AR-15?

[Astrostar]

Forget politics for a minute, and put the 2nd Amendment on the back burner.

Consider the AR-15 rifle and not whether it is an "assault rifle" or a "modern sporting rifle," or any other description. Just conder its effects on the American people.

It is a weapon, a firearm capable of very rapid fire and massive destructive power. While not legally automatic, though capable of nearly automatic fire with a legal "bump stock," it is still, with the semi-automatic handgun, capable of more rapid fire than any other legally obtained American firearm. It seems to be the weapon of choice of school shooters and shooters from buildings intent on inflicting maximum harm on the most people possible. Its action is, like the 1911 handgun, semi-automatic, firing one round each time the trigger is pulled.

It is one of three types of rifles legally available in America, the other two being the bolt action rifle and the lever action. Each of these legal rifles is capable of firing a powerful 30-06 Springfield round with a muzzle velocity of 2,910 feet per second. Compare that to the common 1911 semi-automatic handgun chambered for 45 ACP with a muzzle velocity of 835 feet per second. The primary difference with the three rifles is that the AR-15, if unmodified, fires semi-automatic at a much faster rate than the bolt or lever actions. It also is capable of using extended capacity magazines. So, it would seem the logical choice for a shooter intent on inflicting human carnage.

Should it be legal? And, if it were banned, who would suffer? The most affected, other than manufacturers and dealers, would be target/firing range shooters. Are their rights for entertainment enough to endanger our school children? How about hunters using a "modern sporting rifle?" The hunter already has an advantage over the animal with a weapon. Using an AR-15 with semi-automatic fire would compensate for her/his poor marksmanship, giving a greater advantage over the animal. Is that justification for keeping the weapon legal?

Of course there are thousands of AR-15s already in public hands, but there will be more and more shooters growing up, some with an interest in inflicting public harm. Should they have access to a weapon capable of mass destruction

 

[TNHarley]

How can you discuss this and put our constitutional rights on the back burner?
Heil astrostar!

 

[Astrostar]

How can you discuss this and put our constitutional rights on the back burner?
Heil astrostar!

That right being...?

 

[PredFan]

Forget politics for a minute, and put the 2nd Amendment on the back burner.

Consider the AR-15 rifle and not whether it is an "assault rifle" or a "modern sporting rifle," or any other description. Just conder its effects on the American people.

It is a weapon, a firearm capable of very rapid fire and massive destructive power. While not legally automatic, though capable of nearly automatic fire with a legal "bump stock," it is still, with the semi-automatic handgun, capable of more rapid fire than any other legally obtained American firearm. It seems to be the weapon of choice of school shooters and shooters from buildings intent on inflicting maximum harm on the most people possible. Its action is, like the 1911 handgun, semi-automatic, firing one round each time the trigger is pulled.

It is one of three types of rifles legally available in America, the other two being the bolt action rifle and the lever action. Each of these legal rifles is capable of firing a powerful 30-06 Springfield round with a muzzle velocity of 2,910 feet per second. Compare that to the common 1911 semi-automatic handgun chambered for 45 ACP with a muzzle velocity of 835 feet per second. The primary difference with the three rifles is that the AR-15, if unmodified, fires semi-automatic at a much faster rate than the bolt or lever actions. It also is capable of using extended capacity magazines. So, it would seem the logical choice for a shooter intent on inflicting human carnage.

Should it be legal? And, if it were banned, who would suffer? The most affected, other than manufacturers and dealers, would be target/firing range shooters. Are their rights for entertainment enough to endanger our school children? How about hunters using a "modern sporting rifle?" The hunter already has an advantage over the animal with a weapon. Using an AR-15 with semi-automatic fire would compensate for her/his poor marksmanship, giving a greater advantage over the animal. Is that justification for keeping the weapon legal?

Of course there are thousands of AR-15s already in public hands, but there will be more and more shooters growing up, some with an interest in inflicting public harm. Should they have access to a weapon capable of mass destruction

You shouldn’t cut and paste articles written by people who know nothing about guns.

