Why you can’t ban AR-15s

LOL no need to do so as the SC had allow limits on personal firearms for 80 years or so.

No need for this nation citizens following the constitution to allow it schools and other public places to be turn into slaughter houses when ever a sick 19 year olds decide to act out.

Love this last shooter not being able to buy a can of beer legally but was able to buy firearms design to allow such people to do mass murders.

Thanks god that the constitution does not require us to allow such events to keep happening as if it did then the best future use of our constitution would be for toilet paper.

footnote one simple way to deal with such mass murder weapons being sold would be to just add the cost of needed security at schools and other public places thanks to them to the cost of such weapons.

Let see how many such rifles will be sold at 5000 dollars plus price per weapon.

 

Not only that but weapons design from the start to be battlefield weapons are not by their very design the best weapons to go hunting with.

 

A AR 15 is not a good hunting rifle and for myself for home defense I would take either my shotgun or my 357 handgun any old day.

 

Like -that's- fair...

 

Up until the mid 50s, they were the exact same weapons.
As far as today, I'd like you to present a sound argument why you can't as effectively game with an AR15 that you can take with a M700BDL in .223

 

Nonsense.

In any situation were a shotgun is effective for home defense, an AR carbine in a major pistol caliber is a better choice.

 

And has ruled that semi auto guns are bearable arms

 

An given the death tolls those bearable arms are racking up somehow I do not think that the court is going to keep the opinion that such weapons should not be tightly control.

 

Why would that be?????

Seems off hand there is more chance just to start with that such bullets will go through a number of walls and killed the family down the street then a shot gun blast.

 

LOL small cal rounds are great for carrying a large number of rounds on foot for a fire fight and producing cover fire or even spraying rounds in a school to get a large body count but hardly ideal for hunting large games that are not shooting back.

 

The AR is lighter, smaller, shorter, easier to handle, less recoil, faster follow up shots, holds more ammo and faster to reload.

Only if you use the wrong ammunition, and miss your target.

 

I'm sorry -- I didn't see a response.
I'd like you to present a sound argument why you can't as effectively take game with an AR15 that you can take with a M700BDL in .223
Thank you

 

Handguns are used to commit two orders of magnitude more murders than 'assault weapons"; fully knowing this, the court ruled banning handguns violates the constitution.
Your supposition has no merit.

 

Do you need a concealed carry permit for an AR-15 ?

 

Me? No. I don't need a permit to own any kind of gun.

 

Everyone knows that the gun control movement's goal is a gun ban. In America gun control is now the real third rail of politics. Any politician that touches it, including Trump, will regret it.

So, please, tell all your favorite politicians to go for it. The timing is perfect - right?

 

I'm glad you think that

 

To be honest, having syncretic totalitarian views, I couldn't care less about the 4th Amendment or protecting CNN. If a regine shared my same views, I would rather have them hear my cell phone conversations than have any dissidents thriving. Also, the U.S. Constitution was left too vague. That is one of it's major faults. I'm not against gun ownership. They are essential for defense from crime and for the pleasure of recreational activities such as hunting. I just feel that their is no need to guarantee all citizens have them. Thank you for the link, though, TOG 6. As for amending the Constitution, I would rather have a new one entirely.

 

Despite the fact that I see the Right as the more competent of the two, the Left at least understands that you need to subvert your enemy and that authoritarianism is necessary to create societal unity.

 

I'm not going to tell people what they should hunt with. And if an AR can kill a person it can kill a deer. So it seems like it works just fine to me.

For home intrusion a shotgun absolutely. I wouldn't want a weak gun like an AR-15. If I'm shooting you because you're in my house I want to blow your arms off not make cute little holes in you. For carrying my compact 45.

But I'm not going to tell people what is best because for you and maybe a 357 I don't care for those the over penetration scares me. You are liable for that bullet until it stops. I like a slower heavier round. An AR 15 for deer hunting could be great for a smaller person I'd prefer a 30 ought 6. It fires a massive bullet and the travel is much greater. But it will knock your arm off if you're a smaller person.

 

Do you consider the current gun bans in violation of the second amendment?

 

Aren't "assault rifles" different to say a .22 rifle?

 

It's NOT a ban. It's a reasonable accommodation - I WAS attempting to be sarcastic. Miserable fail...

 

The military M-16 is an assault rifle. The AR-15 is not. The AR-15, M-16 fires a 22 caliber bullet.

The round was developed to allow a soldier to carry three times the ammunition into battle.

BTW, more people are murdered with the regular 22LR round than the round developed for the M-16.

 

Military history is an interesting subject that should be taught in school or at least offered as an elective.