Why Liberals Want To Ban The AR-15

[LuckyDuck]

And the last Judge to make the ruling in favor of banning the AR for a specific area (Boston) agrees with you. She said that if you didn't like the law there, move to an area better to your liking.

The supreme court will be hearing a couple of cases that will be killing these gun bans. within the next couple of years.

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.

Nonsense – another lie.

The Supreme Court has not granted cert to any case involving the constitutionality of AWBs.

You're as ignorant as you are dishonest.

They will, now that it isn't 4-4 on the court, with the one idiot as the swing vote......cause they already covered these rifles with Heller, Miller, Caetano, and Scalia named AR-15s as protected, by name, and all other rifles like it, in Friedman v Highland Park....the 2nd, 4th and 9th are simply ignoring those rulings and making up their own laws....

The Socialist Democrats (who are now referring to themselves as.."Comrade...remind you of any group?) are simply taking a page from President Andrew Jackson's playbook. When the Supreme Court said that he could not forcibly remove all Native Americans from east of the Mississippi river, he simply said, "let's see them enforce it," and forced them across the river in the Trail of Tears.

 

[Yarddog]

***\\\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.

Many liberals are just afraid of guns period. They come from a place of ignorance and project on everyone else.
There are more than 5 million of them in criculation and most of these people are being responsible. It makes no sense to take away these weapons from the vast majority because of a few nuts. Take those away and the nuts will grab a different weapon of choice.. then those will need to be banned as well, and so on and so on.

 

[Picaro]

The supreme court will be hearing a couple of cases that will be killing these gun bans. within the next couple of years.

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.

Nonsense – another lie.

The Supreme Court has not granted cert to any case involving the constitutionality of AWBs.

You're as ignorant as you are dishonest.

They will, now that it isn't 4-4 on the court, with the one idiot as the swing vote......cause they already covered these rifles with Heller, Miller, Caetano, and Scalia named AR-15s as protected, by name, and all other rifles like it, in Friedman v Highland Park....the 2nd, 4th and 9th are simply ignoring those rulings and making up their own laws....

The Socialist Democrats (who are now referring to themselves as.."Comrade...remind you of any group?) are simply taking a page from President Andrew Jackson's playbook. When the Supreme Court said that he could not forcibly remove all Native Americans from east of the Mississippi river, he simply said, "let's see them enforce it," and forced them across the river in the Trail of Tears.

Jackson was right to do so. They were given plenty of supplies and cash, and three years or more to do so, and then blew the money and sold the supplies. the 'Tears' were entirely their own doing. They were a security threat and a criminal threat to the surrounding regions. Jackson had a lot of experience with indians, and knew what he was doing in getting rid of them; they were liars, cheats, murderers, and bandits, and would sell themselves to the Brits, Spanish, French, anybody who would pay them to raid and kill Americans.

 

[Picaro]

What's the death tolls of firearms versus the death tolls of left wing lawyers with briefcases keeping the baby murder industry alive for another year in 2018?

 

[Daryl Hunt]

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.

Utter nonsense.

I have two mini-14's. As long as the action is open, it snaps in with no resistance.

It takes one of your hands to release the mag. The M-16 just falls out. Anyone that has used both knows the difference. And anyone that ever served knows the difference. You are just a smart mouth troll.

That wasn't your lie. What you lied was {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. } No one "rocks" the magazine in a Mini-14. Further the M-16 is NOT the AR-15 despite your abject dishonesty.

You got bagged. Nothing to see here. Move on.

 

[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.

The left wants to ban not only AR-15's, AK-47's and similar types, not because they look scary, the left looks at countries which banned firearms for the public in general (Soviet Union, Vietnam, Cuba, Venezuela, China, et cetera) and sees that once the public is disarmed, they are no longer a threat to the government, once the oppressive laws are implemented. What we are seeing is the rise of a potential oppressive/tyrannical government and the only solution may be civil war.

What WE are seeing is the gunnutters are still trying to play the old Fear Game. Hate to break it to you but people are more afraid of losing their children to nutcases with "Legal" ARs than they are about whether you can have all the dangerous toys you want to play with.

Your whole thing is nothing but a Circus Act with a dog and pony. Get new materiel.