1. It is no more capable of rapid fire that any other semi-auto rifle. Anyone can mimic the effects of a bump stock on any semi-auto rifle.

2. It is not even close to the weapon of choice for mass shooters.

3. There are at least a dozen other rifles capable of the same shooting ability available for use.

4. It should be legal and if banned we all would suffer. Any eroding of any of our rights is bad for American Citizens.

5. An either/or choice between our right to shoot one and the rights of children to live is a bull shit comparison. Banning the AR-15 will do nothing to stop the shootings. Therefor, it only erodes our rights.

6. Using it for hunting is also a bull shit comparison to right to life since banning the rifle won’t stop the shootings.

7. You cannot deny them access to lethal weapons, it’s just not possible. If a kid wants to kill, he has many options.

For the 747,299,407th time, it’s the height of hysterical stupidity to blame either the gun or access to it. Until we address the real problem; “why do these kids kill?” People and children will continue to die and the innocent will continue to lose their rights.

 

[Marion Morrison]

How can you discuss this and put our constitutional rights on the back burner?
Heil astrostar!

That right being...?

To keep and bear arms.

 

[Astrostar]

Forget politics for a minute, and put the 2nd Amendment on the back burner.

Consider the AR-15 rifle and not whether it is an "assault rifle" or a "modern sporting rifle," or any other description. Just conder its effects on the American people.

It is a weapon, a firearm capable of very rapid fire and massive destructive power. While not legally automatic, though capable of nearly automatic fire with a legal "bump stock," it is still, with the semi-automatic handgun, capable of more rapid fire than any other legally obtained American firearm. It seems to be the weapon of choice of school shooters and shooters from buildings intent on inflicting maximum harm on the most people possible. Its action is, like the 1911 handgun, semi-automatic, firing one round each time the trigger is pulled.

It is one of three types of rifles legally available in America, the other two being the bolt action rifle and the lever action. Each of these legal rifles is capable of firing a powerful 30-06 Springfield round with a muzzle velocity of 2,910 feet per second. Compare that to the common 1911 semi-automatic handgun chambered for 45 ACP with a muzzle velocity of 835 feet per second. The primary difference with the three rifles is that the AR-15, if unmodified, fires semi-automatic at a much faster rate than the bolt or lever actions. It also is capable of using extended capacity magazines. So, it would seem the logical choice for a shooter intent on inflicting human carnage.

Should it be legal? And, if it were banned, who would suffer? The most affected, other than manufacturers and dealers, would be target/firing range shooters. Are their rights for entertainment enough to endanger our school children? How about hunters using a "modern sporting rifle?" The hunter already has an advantage over the animal with a weapon. Using an AR-15 with semi-automatic fire would compensate for her/his poor marksmanship, giving a greater advantage over the animal. Is that justification for keeping the weapon legal?

Of course there are thousands of AR-15s already in public hands, but there will be more and more shooters growing up, some with an interest in inflicting public harm. Should they have access to a weapon capable of mass destruction

You shouldn’t cut and paste articles written by people who know nothing about guns.

1. It is no more capable of rapid fire that any other semi-auto rifle. Anyone can mimic the effects of a bump stock on any semi-auto rifle.

2. It is not even close to the weapon of choice for mass shooters.

3. There are at least a dozen other rifles capable of the same shooting ability available for use.

4. It should be legal and if banned we all would suffer. Any eroding of any of our rights is bad for American Citizens.

5. An either/or choice between our right to shoot one and the rights of children to live is a bull shit comparison. Banning the AR-15 will do nothing to stop the shootings. Therefor, it only erodes our rights.

6. Using it for hunting is also a bull shit comparison to right to life since banning the rifle won’t stop the shootings.

7. You cannot sent them access to lethal weapons, it’s just not possible. If a kid wants to kill, he has many options.

For the 747,299,407th time, it’s the height of hysterical stupidity to blame either the gun or access to it. Until we address the real problem; “why do these kids kill?” People and children will continue to die and the innocent will continue to lose their rights.

