I’m a perfectly normal, friendly, compassionate guy. If you met me on the street, or at a party, you would never guess that I had a gun collection at home with such “terrifying” pieces in it. In fact, I’ve been stared at in astonishment, mouth agape, on a few occasions where somebody who “knew me” finally learned that I own assault rifles. They were baffled that somebody “like me” could possibly own such a thing. I always get a kick out of it because I can almost see the sparks shoot out of their ears when their brain short-circuits. They can’t wrap their head around the fact that a sane, stable person could possibly own one of these things, and they’ve been trained by the mainstream media to believe that anyone who does must be an uneducated, blood-thirsty redneck who sprinkles Skoal on his cereal. I’m not crazy by any definition of the word, and owning an assault rifle doesn’t make me crazy.

            An assault rifle is an inanimate object. It requires a human hand to pull the trigger. It’s no more capable of killing someone than a bottle of whiskey sitting on a shelf. I enjoy drinking on occasion, and I have, like every other guy on Earth, used alcohol to help me loosen up a bit so I can approach that stunning woman across the bar. But, for every argument you can make against assault rifles, I can make ten fold for alcohol. The bottom line is, millions of people use both of them responsibly, and just because a handful of idiots don’t, does not mean the entire country needs to be stripped of them, because…

            That’s not how freedom works. You wanted to ban my assault rifle (I have to assume past tense if you’ve read this far), the parents of children killed by drunk drivers want to ban alcohol, families of lung cancer victims want tobacco banned, and so on and so forth, ad nauseam. If you expect your freedom to be respected, you have no choice but to respect that of others. The clowns who aren’t responsible enough to wield freedom will always be around, and you can’t let them ruin your day, nor can you ask your government to take away someone else’s freedom while you maintain yours. People die. Tragically. It will never stop. You enjoy your beer, and I’ll enjoy my rifle (in fact, I’ll enjoy both).

            Don’t just say, “This guy’s an idiot,” and then click away to Amazon to go buy stuff you “need.” Take a minute to think about it. Honestly think about it with an open mind. If, after all of that, you still want to see assault rifles banned, then there is only one possible explanation: You’re scared of them. If that’s the case, I’m sorry, but your fear is your problem and it does not, by any stretch of the imagination, constitute the grounds for a new federal law that will achieve nothing but make you feel safer (not to be confused with actually being safer).

            If you’re like most Americans, you’ve never endured any kind of traumatic event that involved an assault rifle. You’ve never seen one, held one, or fired one; never had one fired at you, or even pointed at you. So, barring a terrifying real-life experience, where in the world could your fear possibly come from? Where else but TV, movies, and news? The majority of the people in this country have had depictions of violence rapid-fired into their sensory organs since childhood. Unfortunately, that’s probably the only exposure most have ever had to guns, so I guess can see why they might have trouble separating fact from fiction. If you’re one of those people, here’s my advice: Turn off your TV, and you’ll never see another assault rifle again.

    • Russ April 1, 2015, 1:51 am

      All wars are different.
      None were the same.
      Outcomes could easily differ depending on the methods used and who’s in command.
      The strength and momentum you speak of that the enemy gained was nothing in comparison to how many got wiped out by exposing themselves to our guys.
      I’m not really sure what your point is here about the rifle and how it relates to war or civilian life.
      We civilians should be able to have whatever we want, equal to or even better that the forces who work for us.
      As far as the “rifle” is concern, If someone like myself were in command, it would never be used.
      I wouldn’t put any man on the ground or in harms way.
      They would all be behind computers surveying the battlefields with joysticks in a mechanized attack.
      The enemy would never have a chance even if they went underground or hid in a church. (that concept is laughable)
      They would be glassed over.
      I’m not very PC, and also not sorry for it.
      If your innocent, you better get out of the way. Sorry you live in a shithole, but that’s about the length of my pity.
      America should behave like Africanized Bees when it comes to protecting this Country.
      With Bees, you stay clear, and don’t mess with them and they wont mess with you.
      So ya, attack us, and we use everything in our power to devastate you.
      Soon there will be nobody left or willing to try it again.
      The article states – WHY YOU NEED AN AR-15 WITH A 30 ROUND MAG
      I need my rifles or any firearms for the protection of my loved ones, myself, and those good people around me.
      much like S.H. BLANNELLBERRY mentioned – “from multiple attackers”.
      And because I like shoot and have a fun time without having to load mags every ten seconds
      The stupid ass magazine capacity argument is ridiculous to debate, and I wouldn’t waste my time on it.