Your children have a better chance of being eaten by a bear in the middle of the city than being gunned down in a school by a mentally-ill person or terrorist (which you want to come in unvetted by the government, through open borders).
Apparently, you seem not to grasp that there are close to a HUNDRED MILLION private citizens who legally purchased lawful firearms in the USA and its territories...AND...aren't committing crime one with them, nor are any likely to. We are no threat to you, your family or, your friends.
People who own firearms are almost to a person, not a "nutter," as you seem to like to describe us. We own them, enjoy them on the range, or, also in my case, have a concealed carry permit and mind our own business.
You on the other hand, are the Socialist/Communist left that wants to disarm the very people who our founding fathers wanted to ensure were armed, should the domestic government ever become tyrannical, of which your government will likely become, as all strict Socialist/Communist countries do become.

You can live without an AR or an AK easy enough. Or you can live with having to have a special license to own one that isn't too hard to get similar to the difficulty of getting a CCW. For licensed CCW, there has been only one recorded murder in the history of the CCW. That means, one out of 3 million plus for at least 30 years. I don't propose we take your AR or your AK but we put them under a special licensing just like most CCW. If I want a CCW (I may have one or not, I ain't sayin' ) I just have to file with the Sheriffs department and walk out with the license. Takes about 15 minutes. My background doesn't require me to attend the classes. But even if it did, so what. A little training ain't such a bad thing. And an afternoon at the range would be part of it and would be a gas. Another reason to fire the gun. The other option would be to ban the AR and AK. You can work with me on the special license or lose your precious AR sooner or later.

If that special licensing were to be required, the fruitcakes would not be able to walk in, purchase either the AR or the AK and walk out with them ready to shoot up a Church, School, Retail Store of any other public Gathering so easily. Yes, they could still get a handgun but there is no way in hell that a handgun can do the damage as quickly as an AR or an AK nor matter what you Rexall Rangers believe.

 

[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.

Many liberals are just afraid of guns period. They come from a place of ignorance and project on everyone else.
There are more than 5 million of them in criculation and most of these people are being responsible. It makes no sense to take away these weapons from the vast majority because of a few nuts. Take those away and the nuts will grab a different weapon of choice.. then those will need to be banned as well, and so on and so on.

It doesn't matter how many. If it's the weapon of choice for someone going for the new "Body Count" then we need to make a change. The change I suggest is a special license for the AR and the AK where you keep your AR and AK and it only applies to the AR and the AK. The special license involved for the CCW shows that it does make a difference. Only one recorded incident has been recorded of a Murder by a licensed CCW holder in the entire history of the CCW program. Please explain that to me. And let's see if we can apply that to the AR and the AK for the same results. You don't really want to see the other option that is coming, do you.

 

[2aguy]

***\\\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.

The left wants to ban not only AR-15's, AK-47's and similar types, not because they look scary, the left looks at countries which banned firearms for the public in general (Soviet Union, Vietnam, Cuba, Venezuela, China, et cetera) and sees that once the public is disarmed, they are no longer a threat to the government, once the oppressive laws are implemented. What we are seeing is the rise of a potential oppressive/tyrannical government and the only solution may be civil war.

What WE are seeing is the gunnutters are still trying to play the old Fear Game. Hate to break it to you but people are more afraid of losing their children to nutcases with "Legal" ARs than they are about whether you can have all the dangerous toys you want to play with.

Your whole thing is nothing but a Circus Act with a dog and pony. Get new materiel.

Your children have a better chance of being eaten by a bear in the middle of the city than being gunned down in a school by a mentally-ill person or terrorist (which you want to come in unvetted by the government, through open borders).
Apparently, you seem not to grasp that there are close to a HUNDRED MILLION private citizens who legally purchased lawful firearms in the USA and its territories...AND...aren't committing crime one with them, nor are any likely to. We are no threat to you, your family or, your friends.
People who own firearms are almost to a person, not a "nutter," as you seem to like to describe us. We own them, enjoy them on the range, or, also in my case, have a concealed carry permit and mind our own business.
You on the other hand, are the Socialist/Communist left that wants to disarm the very people who our founding fathers wanted to ensure were armed, should the domestic government ever become tyrannical, of which your government will likely become, as all strict Socialist/Communist countries do become.