No "cutting & pasting" was used. 100% original dialog.

 

[Astrostar]

How can you discuss this and put our constitutional rights on the back burner?
Heil astrostar!

That right being...?

To keep and bear arms.

If you're referring to the 2nd Amendment, please try reading it again and don't skip over the first part that says "well regulated."

 

[Marion Morrison]

The OP and this guy have something in common:

"Sensible gun control laws"

Godwined, punk! Drink up, everybody!

"Well-regulated" means "in proper working order".

Next!

 

[Mikeoxenormous]

Forget politics for a minute, and put the 2nd Amendment on the back burner.

Consider the AR-15 rifle and not whether it is an "assault rifle" or a "modern sporting rifle," or any other description. Just conder its effects on the American people.

It is a weapon, a firearm capable of very rapid fire and massive destructive power. While not legally automatic, though capable of nearly automatic fire with a legal "bump stock," it is still, with the semi-automatic handgun, capable of more rapid fire than any other legally obtained American firearm. It seems to be the weapon of choice of school shooters and shooters from buildings intent on inflicting maximum harm on the most people possible. Its action is, like the 1911 handgun, semi-automatic, firing one round each time the trigger is pulled.

It is one of three types of rifles legally available in America, the other two being the bolt action rifle and the lever action. Each of these legal rifles is capable of firing a powerful 30-06 Springfield round with a muzzle velocity of 2,910 feet per second. Compare that to the common 1911 semi-automatic handgun chambered for 45 ACP with a muzzle velocity of 835 feet per second. The primary difference with the three rifles is that the AR-15, if unmodified, fires semi-automatic at a much faster rate than the bolt or lever actions. It also is capable of using extended capacity magazines. So, it would seem the logical choice for a shooter intent on inflicting human carnage.

Should it be legal? And, if it were banned, who would suffer? The most affected, other than manufacturers and dealers, would be target/firing range shooters. Are their rights for entertainment enough to endanger our school children? How about hunters using a "modern sporting rifle?" The hunter already has an advantage over the animal with a weapon. Using an AR-15 with semi-automatic fire would compensate for her/his poor marksmanship, giving a greater advantage over the animal. Is that justification for keeping the weapon legal?

Of course there are thousands of AR-15s already in public hands, but there will be more and more shooters growing up, some with an interest in inflicting public harm. Should they have access to a weapon capable of mass destruction

Last year I was able to purchase this weapon, not for hunting or harming any other individual.. yet...But if someone broke into my house and wanted to take what is mine, I wouldn't hesitate to give the perp the 50 cent solution.

This is not an AR-15 but a .308 hunting rifle. If EVIL people cant buy an AR-15 would they then use this, which does much worse carnage than the .223.

 

[Votto]

 

[PredFan]

Forget politics for a minute, and put the 2nd Amendment on the back burner.

Consider the AR-15 rifle and not whether it is an "assault rifle" or a "modern sporting rifle," or any other description. Just conder its effects on the American people.

It is a weapon, a firearm capable of very rapid fire and massive destructive power. While not legally automatic, though capable of nearly automatic fire with a legal "bump stock," it is still, with the semi-automatic handgun, capable of more rapid fire than any other legally obtained American firearm. It seems to be the weapon of choice of school shooters and shooters from buildings intent on inflicting maximum harm on the most people possible. Its action is, like the 1911 handgun, semi-automatic, firing one round each time the trigger is pulled.

It is one of three types of rifles legally available in America, the other two being the bolt action rifle and the lever action. Each of these legal rifles is capable of firing a powerful 30-06 Springfield round with a muzzle velocity of 2,910 feet per second. Compare that to the common 1911 semi-automatic handgun chambered for 45 ACP with a muzzle velocity of 835 feet per second. The primary difference with the three rifles is that the AR-15, if unmodified, fires semi-automatic at a much faster rate than the bolt or lever actions. It also is capable of using extended capacity magazines. So, it would seem the logical choice for a shooter intent on inflicting human carnage.