      • S.H. Blannelberry April 1, 2015, 7:59 am

        Finger: You’re welcome!!!

        On a side note, Russ is a great discussion participant too, though not all of his feedback of my work is flattering, I still enjoy reading his comments.

        • Finger April 1, 2015, 11:23 am

          Fair enough. I guess you can’t walk into a fight without expecting to take a punch.

          • Russ April 1, 2015, 4:49 pm

            Sorry Finger, I’m not punching or trying to fight with you.
            Don’t get me wrong, we share some fundamental views.
            But like most people, we vary in the way we see things.

            And I’m not trying to troll you either, but I just have to state this about your #2 writing;
            I don’t believe in categorizing an “Armalite” or an “Automatic Rifle”, what some people refer to as an AR,
            as an “Assault Rifle”.
            That tag is made up in Hollywood, or coined by anti – gunners to make certain firearms sound evil.
            Not to mention the majority of AR’s out there are not even Automatics
            Maybe it could be coined by a military unit that is going on a mission, but I doubt it.
            An assault weapon could be [anything] you decide to assault someone with.
            An AR is a nickname for the modern rifles of today and shouldn’t be falsely labeled as; Assault Rifles, for the good of us all.
            I like to think of my AR’s & AK’s as PDW’s or just plain old PD’s (Protectin Device/Plinking Device)
            Sorry, no offence, just had to get that off my chest.
            I hope you rephrase more precisely in the future.

            PS. Hi there S.H. BLANNELLBERRY. You and I see eye to eye, and are very clear about our views.
            I like many of the things you put out there, and also know you intentionally lay out fight starters.
            I get it, and your style.

          • Russ April 1, 2015, 4:59 pm

            Finger,
            I left out that I found your writing was good and insightful.

          • Finger April 2, 2015, 1:39 am

            Russ- no need to apologize. Thank you for taking the time to read what I wrote. Like I said at the beginning of my second piece, I know the definition of “assault rifle,” and I know it well. I just don’t care, because I was calling them “assault rifles” long before anyone ever cared what they were called. When I first wrote that piece, I included that disclaimer at the top because I knew somebody on my side of the fence would flip when they saw how I was using (misusing) the term. I’m going to throw one thing out there- the term didn’t come from Hollywood. I believe its beginnings can be traced back to before WWII, but I know for sure the Nazis developed the “Sturmgevehr,” which translates to “assault rife.” Generally, I think that’s when the term really took a foothold. It didn’t bother me so much when the media was referring to AR-15’s as “assault rifles.” I thought the use of the term “common sense” was a far more sinister crime.

  • john delesky March 30, 2015, 2:28 pm

    Ask the 2 or 3 French police officers guarding the Charlie Hebdo newspaper offices why they think they need an AR-15? Or the dozen journalists who were killed why they cannot have a handgun to defend themselves? Sad to say we can’t ask them because the bad guys attacking had the AK 47s. If only the bad guys had read ahead of time the French laws telling them they could not have AK/AR type guns because……………….they were bad guys. Just not thoughtful of them not to follow the law. To take away a person’s basic right of self-defence is criminal.

  • James H March 30, 2015, 1:40 pm

    Michael Moore misses the reasoning for and behind the Second Amendment completely (as if he cared). The Amendment has nothing to do with the type of capability of a firearm, or “arm”. The Founders meant to allow citizens to protect themselves with whatever arm is available. Further, they intended that arms were not limited to defense only but to be used for hunting and sport or any otherwise legal activity. I am sure the Founders did not mean for the government to hinder or limit the rights of individuals to own arms as it currently does through the BATFE. Class III arms should be as easily obtainable as any other. We should be able to own a cannon or a tank if we want as long as we can afford it and are not convicted of felonious crimes. If a person has no criminal record and is legally able to own a revolver he/she should be able to own any type of firearm. I would also agree with the other respondent here that even a rehabilitated criminal should be allowed to have a firearm with reasonable checks as to the type and severity of crimes committed and a convincing knowledge that the convict is no longer a threat and deserving to own one. This would necessarily have to be very carefully thought out but seriously considered.

