6 LIES about the AR-15 told by each side

What weapons do you believe should be permitted for private ownership?
Take this anonymous survey to find out: https://forms.gle/THnibshYnwD7UH4x8

Greatest info video I've seen in a long time

I have to disagree with the last one. Yes I agree machine guns are not illegal. However in my state they are illegal. Even if you go thru and get the nfa license ship NYS dose not allow any NFA items to be owned except by law enforcement. So yes in my state machine guns are illegal to own.

This video needs a lot more views!

Interesting wiffle/waffle. Suppose we simply accelerate arguing within our group. IMO, that's the Main Objective of Anti-gunners. Two observations. 1. The MAJORITY of all civilizations, since beginning of time, is the result of decay within itself. 2. Only Survivors write history.

This video showed up on my home page, so I decided to watch it with the intent of it being a pro-left video. Boy, was I surprised. Your video was very informative and made me rethink a few things. Keep up the great work.

The AR in AR -15 means American Rifle or Ask Rittenhouse… LOL.. but any how, I very much believe that they want to remove this firearm because it is a symbol. A symbol of democracy, freedom, and America.

The other important part of 2A is "Well Regulated Milita" (regulation did not mean how cars were regulated, but military drilling) & Militias were how small towns were able to enforce the law before modern policing. It is a SOCIAL question, not a technical or political one.

AR – 15s are assault rifles just like AK gas tubes are gas tubes and silencers are silencers. (Fighting Rifle!)

You just got a new subscriber. Great 👍🏼 video 🤜🤛👌👌👌👌👍🏼👍🏼

Fear mongering in 4, 3, 2, 1…

8:08 "X is already illegal" and "X is already an infringement of 2A rights" … so one unconstitutional law justifies more unconstitutional law? The argument itself lacks logic. One harm, injustice, and deprivation of rights does not justify more of the same.

Bravo

"Machine guns" made after 1986 are illegal. There are so little "machine guns" in circulation that they might as well be

I haven't looked at the statistics but I'd like to know how many shootings are committed by lawful gun owners 🤔
Also, the new fad that ARs are excellent for home defense is dangerous. Especially if you live in a neighborhood or apartment complex.

What's a 30 magazine clip look like!?

Sweetie people like YOU are a bigger problem. The US Constitution does NOT grant you the right to promote ASSAULT RIFLES

I really love hearing a pro 2nd Amendment YouTuber that isn’t completely off their rocker. As in most cases, the truth lies so,where in between the two sides arguing. One thing I would say about claiming that there is no real difference between the M16 or an AR15, is indeed the fact that a M16 can be used in full auto. And I say this because most of the time an anti gun politician is claiming that AR15 are exactly like M16 is in the rate of fire. How many times have they rushed to the podium claiming that this evil black rifle can fire the whole clip (yes, I know it is a magazine but they never seem to get that part right either) in just a few seconds. Yes, the rounds are just as deadly and a well manufactured AR15 could definitely be used in combat, but the anti gun guys always push the rate of fire.

Another thing that I think the pro gun side lies about, or misleads, is that guns are only a tool and people can kill with just about anything. This is true, but guns were invented to kill. They weren’t invented to go shoot targets (an argument that some use when trying to defend having guns, saying they only shoot targets) guns were invented to kill. And it was to kill during war, the fact that you could hunt with it was just happenstance. How long do you think it would have taken to invent a firearm if the only intention was to hunt?

So that brings me back to the argument that guns are only a tool. Taking away hunting and target shooting, what else can a gun be used for? A knife can kill, but it can also sharpen sticks, dress out animals, cut your food, cut rope/twine/vines/hides/fabric, carve, and even shave. A hammer can kill, but it also can drive a stake, drive a nail, break rocks, and persuade stuck objects from being stuck. The same can be said about rocks, baseball bats, pointy sticks, and many other “tools”. But the excuse that if there wasn’t guns, people would use something else is not accurate at all. A gun makes it much easier for one person to inflict harm, and possibly kill, more people than a knife. One person charging into a crowd with a knife would soon be subdued by others. And with a close in weapon, it is much harder to attack fleeing victims. Guns are indeed much more lethal than practically any other “tool” that a person could, but that doesn’t mean that more people are killed by guns (that is the other misleading argument given by the pro gun side). Most murders/attempted murders are not premeditated, most are reactions of the moment in which the killer uses what ever they can find. That doesn’t take away from the fact that guns are very lethal and are a weapon of war, as you stated. And as you also stated, that is exactly the reason guns need to be protected under the 2nd Amendment. Fighting tyranny with a knife or a hammer isn’t very successful, we must have the correct “tool” to do so.

