Why Liberals Want To Ban The AR-15

[bigrebnc1775]

Less people are killed with an AR than with a vehicle or even a bat
Now what?

Less people are killed with an AR than with a vehicle or even a bat
Now what?

Now what what? I’m not making an argument for or against the AR I’m explaining the main reason why people support banning it. An obvious point that the OP left out. You don’t seem to be following the discussion.

If you're trying to make a good argument you're failing.

What is the point that I’m making? I’d like to see if you even come close to showing that you understand

You're failing at trying to make a point that's my point.

If you want to ban one you're just as bad as any leftist

but you just called somebody a liar because you claimed that lefties want to ban all guns. How about some humility and you just admit that you were not being honest.

Leftist do want to ban all guns that the fucking plan you dumb son of bitch

I just said that I do t want ban all guns. So how does that factor in. Does that mean I’m not a Leftist?

WOW like all leftist they say one thing get what they want and move on and go for more
You're lying when you say you only want to ban one gun

I just asked for you to show understanding by restating my point as you understand it and your response was that I’m failing?! Is that joke. Can you not answer the question?

You're a leftist that lied when he said he doesn't want to ban all guns
You say that now until the next gun ban scam comes up and you'll support that ban also
Just a reminder you're a liar when you say you don't want to ban all guns.

 

[OKTexas]

Yeah, an observation that has been debunked in every thread on firearms. I'm sure I've seen you in at least a couple of them. So what would you call an observation that has been proven to be untrue?

.

im not twisting numbers to form a narrative just providing the most obvious reason for supporting regulation by most people. They hear AR15 and think of most the major mass shootings we’ve had in the USA. Schools, night clubs, churches... that’s why they support regulation. The OP left out the most obvious point.

And the only reason people think that way is due to propaganda pushed by the commiecrats and their lackey media. ARs have lower body counts than fist, feet and clubs, they just get all the publicity. Studies show the last AW ban had no measurable effect on crime. It's all planned to eventually disarm law abiding citizens. That's why I say, NO MORE COMPROMISE!!!!!!!!!!

.

How about you list the biggest mass shootings in the US over the past few years and the type of weapon used... I’m not talking about gang homicides in Chicago, I’m talking about mass shootings in public forums... you obviously need to do the research so have fun.

No, I don't need to do any research, you're doing the same thing the commies and media are doing, concentrating on the outliers that account for a very small percentage of overall homicides. Of course their solution is to disadvantage millions of law abiding Americans. I ain't buying it.

.

If I’m being dishonest then win the argument by showing a list of the largest mass shootings over the past few years and the guns that were used. Just give an honest response. No spin

Feel free to prove my opinion incorrect, I'm looking at everything in context, perhaps you and the gun grabbers should do the same.

.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

No, I don't need to do any research, you're doing the same thing the commies and media are doing, concentrating on the outliers that account for a very small percentage of overall homicides. Of course their solution is to disadvantage millions of law abiding Americans. I ain't buying it.

.

If I’m being dishonest then win the argument by showing a list of the largest mass shootings over the past few years and the guns that were used. Just give an honest response. No spin

The point has been made you don't need an AR to commit mass shootings

That point has nothing to do with this conversation. You’re lost

When you say that you don't want to ban all guns that is a lie and thereby makes any point you are trying to make a failure

You have no way of knowing that’s a lie. Just flinging our an accusation calling me a liar because you can’t keep up in a debate is rather pathetic. Grow up. Do better

It's a lie you supporting banning this gun then there will be a push to ban another gun then another
You'll support Federal gun registration
Just to let you know you can lie and let it fly to yourself but you can't lie to people who know the plan.

 

[Hum Dinger]

The AR-15 was originally designed as the Armalite AR-15 (aka the M-16):

ArmaLite AR-15 - Wikipedia

This was designed as a military weapon with devastating firepower - far greater than any reasonable civilian weapon.

"had to penetrate a standard U.S. M1 helmet at 500 yards (460 meters) and retain a velocity in excess of the speed of sound, while matching or exceeding the wounding ability of the .30 Carbine cartridge"

That doesn't sound like a defensive weapon or a hunting rifle now does it?

The actual AR-15 has never been used by the military has never been used in war...it is no different than any other semi-automatic rifle on the civilian market. You guys keep lying making it easier and easier to see your end game.

The Bolt action deer hunting rifle is a current military weapon.

The pump action, 5 shot, shotgun is a current military weapon.

The AR-15 has never been used by the military.

