AR-15?

[Intolerant]

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

"Should it be legal? And, if it were banned, who would suffer?"

Yes. The millions of AR15 owners who don't use them to shoot people like the small handful of people who have. You don't affect millions of people's freedom because of illegal the actions of a few people.

Seriously, there's literally millions of AR-owners.

I have one myself. It’s fun to shoot. My whole family loves it. There must be something wrong with it though, it hasn’t shot anyone.

I don't, have no need.

I am wanting a bolt .223 or .308 though.

.06 shooting is too expensive.

Get a.308 bolt action remington. That's what I killed that coyote with. My pic was deleted and was deemed to graphic.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

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

"Should it be legal? And, if it were banned, who would suffer?"

Yes. The millions of AR15 owners who don't use them to shoot people like the small handful of people who have. You don't affect millions of people's freedom because of illegal the actions of a few people.

Seriously, there's literally millions of AR-owners.

I have one myself. It’s fun to shoot. My whole family loves it. There must be something wrong with it though, it hasn’t shot anyone.

I don't, have no need.

I am wanting a bolt .223 or .308 though.

.06 shooting is too expensive.

Get a.308 bolt action remington. That's what I killed that coyote with. My pic was deleted and was deemed to graphic.

Pity...I thought the bulging eyeball was a nice touch.

 

[kwc57]

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

"Should it be legal? And, if it were banned, who would suffer?"

Yes. The millions of AR15 owners who don't use them to shoot people like the small handful of people who have. You don't affect millions of people's freedom because of illegal the actions of a few people.

Yes, you do, he who has a grenade as an avi.

Holy shit! You realize that's a keyboard "grenade" don't you? ROFLMAO

And if you want to get technical, it's a bomb.

Honestly, people who don't know what they are talking about should keep quiet if they don't want to look foolish.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

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

"Should it be legal? And, if it were banned, who would suffer?"

Yes. The millions of AR15 owners who don't use them to shoot people like the small handful of people who have. You don't affect millions of people's freedom because of illegal the actions of a few people.

Yes, you do, he who has a grenade as an avi.

Holy shit! You realize that's a keyboard "grenade" don't you? ROFLMAO

And if you want to get technical, it's a bomb.

Honestly, people who don't know what they are talking about should keep quiet if they don't want to look foolish.

Honestly, people who don't know what they are talking about should keep quiet if they don't want to look foolish.

But then liberals would never speak.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

OldLady, I can't find the Webster's but I did find this: (World Book)

"being what a thing should be".

The Supreme Court alone determines what the Second Amendment means, not message board posters.

 

[Bruce_T_Laney]

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

Something to think about:

Tim McVeigh used a truck bomb to kill hundreds people.

9/11/2001 hijackers used boxcutters to hijack planes that killed thousands.

So what is my point?

Ban the AR-15 and remember when the killer turn to bombs, well then what will you do then?

Do not say it would never happen because it has before, so what do you do then?

Also putting someone right under the Constitution on the back burner is code that you believe the Second Amendment is outdated and should be removed from the Constitution.

Now if you agree it is outdated and should be removed then maybe the entire Constitution should be done away with seeing if you are willing to toss someone right to bear arms then what else would you deny them?

The right to free speech?

I do not have any use for the AR-15 and my single shot and pump action shotguns are all I need in life to defend my home but soon you write that they are also not needed and should be ban....

So I say the banning of firearms is pointless because criminals never obey laws but hey you need that false security at night so you can sleep but when it is shattered ( which it will be ) let discuss the next firearm you believe society does not need...

 

[PredFan]

Ban the AR-15 and I can come up with almost a dozen other deadly semi-auto rifles to take it's place.

It's not the gun, morons.

 

[Crixus]

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 then, which Highschool do you attend? Meh, I think back to the 90’s pre 94 crime bill. You quoted pretty much verbatim statements made about another “assault rifle”. That would have been the AK47. Before they got mentioned in the news allot you could buy an AK for like $90 bucks, and an SKS bullet hose would run you about $250 bucks for half a dozen rifles. Anyways, laws were made, Bush Sr banned the importation of foreign made guns and that was that. In the end all the polititions did was add about $300 bucks to the value of commie block guns. Same for Obama. AR15’s are the thing now because of Obama. When I bought my AR it cost around $475 bucks. Now in a few weeks as Trump rediscovers his pro gun control roots I’ll be able to sell it for almost twice that amount.


If you really want to fix this, starte by taking a real hard look at the relationship we adults have with our young people.

 

[Marion Morrison]

OldLady, I can't find the Webster's but I did find this: (World Book)

"being what a thing should be".

The Supreme Court alone determines what the Second Amendment means, not message board posters.

Go figure that you'd be wrong. It's The Constitution that determines what the 2nd Amendment means.

PS: You're so retarded that you don't realize that's a picture of a dictionary, probably because you've never used one.

 

[OldLady]

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

"Should it be legal? And, if it were banned, who would suffer?"

Yes. The millions of AR15 owners who don't use them to shoot people like the small handful of people who have. You don't affect millions of people's freedom because of illegal the actions of a few people.

Yes, you do, he who has a grenade as an avi.

Holy shit! You realize that's a keyboard "grenade" don't you? ROFLMAO

And if you want to get technical, it's a bomb.

Honestly, people who don't know what they are talking about should keep quiet if they don't want to look foolish.

I don't take people with a bomb as an avi real seriously, just so ya know. Fire away.

 

[fncceo]

It is a weapon, a firearm capable of very rapid fire and massive destructive power

Especially with that nuclear modification.

 

[kwc57]

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

"Should it be legal? And, if it were banned, who would suffer?"

Yes. The millions of AR15 owners who don't use them to shoot people like the small handful of people who have. You don't affect millions of people's freedom because of illegal the actions of a few people.

Yes, you do, he who has a grenade as an avi.

Holy shit! You realize that's a keyboard "grenade" don't you? ROFLMAO

And if you want to get technical, it's a bomb.

Honestly, people who don't know what they are talking about should keep quiet if they don't want to look foolish.

I don't take people with a bomb as an avi real seriously, just so ya know. Fire away.

It's a word "bomb" you moron......you know, like for posting on message boards Honestly, how do you liberals manage to put one foot in front of the other or breathe when you can't even understand something as simple as symbolism. It's all literal for you guys. No vision. No logic.

 

[MindWars]

This Former Navy SEAL's Defense Of The AR-15 Is Epic