Why are AR15s legal?
![[Post New]](/jforum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}
Anonymous
| The pro gun people have 1 argument and it is because I wanna. Seriously the constitution? You guys do realize that the founding fathers weren't perfect and we are allowed to change things. Why are we clinging to words written in the 18th century- let's move forward make progress not go back. |
Anonymous
Semi-autos aren't "assault weapons". In fact, "assault weapon" is a meaningless term, whose definition changes with the wind. Josh Sugarman admitted that it's a PR term to confuse the rubes into thinking that supporting an "assault weapons" ban means taking machine guns off the streets: "The weapons' menacing looks, coupled with the public's confusion over fully automatic machine guns versus semi-automatic assault weapons—anything that looks like a machine gun is assumed to be a machine gun—can only increase the chance of public support for restrictions on these weapons. In addition, few people can envision a practical use for these guns." - http://www.vpc.org/studies/awaconc.htm |
Anonymous
It's the most popular rifle in America, and they're available everywhere. I bet the cars involved in the most DUIs are also the most popular cars. banning those cars won't stop DUIs - people will just use different cars. |
Anonymous
There's a process to change a constitutional amendment. To get what you people want, that's what it would take and it's currently impossible. Tens of millions more Democrat voters imported from the 3rd world could change that, but thankfully that won't happen anytime soon. |
Anonymous
So you're saying Americans don't want progress and we are supposed to count on illegals to get the required votes- cool. |
Anonymous
Such bs. The gun is not about looks. And yes once in a while you will see an AK-47, a mini-14, or an MCX. That's not the point. There is no good term for these guns, so posters are using shorthand. Everyone gets in a huff if you say "assault rifle". Now we can't say AR-15 because somebody *ahem* wants to point out there are other similar weapons. So in order to have a conversation without hairspllitting we'll have to define some godawful term such as SCHV detachable magazine semiautomatic rifle, which inevitably someone will pick apart. |
Anonymous
Only what was grandfathered. |
Anonymous
Yeah! Progress! What other constitutional rights do we no longer need? I always thought the prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment failed to account for how cruel and unusual modern-day criminals have become. |
Anonymous
No, I'm saying that the Democrats have given up on Americans and are now importing their voters. Turns out, people who voted for really lousy policies and politicians in their countries will do the same here. Take for instance the push to "help" the poor Venezuelans who voted repeatedly to destroy their country until it was uninhabitable. They'll surely vote for more of the same. Doing the jobs Americans won't do, voting the commies in.. |
Anonymous
Yeah progress isn't a bad thing. You know stuff like freeing the slaves, civil rights, women's rights, and the rest of it. I would consider all of that progress and recognizing sin where it exists. Modern day criminals? You do know historically human beings were actually much worse. The romans crucified people - I think you're living in a bit of a fantasyland if you think things were great way back when - hint they weren't! |
Anonymous
"Assault rifles" are real things, and the AR-15 isn't one (although the M-16 is). You probably meant "assault weapon", which is a made-up term meant to be confused with "assault rifles" and machine guns, etc. Assault rifles have been heavily regulated since 1934, and federally banned in 1986. Words have meanings. If you want to ban assault weapons, you might as well pack up and go home because your job is done. |
Anonymous
| Why are donuts legal? They kill way more people than AR-15s. |
Anonymous
Yes, the Democrats literally fought a civil war to keep their slaves. And to kept black children out of "white" schools. And restaurants. Hey, two lines for the water fountains means it's faster for everyone, right? The Democrats filibustered the Civil Rights Act of 1964 for 54 days. Yes, there was progress despite the Democrats' best efforts to stop it. Now it seems like the Democrats want to import voters who will remain dependent on the government, and they also want to disarm the population. Remind me, what kind of politicians want a disarmed populace? And what eventually happens to that populace? |
Anonymous
Yes, seriously, the Constitution. |
Anonymous
Because Democrats haven't banned them yet? Sugary drinks first.. |