The AR-15 is a semi-automatic version of the M16 dumbass!

So technically it's never been used by the military - they use the fully automatic version.

But other than that, it's the same weapon.

 

[Hum Dinger]

The AR-15 was originally designed as the Armalite AR-15 (aka the M-16):

ArmaLite AR-15 - Wikipedia

This was designed as a military weapon with devastating firepower - far greater than any reasonable civilian weapon.

"had to penetrate a standard U.S. M1 helmet at 500 yards (460 meters) and retain a velocity in excess of the speed of sound, while matching or exceeding the wounding ability of the .30 Carbine cartridge"

That doesn't sound like a defensive weapon or a hunting rifle now does it?

AR's have a purpose and it is to kill as efficiently as possible
They also serve a purpose by keeping my rights where I want them.

If "efficient killing" is your goal then you do then you do not deserve any rights at all.

You belong in a mental institution.

You do not deserve firearm ownership because your thinking will just get your firearm taken from you and your life taken by the one who took it
What is your qualitative experience in the use of deadly force? What gives you the ability to have an opinion on what an individual needs to prevail in a fight for their life?

When have you, in civilian life, ever had to fight for your life?

Perhaps you've been living in a fantasy world. Watching too many rambo movies.

Perhaps you're an advanced paranoid waiting for some boogey man to threaten you.

I'm a white middle-man who has lived and worked in some of the highest crime areas in the Untied States. I have NEVER felt the need for a weapon.

I suspect that the biggest challenge you have is finding the bottom of a beer can - which explains your paranoid delusions!

According to the CDC Americans use their legal guns 1.1 million times a year to stop criminals and save lives....don't like that number? The Department of Justice research showed the number to be 1.5 million....

I have never had a house fire, but we have fire insurance...

The Republicans bared the CDC from collecting data on gun violence years ago.

So I guess that makes you a lying bag of shit!

 

[iceberg]

***\\\This Is My Opinion///***

I believe Liberals want to ban the AR-15 for two reasons...

1. The AR-15 is scary looking, it's that simple. The AR-15 is scary looking and it's easy to get people to think the AR-15 is bad because of the way it looks.

2. Here's the main reason why Liberals want to ban the AR-15. If Liberals are successful, they can then point to other guns as more powerful and say "We banned the AR-15 so we should ban all of these other weapons because they are more powerful and accurate."

That's why the big push to ban the AR-15.

And you are wrong. No other gun, freely available to civilians, is designed for or capable of killing as many people as possible in as short a time as possible as the AR-15.

Lord you are stupid. It fires no faster than any other semi auto.

Period.

 

[Hum Dinger]

The AR-15 was originally designed as the Armalite AR-15 (aka the M-16):

ArmaLite AR-15 - Wikipedia

This was designed as a military weapon with devastating firepower - far greater than any reasonable civilian weapon.

"had to penetrate a standard U.S. M1 helmet at 500 yards (460 meters) and retain a velocity in excess of the speed of sound, while matching or exceeding the wounding ability of the .30 Carbine cartridge"

That doesn't sound like a defensive weapon or a hunting rifle now does it?

No, it doesn’t.

But whatever its original intent doesn’t justify banning AR 15s.

That a law might be Constitutional doesn’t necessarily mean it’s a good law or its enactment is warranted.

The Ar-15 was not designed for civilian use - there is no reasonable justification for civilians to have one.

In the words of Justice Scalia:

" “Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited…”. It is “…not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.”"

The AR-15 falls under the category of "any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose"

 

[iceberg]

***\\\This Is My Opinion///***

I believe Liberals want to ban the AR-15 for two reasons...

1. The AR-15 is scary looking, it's that simple. The AR-15 is scary looking and it's easy to get people to think the AR-15 is bad because of the way it looks.

2. Here's the main reason why Liberals want to ban the AR-15. If Liberals are successful, they can then point to other guns as more powerful and say "We banned the AR-15 so we should ban all of these other weapons because they are more powerful and accurate."

That's why the big push to ban the AR-15.

And you are wrong. No other gun, freely available to civilians, is designed for or capable of killing as many people as possible in as short a time as possible as the AR-15.

Except for this little ranch rifle.

The Mini14's barrel heats up lots faster than the AR15, and it isn't nearly as dependable under extended use. That's mostly due to the metal used in the barrel. Later models are some better, but still don't compare with te AR. AR sights don't suck like on the mini.

