PDA

View Full Version : AW point / counterpoint


Rob P.
02-08-2008, 8:56 AM
The biggest problem I see here regarding AW's is a misconception.

First, did anyone NOT read Gura's brief? I believe that they pretty much nailed the letter AND intent of the second amendment. That it is the right of the people to keep and bear 'dual purpose' arms.

'Dual purpose' means arms which have both a military and civilian utility or purpose. AW's don't really have a civilian utility or purpose. Yeah, we go target shooting with them but that's not a 'real' purpose. We made that up just so that we could say that they aren't only military rifles. Home defense? Get a shotgun - cheaper, faster, better 'accuracy' and more lethal.

Face it, AW's are military rifles that we have adapted to a limited sport. One could do and say the same regarding a howitzer or RPG. The traditional use and intent of an AW is military only. So AW's really do fall outside the scope and intent of the second amendment.

That being the case, then an AW ban isn't unreasonable because it is only banning non 'dual purpose' arms.

blacklisted
02-08-2008, 8:58 AM
Home defense? Get a shotgun - cheaper, faster, better 'accuracy' and more lethal.


I want some of what you are smoking.

Patriot
02-08-2008, 9:02 AM
The biggest problem I see here regarding AW's is a misconception.

First, did anyone NOT read Gura's brief? I believe that they pretty much nailed the letter AND intent of the second amendment. That it is the right of the people to keep and bear 'dual purpose' arms.

'Dual purpose' means arms which have both a military and civilian utility or purpose. AW's don't really have a civilian utility or purpose. Yeah, we go target shooting with them but that's not a 'real' purpose. We made that up just so that we could say that they aren't only military rifles. Home defense? Get a shotgun - cheaper, faster, better 'accuracy' and more lethal.

Face it, AW's are military rifles that we have adapted to a limited sport. One could do and say the same regarding a howitzer or RPG. The traditional use and intent of an AW is military only. So AW's really do fall outside the scope and intent of the second amendment.

That being the case, then an AW ban isn't unreasonable because it is only banning non 'dual purpose' arms.

:confused:

What do you consider a 'real' purpose?

Your assertion vis-a-vis HD is preferential.

Comparing civilian longarms based on a military design to heavy weapons is not particularly relevant either, IMO.

Rem1492
02-08-2008, 9:06 AM
I think that AWs DO have a civilian purpose. To hunt? not really, to absolutely kill or deter a bad person or many bad persons after a natrual disaster trying to rob, rape or kill your family? I doubt a 5 shot Remington 700 can do that better than an AK type rifle.

Soldier415
02-08-2008, 9:07 AM
The biggest problem I see here regarding AW's is a misconception.

First, did anyone NOT read Gura's brief? I believe that they pretty much nailed the letter AND intent of the second amendment. That it is the right of the people to keep and bear 'dual purpose' arms.

'Dual purpose' means arms which have both a military and civilian utility or purpose. AW's don't really have a civilian utility or purpose. Yeah, we go target shooting with them but that's not a 'real' purpose. We made that up just so that we could say that they aren't only military rifles. Home defense? Get a shotgun - cheaper, faster, better 'accuracy' and more lethal.

Face it, AW's are military rifles that we have adapted to a limited sport. One could do and say the same regarding a howitzer or RPG. The traditional use and intent of an AW is military only. So AW's really do fall outside the scope and intent of the second amendment.

That being the case, then an AW ban isn't unreasonable because it is only banning non 'dual purpose' arms.


Rob, I sincerely hope that is the Jenkem talking :confused:

mymonkeyman
02-08-2008, 9:07 AM
AW's don't really have a civilian utility or purpose. Yeah, we go target shooting with them but that's not a 'real' purpose. We made that up just so that we could say that they aren't only military rifles. Home defense? Get a shotgun - cheaper, faster, better 'accuracy' and more lethal.

Face it, AW's are military rifles that we have adapted to a limited sport. One could do and say the same regarding a howitzer or RPG. The traditional use and intent of an AW is military only. So AW's really do fall outside the scope and intent of the second amendment.

That being the case, then an AW ban isn't unreasonable because it is only banning non 'dual purpose' arms.

Please explain to me how a Saiga with a sporter stock has civilian purposes and can be used for hunting but a Saiga with a pistol grip can't? Or an AR? Fitness for hunting is mainly determined by the cartridge, not the evil features. A pistol grip certainly certainly does not diminish civilian utility of a weapon. Neither does a thumb hole stock, flash hider, etc. I'll give you grenade launcher though. How do handguns have legitimate civlian purposes but not AW rifles. I guarantee you that the pistols that were confiscated by the British were most likely for self-defense, which the AW is more than adequate for (even if a shotgun is better, that isn't the test and isn't relevant).

And secondly, WHY do you have to keep repeating the annoying line that target shooting is basically worthless and should be ignored. It's bad enough when Obama and a million others say that kind of crud. If you look at the core values of the 2nd amendment, a ready civilian force prepared to use weapons, target shooting should be at the top of the list!

Lastly, if you actually read the brief carefully, the test is not whether there is some judge or armchair quarterback viewpoint based on whether there is a civlian use, but rather what civilians are likely to own. The AR is the most popular center fire rifle in the US. So it clearly passes the test.

blacklisted
02-08-2008, 9:08 AM
What you call "Military Assault Weapons" are used for target shooting, hunting, defense, collection, and competition (the same as "civilian firearms").

You probably aren't going to find anyone that agrees with you here.

deleted by PC police
02-08-2008, 9:10 AM
How are we supposed to defend our self against a tyrannical government without military weapons? While I agree there are limits, we don't need nukes or tanks. If you think about the purpose of the 2nd Amendment we should be able to own what would be required to take over the government when the government gets out of line.

