12 ms·
Ars Technica founder on the AR-15
- erichocean 10y agoAs an aside, I love the Orwellian phrase "assault weapon". Out of curiosity, what would a "non-assault" weapon look like? Is there such a thing?
- DaiPlusPlus 10y agoHandguns.
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- x0ra 10y agoHandguns do not qualify. "Assault" weapon has never been used as in "assaulting" someone, but as in "a squad assaulting an enemy position", implying weapons capable of fully-automatic suppressive fire. Which really is nowhere what civilians can get access... unless you want to spend >$20k on a pre-1986 firearm.
- gozur88 10y agoThere's no such thing as an "assault weapon". That's a media creation by people who don't know anything about guns.
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- nwienert 10y agoBy that same reasoning there's no such thing as anything, as we all define words to be whatever we want them to mean. Semi-automatic or full-automatic + submachine + machine pistols + ... is too much to say. It's a meta-category, which we use all the time to describe things and is incredibly helpful.
- analog31 10y agoIn my view, attacking terminology is a convenient way of making dialogue impossible. I suspect that "assault weapon" may have originated with the gun manufacturers themselves, as a marketing term, or within military / police circles.
- erichocean 10y agohttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_weapon#History_of_terminology https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_weapon#History_of_term... > Prior to its use in U.S. firearms laws, the term "assault weapon" was limited to naming certain military weapons, for example, the Rifleman's Assault Weapon, a grenade launcher developed in 1977 for use with the M16 assault rifle,[19] or the Shoulder-launched Multipurpose Assault Weapon, a rocket launcher introduced in 1984. > In April 1985, Art Agnos introduced in the California State Assembly a bill to ban semi-automatic "assault firearms" capable of using detachable magazines of 20 rounds or more. Speaking to the Assembly Public Safety Committee, Agnos said, "The only use for assault weapons is to shoot people." The measure did not pass when it came up for a vote.
- gozur88 10y agoThe terminology is attacked because people are calling for restrictions when they don't even understand the subject well enough to know what restrictions they're supporting.
- gozur88 10y agoIt's not a "meta category" at all - it's a category based on looks rather than functionality, so the term gives the illusion of a useful description without being much of a useful description. The way the term is used it does not include full-automatic + submachine + machine pistols at all - it just describes semi-automatic rifles that have plastic stocks instead of wood. There's no functional difference between a varmint rifle with a ten round magazine and a wooden stock and an "assault weapon" with a ten round magazine and a plastic stock. That's why gun manufacturers were able to make a few cosmetic changes to turn illegal guns into legal guns the last time we had a (completely useless) "assault weapons" ban. The California "assault weapons" ban was even dumber - they listed models in the ban, making it trivial for manufacturers to sell essentially the same weapons by changing the model number.
- vmorgulis 10y agoBecause you can add a bayonet.
- dragonwriter 10y ago> As an aside, I love the Orwellian phrase "assault weapon". "Assault weapon" (as used here, there are other uses) is a blanket term (adopted specifically in efforts to regulate the class) for a class of weapons that are primarily semiautomatic versions of fully automatic military assault rifles, assault carbines, submachine guns, machine pistols, and combat shotguns; while the exact definitions used in different laws vary they typically are semiautomatic weapons with detachable magazines, pistol grips (whether the weapon is a pistol or not), collapsible or folding stock, and mounting points for accessories like a bayonet, grenade launcher, suppressor, etc.
- tyleo 10y agoThe one thing I can think of is pepper-spray or a taser. I would consider those "defense weapons" rather than "assault weapons". Although, I suppose you can use any weapon either way.