You can live without an AR or an AK easy enough. Or you can live with having to have a special license to own one that isn't too hard to get similar to the difficulty of getting a CCW. For licensed CCW, there has been only one recorded murder in the history of the CCW. That means, one out of 3 million plus for at least 30 years. I don't propose we take your AR or your AK but we put them under a special licensing just like most CCW. If I want a CCW (I may have one or not, I ain't sayin' ) I just have to file with the Sheriffs department and walk out with the license. Takes about 15 minutes. My background doesn't require me to attend the classes. But even if it did, so what. A little training ain't such a bad thing. And an afternoon at the range would be part of it and would be a gas. Another reason to fire the gun. The other option would be to ban the AR and AK. You can work with me on the special license or lose your precious AR sooner or later.

If that special licensing were to be required, the fruitcakes would not be able to walk in, purchase either the AR or the AK and walk out with them ready to shoot up a Church, School, Retail Store of any other public Gathering so easily. Yes, they could still get a handgun but there is no way in hell that a handgun can do the damage as quickly as an AR or an AK nor matter what you Rexall Rangers believe.

You are making up these stats......you don't know what you are talking about.

 

[ThunderKiss1965]

so libs want to ban an AR-15

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

~S~

Shall not be infringed end of fucking story.

 

[ThunderKiss1965]

so libs want to ban an AR-15

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

~S~

For the same reason I “needed” this.

Because I can...that’s why.

You're apparently a spoiled little child that does not know the difference between 'want' and 'need'.

So the solution is simple...if you have it because you 'can', the we will simply make sure that you 'can not'.

You can go back to sucking your thumb now.

Since when has a Constitutional right been dependent on either want or need ?

 

[sparky]

so libs want to ban an AR-15

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

~S~

Shall not be infringed end of fucking story.

The right to be a lousy shot....

~S~

 

[DBA]

Neither the gun itself nor the type of gun made any difference in those shootings. The same nuts could find a litany of ways to cause the same carnage. A sane person with a gun could also stop the carnage much quicker, but anti-gun nuts oppose that too.

You mean like El Paso? There were tons of guns there. Comon, it's Texas for crying out loud. They were too busy ducking and covering to pull their weapons. But it took the cops less than a minute to bring him down. Had it been allowed to go for a couple of minutes, the choice of weapon would have been devastating. Or if he had continued to fire even after contested. Having sillyvillians with guns doesn't make it better. Remember the one where the good guy was shot by the cop? The cop gets there after it's started and only sees a person with a gun.

Yes, there are videos out there that tells you what to do but gimme' a break. Humans aren't wired that way. Training is to get us to do something we normally won't do in real life.

What did he do that he could not have done with a few semi-automatic pistols?

More of the dog and pony act. I would have to have a whole bunch of handguns on ropes hung around my neck to come up with the firepower of just one AR. It would be a bitch just to get through the doors or run or walk fast or ......... You wouldn't reload the handgun, you would drop it and grab the next one in order to stay with the reload speed of the AR. And the number of rounds in a 18 shot handgun versus 4 or 5 AR 30 round Mags means that you will need how many handguns? I'll let you do the math on this one. You brought the wrong tool bag.

For starters, the El Paso shooter didn't use an AR. He used a semi-automatic AK-47(WASR-10) so we are already talking about banning something other than AR-15's. Secondly, how do you know how many rounds were fired? 22 people died and 24 were injured. Some of those may have been hit more than once and he likely missed some, so let's say he shot 75-76 rounds total. He would have had to reload twice if that is the case with a 30 round magazine. There are plenty of pistols with 19 round magazines. He would have only had to reload it 3 times. Not sure how that is such a huge difference. Throwing in another fully loaded magazine takes mere seconds. Not sure why you think it is quicker to reload an AR or AK than a pistol. It isn't. Ejecting and inserting a magazine from a pistol and an AR/AK involves the same process. The AK/AR is more powerful as the bullet is going at a much higher velocity, however, getting shot with a .45ACP at close range will leave quite a mark/hole.

