Why are AR15s legal?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

It’s called banning semiautomatic rifles.

This is just never going to happen, no matter how much you stomp your feet.

We did it before, and we can do it again.

When was that?

1995-2004

Pretty sure semi auto rifles, including AR15's, we're still sold publicly during that time

Only what was grandfathered.

This is what the AWB prohibited:

Semi-automatic rifles able to accept detachable magazines and two or more of the following:
Folding or telescoping stock
Pistol grip
Bayonet mount
Flash suppressor, or threaded barrel designed to accommodate one
Grenade launcher

So sell a rifle with a fixed stock (fixed meaning not adjustable, 1 position only) and pistol grip (like the original design), and you're good to go.

This = ok to sell


This = not ok to sell


Its pretty dumb because an adjustable stock lets shooters of different heights use the same rifle. I.e. a father and son. Otherwise just buy a different size stock!

Now high capacity magazines that were allready out there were grandfathered and could be re-sold, that is true, but rifles were just designed without those above features.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Was this the thread with the chart that showed DC had the highest gun murder rate (despite strict gun laws)? I thought it was an excellent way of showing that gun laws do not translate to fewer murders (which is understandably something liberals wouldn't want out there.)

Was this the thread? I can't find it.

Doesn't matter, if they were serious about banning guns as an attempt to cut murders, they'd be talking about pistols. They're just riding the media hype wave, semi auto rifles are by far the least often used firearm in crime. Far more people will be killed with hammers than AR15's in the US this year, just like every year

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Was this the thread with the chart that showed DC had the highest gun murder rate (despite strict gun laws)? I thought it was an excellent way of showing that gun laws do not translate to fewer murders (which is understandably something liberals wouldn't want out there.)

Was this the thread? I can't find it.

Doesn't matter, if they were serious about banning guns as an attempt to cut murders, they'd be talking about pistols. They're just riding the media hype wave, semi auto rifles are by far the least often used firearm in crime. Far more people will be killed with hammers than AR15's in the US this year, just like every year

I think we should ban heroin. Think how many lives would be saved if it were made illegal.

[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.

Oh, no. We're coming for your guns.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Was this the thread with the chart that showed DC had the highest gun murder rate (despite strict gun laws)? I thought it was an excellent way of showing that gun laws do not translate to fewer murders (which is understandably something liberals wouldn't want out there.)

Was this the thread? I can't find it.

Doesn't matter, if they were serious about banning guns as an attempt to cut murders, they'd be talking about pistols. They're just riding the media hype wave, semi auto rifles are by far the least often used firearm in crime. Far more people will be killed with hammers than AR15's in the US this year, just like every year

I think we should ban heroin. Think how many lives would be saved if it were made illegal.

I'm all in favor for treating guns like heroin by banning them and studying the public health implications of their existence, something the CDC is banned from doing because the Russian-funded NRA, in its treasonous way, has intimidated elected officials. Why do you hate America?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

This is what the AWB prohibited:

Semi-automatic rifles able to accept detachable magazines and two or more of the following:
Folding or telescoping stock
Pistol grip
Bayonet mount
Flash suppressor, or threaded barrel designed to accommodate one
Grenade launcher

So sell a rifle with a fixed stock (fixed meaning not adjustable, 1 position only) and pistol grip (like the original design), and you're good to go.


Its pretty dumb because an adjustable stock lets shooters of different heights use the same rifle. I.e. a father and son. Otherwise just buy a different size stock!

Now high capacity magazines that were allready out there were grandfathered and could be re-sold, that is true, but rifles were just designed without those above features.

OK. So this time let's learn from experience and have a better assault weapons ban.

[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.

Oh, no. We're coming for your guns.

Sure thing cupcake

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Was this the thread with the chart that showed DC had the highest gun murder rate (despite strict gun laws)? I thought it was an excellent way of showing that gun laws do not translate to fewer murders (which is understandably something liberals wouldn't want out there.)

Was this the thread? I can't find it.

Doesn't matter, if they were serious about banning guns as an attempt to cut murders, they'd be talking about pistols. They're just riding the media hype wave, semi auto rifles are by far the least often used firearm in crime. Far more people will be killed with hammers than AR15's in the US this year, just like every year

I think we should ban heroin. Think how many lives would be saved if it were made illegal.

I'm all in favor for treating guns like heroin by banning them and studying the public health implications of their existence, something the CDC is banned from doing because the Russian-funded NRA, in its treasonous way, has intimidated elected officials. Why do you hate America?

What other rights are you in favor of banning? Speech can be messy. Assembly can cause riots. Who needs abortion?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

This is what the AWB prohibited:

Semi-automatic rifles able to accept detachable magazines and two or more of the following:
Folding or telescoping stock
Pistol grip
Bayonet mount
Flash suppressor, or threaded barrel designed to accommodate one
Grenade launcher

So sell a rifle with a fixed stock (fixed meaning not adjustable, 1 position only) and pistol grip (like the original design), and you're good to go.


Its pretty dumb because an adjustable stock lets shooters of different heights use the same rifle. I.e. a father and son. Otherwise just buy a different size stock!

Now high capacity magazines that were allready out there were grandfathered and could be re-sold, that is true, but rifles were just designed without those above features.

OK. So this time let's learn from experience and have a better assault weapons ban.

