I see that question posed quite often. Gun control advocates want an answer; what they get is "because it's my right". That answer IS correct, but since they're generally not gun owners, it's an expendable right in their opinion.  We need to be able to articulate why many are drawn to the AR platform, or "black guns" in a way that makes sense to them.

   I have thought about this a lot. I think I might have an answer.

  I'm 53. As a young person, all guns I recall were wooden stocked. Revolvers had wood grips. Wood brings out thoughts of "use afield". Plus, these are the guns that were my introduction to shooting sports. When I think of a "cool gun" - even today - it would be something like a model 1894 lever gun. When I trained on the m-16 in the Air Force, I thought it was ugly and utilitarian; nothing that interested me as "art of the firearm".

  Now let's fast forward to today's new gun owners. Let's look into THEIR introduction to the shooting sports. In my opinion, I think many folks first introduction to firearms in through military service. We've been at war now for about 12 years straight. There's  many younger folks whose first introduction to the shooting sports was the AR platform. As far as handguns, the m-92 hi capacity 9mm. To them, this IS the "art of the firearm". To them, high cap "black guns" are the epitome of a "defensive firearm"

  I'm sure this extends back to vietnam era veterans also, but older guys probably have a wider view of what constitutes a "defensive firearm".

   Because my training throws back to a "previous generation", I DO find a shotgun to be an ideal home defense weapon. Younger folks probably gravitate to the AR for home defense because it's what they were trained on, what they're comfortable with, and what works.

  Bottom line, I think your introduction and training in firearms probably drives your choices on WHY you select a particular weapon to own. I think this explains why there's such a gravitation, especially among younger gun owners, to the " black gun". They have no prejudice against polymer or pistol grips. Parkerizing and picatinny rails are normal, right? Wood gets dinged up, blueing rusts, and iron sights are antiquated in their minds. So why not get an AR?

   One real irony of the gun- grabbers current attack on "assault weapons" is that they are in large part trying to disarm the very people who have fought  for our country in the last decade or so. It's so ironic that these veterans could be trusted to defend the rest of the population's rights, only to find their own rights under attack by the very people they fought to defend. JMO, Steve

 

My answer is this: The second amendment is not about hunting or even home defense. It is about defense of freedom against tyranny. That is what the "well regulated militia" clause is about. They were not talking about a federally regulated national guard. They were talking about a "well practiced" or "well organized" citizen army to counter a tyrannical government as they had just done a few year earlier. The 20th century saw hundreds of millions murdered by tyrannical governments in Germany, Soviet Union, China, Cambodia and other countries as well. When people say that cannot happen here I say look at Germany and Austria in 1928. Yes they had a heavy debt burden but you would say they were a very civilized nation that brought us people like Mozart, Beethoven, Einstein and Heisenberg. Less then 10 years later they were shipping people in trains to be exterminated by the millions. It is our sense of individual freedom and yes the right to keep and bear arms that may prevent that or the Stalin purges or Mao's great leap forward or Pol Pot's genocide from ever happening here. And it is the so called "assault" weapons suitable for military use that the 2nd amendment protects. I believe and hope that I will never fire any of my guns in anger but it is the fact that I and millions of others like me own them that may give some would be tyrant pause.

My answer is this: The second amendment is not about hunting or even home defense. It is about defense of freedom against tyranny. That is what the "well regulated militia" clause is about. They were not talking about a federally regulated national guard. They were talking about a "well practiced" or "well organized" citizen army to counter a tyrannical government as they had just done a few year earlier. The 20th century saw hundreds of millions murdered by tyrannical governments in Germany, Soviet Union, China, Cambodia and other countries as well. When people say that cannot happen here I say look at Germany and Austria in 1928. Yes they had a heavy debt burden but you would say they were a very civilized nation that brought us people like Mozart, Beethoven, Einstein and Heisenberg. Less then 10 years later they were shipping people in trains to be exterminated by the millions. It is our sense of individual freedom and yes the right to keep and bear arms that may prevent that or the Stalin purges or Mao's great leap forward or Pol Pot's genocide from ever happening here. And it is the so called "assault" weapons suitable for military use that the 2nd amendment protects. I believe and hope that I will never fire any of my guns in anger but it is that fact that I and millions of others like me own them that may give some would be tyrant pause.

Amen.  Why are we not hearing anyone use this defense on the news or in the papers?