Lord you are stupid, making it up as you go.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

The AR-15 was originally designed as the Armalite AR-15 (aka the M-16):

ArmaLite AR-15 - Wikipedia

This was designed as a military weapon with devastating firepower - far greater than any reasonable civilian weapon.

"had to penetrate a standard U.S. M1 helmet at 500 yards (460 meters) and retain a velocity in excess of the speed of sound, while matching or exceeding the wounding ability of the .30 Carbine cartridge"

That doesn't sound like a defensive weapon or a hunting rifle now does it?

The actual AR-15 has never been used by the military has never been used in war...it is no different than any other semi-automatic rifle on the civilian market. You guys keep lying making it easier and easier to see your end game.

The Bolt action deer hunting rifle is a current military weapon.

The pump action, 5 shot, shotgun is a current military weapon.

The AR-15 has never been used by the military.

The AR-15 is a semi-automatic version of the M16 dumbass!

So technically it's never been used by the military - they use the fully automatic version.

But other than that, it's the same weapon.

and that's why it's protected by the second amendment

 

[bigrebnc1775]

***\\\This Is My Opinion///***

I believe Liberals want to ban the AR-15 for two reasons...

1. The AR-15 is scary looking, it's that simple. The AR-15 is scary looking and it's easy to get people to think the AR-15 is bad because of the way it looks.

2. Here's the main reason why Liberals want to ban the AR-15. If Liberals are successful, they can then point to other guns as more powerful and say "We banned the AR-15 so we should ban all of these other weapons because they are more powerful and accurate."

That's why the big push to ban the AR-15.

And you are wrong. No other gun, freely available to civilians, is designed for or capable of killing as many people as possible in as short a time as possible as the AR-15.

Except for this little ranch rifle.

The Mini14's barrel heats up lots faster than the AR15, and it isn't nearly as dependable under extended use. That's mostly due to the metal used in the barrel. Later models are some better, but still don't compare with te AR. AR sights don't suck like on the mini.

Lord you are stupid, making it up as you go.

Sometimes I miss those types of stupid posts thanks for correcting his mistake.

 

[Hum Dinger]

The AR-15 was originally designed as the Armalite AR-15 (aka the M-16):

ArmaLite AR-15 - Wikipedia

This was designed as a military weapon with devastating firepower - far greater than any reasonable civilian weapon.

"had to penetrate a standard U.S. M1 helmet at 500 yards (460 meters) and retain a velocity in excess of the speed of sound, while matching or exceeding the wounding ability of the .30 Carbine cartridge"

That doesn't sound like a defensive weapon or a hunting rifle now does it?

AR's have a purpose and it is to kill as efficiently as possible
They also serve a purpose by keeping my rights where I want them.

If "efficient killing" is your goal then you do then you do not deserve any rights at all.

You belong in a mental institution.

You do not deserve firearm ownership because your thinking will just get your firearm taken from you and your life taken by the one who took it
What is your qualitative experience in the use of deadly force? What gives you the ability to have an opinion on what an individual needs to prevail in a fight for their life?

Typical rightwing lies and demagoguery.

No one seeks to ‘take away’ anyone’s guns; no one seeks to ‘disarm’ citizens.

And no one seeks to deny citizens the ability to defend one’s property or life.

Moron, beto stated he supports door to door confiscation and not one democrat called him out...

Pretty much everyone in the Democratic party has in some way stated that forced buy backs is a very very bad idea. We may agree with the sentiment - but it would be a disaster.

Most of us cringed when he said it (not those in the auditorium). It's an unworkable idea.

That was the point I ruled out supporting Beto.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

The AR-15 was originally designed as the Armalite AR-15 (aka the M-16):

ArmaLite AR-15 - Wikipedia

This was designed as a military weapon with devastating firepower - far greater than any reasonable civilian weapon.

"had to penetrate a standard U.S. M1 helmet at 500 yards (460 meters) and retain a velocity in excess of the speed of sound, while matching or exceeding the wounding ability of the .30 Carbine cartridge"

That doesn't sound like a defensive weapon or a hunting rifle now does it?

No, it doesn’t.

But whatever its original intent doesn’t justify banning AR 15s.

That a law might be Constitutional doesn’t necessarily mean it’s a good law or its enactment is warranted.

The Ar-15 was not designed for civilian use - there is no reasonable justification for civilians to have one.

In the words of Justice Scalia:

" “Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited…”. It is “…not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.”"

