Astrostar
Diamond Member
- Jul 21, 2017
- 2,938
- 3,841
- 1,940
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
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