- Gibbon1 10y agoSomething like a lever action Winchester Model 94 is a 'non assault' rifle. http://www.winchesterguns.com/products/rifles/model-94/model-94-inline-catalog-production.html http://www.winchesterguns.com/products/rifles/model-94/model... My impression is generally assault rifles tend to be lighter, shorter and generally less accurate than say a typical hunting rifle. (Rifles types tend to blend into each other the same way different types of hammers do)
- Jhsto 10y agoAll guns are made to kill someone eventually, so sure, every gun is basically an "assault" rifle. However, some languages translate assault weapons into storming weapons, which I think describe this type of guns better. The storming weapons have the hint of the gun being used against a threat in an offensive way, whilst being able to inflict as much damage as conveniently and fast as possible. Therefore, by definition, it even sounds off on a linguistic level to use an storming weapon for hunting or for defense, since deers and whatnot are not real threats. Moreover, when the ammunition is manufactured to pierce kevlar, you can already figure out that you are using the gun for the wrong purpose. As for having a storming weapon for collective purposes sounds to me just as sane as having a collection of bongs and marijuana seeds in a country where recreational marijuana is illegal. It just doesn't sound sane to collect something for the sole purpose of owning them so that you can rub them. I gone to the army and I guess the rubbing effect is also the reason none of the officers let conscripts touch the guns outside of training, so that nobody would get charmed by the gun and it's deadly but rather simple working method. I guess they have figured out that some people get these kinds of mental conditions which make it seem justified to own one. However I do admit getting keen on my own storming weapon and its serial number as well, but at least the officers kept everyone on planet Earth by reminding that just how dangerous the thing is. Pointing an officer with assembled yet unloaded and safety locked gun would end up getting yourself beaten up and carrying the gun outside of training would end in criminal investigation.
- detaro 10y ago"Otherwise please use the original title, unless it is misleading or linkbait." https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
- erichocean 10y agoThe actual title—Why I Need an AR-15—is linkbait, so "thanks" to whoever posted it for giving it a HN-appropriate title.
- jpgvm 10y agoI don't actually think at any point in this article did he really articulate why he "needs" an AR-15. Only that he wants one. Which is perfectly fine. However at the end of the day I don't think peoples wants should trump my -need- to be safe.
- cheez 10y agoUh.. Cars?
- jpgvm 10y agoAre you insinuating that people don't need cars? I don't need a car. But that is because I am wealthy and am able to live very close to my place for work. But there are people that most definitely -need- cars. If anything not needing a car is a luxury (atleast in my country).
- pohl 10y agoEven in the case of mere want there are standards of road-worthiness, classes of licenses, etc.
- ryanackley 10y agoPeople "need" cars because much of western civil infrastructure is built around the assumption that cars or something similar will always be around. I think you could argue that without cars everyone would be better off. Less pollution, people would save money on gas, more public real estate for parks, etc. not to mention less people dying from accidents.
- Archio 10y agoI understand that many politicians are woefully illiterate about what they think are "assault weapons", and I sympathize greatly with how annoying it must be to constantly be accused of being "sexually inadequate" and other ridiculous insults that distract from the real issues. The main problem with this author's argument, as I see it, is that while the AR-15 is very convenient, making it easily accessible for any adults who wants one is not worth the price for society as a whole. That is - would it really be an infringement on the author's rights, if as the author points out, he would need to have 3 separate guns for sporting, hunting, and use of force? When discussing gun control, I often personally consider my own opinions on the proposed banning/legal control over encryption in public debate. Specifically, I wonder whether it is hypocritical to want to limit the sale and use semi-automatic weapons, while simultaneously arguing that encryption must be fully legal and "everyone shouldn't be punished for a few bad apples". My conclusion is usually that banning/compromising encryption would fundamentally destroy the security and privacy of critical software for everyone on a massive scale. However, I don't think the impact would be nearly as severe for gun owners that might need to pass a few ID checks and own several weapons if needed for different uses. So my question is, to gun owners that support existing laws regarding semi-automatic weapons like the AR-15- would limiting its sale really be really as devastatingly harmful to society at large (as to warrant those existing laws)?
- ppod 10y ago>So my question is, to gun owners that support existing laws regarding semi-automatic weapons like the AR-15- would limiting its sale really be really as devastatingly harmful to society at large? The core of this issue, like so many political issues, is fear and selfishness versus hope and love. These people do not want to inconvenience their hobby to make society safer. I would feel safer if I carried a gun everywhere. I think that I am more responsible than most people, and that I would never use it in anger. But I know that most people think that they are smarter and more responsible than they really are, and that if everyone carried a gun communities would not be safer. Choosing to be unarmed for the benefit of society is true bravery.
- 8note 10y ago
- ppod 10y agoI love how this is twenty paragraphs of narcissistic libertarianism followed with a conclusion that hints at "shooter control" through "network effects", which is some truly Orwellian language for government targeting of citizens based on their religious, social or political affiliations.
- jonstokes 10y agoAnd I love this ignorant response, because I (the author) voted for a socialist in the Dem primary, and my "network effects"-based shooter control scheme is decentralized and designed to appeal to libertarians.
