AR-15s Aren’t Viable For Home Defense
BY Herschel Smith
5 years, 6 months ago
In case you’re an idiot and were wondering.
Two Senate Democrats falsely claimed Monday that the AR-15 is not used for hunting and isn’t “viable for home protection” in a tweet promoting gun control proposals.
Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D., Calif.) and Sen. Chris Murphy (D., Conn.) penned an op-ed in TIME calling for the banning of AR-15s and similar assault weapons.
“Guns like the AR-15 aren’t used for hunting and they’re not viable for home protection. They have only one purpose, and that’s to fire as many rounds as possible, as quickly as possible,” they wrote. “Outlawing these weapons, an action supported by 60 percent of Americans, will bring down the number of mass shootings and reduce the number of casualties, just as it did when the ban first passed in 1994.”
However, the AR-15, the most popular rifle in America, is used for hunting and home defense. MRC-TV noted a poll showing more than 25 percent of hunters reported using the rifle to hunt big game. In addition, the rifle is popular for home defense given its light weight and limited recoil, making it easier for owners to handle.
It’s only good for shooting at multiple home invaders, and managing recoil while regaining sight picture quickly, and ease of handing, and so on, and cops use them all the time, but they are no good.
Every day is opposite day, I guess. I feel like I’m listening to a child explain calculus.
On June 25, 2019 at 4:32 am, Bill said:
“Outlawing these weapons, an action supported by 60 percent of Americans, will bring down the number of mass shootings and reduce the number of casualties, just as it did when the ban first passed in 1994.”
Demonstrably wrong.
On June 25, 2019 at 7:43 am, xmaddad1 said:
Are these senators willing to make it illegal for ANYONE to have these ‘assault weapons’ or is this to be only for the ‘little people’ and have no effect on their bodyguards and the ‘only ones’ with ‘shiny badges’? How has this worked out so far in ‘New York’, ‘Commiefornia’, ‘Connected cut’, and New zeland? As was said about another of these ‘laws?’ Make sure you send well armed batchelors for collection.
On June 25, 2019 at 8:22 am, ragman said:
They will not stop until total confiscation is attempted. AR15s are perceived as the primary threat by the communists for all of the reasons the Captain spoke of. Yes, they have low recoil, are easy to learn to shoot and there are millions of them in the hands of Americans. ARs are only the beginning. The commie dog and pony show really gets cranked up later this week and I expect calls for total confiscation will be the tactic espoused by all 25(or is it 50?) communist candidates.
On June 25, 2019 at 9:05 am, June J said:
They’ll say “AR15’s” when they are posturing and pontificating for the cameras, but when it’s time to write legislation it will be ALL semi-auto rifles regardless of their characteristics and appearance.
On June 25, 2019 at 9:15 am, revjen45 said:
“They’ll say “AR15’s” when they are posturing and pontificating for the cameras, but when it’s time to write legislation it will be ALL semi-auto rifles regardless of their characteristics and appearance.”
Prop 1639 in WA State is proof of that.
It’s no coincidence that the party that tried to nullify the election of 2016 by means of treason, sedition, usurpation, mendacity, and corruption wants our guns.
When Kamala “Kneepads” Harris says the fact that she owns guns indicates support for 2A, it means she thinks she and the elite have that right. We The Peons? Not so much.
On June 25, 2019 at 9:41 am, MTHead said:
Well DI. Kit up, and get after it! All the police are waiting for is the “gun owner”, “shot on sight” order from you! And all those bad guns will disappear. And the world will be all safe again.
On June 25, 2019 at 9:54 am, Dov Sar said:
I used to hunt with one on horseback. Very handy; also intimidates the owners of multiple pit bulls who let their dogs chase hunters on horseback. I’ve heard they are also good for hunting lawless politicians, just like muskets were back in the day.
On June 25, 2019 at 12:21 pm, moe mensale said:
“…and cops use them all the time…”
@Herschel,
No. Cops don’t use AR-15s. They use “patrol rifles.”
On June 25, 2019 at 1:55 pm, Jack Crabb said:
“Guns like the AR-15 aren’t used for hunting and they’re not viable for home protection. They have only one purpose, and that’s to fire as many rounds as possible, as quickly as possible,”
Wow. All pretenses are off. Not a single shred of truth in the above two sentences.
Lieberals are now telling you what will happen when they return to all 3 branches of government.
On June 25, 2019 at 3:26 pm, George said:
Not viable for home protection? Really. I guess we need M-240s then.
On June 26, 2019 at 4:04 am, Duke Norfolk said:
(((She))) of course is lying. It’s what they do. They are of their father, who was a murderer from the beginning. They call evil good, and good evil. No surprise.
On June 26, 2019 at 12:41 pm, Georgiaboy61 said:
The Leftist gun-banners betray their lies from the very start. If AR-pattern rifles are “ineffective” and “not viable” for home defense, then why are the would-be tyrants spending so much time and effort trying to remove them from the hands of ordinary citizens? Moreover, if one examines the weaponry carried by the protective details of politicians like Dianne Feinstein and Chris Murphy, one finds a preponderance of AR-pattern carbines and SBRs. The U.S. Secret Service wouldn’t arm themselves with ineffective weapons, would they?
Question: “How do you tell when a politician is lying?” Answer: “His lips are moving…” – this folk saying has never been more-true than in the case of pathological liars like Feinstein and her gun-grabbing colleagues. The term “hypocrisy” does not even begin to do them justice.
On June 27, 2019 at 12:23 pm, Sanders said:
Not viable for home protection? Okay, but claymore mines – now that’s viable protection!
I mean, really, politicians – is there anything they do not know?