Why You Need an AR-15 With a 30-Round Mag Part III

So, in doing some research for my series on “Why You Need an AR-15 With a 30-Round Magazine” I came across this rather insightful video from prolific author and gun-rights advocate Alan Korwin.

Now I know Alan, I’ve interviewed him several times (I plan to chat with him once again at the NRA show in April). He’s a great guy. And in addition to being the author of some 18 books, the majority of which are on gun laws, he is the purveyor of GunLaws.com and the publisher of Bloomfield Press. He’s a busy guy.

In the video above, Alan addresses the question I’ve attempted to answer in Part I and Part II of my series. What Alan does quite cleverly is attack the premise of the question, explaining that in America the possession of private property isn’t based on needs and therefore framing a question in that manner is an affront to the principles of personal freedom and individual choice that our Constitution protects and preserves.

Korwin invokes the expression, popularized by Karl Marx, “From each according to his ability, to each according to his need,” to make his point that when we begin to examine rights and freedoms in terms of needs we are starting down the very slippery slope to communism.

Instead of asking, “Why does anyone need an AR-15,” Korwin says that reporters ought to ask, “Why do millions of people, including law enforcement, want an AR-15?” To which he finally answers, It’s a great gun!

I totally agree with Krowin’s reasoning on why the question is flawed, but I still think that a cogent case can be made that one needs an AR-15, which is what I hope I did in Part I and Part II of the series.

Anyways, more food for thought.

About the author: S.H. Blannelberry is the News Editor of GunsAmerica.

{ 24 comments… add one }
  • Joe April 7, 2015, 5:29 pm

    The only thing better than an AR 15 with thirty round mags would be an AR 10 with two twenty round mags.
    No need to thank me, just send me money so I can stock up on .308 ammo…

    • Joe McHugh April 9, 2015, 3:20 pm

      Joe, you are on the right path in suggesting a weapon that uses the 7.62 X 51 mm cartridge but the M1A is better yet. The only rifle that can take more punishment than the M1A/M14 type rifle is the AK47. However, the average AK47 can’t hit the side of a barn from the inside of that barn.

      I could go on and on listing the superior features of the M1A but I’ll just name two that make it a better choice than the AR15/M16 type of rifle. First of all is the brute strength of the 7.62 X 51 mm round. The bad guy on a rooftop 400 yards away or the guy taking cover behind a concrete block wall is going to have a bad day trying to avoid the bigger bullet.
      Second is the dependability of the M1A/M14 type of rifle in sandy or windblown dusty conditions. The roller on the M1A/M14 operating rod makes it even more reliable than the renowned M1Garand in such conditions.

      Full automatic fire? All of you fans of the pray and spray club, kill a lot of dirt but miss the target unless your sighting and trigger control happen to put the first bullet on the target.

      I realize that most of the vets on this forum are fans of the AR15/M16 type of rifle but most of them never had experience with the main battle rifle that is the M1A/M14 weapon. The ones who had experience with both the M16-A2 and the M-21/M14 rifle types know what I’m talking about.

      The M16 family of rifles has some advantages over the larger M 14 type of rifles but not in what really counts, putting the bullet into the enemy soldier where ever he may be on the battlefield. Oh, by the way, if there happens to be one or two bad guys directly behind the one you are shooting at, they will lose interest in breathing too.

      • Joe April 10, 2015, 10:24 pm

        I can’t argue your points on the M 1A being superior to the AR 10 but the deciding factor for my purchase was the $750 price tag for my modular carbine verses the average price of $1200-1400 bucks for a armory supplied M1A.
        Although pinpoint accuracy isn’t realistic with my carbine, I have no problem putting all shots inside a pie plate with open sights and I am tickled pink with that. Although with the 18 inch barrel I might lose some velocity with that 7.62 NATO round compared to the longer barrel M1A , I assure you it still is a thumper when it hits. And if I want to drive tacks, I can always resort to my AR15 bushmaster with the 3 by 9 scope.
        Happy shooting

  • Russ April 7, 2015, 2:45 am

    Alan Korwin started out with talking about stories that asked about the good side of guns, and veered off.
    The good side of guns is; They protect and save more lives than they do murdering.
    Here’s a guy who articulates this well.
    His name is Bill Whittle. The channel on YouTube is TruthRevoltOriginals. (subscribe) Type in Bill Whittle Firewall (his shows).
    He represents America with the same values as I do.
    Please watch this guy so you can answer anti gunners and their dumb questions with ease.
    I love this current show; https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=JOtzWwmaGfM

  • CB April 6, 2015, 6:13 pm

    When somebody asks an idiotic question such as this, why not reply with a question like “why do some people need to drive a Corvette or a or a BMW instead of a bicycle?” Then give them the answer they should have come up with for their “why does anyone need an AR with a high capacity magazine” question. Aside from the fact that this is among one of the best technological offerings in it’s class…more importantly, because this is America and our forefathers designed our government to insure that law abiding citizens have the right to pursue happiness as they define it as long as they don’t infringe on others rights to the same. One of the most awesome perks to being an American is owning the best of anything we have the means to own, whether it be a house, a car, or a gun. America should remain as it has been from the beginning…a land of opportunity.

  • davud April 6, 2015, 12:18 pm

    i wish korwin hadn’t made the silly statement about the ‘commie’ ak-47. as if machines can join political parties and have political opinions. such anthropomorphizing is the same tack gun grabbers take when they call guns ‘evil.’

  • Rick April 6, 2015, 12:09 pm

    well the way I see it is the government dont give a shit about the people they just want to know when you take a shit what time and what color it is and they don’t give a damn if you die or not you could tell that by the pharmaceutical company so they can just go kiss my rosy red you know what

    • "G"mac April 6, 2015, 12:32 pm

      Trash mouth, take it elsewhere

      • BR April 6, 2015, 1:29 pm

        Don’t like the language, but I love the 1st amendment.