Why? The last one had no discernable impact on crime, and the violent crime rate has been steadily dropping since the end of the last ban. "Assault weapons" are really really low on the list of things that people actually kill eachother with. Hammers, knives, and swimming pools are all exponentially more likely to kill you and will account for far more deaths every year


People keep talking about common sense, well common sense dictates that going after "assault weapons" which are the least commonly used weapon in violent crime, is pretty dumb. Especially considering that bans have never actually accomplished anything other than to create black markets ran by gangs who are responsible for the vast majority of violent crime in this country

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Why? The last one had no discernable impact on crime, and the violent crime rate has been steadily dropping since the end of the last ban. "Assault weapons" are really really low on the list of things that people actually kill eachother with. Hammers, knives, and swimming pools are all exponentially more likely to kill you and will account for far more deaths every year

People keep talking about common sense, well common sense dictates that going after "assault weapons" which are the least commonly used weapon in violent crime, is pretty dumb. Especially considering that bans have never actually accomplished anything other than to create black markets ran by gangs who are responsible for the vast majority of violent crime in this country

Yes, I agree with you, the assault weapons ban should not be the first, last, and only item of gun regulation we pass.

School shootings are rare. If we never had another school shooting, it would make no meaningful difference in the national homicide rate. Nonetheless, we all agree that we should try to prevent school shootings -- right? Or do you think we should address the categories of violent death in order, and we shouldn't do anything about #2, #3, #4, and so on, until we've perfectly solved #1?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:


Why? The last one had no discernable impact on crime, and the violent crime rate has been steadily dropping since the end of the last ban. "Assault weapons" are really really low on the list of things that people actually kill eachother with. Hammers, knives, and swimming pools are all exponentially more likely to kill you and will account for far more deaths every year


People keep talking about common sense, well common sense dictates that going after "assault weapons" which are the least commonly used weapon in violent crime, is pretty dumb. Especially considering that bans have never actually accomplished anything other than to create black markets ran by gangs who are responsible for the vast majority of violent crime in this country

Common sense indicates that assault weapons have only two uses:

1. Murdering lots of people very efficiently.
2. Fun at the shooting range.

Common sense indicates that, given the first use, people who like the second use can find a different hobby. Find something else to shoot, when you want to have fun at the shooting range.

[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.

Oh, no. We're coming for your guns.

Oh are "we"? You going to be a door knocker, or the one who goes in to forcibly remove 400 million privately owned guns from people?

See, anti-gun people aren't actually anti-gun. They just want the government to be the only people with the guns. The same government that's currently run by "literally Hitler". So on the one hand, Trump is "literally Hitler". And on the other, "Only [Trump's] government should have the guns." Historically, that hasn't worked out so well. Hundreds of millions of disarmed people killed by their government in the last century aren't available to comment, unfortunately. Democide. Look it up. Step one: take the guns.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Why? The last one had no discernable impact on crime, and the violent crime rate has been steadily dropping since the end of the last ban. "Assault weapons" are really really low on the list of things that people actually kill eachother with. Hammers, knives, and swimming pools are all exponentially more likely to kill you and will account for far more deaths every year

People keep talking about common sense, well common sense dictates that going after "assault weapons" which are the least commonly used weapon in violent crime, is pretty dumb. Especially considering that bans have never actually accomplished anything other than to create black markets ran by gangs who are responsible for the vast majority of violent crime in this country

Yes, I agree with you, the assault weapons ban should not be the first, last, and only item of gun regulation we pass.

School shootings are rare. If we never had another school shooting, it would make no meaningful difference in the national homicide rate. Nonetheless, we all agree that we should try to prevent school shootings -- right? Or do you think we should address the categories of violent death in order, and we shouldn't do anything about #2, #3, #4, and so on, until we've perfectly solved #1?

10 times as many people are killed each year by iatrogenesis. 10 times!

Children even! All we have to do is ban doctors. Wouldn't you be willing to ban doctors to save one life?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

What other rights are you in favor of banning? Speech can be messy. Assembly can cause riots. Who needs abortion?

Guns, heroins, speech, assembly -- two of these things are not like the other, two of these things don't belong.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:


Why? The last one had no discernable impact on crime, and the violent crime rate has been steadily dropping since the end of the last ban. "Assault weapons" are really really low on the list of things that people actually kill eachother with. Hammers, knives, and swimming pools are all exponentially more likely to kill you and will account for far more deaths every year


People keep talking about common sense, well common sense dictates that going after "assault weapons" which are the least commonly used weapon in violent crime, is pretty dumb. Especially considering that bans have never actually accomplished anything other than to create black markets ran by gangs who are responsible for the vast majority of violent crime in this country

Common sense indicates that assault weapons have only two uses:

1. Murdering lots of people very efficiently.
2. Fun at the shooting range.

Common sense indicates that, given the first use, people who like the second use can find a different hobby. Find something else to shoot, when you want to have fun at the shooting range.

As "assault weapons" is a term that has no real meaning, I'm not sure I can get on board with your list there. But people use AR-15s and the like to defend their families from people who would do them harm. Google it. Would you rather have them use a wood-stocked Mini-14 Ranch Rifle which operates identically but isn't as scary looking? And that would accomplish what, exacty? People very rarely use ARs for violence. For that, they use handguns. Handguns aren't going anywhere either, despite the best efforts of Handgun Control, Inc (later called the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence once they realized banning handguns was impossible).