Patriot
02-08-2008, 9:13 AM
Under this Court’s precedent, the arms whose individual possession is protected by the Second Amendment are those arms that (1) are of the kind in common use, such that civilians would be expected to have them for ordinary purposes, and (2) would have military utility in time of need. A weapon that satisfies only one of these requirements would not be protected by the Second Amendment. Handguns indisputably satisfy both requirements.

For reference

Rob P.
02-08-2008, 9:14 AM
Apparently you didn't read Gura's brief? Or think about it? Or maybe I wasn't clear enough?

***edit here***

The above post quotes Gura's brief. While the brief is about handguns, the principle is the same regarding long guns.

*** end edit ***

Dual purpose arms are those which serve both a civilian and military purpose. Civilian purposes have to be legitimate things for which arms were designed.

Things like personal defense, hunting for food, etc.

Arms which were not designed for civilian purposes (of which hunting for food is the largest need) are not 'dual purpose'. Arms which have had civilian purposes created for them yet which serve no real civilian need (ie: solely used for target or sport shooting) remain military weapons only.

Saying that AW's can be used for hunting is fine. But now you have a hurdle of showing WHY you need a 30 round detachable magazine to shoot/kill ONE deer. Is its caliber too small for hunting use? Is its accuracy unreliable? Is is too complicated for hunting use?

Do you see my point?

In essence, the reality of civilian AW use is that the reasoning is "made up" or created to justify the use and/or possession of a military only arm.

SemiAutoSam
02-08-2008, 9:25 AM
The whole premise in thinking you have to state why you want this or that rifle or pistol is total BS and buying into the Communist mentality of our State and Federal Government.

We have the RTBA plain and simple we do not need to justify why we assert that right.

IMO an AW is a Government term from the days of the 1994 AWB and a term that some of the California politicians tagged onto the Calif AWB.

Or did I totally miss the point ? If I did OH well sometimes this kind of thing gets me real defensive.

Knauga
02-08-2008, 9:32 AM
The whole premise in thinking you have to state why you want this or that rifle or pistol is total BS and buying into the Communist mentality of our State and Federal Government.

Please, lets not exaggerate here... it's a "Socialist" mindset ;)

And I tend to agree. You let me decide the lawful purpose of the weapon(s) I wish to own... even if it is just sitting in a safe or display cabinet.

Glock22Fan
02-08-2008, 9:37 AM
So, if I understand some of these arguments, those specialized and expensive weapons designed for Olympic pistol target shooting are legitimate, because they are designed for civilian target shooting, but certain other firearms, also used by civilians for target shooting are to be banned because their primary purpose is military and target shooting is not a legitimate purpose?

Who decides whether a purpose is legitimate or not? Personally, I see no legitimate purpose in collecting little sticky pieces of paper, but I respect the rights of stamp collecters so to do.

Piper
02-08-2008, 9:43 AM
The biggest problem I see here regarding AW's is a misconception.

First, did anyone NOT read Gura's brief? I believe that they pretty much nailed the letter AND intent of the second amendment. That it is the right of the people to keep and bear 'dual purpose' arms.

'Dual purpose' means arms which have both a military and civilian utility or purpose. AW's don't really have a civilian utility or purpose. Yeah, we go target shooting with them but that's not a 'real' purpose. We made that up just so that we could say that they aren't only military rifles. Home defense? Get a shotgun - cheaper, faster, better 'accuracy' and more lethal.

Face it, AW's are military rifles that we have adapted to a limited sport. One could do and say the same regarding a howitzer or RPG. The traditional use and intent of an AW is military only. So AW's really do fall outside the scope and intent of the second amendment.

That being the case, then an AW ban isn't unreasonable because it is only banning non 'dual purpose' arms.

I'm expecting to see you post that you were just yanking everyones chain with this statement, but the realist tells me not to hold my breath.

First, I consider the label "assault weapon" to be improperly applied to firearms that are strictly semi-automatic and not useful to the military for todays warfare, using small arms. As for home defense, I agree that a shotgun or handgun is more preferable to me than an AR-15. However, 5.56mm and 7.62mm rounds have been shown to be as effective as any traditional hunting round like the 30-06 which I believe is used in the M1 Garand. Just because a rifle is black, semi-automatic, uses a magazine to house its rounds and can withstand inclimate weather and physical punishment doesn't make it anymore an assault weapon than a mini 14 which can have the same evil features placed on it as any AR-15 or HK-93.

When the second amendment was placed into the constitution, I believe the framers weren't so short sighted as to think that firearm technology wouldn't improve beyond the firearms of the day. In fact, I have no doubt that "assault weapons" for private citizens were on the framers minds when the second amendment was written into the constitution. How would you expect free private citizens to fight against a despotic government if your weapons are inferior to a standing professional armies weapons. The one thing that needs to be stressed is that laws resticting possession of FA's is less than 100 years old and just another knee jerk reaction because of criminals like Bonnie and Clyde, Al Capone, Baby Face Nelson etc etc. And it's just another example of politicians restricting a law abiding citizens right while the criminals ignore the laws. As with anything else, they are inanimate objects that can be useful or detrimental, depending on who is using it.

bwiese
02-08-2008, 9:44 AM
The original AR15 was sold as a sporting rifle before it really entered in quantity to military service.

From the birth of this country onward, sport/hunting rifles and military-use rifles were intertwined - esp. with government surplus sales.

Rhys898
02-08-2008, 9:47 AM
For once I'm with SAS 100%!

Beside the fact that we shouldn't ever have to justify why we want a specific small arm, how are we to become proficient marksman other than target shooting??? And what better weapons than those almost identical to the ones our military uses. If we were ever invaded by a foreign power the militia may be issued weapons and/or ammo by the standing army. So it would be really beneficial to have alot of people who excel at their use and maintenance.

On the pure self defense end of the argument: If cops are complaigning that they are outgunned why shouldn't I have parity of weapons with the gangbangers???


