Why Do You Need an AR or AK?

reply to post by projectvxn


Explanation: S&F!

7 pages of crap and not one proper technical reply to the OP's stated question!

POOR FORM ATS! :shk: Truly distressing and disgusting!

HERE is the technical reasons for the WHY! ...



And it applies to the AR or any other weapon as well!

Personal Disclosure: I wish people would grow up!

Note this is not a debate about why anyone would need to kill everybody in the room ... its just about the technical requirements that the weapons in question fullfill.

has more to do with supressive fire. consider a flamethrower for a room full of enemies

Originally posted by bl4ke360
Because we have a bill of rights, not a bill of needs.

Even so, the Bill Of Rights was created because of our Needs. In general, the need to live free...and specifically, the need of a free man to have the ability, and capability to defend himself against those who wish to force an end to such freedoms.

The second amendment is there to ensure that the capability to force some type of unfreedom, slavery, or other encroachment upon their rights, would not be equal to having the "ability" to do so.

The second amendment is the whole, entire base for the rest of our rights. For it's the only thing that ensures freedom. And as son as you start telling people that their guns are too powerful, their guns become too weak. These rights are inalienable, unencroachable, and sacrosanct. Yes, the 2nd amendment allows you to hunt and protect your family, but it's pretty specific, unlike what the media wants you to believe. It states that you have a right to keep AND bear arms, which means that you have a right to carry a weapon on you. Permits are reasonable for conceal carry, but open carry is, by constitution, a right, and legal.

Many high-courts (most recently in Illinois....the most anti-gun state there is) have ruled that your right to defend yourself exists not only at home--but with your person as well. You have just as much of a right to defend yourself at the local Baskin-Robbins, as you d at home. You have just as much of a right to defend yourself against a cop that's trying to murder you as you do against a homicidal criminal.

These rights are universal, as they were many to be. Because they're the only thing preventing this country being ruled by a American Saddam Hussein, and the second amendment is the only thing that is keeping the constitution, and the otherrights in the BoR, alive, well, and guaranteed.

Originally posted by projectvxn
reply to post by MikeNice81

 

My skills are only relevant insofar that they may be used against you. . .

My fear is that Americans are losing perspective on this. The danger here is a skilled standing Army which, in the future, could give its allegiance to something other than the Constitution. Someone in particular rather than the people as a whole. The way things are going, I see this as a very real possibility.

I understand and as I said, it was not meant as a knock on you. It just shows how different things are. At one time it was taboo for anybody to mention their service away from other soldiers. I was just saying things have changed.

reply to post by MonkeyCarrier


Explantion: St*rred!

As for the needs to kill everyone in the room, say those in Congress and or the WhiteHouse, ... I feel this post makes the most sense!

Personal Disclosure: Both examples of rooms full of targets that I listed above are both valid miltary targets.

Hiding behind human shields is a war crime.

Example case ... The Oklahoma FBI building Bombing!

The FBI hid behind non-consenting human shields in the form of a child care center!

Doing such things led to the unfortunate loss of their lives aka COLLATERAL DAMAGE!

The building and the FBI personel were all valid targets ... the only issue's at play are ...

Military Necessity [wiki]

Distinction (law) [wiki]

Proportionality (international humanitarian law): International humanitarian law [wiki]

Luis Moreno-Ocampo was the Chief Prosecutor at the International Criminal Court who investigated allegations of War Crimes during the 2003 invasion of Iraq. He published an open letter containing his findings; in a section titled "Allegations concerning War Crimes", he elucidates this use of proportionality:

Under international humanitarian law and the Rome Statute, the death of civilians during an armed conflict, no matter how grave and regrettable, does not in itself constitute a war crime. International humanitarian law and the Rome Statute permit belligerents to carry out proportionate attacks against military objectives,[5] even when it is known that some civilian deaths or injuries will occur. A crime occurs if there is an intentional attack directed against civilians (principle of distinction) (Article 8(2)(b)(i)) or an attack is launched on a military objective in the knowledge that the incidental civilian injuries would be clearly excessive in relation to the anticipated military advantage (principle of proportionality) (Article 8(2)(b)(iv)).

