Why are AR15s legal?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Fact is, that both AR15's and AK47's were both readily available. So claiming that the AWB had anything time I with the lower mass shooting rates is just ignorant

^^^wouldn't trade in his guns in exchange for the life of one child.

So, you'd support banning all the other things in our homes which kill exponentially more kids every year, than AR15s Do?

If it saves just one child....right?

Please stop feeding this ignorant troll. He is obviously very angry and unpredictable, reminds me of the religious anti-abortion nuts that slaughter doctors.

^^^^^^
Wouldn't give up the dozens of things in their home which will kill many many children this year

cost vs. benefit. Benefit of AR-15 is extremely low. Cars kill more people but benefit society tremendously.

[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.

While we're at it, we should BAN your opinion. No one NEEDS to express your opinion. No one NEEDS to hear you express it. I have rendered my judgment: the US Constitution no longer applies to you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Fact is, that both AR15's and AK47's were both readily available. So claiming that the AWB had anything time I with the lower mass shooting rates is just ignorant

^^^wouldn't trade in his guns in exchange for the life of one child.

^^^wouldn't shred the constitution in exchange for the life of one child.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:No - we follow the prior ban on semiautomatic assault weapons which banned weapons like the AR15 and similar models. THIS WAS THE LAW FOR 10 YEARS IN THE NOT TOO DISTANT PAST. And the mass shooting started when it was not re-instituted. There is model for this legislation already. Not hard. Just not supported by the NRA and people bought and sold many times over by the NRA.

Um, they were not banned during that time.

What was banned was a number of cosmetic features, which manufacturers just designed around. Whoop de do, you can't buy a rifle with a bayonet lug or a grenade launcher!

The semi-automatic functionality wasn't banned at all!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No - we follow the prior ban on semiautomatic assault weapons which banned weapons like the AR15 and similar models. THIS WAS THE LAW FOR 10 YEARS IN THE NOT TOO DISTANT PAST. And the mass shooting started when it was not re-instituted. There is model for this legislation already. Not hard. Just not supported by the NRA and people bought and sold many times over by the NRA.

Um, they were not banned during that time.

What was banned was a number of cosmetic features, which manufacturers just designed around. Whoop de do, you can't buy a rifle with a bayonet lug or a grenade launcher!

The semi-automatic functionality wasn't banned at all!

No time like the present. Let’s do it now then.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Fact is, that both AR15's and AK47's were both readily available. So claiming that the AWB had anything time I with the lower mass shooting rates is just ignorant

^^^wouldn't trade in his guns in exchange for the life of one child.

So, you'd support banning all the other things in our homes which kill exponentially more kids every year, than AR15s Do?

If it saves just one child....right?

Please stop feeding this ignorant troll. He is obviously very angry and unpredictable, reminds me of the religious anti-abortion nuts that slaughter doctors.

^^^^^^
Wouldn't give up the dozens of things in their home which will kill many many children this year

cost vs. benefit. Benefit of AR-15 is extremely low. Cars kill more people but benefit society tremendously.

So you think that there is a point where your possessions become worth more than the life of a child?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

While we're at it, we should BAN your opinion. No one NEEDS to express your opinion. No one NEEDS to hear you express it. I have rendered my judgment: the US Constitution no longer applies to you.

Nice try, but no.

There are limits on free speech. There should be limits on gun ownership as well.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_free_speech_exceptions

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Fact is, that both AR15's and AK47's were both readily available. So claiming that the AWB had anything time I with the lower mass shooting rates is just ignorant

^^^wouldn't trade in his guns in exchange for the life of one child.

So, you'd support banning all the other things in our homes which kill exponentially more kids every year, than AR15s Do?

If it saves just one child....right?

Please stop feeding this ignorant troll. He is obviously very angry and unpredictable, reminds me of the religious anti-abortion nuts that slaughter doctors.

^^^^^^
Wouldn't give up the dozens of things in their home which will kill many many children this year

cost vs. benefit. Benefit of AR-15 is extremely low. Cars kill more people but benefit society tremendously.

So you think that there is a point where your possessions become worth more than the life of a child?

Without cars millions of people in this country would perish because that is how food is distributed from farm to store to table.