Rob, dont be so quick to throw your fellow gunners under the bus just because you haven't caught the black rifle bug.

Jer

SemiAutoSam
02-08-2008, 9:53 AM
Bill Yousa correct.

Here is one of their ads from a Magazine My father had in our Mountain Cabin. I Liberated it to show it around here.

Check the price.

http://i80.photobucket.com/albums/j184/mag-lock/coltadbk6.jpg

The original AR15 was sold as a sporting rifle before it really entered in quantity to military service.

From the birth of this country onward, sport/hunting rifles and military-use rifles were intertwined - esp. with government surplus sales.

sloguy
02-08-2008, 9:53 AM
We have the RTBA plain and simple we do not need to justify why we assert that right.




yup.

Patriot
02-08-2008, 10:01 AM
Apparently you didn't read Gura's brief? Or think about it? Or maybe I wasn't clear enough?

***edit here***

The above post quotes Gura's brief. While the brief is about handguns, the principle is the same regarding long guns.

*** end edit ***

Dual purpose arms are those which serve both a civilian and military purpose. Civilian purposes have to be legitimate things for which arms were designed.

Things like personal defense, hunting for food, etc.

Arms which were not designed for civilian purposes (of which hunting for food is the largest need) are not 'dual purpose'. Arms which have had civilian purposes created for them yet which serve no real civilian need (ie: solely used for target or sport shooting) remain military weapons only.

Saying that AW's can be used for hunting is fine. But now you have a hurdle of showing WHY you need a 30 round detachable magazine to shoot/kill ONE deer. Is its caliber too small for hunting use? Is its accuracy unreliable? Is is too complicated for hunting use?

Do you see my point?

In essence, the reality of civilian AW use is that the reasoning is "made up" or created to justify the use and/or possession of a military only arm.

I see what you're saying, but the same argument could be applied to a number of other categories. Do civilians need Hummers? Do they need sports cars? Military designs typically incorporate features aimed at providing maximum utility (along with other, more specialized concerns like Milspec, cost, etc). The utility of civilian arms should not be a function of bare minimum "need" (nor for that matter, of a hypothetical or statistical minimum "mean/median" of utility that will satisfy "most" users). This is the same argument the Bradys use, and it is fallacious IMO.

The implications of your argument are almost inescapably to the detriment of a long-term RTKBA (should courts/legislators adopt your meaning). "Need"? You give two examples if I am not mistaken, hunting for food and self defense. However, how many Americans have anything approaching a day-to-day "need" to hunt for food? Then there is self defense. While there are firearms that are suitable for self-defense that would not be suitable for military service (and a smaller number that would be unsuitable or at best marginal for even short-term militia service), the 'single-purpose military firearms' you reference are extremely well-suited to self-defense. By way of example, you compared a generic assault weapon with a generic shotgun for home defense. What are the advantages of a shotgun (say Rem 870 for purposes of illustration)? Cheaper, most widely available, more powerful per shot. What are the advantages of an "assault weapon" (ar15 e.g.)? less recoil, higher magazine capacity, easier reloading, lighter, [generally] shorter, less likely to overpenetrate, and [subjectively] easier to handle + better sights + straight stock. It is hardly conclusive. Indeed, in terms of the population at large (including small statures, the ill, the frail, the handicapped, etc.) I think that - price aside - assault weapons are more egalitarian in terms of overall self defense utility. Finally, who is to determine what constitutes bona fide "need"? Think of CCW permits. Apparently the government is not easily convinced of a personal "need" for the implements of lethal self-defense unless you can prove immediate, imminent, deadly peril (sometimes not even then). Whether the issue in question is larger categories of weapons or a feature-by-feature analysis (do you really need 30rds), predicating the allowable functionality of civilian firearms on a strict basis of "need" is a dubious proposition. Doing so places gun owners permanently on the defensive since the burden is on us to prove "need."

Now Gura says "ordinary purposes" and "military utility." I do not think "ordinary purposes" equates to what is strictly necessary. Target shooting, IMO, is a perfectly legitimate ordinary purpose. Additionally, if you want to tap into Anglo-American history for the military utility of civilian marksmanship, reference England's old compulsory archery practice laws or - more recently - the DCM/CMP. Notably, at the time, both programs encouraged private civilian marksmanship practice with current military weapons.

aileron
02-08-2008, 11:09 AM
The biggest problem I see here regarding AW's is a misconception.

First, did anyone NOT read Gura's brief? I believe that they pretty much nailed the letter AND intent of the second amendment. That it is the right of the people to keep and bear 'dual purpose' arms.

'Dual purpose' means arms which have both a military and civilian utility or purpose. AW's don't really have a civilian utility or purpose. Yeah, we go target shooting with them but that's not a 'real' purpose. We made that up just so that we could say that they aren't only military rifles. Home defense? Get a shotgun - cheaper, faster, better 'accuracy' and more lethal.

Face it, AW's are military rifles that we have adapted to a limited sport. One could do and say the same regarding a howitzer or RPG. The traditional use and intent of an AW is military only. So AW's really do fall outside the scope and intent of the second amendment.

That being the case, then an AW ban isn't unreasonable because it is only banning non 'dual purpose' arms.

Cartridges define the weapon. Not cosmetic features. You have unwittingly fallen for the rhetoric of the Anti's.

Plastic being used in place of wood, does not make a weapon more dangerous. Modern firearms are going to continue to be black plastic with large capacity magazines. Which is not the sole propriety of military type weapons or so-called assault weapons. The AR-15 is not a modern weapon by any stretch of the imagination, having been invented in the 50's!!!

Nor is any rifle that has been purchased over the last 200 years by Americans, been strictly military, or sporting, or hunting. Americans for as far back as we have been a country have been using weapons that you wish to classify as strictly military. Also they have for a long time been purchasing those type weapons from the government after the military is done with them. They do not fall under such a strict definition at all. Yesterdays and todays weapons can be used for self defense, hunting, target practice, competition, bla, bla, bla.

