"Why do you need an AR15?"

[biodsl]

Can you imagine going up against one of the most powerful, well equipped armies in the world with a stamped sheet metal, single shot pistol and an effective range of 25 feet? That's what some of our military brass expected of resistance fighters in occupied Europe during WWII.

Why do I need an AR15? So I, my kid or my grandkids don't have to fight with one of these

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FP-45_Liberator#Wartime_use

[37L1]

"Why do you need a pick up truck?"

[Sticks]

Why do you need any vehicle that exceeds 75 mph?

To Answer your question - I don't need any firearm. I choose to have one as it is my right, same as it's my right to post here, choose my own religion, Not to be a slave, Vote, attend public gatherings...

Vehicles and driving is a privilege, and the most regulated of anything that I can think of if you really chew it down to the bone. Still kills more people than guns, cancer, medical malpractice...and it a freaking privilege not a right. Moms Against Drunk Driving, but ooohhh noooo, don't take the cars away or make it harder to get one.

[BjornF16]

Extracts from SCOTUS decision vacating a MA law restricting stun gun:

Instead, the court seized on language, originating in
United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174 (1939), that “ ‘the sorts of weapons protected were those “in common use at the time.” ’ ” 470 Mass., at 778, 26 N. E. 3d, at 692 (quoting Heller, supra, at 627, in turn quoting Miller, supra, at179). That quotation does not mean, as the court below thought, that only weapons popular in 1789 are covered bythe Second Amendment. It simply reflects the reality that the founding-era militia consisted of citizens “who would bring the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home to militia duty,” Heller, 554 U. S., at 627, and that the Second Amendment accordingly guarantees the right to carry weapons “typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes,” id., at 625.


As to “dangerous,” the court below held that a weapon is “dangerous per se” if it is “‘designed and constructed to produce death or great bodily harm’ and ‘for the purpose of bodily assault or defense.’ ” 470 Mass., at 779, 26 N. E. 3d,at 692 (quoting Commonwealth v. Appleby, 380 Mass. 296,303, 402 N. E. 2d 1051, 1056 (1980)). That test may be appropriate for applying statutes criminalizing assault with a dangerous weapon. See ibid., 402 N. E. 2d, at 1056. But it cannot be used to identify arms that fall outside the Second Amendment. First, the relative dangerousness of a weapon is irrelevant when the weapon belongs to a class of arms commonly used for lawful purposes. See Heller,supra, at 627 (contrasting “‘dangerous and unusual weapons’ ” that may be banned with protected “weapons . . . ‘incommon use at the time’”). Second, even in cases where dangerousness might be relevant, the Supreme Judicial Court’s test sweeps far too broadly. Heller defined the“Arms” covered by the Second Amendment to include “‘anything that a man wears for his defence, or takes into his hands, or useth in wrath to cast at or strike another.’”554 U. S., at 581. Under the decision below, however,virtually every covered arm would qualify as “dangerous.”
Were there any doubt on this point, one need only lookat the court’s first example of “dangerous per se” weapons:“firearms.” 470 Mass., at 779, 26 N. E. 3d, at 692. If Heller tells us anything, it is that firearms cannot be categorically prohibited just because they are dangerous. 554 U. S., at 636. A fortiori, stun guns that the Common*wealth’s own witness described as “non-lethal force,” Tr.27, cannot be banned on that basis.

See https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinion...10078_aplc.pdf

[Double Naught Spy]

Can you imagine going up against one of the most powerful, well equipped armies in the world with a stamped sheet metal, single shot pistol and an effective range of 25 feet? That's what some of our military brass expected of resistance fighters in occupied Europe during WWII.

Why do I need an AR15? So I, my kid or my grandkids don't have to fight with one of these
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FP-45_...or#Wartime_use

The Liberator was not so much a fighting gun as it was an assassination gun used for the purpose of procuring better weapons. The link you provided explained this quite well. Keep in mind that there was considerable mixing of the Germans with French civilians and resistance fighters.

It was actually manufactured at a rate that was faster than it could be loaded.

The Liberator was an interesting concept, though not an impressive weapon and was never widely distributed for its intended purpose.

Your kids will never fight with one. They should buy their own weapons.

[LRRPF52]

Funny thing. I searched The Bill of Rights of the US Constitution. I can't seem to find the word "need" in it.



Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Amendment II
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

Amendment III
No soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Amendment V
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Amendment VI
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.

Amendment VII
In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

Amendment VIII
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

Amendment IX
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.


So where does this concept of what you need and government's role in determining it come from? I personally don't accept the premise of government determining what my needs are outside of its enumerated powers.

Anytime someone starts talking about what I need, I'm reminded of this:

.

"From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs." - Karl Marx

It was a slogan that was popularized during his critique of the Gotha Program in 1875, later in his life.

Karl Marx was one of these critics who never actually worked in his life to support his family, while ending up in the slums of London's East End, paid for by the people he criticized. In that case, it was the Engels family and their radicalized son, Friedrich Engels, who financially supported Karl Marx so he could finish his "masterpiece" Das Kapital, which he referred to as "meine scheisse".

Engles never finished his degree in college, which was paid for by his mercantile and hard-working parents. Instead, he sought to criticize the industrialization and working conditions of the poor as a "journalist", after being selectively shown the worst parts of cities and factories by other radicals who saw ease in agitating him.

It's an interesting history, but the word "need" is not one found in the US Bill of Rights. If one wants to live in nations that dictate what you need based on Marx and Engels philosophies, several of those failed/failing states exist. Cuba, Venezuela, North Korea, and Vietnam come to mind.

[dammitman]

I don't need one, I need several of them. see, they come in different calibers and stock designs.

[StoneHendge]

"Why do you need a pick up truck?"

To carry all of my AR-15s

[Schrambo]

To carry all of my AR-15s

And ammo...

[Sticks]

You have no right to post here. It is a privilege granted by the owner, controlled and revocable by the moderators.
However, the comparison to gun ownership is pretty accurate. Your "right" to have one is restricted and revocable.


It always amuses me when gun people interject that into discussions.
It is the government that defines what are legal rights and privileges.

P.S. Cancer kills over 20 times more people than motor vehicles kill.

Point(s) taken. Though I would have to argue the Cancer death toll...need to look up the CDC numbers again.

[JASmith]

One doesn’t “need” a defensive weapon until he desperately needs one.

When the need is actualized, it is too late to find or purchase one unless the individual has exercised foresight and acquired one plus exercises due diligence in becoming proficient.

And yes, in my view, this is the essence of the 2nd Amendment.

It is also the reason we need to aggressively resist and work to roll back restrictions on weapon ownership regardless of whether the weon os a firearm, knife, baseball bat, etc.

Yes, IIRC, at least one European country has banned baseball bats.

Returning to question posed on the OP, this explains why we need AR 15 rifles even though most of us view them as merely the most amazing easily customized sporting rifle seen to date.

[montana]

It is the government that defines what are legal rights and privileges.

.

Actually Stan, it is the side with the biggest stick and the strongest will to use it who defines rights and privileges.

JASmith +1

[jonny rotton]

And ammo...

the ammo must go into the trailer i tow behind the truck.

[bj139]

Actually Stan, it is the side with the biggest stick and the strongest will to use it who defines rights and privileges.

That is what I was going to post.
The purpose of the 2nd Amendment is to keep power in the hands of the people not the government.

[keystone183]

The only purpose noted in the 2nd Amendment is state security.

Not sure i agree on this. That is an inference. And you could make many more, based on the vague language, no?