Think about what you just posted. The AK, like the AR is designed for one thing and one thing only. To kill as many people as possible with as little training as possible while under heavy fire. Again, there is nothing left to an AR other than function. And he did this in a matter of seconds. That means he changed out his mags at least 3 times in a matter of seconds before the cops brought him down. The difference here is, the projectile from both the AK and AR pass through at least 2 or 3 people before it comes to a stop. In order to do a kill rate of 22 and an injury rate of 24, he did not have to hit 46 direct hits.

Your example of the 45 is a poor one. The 45ACP makes a larger hole but the penetration is lower because the speed is lower by more than a third. The 45 operates on a shock value and does it well. It's still one of the best large framed Personal and Home Defense Weapons out there because if it hits anywhere, the shock value is high. But the death rate is quite low. I don't know where I heard it but I believe it was from the Denver Police Chief when he asked why they were going away from the 45s. He said it was easier to train on a 9mm or 40SW than the 45. But the 9mm, you had to make more holes to get the same affect. And with the 45, you only had to plug one hole. Chances are, the 45ACP would not leave an exit wound so only one hole would have to be plugged. The death rate would be lower than either the AR or the AK.

I happen to be a big fan of the Colt 1911A1. (yes, Dorathy, I am a failure as a gun grabber). I know the strong points and the limitations of it. I also am a retired Military Member and have a pretty good idea on the strong points and the limitations of the 556 (or it's slightly weaker cousin, the 223). And I have spent time on the AK as well both semi auto and full auto and have a pretty good idea on it's strong points and weaknesses. And believe it or not, in the Walmart shooting, the AK is superior to even the AR. And you don't understand why.

Ok...so he could have used a 9MM. Who cares.

I fully understand the differences between the AK and the AR. I have an AR-15 and and AK variant. I shoot steel 7.621x39 with my AK. It is a heavier load and better at short range. A true AK is generally more reliable, though both are very good. The AR/M16 is easier to stay on target due to quite a bit less muzzle rise than the AK when firing multiplle shots. If my life depended on it and I could only have one for every circumstance, I believe I would choose the AR due to its long range accuracy and less recoil. For plinking in the backyard, I enjoy shooting the AK. It is cheaper to shoot with steel ammo and I am just about as accurate at 100-150 yards.

As for their design and use, all guns are meant to kill things Some are more efficient than others depending on the circumstances. For personal protection and if everything ever goes off the rails in the US, I would prefer to have the most efficient weapon possible given every situation. It may require pistols or rifles or a combination of both. The problem is not guns, it is crazy people.

 

[ThunderKiss1965]

so libs want to ban an AR-15

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

~S~

Shall not be infringed end of fucking story.

The right to be a lousy shot....

~S~

I don't miss and got the Expert badges to prove it.

 

[BULLDOG]

***\\\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.

Many liberals are just afraid of guns period. They come from a place of ignorance and project on everyone else.
There are more than 5 million of them in criculation and most of these people are being responsible. It makes no sense to take away these weapons from the vast majority because of a few nuts. Take those away and the nuts will grab a different weapon of choice.. then those will need to be banned as well, and so on and so on.

I do't know anybody who is afraid of guns. I know lots that are afraid of gun nuts with guns.

 

[DBA]

***\\\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.

Many liberals are just afraid of guns period. They come from a place of ignorance and project on everyone else.
There are more than 5 million of them in criculation and most of these people are being responsible. It makes no sense to take away these weapons from the vast majority because of a few nuts. Take those away and the nuts will grab a different weapon of choice.. then those will need to be banned as well, and so on and so on.

I do't know anybody who is afraid of guns. I know lots that are afraid of gun nuts with guns.

There are literally milliions of people in urban areas with strict gun laws that have never even seen or held a real gun. These are many of the self-proclaimed experts when it comes to guns. Yes, many are afraid of guns. They would be scared to hold one in fear that it would "go off". Seen it way to many times.

 

[zaangalewa]

***\\\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.

Many liberals are just afraid of guns period. They come from a place of ignorance and project on everyone else.
There are more than 5 million of them in criculation and most of these people are being responsible. It makes no sense to take away these weapons from the vast majority because of a few nuts. Take those away and the nuts will grab a different weapon of choice.. then those will need to be banned as well, and so on and so on.

I do't know anybody who is afraid of guns.