They are all useful based on the capability of the cartridge alone. Only machine guns are unwieldy in this classification but still could be used for what ever purpose was needed by its owner. Just not a good choice today. (i.e. Carlos Hathcock used a 50 caliber M2 to snip with)

Its the anti's that wish to create this false illusion. The idea of an assault weapon is a fairy tale. There are assault rifles, but those are select fire, fully automatic weapons, and they require a proper license to purchase. And still are available to citizens, just not certain locals that have enforced unconstitutional laws.

mymonkeyman
02-08-2008, 12:20 PM
Apparently you didn't read Gura's brief? Or think about it? Or maybe I wasn't clear enough?

***edit here***

The above post quotes Gura's brief. While the brief is about handguns, the principle is the same regarding long guns.

*** end edit ***

Dual purpose arms are those which serve both a civilian and military purpose. Civilian purposes have to be legitimate things for which arms were designed.

Things like personal defense, hunting for food, etc.

Arms which were not designed for civilian purposes (of which hunting for food is the largest need) are not 'dual purpose'. Arms which have had civilian purposes created for them yet which serve no real civilian need (ie: solely used for target or sport shooting) remain military weapons only.

Saying that AW's can be used for hunting is fine. But now you have a hurdle of showing WHY you need a 30 round detachable magazine to shoot/kill ONE deer. Is its caliber too small for hunting use? Is its accuracy unreliable? Is is too complicated for hunting use?

Do you see my point?

In essence, the reality of civilian AW use is that the reasoning is "made up" or created to justify the use and/or possession of a military only arm.

You have obviously read the brief but completely misunderstand it. It is saying the exact opposite of what you think it is saying. It is simply saying that the arms have to have SOME legitimate civilian use such that civilians are LIKELY TO HAVE THEM and useful for military purposes. You try and define civilian use as the opposite of military (which would mean none would be protected by the 2nd amendment, a meaningless interpretation). If anything, AWs are the core of the dual purpose concept of the 2nd amendment, are the last things that should be banned.


And "assault weapons" and traditional hunters guns are designed for the same use, to propel a metal projectile at high speeds using explosive powder in an integrated cartridge. Nothing about how the CA legislature has defined "assault weapons" (other than grenade launchers) has anything to do with the presence or absence of civilian or military utility. There is no "intent" of AW weapons except that those are guns that people want to buy (which only defeats your argument, since the ultimate test is what weapons civilians are likely to possess). You're whole concept of "arms which have had civilian purposes created for them yet which serve no real civilian need (ie: solely used for target or sport shooting) remain military weapons only." is COMPLETE HOGWASH. No where does the question say, why were the civilian purposes created? That's meaningless. The question is, can and do civilians use them. The answer is overwhelmingly yes.

Capacity of the magazine has nothing to do with whether something is an AW unless it is a fixed magazine. Lastly, you keep pointing at hunting as the only legitimate civilian use. That is your opinion and nothing more. It is not in the brief, not in the law, not in historical or present usages.

elSquid
02-08-2008, 12:43 PM
Arms which were not designed for civilian purposes (of which hunting for food is the largest need) are not 'dual purpose'.

What was the first bolt action rifle? The Dreyse needle gun? Wasn't that a military design? What about the first Mausers?

Clearly bolt action rifles were not designed with civilian use in mind, and hence cannot be "dual purpose".

Saying that AW's can be used for hunting is fine. But now you have a hurdle of showing WHY you need a 30 round detachable magazine to shoot/kill ONE deer. Is its caliber too small for hunting use? Is its accuracy unreliable? Is is too complicated for hunting use?

Do you see my point?


Why does anyone need a 5 round magazine? Shouldn't one shot be enough?

Why does anyone need cartridge-based firearms? People have hunted for years - and still do - with blackpowder.

Why should hunting be a valid justification for firearms ownership? No one "needs" to hunt these days. Food is readily and cheaply available in the marketplace.

In essence, the reality of civilian AW use is that the reasoning is "made up" or created to justify the use and/or possession of a military only arm.

My justification is that I want one. Shouldn't that be enough?

-- Michael

M. Sage
02-08-2008, 12:52 PM
Shotguns are better for home defense... what!? I prefer a rifle for home defense, sorry. IMO, the best HD firearm would be a short-barreled rifle...

Here we go with 922(r) style BS: determining what is/isn't suitable for sporting purposes...

The primary purpose of my AK clone is target shooting and competition. I also have carried it for personal defense (on a camping trip) and some light hunting. So how's it not a multi-purpose weapon?

hoffmang
02-08-2008, 1:03 PM
I have three letters that tell you why AR-15's have dual purpose:
CMP

Remember what the C stands for?

You should read the General's Amicus: http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2008/02/07-290_amicus_majgenaltenburg.pdf

-Gene

Roccobro
02-08-2008, 1:31 PM
Do you think he understands it yet? After 15 others have explained it in a variety of ways I don't see how he couldn't... :D

Justin

Rob P.
02-09-2008, 9:36 AM
Ok, I haven't replied for a whole day. I was out of town, and I wanted to let the firestorm die before I rekindled it.

I think a lot of you miss the point. AR 15's are a derivative of the M16. The M16 is a "battle rifle". It was designed solely for combat and combat conditions. It is a military arm intended for military purposes of assault (hence "assault rifle"), attack, and warfare. It has NO civilian use, purpose, or need. (yeah, they're cool, but so would be owning a sparrowhawk missle)

Target shooting is itself something which has no actual purpose other than marksmanship. To say that using an AW for target shooting develops marksmanship and that doing such is a "dual" purpose also misses the point. Accuracy in firearms can be achieved with single shot arms. In fact, they teach firearms in basic training WITH single shot rifles. Why? Because you don't need multiple round capacity to learn to shoot accurately.

