The AR15 IS a weapon of war and IS designed to kill people!!!!!

Not just kill people, but kill a lot of people in a short period of time!!!
AND... the 5.56x45 round fired by the AR15 DOES do significantly more trauma than a handgun round -- it's a RIFLE round.

OK?
So what?

AR15s are in common use for all of the traditionally lawful purposes of a firearm.
As such, they are "bearable arms"; as they are "bearable arms" they to not fall under the conjunctive "dangerous and unusual" exception.
As they are "bearable arms", the right of the people to own and use them for those purposes is protected from infringement by the 2nd Amendment.

Your whining and crying about "weapon of war", "designed to kill" and "more trauma than a hand gun" cannot be more irrelevant to the above.

And THEN:
The entire point of the 2nd is to make sure the people who would comprise the well-regulated militia have access to weapons suitable for service in same - that is, "weapons of war".

Looks like you need to ask for different talking points.

 

Those who worship an authoritarian government often have a hard time time understanding that not everyone wants to live under the boot of big brother and hate that some people want an effective weapon. Many gun banners also are upset that some people think they should be able to deploy lethal force against violent criminals because the mindset of many gun banners is that felons are victims of an "unjust" society

 

You can't shoot someone without a gun. If no one had a gun .... no one would get shot.

 

And that's how we got people to stop taking illegal drugs.... We just made them illegal and put a stop to that

 

Poverty too. Glad that one was solved.,

I got a question though, Thingamabob. Suppose someone gets a gun after the ban and goes out to shoot the town up - how do you plan to stop them?

 

This is likely true. Instead, folks would use knives, daggers, swords, axes, etc. Just like they did when there weren't guns. Do you think you actually solved for something here?

 

I believe the left feel that a fearful public is easiest to control, so the shot up town likely then deserved this punishment...

 

People will always be killing each other, that's the way Odin made us. If not guns then sticks and stones. Stones were a favorite in olden days.

 

I accept your concession of the point.

 

CORRECT. It cannot be denied. It is 100% indisputable, and unquestionable.

I have a question for you, Green Man. If you encourage the increase of manufacture and ownership of guns how do you plan to stop the shootings?

Believing that all homicides are pre-destined is not a particularly intelligent notion.

* More guns = More shootings

* No guns = No shootings

* Fewer guns = Fewer shootings


NOTE: If you do not create laws and enforce them then you will not reap any benefit. Maybe you need to ask yourself, “Am I in favour of more shootings or fewer shootings?” Let that be your guide.

 

Are you only against shootings or all murder?

 

Do you suppose that everyone will get rid of their guns, or do you suppose the government will keep its guns, Thingamabob?

If so, why would you want government to have a monopoly on the use of force? Sounds risky.

 

I actually am 100% okay with more guns. I think if everyone were required to bear arms you would have less shootings and less crimes in general.

 

Pass ANOTHER LAW OF COURSE

just like this

 

Are you being selectively absurd? You've been watching this thread and I can suppose you've seen what I've written. But have you actually read what I've written? So, here's the choice I put to you:

1). Are you not reading my posts?
... or ...
2). Are you ignoring the contents of my posts?

 

Looks like you forgot to switch accounts before you declared yourself to be correct.

Oops.

We need more shootings until the bad guys are all gone.

 

Because if yo want to get rid of All the guns fine, it's a pipe dream but that's fine.

However if you want to get rid of people's guns while the government retains their guns, then you are the one that is being absurd.

As far as answering each other's questions, I asked first.

 

That's what the CIA said when they created the Taliban, Al Qaida, Contras, the Death Squads in both El Salvador and Irak ... founded-trained-led by Colonel James Steele - just to mention a few of the many.

 

You did read my post(s) but replying to them scares the bejesus out of you.

Mine predate yours. But you know that already which proves that replying to them scares the bejesus out of you.

 

Since this was directed to me. Folks will still kill folks, regardless of whether there are guns or not. Your inanity that without guns, folks won't be shot is perhaps a truism, but it doesn't account for the fact that folks still kill each other around the globe without guns. Folks in the US die every day because they were killed without guns. It seems particularly simple minded to believe and then suggest that folks would suddenly stop killing each other if only guns were banned.

 

Yeah Thingamabob, you frighten me.

First I asked you a question, which you refused to answer and instead replied with another question. Then you go off on me for not answering your question. People behaving like you scare the living hell out of me.

If you require proof of recent events, your first post in this thread was post #3, it contains no question mark. My first post in this thread was a question directed at you, Thingamabob. Post #5.

You don't answer. Perhaps you got sacred reading it?

 

Any time you add more of something, you will have more misuse of that thing. More cars = more car crashes. More hammers = more smashed thumbs. Etc... But, unless you just want to get rid of that thing, you have to gauge the NET EFFECT those things have on society. Cars, for instance, have a net positive effect on society, even though they can be misused/abused.

In the last 30 years, there has been a doubling of guns in our country, and violent crime has fallen by half. More guns, less violent crime, demonstrably.

 

Irrelevant to the issue.

An understatement.

I repeat.... irrelevant to the issue.

And it seems particularly simple-minded to concoct absurd conclusions about what is being discussed.

*** I am putting to you right now the same statement and question I did in post #10. Green Man is too frightened to answer it, What about you?

* More guns = More shootings

* No guns = No shootings

* Fewer guns = Fewer shootings


NOTE: If you do not create laws and enforce them then you will not reap any benefit. Maybe you need to ask yourself, “Am I in favour of more shootings or fewer shootings?” Let that be your guide.

 

If nobody had automobiles.. ...no one would ever die in automobile accidents.

Can't argue with this logic (so it seems, huh Thingamabob?) -Ban the cars, it's for the children.

 

Frightened or not your back is against the wall. You read my question and you understand its merit. THAT's what frightens you because you have no answer that will save you and you just now (shock-shock! ) realize it.