I don't count my car as a "possession." I count it as a necessary tool for living. Until the zombie apocalypse, gun owners can't make the same claim.

[Anonymous]

They are legal because the Republican Congress and executive have taken no action.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Fact is, that both AR15's and AK47's were both readily available. So claiming that the AWB had anything time I with the lower mass shooting rates is just ignorant

^^^wouldn't trade in his guns in exchange for the life of one child.

So, you'd support banning all the other things in our homes which kill exponentially more kids every year, than AR15s Do?

If it saves just one child....right?

Please stop feeding this ignorant troll. He is obviously very angry and unpredictable, reminds me of the religious anti-abortion nuts that slaughter doctors.

^^^^^^
Wouldn't give up the dozens of things in their home which will kill many many children this year

cost vs. benefit. Benefit of AR-15 is extremely low. Cars kill more people but benefit society tremendously.

So you think that there is a point where your possessions become worth more than the life of a child?

Without cars millions of people in this country would perish because that is how food is distributed from farm to store to table.

I don't count my car as a "possession." I count it as a necessary tool for living. Until the zombie apocalypse, gun owners can't make the same claim.

The whole "cars are deadly too" argument ignores the fact that car safety is a lot more regulated than gun safety. And that the purpose of a car is not to kill people with it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Fact is, that both AR15's and AK47's were both readily available. So claiming that the AWB had anything time I with the lower mass shooting rates is just ignorant

^^^wouldn't trade in his guns in exchange for the life of one child.

So, you'd support banning all the other things in our homes which kill exponentially more kids every year, than AR15s Do?

If it saves just one child....right?

Please stop feeding this ignorant troll. He is obviously very angry and unpredictable, reminds me of the religious anti-abortion nuts that slaughter doctors.

^^^^^^
Wouldn't give up the dozens of things in their home which will kill many many children this year

cost vs. benefit. Benefit of AR-15 is extremely low. Cars kill more people but benefit society tremendously.

So you think that there is a point where your possessions become worth more than the life of a child?

Without cars millions of people in this country would perish because that is how food is distributed from farm to store to table.

I don't count my car as a "possession." I count it as a necessary tool for living. Until the zombie apocalypse, gun owners can't make the same claim.

The whole "cars are deadly too" argument ignores the fact that car safety is a lot more regulated than gun safety. And that the purpose of a car is not to kill people with it.

There are many things in homes which kill many children every year, not just cars


And the only regulation involved with purchasing a car is attached to the financing. It isn't more regulated, if you have the money you can buy any vehicle you like

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:"Show me this list of banned guns from the Clinton AWB "

Can you answer it? Yes or no?

NP here. You do not get to issue edicts that other people must follow. If you want information, try GOOGLE.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Fact is, that both AR15's and AK47's were both readily available. So claiming that the AWB had anything time I with the lower mass shooting rates is just ignorant

^^^wouldn't trade in his guns in exchange for the life of one child.

So, you'd support banning all the other things in our homes which kill exponentially more kids every year, than AR15s Do?

If it saves just one child....right?

Please stop feeding this ignorant troll. He is obviously very angry and unpredictable, reminds me of the religious anti-abortion nuts that slaughter doctors.

^^^^^^
Wouldn't give up the dozens of things in their home which will kill many many children this year

cost vs. benefit. Benefit of AR-15 is extremely low. Cars kill more people but benefit society tremendously.

Cars are literally casuing the extiction of humanity through climate change and you want my AR? You are complicit in extinction.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Serious question - who really thinks having these types guns available to the general public is a good idea? Why are gun owners choosing these guns to take a stand? If you are a hunter or a sportsman, would you want one of these? If you do, you are a pretty sucky hunter is all I will say. What about if you want a gin for personal protection? Who the heck actually wants one of these?

Because the NRA wants to make money off their sales. So they do. This is the only correct answer.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Serious question - who really thinks having these types guns available to the general public is a good idea? Why are gun owners choosing these guns to take a stand? If you are a hunter or a sportsman, would you want one of these? If you do, you are a pretty sucky hunter is all I will say. What about if you want a gin for personal protection? Who the heck actually wants one of these?

Because the NRA wants to make money off their sales. So they do. This is the only correct answer.

OMG NRA BOOGEYMAN OMG!!