    I need a 30 round magazine so I don’t have to reload so often. Do I need more reason than that?

    • Doc March 30, 2015, 5:02 pm

      James, I agree – ANY weapon we can afford EXCEPT CBN weapons. Want an M1-A1 ABRAMS? Cool. Keep it maintained, and keep your field of fire clear when you are hunting or just plinking around on a hill side. And, if you really do want to take that deer or Elk at 1000 meters with a $5, 000 HE round, I have no problem with that either. Want to use an RPG to get that wild bore? I have no problem. Want to use the RPG for home invaders? That’s fine to as long as your neighbors are safe. I’m not sure WHY you would want a SAM, and I’d have to think about that for a bit, but would most likely come down on your side. Ok, maybe for trap shooting, but if you can afford to ‘pull three’ and see if you can hit them with your SAM, I guess that’s Ok. But I’d still have to think about that one. I am opposed to mines for MANY reasons, but I can’t think of much more I’d be against owning.

      • Damon March 30, 2015, 5:51 pm

        “I’m not sure why you’d want a SAM . . . ”

        Drones in your airspace, surveilling you warrantlessly and without due process. Amazon is going to have to rethink their delivery proposals.

        • Doc March 30, 2015, 7:01 pm

          Damon, OK, you convinced me with that one word ‘drone’. But let’s keep the SAM “Safe and Sane”.

          Though, on the other side, having been a wildland firefighter in some of my younger years, and been on many ‘search and rescue’ calls in remote river or canyon areas, a drone with FLIR sure would have made finding those lost hikers easier, or finding the fastest route to some kid who jumped in the river and now has a head in jury, or slipped on a rock and has a broken leg far nicer that I’ve experienced, I sure can see the use of drones for MANY GOOD reasons, — you don’t want to get to the point of paranoia about drones because they can be, and probably will be misused. That’s like being against the internet or the Web because it, too, can be misused. Think about the privacy given regular mail opposed to the privacy given e-mail. Think about the privacy of say, Facebook, or the use of cookies, trackers, and other such ‘mining tools’. Keep them out of the hands of law enforcement and I’d have FAR FEWER problems with them. The SCIENTIFIC use of drones is even yet unimagined.

          But, sure, drones are really noting more than the Skeet for a SAM. And I’m certain that their buzzing overhead would piss me off as much as mosquitoes or black flys. So …….. OK we are on the same side I think.

          • Russ March 31, 2015, 5:09 am

            Don, thanks for cracking me up with sarcasm.
            I’m thinking the same as you.
            Be responsible, do whatever the hell you want, just don’t break laws or interfere with others rights.
            I want a flame thrower, just kidding.

  • H.S.Plouse March 30, 2015, 1:09 pm

    This notion that the 2nd Amendment only protects our right to own single shot muzzle-loaders isn’t just sophistry, it’s idiotic and utterly contrary to history. During the American Revolution, the regular armies were likely to use a smoothbore musket (Brown Bess or Charleville) with perhaps an effective range of 50 yards. Civilians (incl. the rebels who wrote the Constitution) were often armed with rifled Pennsylvania/Kentucky long rifles with effective ranges exceeding 100 yards. They actually outgunned the regular military. In the antebellum years, while Army dragoons carried single shot, muzzle-loading “horse pistols”, civilians were buying up Col. Colt’s “Dragoon Model” six shooters, outgunning the military’s weaponry. Jump ahead to the 1870’s-1880’s and the army was using single shot, trapdoor Springfields, while civilians (incl. the hostile Indians) were wielding quick firing lever actions with 8 to 15 round capacities. Put simply, they outgunned the regular military. At the turn of the century, while the military was using .38 cal., six shot revolvers, civilians had the option of 8 -10 round, clip-fed semi-autos, outgunning the military. Go to the 1920’s and, while the US Army was chiefly armed with bolt action Springfields (with a 5 round magazine), the biggest market for Thompson .45 cal. machine guns (with 50 round drum mags) was the civilian market. They outgunned the regular military! Only in the last 60 years have military arms greatly outstripped the weaponry regularly available to civilians and that despite the 1938 Supreme Court “Miller” case which held that the 2nd Amendment applied to “any weapon commonly used in the… military forces”. If history is to be our guide, then Mr. Moore is utterly and totally wrong – my rights are not limited to single shot muzzleloaders. If history defines the issue, I should be able to go down to my local sporting goods store and buy a cruise missile or two, which I can then take home strapped to my main battle tank, because THAT is what the founders wanted AND it is also exactly what they said they meant whenever they commented on the issue.

