[ThunderSleeps]

I always find it amusing when someone says or implies "Why would you want/need X, that was designed/intended for military use?" Or "Military style weapons don't belong in civilian hands."

I just ask them: do you think we are providing our military personnel with the most effective weapons possible? I mean, along with some other constraints and priorities in addition to effectiveness/efficiency: like easy of manufacture, service life, maintenance, etc. The obvious answer to this is yes, we spend a lot of money on design and manufacturing...

So then, why wouldn't I similarly want the most effective tools to defend myself and my family? If/when I need a firearm for defense, I'm going to want to be as effective as possible. So why wouldn't I want to take advantage of all that R&D and use "military style" weapons to defend my life? You don't buy a fire extinguisher that is "good enough" if there's a better one available. You don't say "nah, seat belts alone are good enough for my passengers/family, skip the air bags" - as if we had a choice anyway.

Of course I want the best tools to defend loved ones. So the M-16 and it's civilian counterpart the AR-15 were designed to be brutally effective? Bravo! Sign me up! While I might carry a handgun out and about, my rifles stay home. So if I'm using a rifle in a defensive role...that means the brown stinky stuff has hit the air circulation machine at home and myself and possibly family members are in grave danger. I'm all-in at that point, give me the most effective weapons.

[Spktyr]

Things designed and intended for military use:

Prepackaged sterile bandages and dressings.
Antibiotics and antiseptics.
Modern canned and preserved foods including anything made under the Chef Boyardee brand.
Strike anywhere matches.
Anything made of rayon, nylon, polyester or related synthetics.
Trauma techniques like triage.
Many medical procedures.
Radar, which means the microwave oven.

The list goes on and on. Let’s see these people who ask this question go without all of these.

[JudgemAll]

Indeed. The AR was designed to help Vietnamese handicapped by small bodies. Why would then a woman or an elderly be forbidden from accessing these features?

The war on the AR is a direct assault on the dissabled and violation of ADA accessibility rules, but somehow no one wants to interprete it that way

[proud American in Canada]

Now that is a post that makes sense! Finally, a sensible response to the critics.

[ctdonath2]

Exactly. And it’s not like those military weapons are orders of magnitude more expensive, they cost about the same as any other suitable home defense weapon. Do I opt for the slow cycling low capacity long hunting gun, or the auto loading high capacity AR15 made for CQB? comparable price, and not having a round ready to go can be lethal.

[redfreedom]

Your point is moot with lefties simply because I they do not believe the common person has the right to defend themselves. The more elite the leftist is, the less he will want you to defend yourself. Think Hitler, Stalin, and Mao who were the most elite of their era. Guns in the hands of peasants were unthinkable and those caught with them got a little more than jail time.

[Harmless Teddy Bear]

"Why would you want/need X, that was designed/intended for military use?"

Tell them the answer will dawn on them if they use their computer to access the Internet while drinking a glass of Tang.

See if they get it.