Why Do You Need an AR or AK?

There is nothing that offers the American citizen more safety and security than having individuals such as the OP in their neighborhoods.

No gun ban or strict gun laws (which do nothing but hurt the good guys anyways) will ever make us more secure than having like minded individuals such as the OP living among us. Having individuals such as the OP in our schools nationwide would assure that never again would there be a mass shooting.

Those trying to disarm us, and remove our neighborhoods of individuals such as the OP is the BIGGEST THREAT to our safety and security by far.

This is the best thread that I have read in many, many years.

reply to post by projectvxn


Very well said and well written, projectvxn. Your dedication and loyalty are very honorable and appreciated. I've already decided I'm going to purchase an AR-15 after firing my friend's at the range on several occasions.

Excellent thread, and thank you for your service, sir.

By the way, I would rather have an ak-47 that is rugged and shoots the 7.62mmX39mm than the overhyped m-16 that shoots 5.56mmX52mm. Of course both are automatic and not acquirable in america or most other countries.

At the end of the day, from what I could legally acquire, I would have liked a short barralled rifle that shoots .45acp pistol rounds out to 150 yards. Now that I moved to europe it is basically immatterial. I enjoy my shotgun which is multi-purpose.



Really nice big bullets and with the long barrel of the tommy gun I think it is not technically an sbr.

What a great thread...logical ,concise and heart felt !! This should be sent to all our reps in Washington, so that they understand our 2nd Amendment has nothing to do with hunting and all about a balance of power between the people and the government.

reply to post by projectvxn


I don't own an AR or AK, or any guns, but do know where I can get them at a moments notice if I needed to. People have to remember that we can have these weapons to protect ourselves from our own Gov in the event of rebellion and revolt against a corrupt system. The right to bare arms is our only true defense against invasion from abroad or from (God forbid it ever happens) our own Gov if it turns against us.

If the gov has assault weapons, we should have them to to keep the Gov in line and to give a warning to stay within our constitution.

I know the rest of the world doesn't understand, although really considering how much the rest of the world dislikes the American Gov. right now, I would think they would be even more understanding on people being able to defend themselves from tyranny and oppression.

Our right to semi auto weapons puts us on an semi even footing with the US Gov. should it ever decide to turn against it's own people.

That's about all I gotta say on that.

So that is my answer as to why we need AK's and AR's. I am not worried about my neighbor going nuts, I am worried about the Gov going nuts or the rest of the world going nuts.
All banning these weapons will do is make us less able to defend against the unthinkable and make us less secure and more of a target for the rest of the world, and a target for the criminal who does not obey the law and gets an ak for himself regardless of law.

reply to post by projectvxn


Ok, nicely written and Truthful.
Got any more truth left to answer a Question?

You, and your fellow Soldiers are well trained Killing Machines, currently Serving the War Machine.

Question to you is :

If You and Your Fellow Soldiers are Turned Against the Citizens of the US , Deemed Domestic Terrorist, What Chance will The Domestic Terrorist Have? Being that You are So Good at Your Craft.

reply to post by projectvxn


So an AR or an AK is going to stop an M1 Abrams or a Stealth Bomber?

The argument is absolutely ridiculous...Rambo is a fictional movie, not a documentary.

Originally posted by Asktheanimals

but it should be said that overconfidence is their biggest weakness.

Never a truer word spoken.

CX.

Originally posted by xedocodex
reply to post by projectvxn

 

So an AR or an AK is going to stop an M1 Abrams or a Stealth Bomber?

The argument is absolutely ridiculous...Rambo is a fictional movie, not a documentary.

The last thing the american government wants is to admit to everyone around the world that they are just as much tyrants as saddam hussein or assad of syria. They relly on the propaganda machine to deceive the mainstream sheep, and once their cover is blown, then all hell will break loose. I could actually envision the russians and chineese attacking to liberate america from washington.

And 300 million americans armed with anything will likely beat a 3 million strong army, regardless how well groomed the suit-wearing bankers think it is. Not to mention that there will likely be strong defection among the ranks; I will not speculate how much because it is all hypothetical conjecture.