Guns are always a risk. One of my brothers lost an eye because of an accident by a "harmless" air gun with very low power.

know lots that are afraid of gun nuts with guns.

Most people in the world think all US-Americans are mad. Reason: Glorification of violence. A gun is practised violence of weak people. If Mr. Sigmund Freud still would live, he had a lot to do.

 

[Bleipriester]

You are a sick nation with sick children and a sick propaganda for sick nonsense.

Your own sick nation needs cure.

Obdachlosigkeit: 678.000 Menschen haben keine Wohnung

It's nothing new for me that my Germany is a rich country with a poor population. That's a long term effect of the ideology capitalism without enough social regulations. And this situation becomes not better, when rich international idiots from all over the world ruin the German house markets too. In the 1960ies and early 70ies a German had to pay about 10%-15% of his income for housing costs - while living space was indeed a rare commodity at this time of history. Today 1/3rd - 50% of an income are easily to be needed for housing costs. And today 41% of all Germans have an asset of less than €10,000. That's nearly nothing in context "housing". I guess in total more than 2/3rd of all Germans are in danger to lose their ability to pay their home loan and/or to pay their rent. Housing costs were made in the last decades artificially to an existential problem.

And this solveable problem is by the way also not any reason to be a Nazi, who needs war weapons for a Nazi-revolution, criminal.

Yes, back then, there were tough Germans and they didn´t fight each other but stood together and rebuilt their country. Today, we have a degenerated national awareness as a result of the disgusting movements of exactly that time. You are another. Nazis everywhere, you throw yourself into their bullets, how generous, for as I have smoked too much weed. The cost of a bullet is but a few cent.
While you hate Nazis (or whom you deem one), the backwards population you welcome is even worse in your own terms. You again show us your hypocrisy as nationalism or religious extremism seems not to be a problem for you as long they spring from foreigners.
You see, we have social measures and everybody can get a flat regardless of the local rent index.
The problem is not only profiteering as it is covered by the welfare payments. The problem is the "demographic policy", that is led by extremism and not in accordance with the realities. The flats are not too expensive, they are missing. And that despite the emptiness of Germans houses few years ago. You filled them with criminals, islamists and Erdogan nationalists, now you blame the renters.

Germany: Refugees love President Assad

First let me say I hate it very much to speak with you. I hate criminals. I hate Nazis. You are both. I speak with you only on reasons, which you never will be able to understand.

Independent from this: The text which you wrote here is an unbelievable stupid nonsense and shows to me only a very confused mind. Stop it to use alcohol and/or drugs.

Sorry to hear that. For me it is great fun, or at least not the most boring thing to do. I don´t hate you. And you should calm down. Throw your hatred away. It´s a burden on your soul. You are mad, obsessed with something I don´t know and can´t understand.

 

[pismoe]

***\\\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.

---------------------------------- course , a person needs to understand the function and utility of the AR15 . And in my opinion but the AR15 closest fills the definition of being the gun that fills the roles that the American Founders had in mind when they penned the Second Amendment . As a gun owned mostly by Armed American civilians it is Effective and Efficient among other things . Plus nowadays the AR15 is known as Americas Musket so that description should be understood CScot . SCARY has nothing to do with anything in my opinion CScot .

 

[pismoe]

think of what the AR15 could do in 'hong kong' and 'china' , 'venezuela' where in the example of 'venezuela' the 'maduro' militia thugs are armed with similar guns to the AR15 CScot .

 

[2aguy]

***\\\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.

Many liberals are just afraid of guns period. They come from a place of ignorance and project on everyone else.
There are more than 5 million of them in criculation and most of these people are being responsible. It makes no sense to take away these weapons from the vast majority because of a few nuts. Take those away and the nuts will grab a different weapon of choice.. then those will need to be banned as well, and so on and so on.

I do't know anybody who is afraid of guns.

Guns are always a risk. One of my brothers lost an eye because of an accident by a "harmless" air gun with very low power.

know lots that are afraid of gun nuts with guns.

Most people in the world think all US-Americans are mad. Reason: Glorification of violence. A gun is practised violence of weak people. If Mr. Sigmund Freud still would live, he had a lot to do.

Says a guy from a country that murdered 12 million innocent men, women and children....on top of all the war dead caused by their aggression creating World War 2.