    • Russ April 7, 2015, 1:36 am


  • Lawrence Gorecki April 6, 2015, 11:35 am

    I was asked by a M.D. at work a few years ago, why shouldn’t all guns be registered the same as cars. I answered that firearms are not cars and their possession is guarded or should be by the Second Amendment. As usual the reply was that the Second Amendment was wrote in the late seventeen hundreds. But so was the first amendment etc., I answered.. But that seems not to make any sense to the anti gun people.

  • Lui April 6, 2015, 11:32 am

    I love the AR-15, it is a great gun but is out of my budget. What I love the most about the AR though is, it is a lightening rod. While all these gun control nuts are fixated on the AR, a lot of us who want more bang for the buck are stocking up on cheap Russian firearms and Ammunition. For the cost of an AR you can buy at least two maybe three sks rifles with a few accessories a modern stock and a removable 30 round mag it can easily be updated . Firepower is about the same as an AR. The AR is a better weapon, but not by enough to to cause me to buy it instead of two or three SKS’s. So now instead of only me being armed if I bought an AR, my wife and my son is law is also. That is a hell of a lot more firepower then one AR-15.

    • Kevin April 6, 2015, 1:01 pm

      I like the SKS and have two from when they were $99.00 ,but around here they are going for $350 and up so two would be $700. I have seen several AR-15’s for $599, plus I just built one for $500. You would be well armed with a SKS but when you can buy a AR or Ak for a couple dollars more buy the Ar or Ak

    • Russ April 7, 2015, 1:33 am

      Lui, I’m hearing what your saying and agreeing for the most part.
      But if you want a great AR, that is to say, a practical and dependable inexpensive one, buy a S&W M&P Sport 5.56/.223.
      I have one and it’s perfect with Magpul furniture @ $700.00, and $500.00 without. The ammo is what costs, and brings you down.
      So YES!
      Who needs an AR when AKs are cheap, dependable, extremely durable, nostalgically cool and their ammo cost pennies?
      Try a 74 with 5.45 (Afghan’s “Poison Bullet”) the one with the air bubble in the tip is a devastating round.
      It leaves behind a basketball sized, mashed meat cavity. Just ask any Californian feral hog.
      And the 7.62 x 54R reaches out and punches pinkie size holes in 1/2 inch armor (even though not rated AP) it does it for 17 cents a round. Cheap!
      I love my AKs, 47, 74 & VEPR sniper.
      I enjoy all firearms, but have the most fun and am best with may AK’s and their cheap ammo.

    • J STEVENS April 9, 2015, 7:43 pm

      Sir: you can build an AR platform yourself for 2/3 of the cost of a new one. It takes a little research to find the components at best price.
      You need a few inexpensive tools and you can find build instructions on YOU TUBE & build manuals in print.
      There is a vid on YouTube titled never buy another AR-15. It tells how to do what you need.

  • SNuss April 6, 2015, 9:44 am

    Because the 2nd Amendment is part of the Bill of RIGHTS, not the bill of needs, or bill of wants. So long as I use my weapons in a legal manner, those who disagree can go pound sand!

    • Don April 6, 2015, 10:10 am

      “So long as I use my weapons in a legal manner…” – who is defining “legal manner”, you or your government?

      • Doc Loch April 6, 2015, 2:08 pm

        What he meant to say was “moral manner”. Everyone forgets that laws of the land are secondary to moral edict and are to be given only to provide protection (not pre-cognitively prevent anything). Thus as long as you use a right that doesn’t infringe on the BASIC rights of others you ought not to be harassed in the exercise of any right. There must be a moral imperative and desire to be nice or there can be no order of any kind, and they if you want anything in that dog-eat-dog world, you better have the better weapon and the bigger brain.

      • Steve April 10, 2015, 9:01 am

        Me, I decide. It’s a God given right to protection. And a man given right to protection. Both can never be reversed.

    • USMC 8541 April 6, 2015, 1:39 pm

      And just whose job is it to enforce the 2nd Amendment? It is us, we the people. It is Constitutional and Lawful and our duty to use our God given right of arms ownership to defend the Constitution and Bill of Rights against those who would very much like to restrict it — especially the federal government. And when we use arms to resist those powers as is our duty, I doubt very much thew will view it as legal use!

      • CW April 7, 2015, 7:09 am

        It’s not a god given right, it’s the rights our founding fathers gave us to ensure we the people have a resource available to us to defend ourselves from a tyrannical government.

        • John April 7, 2015, 11:02 pm

          It is the right given by God, intrinsic hence “inalienable” to our individual value as human beings to self protection. Or so thought our Founding Fathers derivative from their belief in Natural Law. They believed God granted us these rights and they derived their understanding from his Natural law. They believed they were not creating or granting us this right but rather that it being authored by God was inalienable that is an existential right of all men in all times in all places. Universal. The Bill of Rights solely acknowledged the right to self defence; it neither founded, granted, nor conferred upon us this right. Government doesn’t author eternal truth. It bends it’s knee to that truth. And should the Constitution ever be overturnef, that right would still exist. We hold these truths to be self evident that all men are created equal. That they ARE ENDOWED BY THEIR CREATOR WITH CERTAIN INALIENABLE RIGHTS. Hard to enjoy any rights as a defence less human being. No the right to life, eh? Or happiness.

          • ---------------------->Inalienable April 9, 2015, 4:01 pm

            key word—->[Inalienable] rights
            Rights that are there without question or given to by man.
            Sort of like a common sense that you have these rights, or what can be expected in life.

Leave a Comment

Send this to a friend