Let’s see if we can have a civil, logical discussion on banning high-powered weapons such as AR-15’s. I do NOT support banning these weapons and here’s why. We’re always going to have these high-powered guns in existence, so we have 1 of 2 scenarios to pick from: 1.) We agree to have guns decentralized between (a) the gov't, (b) criminals and (c) law abiding citizens OR 2.) We agree to centralize gun ownership into the hands of only (a) the gov’t and (b) criminals Not sure if people remember, but 10 years ago certain powerful individuals within the US Gov’t pushed to go to war with a country that never attacked or posed a threat to the United States. This resulted in the slaughter of close to a million human individuals (figures vary, but it's definitely over 500,000). The motivation for this war was likely tied to money and strategic gain. The point is, our Gov’t has proven itself very capable of doing some very bad things against our best interests. With that given, why take “law abiding citizens” out of the equation above (wouldn't they be the least threatening group)? I see many folks on the left rightfully criticizing the Gov't for killing middle easterners at will and for going rogue and bailing out the big banks, ect, but at the same time see no issues with handing over their more powerful weapons to that EXACT same entity. Thoughts? . .