Why Liberals Want To Ban The AR-15

[Uncensored2008]

***\\\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.

What?

You just make shit up with no regard for facts or reality.

No, the barrel doesn't "heat up faster."

The AR is lighter due to a composite stock and has a pistol grip. Those are really the only functional differences.

You leave out the fact that it reloads blindingly fast in comparison to the Mini-14 when under duress by a non combat trained person. The very reason it's the primary gun used by MOST Militaries around the world today.

Again, you Communists just make shit up.

Both rifles use a magazine that is based on a compression spring. There is zero difference in how either rifle reloads.

You're not just liars, you're stupid.

 

[Dr Grump]

[

I love when people who have never shot a gun think they are an expert.

I love it how people attack the person and not disagree with their point...

 

[Uncensored2008]

I've noticed you never respond to any of my posts that I directly quote you that you know I'll hand your ass to you. Why is that?

Clayton? That is Saul Goodman is a very stupid man and a coward, He got a law degree from a matchbook ad law school in the Philippines. He was bottom of his class. The drooling retard has been utterly pummeled by every person with greater than a high school diploma on the board.

 

[Uncensored2008]

so libs want to ban an AR-15

can the gun nuts here tell me why anyone would need one?

~S~

With the exposure of DNC hack Eric Ciaramella as the fraudulent "whistleblower" the latest attempt at the coup to undo the 2016 election has failed. Pelosi will shut it down. The desperation of democrats to undo the election and protect the embezzlement of foreign aid payments by the well connected is at a fevered pitch.Every trick the democrats have tried has failed.

One last ditch effort by the democrats, assassinate president Trump. WE ALL know you're going to try it. IF you succeed, we ALL need AR-15's to put you traitor fucks down.

Rump is finished. He's either finished today, sometime this year of he might be reelected and still be finished further down the road. In his wake, the Republican Party is finished many times over. I suggest you spend less time defending Rump and more time rebuilding the GOP. If you can't get started soon, your worst fears just might become a reality. I would prefer a strong GOP with Strong Values instead of what we have today.

So shithead, how is that coup you traitors are conducting coming along?

 

[Uncensored2008]

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.

Actually, the US Army has purchased a few of them. You'll find them used for some standing guard positions. As for semi versus full, the normal operation of a M-16 in combat is in the single shot setting. The reason the full auto was changed to the 3 shot burst was the conservation of ammo. And in the 3 shot burst, the only shot that will be on target will be usually the first. That means you are going to waste 66% of all you ammo. So they generally use the M-16 in the single shot setting. Meaning, in combat, there ISN"T any difference.

Ah, that's a fucking lie, but you're a shameless liar - so it's expected.

 

[Uncensored2008]

I was in the AF for over 20. The AR-15 model 601 was in "General Military Use" since about 1963. And it was still the primary combat rifle in the USAF until 1992 when it finally retired. I believe that a number over 14,000 makes it in general military use.

Well now, you're what we call a "fucking liar."

The 601 was deployed as the "M-16" not the AR-15.

You know this, but decided to lie. I figure you're lying about military service as well - I mean, you're a shameless liar - no one can believe anything you say - and no one does.

 

[Uncensored2008]

But it can be regulated. Regulation is not infringement. And the more something is abused, the more it's going to be regulated.

So Comrade, speech too can be "regulated" to ensure it conforms with party goals. And obviously the press must be tightly regulated to ensure the party defines what the peasants hear, read and see.

You Stalinists think you're so clever, but you're just ham handed thugs.

 

[Uncensored2008]

~S~

How did you get such a clear X-Ray of your brain? That's astounding....

 

[Norman]

But it can be regulated. Regulation is not infringement. And the more something is abused, the more it's going to be regulated.

So Comrade, speech too can be "regulated" to ensure it conforms with party goals. And obviously the press must be tightly regulated to ensure the party defines what the peasants hear, read and see.

You Stalinists think you're so clever, but you're just ham handed thugs.

Thugs used to be regulated a lot more stringently.

Hangings is how they were dealt with.

 

[Cosmos]

For one thing, there are no more liberals. They are radical leftist America-hating communists.