  • H.S.Plouse March 30, 2015, 1:09 pm

    This notion that the 2nd Amendment only protects our right to own single shot muzzle-loaders isn’t just sophistry, it’s idiotic and utterly contrary to history. During the American Revolution, the regular armies were likely to use a smoothbore musket (Brown Bess or Charleville) with perhaps an effective range of 50 yards. Civilians (incl. the rebels who wrote the Constitution) were often armed with rifled Pennsylvania/Kentucky long rifles with effective ranges exceeding 100 yards. They actually outgunned the regular military. In the antebellum years, while Army dragoons carried single shot, muzzle-loading “horse pistols”, civilians were buying up Col. Colt’s “Dragoon Model” six shooters, outgunning the military’s weaponry. Jump ahead to the 1870’s-1880’s and the army was using single shot, trapdoor Springfields, while civilians (incl. the hostile Indians) were wielding quick firing lever actions with 8 to 15 round capacities. Put simply, they outgunned the regular military. At the turn of the century, while the military was using .38 cal., six shot revolvers, civilians had the option of 8 -10 round, clip-fed semi-autos, outgunning the military. Go to the 1920’s and, while the US Army was chiefly armed with bolt action Springfields (with a 5 round magazine), the biggest market for Thompson .45 cal. machine guns (with 50 round drum mags) was the civilian market. They outgunned the regular military! Only in the last 60 years have military arms greatly outstripped the weaponry regularly available to civilians and that despite the 1938 Supreme Court “Miller” case which held that the 2nd Amendment applied to “any weapon commonly used in the… military forces”. If history is to be our guide, then Mr. Moore is utterly and totally wrong – my rights are not limited to single shot muzzleloaders. If history defines the issue, I should be able to go down to my local sporting goods store and buy a cruise missile or two, which I can then take home strapped to my main battle tank, because THAT is what the founders wanted AND it is also exactly what they said they meant whenever they commented on the issue.

    • Dittohd March 30, 2015, 8:14 pm

      I totally agree with you! The second Amendment was mostly so we could protect ourselves from the government. They knew, from dealing with England, that Governments are overbearing. We should be able to own any weapon produced so we can fight against the government. Remember the Davidians in Waco? Our government took a tank up against a man and group of people that supposedly were breaking the law and were KILLED without a trial or anything including kids and women. How do we get military people willing to kill American citizens without cause? Because they do what they are told. I will happen to others. It almost happened out in Nevada but the rancher had support from other gun owners. The media demonized Koresh into a womanizer and pedophile as well as a dictator. I call BS.

  • Pete March 30, 2015, 12:15 pm

    I agree that everyone should have a good rifle, an AR, an AK or some other variant, just in case. Grew up behind the Iron Curtain and so I know what is at stake. I am disturbed by the slide we have experienced since 9/11 towards the same sort of clandestine surveillance and monitoring that the former Soviet states were noted for. It seems freedom and liberty is rapidly being traded in for so called “security”. The only way back may be with a well armed citizenry asking to have their government back one day. Just saying.