So saying that you "need" a mil arm for target shooting or that target shooting is a legit need/use for a mil arm begs the question. To learn to shoot accurately, the type of arm is irrelevant.

The "protect against an oppressive gov" argument is fallicious. No AR, AK or even M16 with select fire will help defeat an "enemy" which has tanks, missles, and other warfare assets not available to the GP.

So, in the end the question still remains; What civilian only purpose is there for using an EBR?

BTW, those of you who talk about using an AR for home defense, need to learn about shotguns. Shotguns can give a BG religion just by racking the slide on an unloaded pump. AR's don't have that reputation and never will have because the intended and designed purpose of an AR is NOT defense. Even the police and the mil know this. Which is why THEY use shotguns in close quarters situations.

Patriot
02-09-2008, 11:13 AM
Ok, I haven't replied for a whole day. I was out of town, and I wanted to let the firestorm die before I rekindled it.

I think a lot of you miss the point. AR 15's are a derivative of the M16. The M16 is a "battle rifle". It was designed solely for combat and combat conditions. It is a military arm intended for military purposes of assault (hence "assault rifle"), attack, and warfare. It has NO civilian use, purpose, or need. (yeah, they're cool, but so would be owning a sparrowhawk missle)

I do not consider civilians AR15s to be military rifles. They are not select-fire ["combat"], many/most are not Milspec ["combat conditions"], and many/most configurations are not the same as their military counter-parts (M16Ax, M4) ["military purposes"].

I've already addressed your use of "need" in a previous post (if it were left up to the government, the likely determination is that we have NO "need" for guns or self-defense, and even if such a need is recognized, it would likely be "met" with the bare minimum - think single shot 22LR or 12GA).

Saying there is no civilian use or purpose for AR15s is contentious at best. The primary function of a standard-issue military rifle is to shoot people. That [along with logistic concerns] is what you contend that AR15/M16 style rifles were designed for. If civilians have no need to shoot people, why all this talk about self-defense, what arms are optimal for it, and how it is a civilian "need"? If you want to talk broad categories, we could say rifles are designed for one of four general purposes: precision-shooting, anti-animal, anti-personnel, general purpose. AR15s were designed as anti-personnel rifles, but they have become general purpose rifles due to their utility for target-shooting and small game shooting in addition to their original function. However, AR15s are still anti-personnel rifles foremost (which you point out), and therefore have significant self-defense functionality. The anti-personnel category embraces, at a basic level, both civilian (SD) and military (combat) uses. As such, functionality such as select-fire, large-capacity magazines, etc. serves to enhance the basic functionality of the weapon, which is to shoot hostiles. Due to our legal situation, these civilian/military distinctions are currently based not on functionality but on the requirements of the law. My understanding of the true difference between civilian/military anti-personnel rifles is more rooted in logistics. Military weapons are completely standardized (basic configuration, ammo, parts) and they are designed to meet military specifications (function in extreme conditions, parts life, etc.) Now civilians do NOT "need" these attributes in their weapons (however, their military utility suggests a degree of applicability to militia situations). As I said before, your contention that shotguns are "better" for self defense (and therefore, AR15s are somehow less suitable and therefore have little/no bona fide civilian SD use/purpose) is preferential and hardly conclusive. I might also point out the increasing use of AR15 style weapons by PDs (and especially SWAT teams) in response to your assertion that they use shotguns in "close quarters situations." Might I also, in light of your assertion that shotguns are superior for SD, point out that their historical role has been closely tied to hunting and/or sport shooting, and that while shotguns has personal SD capabilities, they have at best minimal functionality as a militia weapon (thus only marginally dual-use in the "military/civilian" sense of the word).

One problem I have with your single/dual use argument is how you contend that the standard for allowable civilian possession is based on an arm's dual use potential (military and civilian uses), but then you state that the AR15 is unsuitable because it is exclusively a purpose designed military weapon. The implication is that a weapon must either be designed to be a dual/general purpose rifle, or that its design/resultant functionality must be such that it lends itself to distinct military and civilian uses. I speculate that while an examination of historical and modern "dual-use" firearms might reveal a degree dual-use design considerations, one would generally find that such arms were initially designed and adopted for a specific purpose. Kentucky rifles, e.g., were primarily hunting weapons with limited military uses due to their accuracy, range, and prevalence. Lever-action rifles were popular for anti-personnel uses (due to their rate of fire), and became hunting rifles as well. Breech-loading and bolt-action rifles were pioneered almost entirely for military purposes, later becoming ubiquitous as hunting rifles. This merits the suggestion that rifles with bona fide dual use applications were not designed as such, and acquired such utility through widespread use. I feel that a rifle specifically designed to be dual use would most likely evince shortcomings in both applications (with a very few exceptions). Military-precision rifles would likely be either too expensive/stringent/accurate for general military issue or not accurate enough for precision shooting (one exception might be the Swiss K31, which has been superseded as a military arm). Military-hunting rifles would likely have different range/power requirements, reliability, milspec issues, rate of fire/combat functionality, etc. (more prominently now that intermediate caliber compact lightweight rifles are a military standard). General purpose firearms (I'll hazard the Mini-14/30 and Su16 as examples) have general shortcomings: not accurate enough for ranged work, not as powerful as dedicated hunting rifles, not as reliable or close to milspec as an originally military design might be. Having now - I hope - debunked the "dual use designed" idea, what makes a purpose-designed weapon dual-purpose? It must have capabilities that are adequate (if not exceptional) for both a civilian use (precision shooting, hunting, self-defense) and military/anti-personnel use (governed by various considerations outlined previously). More general considerations are availability/power of ammo, prevalence of the arm in question, and suitability to current military combat. AR15 style rifles fulfill each of these requirements: they are relatively common, have suitable ammo which is generally available, and of course they are generally suitable for military/militia combat, being an originally military weapon. You question how well suited AR15s are to civilian use, but their growing popularity suggests a certain utility, particularly as a general purpose rifle. Would purpose-built rifles be better for precision-shooting and hunting? Very likely so. But as a general purpose rifle, it is not supposed to excel in any one area so much as offer acceptable performance in all areas.

