Why Liberals Want To Ban The AR-15

[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"

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?

What well-regulated militia are you a member of?

I have nothing against National Guard, Army Reserve or certain police having AR-15s.

Well trained, well-regulated people.

 

[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...

.

I guess you never read the opposite?
Terrific researcher
http://www.cjcj.org/uploads/cjcj/documents/jpj_firearm_ownership.pdf

 

[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.

Liar

Spoiled brat!

I'm neither I am a well-armed law-abiding citizen not willing to allow my rights to be taken away.

 

[Hum Dinger]

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.

No democrat has ever said that they want the confiscation of all guns. NOT ONE!

This falls under the category of right-wing PARANOID DELUSIONS!

Hell. I don't own or want to own a gun, but if they ever tried outlawing ALL gun ownership I'd be fully on the side of the gun owners and would probably purchase one just to show support.

Believe it or not, I'm fully supportive of the right to own guns - just not ridiculously destructive weapons like the AR-15

 

[Daryl Hunt]

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!!!!!!!!!!

.

Are you saying you are completely against common sense gun regulations? Are you saying that ALL firearms regulations need to be stuck? The Countries that have little or no firearms regulations are battle grounds like Yemen that has zero firearms regulations and how is that working out fo them?

You are going to get firearms regulations. Otherwise, we end up with a war torn country free for all. Rather than say, "No Compromise" maybe you should be working with people like me for common sense gun regulations.

Is there something you failed to understand about "NO MORE", also I have yet to see you exhibit any common sense. How about faithful enforcement of the laws we have.

.

You have been too busy playing, "Take no Prisoners" to notice what I have been doing. Until you start showing an adults method of discussion, your views will just get caught up in the hate speech that it really is.

I saw your version of common sense, classifying semiautos as class 3 is stupid. You also might want to learn about the incorporation doctrine behind the 14th Amendment. It says all of the bill of rights are binding on the States as well as the feds.

.

You sure do like to spin what the other person says. The ONLY rifle I would put on a special class is the AR-15 and it's various clones. All the others don't meet the Military Requirements of today. You can stop lying and trying to foment fear any time now. And the real problem here is, you gunnutters refuse to work with people like me to allow you to keep your ARs but stop the crazies from having them. Your own BS about "First we need to stop the Nutcases" dies on the vine. Luckily, the Courts don't agree with your insanity. The State and lower Governments have the right to place the AR and it's various Clones into a special category and either do an outright ban or highly limit them. What YOU need to do is to work with the rest of us and get a legal definition for a special category for the AR-15 and it's various clones. If you won't, fine. We'll just get them out of the civilian market.

You can stretch and read into the US Constitution all you want but in the end, the Courts have ruled that the AR-15 and it's various clones are a special case. Not the "Assault Rifle" or "Semi Auto Rifles" which those terms have been ruled to be too generalized.

The reason for this isn't because the AR is scary looking. It's not because it's Black. I know of a few companies that puts out a Blue, Green, Brown, and yes, even a Pink version. And as for being scary, even the Pink one meets all the functions and requirements of a Combat Rifle and nothing else. Can you imagine attacking a bunch of LGBTers who are using the Pink AR-15? Are they any less lethal? It's not scary, it's functional with nothing left over for anything else.

Okay, it's time for you to go into your crude insults where you believe will win here. Get on with it. But remember, many of the States and the Courts disagree with you and your "Side Show Carnie Dog and Pony Act" has worn thin these days.

 

[Hum Dinger]

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...

.

Holy Crap! You'll believe ANYTHING you find on the internet!

The CDC has long been banned from collecting data on gun violence:

Dickey Amendment - Wikipedia

Try researching before spreading your BULLSHIT!

 

[Hum Dinger]

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!

I'm neither I am a well-armed law-abiding citizen not willing to allow my rights to be taken away.

Sounds like your a paranoid nut case.

So according to your earlier post, you should not be qualified to own a gun.

Of course your earlier post was inaccurate. Colombia vs. Heller is the law of the land.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

In fact, a Shiv Specialist can inflict the same body count as the handgun in the same time and space.

