You're arguing with yourself. In one post you mention Vietnam and Afghanistan and in the other you bring up nukes.
Why an AR-15?
- Thread starter HawkOptimist
- Start date
You're arguing with yourself. In one post you mention Vietnam and Afghanistan and in the other you bring up nukes.
No I'm not I'm being consistent you just arn't understanding nuance.
I am saying an armed insurgency kicking out an invader is possible. How could I deny that? It's happened multiple times throughout history.
BUT that instance us exceedingly unlikely to apply to a country with nuclear weapons since said nation would fire them off before being conquered. The nuclear exchange would occur and the war would be ended by there simply not being enough survivors to keep fighting.
Vietnam and Afganistan didn't have nukes.
When was the last time a country armed with Nuclear ICBM's was invaded?
A lot of people confusing NEEDS with WANTS in this thread.
Last edited:
It's funny that you would need some sort of inanimate object to make you feel manly. You must be an absolute loser in real life.The way you described that “platform” just gave me an erection. I feel so virile now. So confident. So powerful. I wanna go out there and dominate.
The truth is that the gun was designed for combat in Vietnam.
you are simply lying when you describe its usefulness for hunting. It was designed to hunt humans.
AR-15s Were Made to Explode Human Bodies. In Uvalde, the Bodies Belonged to Children.
Parents awaiting word on their kids were asked by police to provide DNA samples to help identify the children.theintercept.com
It's obvious you've never used one for hunting and frankly they should never allow a nutbag like you to own a weapon of any sort.
Why does anyone need a sports car that can go 150 mph?
This is insanity.See that's the problem with the left on this, they watched what amounted to basically armed civilians kick us out of Vietnam and Afganistan despite all of our military technology but can't admit that the same sort of thing could theoretically happen here.
For the record this sort of thing did happen in World War 1.
Zimmermann Telegram - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
Mexican President Venustiano Carranza assigned a military commission to assess the feasibility of the Mexican takeover of their former territories contemplated by Germany.[15] The generals concluded that it would not be possible or even desirable to attempt such an enterprise for the following reasons:
- Mexico was in the midst of a civil war, and Carranza's position was far from secure. A declaration of war by his regime would have provided an opportunity for the opposing factions to align with the United States and Allies in exchange for diplomatic recognition.
- The United States was far stronger militarily than Mexico was. Even if Mexico's military forces had been completely united and loyal to a single regime, no serious scenario existed under which it could have invaded and won a war against the United States.
- The German government's promises of "generous financial support" were very unreliable. It had already informed Carranza in June 1916 that it could not provide the necessary gold needed to stock a completely-independent Mexican national bank.[16] Even if Mexico received financial support, it would still need to purchase arms, ammunition, and other needed war supplies from the ABC nations (Argentina, Brazil, and Chile), which would strain relations with them, as explained below.
- Even if by some chance Mexico had the military means to win a conflict against the United States and to reclaim the territories in question, it would have had severe difficulty conquering and pacifying a large English-speaking population which had long enjoyed self-government and was better supplied with arms than were most other civilian populations.[17]
- Other foreign relations were at stake. The ABC nations had organized the Niagara Falls peace conference in 1914 to avoid a full-scale war between the United States and Mexico over the United States occupation of Veracruz. Mexico entering a war against the United States would strain relations with those nations.
So the Mexico passed on invading the US in World War 1 in part (but not entirely because of) the widespread availability of civilian arms.
Do you wake up every morning and rewatch “red Dawn” or something?
A threat to this country from inside, from white supremacists who look to a genocidal past to justify current atrocities like massacres in schools and Fourth of July parades as basically “collateral damage“ to what they view as “freedom“, is a million times more dangerous to everyone in this country and to the country itself than some possible invasion from Mexico or China or Russia or something.
I can’t believe you posted that material and considered it valid in anyway. Pure insanity.
The more paranoid a person is, the more sociopathic, the more they are likely to be in the gun cult, and to pick up one and solve a problem with kids at school or a neighbor or with a former lover, like happened in the church parking lot in Ames a few months ago where three people died, or at a parade, or at a coup d’etat at a state house or the US Capitol.
Two years ago.
India-China clash: 20 Indian troops killed in Ladakh fighting
India-China clash: 20 Indian troops killed in Ladakh fighting
It is the first deadly skirmish in decades between the two regional powers at their disputed border.
www.bbc.com
You’re using an AR-15 to shoot varmints and you claim he’s not serious? GTFO.
I'm not paranoid, I havn't been watching Red Dawn, I am just looking at history to guide me.
History suggests that a better trained and equipped occupying force can be removed by a popular insurgency. It's happened multiple times throughout history with Vietnam and Afganistan being the most recent examples of it happening. That's history . . . not fiction. I didn't make up history so I could fap to fantasies of fighting a war.
But as I said in other posts a much shorter but still significant history also suggests a country armed with Nuclear ICMB's would not be invaded anyways because said country would fire them off before allowing themselves to be conquered.
I don't anticipate the Chinese or anyone invading us ever, even if we gave them all of our conventional weapons and technology and completely disarmed our conventional forces and our civilian populations the Chinese would not invade us. WHY? Because Nukes.
I'm not busy fapping to the idea of fighting a war against an invading force. If I wanted to fight a war I would have joined the actual military or flown to Ukraine and volunteered. I don't want to fight a war because I like living and I like living in a house with a functioning toilet and a warm bed. I am simply giving you a realistic assessment based on history.