Target shooting is itself something which has no actual purpose other than marksmanship. To say that using an AW for target shooting develops marksmanship and that doing such is a "dual" purpose also misses the point. Accuracy in firearms can be achieved with single shot arms. In fact, they teach firearms in basic training WITH single shot rifles. Why? Because you don't need multiple round capacity to learn to shoot accurately.

So saying that you "need" a mil arm for target shooting or that target shooting is a legit need/use for a mil arm begs the question. To learn to shoot accurately, the type of arm is irrelevant.

Training rifles are used to develop fundamentals, usually with considerations of economy (cheaper ammo/rifles) and/or ease of learning (simple, low recoil, etc.). Their utility as actual military arms is limited at best. They are better suited to institutionalized marksmanship training, where one can progress from trainers to the real thing (and where cost/availability/access is not an issue - if an inactive militia member can have only one rifle to develop proficiency with and fight with if necessary, it should unquestionably be a military rather than a training weapon). While basic shooting skills are important, I think proficiency with the weapon most likely to be used in combat (i.e. military/anti-personnel weapons) is equally important. There's a reason people are frequently required to qualify with the weapon they'll be using rather than a trainer. Learning to shoot and learning to shoot a particular firearm well are not always the same thing.

M. Sage
02-09-2008, 11:14 AM
BTW, those of you who talk about using an AR for home defense, need to learn about shotguns. Shotguns can give a BG religion just by racking the slide on an unloaded pump. AR's don't have that reputation and never will have because the intended and designed purpose of an AR is NOT defense. Even the police and the mil know this. Which is why THEY use shotguns in close quarters situations.

Which is exactly why I see so many videos and pictures of SWAT doing dynamic entries with shotguns instead of M4s... oh, wait. And why they're not issuing AR15s to police for patrol cars... Military use of shotguns in close quarters? Not a lot, honestly. They're more likely to be used for breaching.

Target shooting and marksmanship aren't legitimate civilian uses for firearms? I guess if it's not Olympic shooting, it's not legitimate, huh? :rolleyes:

Where have I heard this before? Oh, I remember now.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JVKvyYqtJ1w&feature=related

"If you miss your sport, take up another sport..."

elSquid
02-09-2008, 11:21 AM
I think a lot of you miss the point. AR 15's are a derivative of the M16. The M16 is a "battle rifle". It was designed solely for combat and combat conditions. It is a military arm intended for military purposes of assault (hence "assault rifle"), attack, and warfare.

No, you miss the point. At one time, bolt action rifles were the the "assault rifles" of their era. Civilian use came afterwards. This is a common pattern with firearms.

It has NO civilian use, purpose, or need. (yeah, they're cool, but so would be owning a sparrowhawk missle)

Ah, the old "nuclear bomb" argument. I'll pass.

Target shooting is itself something which has no actual purpose other than marksmanship. To say that using an AW for target shooting develops marksmanship and that doing such is a "dual" purpose also misses the point. Accuracy in firearms can be achieved with single shot arms. In fact, they teach firearms in basic training WITH single shot rifles. Why? Because you don't need multiple round capacity to learn to shoot accurately.


I guess in your view citizens should only own single shot rifles?

The "protect against an oppressive gov" argument is fallicious. No AR, AK or even M16 with select fire will help defeat an "enemy" which has tanks, missles, and other warfare assets not available to the GP.


Pistols, rifles and the like are great for popping your local Stasi agent. Not every war is a conventional one.

So, in the end the question still remains; What civilian only purpose is there for using an EBR?

You are confused. I don't have to justify my actions or desires in a free society.

It is the job of the government to explain why restrictions on certain rifle ownership are in the public interest.

Why is an EBR "bad", but a 30-06 Browning BAR semi auto "good"? The BAR has much more power and range.

BTW, those of you who talk about using an AR for home defense, need to learn about shotguns. Shotguns can give a BG religion just by racking the slide on an unloaded pump.

You watch wayyyyy too many movies.

AR's don't have that reputation and never will have because the intended and designed purpose of an AR is NOT defense. Even the police and the mil know this. Which is why THEY use shotguns in close quarters situations.

So ARs are not good for defense, which is why the police and military use shotguns for assaulting. That's just brilliant. :rolleyes:

-- Michael

PanzerAce
02-09-2008, 11:45 AM
I only have one thing to say:

http://forums.s2kca.com/images/smilies/dont-feed-troll.gif

M. Sage
02-09-2008, 4:39 PM
Don't forget about adaptable. You can go varmint shooting one day with your .223 precision upper, then swap it for an upper suited to hunting anything else, like deer (6.8 SPC would be great, .50 Beowulf would work really well, too) the next day... or even the same day, if you wanted!

Then go home, swap on your carbine upper and have a great home-defense rifle.

hawk81
02-09-2008, 4:40 PM
Hey I don't know where you come up with your thoughts, but back when the second ammendment was created there were no assault weapons. Everyone had black powder rifles. Technically we should be able to have any firearm the military has, that is what the second ammendment is all about. It is about us being able to have modern weapons in order to keep our government in check.

aklover_91
02-09-2008, 5:05 PM
How I long for the days when no one cared what a bullet was made of, how many rounds a gun held, whether it was automatic or not, how big the bullet was, how small the gun was, whether it was easily recognized as a gun, how loud the gun was, whether it was carried on your person, stored in a car, or parked out back, or even if the weapon in question slung large exploding munitions.

