WHY THE AR-15 IS AN IMPORTANT WEAPON TO KEEP, INSTEAD OF BAN.
1. SPORT & COMPETITION
I would like to keep this portion of this article short and simple. Nearly every day someone is likely flexing their second amendment rights by shooting their AR-15. It is highly likely that many of these occasions are taking place with friends or family, or both. This can likely include shooting events and competitions, where people are put to the test to see how they stack up against their friends and competitors. Some of these competitions are sanctioned and recorded for national comparison boards, where one can tour nationally and even win money by placing in such events. The root of these competitions stem from the desire of the people to raise awareness for gun safety, help train and educate shooters and the public, and usher in the youth into another generation of avid, enthusiastic, educated, and responsible gun owners. Such competitions are vital to many communities in keeping up the heritage of this great nation, and it's well earned freedoms.
Young AR-15 shooting competitor
If you care to take the time to read, I have provided a link to an article that more than acurately describes why, how, and when an AR-15 (specifically) is the best option for use when hunting, and when not.
This is a two part article so be sure to read both pages.
3. GOVERNMENT TYRANNIES
This is where the article gets quite lengthy.
I will be using a three step process to explain why an AR-15 is needed by civilians to protect from and prevent government tyrannies.
- On the global military scale
Some simple deduction often leads to the argument that the government has tanks and drones etc, and can kill you much easier than you can kill them. As this is certainly true, AR-15s are issued to nearly every single ground troop, who in fact faces these same weapons from opposition. Some times these weapons are even provided by U.S. entities, or U.S. allies. Still we provide our service members with the security of having one of these rifles for self defense. The simple argument for me here is that if they are not needed at home, then why are they needed on the battlefield. It is well known by some of us that the most recent U.S. wars (and even some specific wars and battles from the past) have a dark hidden agenda that may not be completely transparent, or are hidden from public knowledge. The most often pointed out and relevant ideas are; The central banking systems that are often tied in a very tangled web of lies and deceit, who are known for taking advantage of nations and crumbling their economy. And for their ties to weapons manufacturers who make billions upon billions of dollars off the sale of weapons to countries who are at war, the most often of which is (as you could likely deduce) THE U.S.A.! The next of which if often pointed out, that the U.S. is often at war with oil rich countries. Many say that we want to control their oil. There is evidence to prove this, as many already have, by over laying a map of U.S. military bases, with big and consistent oil producing regions. And the list goes on, but we will not.
Once these wars are created and evolving in these regions, there always seems to be people who oppose our military presence and those who support our military presence. The ones who support it are often para-military groups who oppose the enemy at hand. Almost like clock work, in an effort to keep U.S. soldiers off the ground, we commission the federal government to support these para-military groups with U.S. weapons. And again almost like clock work we begin bombing the enemy. And just as a clock ticks around and around in a circle, we often begin going around and around chaising our tails. Fighting the same para-military groups that we just armed and funded. Thus these terrorist organizations like the Taliban, or Al-Qaida, or I.S.I.S. were created. Armed and funded with our tax dollars, and filled with a hate for the west for destroying their homes, communities, and killing their families. And as we can see now, even with approximately 1.5 billion peaceful Muslims in the world, there is that 5%, thats willing to do anything to kill us. Wouldn't you like to have an AR-15 to defend yourself from them? Wouldn't it be best if we rid ourselves of these corrupt establishment politicians who are happy to send our brothers and sisters to war? And with them so deeply entrenched in our beuracracy, do you know of a better threat to getting them out of office than an armed society?