The AR-15 falls under the category of "any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose"

The Supreme Court ruled that in order for a firearm to be protected by the second amendment, it must have some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia, in common use of the time, and supplied by the citizen.
So tell me what firearm is there that is in common use that would have some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

AR's have a purpose and it is to kill as efficiently as possible
They also serve a purpose by keeping my rights where I want them.

If "efficient killing" is your goal then you do then you do not deserve any rights at all.

You belong in a mental institution.

You do not deserve firearm ownership because your thinking will just get your firearm taken from you and your life taken by the one who took it
What is your qualitative experience in the use of deadly force? What gives you the ability to have an opinion on what an individual needs to prevail in a fight for their life?

Typical rightwing lies and demagoguery.

No one seeks to ‘take away’ anyone’s guns; no one seeks to ‘disarm’ citizens.

And no one seeks to deny citizens the ability to defend one’s property or life.

Moron, beto stated he supports door to door confiscation and not one democrat called him out...

Pretty much everyone in the Democratic party has in some way stated that forced buy backs is a very very bad idea. We may agree with the sentiment - but it would be a disaster.

Most of us cringed when he said it (not those in the auditorium). It's an unworkable idea.

That was the point I ruled out supporting Beto.

No need to back step what Robert Frances said because it's already known and has been known that is the end game for you leftist confiscate all guns.

 

[Hum Dinger]

The AR-15 was originally designed as the Armalite AR-15 (aka the M-16):

ArmaLite AR-15 - Wikipedia

This was designed as a military weapon with devastating firepower - far greater than any reasonable civilian weapon.

"had to penetrate a standard U.S. M1 helmet at 500 yards (460 meters) and retain a velocity in excess of the speed of sound, while matching or exceeding the wounding ability of the .30 Carbine cartridge"

That doesn't sound like a defensive weapon or a hunting rifle now does it?

Yet it was approved for civilian sale long before the military adopted an upgraded version for general use.

.

The Armalite AR-15 was designed in 1959 and adopted by the U.S. miltary in 1964 as the M16.

The civilian Colt AR-15 was marketed starting in 1977.

ArmaLite AR-15 - Wikipedia

Please stop making things up!

 

[Hum Dinger]

The AR-15 was originally designed as the Armalite AR-15 (aka the M-16):

ArmaLite AR-15 - Wikipedia

This was designed as a military weapon with devastating firepower - far greater than any reasonable civilian weapon.

"had to penetrate a standard U.S. M1 helmet at 500 yards (460 meters) and retain a velocity in excess of the speed of sound, while matching or exceeding the wounding ability of the .30 Carbine cartridge"

That doesn't sound like a defensive weapon or a hunting rifle now does it?

Yet it was approved for civilian sale long before the military adopted an upgraded version for general use.

.

Don't baffle him with facts.....the left wing head tends to explode if you do that....it gets messy.

I suggest you read on the history. Just because you WANT to believe something does not make it true:

ArmaLite AR-15 - Wikipedia

 

[OKTexas]

AR's have a purpose and it is to kill as efficiently as possible
They also serve a purpose by keeping my rights where I want them.

If "efficient killing" is your goal then you do then you do not deserve any rights at all.

You belong in a mental institution.

You do not deserve firearm ownership because your thinking will just get your firearm taken from you and your life taken by the one who took it
What is your qualitative experience in the use of deadly force? What gives you the ability to have an opinion on what an individual needs to prevail in a fight for their life?

When have you, in civilian life, ever had to fight for your life?

Perhaps you've been living in a fantasy world. Watching too many rambo movies.

Perhaps you're an advanced paranoid waiting for some boogey man to threaten you.

I'm a white middle-man who has lived and worked in some of the highest crime areas in the Untied States. I have NEVER felt the need for a weapon.

I suspect that the biggest challenge you have is finding the bottom of a beer can - which explains your paranoid delusions!

According to the CDC Americans use their legal guns 1.1 million times a year to stop criminals and save lives....don't like that number? The Department of Justice research showed the number to be 1.5 million....

I have never had a house fire, but we have fire insurance...

The Republicans bared the CDC from collecting data on gun violence years ago.

So I guess that makes you a lying bag of shit!

Gun rights advocates have long defended their right to bear arms out of a need for self-defense. And now they have a new report from the Centers for Disease Control that says they make a darn good point.

The $10 million study commissioned by President Barack Obama as part of 23 executive orders he signed in January says “self-defense can be an important crime deterrent.”

Sorry, Liberals! Even the CDC's New Report Suggests Guns are Great for Self Defense...

.