Article 8(2)(b)(iv) criminalizes:
Intentionally launching an attack in the knowledge that such attack will cause incidental loss of life or injury to civilians or damage to civilian objects or widespread, long-term and severe damage to the natural environment which would be clearly excessive in relation to the concrete and direct overall military advantage anticipated;
Article 8(2)(b)(iv) draws on the principles in Article 51(5)(b) of the 1977 Additional Protocol I to the 1949 Geneva Conventions, but restricts the criminal prohibition to cases that are "clearly" excessive. The application of Article 8(2)(b)(iv) requires, inter alia, an assessment of:
(a) the anticipated civilian damage or injury;
(b) the anticipated military advantage;
(c) and whether (a) was "clearly excessive" in relation to (b).

— Luis Moreno-Ocampo

Did Timothey McVeigh have a military need to attack the FBI building ... yes the actions at Waco showed him that the FBI had attacked civilians using military equipment and that was not proportional and was "clearly excessive" and due to the situation he had no chocie but to act in a war like manner to address that situation because the Federal Government was clearly not going to address it.

What military advantage was going to be achieved?

The untouchable, in a legal sense, FBI war criminals would be brought to a swift and immediate lethal level of Justice! Further more the destruction of FBI property would hinder the FBI's ability to enact any other mass civilian casualty massacres.

Was this proportional?

Timothey McVeigh was one man versus the FBI and therefor he had to go to that extreme level of using a truck bomb to carry out military actions versus the FBI war criminals. However the result was only 2 FBI agents and the FBI building were removed from the battlefield and 20 kids and many others were killed.

His chocie of weaponry was completely appropriate but his actions did lead to the excessive loss of innocent life, which of course made him a war criminal also.

I hope this helps my fellow ATS members to get a clue.

Originally posted by xEphon

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.

The government is a class or group of people acting in the name of the citizens. Unfortunately history, and academic studies,show that people with power tend to abuse it to gain more power. The same lessons also teach that people will follow bad commands even from the flimsiest of authorities.

If you don't believe the government will do horrible things, you haven't studied history or kept abreast of current events.

Wounded Knee Massacre

Hugh McGinnis; First Battalion, Co. K, Seventh Cavalry: "General Nelson A. Miles who visited the scene of carnage, following a three day blizzard, estimated that around 300 snow shrouded forms were strewn over the countryside. He also discovered to his horror that helpless children and women with babes in their arms had been chased as far as two miles from the original scene of encounter and cut down without mercy by the troopers. ... Judging by the slaughter on the battlefield it was suggested that the soldiers simply went berserk. For who could explain such a merciless disregard for life? ...

Japanese American Internment

President Franklin D. Roosevelt authorized the internment with Executive Order 9066, issued February 19, 1942, which allowed local military commanders to designate "military areas" as "exclusion zones," from which "any or all persons may be excluded." This power was used to declare that all people of Japanese ancestry were excluded from the entire Pacific coast, including all of California and much of Oregon, Washington and Arizona, except for those in internment camps.[8] In 1944, the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the exclusion orders,[9] while noting that the provisions that singled out people of Japanese ancestry were a separate issue outside the scope of the proceedings.[10] The United States Census Bureau assisted the internment efforts by providing confidential neighborhood information on Japanese Americans. The Bureau's role was denied for decades, but was finally proven in 2007.

Secret Kill List

WASHINGTON — This was the enemy, served up in the latest chart from the intelligence agencies: 15 Qaeda suspects in Yemen with Western ties. The mug shots and brief biographies resembled a high school yearbook layout. Several were Americans. Two were teenagers, including a girl who looked even younger than her 17 years. . .

It was not a theoretical question: Mr. Obama has placed himself at the helm of a top secret “nominations” process to designate terrorists for kill or capture, of which the capture part has become largely theoretical. . .

When he applies his lawyering skills to counterterrorism, it is usually to enable, not constrain, his ferocious campaign against Al Qaeda — even when it comes to killing an American cleric in Yemen, a decision that Mr. Obama told colleagues was “an easy one.”

So, the current government has assassinated American citizens in countries where we are not at war. They are currently considering killing more. Plus, the president finds it an easy decision to execute an American citizen without due process and violate the sovereignty of another nation in one swoop. All of this teams up with the NDAA granting indefinite detention powers to the president.