*sigh*

So basically, I miss when people didn't quibble over how much we should infringe on it, but just accepted it and abided by what it says, and got that weapons are not to blame for violence.

Same general idea applies to the rest of the BoR.


Also, an old but good one liner, 'Argueing the second amendment shouldn't apply to modern weapons is like argueing the 1st should only aplly to the old-world printing press and spoken word'

-hanko
02-09-2008, 7:16 PM
Rob, your post amazes me, unfortuneate to see it on calguns. I may have expected it on DU or similar.

A couple of things...

The 2nd does not give us the right to keep/bear arms. That's our birthright, from our Creator. The 2nd reaffirms that right that we as citizens already posess.

When the 2nd was written, I'm sure you know why. It's there to protect us from government tyranny and self-protection. It has ZERO to do with target shooting, putting meat on the table, or collecting guns.

This is the second post in 2 days I've responded to that is completely devoid of any trace of logic...the first post suggested we should be mentally evaluated before so-called assault weapons could be purchased.

What the hell is happening to calguns??:confused::eek:

If you posted to show your expertise with sarcasm, non-sequiturs, and oxymorons, please use a smillie. Consider re-taking geometry, it's a nice way to acquire some basic skils in logical arguments

-hanko

SemiAutoSam
02-09-2008, 7:20 PM
Hanko
It looks like we have our own cell of antis.

He doesn't like the freedom loving Ron Paul either from what I have read.

Rob, your post amazes me, unfortunate to see it on calguns. I may have expected it on DU or similar.

A couple of things...

The 2nd does not give us the right to keep/bear arms. That's our birthright, from our Creator. The 2nd reaffirms that right that we as citizens already possess.

When the 2nd was written, I'm sure you know why. It's there to protect us from government tyranny and self-protection. It has ZERO to do with target shooting, putting meat on the table, or collecting guns.

This is the second post in 2 days I've responded to that is completely devoid of any trace of logic...the first post suggested we should be mentally evaluated before so-called assault weapons could be purchased.

What the hell is happening to calguns??:confused::eek:

If you posted to show your expertise with sarcasm, non-sequiturs, and oxymoron's, please use a smillie.

-hanko

Roccobro
02-09-2008, 8:36 PM
Hmmm.... I guess he didn't get it. Still recycling the same unintelligent anti schpeal.

I think I "need" to punch out of this thread. He is using assault type logic that isn't necessary for any civilian to be using outside of a battlefield of nit-wits or Jihad.

Justin

aileron
02-09-2008, 8:42 PM
I'm not going to comment on everything you have said here. But because I imagine, or hope, your playing the devils advocate. I would at least hope you would actually play a good devil. ;)

Why I say that, oh because of this comment.

Target shooting is itself something which has no actual purpose other than marksmanship.

Okay... sounds interesting on the surface, but then I have to wonder. Target shooting is either to improve ones skill, or for the enjoyment of it. But basically its to improve ones skill.

So how many things does one do in their professional lives, and their personal lives, that they try to improve on? How about basic childhood experiences; how many activities do we do as children that we try to improve on? An awful lot of our activity while alive is to improve ones skills. So I cannot honestly understand how target shooting is anything but the positive growth in ability for the user. This is normal to everyday life, and is not special to firearms. Nor would we want a society that didn't promote the improvement and safety with skills at arms.

Target shooting IS one of the very places where someone improves, learns, and acquires skills at arms. The comment you made is really silly when looked at holistically.


You also fail to acknowledge the utility of a thing and fall for the deliberate segregation and separation of firearms by the anti's.

All firearms have utility. That utility doesn't change because of cosmetic features. Military arms are built to a very high standard of quality. Truly you don't mean to suggest that we as humble citizens of a free society should be barred high quality weapons because someone thinks they look sinister???? Or because the military said they want it as their service rifle? So we should have low quality weapons???? Or maybe no choice to purchase high quality weapons?

I have already commented that:


Plastic being used in place of wood, does not make a weapon more dangerous. Modern firearms are going to continue to be black plastic with large capacity magazines. Which is not the sole propriety of military type weapons or so-called assault weapons. The AR-15 is not a modern weapon by any stretch of the imagination, having been invented in the 50's!!!

There is nothing special about the AR-15 by todays standards. Most future weapons for the general public (if it had not been for the attempts to try to bar cosmetic features) would be very similar in appearance to the AR-15. Functionality of course would be the same. The classification of Assault Weapon, is as I have said before a fairy tale. All it is is a modern rifle, with modern features.

Race guns are designed to be operating very accurately and quickly. They are the pinnacle of modern technology. Built on all manner of firearms, from early 1900 models (1911 (1911), Hi-Power (1935)), to todays highest tech; most have been used by some army somewhere. I don't see how their use by armies as well suggests that they have only utility for them alone. They don't, nor should a silly argument created by the Anti's be promoted to segregate firearms.

They all have their utility. AR-15's are easy to use; especially by women who don't want nor need a hard kicking rifle to learn on. Perfect rifle; tough, reliable, fun, flexible, and easy to use. Has lots of utility.

sergeantrex
02-10-2008, 12:00 AM
Showed a picture of my AK build to a co-worker. He said "Explain to me what you could do with a gun like that?"

I replied "I dont need a reason to own that gun, it's my right."

Salty
02-10-2008, 12:16 AM
Fun is good enough purpose for me.

As far as I'm concerned, I don't care what anyone says / does / owns / smokes / or prays to, as long as it isn't hurting anyone else.

tophatjones
02-10-2008, 12:17 AM
In essence, the reality of civilian AW use is that the reasoning is "made up" or created to justify the use and/or possession of a military only arm.