Try again!

reply to post by projectvxn


The reason you have the right to own a precision assault rifle like an AR-15, or even and AK-57 is the same as your personal right to pick the car or auto you drive. Personal choice.

reply to post by projectvxn


I am a pessimist/cav scout,I've been watching the show with growing angst and I'm not alone.There sure are pushing the WRONG people with their progressive attempt to alter the country to a more European model,which is failing too.

reply to post by xedocodex


No, you stop tanks with home made thermite and planes get destroyed on the ground.Duh,,,,civilians.

Originally posted by conspiracytheoristIAM
What a great thread...logical ,concise and heart felt !! This should be sent to all our reps in Washington, so that they understand our 2nd Amendment has nothing to do with hunting and all about a balance of power between the people and the government.

I keep seeing words like yours posted and I am curious as to how the 2nd Amendment is about " a balance of power between the people and the government ".

So far as I can see the 2nd Amendment doesn't actually say anything about governments maybe needing to be opposed by arms and it seems unlikely that legislators would propose armed insurrection against themselves.

Where did the idea of fighting the government come from please ?

Originally posted by cavtrooper7
reply to post by xedocodex

 

No, you stop tanks with home made thermite and planes get destroyed on the ground.Duh,,,,civilians.

Yeah. I feel that a lot of servicemen got real-life lessons handed to them by participating in iraq and afghanistan.

Who would not be scared of improvised explosive devices? Or a rocket propelled grenade inbound from someone hiding in the trees? And vietnam must have been a bitch.

I wonder if they gonna drop napalm and/or white phospherous for "crowd control" from those geeky b-2s. Or maybe used depleted uranium shells.

An assault weapon gives the common man the faint hope that he might be able to go toe to toe with a trained military force. No doubt that alot of military personnel would refuse orders to fire on U.S. citizens but i also know first hand some would if the pay was good enough, and those are the reason i`m packing. The AK platform is the most popular weapon the modern world knows and its also one of the best, on par with the AR.

Hopefully my experience on these weapons is all but over except the on going war on empty bottles and cans and the occasional range target(I dont enjoy sillouette targets, flashbacks). For such violent weapons they sure are fun to shoot, and thats what the bottom line is. I`d get the same kind of enjoyment from a monster truck, 2000+hp dragster or a Su-27 Russian jet fighter but damn #s expensive.

Originally posted by projectvxn
I'm going to be completely honest here. I am the reason you need an 'assault' rifle. I am a highly trained and expert marksman in the US Army. With the badges on my ERB to prove it. I am an expert in pistol, rifle, and machine gun use and aerial gunnery .

I am trained in breaching tactics, hand to hand combat, force on force, and have the best equipment your tax dollars can buy. I belong to the most advanced and lethal military force the world has ever known and while I am a man of principles and take my oath to the Constitution seriously, there is no telling what future generations of soldiers will think and believe...If they do at all.

You should not, under any circumstances question my ability to wreak utter destruction upon the enemy. Myself and every soldier, airman , marine, sailor, and coast guardsman are more than capable of destroying the enemy. Whether it's the taliban or a modern and cohesive military force..............



The notion that some have that the threat of tyranny is a bygone fear of generations long past is ignorance at best. How anyone can look at the changes I've seen and not see the clear and present dangers to our freedoms, especially since 9/11, is beyond me. I am not a "Truther", but you don't have to be one to see the litany of attacks on our liberties since the Patriot Act was passed. The last 12 years have seen enormous changes in how government and the people express the relationship between them. I don't believe that relationship is what the founders intended, nor is it what the American people really want.

The powergrabs by government have many people concerned. Including people like me. And if I'm worried, should you be too? Why would we trust government that has used that trust to enrich its members and corporate cronies, and for the accretion of ever more power, with the stewardship of our safety? Safety, as well as Liberty will always be the responsibility of the people...The individual, dare I say it. To abdicate that responsibility to government is asking for abuse. Maybe not today. But tomorrow? Do you have that answer? Because I don't.

Whether liberal or conservative or libertarian or anarchist or communist, don't let there be a moment in our history where there was no one left to speak for you. Speak with one American voice.

edit on 26-1-2013 by projectvxn because: (no reason given)

I'm having a little trouble understanding. Let's see. You're a trained killer working for the United States military, and you and you fellow soldiers could wreck havoc and destruction, where ever the need may arise. Because you exist as a unit under the directions of the government, we the people should be concerned as the might of your force could well be turned against the United States citizenry. Therefore we all need to have a gun in the basement. Makes good sense to me. I'm a little fuzzy on how one guy with a Ar. is going to stand up against you trained killers.

