Why are AR15s legal?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Ask the Russian funded NRA or the NRA funded GOP.

No rational person uses an AR-15 for hunting or personal protection.

This.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s the most popular rifle in America and has been for years. It’s incredibly modular and customizable, has low recoil, handles lots of calibers (for hunting, home defense, competition shooting), is much easier to use than something like a shotgun (so good for disabled persons, such as a veteran I know who uses one to protect his home). But you’ve decided that they’re evil, or “machine guns,” or only used by “sucky hunters,” and have no legitimate purpose. So I’m not going to say anything else, because you have your opinion about them. So do the millions of normal Americans who own them.

Ps: they’re not going anywhere, so focus on something else.

I'm not seeing much in the way of need here. There are better guns for target practice. There are better guns for home defense, even ones your disabled vet friend can use. Hunting? There's a reason you can't even hunt with .223 in many places. Headshot hunting, bad body shots that are inhumane, and jerks that want to fire off a bunch of rounds. None of my family would be caught dead doing that. Yes you can customize it if you really have to justify it as a hunting weapon, but by the time you change out the upper and possibly the lower receiver, you should have bought a hunting rifle.

You like it and you don't want it taken away, but you have not made a good argument for why people should be able to own it. Scalia has already ruled that the government has the right to regulate types of weapons, so don't even go there.

Popular is not good enough. Fun is not good enough.

Why do you get to define everyone else’s “need”? When did you become the decider of how others “need” to protect their homes or exercise their rights? Saying there are “better guns” for this or that purpose is not an argument.

You ignored what Scalia said in Heller about firearms in common use. The AR-15 squarely qualifies.

This is all academic anyway, because an AR ban is impossible. It didn’t work in ‘94 when there were 1.5 million in private hands. It won’t work in 2018 now that there are 8 million in private hands. It’s a non-starter. There are better places to focus, both for consensus and practicality.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It’s the most popular rifle in America and has been for years. It’s incredibly modular and customizable, has low recoil, handles lots of calibers (for hunting, home defense, competition shooting), is much easier to use than something like a shotgun (so good for disabled persons, such as a veteran I know who uses one to protect his home). But you’ve decided that they’re evil, or “machine guns,” or only used by “sucky hunters,” and have no legitimate purpose. So I’m not going to say anything else, because you have your opinion about them. So do the millions of normal Americans who own them.

Ps: they’re not going anywhere, so focus on something else.

Yet several states have managed to get them banned

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s the most popular rifle in America and has been for years. It’s incredibly modular and customizable, has low recoil, handles lots of calibers (for hunting, home defense, competition shooting), is much easier to use than something like a shotgun (so good for disabled persons, such as a veteran I know who uses one to protect his home). But you’ve decided that they’re evil, or “machine guns,” or only used by “sucky hunters,” and have no legitimate purpose. So I’m not going to say anything else, because you have your opinion about them. So do the millions of normal Americans who own them.

Ps: they’re not going anywhere, so focus on something else.

Yet several states have managed to get them banned

Actually, none have. They just caused manufacturers to change the stocks, grips, etc. The guns are the same as they always were.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It’s the most popular rifle in America and has been for years. It’s incredibly modular and customizable, has low recoil, handles lots of calibers (for hunting, home defense, competition shooting), is much easier to use than something like a shotgun (so good for disabled persons, such as a veteran I know who uses one to protect his home). But you’ve decided that they’re evil, or “machine guns,” or only used by “sucky hunters,” and have no legitimate purpose. So I’m not going to say anything else, because you have your opinion about them. So do the millions of normal Americans who own them.

Ps: they’re not going anywhere, so focus on something else.

You are up there with the child molesters, except you kill them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Clearly 80% of Americans don't want tougher gun laws or we'd have them. Lots of democrats are gun enthusiasts too.