The reason they want to ban the AR-15 and all other firearms is all about political power. They know it isn't going to happen for a long time but they'll continue to use it as a wedge issue and continue to demonize Republicans over it.

They have no desire whatsoever to diminish the gun crime problem. In fact, they want it to get worse so they can exploit it politically.

Going after the inanimate objects is cheap and easy. Going after criminals is expensive and difficult.

You do know that your just dynamited any and all argument against not having any gun regulations don't you.

I don't even know what that blabbering stupidity is supposed to mean. Try English.

 

[Lesh]

The 601 was deployed as the "M-16" not the AR-15.

The only difference between an M-16 and an AR-15 is that the AR-15 doesn't fire full auto.

But it CAN fire so fast that means almost nothing

 

[Uncensored2008]

The 601 was deployed as the "M-16" not the AR-15.

The only difference between an M-16 and an AR-15 is that the AR-15 doesn't fire full auto.

But it CAN fire so fast that means almost nothing

Lying motherfucker.

Like ANY semi-auto, the AR-15 fires once per trigger pull.

All you assholes do is lie.

 

[Lesh]

Like ANY semi-auto, the AR-15 fires once per trigger pull.

Fuck yourself you piece of shit.

It will fire as fast as you can twitch your finger.

Have you ever fired one of either? I have

 

[2aguy]

Like ANY semi-auto, the AR-15 fires once per trigger pull.

Fuck yourself you piece of shit.

It will fire as fast as you can twitch your finger.

Have you ever fired one of either? I have

And yet....in 2018, the shotgun was deadlier in mass public shootings...

There are over 18 million AR-15 rifles in private hands in the United States...

In 2018 there were a total of 5 attacks with rifles, either AK-47 civilian models or AR-15s, which are civilian rifles.........

Total killed with rifles in mass public shootings.... 39 people.

numbers killed in the attacks...

4
11
4
3
17

Virginia Tech...2, 9mm pistols....32 killed.
Luby's Cafe... 2 pistols, 24 killed


..the Russian shooter....Killed 20, injured 40 with a tube fed, 5 shot, pump action shotgun.

The Navy Yard shooter killed 12 with a pump action shotgun..

The Santa Fe shooter used a pump action shotgun and .38 revolver and killed 10

You don't know what you are talking about.

 

[2aguy]

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

You first.

Otherwise, this fails as a slippery slope fallacy.

Conservatives have been lying for decades how necessary, proper, and Constitutional firearm regulatory measures will eventually result in ‘confiscation’ – it hasn’t happen, it never will, and no one seeks to have it happen.

They stated they want to confiscate guns at the CNN town hall, and one of their short lived candidates stated he planned on doing that if he won, you moron.....

 

[2aguy]

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"

Wrong.

The Supreme Court has made no such ruling; the High Court has never ruled on the constitutionality of AWBs, it has made no determination as to whether an AR 15 is ‘in common use,’ where its possession is entitled to Constitutional protections, or ‘dangerous and unusual,’ whose possession is outside of the scope of the Second Amendment.

Moreover, citizens are not required to ‘justify’ the exercising of a fundamental right as a ‘prerequisite’ to indeed do so; citizens have the right to possess firearms – including AR 15s – without having to justify or legitimize owning such a weapon where they are lawfully allowed to do so.

That’s the mistake conservatives make: they come up with ridiculous reasons in an attempt to ‘justify’ owning an AR 15 – when no such ‘justification’ is needed.

The supreme court has, however, ruled what guns are protected by the second amendment.

He is lying...all of those things clayton claimed have been addressed in Heller and Caetano.....and Scalia specifically named the AR-15 as protected, and rifles like it, in his opinion in Friedman v Highland Park...

Caetano.....dangerous and unusual attack by guys like clayton...

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/14-10078_aplc.pdf
Opinion of the Court[edit]

In a per curiam decision, the Supreme Court vacated the ruling of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court.