- paloaltokid 10y agoI came away from this article feeling like I had a better understanding of why the AR-15 is such a popular weapon - considered configurable, reliable, etc. The historical argument about buying military-grade weapons because it's known to be reliable _because it has to be_ made sense to me as well. However, I didn't feel like I understood why he needed that gun. Is he a hunter? Does he own his AR-15 for self-defense? As far as I could tell, the reason he wanted the rifle is because it's considered "cool" and he makes it clear that he views it as somewhat of a toy. Calling the AR-15 "a Lego kit for adults" made my stomach turn, but I understand where he's coming from. EDIT: a commenter below mentions that the author lives on a 17-acre farm and owns a gun to take care of animals that invade, as well as for recreational shooting. What's missing from this article is a discussion of why so many guys feel like they need to own such a weapon (and usually more than one) in the first place. If you're a hunter, survivalist, preparing for the zombie apocalypse, fine, yes, you need a weapon. That's understandable. But it seems disingenuous for the author to write such a long post without including a critique of the way the AR-15 is marketed. A common ad I've seen posted is just a picture of the rifle with the caption: "consider your man card reissued". Call me insensitive, but the person who gets fired up by that ad is not someone I want to see owning a rifle. Or any kind of weapon for that matter. Our definition of what it means to be "a real man" needs a deep and thorough re-evaluation.
- 8note 10y agoReliable because it has to be is also a strong argument that what he's doing with his guns doesn't need that level of reliability. if that level of reliability was needed, non military grade guns would have it.
- picklesman 10y agoYes this. I was also uncomfortably aware of the transparent appeals to the engineer's sensibility ("open source", modularity, geeking out on youtube, using adverbs like "exquisitely", "lego-blocks" etc). I found it somewhat sneaky, and in no way whatsoever did it translate to need. We are not talking about a car or a musical instrument, we are talking about an instrument of death. Necessary for certain tasks? yes. Something all civilians should have access to? no. As a musician, "gear-head"ism always struck me as kind of sad, a rabbit hole that has almost nothing to do with where music comes from. Ultimately harmless, though. This kind of fetishization, on the other hand, frankly disgusts me.
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- robbiep 10y agoHow depressing
- simplexion 10y ago“What I am not for are bullshit arguments and lies. ‘Fuck off, I like guns.’ It’s not the best argument. But it’s all you’ve got.” ~Jim Jeffries
- ryanmarsh 10y agoFor a time I was paid by the US gov't to use the AR-15 for its original purpose. I was well trained and used it very effectively. Later I was trained to smith it as well. It fucking terrifies me that so many of you people have one. It's a tough position for me to be in. I support the 2nd amendment but I don't think you folks should have access to this sort of weapon of war. There are plenty of options that provide the utility of home defense, plinking, target practice, and hunting without having a 30 ROUND FUCKING MAG. In a military context we wouldn't call the AR-15 a "mass casualty producing weapon" because there are relatively higher caliber, faster cycling, higher capacity, man portable weapons. However in the civilian context the AR-15 is most definitely a "mass casualty producing weapon" and should not be easily obtained.
- paloaltokid 10y agoIf you're willing and it's not too personal, would you share more about your experiences using the AR-15? My father was in the military and I only ever saw his service weapon once. If it was present in our home growing up, I never knew. I mention this because I find that getting the perspective of people who have actually had to employ weapons for their original purpose adds a lot of richness to these discussions. Thanks in advance for sharing.
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- diek 10y agoJust out of curiosity, where would you draw the line? Mini-14? Shotgun? SKS? Is it a capacity issue? caliber? detachable magazine? or a combination?
- noonespecial 10y agoHere's a gun right that I'd like. I'd like the right to restrict one other person from being able to obtain a weapon. Even at the cost of my own right to do so. Like an anti-concealed-carry. A huge amount of times the people surrounding these nut-jobs seem to know in advance that they're trouble. If every person had the ability to give up their own right to bear in exchange for preventing one other person from doing the same I think it would make a difference. Think of it as virtualizing the shootout between the two, each neutralizing the other. Or perhaps a "credit" system where endorsements vs anti-endorsements must be positive? (You'd start with +1 for your own endorsement of yourself). Difficult to implement to be sure but interesting idea?
- erichocean 10y agoThat's somewhat what the author was suggesting when he mentioned "network effects" near the end of the article. And you're right: by focusing on shooters—not weapons—the quote-unquote problem of rifles like that AR-15 being available to the general public becomes a lot more tractable.
