Why Do You Need an AR or AK?, page 5

reply to post by projectvxn

---

I agree OP!

Let's get rid of AR and AK. Heck, while were at it, let's get rid of SC and GA also.

reply to post by okyouwin

---

I really believe we have become overly concerned about a tyrannical government rounding up and abusing it's citizens. That's a really messy thing for a government to do.

Over 100,000 Japanese-Americans found out they could be restricted from living in their homes and shipped off to concentration camps.

752 Arabs in the country on visas found out the hard way that the Department of Immigration could use specious charges to round up persons without needing due process to interrogate them.

Rounding up people has kind of been an American government past time since they decided to declare the "Indian Wars" and "civilize" the west. Hell let us be honest, it was a past time when the slave trade was making colonies rich. To believe that any modern government would find it too messy is wishful thinking. The only reason it is avoided is subtle tyranny works better than the bludgeon. With a compliant news media and a twelve year mandatory indoctrination program, brute force is less necessary. It isn't an option that is off of the table though.

reply to post by projectvxn

---

You should probably keep out of europe with this attitude(also asia)
It is not hard to be the one of the best soldiers when you can bomb the invaded nation to bedrock before deploying a single troop, when you can cripple the economy with trade embargos...etc.
you know who is the invader if it is the enemy's country right? You may be the greatest expert on guns and how to fistf*ck the living snot out of underequipped undertrained brown skinned people, but in my eyes, it is just pure cowardice.
The real man would stand up against a country which has quite the history of invading foreign lands.
It takes not a man to learn to clean his boots and fire a gun at a barely armed and clothed starving human being when drones are above your head, and tanks rolling next to you. What takes a man is knowing that the force you oppose could not be possibly defeated single handedly, yet, despite incessant ridicule and ostracization, you still do it, because it is the right thing to do.

I have two more things to say, and then I am gone, so do not fret, I will stop my criticism of your cowardice shrouded in the false notion of righteousness.(Clearly you got to be the personification of your country. A big, ignorant bully.)

1. I am fairly sure that without your high end gear, just buck naked, pitted against a similarly equipped and trained russian soldier, generally the russian would win. no offense, but those are real sons of bitches. I only know, they were here for 50 years)
2. is more of a quote I found while looking for gun control debates.

I'll tell you what's sick! People in the UK, in the US, #ing Canada, Sweden - they pay their taxes and some remote-piloted drone fires a missile into a public market to hit some warlord. Yeah, so maybe war doesn't happen for another six months, and the price of that gluten-free sorghum bread stays low. It's not sick to arm people, it's sick to bump off their crooks and dictators in protection of our interests and then call it international justice. These people don't have remote-piloted drones guarding their interests ten-thousand miles away. They don't have a war machine paid for with taxes. Where I am, they usually don't even have a #ing government. The drone is the oppressor. The gluten-free sorghum bread is the oppressor. The AK-47 is the great equalizer.

P.S.: to answer your initial question, I do not want an AR(an AK maybe, for entertainment purposes) but rather a Mosin-Nagant with a neat little scope(personal favourite is still the VSK 94 though) However my dear loving government outlawed the possession and use of firearms for commoners(only politicians, judges, corporation owners, CEOs, millionaires and bankers have the right to own a gun for self defense)
Or as I like to say, I'd give one of my arms for a rifle.(sounds funnier in my language)

P.P.S.: I still like you more than the tyrannical fascists known as the police. at least you have the benefit of ignorance, or rather, the excuse of believing you were doing the world a service. Out of the two kinds of pigs, you are the pot bellied one.

reply to post by Alfie1

---

"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom of Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any bands of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States. A military force, at the command of Congress, can execute no laws, but such as the people perceive to be just and constitutional; for they will possess the power, and jealousy will instantly inspire the inclination, to resist the execution of a law which appears to them unjust and oppressive. " (Noah Webster, "An Examination into the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution," 1787, a pamphlet aimed at swaying Pennsylvania toward ratification, in Paul Ford, ed., Pamphlets on the Constitution of the United States, at 56 [New York, 1888])

Patrick Henry

Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are inevitably ruined. Virginia's U.S. Constitution ratification convention (June 5, 1788), reported in Elliot, Debates of the Several State Conventions 3:45.

reply to post by Sek82

---

Yep. It's not about placing the skills of a STANDARD soldier into perspective, and into the context of why the 2nd Amendment was written. No...It has everything to do with me.

