The AR-15, the Most Wanted Gun in America

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/03/business/the-ar-15-the-most-wanted-gun-in-america.html?_r=0

by OGinparadise • 13 years ago

17 26 13 years ago

compee5• 13 years ago

The question to ask from here (for you US readers) -- why ban american civilians from owning the same types of weapons as the government allows the military to? In the spirit of the constitution it seems as though our founding fathers would have wanted us, the american people, the same rights to own any type of weapon the government has access to^ for reasons of protecting the people against (potential) attacks from our government; if there is an inequality in weaponry available there is an induced inequality of power.

^Fixed typo

stcredzero2• 13 years ago

Also, given that the 2nd amendment puts this in the context of a "well regulated militia," why not put wait list and verification requirements on buyers who come off the street, but also enable gun ownership through state-sponsored (as opposed to federal) militia groups? This way, gun ownership comes in a social/civic context.

angersock• 13 years ago

If I recall correctly, Switzerland require their citizens to retain a service rifle at home.

Something like your proposal would help alleviate many of the civic and political concerns with government regulation and bans on firearms.

carsongross• 13 years ago

Why not kick the whole problem down to where it constitutionally belongs: the states. The constitution is gob-smackingly clear on the issue: the federal government is not to restrict the right to keep and bear arms. It's also clear (but denied, depending on the issue in question, by both the right and the left) that the states can do whatever they damned well please in order to maintain what their people feel is a well trained (that is, "well regulated") militia, from tight restrictions on gun ownership, to allowing automatic weapons.

I dunno, maybe Texas should be free to be Texas, and New York can go ahead and be New York.

If the states just left each other alone, The Big Sort would take care of 99% of these issues. Of course, there isn't much money in that...

OGinparadise2• 13 years ago

why ban american civilians from owning the same types of weapons as the government allows the military to?

Tanks and F16s are a bit too dangerous though :). Even a shotgun will beat an extremely well trained army, provided millions of guerrilla fighters own them. IIRC, the fear was (is) that X Party will pass a law or simply arm their supporters, who would then take over given that Y Party supporters are disarmed. And that the Feds would seek to take away state's rights by force.

Personally I'm not a big fan of disarming the populace. Strange things have happened.

rdtsc3• 13 years ago

> Tanks and F16s are a bit too dangerous though :)

But doesn't not having them mock and basically nullify the whole idea behind 2nd Amendment? It is doubtful that the writers wanted people be able to protect themselves against thieves, wild bears or to be able to hunt. I think few can argue against that the reason was exactly what the grandparent mentioned.

"Arms" in that time's words meant pretty much the same qualitative level of force as what the government possessed. So a 100 militia men vs 100 government soldiers would make for an even match. Unless that parity is preserved the Amendment is pointless pretty much.

Arguing that tanks, F16s, satellites, and nukes are too dangerous kind of mocks the original intent of the law. That is why I don't really see a point in that amendment. It is left there for for who like to worship a piece of paper and follow on with the ritual instead of understanding the meaning of it. Now all these "constitutionally protected" guns are probably used most often for drunk family members to shoot each other, or for kids to sneak in their parents gun cabinet and play with them.

That is why I say 2nd Amendment should be either allowed to be fully used according to its spirit (don't see people allowed to own nukes though) or it should be repealed as it is pretty much pointless at the moment.

jmillikin2• 13 years ago

The second amendment may have originally been intended to protect the population from the federal government, but subsequent advances in weapons technology and military tactics have rendered that protection completely ineffective. At the same time, these advances make it possible for even a single person to inflict incredible harm on a population, harm far beyond what the writers of the constitution could have imagined.

The argument therefore is that widespread possession of particularly dangerous weapons by the general population has no benefit and substantial drawbacks.

Nobody is seriously considering banning ownership of rifles, but it's worth discussing how more stringent requirements on training, registration, and storage could reduce the number of deaths by firearm.

compee5• 13 years ago

I honestly don't see any direct correlation with regards to what you are trying to say. Could you elaborate?

The only reason to have weapons (in a primitive sense) is for killing animals for food and for certain games related to specific types of weaponry (and wars, but why do we want those?). If some individuals feel the need to own a firearm of any kind to protect themselves (or to protect others from the dangerous people out there), then they should be able to buy the weaponry they feel they need/want to protect themselves and the people most important to them.

If it is understood in American culture that anyone around you may be carrying a gun at all times (or perhaps maybe not); it creates good behavior within society through induced paranoia toward people who have a mindset toward committing crimes.

hawkharris• 13 years ago

This recurring suggestion always offends my friends and family members who are serving in the U.S. Armed Forces.

To say that private gun ownership is the only thing preventing a gov't takeover is to imply that the military lacks discipline, judgement and sophistication.

Fortunately, Americans don't need to rely on guns to restrain and exert pressure on their military or their government. As a nation we have chosen a different course, a democratic system of checks and balances that (while certainly flawed) is among the world's most effective.

chii• 13 years ago

how is the millitary going to protect civilians when its their superiors who ask them to slaughter? The armed forces are bound by millitary rules, and i m certain that doesn't include defending one's personal belief.

rdl2• 13 years ago

The amazing thing about the AR is that you can get a stripped lower for $60-80 or so, which is technically "the rifle" for the purposes of regulation -- every other piece is just an unregulated accessory.

For about $10k in business start-up costs and recordkeeping, and either outsourced manufacturing or maybe $100k in machine shop, you can turn $10-15 into $60 (normally) or $150 (now) all day long.

The AR-15, the Most Wanted Gun in America

Related Stories