The point about a handgun is one doesn't have to be much of a specialist at close range.

In the hands of a novice, the body count will be kept down. And that is the point. AT some point, we have to place limits. When dealing with peoples rights, you may not agree with the limits but without them, you really don't want to live in that kind of country. Yemen is a case in point. It HAS no gun regulations. Or you can live in Syria which has almost no gun regs. The Middle East is a treasure trove for those that want to live in a gun regulation free society. And how is that working out for them?

 

[Daryl Hunt]

Many handguns hold 15-18 rounds. Handgun are much more mobile and concealable. The rounds they hold can be excessively deadly.

Calibres in handguns with mags holding that many don't have the killing power of AR 15 calibres at the same ranges.

1. It's Calibers.
2. most shootings are done within pistol caliber range
3. Back in the 80's there was a move to ban all pistols but those making the push knew it would never happen so they went after the AR because it wasn't in common use but now it is.

They went after the AR because it has the highest capability whether it was in use or not. It still has and it's being used. And it lives up to it's function.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

***\\\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.

Dont give liberals any ideas

If they ban the AR-15 they will come after all the other guns in due time

The courts already ruled on this. Your picture is not that of an AR-15 and it's various Clones. More than one court has bounced trying to use the term "Semi-Auto Rifle" and "Assault Rifle" as being too generic. You can stop this BS fear and hate speech anytime now. It's now working anymore.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

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.

No democrat has ever said that they want the confiscation of all guns. NOT ONE!

This falls under the category of right-wing PARANOID DELUSIONS!

Hell. I don't own or want to own a gun, but if they ever tried outlawing ALL gun ownership I'd be fully on the side of the gun owners and would probably purchase one just to show support.

Believe it or not, I'm fully supportive of the right to own guns - just not ridiculously destructive weapons like the AR-15

If you support one gun ban you'll support the next one
When they say common-sense gun laws that is what they are saying because what they propose will have no effect on crime
When you support banning people under 21 the right they have protected by the second amendment you are supporting gun bans.
Don't lie

 

[OKTexas]

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!

The facts are the AR15 platform was approved for sale to civilians in 1963, the upgraded version known as the M16 wasn't adopted for general military use till 1969. When I went through basic training in 1969 we had M14s. I didn't see an M16 till just before I went to Vietnam in 1970.

Colt sent a pilot model rifle (serial no. GX4968) to the BATF for civilian sale approval on Oct. 23, 1963. It was approved on Dec. 10, 1963, and sales of the "Model R6000 Colt AR-15 SP1 Sporter Rifle" began on Jan 2, 1964. The M16 wasn't issued to infantry units until 1965 (as the XM16E1), wasn't standardized as the M16A1 until 1967, and didn't officially replace the M14 until 1969. Colt had been selling semi-automatic AR-15's to civilians for 5 years by the time the M16A1 replaced the M14. Going off of the serial number records for the SP1, Colt had sold at least 2,501 rifles to the civilian market by 1965, 8,250 rifles by 1967, and 14,653 rifles by 1969.

More on the Military and Civilian History of the AR-15

.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

***\\\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.

Dont give liberals any ideas

If they ban the AR-15 they will come after all the other guns in due time

Hate to break it to you but if they get the chance to ban AR's no firearm will be safe from the next ban.

In some areas, the AR is already banned. Or it's highly regulated. Where is your doomsday prediction? The Courts have already nixed what you are claiming that the future holds.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Many handguns hold 15-18 rounds. Handgun are much more mobile and concealable. The rounds they hold can be excessively deadly.

Calibres in handguns with mags holding that many don't have the killing power of AR 15 calibres at the same ranges.

1. It's Calibers.
2. most shootings are done within pistol caliber range
3. Back in the 80's there was a move to ban all pistols but those making the push knew it would never happen so they went after the AR because it wasn't in common use but now it is.

They went after the AR because it has the highest capability whether it was in use or not. It still has and it's being used. And it lives up to it's function.

They went after the AR because they thought it would be a slam dunk for the next gun ban.