Where is the data? Are you from TASS or Fox?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s the most popular rifle in America and has been for years. It’s incredibly modular and customizable, has low recoil, handles lots of calibers (for hunting, home defense, competition shooting), is much easier to use than something like a shotgun (so good for disabled persons, such as a veteran I know who uses one to protect his home). But you’ve decided that they’re evil, or “machine guns,” or only used by “sucky hunters,” and have no legitimate purpose. So I’m not going to say anything else, because you have your opinion about them. So do the millions of normal Americans who own them.

Ps: they’re not going anywhere, so focus on something else.

You are up there with the child molesters, except you kill them.

Sickening comment. You should be ashamed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s the most popular rifle in America and has been for years. It’s incredibly modular and customizable, has low recoil, handles lots of calibers (for hunting, home defense, competition shooting), is much easier to use than something like a shotgun (so good for disabled persons, such as a veteran I know who uses one to protect his home). But you’ve decided that they’re evil, or “machine guns,” or only used by “sucky hunters,” and have no legitimate purpose. So I’m not going to say anything else, because you have your opinion about them. So do the millions of normal Americans who own them.

Ps: they’re not going anywhere, so focus on something else.

I'm not seeing much in the way of need here. There are better guns for target practice. There are better guns for home defense, even ones your disabled vet friend can use. Hunting? There's a reason you can't even hunt with .223 in many places. Headshot hunting, bad body shots that are inhumane, and jerks that want to fire off a bunch of rounds. None of my family would be caught dead doing that. Yes you can customize it if you really have to justify it as a hunting weapon, but by the time you change out the upper and possibly the lower receiver, you should have bought a hunting rifle.

You like it and you don't want it taken away, but you have not made a good argument for why people should be able to own it. Scalia has already ruled that the government has the right to regulate types of weapons, so don't even go there.

Popular is not good enough. Fun is not good enough.

Why do you get to define everyone else’s “need”? When did you become the decider of how others “need” to protect their homes or exercise their rights? Saying there are “better guns” for this or that purpose is not an argument.

You ignored what Scalia said in Heller about firearms in common use. The AR-15 squarely qualifies.

This is all academic anyway, because an AR ban is impossible. It didn’t work in ‘94 when there were 1.5 million in private hands. It won’t work in 2018 now that there are 8 million in private hands. It’s a non-starter. There are better places to focus, both for consensus and practicality.

Your understanding of heller is inaccurate. We can debate that,
.
Or if you like, we can debate the merits of hunting with an AR-15.

Or we can debate whether a nineteen year old screw up could have gotten an AR-15 if it’s sale had been banned for over 20 years.

Or we can debate whether the availability of better guns for a given purpose has any bearing on the need for the AR-15.

Take your pick.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s the most popular rifle in America and has been for years. It’s incredibly modular and customizable, has low recoil, handles lots of calibers (for hunting, home defense, competition shooting), is much easier to use than something like a shotgun (so good for disabled persons, such as a veteran I know who uses one to protect his home). But you’ve decided that they’re evil, or “machine guns,” or only used by “sucky hunters,” and have no legitimate purpose. So I’m not going to say anything else, because you have your opinion about them. So do the millions of normal Americans who own them.

Ps: they’re not going anywhere, so focus on something else.

I'm not seeing much in the way of need here. There are better guns for target practice. There are better guns for home defense, even ones your disabled vet friend can use. Hunting? There's a reason you can't even hunt with .223 in many places. Headshot hunting, bad body shots that are inhumane, and jerks that want to fire off a bunch of rounds. None of my family would be caught dead doing that. Yes you can customize it if you really have to justify it as a hunting weapon, but by the time you change out the upper and possibly the lower receiver, you should have bought a hunting rifle.

You like it and you don't want it taken away, but you have not made a good argument for why people should be able to own it. Scalia has already ruled that the government has the right to regulate types of weapons, so don't even go there.

Popular is not good enough. Fun is not good enough.

Why do you get to define everyone else’s “need”? When did you become the decider of how others “need” to protect their homes or exercise their rights? Saying there are “better guns” for this or that purpose is not an argument.

You ignored what Scalia said in Heller about firearms in common use. The AR-15 squarely qualifies.