Great answers  guys! well thought out  and simple enough that even a donkey can understand   

My answer is this: The second amendment is not about hunting or even home defense. It is about defense of freedom against tyranny. That is what the "well regulated militia" clause is about. They were not talking about a federally regulated national guard. They were talking about a "well practiced" or "well organized" citizen army to counter a tyrannical government as they had just done a few year earlier. The 20th century saw hundreds of millions murdered by tyrannical governments in Germany, Soviet Union, China, Cambodia and other countries as well. When people say that cannot happen here I say look at Germany and Austria in 1928. Yes they had a heavy debt burden but you would say they were a very civilized nation that brought us people like Mozart, Beethoven, Einstein and Heisenberg. Less then 10 years later they were shipping people in trains to be exterminated by the millions. It is our sense of individual freedom and yes the right to keep and bear arms that may prevent that or the Stalin purges or Mao's great leap forward or Pol Pot's genocide from ever happening here. And it is the so called "assault" weapons suitable for military use that the 2nd amendment protects. I believe and hope that I will never fire any of my guns in anger but it is the fact that I and millions of others like me own them that may give some would be tyrant pause.

  While this IS the answer, the gun Grabbers will argue that the government will never take over, this is 2013, you couldn't fight against the army, blah blah blah. Basically they don't understand the bill of rights, so trampling on the 2A part as an antiquated document is OK in their minds. just think of "Musket Morgan" and figure he represents the thinking of most of the anti- gunners.
   And really, did you buy your AR to fight potential tyranny, or for personal defense and because it's "cool to own" ?   Steve

When they disarm their security forces I will ablige.  It is about a balance of forces, something to counter the possibility of a hostile government power grab.  Being blunt, how did the Jewish population feel when they were being herded onto the trains?  Emotions should not dictate what is good for the COMMON man.  Stop creating new laws when the old laws are being ignored as a matter of routine, hold the criminals accountable for THEIR actions and stop turning law abiding citizens into criminals.
Bad people exist.  Undisputable.  Weaken the common folks and the evil is emboldened and strengthened.  At least give me a fighting chance, that's is all I ask for and exactly what the 2nd guarantees/d.  FWIW, I have never owned an AR, given the fact I have rebuilt thousands and I love the platform I still prefer a synthetic (weight savings) stocked bolt gun, distance is my friend.

My only "NEED" of an AR15 or other Military style rifle is to defend myself from the government  and It is about defense of freedom against tyranny..... and for other self defense.


My "WANT"  greatly out caps my need...so it's really about WANT...and not so much about NEED

But then,  My wants have always superseeded my needs....

Since my Wants are legal, I don't need to justify a need....

Now, I want to take a break so I need to take a nap.....

Compaired to many other methods of killing, the little AR rifle with the puny 5.56 varmint round is pretty benign.  Boby traps, explosive, fire and chemicals can be far more effect.  200 plus people died in Brazil due to stupidity, and a "harmless" pyrotechnic stage effect. 

Evil is not found in hardware.  It is found in the heart of men.  Until that is addressed, the murder of innocents will continue to increase, even if they round up every privately held firearm in America.

The current plan for gun control is like fighting drunk driver deaths by making it impossible to sober people to have cars. 

  While this IS the answer, the gun Grabbers will argue that the government will never take over, this is 2013, you couldn't fight against the army, blah blah blah. Basically they don't understand the bill of rights, so trampling on the 2A part as an antiquated document is OK in their minds. just think of "Musket Morgan" and figure he represents the thinking of most of the anti- gunners.
   And really, did you buy your AR to fight potential tyranny, or for personal defense and because it's "cool to own" ?   Steve

Miss Silvera answered this for me. I pretty much agree with her assessment. I did buy my first semi-auto rifle, a Norinco SKS, after the 1994 ban passed and before Clinton signed it and I bought it to fight potential tyranny. I never thought I needed one until the government tried to ban them. Since then I have acquired 2 different AR type rifles including an M4 style Bushmaster. I got those simply because I wanted them. They are a blast to shoot but would definitely come in handy to fight potential tyranny. Now that they are trying to ban them once again I feel I need them now more than ever.