[7] Citing District of Columbia v. Heller[8] and McDonald v. City of Chicago,[9] the Court began its opinion by stating that "the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding" and that "the Second Amendment right is fully applicable to the States".[6]

The Court then identified three reasons why the Massachusetts court's opinion contradicted prior rulings by the United States Supreme Court.[1]

First, the Massachusetts court said that stun guns could be banned because they "were not in common use at the time of the Second Amendment’s enactment", but the Supreme Court noted that this contradicted Heller's conclusion that Second Amendment protects "arms ... that were not in existence at the time of the founding”.[10]

Second, the Massachusetts court said that stun guns were "dangerous per se at common law and unusual" because they were "a thoroughly modern invention", but the Supreme Court held that this was also inconstant with Heller.[11]


Third, the Massachusetts court said that stun guns could be banned because they were not "readily adaptable to use in the military", but the Supreme Court held that Heller rejected the argument that "only those weapons useful in warfare" were protected by the Second Amendment.[12]

-----

----As to “dangerous,” the court below held that a weapon is “dangerous per se” if it is “ ‘designed and constructed to produce death or great bodily harm’ and ‘for the purpose of bodily assault or defense.’” 470 Mass., at 779, 26 N. E. 3d, at 692 (quoting Commonwealth v. Appleby, 380 Mass. 296, 303, 402 N. E. 2d 1051, 1056 (1980)).


That test may be appropriate for applying statutes criminalizing assault with a dangerous weapon. See ibid., 402 N. E. 2d, at 1056. But it cannot be used to identify arms that fall outside the Second Amendment. First, the relative dangerousness of a weapon is irrelevant when the weapon belongs to a class of arms commonly used for lawful purposes. See Heller, supra, at 627 (contrasting “‘dangerous and unusual weapons’” that may be banned with protected “weapons . . . ‘in common use at the time’”).

Second, even in cases where dangerousness might be relevant, the Supreme Judicial Court’s test sweeps far too broadly.

Heller defined the “Arms” covered by the Second Amendment to include “‘any thing that a man wears for his defence, or takes into his hands, or useth in wrath to cast at or strike another.’” 554 U. S., at 581.


Under the decision below, however, virtually every covered arm would qualify as “dangerous.” Were there any doubt on this point, one need only look at the court’s first example of “dangerous per se” weapons: “firearms.” 470 Mass., at 779, 26 N. E. 3d, at 692.

If Heller tells us anything, it is that firearms cannot be categorically prohibited just because they are dangerous. 554 U. S., at 636. A fortiori, stun guns that the Commonwealth’s own witness described as “non-lethal force,” Tr. 27, cannot be banned on that basis.---------

The court also opined that a weapon’s unusualness depends on whether “it is a weapon of warfare to be used by the militia.” 470 Mass., at 780, 26 N. E. 3d, at 693. It asserted that we followed such an approach in Miller and “approved its use in Heller.” 470 Mass., at 780, 26 N. E. 3d, at 693.


But Heller actually said that it would be a “startling reading” of Miller to conclude that “only those weapons useful in warfare are protected.” 554 U. S., at 624.


Instead, Miller and Heller recognized that militia members traditionally reported for duty carrying “the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home,” and that the Second Amendment therefore protects such weapons as a class, regardless of any particular weapon’s suitability for military use.


554 U. S., at 627; see id., at 624–625. Indeed, Heller acknowledged that advancements in military technology might render many commonly owned weapons ineffective in warfare. Id., at 627–628. But such “modern developments . . . cannot change our interpretation of the right.” Ibid.
In any event, the Supreme Judicial Court’s assumption that stun guns are unsuited for militia or military use is untenable.


https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf

Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment.

We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844, 849 (1997), and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27, 35–36 (2001), the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.


https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/15-133_7l48.pdf
That analysis misreads Heller. The question under Heller is not whether citizens have adequate alternatives available for self-defense.

Rather, Heller asks whether the law bans types of firearms commonly used for a lawful purpose—regardless of whether alternatives exist. 554 U. S., at 627–629. And Heller draws a distinction between such firearms and weapons specially adapted to unlawful uses and not in common use, such as sawed-off shotguns. Id., at 624–625.
The City’s ban is thus highly suspect because it broadly prohibits common semiautomatic firearms used for lawful purposes.


Roughly five million Americans own AR-style semiautomatic rifles. See 784 F. 3d, at 415, n. 3. The overwhelming majority of citizens who own and use such rifles do so for lawful purposes, including self-defense and target shooting. See ibid. Under our precedents, that is all that is needed for citizens to have a right under the Second Amendment to keep such weapons. See McDonald, 561 U. S., at 767–768; Heller, supra, at 628–629.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

Perhaps.