This is all academic anyway, because an AR ban is impossible. It didn’t work in ‘94 when there were 1.5 million in private hands. It won’t work in 2018 now that there are 8 million in private hands. It’s a non-starter. There are better places to focus, both for consensus and practicality.

Your understanding of heller is inaccurate. We can debate that,
.
Or if you like, we can debate the merits of hunting with an AR-15.

Or we can debate whether a nineteen year old screw up could have gotten an AR-15 if it’s sale had been banned for over 20 years.

Or we can debate whether the availability of better guns for a given purpose has any bearing on the need for the AR-15.

Take your pick.

It doesn’t seem like we’re going to get very far here. I think common ground probably does exist, but trying to ban the most common rifle in America, even if doing so wasn’t basically impossible, isn’t going to get us there.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s the most popular rifle in America and has been for years. It’s incredibly modular and customizable, has low recoil, handles lots of calibers (for hunting, home defense, competition shooting), is much easier to use than something like a shotgun (so good for disabled persons, such as a veteran I know who uses one to protect his home). But you’ve decided that they’re evil, or “machine guns,” or only used by “sucky hunters,” and have no legitimate purpose. So I’m not going to say anything else, because you have your opinion about them. So do the millions of normal Americans who own them.

Ps: they’re not going anywhere, so focus on something else.

^^^ complicit

This juvenile and divisive attitude is a big reason we’re not going to have gun control anytime soon. I guess you’re complicit, too.

I only vote for candidates who support gun control and I give money to gun control organizations, so yes I am complicit in the gun control movement. You seem to be okay with accepting children’s murders in order to retain your ability to own the weapons that can mow dozens of them down in 5 minutes or less.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s the most popular rifle in America and has been for years. It’s incredibly modular and customizable, has low recoil, handles lots of calibers (for hunting, home defense, competition shooting), is much easier to use than something like a shotgun (so good for disabled persons, such as a veteran I know who uses one to protect his home). But you’ve decided that they’re evil, or “machine guns,” or only used by “sucky hunters,” and have no legitimate purpose. So I’m not going to say anything else, because you have your opinion about them. So do the millions of normal Americans who own them.

Ps: they’re not going anywhere, so focus on something else.

You are up there with the child molesters, except you kill them.

Sickening comment. You should be ashamed.

m

Yes the murders of children gunned down in a matter of minutes with a semi-automatic weapon is sickening

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It’s the most popular rifle in America and has been for years. It’s incredibly modular and customizable, has low recoil, handles lots of calibers (for hunting, home defense, competition shooting), is much easier to use than something like a shotgun (so good for disabled persons, such as a veteran I know who uses one to protect his home). But you’ve decided that they’re evil, or “machine guns,” or only used by “sucky hunters,” and have no legitimate purpose. So I’m not going to say anything else, because you have your opinion about them. So do the millions of normal Americans who own them.

Ps: they’re not going anywhere, so focus on something else.

Yes, they are going to be confiscated, and you are going to have to settle for a hunting rifle to "protect" your home.

Geeze, you are sickening, all of you gun owners who pretend they need guns to protect themselves, from what? How many prowlers did you have today? Did you shoot anyone? Other than a family member?

There are more suicides in homes where there are guns. Shoot yourself if that's what you'd like to do with your weapon. One less gun owner the better.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s the most popular rifle in America and has been for years. It’s incredibly modular and customizable, has low recoil, handles lots of calibers (for hunting, home defense, competition shooting), is much easier to use than something like a shotgun (so good for disabled persons, such as a veteran I know who uses one to protect his home). But you’ve decided that they’re evil, or “machine guns,” or only used by “sucky hunters,” and have no legitimate purpose. So I’m not going to say anything else, because you have your opinion about them. So do the millions of normal Americans who own them.

Ps: they’re not going anywhere, so focus on something else.