I like your answers however the reason they are not heard is that the mass media has coined assault rifle or anything that resembles one as evil in itself. Also, the people that are interviewed are chosen to look silly and uninformed or just plain dumb to put down gun owners. Persons such as you will not fit into the liberal agenda.  Intelligent answers are not what they are promoting. JP

I don't need a $$$$$$ AR 15

BUT I DO NEED A  Kel-Tec Sub 2000 
Anyone know where I can find one
9mm or 40  Glock so I can use my Glock mags

- as a disinterested observer without a dog in this fight : you guys need to stop saying things like "fighting tyranny and the government".

- it just gives support to the caricature picture of the american gun owner : tin-foil too tight over the head , one hand holding a bible and the other hand his rifle.

- maybe if you refined (read : make more logical) your argument into something along the lines of protecting your rights under your constitution , that would at the very least , give basis to your wanting to protect your rights.

- not talking about fighting the government and god forbid , tyranny.

.

"Those who forget the past are destined to relive it."  We can live in "Mamby pamby land" and stay PC, but I say look at where that got us.  Be who you are, not what someone else wants you to be.  Anything else is false pretense and an utter lie.
Ever vigilant, always prepared.  Words to live by.

"Those who forget the past are destined to relive it."  We can live in "Mamby pamby land" and stay PC, but I say look at where that got us.  Be who you are, not what someone else wants you to be.  Anything else is false pretense and an utter lie.
Ever vigilant, always prepared.  Words to live by.

- sorry , but my comment above had nothing to do with being Politically Correct (or not).

- it was about being logical and believable and not crazy nor paranoid

.

Evil is not found in hardware.  It is found in the heart of men. 

 Leo, this is the most succinct statement I've ever heard regarding the gun control issue. This specifically responds to the statements like "the bushmaster killed the children" etc etc... fact is, the shooter did the killing. In it's most base definition, your statement is the unvarnished and absolute truth. Thanks for posting it, and know I'm going to repeat it freely - steve

And with that.....off to the "Open" page   

sorry folks, got too political and I admit I contributed to it.....

- as a disinterested observer without a dog in this fight : you guys need to stop saying things like "fighting tyranny and the government".

- it just gives support to the caricature picture of the american gun owner : tin-foil too tight over the head , one hand holding a bible and the other hand his rifle.

- maybe if you refined (read : make more logical) your argument into something along the lines of protecting your rights under your constitution , that would at the very least , give basis to your wanting to protect your rights.

- not talking about fighting the government and god forbid , tyranny.

.

My argument was "along the lines of protecting our rights under out constitution." Unfortunately most don't know the constitution. That's why I explained the 2nd amendment which is about "fighting tyranny". You just have to read the people who wrote it to understand that. It's a shame that a large segment of our population is so indoctrinated that they cannot handle the truth and write us off as "tin foil too tight over the head".

- as a disinterested observer without a dog in this fight : you guys need to stop saying things like "fighting tyranny and the government".
Not a gun owner or don't care about the Bill of Rights?

- it just gives support to the caricature picture of the american gun owner : tin-foil too tight over the head , one hand holding a bible and the other hand his rifle.
The caricature is drawn by those who disagree with the Constitution.

- maybe if you refined (read : make more logical) your argument into something along the lines of protecting your rights under your constitution , that would at the very least , give basis to your wanting to protect your rights.
The Repubs tried a nice refined message in November and got their asses handed to them.

- not talking about fighting the government and god forbid , tyranny.
But that is exactly what the outcome may be.

.

G, you get it.

- as a disinterested observer without a dog in this fight : you guys need to stop saying things like "fighting tyranny and the government".

- it just gives support to the caricature picture of the american gun owner : tin-foil too tight over the head , one hand holding a bible and the other hand his rifle.

- maybe if you refined (read : make more logical) your argument into something along the lines of protecting your rights under your constitution , that would at the very least , give basis to your wanting to protect your rights.

- not talking about fighting the government and god forbid , tyranny.