Forgive me if I do not trust in the benevolence of those that sit in positions of power. I find it hard to wonder if when it is a question of when the next thing will happen.

An obvious reason for AR15's would be that in the event of a confrontation where the Defenders were successful, you would have spoils if you prevailed. Those spoils..... M16 ammo. The same ammo you would need to continue your defense. Choosing odd caliber ammunition could result in empty weapons as the ammo was exhausted.

reply to post by xEphon


You are right, people are "under that idea." Can you give a reason why they should think otherwise?

History tells us, for those that will listen, what evil men do when given a little bit of authority.

Here is the deal: When you have folks that swear "to uphold and defend..." something and then they feverishly work at altering the very document they swore to defend, well, that raises eyebrows on some of us.

1.They have already shown they can't be trusted with our money... Why would you trust them with your freedom/life? They have put our children in debt before they are even born! They can be trusted with our welfare?

2. They have openly stated the COTUS is an "archaic" document. The COTUS gives them every and all the powers necessary to govern the nation. They don't like being bound by the laws therein. That raises eyebrows....

What I don't get is why people wish to put their life and freedoms in the hands of majority elected people. Hitler was democraticaly elected....... The majotity may have been wrong there, I'm just thinking.

I personally question anyone that wishes to control me.

Here is my thing, I understand OP view, he's at the top of the Gun chain
while me, I'm at the bottom.
I do not own a gun, I'm not a member of the NRA
I have only shot a shotgun a few times in my life, went hunting only once - didn't like it > too cold and I really couldn't find myself killing something other than insects.

Do I fear a special trained person like OP?
No, if he wants me dead, I'm pretty much dead.
If I want him dead he's pretty much dead too. The only difference is I have less options and very limited scenarios to give me the importunity.
So I don't fear an individual,

For Gun Control,
For me, I can see myself purchasing a handgun to protect my home and family from a basic criminal,
It seems the liberals of my country would rather give rights to vicious criminals than give rights to law abiding citizens, so families need some personal safety.
But then why would I want more fire power? For me, (AT THIS TIME) I wouldn't because their is no need.
If OP breaks into my home, a hand gun to AK-47 isn't going to help me, He will more than likely, take the gun away and biatch slap me with it do to his specialized training. But I can't think individual, I have to think Bigger!

The protection of My Country United States of America, the citizens have the right to have equal fire power as the government in case the citizens need to fight to regain their rights when all peace options have failed.
Our government has been going in a downward spiral and have been slowly squeezing the civil rights out of us for the past 100 years. And they are scaring and using tactics that will make you give your rights up which inturn gives up your right forever!!!

Republicans want to scare the citizens in having controlled protection which has been slowly eroding our rights.
They build our nations defense to have no equal, but then scare us with confining 9/11 laws.

The Democrats on the other hand, is to have a socialistic society which is moving toward pure communism.
Obama is pure proof of this.

I feel if the Government trend continues, a few generations from now, maybe less time than that, the Citizens of the USA need the right to bare equal arms as our government.

For me a guy who doesn't own a gun right now,
I am not going to take a civil right away from my children or children's children to one day be able to protect and fight to re-establish freedoms like our fore fathers fought and died for.

Originally posted by MikeNice81

Originally posted by xEphon

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.

The government is a class or group of people acting in the name of the citizens. Unfortunately history, and academic studies,show that people with power tend to abuse it to gain more power. The same lessons also teach that people will follow bad commands even from the flimsiest of authorities.

If you don't believe the government will do horrible things, you haven't studied history or kept abreast of current events.

So, the current government has assassinated American citizens in countries where we are not at war. They are currently considering killing more. Plus, the president finds it an easy decision to execute an American citizen without due process and violate the sovereignty of another nation in one swoop. All of this teams up with the NDAA granting indefinite detention powers to the president.

Forgive me if I do not trust in the benevolence of those that sit in positions of power. I find it hard to wonder if when it is a question of when the next thing will happen.

edit on 28-1-2013 by MikeNice81 because: (no reason given)

No one is debating that government has done horrible things.

But what people are proposing is far beyond that. The paranoia going around is that the government, via the military I assume, is going to take away our guns then send us all to camps or kill us. That's the paranoia.