Exactly the 2nd Amendment protec5 specifically weapons of war. If the Russians China or the globalists invade or our own government decides to put you in "covid camps" which rifle are going to grab?

Ukraine used to have strategic bombers and cruise missiles, sold to Russia for energy credit years ago. If they still had that hardware, Russia probably wouldn't have attacked them.
When Democrats talk about limiting gun rights, I'll be using that as an example of why never ever ever to give up your guns, especially America's rifle, the AR 15. A society without guns turns into Australia, land of a disarmed populace and forced lockouts and law enforcement that have turned into goon squads.

And, what weapons should u.s. citizens be 'allowed' to have? Well, right now one can own suppressors and full auto weapons after paying a tax and approval after filling out an ATF form. We can also own tanks with functional main guns with enough paperwork. It just takes money. I think that portion of the system is working OK. Although paperwork doesn't stop criminals intent on illegal weapons.

I don't think that AR-15s should be banned but I watched the entire video that the Christchurch Mosque Killer shot and watched as he quickly and efficiently killed all fifty of the people in the building before walking out and heading for another Mosque. Everything Beto O'Rourke said about ARs is correct. Your can mow down people like so many weeds with the things. Those poor people in the Mosque hardly even said anything as the guy went bang, bang, bang almost like a machine gun and the bodies fell into each other and formed into piles…

The truth is like poetry. Most people hate poetry. Weapon of war. You missed telling the most devestating weapon of war throughout human history. Humans. All that junk on the table infront of you will rust unless someone takes care of it and uses it. We are own worst enemy

Concise and eloquently put! You have a new subscriber.

Instead of the government terrorising you everyone can terrorise each other. Brilliant.

Fair points, further proving it's not an easy argument for us. And to add to what constitutes a "weapon of war", any firearm with a military variant would qualify. Mossberg and Benelli shotguns, several bolt action models, handguns especially the M9, 1911 and the Glock. Even going further back into historical arms.

lie number 4. told by host. "gun crimes" they are not gun crimes, they are crimes and the tool is a gun. nothing more. as long as you're getting particular you should remember that distinction.

Another fallacy the left tries to play on is; "why do you NEED an AR15?". The correct response is "I reject the premise", nowhere does it say that I am required to justify possession. Don't fall into this trap.

Very good points on both sides. But the most important thing is like you said. The 2nd amendment doesn’t have anything to do with hunting. Many times we hear they don’t want your hunting rifle.

I remember an few years or 2 years ago? on another channel. There was this…"typical boomer hunter collector Fudd" saying the same shit we all heard of…"I support the 2A. I been an NRA member since I was 18. Nobody needs an AR15 or AK47. Those are weapons of war!". I decided to engage with him in the comment. I decided to explain the history of the AR15, how it become an sporting rifle and how it became the M16. I proceed to explain to him about 1934, 68, 86 and the gun laws". He still proceed to say,"Those are weapons of war! You don't need 30 rounds to hunt. .223 is just an 22 LR on steroids", he proceed to brag about his milsurp collection, single action revolvers and keep yapping Fuddlore nonsense. I was like.."Know what? All the guns you bragged at me. Those were all used by the military or military around the world at some point, or the platforms of those guns has been used and some poor countries are still using M1 Grand. So this means YOU'RE USING WEAPONS OF WAR TOO. Stupid Fudd". He proceed to call me an,"Liberal snowflake" and told me to stick with Call of Duty. 😂

You forgot to mention full semi ar14's😬

An additional observation about the "weapon of war" definition, can you name any firearm or firearm action that has never been used in a war? Shotgun? Used in WW1. Bolt action? Invented for war. Maybe the 22 rimfire, it was designed as a "parlor gun" for indoor practice? Nope, used in covert ops and Chechen war against Russia….

Technical correction… Machine guns not registered before or were manufactured after May 1986 are illegal for civilians to own. So effectively, because of available supply, only the wealthiest can legally own a machine gun.

No nonsense/disingenuous arguments, truthful and to the point. I love it when pro 2nd amendment content is just upfront and honest. We shouldn't have to lie or be disingenuous to preserve our rights.

Not bad, but the zoom in and out could make someone seasick

The difference is the M-16 has a standard it is built to. The AR15 has no standard and varies wildly to a quality much under the military grade of materials to much higher than the military standard. Just because a $300 rifle is labeled an AR-15 does not make it a battlefield ready piece of equipment. And regardless of political ideology, anyone stepping into battle with a semi auto rifle facing against full auto firearms is a fool. Also why it hasn't happened with US troops. It's why we chose M-16 and it's select fire variants.

Excellent job sir!