The first three paragraphs are the reality of the situation.. In the future, those with the same skills may not be prudent with the rights of the people. That's what this is about. Take it or leave it.

reply to post by Sek82

---

It would seem that only highlights the point that he was trying to make. The soldier evolves with time. What the soldier of today does and believes does not represent the soldier of 2050.

My dad's biological father served in Korea. Others told me he was one of the craziest men they ever served with. People wanted to serve with him because they believed he could get them home. He never mentioned his skills or Korea once.

My dad's step dad served in Vietnam and had two purple hearts, and several other medals. He never talked about his exploits or prowess.

How much have things changed in 40 years? Not as a knock on the OP. It seems to be common that soldiers I run in to brag about, not their service, but their skills in fighting. It is definitely something I see more of in younger soldiers. So, what might young soldiers be like in another 40 years?

reply to post by Narcissous

---

Thank you for your contribution.

reply to post by freedom12

---

What about the AZ platform?
Multi-calibre capable............

reply to post by xEphon

---

Did you ever take time to read about the massacre at Wounded Knee? How about 100,000 Japanese-Americans locked up with no due process? How about proclamations that assassination of American citizens without due process is constitutional no matter where the person is?

Will the government round us up this Friday? I doubt it. However, can I say that the government will never take that step? Nope. History has proven the opposite to be true here and all around the world time and again. Governments all have one thing in common, those in power only wish to gather more power in to their own hands. What can an all powerful government do when there is no way left to fight back?

Originally posted by MikeNice81
reply to post by xEphon

---

Did you ever take time to read about the massacre at Wounded Knee? How about 100,000 Japanese-Americans locked up with no due process? How about proclamations that assassination of American citizens without due process is constitutional no matter where the person is?

Will the government round us up this Friday? I doubt it. However, can I say that the government will never take that step? Nope. History has proven the opposite to be true here and all around the world time and again. Governments all have one thing in common, those in power only wish to gather more power in to their own hands. What can an all powerful government do when there is no way left to fight back?

The government is made up of citizens. It isn't some otherworldly entity that acts of its own accord.
If our own countrymen are willing to act out these scenarios that you imagine will happen, we have much bigger issues than whether or not ARs and AKs sales are restricted.

reply to post by projectvxn

---

I look at it like this OP. Any weapon I can be issued to carry on to a battlefield.
I have the right to own in my home. Defending my home or my country, as a man I have a right to the best. And there can be no good intentions from those who do not want me to have the best. You can not have enough incidents of " crazy early 20's white males with guns " for honest Americans to have to give up that right. Period.
It's all just angle seeking.

Originally posted by MikeNice81
reply to post by Sek82

---

It would seem that only highlights the point that he was trying to make. The soldier evolves with time. What the soldier of today does and believes does not represent the soldier of 2050.

My dad's biological father served in Korea. Others told me he was one of the craziest men they ever served with. People wanted to serve with him because they believed he could get them home. He never mentioned his skills or Korea once.

My dad's step dad served in Vietnam and had two purple hearts, and several other medals. He never talked about his exploits or prowess.

How much have things changed in 40 years? Not as a knock on the OP. It seems to be common that soldiers I run in to brag about, not their service, but their skills in fighting. It is definitely something I see more of in younger soldiers. So, what might young soldiers be like in another 40 years?

edit on 27-1-2013 by MikeNice81 because: (no reason given)