 

[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.

Dont give liberals any ideas

If they ban the AR-15 they will come after all the other guns in due time

Hate to break it to you but if they get the chance to ban AR's no firearm will be safe from the next ban.

In some areas, the AR is already banned. Or it's highly regulated. Where is your doomsday prediction? The Courts have already nixed what you are claiming that the future holds.

Yes in some areas it is it's shouldn't be but I can't help that because I am not a sheep that lives in those areas.

 

[the other mike]

Beto will have fun trying to get reelected in Texas, that's for sure.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

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.

No democrat has ever said that they want the confiscation of all guns. NOT ONE!

This falls under the category of right-wing PARANOID DELUSIONS!

Hell. I don't own or want to own a gun, but if they ever tried outlawing ALL gun ownership I'd be fully on the side of the gun owners and would probably purchase one just to show support.

Believe it or not, I'm fully supportive of the right to own guns - just not ridiculously destructive weapons like the AR-15

If you support one gun ban you'll support the next one
When they say common-sense gun laws that is what they are saying because what they propose will have no effect on crime
When you support banning people under 21 the right they have protected by the second amendment you are supporting gun bans.
Don't lie

And where does it say in the 2nd that they can't place a limit to the age of ownership? Everything done within reason is the answer. You don't like it, move to Yemen where you can have any weapon your little black heart desires but you will also get plenty of chances to use them just before they kill you dead by dousing you with gasoline.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

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!

I'm neither I am a well-armed law-abiding citizen not willing to allow my rights to be taken away.

Sounds like your a paranoid nut case.

So according to your earlier post, you should not be qualified to own a gun.

Of course your earlier post was inaccurate. Colombia vs. Heller is the law of the land.

Talk about a spoiled brat
Here you go one more time
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]

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.

No democrat has ever said that they want the confiscation of all guns. NOT ONE!

This falls under the category of right-wing PARANOID DELUSIONS!

Hell. I don't own or want to own a gun, but if they ever tried outlawing ALL gun ownership I'd be fully on the side of the gun owners and would probably purchase one just to show support.

Believe it or not, I'm fully supportive of the right to own guns - just not ridiculously destructive weapons like the AR-15

If you support one gun ban you'll support the next one
When they say common-sense gun laws that is what they are saying because what they propose will have no effect on crime
When you support banning people under 21 the right they have protected by the second amendment you are supporting gun bans.
Don't lie

And where does it say in the 2nd that they can't place a limit to the age of ownership? Everything done within reason is the answer. You don't like it, move to Yemen where you can have any weapon your little black heart desires but you will also get plenty of chances to use them just before they kill you dead by dousing you with gasoline.

The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed

 

[Daryl Hunt]

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!

The facts are the AR15 platform was approved for sale to civilians in 1963, the upgraded version known as the M16 wasn't adopted for general military use till 1969. When I went through basic training in 1969 we had M14s. I didn't see an M16 till just before I went to Vietnam in 1970.

Colt sent a pilot model rifle (serial no. GX4968) to the BATF for civilian sale approval on Oct. 23, 1963. It was approved on Dec. 10, 1963, and sales of the "Model R6000 Colt AR-15 SP1 Sporter Rifle" began on Jan 2, 1964. The M16 wasn't issued to infantry units until 1965 (as the XM16E1), wasn't standardized as the M16A1 until 1967, and didn't officially replace the M14 until 1969. Colt had been selling semi-automatic AR-15's to civilians for 5 years by the time the M16A1 replaced the M14. Going off of the serial number records for the SP1, Colt had sold at least 2,501 rifles to the civilian market by 1965, 8,250 rifles by 1967, and 14,653 rifles by 1969.

More on the Military and Civilian History of the AR-15

.

You forgot the one service that had them in 1962. USAF had begun buying them and ended up buying a total of just over 14,000 units. Stamped on the sides of those was "AR-15 Model 601". It was the same model that was sold to various Asian Countries starting in 1959 by Stoner. If you find an original Model 601 today, it will be restamped around the early 70s as "AR-15 Model 601 (M-16).