Home | About | Donate

“Why I Won't Give Up My AR15” . . . And Why You Should

“Why I Won't Give Up My AR15” . . . And Why You Should

Camillo Mac Bica

After so many incidents of unconscionable slaughter in schools, churches, at concerts, etc., perpetrated by deranged individuals “legally” armed with an AR 15, (according to the Guardian, there have been 1,624 mass shootings in 1,870 days), one would expect that reasonable people would agree that it is time, probably long past time, to enact common sense gun control legislation requiring such measures as background checks, a ban on “bump stocks,” a minimum age for purchasing a we


Yes on all counts.


So many of the machismo aspirants toting AR 15s and the like play the “I need it for defense” card at every turn. Machismo or cowardice, which is it going to be? Cognitive dissonance anyone?


Excellent rebuttal of most of the inane excuses used by gun-nuts to keep their assault rifles. I would add one more - an AR-15 is not going to make your penis any bigger, no matter how many you own, or how many times you fire it. Just learn to live with that.


The author, as a trained infantryman (as all Marines are) could have further made his point about 50 cal machine guns, in the last paragraph. Though not as intense as basic marine training , US Army Infantry training schooled me, as an individual and as part of a fighting unit, to take out that damned automatic weapon first. Conversely, as part of an automatic gun crew we were made to understand that our life expectancy was probably very limited.


Yes. Let’s ban the AR-15 and other weapons of war, and then work to dismantle the military.


Well spoken.

Thank you.

1 Like

The last statement was the most important, you cannot protect yourself against the mightiest military in the world.

Not mentioned and wasn’t a target is the mentality ill. Majority of people are sane until they get so depressed from lack of opportunity, oppression, sometimes just life that they are sane one moment and hit a breaking point and wham they are not sane.


Against a government with a standing army of 1.4 million that spends over $700 Billion annually on sophisticated high tech weapons of war, you haven’t got a chance in hell.

If that is the case, why can’t the US military take out a bunch of rag tag guys in tennis shoes with AK-47s? We’ve been in Afghanistan for how many years and have failed to win? Iraq? Syria? Did the multi-billion dollar US military win in Vietnam?


Probably a good idea to start taking military weapons and equipment out of the hands off local law enforcement first. Addressing the issues of the military and war is a whole other ballgame that has to be done, but probably in a different way.


The 2nd Amendment is destroying our right to Life, Liberty & the Pursuit of Happiness.


Here’s the one I’ve been waiting for, from someone who wants to bring never-ending guerilla war to Pleasant Valley, USA, and is prepared to suffer the same casualties as the civilian populations in Iraq, Afghanistan and Syria, not to mention Vietnam, just for the “right” to have guns that no one in a civilized country needs for anything.

Are you really so sure of your movie-inspired heroics that you think that you’ll still be here fighting after 20 years of war against your own government?

What makes you think that the U.S. wants the wars in the middle east to end? How would that be profitable for those who supply the weapons? The U.S. is a war-based economy, and without the military and its never-ending need for more and better weapons, we would be Canada. The longer the wars go on, the richer the merchants of death become. Why would we “win” when “we” are winning every day for last 20 years?

Maybe you believe that when your battle starts, the Russians and Chinese will rush to your aid and supply you with shoulder fired anti aircraft rockets and mines, as they did the North Vietnamese. They were of course, armed with much more than the simple semi-automatic AR-15, as are those in the Middle East that we are fighting now.

Don’t let that affect your narrative, though, as you picture yourself as Davy Crockett, sneaking through the woods on your way to ambush that battalion of Marines.

Perhaps, when you have a little time to spare, you could take a look at the pictures from the cities in the war zones in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Syria. I guess you’d relish the chance to see Chicago or Los Angeles looking like that…?


The argument goes now that if we were all armed, mass shootings would end.
In that case we should immediately arm our most vulnerable citizens now! I am sure that the NRA would support legislation that would require all African Americans, other visible minorities, the LGBT community, disabled people and religious minorities (like Muslims) to be armed with AR 15’s at all times to prevent crazy white males (the most common type of mass shooter) from killing innocent people. We could make a clause for particularly vulnerable people (disabled, Muslim, women of colour) to carry small explosive devices (like hand grenades) to protect them even further.
I find the article to be of the category ‘Gun Control Light’ as the author doesn’t even call for a ban on guns, but merely the curtailment of assault rifles. Even though Americans owned virtually no weapons at all before the NRA fear campaign on the 1960’s to “buy a gun and protect yourself”, no one likes to mention those pre-NRA days when there were little to no incidents of mass murders. Corporate America has done an excellent job of making weapons such an acceptable part of society, that the public is unaware of how they are part and parcel of the world’s greatest military industrial complex to ever roam the planet. The mindset of the public is going to be very difficult to reprogram after six decades of brain washing by corporate America.