What you say is true... I've also noticed that people here that have never been under fire brag about being able to shoot holes in paper targets better then combat vets which is also true from what I've personally observed and experienced.... There is a lot more motivation to kill a charging wild boar or a person firing rounds at you and a person that is experienced at taking aim and squeezing off a round under that kind of situation is going to be a hell of a lot more accurate then a civilian hobbyist with a high capacity semiautomatic clone of an assault rifle.. It took me months of not knowing if I was going to sh** or go blind when bullets were flying and mortar rounds were impacting with shrapnel tearing up everything around me before I was able to ignore it all and return fire on the guys behind the muzzle flashes....I wonder how bad ass these guys shooting targets down range would be if the targets had learned and accepted that they should by all reason already be dead and aren't and because of that get off on the rush of escaping the Grim Reaper just one more time.. It is an addiction.... Civilians have no chance in hell against people that are that well versed in putting their lives on the line... Experienced combatants have a sixth sense acquired by observing how their mind and bodies respond to signals they can't see or hear or there wouldn't be as many of them still alive and unwilling to put up with all of the misconstrued ideas non combatants think they understand and are capable of doing.

reply to post by Matt1951

---

It is far more difficult to get a direction and distance on 5 or 6 shots fired by individual weapons slightly scattered from one another than from 1 weapon firing the same number of rounds from a single location.... It was a long time before I saw anyone shot with a burst of fire from an AK but there were numerous friendly KIAs I'd seen that had been killed by single shots from the little Chi Com Mosin Nagants or an occasional SKS.

reply to post by Matt1951

---

I believe many who say we have no need for these weapons, just haven't thought it over.

Most of us that own these weapons, SEE multiple, possible scenarios where many "bad guys" come calling.

Is my AR "spraying" gonna get them all? Most likely not, but it will keep their heads down and buy me valuable seconds to consider my options.



Back to the "bad guys", most folks seem to think these guys are gonna be-

1)group of outlaws in a SHTF scenario
2)government takeover and sending in troops/law enforcement
3)"others"....to include zombies, chinese, etc


Assume #1 and 2 your outgunned for sure, even with your AR/AK.


I'd rather have it than not.

reply to post by projectvxn

---

I am sorry for my negative approach and aggressiveness. It is just that much of the land I have seen in my life has been stripped bare by war, and the country I live in still aches by seventy year old wounds. The general war/combat/soldiers thing gets me really going, and on top of that, I kind of felt(and correct me if I am wrong) that you are sort of bragging(or at least have pride in) killing and combat in general.
Basically if you tried to also justify the actions of your government, my head would have popped off that instant.
I am trying to limit my outbursts of rage...its just not my strong side.
I think being a soldier is an honourable job, or honest at least. Up until you leave your land with your guns packed. At that point you become an invader. Not unlike the ever so demonized nazi soldiers.
The world would surely be a quieter place if everyone played defensive. I mean if anyone, then you guys have the gadgets to never have to leave the borders to defend your land.

Thought it'd be the right thing to do, you know. To explain why my stance is like this on this stuff.

Also, I think it is not imaginary borders we should be dividing ourselves upon. I mean if you can breed with something, and the offspring is going to be healthy, you probably should not kill them en masse.
It aint about the 'all life is precious' and 'it is always evil to kill' bollocks. Sometimes it is all but evil to kill. It is just that I think it is not rich old white men, who should be sending poor/middle class young men to their deaths.
just me two cents.

UN Proposes Tax On Americans for 3rd world countries
  Posted 18 days ago with 28 member flags

Armed bystander stops stabbing outside school
  Posted 12 days ago with 27 member flags

Update...Canada Couple Wins Right To Grow Vegetables On Front Lawn...Case Closed!
  Posted 16 days ago with 25 member flags

We argue about Healthcare, meanwhile, the Elephant laughs (pls read!)
  Posted 13 days ago with 25 member flags

A new country in North America? What do Canadians and Americans make of this?
  Posted 9 days ago with 22 member flags

" Climate Change Is Not A Hoax", says Obama!!??
  Posted 4 days ago with 21 member flags

Former Arizona Sheriff Mack, ‘Gun Control Against the Law’
  Posted 13 days ago with 12 member flags

Limiting Freedom & It\'s Effects On Society
  Posted 17 days ago with 11 member flags

Newest topics, updated in real-time:

Newest topics getting flags, in real-time:

Newest topics getting replies, in real-time: