I always hear gun control advocates and even general public ask "why do you need an ar-15"? The implication being that a pistol should be enough for self defense. As i'm sure you all know, a pistol is really not the best choice to incapacitate or neutralize a threat. Again i'm sure you all know it takes something like an ar-15 or rifle caliber to neutralize a threat right there in their tracks immediately and reliably. The general public seems to have this belief that when someone is shot with a pistol it stops them right then and there, and I have to wonder how much Hollywood propagates this idea from all the times in movies where shooting someone with a 9mm will send them flying backwards 10 ft. They also hear of people dying from pistol wounds, but they do not understand that means the threat died at the scene immediately before they could hurt somebody. Many things can happen in the time between a threat getting shot and dying, the threat could continue to attack or even kill somebody and then die later. I have to wonder if there is anyway to start a campaign to educate the general public that a pistol is really not the best choice for self defense. I want people to know that it really takes an ar-15 to reliably and quickly put an attacker on the ground to stop them from hurting you. This would be an effort to fight back against the conception propagated by control advocates and misunderstood by the general public that "nobody needs an ar-15, a pistol is enough"

In short, there has to be a way for us as gun owners to come together and campaign to trash these myth's that "nobody needs an ar-15" and "a pistol is enough to keep me safe". Perhaps a lobby can help (idk i'm just thinking, well typing, out loud). I'm sick of this idea an ar-15 has no purpose for self defense when it is in fact perfect for self defense and the general public seems to have this idea that a 9mm drop someone right then and there.

Going on a little tangent here but these gun control people need to understand that this is a lifestyle for us as well. I think they have this idea that we just go to Walmart, buy some Bushmaster and let it sit in the closest only to take it out to hear it go bang bang. They seem to vastly underestimate that this is a discipline for us, a skill that we put our mind body and soul into. Also, look at the difference in ar-15 culture between now and 2004 when the ban ended. If I drive 10 minutes on the freeway I can usually count 5 cars with gun related bumper stickers. you wouldn't see that 15 years ago.

To address you're last paragraph, the left does not like our lifestyle. We are not like them and it scares them. At the end of the day, we have the power and they want it.

Why do i have to justify my AR?
The left doesn't have to justify anything, they just want and it happens.

SPNI

2A is not "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms that they really need, shall not be infringed."

What I want to achieve is educating some of the general public about the efficacy of pistols vs AR-15's concerning how the ballistic performance of each translates into a self defense scenario. I feel that maybe less people would support something like an assault weapons ban if they knew more about the ballistic short comings and disparities of a pistol in neutralizing a threat compared to an AR-15.

I also wonder, shouldn't ar-15's enjoy greater (or the greatest) protection of any firearm under the 2A? I mean if the 2A was written to recognize the right of US civilians to assemble to fight aggressive armies then shouldn't it follow that the "arms" we can "bear" when fighting a military would be military style rifles. I can't imagine the founding fathers saying "oh just use hunting rifles if you have to fight an army who possesses semi automatic rifles chambered in 5.56." I'm surprised 6 states were allowed to ban them, with the bans upheld when challenged in court. I wonder how they reached that conclusion considering what I just mentioned.

The AR is currently the most common sporting rifle in use.

Besides, I enjoy them so that's enough reason for me!

A great start is not using the word "civilians". The proper term is Citizen. Anything else feeds into the "us vs them" "we are elite and more equal" mindsets that people in positions of power have.

Lookup how many people are murdered by criminals using AR15's each year in the US.  Now look at how many people are murdered by criminals using other means each year in the US.  This data is your most logical argument.  AR15's are rarely used to murder people, incredibly rare among other types of guns, and extremely rare among other types of murder.   (I noticed the anti's like to combine police data with killings and suicides: this is absurd and should not be combined with the data)  The Assault Weapons ban is purely political because the Democrats are working with groups that want to ban ALL guns.  As seen in the UK/EU and others.  In effect it's all hysteria propagated by the media: they know once they ban AR15 they can ban the rest of the guns in time and we will have little recourse to fight the tyranny.  You have to ask these people if they want to be subjects or citizens?  Ten years ago someone would have jumped on me and said: do not blame the Democrats!  And demanded I be censored.  After seeing all the evidence to support my case of late, no one can deny the Democrats are behind this hysteria and tyranny.  Leadership and constituents are supporting and enabling their leadership.  A lot of Democrats are not on board with having their freedoms stolen and being subjugated, but they have not caught on to the evil deeds of their leadership.  I say this not as being biased as many in the GOP are complicit and work hand in hand with the DNC to happily steal our freedoms.  But in truth the AR15 is the least of our problems in the US, and is not a public health crisis.  I liked the NRA's promotion of the MSR concept, but it still ignores the fact that these people will stop at nothing to lie, cheat, and steal, away our freedoms.  As the saying goes: "Absolute power corrupts absolutely."  Lord Acton  and ironically the nations with monarchy structures are behind the desire to ban guns and subjugate the people.  Many Asian nations banned swords and now guns that have reliance on tyrannical regimes.  Those behind the anti gun movement are simply tyrants looking to establish their regimes in our states and locales: we must never allow it.  

The 2A is a nice academic exercise. The bottom line is. You need to have a battle rifle. If you are required to give up your battle rifle, then you really need a battle rifle.

In 1941, while our government (the U.S. Gov’t) was preoccupied with developing its plans to put Americans of Japanese descent in internment camps, two generations of my ancestors were marched to Ponar, a rail station outside of Vilna, Lithuania, and summarily murdered by the Nazis. Like I said, and say again, without any fear of contradiction, the bottom line is,  You need to have a battle rifle. If you are required to give up your battle rifle, then you really need a battle rifle.
Discussions about law do not matter. Tyrants abuse law, and use conditioned, trained troops to enforce unfair law, for the purpose of disarming and oppressing a population. We are trained to obey law, so the tyrant’s misuse of law is always a very effective tool to generally manage the population. The Nazis are a great example. A more contemporary example is Venezuela. Pass law, disarm population, oppress population, use military and law enforcement to control population and country. Venezuelans wish they had their guns. Too late.

You can't fight it ...... it's not a misconception by them, it's simply a matter of fact that the AR is a member of a "family" of firearms that they don't want you to own....

The 2nd doesn't mention suitability for personal defense, or hunting as a "qualifier" either...... so why attempt to use that as an argument?

Because the .gov took control of the education system in 1979, and has been changing the narrative ever since.

The purpose and meaning of the 2A has been twisted to the point that the sheep honestly believe that it's about owning an over/under to hunt ducks.

Given the general climate surrounding guns at this point in time, I'd think the last thing you would want to do is to tell the masses the AR-15 is "more destructive" than a pistol.  That only feeds into their hysteria about the evil super powerful "assault" rifles that we peons don't "need" and the current anti-police/use of deadly force sentiment.  

A better solution is to teach people what their rights are and teach them that you or I owning an AR-15 is no more dangerous than owning a Remington 7400, or any other semi-automatic rifle.  We can spout statistics all day long (and have been for years), but it's clear that has zero sway as the government's (and by extension, the anti-gunners) agenda is clearly focused on the AR-15 in particular.  We can't even get them to stop calling them assault rifles.

Of course, we also know that should they ultimately manage to get AR's completely banned, it won't stop there.  Many anti-gun groups have been very open and blatant that their ultimate goal is the banning of ALL firearms, period.  They are content in chipping away at our rights a little at a time.  In other words, they are content to keep chugging along and to keep the pressure on.  They aren't going away and they aren't going to quit.  Even if the SCOTUS were to abolish the ATF, the GCA and the NFA and declare the 2A is the law of the land and there are no restrictions, the anti's will not stop.  Statistics, logic, truth, fact..all have no bearing on their ultimate goal...they don't care what the truth is, they want all guns gone at any cost.

And...that's just at the Federal level, we also have the individual states to contend with.  Look what California and New York and Illinois have been doing for years.  Look at San Jose in particular, they just enacted their mandatory "gun insurance" for residents, and some states and cities also want mandatory licenses and taxes/fees every time you buy ammo.  This is the insidious side of the anti-gun agenda.  They know they can't just ban guns, that's unconstitutional, but we the people have allowed the Federal government to slowly encroach on the right over the years, so they are now emboldened to chip away at the edges, a ban on a type of firearm here, a tax there, a fee, mandatory expenses that will ultimately price firearms, firearm ownership, or the overall cost of ownership out of the reach of the citizens.  The GCA is a prime example, it was enacted to make the legal ownership of the listed items too expensive...yet organized crime laughed and still bought all they wanted...and criminals never obey the law, right?  All the GCA has done is make it too expensive for a lot of folks to own the listed items.  It has done nothing to prevent or lower any crime rates....much like any of the anti-gun laws of any type, anywhere.  

Honestly, education is not the answer, these people know the truth, they willfully choose to ignore it.  Those in the middle also choose to stay in the middle, they would accept restrictions because they don't necessarily exercise their right to own firearms, so they don't really care what is or isn't "allowed" as it doesn't affect them...and that is the biggest factor overall....people simply do not care about anything that has zero affect on their daily lives.  

As it is now, Biden's statements make it clear he thinks the 2A is about hunting and he even threatened us with F-15's and nukes.  I don't think his statements were offhanded, they were intentional and planned.  Whether he really believes them is immaterial, they were stated on purpose to bolster the anti-gun agenda and his followers eat it up.  It's been very clear for a long time a good majority of people believe everything they see or hear on the lamestream media.  They have been conditioned to accept the media's point of view without question, to the point that the old adage of repeat the lie long enough and people will believe it is very true.  The Democrats are now claiming defund the police was begun and is a product of the Republicans, for crying out loud!  That has to be one of the most blatant and obvious lies ever told...yet, I'm already seeing leftists spouting it back and jumping on that band wagon!

The only thing we can do is stop wallowing in the mud with these people.  It only gets you filthy and they enjoy it.  We just have to stay vigilant and support the groups that have the clout to legally challenge this stuff because it doesn't matter what anyone thinks or says, the laws are what matter.  Someone can hate you all day long for owning a gun, but their opinion will not put you in jail, make you a felon, or confiscate your guns...the law, however can and will.  We need legal eagles on our side and we need to stay on top of all the nefarious schemes being tossed against the wall to see what sticks (which seems to be the methodology of a lot of politicians these days).  I used to waste a lot of time getting into arguments on forums and groups with anti-gun people in an attempt to educate them...but it is all wasted and does nothing but get the blood pressure up.  They never change their mind or attitude no matter how many facts you present, they are willfully ignorant and willfully stuck in their opinion.  We just have to continue fighting to keep our rights in the courts and tell the anti's to pound sand.

By reminding them that the constitution doesn’t grant permission to own, it forbids the government from infringing.


Also it is a phenomenal home defense rifle with a light bullet that penetrates less drywall than a shotgun or pistol, and if they still disagree with you remind them that in the record setting year of AR sales that was 2020, 70% of those sales went to first time Gun owners. That’s a lot of people who now feel the need to independently defend themselves in uncertain times.

There is no convincing them.

Very short, and hits on some solid concepts:

Watch: NO GUNS FOR NEGROES

What is the impetus for the second amendment? To prepare a nation to fight (and win battles) in armed combat against an enemy.

How do we do that? By writing rules that makes training more difficult for everybody? Or do we foster an environment that facilitates training relevant to the task of the second amendment?


Plenty of people on the (abdication of any personal responsibility) side of the debate choose to ignore that "regulated" means the quality of the marksmanship training (trained to a minimum standard), choosing to instead believe that burdening the militia (unorganized and otherwise) with all manners of excessive (and completely unrelated to the actual act of firing) administrative codes was an effective way to prepare an army to properly load, aim, fire and hit a designated target, using both rifle and pistol, with repeatable accuracy and precision, in order to wage and win wars.


Currently, there really isn't another kind of rifle would better fulfill the intended use of the 2nd amendment but an AR-15/M4 type, and Beretta M9 type pistol, in exactly the configuration, and with all of the accouterments, as used by servicemen in their duties and qualification, and civilian Service Rifle and Pistol competitors at Camp Perry.


Would anyone care to discuss who is constitutionally obligated to perform militia duty, who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia? The various state governors may also call up their state's unorganized militia, as is codified up here in WA, per http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=38.04.030 and http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=38.08.050 ). That makes "all able bodied citizens of the United States and all other able bodied persons who have declared their intention to become citizens of the United States, residing within this state, who shall be more than eighteen years of age..." available to Gov. Inslee for call up "...to perform such military duty as the circumstances may require..."


However, he is only responsible for training and equipping the organized militia, as evidenced by http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=38.20.050


"Under the direction of the governor, the adjutant general shall, at the expense and in the name of the state, buy or lease, establish, equip, maintain and control such small arms ranges and issue such ammunition, transportation and supplies as may be necessary to provide each unit of the organized militia of Washington with adequate means and opportunity for thorough instruction in small arms".


Even if the states had the means to arm every 18 year and older able bodied citizen that could possibly be called up, it would be useless to do so without them (us) receiving adequate training, which won't be possible under the exigent circumstances that would require a call-up of our unorganized militia.


So... we do this on our own.


Any other lawful use that we have for firearms is an ancillary benefit of the natural right of self preservation, and those statutes all utilize that ability, to ensure that we can also respond to threats to our community. Back in 1689, John Locke described the most basic human law of nature being the preservation of mankind. To serve that purpose, he reasoned, individuals have both a right and a duty to preserve their own lives.

"How to fight the misconception ar-15's have no use for a civilians that law abiding peaceable American citizens have to have a use for something in order to own it?"

Have them justify twinkies

If deadly force is justified and required, I would rather have a tool designed to make an unpleasant task easier.

Same logic applies to moving heavy/large items.  I might be able to accomplish the task with a small pickup, but a large box truck or full sized truck designed to make the job easier would be a better choice.  

If deadly force is justified, the item used to apply that force is of no consequence.  IOW, if deadly force is justified, it doesn't matter whether that force is applied by a sword, axe, spear, club, firearm, vehicle, large rock, or a sharpened pencil.  I might be able to defend my home with a single shot 22 rifle, but a magazine fed, semi-automatic rifle of decent power would be a better choice.

We should use them to fight a tyrannical un elected government.

You don't need shoes and socks to stop a mass murderer, but an AR-15 sure helps.

We  need to repeal NFA-1934 and the GCA-1968, period.

Biden trying to put a known killer in 1993's Waco, TX massacre
of 82 people, in charge or the ATF is just plain WRONG!

He needs to pay for his part in that tragedy, behind steel bars.

I like to start out by pointing out that the Armalite platform was designed for civilian use and had to be modified for the military.  I also like to point to other "military style weapons " like the Springfield 1903 and the M1 that no one seems to have issues with the average citizen owning and are far more devastating.

One problem is that for every gun owner for whom it's a lifestyle, there's many times more who DO just buy a gun and then let it sit in the sick drawer or closet, never shoot it because they think it's a magic talisman that will drive the bad guy away just by displaying the gun (St Louis legal couple, for example )...
Another problem is that the percentage of gin owners in the general population is shrinking. Many people don't know anyone who owns a gun..maybe a relative hunts, but that's about it. A century ago when half of the population was still farming, firearms ownership was still much more ubiquitous

Don't be drawn in to the false standard of "need". We are a free people and "want" is the only standard we have to meet.

Why do I need and AR15? Why do you need golf clubs, or a motorcycle, or a large house? You don't, but you want them and you live in a free country so you can have them.

Why do you need a pool in your back yard? Don't you know that drowning is the #2 cause of death of children? Why should your desire for a pool override my children's safety? Statistically, children in our neighborhood are fare more likely to drown in your pool than to be killed with my guns.

Why are your want's more protected or reasonable than mine?

They'll always rationalize and tell you "that's different", but maybe a few will know it's not even if they only admit it to themselves.

I had a guy tell me that you can't kill someone with free speech and a free press. I guess he didn't think about it.

I politely refuse to justify my Constitutionally protected right to Keep and Bear Arms.

Talking isn't going to accomplish anything.  

If you want to do something take someone on the fence about guns out shooting if they are willing. If they are safe with a gun and demonstrate reasonable proficiency set up a couple targets, then ask them to put three centered in each with an AR and a pistol.  Anyone above moron will understand.

OP,,I did this five shot group at 1000 the other day with a bolt gun. I can't do it with any AR. The left can fuck right off. THIS is what you show them and then you tell them to sit down and shut up. Attached File

The founding fathers intended civilians to be armed to prevent the takeover of a tyrannical government, it's not just for war, but it's also a psychological deterrent.  A common misconception is that "people can't fight against tanks and modern aircraft"...just point them to the vietnam war, and then point out that the US government would be even more restricted in a civil war than in the Vietnam war because they couldn't preform napalm without causing major damage to themselves.

"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of tyrants" ~ Thomas Jefferson

I can't copy and paste it here because of a paragraph limit, but look up the second paragraph of the declaration of independence.

How to fight the misconception AR-15s have no use for a civilians...

I don't think there is a simple answer.  The issue of “usefulness” is dangerous.  No matter what uses you can imagine,  none of those uses will matter next to the fear that so many people feel.  

Just contemplating led to a lot of difficult thinking.  I don't have a quick answer and may offend some with my observations.  My apologies.
I've tried to put some of my observations below. My conclusion, the community of gun owners needs to tone down militaristic/SHTF rhetoric,  because we cannot make our favorite tools/toys seem good to those who are genuinely scared. We aren't going to change the minds of activists;  however,  not every non-gun owner is an activist. Many are just scared people who want to live their lives without fear.

First, understand why the Ar15 and guns in general have a negative image in the first place.
-Aggressive attitudes of some pro-gun people
-Bad incidents (think criminal behavior, massacres)
-Focus on freedom over responsibility among some gun owners
-Average person wants to live life without thoughts of self defense or violence
-An aggressive or activist attitude may be perceived as aggressive personality
- Conservative movement linked to racism in the minds of about half of the country. This was out in the open at gun shows in the 1990s (when I stopped attending for a number of years).
-Acts of brandishing (even when the open carry is legal) create distrust of open carry and gun owners
-Confusion over term “assault rifle” or assault weapon, formerly a marketing term then a description for a threatening black gun
-Menacing look (is this a cool factor?)
-Statement “no practical use”

On another track…add to this negative image of guns the widespread attitude in our modern culture concerning duty.  While many gun owners have embraced duty, that is less common in recent generations (just count the veterans).
-Fights over duty to country in 1970s, about draft
-Prevalent attitude in some areas that there need be no obligation to perform a service for one’s country (even non- violent service)
-Service becomes an imposition, counter to enjoying freedom
-Deferments from service (by the children of the well off) or placement into cushy position create double standard and risking life to serve one's country not seen as desirable

My simplistic conclusion is that the modern Americans have the mindset that people can be taken care of in a babysitter society, no danger and no thinking about hard things.

A babysitter society wants complete safety (no danger in life) and does not want to think about defending self.
Such a society sees those keeping old dangerous skills alive as admirable (in those they admire) and/or dangerous/ crazy (in those they don't trust).

Now think about the past 30 years…
Behaviors seen at gun shows in the past such as pushing paranoia (big black helicopters in the 90s, Jewish people claimed to be organizers of the “New World Order”), or a growing  willingness to be confrontational (even the desire for the end of society among survivalists)—these make gun owners ALL seem potentially untrustworthy.  

And January 6 (with guns in the capital building,  traumatized guards committing suicide,  pipe bombs,  flexcuffs, gallows, veterans in their body armor and the Dixie flag in the capital’s corridors) seems justification for scared people to harbor a viewpoint that guns are dangerous and owners of guns potential criminals.

Unless the larger gun world takes accountability for attitudes and behavior and puts a stop to some of the eccentricities,  then I think there isn't any chance in the world of making my black gun seem harmless or useful.

Citizen not civillian.

show them the news. if they won't learn from reality and prefer to live in their bubble, you can't expect them convince them of anything.

unlike the left, the right wing weirdos haven't killed anyone or set any city blocks on fire. yet their marxist beliefs are getting more popular than ever?

want to know why? the left doesn't mind lying, they control the narrative. you can have the best arguments for the 2nd amendment, but what good is that when most of society is too stupid to think critically and instead dependent on the media and establishment to tell them what to believe?

and no guards committed suicide because of a dude in a viking hat lounging around in the capital building. if even pro 2nd amendment people are this easily susceptible to fake news, what hope is there for the the average dum dum who grew up indoctrinated by leftist public school system?

Yet curiously there were no guns waved about or brandished there.  Or even on display.  
Where'd the get "pipe bombs" bit come from??   Sounds like hearsay. Most certainly no bombs were set off, no fires set.
The "gallows" was well away from the capital and was obviously a harmless theatre prop.
No one committed suicide over this.

This was fear mongering and/or lies by the leftist media.  That's the true enemy of the truth.