Why are AR15s legal?

[Anonymous]

Anyone who says the AR-15 isn't more dangerous is lying to you. The high muzzle velocity means that a small round causes lots of damage including cavitation damage, which makes less accurate shots more likely to sever an artery or turn a vital organ to mush. Also the 223 tends to tumble a lot inside.

A hunting rifle packs a bigger hit, but the recoil is so strong that you can't stay on the same target and put round after round into them. The AR-15 has low kick because the recoil is absorbed and turned into the energy to eject the casing and chamber the next round. This allows you to stay on the target and put multiple rounds into it. And the ability to fire lots of round means that an ordinary person can kill a lot of people.

And obviously the large capacity magazine gives you more shots between changing magazines.

So in short, a non-expert with an AR-15 can kill more people because the round causes lots of damage, but the recoil is light enough and the capacity high enough that you can get off a lot of shots.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why would an AR 15 not be legal? Because they scare liberals? That doesn’t seem like a very good reason to make something illegal. Whether it be guns, free speech, or anything else for that matter.

There's nothing that specifically says it should be. The 2nd Amendment doesn't specify what kind of arms one can keep and bear.

At one point SCOTUS in the Miller decision upheld a ban on short barreled shotguns as they weren't considered to be appropriate for militia use ( despite being used in World war 1 a decade and a half before).

Arguably AR platform rifles have a closer link to military service than most other firearms, if you're a person who stresses the militia part of the second amendment.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can anyone tell me what it is that makes AR15's so dangerous? What specific feature(s) does it have that sets it apart from other rifles?

Their massive .223 inch bore size, for one.

Good one

It isn't any more dangerous than any other semi-auto rifle. It's just a popular rifle and it usually looks "tactical," so it gets a lot of attention from people who know nothing about guns.

I hear Bump Stocks work best with them..

I have about a dozen bumpstocks to sell you. Are you interested :

[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.

Hey what school are you going to shoot up?

A mentally ill person kills a bunch of students and your response is take away guns? Try again. You won’t be restricting my rights because of some wacko. Not today. Not ever.

^^^would refuse to give up his gun even if it meant saving the life of a child.

I'd refuse to give up my ability to protect my kids because someone had a theory that making me and my family defenseless would stop crazies from killing people.

Delusional.

Average citizens wielding guns has never protected or stopped anything in America. You may have your handful of anecdotes or the random YouTube video of something like a shopkeeper shooting wildly while some thugs run away but in aggregate it is all for nothing. America actually has *more* violent crime per capita than modern industrialized nations that have gun control.

Sounds like you discount defensive usage.

Are the US demographics the same as other first world nations?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why would an AR 15 not be legal? Because they scare liberals? That doesn’t seem like a very good reason to make something illegal. Whether it be guns, free speech, or anything else for that matter.

There's nothing that specifically says it should be. The 2nd Amendment doesn't specify what kind of arms one can keep and bear.

At one point SCOTUS in the Miller decision upheld a ban on short barreled shotguns as they weren't considered to be appropriate for militia use ( despite being used in World war 1 a decade and a half before).

Arguably AR platform rifles have a closer link to military service than most other firearms, if you're a person who stresses the militia part of the second amendment.

You are rewriting the standard. Scalia did not say "link to military service". He said "in common use at the time". In fact, in the Heller decision he said that changing weapons among the military does not change the limits of the 2nd amendment. It's all right there in his opinion.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can anyone tell me what it is that makes AR15's so dangerous? What specific feature(s) does it have that sets it apart from other rifles?

Their massive .223 inch bore size, for one.

Good one

It isn't any more dangerous than any other semi-auto rifle. It's just a popular rifle and it usually looks "tactical," so it gets a lot of attention from people who know nothing about guns.

I hear Bump Stocks work best with them..

I have about a dozen bumpstocks to sell you. Are you interested :

So it should be easy to ban bumpstocks because obviously a rubber band will do.

[Anonymous]

The .223 round that the liars on this site are trying to portray as "small" was designed to meet these specific criteria created by the US Army.
The finalized request calls for a 6 pound, select-fire .22" rifle with a conventional stock and a 20 round magazine. The proposed chambering has to penetrate the issue steel helmet, body armor, and a .135" steel plate at 500 yards, while maintaining the trajectory and accuracy of M2 ball from a M1 Garand, and equaling or exceeding the "wounding" ability of the .30 Carbine."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The .223 round that the liars on this site are trying to portray as "small" was designed to meet these specific criteria created by the US Army.