- On the federal and local government scale
It seems that every week we are inandated with incredible and captivating stories of police brutality. Or even in the saddest cases we are told by the news of a person being killed by police, often in a manner that we do not see just. Yes, many of these are open and closed cases of criminals, who, when they play stupid games, they get stupid prizes. But sometimes we hear the story about the baby who nearly died after a flash bang was set off in its crib during a no-knock raid. Or the family dog that was shot for running up to an officer. Or the anger filled cop, knows all too well how to use his position of power to exploit and take advantage of the public, the cop who rapes children, or prostitutes. Or the cop who kills his wife with his service weapon. The list goes on and on, and I admit I must refrain from continuing, as I do not wish to tarnish the reputation of the good cops, they are incredibly appreciated. But moving forward, all of these situations could be argued that self defense with a gun here could be handled better with a pistol. And you'd be right. But have you heard the story of Ruby Ridge? Waco? Or Wounded Knee? Would you be ashamed to know that our government has taken orders to unecesarilly kill its own citizens? Or put them in internment camps? Or even as most recent has killed them with drones, per executive order, without due process of law? It makes me ashamed, and it also reminds me of the necessity to be armed, even if it means against my own government. And frankly, sometimes that need can only be fulfilled with a rifle that matches the fire power of the ones that the police are currently carrying. "Citizens may resist unlawful arrest to the point of taking an arresting officers life if necessary." Plummer v. State, 136 Ind. 306. This premise was upheld by the Supreme Court of the United States in the case: John Bad Elk v. U.S., 177 U.S. 529. The Court stated: "where the officer is killed in the course of the disorder which naturally accompanies an attempted arrest that is resisted, the law looks with very different eyes upon the transaction, when the officer had the right to make the arrest, from what it does if the officer had no right. What may be murder in the first case might be nothing more than manslaughter in the other, or the facts might show that no offense had been committed." Although we all wish to never be in such a situation, the law exists because some have had to see the ugly face of corruption, and were forced to resist, for fear of their life.
As some of you may see it, and as some of you may see different, prohibition is an infringement upon civil liberties. One that is not taken kindly to by the American people. Time itself has proven, like only time can, that prohibition is not effective in keeping objects or substances away from people. And subsequently creates a vast amount of criminals. Most of whom have not committed violence upon anyone. This is nowhere more true, than in today's war on drugs. The consequence of this federal action has created violence, where violence would not inherently exist. And has also created a black market. This black market, if you could believe it, is heavily supported by the federal government. By way of the gulf coast, and the states that border Mexico, many many drugs find their way into the states, smuggled by citizens and illegals alike. And also more often than you would think, by the CIA, and the DEA. More times than have been reported, and more times than can even be assumed, the federal government has had their dirty little fingers in this wealth producing pie. For example, the Guadalajara cartel (In the 1980's was the most powerful and oldest Mexican cartel) received "benefits" from the CIA for having connections with the Honduran drug lord Juan Matta-Ballesteros, a CIA asset. Who was head of SETCO, which is an airline that was used to smuggle drugs into the United States. Which, spoiler alert!, was also used to smuggle U.S. weapons to other countries in Central America, and Mexico. All protected by the Mexican DFS, who is inherently protected by the CIA. Don't believe me? See how many stories that you can find for yourself on the subject. I'll bet you won't be disappointed. All of this was created by the stroke of a pen, signing into action the war on drugs. Imagine now if this was instead a war on "assault weaons". We would all know that they are out there, and we would all probably know "someone who knows someone" that could illegally obtain one. Then, the only people who could procure them, are the government, and the criminals.