- nl 10y agoSo I'm no gun person (I don't even live in the US), but I know a little bit and have shot some. This post has as much misinformation as anything else you'll read about gun. 1) The Henry rifle thing. During the Civil War period and up until WW2, military rifles and hunting rifles were basically designed with the same goal: shooting and hitting things at range. During WW2 people noticed that most person to person combat was actually at close range, and rifles were mostly used for suppression fire. Rifles like the AR-15 were designed for this close range combat scenario - which is exactly like most mass shootings. Yes, you can use an AR-15 for hunting - they are pretty good at killing things, but that doesn't make it a hunting rifle. 2) He's right about the "defensive rifle" nonsense. Is that even a thing people talk about? 3) He's right about the impossibility of defining "Assault Weapons" (although maybe restricting large capacity magazines isn't entirely stupid). His suggestion (?) about banning semi-automatic weapons seems reasonable to me.
- jonstokes 10y agoI think you're probably a reasonable guy, and you've gotten your wires crossed, so please go back and read the article again, because nothing in the following paragraph is a response to anything I claimed in the piece or actually think: "The Henry rifle thing. During the Civil War period and up until WW2, military rifles and hunting rifles were basically designed with the same goal: shooting and hitting things at range. During WW2 people noticed that most person to person combat was actually at close range, and rifles were mostly used for suppression fire. Rifles like the AR-15 were designed for this close range combat scenario - which is exactly like most mass shootings. Yes, you can use an AR-15 for hunting - they are pretty good at killing things, but that doesn't make it a hunting rifle."
- nl 10y agoI think it does. Your argument is that the AR-15 is the modern equivalent to the Henry rifle, which is true. But modern combat rifles are designed for different goals (killing quickly at close range), which isn't the use case for hunting. You argue that police use makes it legitimate, but this is exactly wrong: police use it for the same reason the military do: killing quickly at close range. Yes, the modularity of the AR-15 means you can adapt to to do other things. That isn't a strength from the point of view of stopping mass killings though.
- ufmace 10y agoOn the question of “why is there no moderate alternative to the NRA that attracts middle-of-the-road gun owners?”, what a lot of people who aren't involved in the community don't understand is that the NRA is the moderate alternative group. The more extremist groups include Gun Owners of America (https://gunowners.org/ https://gunowners.org/), Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership (http://jpfo.org/ http://jpfo.org/), National Association for Gun Rights (https://www.nationalgunrights.org/ https://www.nationalgunrights.org/), and Citizen's Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms (http://www.ccrkba.org/ http://www.ccrkba.org/), among many others at the national and state level. Last I checked, all of these smaller gun rights groups still have bigger membership rolls than the biggest anti-rights groups.
- ScaryRacoon 10y agoThe debate isn't just about the AR-15, but since the AR-15 is "America's Gun", it just happens to get the spotlight. The debate is about all military-grade civilian issue long semi-automatic rifles. The debate is about if the potential damage such a weapon can cause in the wrong hands is enough to justify an outright ban (or severe restriction on sales). It was a well written piece and very informative, but I think it missed what the on-going debate is really about.
- magice 10y agoWell, this article actually makes me glad to not read Ars Technica for a while, and may actively prevent me from ever reading that thing again. Here is how every single article on this topic of this particular author goes: there is a (quite minor, in fact) challenge, therefore we should abandon ever trying to regulate guns. Let's start with this particular piece. Sure sure, it's quite hard to differentiate between assault weapons and "defensive weapons" and "recreational weapons." But that is MISSING THE POINT! The point is NOT that all weapons can kill. The point is: how the hell do we allow self-defense and recreational fun without endangering the society at large? However, instead of this, his argument is: hey, all weapons are dangerous, so let's just allow him (decent guy, no?) to own nuclear weapons. It's, you know, defensive. Return to the stupid argument. Yes, there is a large difference between offensive and defensive weapons. For example, caliber. Offensive seeks to destroy, so the more power, the better; defensive seeks to disable while (let's face it) retreating, so not so much power required. Or, perhaps smaller magazine size; in hunting and defending, you don't need to spray, so replacing magazine is not that bad; while you are terrorizing, the break is awesome for your victims, obviously. As you see, there are ways to differentiate, to make hunting/recreation safe. But no. Our dear, dear author wants none of that. Because the mechanism is so reliable, he wants like the exact same power as the guns used in battle. Because it's hard to differentiate, his solution is to let innocent people die. Because it's like a fraction more convenient, well, again, who cares about those strangers, right? Similarly, I tried (very hard) to be open minded and read his articles on smart guns. Same kind of arguments. Oh, it's not 100% reliable, so no, it should be banned, because, omg, what if I am forced to use it. You know, in decision making books that I worked through, there is a term for all of t these "reasons." They are called "excuses." You don't want something because, I don't know, the sizes of your hands, so you make up excuses. Oh, it's not 100% reliable. Oh, the government is taking over the world. Oh, politicians are treating me like idiots. Therefore, those bastards can die so I can get that thing.
- ufmace 10y agoWhere did you get your information on offense vs defense? It bears no relation to anything I've ever read or had training in, and has the complete opposite recommendations. What makes you think that offense seeks to destroy, or that defensive seeks to disable? If anything, defense needs more power, not less. The key difference is that the attacker can choose the time and place of the attack, and so can either find a time and place that works with whatever amount of power they have available (note the tendency for mass shootings to only happen in "gun free zones"), or call off the attack. Defenders do not know when they will be attacked, and so they need as much power as possible to compensate for possibly being outnumbered or caught in a disadvantageous place. That's why defenders need bigger magazines and more effective ammunition. But both ultimately seek to control, not to destroy or disable. Once you have control, destruction is easy. And if the opponent has a firearm too, then there isn't much practical difference between disable and kill.
- VLM 10y agoI love this line: "You can go back to broadcasting your own moral superiority on social media, and I can go back to tuning you out until your rage therapy session is over." Preaching on social media is so 2007, so tired and so done.
- brudgers 10y agoMy take on the AR-15: The Plaza Theater where Christina Grimmie was shot last week is less than a mile from where I went to Junior High. I saw the Friday the 13th there on a group date the last day of ninth grade. My sister and brother in law drum and dance there on stage from time to time with their friends and community. The building where the other hundred odd people were shot last week used to be an Italian restaurant. the closest to the house where I grew up. I ate in that building more than a few times...both buildings I guess if concessions count. My mom is pushing 80. She was out walking the dog Sunday morning. She asked a neighbor if they knew what all the helicopters were doing. I'm an alum of the high school a half mile down Kaley Ave from Pulse. Sneaking into Pulse is something its current LGBT students try to do. Some are friends of my nieces and nephews. Some were taught by my sister. The carnage touched a lot of people I know. That's what I'm thinking about. Tonight, I don't give a fuck about your gun. It's probably a difference in priorities.
- mimo777 10y agohttps://www.nranews.com/home/video/dom-raso-the-ar-15-americans-best-defense-against-terror-and-crime/list/dom-raso https://www.nranews.com/home/video/dom-raso-the-ar-15-americ...
- hackuser 10y agoIf, for you, my AR-15 ownership is prima facie evidence of my mental instability, sexual inadequacy, lack of a conscience, or what-have-you then I honestly don’t care what you think about this issue. You can go back to broadcasting your own moral superiority on social media, and I can go back to tuning you out until your rage therapy session is over. He creates strawman critics to ridicule and rant against, which also will dissuade anyone he disagrees with from reading on and will inflame all sides, but he also claims to want reasonable, open-minded discussion. Another missed opportunity to discuss something reasonably and bring people together. If that was really his intent, it's hard to believe a professional journalist - a professional communicator - would choose the words above. I hope it works out better than that but I don't have unlimited time to read everything.
- ufmace 10y agoIf you think anti-gun-rights advocates attributing gun ownership to "mental instability, sexual inadequacy, lack of a conscience, or what-have-you " is a strawman, you might like to read this link: http://blog.joehuffman.org/category/markley-s-law/ http://blog.joehuffman.org/category/markley-s-law/ It's a blog category of hundreds of posts of Twitter users stating just that, usually in rather crude terms. Or just read this thread. For some reason, anti-gun-rights people seem to love to talk about how to take people's guns, and then call gun owners paranoid for thinking that people want to take their guns.
- hackuser 10y ago> It's a blog category of hundreds of posts of Twitter users stating just that, usually in rather crude terms. You can find hundreds of Twitter posts saying just about anything; we could justify any behavior on that basis. > Or just read this thread. I skimmed and read a large part of this discussion, and I don't see any comments of that sort. Maybe there are some but there can't be very many.
- jonstokes 10y agoYeah dude, you obviously haven't seen the latest Samantha Bee rant that has been shared all over my feeds as OMG SMACKDOWN. It has it all, including the penis size stuff.