"The finalized request calls for a 6 pound, select-fire .22" rifle with a conventional stock and a 20 round magazine. The proposed chambering has to penetrate the issue steel helmet, body armor, and a .135" steel plate at 500 yards, while maintaining the trajectory and accuracy of M2 ball from a M1 Garand, and equaling or exceeding the "wounding" ability of the .30 Carbine."

https://web.archive.org/web/20040209030852/http://www.thegunzone.com/556dw.html

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Anyone who says the AR-15 isn't more dangerous is lying to you. The high muzzle velocity means that a small round causes lots of damage including cavitation damage, which makes less accurate shots more likely to sever an artery or turn a vital organ to mush. Also the 223 tends to tumble a lot inside.

A hunting rifle packs a bigger hit, but the recoil is so strong that you can't stay on the same target and put round after round into them. The AR-15 has low kick because the recoil is absorbed and turned into the energy to eject the casing and chamber the next round. This allows you to stay on the target and put multiple rounds into it. And the ability to fire lots of round means that an ordinary person can kill a lot of people.

And obviously the large capacity magazine gives you more shots between changing magazines.

So in short, a non-expert with an AR-15 can kill more people because the round causes lots of damage, but the recoil is light enough and the capacity high enough that you can get off a lot of shots.

Mandate that all guns have huge recoil!!

[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

I see your ban and raise a rifle "sanctuary city". You wanna play these f'n games, others can also.

[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.

Yet several states have managed to get them banned

I see your ban and raise a rifle "sanctuary city". You wanna play these f'n games, others can also.

DP. I don’t mind. I really don’t. You can have that. Alaska would be the perfect fit for that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Anyone who says the AR-15 isn't more dangerous is lying to you. The high muzzle velocity means that a small round causes lots of damage including cavitation damage, which makes less accurate shots more likely to sever an artery or turn a vital organ to mush. Also the 223 tends to tumble a lot inside.

A hunting rifle packs a bigger hit, but the recoil is so strong that you can't stay on the same target and put round after round into them. The AR-15 has low kick because the recoil is absorbed and turned into the energy to eject the casing and chamber the next round. This allows you to stay on the target and put multiple rounds into it. And the ability to fire lots of round means that an ordinary person can kill a lot of people.

And obviously the large capacity magazine gives you more shots between changing magazines.

So in short, a non-expert with an AR-15 can kill more people because the round causes lots of damage, but the recoil is light enough and the capacity high enough that you can get off a lot of shots.

Mandate that all guns have huge recoil!!

It’s called banning semiautomatic rifles.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why would an AR 15 not be legal? Because they scare liberals? That doesn’t seem like a very good reason to make something illegal. Whether it be guns, free speech, or anything else for that matter.

There's nothing that specifically says it should be. The 2nd Amendment doesn't specify what kind of arms one can keep and bear.

At one point SCOTUS in the Miller decision upheld a ban on short barreled shotguns as they weren't considered to be appropriate for militia use ( despite being used in World war 1 a decade and a half before).

Arguably AR platform rifles have a closer link to military service than most other firearms, if you're a person who stresses the militia part of the second amendment.

You are rewriting the standard. Scalia did not say "link to military service". He said "in common use at the time". In fact, in the Heller decision he said that changing weapons among the military does not change the limits of the 2nd amendment. It's all right there in his opinion.

I'm not talking about Heller. I am talking about Miller. Miller had to do with the 1934 NFA short barreled shotguns provisions.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Miller

The decision is somewhat contraversy in that neither Miller nor his attorney argued in front of the SCOTUS leaving arguments only from one side.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why would an AR 15 not be legal? Because they scare liberals? That doesn’t seem like a very good reason to make something illegal. Whether it be guns, free speech, or anything else for that matter.

There's nothing that specifically says it should be. The 2nd Amendment doesn't specify what kind of arms one can keep and bear.

At one point SCOTUS in the Miller decision upheld a ban on short barreled shotguns as they weren't considered to be appropriate for militia use ( despite being used in World war 1 a decade and a half before).

Arguably AR platform rifles have a closer link to military service than most other firearms, if you're a person who stresses the militia part of the second amendment.

You are rewriting the standard. Scalia did not say "link to military service". He said "in common use at the time". In fact, in the Heller decision he said that changing weapons among the military does not change the limits of the 2nd amendment. It's all right there in his opinion.

From Miller:

In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a "shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length" at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment, or that its use could contribute to the common defense.

[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.

Yet several states have managed to get them banned

I see your ban and raise a rifle "sanctuary city". You wanna play these f'n games, others can also.

DP. I don’t mind. I really don’t. You can have that. Alaska would be the perfect fit for that.

No, they'll be all over, just like you have them all over.