Should it be legal? And, if it were banned, who would suffer? The most affected, other than manufacturers and dealers, would be target/firing range shooters. Are their rights for entertainment enough to endanger our school children? How about hunters using a "modern sporting rifle?" The hunter already has an advantage over the animal with a weapon. Using an AR-15 with semi-automatic fire would compensate for her/his poor marksmanship, giving a greater advantage over the animal. Is that justification for keeping the weapon legal?

Of course there are thousands of AR-15s already in public hands, but there will be more and more shooters growing up, some with an interest in inflicting public harm. Should they have access to a weapon capable of mass destruction

You shouldn’t cut and paste articles written by people who know nothing about guns.

1. It is no more capable of rapid fire that any other semi-auto rifle. Anyone can mimic the effects of a bump stock on any semi-auto rifle.

2. It is not even close to the weapon of choice for mass shooters.

3. There are at least a dozen other rifles capable of the same shooting ability available for use.

4. It should be legal and if banned we all would suffer. Any eroding of any of our rights is bad for American Citizens.

5. An either/or choice between our right to shoot one and the rights of children to live is a bull shit comparison. Banning the AR-15 will do nothing to stop the shootings. Therefor, it only erodes our rights.

6. Using it for hunting is also a bull shit comparison to right to life since banning the rifle won’t stop the shootings.

7. You cannot sent them access to lethal weapons, it’s just not possible. If a kid wants to kill, he has many options.

For the 747,299,407th time, it’s the height of hysterical stupidity to blame either the gun or access to it. Until we address the real problem; “why do these kids kill?” People and children will continue to die and the innocent will continue to lose their rights.

No "cutting & pasting" was used. 100% original dialog.

Then you should spend time knowing your subject, because you don’t.

 

[PredFan]

How can you discuss this and put our constitutional rights on the back burner?
Heil astrostar!

That right being...?

To keep and bear arms.

If you're referring to the 2nd Amendment, please try reading it again and don't skip over the first part that says "well regulated."

Again, you know nothing about that which you speak. That debate has been debunked before and rejected by the SCOTUS.

 

[PredFan]

 

[PredFan]

 

[OKTexas]

Forget politics for a minute, and put the 2nd Amendment on the back burner.

Consider the AR-15 rifle and not whether it is an "assault rifle" or a "modern sporting rifle," or any other description. Just conder its effects on the American people.

It is a weapon, a firearm capable of very rapid fire and massive destructive power. While not legally automatic, though capable of nearly automatic fire with a legal "bump stock," it is still, with the semi-automatic handgun, capable of more rapid fire than any other legally obtained American firearm. It seems to be the weapon of choice of school shooters and shooters from buildings intent on inflicting maximum harm on the most people possible. Its action is, like the 1911 handgun, semi-automatic, firing one round each time the trigger is pulled.

It is one of three types of rifles legally available in America, the other two being the bolt action rifle and the lever action. Each of these legal rifles is capable of firing a powerful 30-06 Springfield round with a muzzle velocity of 2,910 feet per second. Compare that to the common 1911 semi-automatic handgun chambered for 45 ACP with a muzzle velocity of 835 feet per second. The primary difference with the three rifles is that the AR-15, if unmodified, fires semi-automatic at a much faster rate than the bolt or lever actions. It also is capable of using extended capacity magazines. So, it would seem the logical choice for a shooter intent on inflicting human carnage.

Should it be legal? And, if it were banned, who would suffer? The most affected, other than manufacturers and dealers, would be target/firing range shooters. Are their rights for entertainment enough to endanger our school children? How about hunters using a "modern sporting rifle?" The hunter already has an advantage over the animal with a weapon. Using an AR-15 with semi-automatic fire would compensate for her/his poor marksmanship, giving a greater advantage over the animal. Is that justification for keeping the weapon legal?