I must respectfully disagree. Civilian "aw" is not the made up term, "military only arm" is the made up term. Back when the 2nd amendment was written, the term "military only arm" didn't exist. The purpose of the 2nd amendment, and by extension, all the amendments, is to balance the power between the people and the government. It guarantees the rights of the people. By saying that there exists a "civilian arms" vs a "military arms" distinguishes two tiers of weapons, and by extrapolation, distinguishes two tiers of rights. Should a person of the military of the government and by extension, the government, have more "teeth" than a "regular" citizen of the United States? What happens if the government decides to bite? (See George Orwell's animal farm, specifically the dogs).

adamsreeftank
02-10-2008, 12:38 AM
The Second has nothing to do with sporting purposes.

Californio
02-10-2008, 9:27 AM
The biggest problem I see here regarding AW's is a misconception.

First, did anyone NOT read Gura's brief? I believe that they pretty much nailed the letter AND intent of the second amendment. That it is the right of the people to keep and bear 'dual purpose' arms.

'Dual purpose' means arms which have both a military and civilian utility or purpose. AW's don't really have a civilian utility or purpose. Yeah, we go target shooting with them but that's not a 'real' purpose. We made that up just so that we could say that they aren't only military rifles. Home defense? Get a shotgun - cheaper, faster, better 'accuracy' and more lethal.

Face it, AW's are military rifles that we have adapted to a limited sport. One could do and say the same regarding a howitzer or RPG. The traditional use and intent of an AW is military only. So AW's really do fall outside the scope and intent of the second amendment.

That being the case, then an AW ban isn't unreasonable because it is only banning non 'dual purpose' arms.

I don't have one or at this point want one but you are incorrect.

Having just spent three days at the Shot show, almost all the major vendors, such as Remington, had several models of AR in a Varmint configuration as well as the traditional AR vendors, I also recently watched several hunting DVD's on the use of the AR for different predators, it work great especially for calling two coyotes at once.

The AR is the Brown Bess of this era and certainly has its place in the civilian home.

I do have an old Series 180 Mini and believe every home should have an auto loading rifle of some type, it has many practical uses, including the defense of one's home, which in my opinion is a Natural Right, that transcends all forms of human government.

The repeating rifle won the West and made this country what it is, I personally prefer bolt rifles but see no reason why every citizen should not own and be trained to use an AR.

The shotgun is limited to inside the home, it doesn't work 200 yards outside.

So you need a Pistol, Shotgun and Autoloader as a complete home defense package.

I guess the M1 carbine, M1 rifle and M1A fall into your AW sinkhole as well.

On edit:

What you are really saying is that any repeating arm, lever, pump, spring, revolving or gas, has no civilian use.

Guess we should all have single shot Arms.

M. Sage
02-10-2008, 10:25 AM
Showed a picture of my AK build to a co-worker. He said "Explain to me what you could do with a gun like that?"

I replied "I dont need a reason to own that gun, it's my right."

My Snap-on dealer was going off about "all these assault weapons." "Why does someone need a bunch of AKs? You know who uses guns like that?"

"What, police and the military?" :rolleyes:

He presses on with "Drug dealers, gangsters and psychos."

All I had to say was "You just listed three reasons why every honest person needs one, too."

ravenbkp
02-10-2008, 12:16 PM
This post was not thought through. It is quite simply offensive and we have given it more than enough consideration. Please do not feed the T.... under that bridge.

hoffmang
02-10-2008, 12:28 PM
I think the actual question is not why do civilians need arms, but more why does the standing army need anything more than a single shot rifle. Remember that in our Republic, the military is subservient to the citizenry. I'd be completely for not allowing the Military to have any arm more modern than an 03-A3 in the CONUS and whatever they want afield before I'd accept that the citizenry doesn't have a superior right to at least the AR-15.

You didn't even catch that the false flag operation that is trying to act like they're on our side that I linked to at least admits that the Civilian purpose of Marksmanship is a key item to the security of a free state.

Tell my you're trolling. Otherwise I have a story about how the government should not be allowed to use a press release because governments don't have free speech rights.

-Gene

Pvt. Cowboy
02-10-2008, 12:39 PM
The AR is the Brown Bess of this era and certainly has its place in the civilian home.

Checkmate. End of discussion, in my opinion.

Patriot
02-10-2008, 12:45 PM
the false flag operation that is trying to act like they're on our side that I linked to at least admits that the Civilian purpose of Marksmanship is a key item to the security of a free state.

You're talking about the AHSA brief, right? I have to admit I was puzzled by that one. Haven't read it through yet, but a quick perusal makes it look like the brief is pretty favorable to our side. :confused:

thomasanelson
02-10-2008, 12:51 PM
How are we supposed to defend our self against a tyrannical government without military weapons? While I agree there are limits, we don't need nukes or tanks. If you think about the purpose of the 2nd Amendment we should be able to own what would be required to take over the government when the government gets out of line.

Exactly! Government should not be able to tell citizens, or organizations outside government, what they can own, carry, use, etc. The only entity in the U.S. who has that right is private property owners. If I own property and I don't want someone with a gun to come on my property, that should be me right so long as my property is not open to the public. If my property is open to the public and I "forbid" firearms, then I should incur "all" liability for any weapons related incident.

LAK Supply
02-10-2008, 12:59 PM
Why would you even consider justifying any firearm with "dual purpose?" That feeds directly into our elitist politicians' "I need to give you permission to be armed" mentality.

That said, my "dual purpose" for my AR's and such are for holding a balance of power with my untrustworthy government, and using them to repel tyranny under certain circumstances. "Sporting" anything was a fabrication of gun-grabbing politicians to create a premise for controlling the people. Why would you feed into that?

Pugster
02-10-2008, 1:08 PM
Assault Weapons and Dual Purpose Weapons are a myth and are just words used to ban firearms plain and simple. There are guns and guns. Anyone can change a benign Mini-14 into an EBR. As others have said, all the "sporting" firearms of today were the top-of-line "Assault Weapons" of yesterday.