To completely ignore the possibility that an occupation could be ended by an armed civilian force is ignorant because it ignores a great deal of human history which includes but is not limited to very recent history.
But it's just as ignorant to ignore the fact that nukes are a game changer when it comes to warfare and that no country that is capable of striking an enemy with nuclear weapons is going to realistically face a conventional invasion in the first place.
Seriously?
i’m sorry that my tone missed the point for you.
I’ll say it without the satire this time:
when people can buy a gun more easily then they can buy a beer at a bar, and then they can go and kill children at a school or at a parade before they were even 21 years old and legal to drink - not to speak of people who don’t go through background checks and who have been reported to the police for being mentally ill and being violent with others - we have an issue that will destroy this country from the inside.
and is.
and I hope you read the articles about how the A.R. 15 was designed and tested in Vietnam. I venture to say that people like using it because it makes them feel like Rambo, even if they’re shooting squirrels.
I was just going to post the same exact thing. I haven’t read one reason for an AR to be needed
Two years ago.
India-China clash: 20 Indian troops killed in Ladakh fighting
India-China clash: 20 Indian troops killed in Ladakh fighting
It is the first deadly skirmish in decades between the two regional powers at their disputed border.www.bbc.com
A border skirmish hardly qualifies as an invasion.
You answered the OP's question of why an AR-15. It's versatility. Like 3 guns in one, for different situations/targets.
Those who bark the loudest…
Look, the original question (and Chinese war planners aside), the only answers are wants. “Because I think they look cool/make me feel strong/are fun/I want one because the libs hate them, etc.”
Other than killing and maiming people I can’t think of a use for sporting rifles that can’t be accomplished by existing, less lethal alternatives.
If you get hung up on semantics it's an easy argument to say you don't NEED a cell phone, or a car, or a TV or a million other things that you and everyone else has.
So it's a semantics thing now? Again, I'm a city kid. Family never had guns, never went hunting, etc. I'm not against hunting at all. However, isn't it kind of weird that some of you get excited by taking an AR-15 out and blowing the heads off of prairie dogs? Like they always say a kid or person that can harm a dog or cat is someone to watch as they grow up. Now if you're taking your son to the deer stand and bonding and you both get a shoot and gut it and eat it that's great. Part of life in America. Taking an AR out to the prairie to blow up squirrels and other animals is just dumb. I'm sorry.
Would you consider doing eye exams with equipment from 1920's?
I didn't argue otherwise. My post is in response to the posts that are hung up on the word NEED.
No one actually needs a car like that.
In an article published this morning by the Federalist, Sullivan writes that “[t]he anti-gun HBO sports interview misrepresented much of what [Sullivan] had said. They were apparently trying to make the AR-15 civilian model seem too dangerous for civilian sales.” Specifically, Sullivan states that HBO ignored his distinctions between the exclusively semi-automatic AR-15 and the select-fire, military M16. The producers also apparently ignored or misunderstood Sullivan’s comparison between the 5.56mm ammunition used in the AR-15 and more powerful, traditional hunting rounds. Specifically, Sullivan writes:
• But 5.56 can’t complete with hunting cartridge bullets, which can legally be expanding hollow point that are more lethal than tumbling. Their lethality is based entirely on how powerful they are. 5.56 is only half as powerful as the 7.62 NATO (.308) hunting bullet. That doesn’t mean I’m not pleased to see AR-15s sell on the civilian market. It just means I didn’t realize they would 57 years ago. And I’m not on the wrong side of any gun issue unless someone wants to argue that an infantry rifle cartridge should kill a cavalry horse at 1,000 yards (30-06 criteria).
A forearm brace = fully automatic killing machine per that genius, Cicciline.
The AR15 (AR10) was designed by Eugene Stoner for civilian use, well before the US was in Vietnam. If you are going to make a point, at least be accurate.
https://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/brief-history-ar-15/
Why spend the money and buy multiple rifles when you can change the configuration of one to meet multiple applications?
I will tell you the same thing I told Hoosier, why buy multiple rifles when I can convert a single rifle to multiple different applications and at a much lower cost.
I’ve been around enough guns and gun boards to know these braces are just workarounds to turn AR pistols into SBRs and get around the tax stamp and processing delays.
Massie is not being truthful here if he’s arguing these are created for disabled vets.
Versatility. Based on your line of questioning, I dont expect a thoughtful response, but that is a very valid reason.
Id also like to answer your question with another question: Why do Americans need many of the vices we have that legitimately provide nothing positive yet are harmful, dangerous, deadly, etc.?
What other purposes do you need the AR platform for that you need to change the configuration heavily?
I tell you what, go out and buy a beer, and then go buy an AR-15 and get back to us on the actual process.
Exactly right. People who spout that nonsense are ignorant.
Ok, it’s not as easy as buying a beer (assuming you’re 21), but it’s too easy in a lot of states.
Assuming no background check concerns your only issues are how crowded the shop is and how backed up the agency performing the background check is. Could be 30 minutes if the stars align. That’s too short, IMO.
Now do coyotes. Nebraska is cattle country. These cattle are raised on family farms to help farmers make a living. Coyotes will follow a cow giving birth and that calf will be dead before it hits the ground. Farmers rely on coyote hunters to help control the coyote population. The overwhelming first choice of any predator hunter is the AR -15 platform.