Of course there are thousands of AR-15s already in public hands, but there will be more and more shooters growing up, some with an interest in inflicting public harm. Should they have access to a weapon capable of mass destruction

So tell us sparkey, what's the percentage of crimes committed where 10 or more rounds are fired by a single weapon?


.

 

[emilynghiem]

Forget politics for a minute, and put the 2nd Amendment on the back burner.

Consider the AR-15 rifle and not whether it is an "assault rifle" or a "modern sporting rifle," or any other description. Just conder its effects on the American people.

It is a weapon, a firearm capable of very rapid fire and massive destructive power. While not legally automatic, though capable of nearly automatic fire with a legal "bump stock," it is still, with the semi-automatic handgun, capable of more rapid fire than any other legally obtained American firearm. It seems to be the weapon of choice of school shooters and shooters from buildings intent on inflicting maximum harm on the most people possible. Its action is, like the 1911 handgun, semi-automatic, firing one round each time the trigger is pulled.

It is one of three types of rifles legally available in America, the other two being the bolt action rifle and the lever action. Each of these legal rifles is capable of firing a powerful 30-06 Springfield round with a muzzle velocity of 2,910 feet per second. Compare that to the common 1911 semi-automatic handgun chambered for 45 ACP with a muzzle velocity of 835 feet per second. The primary difference with the three rifles is that the AR-15, if unmodified, fires semi-automatic at a much faster rate than the bolt or lever actions. It also is capable of using extended capacity magazines. So, it would seem the logical choice for a shooter intent on inflicting human carnage.

Should it be legal? And, if it were banned, who would suffer? The most affected, other than manufacturers and dealers, would be target/firing range shooters. Are their rights for entertainment enough to endanger our school children? How about hunters using a "modern sporting rifle?" The hunter already has an advantage over the animal with a weapon. Using an AR-15 with semi-automatic fire would compensate for her/his poor marksmanship, giving a greater advantage over the animal. Is that justification for keeping the weapon legal?

Of course there are thousands of AR-15s already in public hands, but there will be more and more shooters growing up, some with an interest in inflicting public harm. Should they have access to a weapon capable of mass destruction

I have an idea Astrostar
How about requiring that any such "kid" or any "citizen" who wants the right to bear arms of military level type defense be required to go through the same screening, training and Constitutional oath as police or veterans.

And add a condition that for all citizens to claim our Constitutional rights and privileges, we agree that in case we are convicted of a premeditated crime abusing a weapon to violate the laws and rights of others, we agree to pay for all costs of the damage, the prosecution and incarceration from our own labor and resources and/or agree to be deported and trade places with an immigrant on the waiting list for citizenship who is willing to work and live by the laws. So we agree to this oath to defend the laws and financial/legal responsibility if we violate them by premeditated crimes. If we are mentally disabled due to disorder and cannot comply, if we are not legally or financially viable for all costs we might impose on taxpayers, then we agree to have a cosigner sponsor us who takes financial and legal responsibility as a guardian.

So all these kids would be under the legal guardianship of a parent or other working adult who signs an agreement to take legal and financial responsibility for that person in order to exercise and claim rights as a citizen.

How about Constitutional requirements on enforcing and defending laws as part of citizenship education, training and screening for criminal disorders.

Any district city or state that wants to pass gun restrictions on arms that are intended for defense can require a consensus on policy among the residents of each area that wants this. All residents of that district must agree to the same policy, or else reorganize and make sure people live under the policy they believe in if there is disagreement. It may have to be by neighborhood or school district in order to have consensual enforcement.

To encourage liberals to agree to a policy for reducing crime and abuse, tie it to tax breaks and funding for health care and education. Enact policies where districts that agree to reduce the rates of abuse and crime receive tax breaks and get to invest the money saved into building school programs, including jobs in teaching and internships in medical services and benefits. So this rewards taxpayers for uniting in a committed policy and program for screening for mental and criminal illness, reducing crime violence abuse and addictions, and investing saved resources in health care jobs and programs to serve the public .