  • Thor March 30, 2015, 11:58 am

    Wish people posting online used the English they learned in grade school.
    Not lower case ar. It correctly is written in caps as in AR. Is also is not short for “automatic rifle” but is short for Armalite the developer of the AR.
    Not “pre-band”. Correctly written as pre-ban!
    Not “clip”. Correctly written as magazine!
    Not “period” with no space before a new sentence. Double space after periods. Like this–“period””double-space””Initial cap of first word–new sentence.
    Colorado legislators also passed knee jerk legislation limiting magazine size. Two legislators were recalled and another resigned. Currently that magazine legislation is undergoing repeal. Unknown if any legislators ever served in Vietnam with the M16 where we taped magazines together (3 was easy–it took nano-seconds to flip from an empty mag to a full magazine). They could each be 10 rds (legal) but the practical effect would be 30 rounds. Other variations exist.

    Everything recited in comments before mine is accurate–just loses impact when correct English isn’t used. Kind if like using general math to express 2+2=IV. Huh??

    • H.S. Plouse March 30, 2015, 1:15 pm

      Ummm, while I kinda (sic – consider that “permissive slang” used for emphasis, a usage recognized even by Fuller in “Modern English Usage”) agree that grammatical and spelling errors can detract from the impact of a comment, I think it is incumbent on those who feel the need to play “Word Nazi” to make sure that they don’t end their diatribe with an obvious error (e.g., “Kind IF like using…”).

    • Doc March 30, 2015, 4:47 pm

      Thor, before I go any further, let me remind you that EVERYONE makes mistakes, even you.

      ‘AR’ in some usage does refer to an ‘Automatic Rifle’, it’s a fairly common British usage of the designation, though in context here you are *mostly correct*, ‘AR’ is not ‘Armalite’ but rather, “Armalite Rifle’; since you focus on the messenger and not the message, you, too, are wrong. Does it make what you have to say any less effective?

      Also, when using a single space after a paragraph the next line needs to be indented 5 spaces. Or you can use double spacing as I do here. Both are correct, as is a double space with an indent.

      Many people have Learning Disabilities. This means that they tend to function BELOW the expected IQ performance level. Many LD (Learning Disabled) people who have IQ’s at or above the college or university level can only do math at, say, the 5th or 6th grade level. Thus a person with an IQ of 130+ preforms at a 5th to 6th grade level in some academic related area. Not all handicaps or disabilities are VISUAL, some are internal, ‘hard wired’ is a good way to think of it. In addition you have the ‘Cupertino Effect’. That is when you mis-spell (or misspell, both are correct) a word, your spell checker pops up and corrects a word incorrectly. Originally it referred to the tendency of very early spell checkers (often first versions of MS to suggest or auto correct words which were not in its dictionary, today many tablets and phones with virtual keyboards will do the same thing). Thus, the word “cooperation”, without the hyphen (co-operation) would always correct to the word ‘Cupertino’. Today the term has expanded to include the wrong choice from a pop-up menu. When you manually or auto-correct a word (autocorrect is also proper, the MLA and APA dropped the need for hyphens in 98% of the most commonly used words). People make mistakes, give them a break (or is that brake?). I was thrown out of a special Masters Program I put together because I could not spell one word in the title of my Thesis. Yet I was able to get TWO ARG’s (a kind of research grant) when most first year grad students couldn’t even have their proposal accepted. Please do not judge a person by their spelling. I am only judging you on your assumption that the world is static, immutable, and tend to revolve around what you feel is correct. If the message gets across, the job is done. This is not a ‘journal’, it is a relaxed forum, so the rules change when we speak to each other here. *I* don’t think that there is a need for ‘formal’ writing skills to participate in the FIRENDLY exchange of ideas and concepts.

      ‘Clip’ has been over done in this forum. Let it suffice to say that in many regions and among many age groups the word ‘Clip’ refers to a ‘magazine’ (which is also a type of print publication). You understood it enough to understand what the writers were referring to. My Grandfather ALWAYS called it a ‘clip’. I called it a ‘clip’ until I was taught the difference between a ‘clip’ and a ‘magazine’ as it refers to firearms by the military.