But in order for a scenario like that to play out, it would involve our own military coming down on their own family's doorsteps to send them away.
Both my sister and I are ex military. Neither one of us would have obeyed any order that called for us to imprison our own families for god knows what reasons and I can guarantee most sane people in the military wouldn't either.

If people want to own ARs and AKs or whatever, I'm all for it. I just don't think sensible laws that restrict ex cons or mentally unstable people are in fact this hidden government agenda to de-arm the populace so that it can send its apparent robotic slave military down on its own people.

Or maybe I just haven't been as active as I should be in this forum and my creative mind is failing me

Originally posted by projectvxn
reply to post by okyouwin

 

You obviously missed the point.

Try to imagine a force, trained and equipped like the military is today, but without the allegiance to the people.
What do you think this force would do to you? Your family? Your friends?

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

And me alone with a room full of automatic weapons is going to change that? I guess I'm missing something here. If the entire force of the United States Military is brought against me and my family. there is not going to be much I can do by myself. I know it has a romantic feel to resisting oppression. but to blaze away at a contingent of trained soldiers in a defiant last stand sounds like a quick way to suicide. Should the government decide it needs to round up it's citizens and declare war on them, a resistance force has really only option, and that is best described as terrorist tactics

As the world becomes more and more populated and resources become more and more scarce, real or imagined, personal liberties are going to take it on the chin. Resist if you have to but it is going have to be organized and supported by an outside source or country. dream on about heroic resistance. But you better get practical and spend less time polishing the Ar, and more time forming networks.

Originally posted by okyouwin

Originally posted by projectvxn
reply to post by okyouwin

 

You obviously missed the point.

Try to imagine a force, trained and equipped like the military is today, but without the allegiance to the people.
What do you think this force would do to you? Your family? Your friends?

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

And me alone with a room full of automatic weapons is going to change that? I guess I'm missing something here. If the entire force of the United States Military is brought against me and my family. there is not going to be much I can do by myself. I know it has a romantic feel to resisting oppression. but to blaze away at a contingent of trained soldiers in a defiant last stand sounds like a quick way to suicide. Should the government decide it needs to round up it's citizens and declare war on them, a resistance force has really only option, and that is best described as terrorist tactics

As the world becomes more and more populated and resources become more and more scarce, real or imagined, personal liberties are going to take it on the chin. Resist if you have to but it is going have to be organized and supported by an outside source or country. dream on about heroic resistance. But you better get practical and spend less time polishing the Ar, and more time forming networks.

I agree with you 100% and I think most of the people are missing this point.
If the government is able to employ its own military against us, and they are as trained and deadly as the OP claims he is, with all their current firepower, do you really think your AK is going to save you?

But before that can even happen, you have to have a military that would act on it. And call me naive but I highly doubt our own military would follow the order to kill its own people on a historically massive scale...just because.

Maybe its me but I feel that 'The Government' has become the domestic boogeyman of the decade.

reply to post by xEphon


If you don't think that the military will turn it's weapons against civilians just read up on the "Bonus Army"

At 4:45 p.m., commanded by Gen. Douglas MacArthur, the 12th Infantry Regiment, Fort Howard, Maryland, and the 3rd Cavalry Regiment, supported by six battle tanks commanded by Maj. George S. Patton, formed in Pennsylvania Avenue while thousands of civil service employees left work to line the street and watch. The Bonus Marchers, believing the troops were marching in their honor, cheered the troops until Patton ordered the cavalry to charge them—an action which prompted the spectators to yell, "Shame! Shame!"

After the cavalry charged, the infantry, with fixed bayonets and adamsite gas, an arsenical vomiting agent, entered the camps, evicting veterans, families, and camp followers. The veterans fled across the Anacostia River to their largest camp and President Hoover ordered the assault stopped. However Gen. MacArthur, feeling the Bonus March was a Communist attempt to overthrow the U.S. government, ignored the President and ordered a new attack. Fifty-five veterans were injured and 135 arrested.[11] A veteran's wife miscarried. When 12-week-old Bernard Myers died in the hospital after being caught in the tear gas attack, a government investigation reported he died of enteritis, while a hospital spokesman said the tear gas "didn't do it any good."