 

[OldLady]

The OP and this guy have something in common:

"Sensible gun control laws"

Godwined, punk! Drink up, everybody!

"Well-regulated" means "in proper working order".

Next!

No it doesn't.

well-regulated

ADJECTIVE

• Properly governed or directed; (now) especially strictly controlled by rules or regulations.
  

well-regulated | Definition of well-regulated in US English by Oxford Dictionaries

 

[rshermn]

How can you discuss this and put our constitutional rights on the back burner?
Heil astrostar!

Well, me poor ignorant clown, consider that there are all sorts of "guns" outlawed currently. Machine guns, military cannons and others. So, your concern about constitutional rights is stupid.
So, we just saw 14 students and 3 teachers killed in Florida. And dozens others elsewhere. All by guns we have come to know as assault rifles. So, you worry about your fucking constitutional rights, the right to shoot an "assault rifle" as being more important than the lives of children, and adults. Do you yet see how stupid you are?
I am concerned about the hundreds of lives of those shot at, and of those killed by, people who exercise their constitutional right to own these guns, and who use them to kill as many people as they can. No other weapon is as useful for killing lots of people as assault weapons. None. So, how do I know?

There are a number of ways. For one, I look at all the other advanced countries of the world, all of whom do not allow their citizens to buy assault weapons. And none have the number of deaths that we do from mass killings. Japan, France, the UK, and Germany have nearly none. No country has anything close to the number of mass shootings as we have. None have the number of deaths to gun use.

So, you worry about your ability to shoot an AR, or whatever. I worry about the lives lost to dipshits using AR's. I believe that lives of kids, and adults, are way more important than you having to use a bolt action or lever action, or pump rifle. I think you can get by fine with a 5 shot, or less, clip.

I own guns. Several., me boy. I hunt, have for years. But I have no need for an AR. At all. You see, if you are marginally capable of using a modern firearm, one shot is all you should need. Unless you want to kill a bunch of people Or perhaps you are simply really physically challenged, or a really, really, really bad shot.
So there you go, me boy. You worry about your "need" for an AR. I worry about human lives. Kids particularly. So, what is the most important? Or is that too complex for you?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

There is an individual right to possess a firearm, but there is no "right" to possess an AR 15.

The Second Amendment right is not absolute, government may place limits and restrictions on the possession of firearms.

And the courts have consistently held that restrictions on AR platform rifles are Constitutional and consistent with the Second Amendment.

The Supreme Court has never ruled on the constitutionally of laws regulating AR 15s, until it does the notion that there's a right to possess an AR is as ignorant as it wrong.

 

[Marion Morrison]

The OP and this guy have something in common:

"Sensible gun control laws"

Godwined, punk! Drink up, everybody!

"Well-regulated" means "in proper working order".

Next!

No it doesn't.

well-regulated

ADJECTIVE

• Properly governed or directed; (now) especially strictly controlled by rules or regulations.

well-regulated | Definition of well-regulated in US English by Oxford Dictionaries

Onnnnk!

"The following are taken from the Oxford English Dictionary, and bracket in time the writing of the 2nd amendment:

1709: “If a liberal Education has formed in us well-regulated Appetites and worthy Inclinations.”

1714: “The practice of all well-regulated courts of justice in the world.”

1812: “The equation of time … is the adjustment of the difference of time as shown by a well-regulated clock and a true sun dial.”

1848: “A remissness for which I am sure every well-regulated person will blame the Mayor.”

1862: “It appeared to her well-regulated mind, like a clandestine proceeding.”

1894: “The newspaper, a never wanting adjunct to every well-regulated American embryo city.”"

"The phrase “well-regulated” was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order."

"Well-Regulated" - Bearing Arms - Second Amendment, Well-Regulated


I've done this a few times, OldLady.

It means fully functional.