      Starting in the early to mid 1950’s questions about how many spaces should be placed after a ‘period’ were being raised. All EU nations have adopted the one space rule (that’s 23 languages). Now the APA, the MLA, and Chicago have dropped the need for two spaces after a period. Some style manuals MANDATE only one space, while others leave it up to the individual as long as it is constant throughout the paper. You will be interested to know that with the e-style, there is no need for a period after a ‘period’ at all.

      I would hate for people to NOT post because of the fear of a grammar Nazi (or Grammar-Nazi) who patrols these postings, and demotes ideas because of how they are expressed.

      And, lastly to address some of your other grievances: we need to give others the same rights we want for ourselves. That includes the First Amendment right to free speech. That includes the right to speak freely about firearms, and discuss the Second Amendment and what it means. When I was in ‘Nam I was NOT fighting for our right to free speech, I was fighting to stay alive and keep others alive.

      That war had nothing to do with America, it was simply a long drawn out civil war we were dragged into by our alliance with the the French and our McCarthy Era fear about Communism and Nuclear Annihilation. It can be argued that the war started with the Vietnamese resistance to the French, the Japanese, the French, then the American and Allied forces which occupied their country. All they really wanted was to be left alone. Then when that appeared unlikely after WW II, have a Socialistic Democracy like the ‘Scandinavian’ countries of Europe have. They made back-road approaches to Eisenhower to help them write a constitution along the lines of a Jeffersonian model and to help them deal with the French in the diplomatic areas, but because the French were our allies, we were not allowed to do this. China had been their hatted enimy for close to 2000 years, yet they ended up together as allies against the United States. So, in many ways, we prevented peace by thinking 20 years behind the times.

      Let’s not glorify war because there is no glory in war as any combat Vet can tell you – if you were there you know EXACTLY what I mean. And, please, let’s allow others to post without the fear of having their words thrown back in their face by Grammar Nazis. Lastly, remember others have the exact same right to express their thoughts as you have the right to express yours.

  • Ramon Avila March 30, 2015, 10:38 am

    When is will the freakin’ government going to stop poking into people’s personal business. I am a former military veteran and I too hate freeloaders. If you want something, learn to work your ass for it.

  • Eric Baugher March 30, 2015, 10:19 am

    These self rightous people, usually have money behind them have no clue whats going on. I would be willing to buy them gold crowns and ship them over to some third world country to rule the ignorant masses. See how long they last. Americans are not
    stupid and can see the overall picture of instability, turmoil, and downhill progression the world is in. The rich would have us in loincloths, and begging them for food on their plantations. Never going to happen.

  • Richard M March 30, 2015, 9:34 am

    I so agree Moore is so ignorant in his comments he should keep his mouth shut he sounds so uneducated about firearms !

  • Richard T Logan March 30, 2015, 8:59 am

    Want more fire power bump fire in Miami $99.99 single or full auto legal in all 50 states ar15 might have to buy new buffer kit or slide fire Moran TX and look for pre-band 30rd clip four seasons guns woburn mass did have them.Also you get a certificate by ATF that stock is legal for all ar15 and ak.

  • TLB March 30, 2015, 8:14 am

    The “civilian” firearms in use when the. Constitution was written were usually better than common military arms (rifled vs smooth bore). So, buy the anti gunners own logic, the second amendment guarantees a right to military and better arms.

    Even so, the right to self defense is a natural right that we would have even if it had not been specifically enumerated in the second amendment.

  • Steve Holsten March 30, 2015, 6:32 am

    Moore is such a stupid Dumbass. He has no business discussing firearms & our precious 2nd Amendment.

  • Peter March 30, 2015, 3:29 am

    Get an AR pistol also beside a rifle, hooah!

  • Mark N. March 29, 2015, 2:01 am

    I live in California. I can have only 10 round magazines, but that makes me happy. If I had 30 round mags, I’d shoot up my ammo too fast!

  • Will Drider March 27, 2015, 12:17 am

    I agree. Now that the Military has lazer weapons (not talking about lazer designators, sights or ranging devices) how long will it be till they ban civilian possesion of powerful lazers? Time will tell.

    • dave March 30, 2015, 10:12 am

      OooH, I want one. How long until they make a light saber? I really want one of those!