Perhaps not.

But until that happens it remains a fact of Constitutional law that the current regulation of AR 15s in no manner violates the Second Amendment or infringes on the right of the people to possess firearms.

One would think that a ‘conservative’ Supreme Court should rule consistent with “states’ rights” dogma, and allow the bans enacted by the states to stand.

Such is the hypocrisy of the right.

The supreme court will be hearing the case involving New York even though New York killed the law they created the supreme court said it didn't matter they will hear it.

You got a viable link to that information?

can you read?

Because you said so? Well, that case I can say whatever I want to about you and because I said it, it must be true. Now, get me that link without the Rumpster Circus Tent Dog and Pony act.

If you can honestly read link has been posted.

A decent link has not been posted. Sorry, we don't accept a link to some rightwing nutjob site that is just trying to keep you wound up. Considering there is NO court case pending there is nothing for the Supreme Court to rule on. And even if there was, the Supreme Court has been avoiding 2nd amendment cases like the plague. So if you have further information present it. Otherwise, you are just playing the old Rump Carnie Dog and Pony show once again.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

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.

What?

You just make shit up with no regard for facts or reality.

No, the barrel doesn't "heat up faster."

The AR is lighter due to a composite stock and has a pistol grip. Those are really the only functional differences.

You leave out the fact that it reloads blindingly fast in comparison to the Mini-14 when under duress by a non combat trained person. The very reason it's the primary gun used by MOST Militaries around the world today.

Again, you Communists just make shit up.

Both rifles use a magazine that is based on a compression spring. There is zero difference in how either rifle reloads.

You're not just liars, you're stupid.

One goes straight in and uses gravity to extract the mag while the other requires the mag to be rocked forward by hand to release the mag. That makes reloading speed quite a difference. And the difference is what keeps the Mini-14 off the same regulation and ban lists that the AR-15 constantly finds itself.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

so libs want to ban an AR-15

can the gun nuts here tell me why anyone would need one?

~S~

With the exposure of DNC hack Eric Ciaramella as the fraudulent "whistleblower" the latest attempt at the coup to undo the 2016 election has failed. Pelosi will shut it down. The desperation of democrats to undo the election and protect the embezzlement of foreign aid payments by the well connected is at a fevered pitch.Every trick the democrats have tried has failed.

One last ditch effort by the democrats, assassinate president Trump. WE ALL know you're going to try it. IF you succeed, we ALL need AR-15's to put you traitor fucks down.

Rump is finished. He's either finished today, sometime this year of he might be reelected and still be finished further down the road. In his wake, the Republican Party is finished many times over. I suggest you spend less time defending Rump and more time rebuilding the GOP. If you can't get started soon, your worst fears just might become a reality. I would prefer a strong GOP with Strong Values instead of what we have today.

So shithead, how is that coup you traitors are conducting coming along?

Actually, you rumpsters already did your coup. You overthrew the GOP. And now you want to overthrow the United States of America. The only things standing in your way are the Constitution of the United States and Americans. Sorry, but you can't have Italy in 1933.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

I was in the AF for over 20. The AR-15 model 601 was in "General Military Use" since about 1963. And it was still the primary combat rifle in the USAF until 1992 when it finally retired. I believe that a number over 14,000 makes it in general military use.

Well now, you're what we call a "fucking liar."

The 601 was deployed as the "M-16" not the AR-15.

You know this, but decided to lie. I figure you're lying about military service as well - I mean, you're a shameless liar - no one can believe anything you say - and no one does.

The M-16 designation was not used until the US Army adopted it. From 1963 to 1969, the USAF one was an AR-15 Model 601 and in 1969 had to have an addition to it's stamping for the (M-16). To the day it was retired, the stamping was AR-15 Model 601 (M-16) even after the Army started buying the M-16 which is actually an AR-16 Model 602, 602 and 604 before it's stamped and shipped to the US Military.

The outside difference is the shape of the charging handle. The M-16 uses a t handle while the AR-15 Model 501 uses a diamond. I just love you kids. You can't even learn history when it slaps you in the face.