I'm not seeing much in the way of need here. There are better guns for target practice. There are better guns for home defense, even ones your disabled vet friend can use. Hunting? There's a reason you can't even hunt with .223 in many places. Headshot hunting, bad body shots that are inhumane, and jerks that want to fire off a bunch of rounds. None of my family would be caught dead doing that. Yes you can customize it if you really have to justify it as a hunting weapon, but by the time you change out the upper and possibly the lower receiver, you should have bought a hunting rifle.

You like it and you don't want it taken away, but you have not made a good argument for why people should be able to own it. Scalia has already ruled that the government has the right to regulate types of weapons, so don't even go there.

Popular is not good enough. Fun is not good enough.

Why do you get to define everyone else’s “need”? When did you become the decider of how others “need” to protect their homes or exercise their rights? Saying there are “better guns” for this or that purpose is not an argument.

You ignored what Scalia said in Heller about firearms in common use. The AR-15 squarely qualifies.

This is all academic anyway, because an AR ban is impossible. It didn’t work in ‘94 when there were 1.5 million in private hands. It won’t work in 2018 now that there are 8 million in private hands. It’s a non-starter. There are better places to focus, both for consensus and practicality.

Your understanding of heller is inaccurate. We can debate that,
.
Or if you like, we can debate the merits of hunting with an AR-15.

Or we can debate whether a nineteen year old screw up could have gotten an AR-15 if it’s sale had been banned for over 20 years.

Or we can debate whether the availability of better guns for a given purpose has any bearing on the need for the AR-15.

Take your pick.

It doesn’t seem like we’re going to get very far here. I think common ground probably does exist, but trying to ban the most common rifle in America, even if doing so wasn’t basically impossible, isn’t going to get us there.

Sure, disappear as soon as we get to specifics.

Btw it is not the most common rifle. Far more hunting rifles in gun cabinets around this country. At least 50 million rifles have been sold in the US since 1986. And millions more before that which are still in homes around America. Ar15s are selling well but to a minority of gun enthusiasts. 3% own 50% of all civilian firearms.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s the most popular rifle in America and has been for years. It’s incredibly modular and customizable, has low recoil, handles lots of calibers (for hunting, home defense, competition shooting), is much easier to use than something like a shotgun (so good for disabled persons, such as a veteran I know who uses one to protect his home). But you’ve decided that they’re evil, or “machine guns,” or only used by “sucky hunters,” and have no legitimate purpose. So I’m not going to say anything else, because you have your opinion about them. So do the millions of normal Americans who own them.

Ps: they’re not going anywhere, so focus on something else.

I'm not seeing much in the way of need here. There are better guns for target practice. There are better guns for home defense, even ones your disabled vet friend can use. Hunting? There's a reason you can't even hunt with .223 in many places. Headshot hunting, bad body shots that are inhumane, and jerks that want to fire off a bunch of rounds. None of my family would be caught dead doing that. Yes you can customize it if you really have to justify it as a hunting weapon, but by the time you change out the upper and possibly the lower receiver, you should have bought a hunting rifle.

You like it and you don't want it taken away, but you have not made a good argument for why people should be able to own it. Scalia has already ruled that the government has the right to regulate types of weapons, so don't even go there.

Popular is not good enough. Fun is not good enough.

Why do you get to define everyone else’s “need”? When did you become the decider of how others “need” to protect their homes or exercise their rights? Saying there are “better guns” for this or that purpose is not an argument.

You ignored what Scalia said in Heller about firearms in common use. The AR-15 squarely qualifies.

This is all academic anyway, because an AR ban is impossible. It didn’t work in ‘94 when there were 1.5 million in private hands. It won’t work in 2018 now that there are 8 million in private hands. It’s a non-starter. There are better places to focus, both for consensus and practicality.

Your understanding of heller is inaccurate. We can debate that,
.
Or if you like, we can debate the merits of hunting with an AR-15.

Or we can debate whether a nineteen year old screw up could have gotten an AR-15 if it’s sale had been banned for over 20 years.

Or we can debate whether the availability of better guns for a given purpose has any bearing on the need for the AR-15.

Take your pick.

It doesn’t seem like we’re going to get very far here. I think common ground probably does exist, but trying to ban the most common rifle in America, even if doing so wasn’t basically impossible, isn’t going to get us there.