One of the worst atrocities enforced by the government, by way of prohibition, is gun-free zones. The absolute, number one, most common denominator in all mass shootings is the gun-free zone. Ah, the "safety" of the gun-free zone. But, do you know what the least common denominator in mass shootings is? You guessed it, the AR-15. In the last 10 years out of all the mass shootings that killed 5 or more people (27), only two used an AR-15. The Aurora theater shooting and the Orlando night club shooting (which both also used the most common gun in mass shootings, one or more semi-automatic pistols). Out of all the others in the same time span that killed less than 5 people (38), again, only two more were used. So, in the last 10 years, out of 38 mass shootings, only 4 used an AR-15. Now I know what your thinking, "But what about Newtown, CT?". Yes he did in fact bring one to the school. But what's often neglected to be mentioned, is that he left it in the trunk of the car. Where the cops found it, unused. In 2014 congress estimated that approximately 8.2 million AR-15s were in circulation. Out of 8.2 million plus AR-15s in circulation, in the last 10 years only 4 have been used in mass shootings. Yet nearly every one of them is committed in a gun-free zone. Now, there is a long list of undeniable reasons why an AR-15 is not the most effective gun to use in a mass shooting. And guess what, the criminals know that too. Which is why most often, a semi-automatic pistol is used. 1, they are cheaper. 2, so is the ammo. 3, they are more concealable. 4, they are lighter. 5, so is the the ammo. And in close quarters it is easier to obtain and accurately fire at your target (more rapidly than an AR-15, not because of the speed of the trigger, or the effectiveness of the semi-automatic mechanism, but because of the speed at which you can obtain your target in the sights, and the weiget of the gun). The atrocity that there are some places that we go where we are not allowed to use the most effective weapon to stop mass shootings (guns), is appalling. Now I'm not advocating that every person, everywhere should be allowed to carry a concealed weapon. But it would be nice if some places were allowed to have armed security. Maybe even be issued an AR-15, now that's an idea worth spreading.
This is not a one sided argument. There are points to be made for both sides. But the government is already tyrannical and corrupted. We have to keep them at bay now, lest they make it impossible for us to do so in the future. There are essentially only two entities that can take over our federal government, an enemy, and the American people. I'll choose to be armed, whether in defense of myself or my fellow Americans. And the best weapon for the job, is an AR-15!
4. PROGRESS STOPS FOR NO ONE
Now that I have explained how the govt is already tyrannical, and how prohibition only leads to black markets, we've come to the Constitution. Many would like to argue that the founding fathers used muskets, and dueling pistols, so there is no way that they could have foreseen what guns have become today. And that argument could not be farther from the truth. But first lets explore why we seceded. We were over taxed, under represented, pushed around, and had our personal liberties being infringed upon on many different levels. One of which was the attempted confiscation of the people's rifles. And they knew that without those, they didn't stand an ice cube's chances in hell. Those "muskets", as well call them, were all intensely similar to the rifles carried by the red-coats. So much so, that because of its similarities, they did stand a fighting chance. Today's AR-15, is yester-year's "musket". Without those rifles we would never stand a fighting chance in protecting our rights and liberties. As with they say for every amendment in the Bill Of Rights, "without all of them, we can expect to have none of them". But none is more true than without the 2nd Amendment. Without that we are doomed to become Rome 2.0, crushed under the weight of our own overbearing Government. Now at the time of the signing of the Bill Of Rights, there were multiple (albeit, expensive) examples of guns that were far superior the "musket" and the dueling pistols. I will present you with three of them.
- The first, the Puckle Gun. The Puckle gun is the predecessor to all modern day Gatling style guns. Though it didn't use multiple barrels it instead used multiple chambers, like a modern day revolver. It was incredibly advanced and powerful for its time, and shot at rate of 9 times faster than a traditional rifle from the year that gave us the Bill Of Rights. The Puckle gun was patented in the year 1718. 73 years before the Bill Of Rights was ratified.
- The second gun I present, is the Girandoni Rifle. The Girandoni rifle was also incredibly advanced for its time. The rifle had a built in magazine that could hold up to 19 .46 caliber balls, plus one in the chamber. It was also effective at a distance of up to 3 times the effective range of a traditional rifle. The Girandoni rifle was developed in 1779, 12 years before the bill of rights was ratified. This rifle is also famous for being used by Lewis and Clark, on their infamous treck across the west.
- Lastly, a Pepper-box revolver. The Pepper-box is the predecessor to all modern day revolvers. A repeating style gun that had multiple barrels that spun on a central axis. The concept of which was first introduced in the 15th century!
Progress stops for no one. If it wasn't the AR-15, then it would be a different gun. And in the future, there will be this same debate over a different gun. I hope our children stand strong by the principles of liberty, and defend their rights as hard as many of our brothers and sisters do today. This is my proof for the necessity of the AR-15. And I stand by this whole heartedly. God bless the USA!