      No, really. I want one. Maybe three!

      • JT March 31, 2015, 1:44 pm

        “Hokey religions and ancient weapons are no match for a good blaster at your side, kid.”
        ―Han Solo, to Luke Skywalker

  • DRAINO March 26, 2015, 11:17 pm

    END THE DEPENDENCY CONSTITUENCY !!!!!! NOW !!! BUY AN AR TODAY!!!

    • Steve March 31, 2015, 10:43 pm

      Get it in 300 blackout for home defense. Serious close range fire power.

  • DRAINO March 26, 2015, 11:12 pm

    I AM ALWAYS suspicious of anyone who choses to trust the government to do everything for them, take care of them, provide them with everything. When I was growing up…..no, still today….I have always known them as FREELOADERS!! BUMS!! DIRTBAGS!!! and a few other names I will omit for decency sake. If you don’t take care of yourself and your family….and expect the gov’t to do it….how can you be trusted? Could you rely on that kind of person? Would they be the kind of person you would want as a friend….or even an associate? Definitely not in a SHTF scenario!! Seems strange the mindset of some folks in todays society. 20+ yrs in the military taught me that security and protection was EVERYONES responsibility…not just the MP’s or SF personnel. Hmmm?…Wait…..responsibility..??? that means EVERYONE should involved in protecting our freedoms!…huh…..go figure.

    • dave March 30, 2015, 10:10 am

      Agreed. Anyone who trusts government (at all, IMO) doesn’t understand history or human nature. Therefore they are not to be trusted making decisions for me, nor working in government, and probably not with a vote either. They are ignorant threats to citizens who understand liberty, tyranny, government and citizenship responsibilities. I don’t even bother to discuss anything with anti-gunners – there is nothing they can say that I care about.

    • Pete March 30, 2015, 12:09 pm

      You know, military personnel have everything provided for them by the government, have the government take care of them and expect the government to do everything for them, along with many other federal employees. By your somewhat limited definition they are also freeloaders, bums and dirtbags. I suggest you redefine your definition. Or should we get rid of the military and other government agencies as they are nothing but thinly disguised socialism? Just saying….

      • Jim Atherton March 30, 2015, 4:21 pm

        Regarding our Military, yes they are more socialistic than democratic, therein lies the balance in our society. Can you imagine a democratic military? ” “Shall we take a vote to see if we should attack the enemy or do something else huh?”
        That would never work we can’t elect our leaders in the military. They are appointed based on their competency and experience, not because they want to win a popularity contest. That is the balance that we must have. I resent the clown who called our soldiers “dirt bags” this from a clown who has never made or committed to protecting and defending our nation. I’m a Marine and have been in harms way a volunteer, a patriot, a conservative, and an armed citizen, I’m prepared and confident that the American people will soon come out of the effects of obozos’ kool ade consumption. I pray that this nation will return to the nation that was the greatest in the world. We still have “haters” and always will. Regardless of our short comings we still have a Constitution that was drawn up by men living in tyranny. They prevailed it took a revolution to win our freedom and many are ready to repeat that action should the situation arise that would require the “home guard” to rise up to help the military maintain peace and liberty.

        • Russ March 31, 2015, 2:23 am

          Thank you Jim!

        • Pete March 31, 2015, 3:23 am

          Semper Fi! I also served. My point was that the definition used by the original poster would classify many who do not belong into his category. I was just making a point against snap judgement and bad generalized definitions. Many who depend on the government are deserving and not the sort of people the original poster would pigeon hole them as.

      • joe liberal March 31, 2015, 3:47 pm

        Well NOW you have given me something else to mull over in my mind……thanks!!

      • Jack April 1, 2015, 2:53 am

        Military personnel don’t have everything provided to them by the government and I took care of myself and fellow soldiers. And I definitely didn’t expect the government to do everything for me. I served, I was in combat in Iraq, and retired from the army. I got a little offended with what you seem to think of the people who are serving there country.

        • Russ April 1, 2015, 3:30 pm

          Thanks for your service Jack, your a patriot.

Leave a Comment

Send this to a friend