Yes, a million times.

The types who need their guns to define them were probably rejected by the military.

Great and funny post- small ones indeed! What do we say then about people like Dana Loesch the spokeswoman for the NRA ? Maybe she is just an embittered woman who needs a gun to make her look more powerful.

1 Like

Or at least downsize it to a reasonable Defensive force level.


The aim, politically, was not to win but to keep us at war; especially after Vietnam. Understand this. The UNITED STATES of AMERICA is based economically and politically on a war economy. We the people are controlled by the DEEP STATE in this manner. The DEEP STATE controls our government by making its members rich if, and only if, those people play the DEEP STATE’S game of empire and hegemony. Understand this. We are not a Democracy. We are the pawns in an empire whose votes only give credibility to those thugs which rule us.

1 Like

Bica makes some good arguments here, but he omits the more interesting opposition. The following comes up in discussion more frequently than a lot of people might like to believe, so it might be nice that we not slip so gliby by it.

For the record, let’s agree that sure, another weapon may be used for hunting, and people with severe personal problems around manhood and respect and empowerment should be kept away from weapons as a means of expression.

But first, the suggestion that such people should join the military is horrible. No, the US MIC has not been responsible with weapons. For all the violence that the US civilian population has wreaked, the US military and so-called “intelligence” communities have done far, far worse. No, if any of you get some hare-brained idea that you want to join the military, it is far better for humanity that you should go get some camo duds and shoot up a couple targets near your home with an AR-15, and stay away from government and CIA-mafia mayhem.

Is this not obvious enough in 2018 that this is just a matter of facing things honestly? Perhaps not, but – well, wow.

Then, that first phrase of the 2nd Amendment can be translated differently, and Bica misses the relevant interpretation:

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, . . . "

A militia is not the army, though it is not an individual defending his or her home either. The security of a free state may be from foreign invaders, but it can also be from the larger government with which it is in federation.

Now, this was indeed tried once in a serious way, and we call what resulted the Civil War. I am not in particular favor of repeating it. I think that most of goes on around these ideas are ill-advised fantasy. But it seems pointless to deny that there are factors in the current political climate that bring it strongly into relevance.

Consider –

The national election process was effectively rigged in 2000, 2004, and at both nomination and final election levels in 2016 (and I am not talking about Russians). This is now thoroughly documented, but ignored by commercial media, both major parties, and bodies of intelligence and of prosecution and judgment within the US despite quite a few apparent felonies carried out in the execution of the fraud. During the same period, we have lost much of our Bill of Rights protections as these had previously been understood:

  • 1st Amendment, lost to Espionage Act persecution, torture (of Manning), calls for extrajudicial murder (of Julian Assange particularly, but not uniquely). And also by considerable other hardball manipulation of media.
  • 4th Amendment to NSA and other surveillance
  • Amendments 5-9 have been lost to the Patriot Act and related practices, including the gulag of onshore and offshore centres of torture and imprisonment, the site at Guantanamo Bay being only the best known particular site
  • Amendment 10, by the rampant exercise of the Unitary Executive theory.

If you consider the unwitting harboring of spies within our midst, you might well argue that the 3rd Amendment is violated as well.

I’d say it’s clear enough that the Second is as well, but hey, maybe we should remove that, right? We can see that in general European nations have been able to hold their governments to account without arms than Americans have with, at least since 1945.

But we are in that situation that some few people have so long discussed. We have no real electoral option and no real functional control over public policy. I doubt that an armed American populatoin has much beneficial impact on policy, frankly. But an argument for repeal of the 2nd Amendment as outdated really needs to confront this major central part of its purpose and–I think–provide ideas with at least some chance of an alternative.

In this field, the work of Gene Sharp has been useful, since it demonstrates pretty well that nonviolent resistance works better and at lower costs in most situations. However, It seems realistic and practical to work out what the details of this are and are not. Even Martin Luther King’s meetings were protected by armed individuals at times, though of course we have the more open defensiveness of the Black Panthers and the murder of leaders through COINTELPRO as a counterexample.

1 Like

Agreed on all but provisionally, the last point. It is not that the AR-15 type weapon itself would be essential in thwarting ideological marshal law, but such a weapon would indeed present a good deal of risk to the enforcers of such tyranny in pacifying the US population, particularly in the suburbs and countryside. Saturation bombing aside, as our numerous police actions abroad over the last 60 years demonstrate, hi tech weaponry does not stop insurgencies.

If a rouge govt did want to remove (at least the appearance) of our democratic rule of law by force, having to kill many citizens to do so in and of itself is a daunting requirement, particularly in America. Add to that the risk to life and limb to the enforcers, a population with a high number AR15 type weapons does indeed present some degree of deterrent to domestic military actions.

1 Like