We can always add to the argument, but that issue is the prime reason for the 2nd:

A. The Antifederalist View

Additional views on the relationship between freedom and arms were expressed when the Constitution was being submitted to the states for ratification. The Antifederalist views were stated in pamphlets entitled Letters (p.1024)from the Federal Farmer to the Republican.[133] Richard Henry Lee is credited with authorship.[134] The self-styled federal farmer thought of himself as a supporter of federalism and republicanism.[135] His view of federalism was not that set forth in the proposed Constitution of 1787. The federal farmer argued that a distant national government was antithetical to freedom:

    [T]he general government, far removed from the people, and none of its members elected oftener than once in two years, will be forgot or neglected, and its laws in many cases disregarded, unless a multitude of officers and military force be continually kept in view, and employed to enforce the execution of the laws and to make the government feared and respected. No position can be truer than this, that in this country either neglected laws, or a military execution of them, must lead to revolution, and to the destruction of freedom. Neglected laws must first lead to anarchy and confusion; and a military execution of laws is only a shorter way to the same point--despotic government.[136]

The federal farmer also saw evil in Congress's power to raise an army, despite the two-year limit on money appropriations and the states' control over the militia via the appointment of officers.[137] He understood the need to provide for the common defense but believed an additional check was necessary. He proposed requiring two-thirds consent in Congress before a standing army could be raised or the militia could be pressed into service by the national government.[138] Additionally, the federal farmer argued that a select militia composed of less than all the people ought to be avoided. The farmer argued that, to preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them.[139]

Another Antifederalist, George Mason, spoke on the relationship between (p.1025)arms and liberty. Mason asserted that history had demonstrated that the most effective way to enslave a people is to disarm them.[140] Mason suggested that divine providence had given every individual the right of self-defense, clearly including the right to defend one's political liberty within that term.[141]

Patrick Henry argued against ratification of the Constitution by Virginia, in part because the Constitution permitted a standing army and gave the federal government some control over the militia.[142] Henry objected to the lack of any clause forbidding disarmament of individual citizens; "the great object is that every man be armed .... Everyone who is able may have a gun."[143] The Antifederalists believed that governmental tyranny was the primary evil against which the people had to defend in creating a new Constitution. To preserve individual rights against such tyranny, the Antifederalists argued for the addition of a Bill of Rights which included, among other rights, the right to keep and bear arms.[144]
B. The Federalist View

The Federalists, those supporting the Constitution as drafted, did not dispute the premise that governmental tyranny was the primary evil that people had to guard against.[145] Nor did the Federalists dispute the nexus between (p.1026)arms and freedom.[146] In one of the first Federalist pamphlets, Noah Webster argued that the proposed Constitution provided adequate guarantees to check the dangers of any standing army.[147] His reasoning acknowledged checks and balances, but did not rely on the same. Rather, Webster argued:

    Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every Kingdom of Europe. The Supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any bands of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States.[148]

Similarly, James Madison made clear that, although the proposed Constitution offered sufficient guarantees against despotism by its checks and balances, the real deterrent to governmental abuse was the armed population.[149] To the Antifederalist criticism of the standing army as a threat to liberty, Madison replied:

    To these [the standing army] would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from amongst themselves, fighting for their common liberties, and united and conducted by government possessing their affections and confidence. It may well be doubted, whether a militia thus circumstanced could ever be conquered by such a proportion of regular troops .... Besides the advantage of being armed, which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are (p.1027)attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of.[150]

Another leading Federalist, Alexander Hamilton, voiced a similar view.[151] Hamilton suggested that if the representations of the people, elected under the proposed Constitution, betrayed their constituents, the people retained the right to defend their political rights and possessed the means to do so.[152]

In summary, both Federalists and Antifederalists believed that the main danger to the republic was tyrannical government and the ultimate check on tyrannical government was an armed population.[153] Federalists and Antifederalists disagreed, however, on several issues. First, they disagreed as to whether sufficient checks and balances had been placed on the proposed national government to control the danger of oppression.[154] Second, the Antifederalists believed a bill of rights should be incorporated into the Constitution to guarantee certain rights.[155] The Federalists argued that such a bill of rights was unnecessary because the power of the federal government was restricted to the grant of authority provided by the Constitution.[156] There was no need to (p.1028)provide exceptions to powers not granted.[157] Further, the Federalists argued that providing exceptions to powers not granted was dangerous because it could encourage a claim that powers not expressly stated had been granted.[158] Again, both sides not only agreed that the people had a right to be armed, both sides assumed the existence of an armed population as an essential element to preserving liberty. The framers quite clearly had adopted James Harrington's political theory that the measure of liberty attained and retained was a direct function of an armed citizenry's ability to claim and hold those rights from domestic and foreign enemies.[159]

http://www.guncite.com/journals/vandhist.html