You could also read up on the forced eviction of residents from New Orleans. It started with the confiscation of weapons by local police, U.S Marshals, and the National Guard.
Defensless on The Bayou

At the orders of New Orleans Mayor Ray Nagin, the New Orleans Police, the National Guard, the Oklahoma National Guard, and U.S. Marshals have begun breaking into homes at gunpoint, confiscating their lawfully-owned firearms, and evicting the residents. "No one is allowed to be armed. We're going to take all the guns," says P. Edwin Compass III, the superintendent of police.

Like I said, I don't think it is eminent. I do believe it is more of an eventuality than a theoretical exercise.

Well let's say this if the Muslims can freely train with fully automatic weapons, grenades, and rocket launchers why should we not be able to have a hunting rile with a stock modification.

Basically that is all these AR's and AK's STYLED like rifles are hunting rifles with modified stocks.

The military cannot maintain control of 1 state much less a whole country and our numbers will show when they begin to fire on civilians in ernest ,clear engagements.
Exactly how many in service would support the martial law?
How many civilian guns are out there?
You don't know,nobody does. We just tell you what we know and you attempt to supersede our explanations with current military capability.
Then some call us nazis and blah,blah bah.
No we aren't nazis,we give the country back when we leave,we don't gas civilians and our military isn't a global invasion force.
We don't want your problems and we don't like occupation.If we tell you who we are what we can do you should remember there are thousands who are fuming at the situation right now. Thousands.
We aren't tied to command directives,war crime laws or any measure of restraint,should we move out.
Among our group are special forces of all kinds from many countries who live here because they like guns too.
I would expect a swift death if my former division rolled into an American city. Well........maybe not on the east or west coasts,until they got reinforced.
Coming up through Mexico,nah,no way in hell.The police would be tied up trying to locate the guns we would capture...and cache.
But it can't happen EVERYWHERE AT ONCE,unless a WMD is used and that would make the rest of the country psychotic trying to kill the occupying force.
They would want the land anyway so WMDs would ,most likely,not be used
I could get on an AFB and blow up a plane or two,I would die probably but I could do it if they attacked civilian targets.There goes air.
Armor is vulnerable without infantry support just put a homemade thermite bomb on top of the ammunition storage on the vehicle and kill the crew as they exit.
This all is known to combat arms vets and we tell you what we know. So you can keep your weapons AND MAGAZINES,if you can't use them we can.

Switzerland is different from the US. In the US you have the right to be armed.

In Switzerland you have the obligation to be armed.

Some people take their freedoms more seriously than others.

In Canada you have the right to form a committee. Sometimes that's enough.

reply to post by xedocodex


You don't get it.
I don't see why people have such a hard time with the concept of asymmetrical warfare. Could a government with tanks and bombers lose against a guerrilla force with only semi auto rifles? Absolutely. It's not like the government can drive a tank into a neighborhood and just blow up any building they think has rebels. That would turn the entire population against them. Not to mention the people in that tank are likely questioning why they are using it in their homeland. Oh and the people in the next tank over might decide we aren't going to do this.

If an actual war similar to what you are describing, broke out, the rebelling force would have almost the same equipment the military has inside a week. Bases would be over run and vets or active duty would be in those tanks.

Disclaimer: I always feel I need to clarify that I don't think such a situation is likely, nor do I hope for such a thing, I still think we can take the government back with good libertarian politics. I am just keeping it real with my response.

Everyone needs one of them both guns are great guns they are the most common, first if something happens you can hunt very well with them not in game but for survival and use them for protection.

Also like everyone says the criminals all have guns illegally its true i know a few people who have guns illegally also immigrants are allowed up to 6 "i believe" guns for them without being a citizen everyone needs at least 1 or 2 guns for protection. if someone wants to own a gun and if someone doesn't then it shouldn't matter to anyone.

I agree with you 100% and I think most of the people are missing this point. If the government is able to employ its own military against us, and they are as trained and deadly as the OP claims he is, with all their current firepower, do you really think your AK is going to save you?

reply to post by xEphon


Read my above post. I also suggest anyone else that thinks our right to bear arms isn't enough to help us in such a situation read it as well.