Of course we should BAN the most common rifle in America. We should BAN ALL personal guns. Every last one of them. If you want a hunting rifle, a low-powered one, OK, go out and go through a very thorough background check of all your current and previous partners and your neighbors and family members. If you pass, you get a hunting rifle, but if not, you'll have to use a bow and arrow or a slingshot.

No one needs an AR-15. Not one person "needs" this type of gun. It's crazy that anyone defends their ownership of this killing machine. Children died because a crazy kid got his hands on one of these guns. Were they BANNED, he'd have no way to get one. Had he entered the school with a knife, he might have wounded a few people, but he would not have been able to murder 17 people!!! It would have been impossible without that "popular" gun. The GUN is the problem. It's the GUN, not the mental illness. The GUN. BAN THE GUNS, ALL GUNS.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s the most popular rifle in America and has been for years. It’s incredibly modular and customizable, has low recoil, handles lots of calibers (for hunting, home defense, competition shooting), is much easier to use than something like a shotgun (so good for disabled persons, such as a veteran I know who uses one to protect his home). But you’ve decided that they’re evil, or “machine guns,” or only used by “sucky hunters,” and have no legitimate purpose. So I’m not going to say anything else, because you have your opinion about them. So do the millions of normal Americans who own them.

Ps: they’re not going anywhere, so focus on something else.

I'm not seeing much in the way of need here. There are better guns for target practice. There are better guns for home defense, even ones your disabled vet friend can use. Hunting? There's a reason you can't even hunt with .223 in many places. Headshot hunting, bad body shots that are inhumane, and jerks that want to fire off a bunch of rounds. None of my family would be caught dead doing that. Yes you can customize it if you really have to justify it as a hunting weapon, but by the time you change out the upper and possibly the lower receiver, you should have bought a hunting rifle.

You like it and you don't want it taken away, but you have not made a good argument for why people should be able to own it. Scalia has already ruled that the government has the right to regulate types of weapons, so don't even go there.

Popular is not good enough. Fun is not good enough.

Why do you get to define everyone else’s “need”? When did you become the decider of how others “need” to protect their homes or exercise their rights? Saying there are “better guns” for this or that purpose is not an argument.

You ignored what Scalia said in Heller about firearms in common use. The AR-15 squarely qualifies.

This is all academic anyway, because an AR ban is impossible. It didn’t work in ‘94 when there were 1.5 million in private hands. It won’t work in 2018 now that there are 8 million in private hands. It’s a non-starter. There are better places to focus, both for consensus and practicality.

Your understanding of heller is inaccurate. We can debate that,
.
Or if you like, we can debate the merits of hunting with an AR-15.

Or we can debate whether a nineteen year old screw up could have gotten an AR-15 if it’s sale had been banned for over 20 years.

Or we can debate whether the availability of better guns for a given purpose has any bearing on the need for the AR-15.

Take your pick.

It doesn’t seem like we’re going to get very far here. I think common ground probably does exist, but trying to ban the most common rifle in America, even if doing so wasn’t basically impossible, isn’t going to get us there.

Of course we should BAN the most common rifle in America. We should BAN ALL personal guns. Every last one of them. If you want a hunting rifle, a low-powered one, OK, go out and go through a very thorough background check of all your current and previous partners and your neighbors and family members. If you pass, you get a hunting rifle, but if not, you'll have to use a bow and arrow or a slingshot.

No one needs an AR-15. Not one person "needs" this type of gun. It's crazy that anyone defends their ownership of this killing machine. Children died because a crazy kid got his hands on one of these guns. Were they BANNED, he'd have no way to get one. Had he entered the school with a knife, he might have wounded a few people, but he would not have been able to murder 17 people!!! It would have been impossible without that "popular" gun. The GUN is the problem. It's the GUN, not the mental illness. The GUN. BAN THE GUNS, ALL GUNS.

You win. Guns are now banned, the law is signed. What’s your plan to round up the 300 million alreay out there?