 

[Hum Dinger]

The AR-15 was originally designed as the Armalite AR-15 (aka the M-16):

ArmaLite AR-15 - Wikipedia

This was designed as a military weapon with devastating firepower - far greater than any reasonable civilian weapon.

"had to penetrate a standard U.S. M1 helmet at 500 yards (460 meters) and retain a velocity in excess of the speed of sound, while matching or exceeding the wounding ability of the .30 Carbine cartridge"

That doesn't sound like a defensive weapon or a hunting rifle now does it?

AR's have a purpose and it is to kill as efficiently as possible
They also serve a purpose by keeping my rights where I want them.

If "efficient killing" is your goal then you do then you do not deserve any rights at all.

You belong in a mental institution.

You do not deserve firearm ownership because your thinking will just get your firearm taken from you and your life taken by the one who took it
What is your qualitative experience in the use of deadly force? What gives you the ability to have an opinion on what an individual needs to prevail in a fight for their life?

Typical rightwing lies and demagoguery.

No one seeks to ‘take away’ anyone’s guns; no one seeks to ‘disarm’ citizens.

And no one seeks to deny citizens the ability to defend one’s property or life.

Liar

Spoiled brat!

 

[ph3iron]

***\\\This Is My Opinion///***

I believe Liberals want to ban the AR-15 for two reasons...

1. The AR-15 is scary looking, it's that simple. The AR-15 is scary looking and it's easy to get people to think the AR-15 is bad because of the way it looks.

2. Here's the main reason why Liberals want to ban the AR-15. If Liberals are successful, they can then point to other guns as more powerful and say "We banned the AR-15 so we should ban all of these other weapons because they are more powerful and accurate."

That's why the big push to ban the AR-15.

Might help if you knew the def of liberal.
No college?
Liber, Latin, free.
For the individual and small gov

 

[ph3iron]

If "efficient killing" is your goal then you do then you do not deserve any rights at all.

You belong in a mental institution.

You do not deserve firearm ownership because your thinking will just get your firearm taken from you and your life taken by the one who took it
What is your qualitative experience in the use of deadly force? What gives you the ability to have an opinion on what an individual needs to prevail in a fight for their life?

When have you, in civilian life, ever had to fight for your life?

Perhaps you've been living in a fantasy world. Watching too many rambo movies.

Perhaps you're an advanced paranoid waiting for some boogey man to threaten you.

I'm a white middle-man who has lived and worked in some of the highest crime areas in the Untied States. I have NEVER felt the need for a weapon.

I suspect that the biggest challenge you have is finding the bottom of a beer can - which explains your paranoid delusions!

According to the CDC Americans use their legal guns 1.1 million times a year to stop criminals and save lives....don't like that number? The Department of Justice research showed the number to be 1.5 million....

I have never had a house fire, but we have fire insurance...

The Republicans bared the CDC from collecting data on gun violence years ago.

So I guess that makes you a lying bag of shit!

Gun rights advocates have long defended their right to bear arms out of a need for self-defense. And now they have a new report from the Centers for Disease Control that says they make a darn good point.

The $10 million study commissioned by President Barack Obama as part of 23 executive orders he signed in January says “self-defense can be an important crime deterrent.”

Sorry, Liberals! Even the CDC's New Report Suggests Guns are Great for Self Defense...

.

Let me guess, the Blaze?
I thought they had gone broke

 

[Hum Dinger]

The AR-15 was originally designed as the Armalite AR-15 (aka the M-16):

ArmaLite AR-15 - Wikipedia

This was designed as a military weapon with devastating firepower - far greater than any reasonable civilian weapon.

"had to penetrate a standard U.S. M1 helmet at 500 yards (460 meters) and retain a velocity in excess of the speed of sound, while matching or exceeding the wounding ability of the .30 Carbine cartridge"

That doesn't sound like a defensive weapon or a hunting rifle now does it?

The actual AR-15 has never been used by the military has never been used in war...it is no different than any other semi-automatic rifle on the civilian market. You guys keep lying making it easier and easier to see your end game.

The Bolt action deer hunting rifle is a current military weapon.

The pump action, 5 shot, shotgun is a current military weapon.

The AR-15 has never been used by the military.

The AR-15 is a semi-automatic version of the M16 dumbass!

So technically it's never been used by the military - they use the fully automatic version.

But other than that, it's the same weapon.

and that's why it's protected by the second amendment

No it's not. It was banned from 1994 - 2004.

In the words of Justice Scalia:

“Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited…”. It is “…not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.”