I really believe we have become overly concerned about a tyrannical government rounding up and abusing it's citizens. That's a really messy thing for a government to do. Our liberties have been slowly eroded of the last several years no doubt. I think the question we need to ask ourselves is, Why? When we find that answer we might find a way to approach the problem. Armed conflict between the citizens and government in this country is not going to be something the majority of the people here are going to support, as the disruptions to ordinary life would be too severe.

It is fairly obvious that there are a number of folks out there who are passionate about protecting liberty. My advice, if you are serious, you need to get some organization going. Just be aware this may be seen as sedition and escalate oppression. As I see it a big problem any well armed militia bent on restoring liberty will face is public relations. As long as the government maintains a reasonably functioning economy with an acceptable degree of stability, active organized bands of well armed men are going to be viewed as disruptive, and then those such as yourself will have their training put to use.

The real revolution in this country will come from people becoming educated, and involved with their governance at a very local level. We see this already as a strategy used by those rich and powerful who would want to own all of this country. Their focus is on state governments. Control these and you control the federal government. Democracy is not dead, just currently under utilized by the people.

Spreading fear can not be our best effort. The time of the gun is one we must make every effort to avoid.

Originally posted by Alfie1
So far as I can see the 2nd Amendment doesn't actually say anything about governments maybe needing to be opposed by arms and it seems unlikely that legislators would propose armed insurrection against themselves.

I'll highlight the part you're seeking:

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.

"State" meaning country. If you type in the phrase I've highlighted above into Google, you'll see many papers and court decisions defining what that phrase means.


Thomas Jefferson, one of the architects of the U.S. Constitution wrote:

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms."

Thomas Jefferson also wrote:

"What country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned from time to time that his people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms."

Abraham Lincoln, former President of the U.S. wrote:

"This country, with its institutions, belongs to the people who inhabit it. Whenever they shall grow weary of the existing government, they can exercise their constitutional right of amending it or their revolutionary right to dismember it or overthrow it."

Just in those quotes, you have a former president, and an architect of the U.S. Constitution telling you that governments can be opposed by arms, and that's part of the reason why the 2nd Amendment was written.

Ok mr expert marksman, when the government orders you or other members of the military to fire on civiliains the concept of needing an ar or an ak comes into play. you said it yourself your a trained expert most civilians arn't that good hence 100 round mags and full auto is required to put up a fight, The sheer number of full automatic rifles in civilain hands will swing the war for the people.

without them the government will win any uprising the civilains muster

Originally posted by okyouwin
I'm a little fuzzy on how one guy with a Ar. is going to stand up against you trained killers.

I'm a little fuzzy on the "one guy with an AR" part. There are millions of people with AR's. You can get the same military training and practice on using an AR if you choose to do so and with the right trainer. Many trainers are former military.

That is what will put you on equal ground and make you an equally trained killer if the need were ever to arise.

Originally posted by mykingdomforthetruth
Ok mr expert marksman, when the government orders you or other members of the military to fire on civiliains the concept of needing an ar or an ak comes into play. you said it yourself your a trained expert most civilians arn't that good hence 100 round mags and full auto is required to put up a fight, The sheer number of full automatic rifles in civilain hands will swing the war for the people.

without them the government will win any uprising the civilains muster

I would like to say that (and i mean no disrespect to projectvxn or any other vet here), that in regards to your question, maybe a lot of civilians are not marksmen, but i would also go as far as saying that a lot of soldiers aren't either.

I've competed against civilians who could wipe the floor with most soldiers i've ever worked with when it comes to marksmanship. Many soldiers get surprisingly little range time, therefore will not be as proficient as the civilian who spends many hours a week honing their skills.

As far as quantity of firepower, manpower and equipment available, yes i think the military will usually come out on top, just don't ever think that a soldier is as deadly as a civilian, whether armed or unarmed.

That is what i take from the "over confidence" issue mentioned in this thread.

Seen it many times....and that's from someone who served myself.

CX.