- thehoff 10y agoI liked the article and have more of an appreciation for those that enjoy guns. For myself I never understood why people would need or want anything more than a small pistol, which this opened my eyes to the other side. But serious question (and apologies if I missed it), what is wrong with making it harder to buy a gun? Is it true that I could go to a gun show and pretty much walk out with one that same day? What is wrong with just having a more stringent background check and/or classes before one can own a gun? (This may be the case in some states).
- erichocean 10y ago> But serious question (and apologies if I missed it), what is wrong with making it harder to buy a gun? I assume it's because it's a) in the Bill of Rights, and thus "not up for discussion—period", and b) historically, governments have disarmed their populace as a prelude to mass murder of dissidents.
- erichocean 10y agoThis article is absolutely appropriate for HN, had an active, engaged, and non-hostile comment section, and SHOULD NOT have been banned/flagged as inappropriate. We are all worse off because it was. I strongly suspect that those hitting the "flag" button did so on ideological grounds, in order to shut down discussion they did not approve of.
- brudgers 10y agoI didn't flag it and I am participating in it and I don't think it's a good Hacker News discussion. Gun control, assault rifles, the AR15, etc. are all topics covered by the US mainstream media. I've seen them regularly since Hinkley shot Reagan and James Brady became a high profile casualty. I'm too young to know much about how it was before that. Maybe two weeks ago, it might have been a "better" story. Today, it's not unreasonable to read it as someone's reaction to the events in Orlando and to judge a love song to the firearm used there in poor taste. Even if that was not the author's intention.
- arca_vorago 10y agoctrl+f constitution ... nothing, on either the article or on HN. You simply can't have a proper discussion about this without talking about the constitution. Look, first, we need to back up a second and before we get caught up in every persons minute question about detail this or reason that, and look at the bigger picture. I have some British friends (classically anti-gun) who have responded well to the following discussion flow on the issue. First, we must establish that you, the reader, understand the hierarchy of law. That is, first, we are talking about America, and in America the Constitution is the supreme law of the land. This is a very important distinction, especially for those citizens living under monarchies or thinly veiled monarchies such as the British and various Europeans. The constitution was not established to grant rights, rather it was intended to secure individual natural rights, under natural law. The American Revolution, the Glorious Revolution, and the French Revolution all had their basis in natural law and rights. Natural law and rights existed before any state, and transcend any state. There is no perfect list of natural rights, but there are some commonly accepted ones. John Locke called the right to self defense the first law of nature. Each and every individual has a right to defend themselves or their loved ones, and their property (I will ignore the large rabbit hole waiting for those who want to discuss how close property law is to natural liberty). If you punch me, I will defend myself. If you try to hit me with a rock, I will defend myself. If you try to strike at me with a sword, I will defend myself. If you shoot at me with a gun, I will defend myself. While the technology has changed, the principle has not. The bottom line is I have a right to self defense, and in a world where true defense means owning a firearm, I have a right to own a firearm. Now usually I get quite a bit of push back even on this point, and granted there is a lot of nuance to be had in the debate. What about nuclear weapons, etc... a discussion worth having but far too easily used to distract from the core issue(s). So as this point becomes tangled in confusion, I usually stop and move to the next point. All of that aside, the second amendment of the constitution is intended as a defense against tyranny. This is not about individual or family self-defense. The second amendment is primarily about the ability of the people, from whom the government gains it's legitimacy, to defend itself from a government gone rogue, tyrannical, or despotic. These two primary reasons, self-defense as a natural right and defense against tyranny as a natural right and constitutionally protected (not established) right, are why I don't have to answer such bullshit questions as "Why do you need a $scarysoundingweapon?" I have my suggestions about the need for increased training, and concerns about the lack of respect for firearms, but they distract from the core discussion we need to be having. I'm a combat vet, and perhaps I am just too cynical because I have seen too much of the worlds dark underbelly, but these rights are very real to me, and while Americans are cozy, coddled, and lazy today, with a turn-key totalitarian state being put in place, centralized and monarchistic globalism on the rise, growing inequality, and increasingly startling revelation of lack of the rule of law, I have a feeling people are going to need to relearn the martial arts quicker than they are prepared for. As a side note, there are some key conditions and justifications for deadly force I think more civilians should know, even if they don't all apply to them: 3 Conditions 1.Extreme necessity 2.Last Resort 3.When all other means have failed or cannot reasonably be employed. 7 Circumstances 1.In defense of property involving national security 2.In defense of property not involving national security but inherently dangerous to others. 3.Self-defense and defense of others. 4.To prevent or interrupt serious offense against persons 5.Last Resort 6. Escape 7. Arrest or Apprehension