Zone1 There's no rational, reasoned argument for a ban on AR15s (2)

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Wrong....

Ask an actual expert....

It actually has nothing to do with the efficacy of banning assault weapons; the fact is that bans in general don’t work – whether it’s banning drugs, alcohol, abortion, books, or guns, bans have always failed, and will always continue to do so – if people want something badly enough, they’ll find a way to obtain it, regardless government’s efforts.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Just because my argument is pointing out the tactic that you're using... doesn't mean it's not an argument.

Sure it is.,
It just doesn't have anytng to do with MY argument.

Secondly, I don't necessarily disagree with you.

Oh.
So you agree:
There's no rational, reasoned, argument for banning the AR15.
You should have just said so in the first place.
Thank you

 

[M14 Shooter]

There's also no rational, reasoned argument in favor of possessing an AR 15.

Sure there is.
It is suitable for every traditionally legal purpose there is for a firearm.

Possessing an AR 15 is a want, not a ‘need’ – and there’s nothing wrong with that; citizens are entitled to exercise a fundamental right without being required to ‘justify’ exercising that right as a ‘prerequisite’ to indeed do so.

Sounds like you need to talk to your fellow liberal Democrats, who continue to tell us there's no need for civilians to own an AR.

It’s therefore silly and unnecessary to try to ‘justify’ possessing an AR 15 in an effort to oppose bans –

Good thing I didn't do that.

there are other firearms better suited for self-defense....

Your lack of knowledge of all things firearm is legendary; your statement, above, only reinforces this.
There are few firearms better suited for self defense within the home than an AR carbine or pistol in a major pistol caliber.

Last, there’s no political will in Washington to enact a ‘new’ AWB; and bans at the state level will soon be struck down by the Supreme Court – in fact, topics about ‘banning’ AR 15s are likewise silly and unnecessary.

And yet, liberal Democrats continue to try to ban them, and liberal Democrats continue to tell us they need to be banned.
Ironically, they prove you to be a liar, and you prove them to be liars.
Well done.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Sure it is.,
It just doesn't have anytng to do with MY argument.

Oh.
So you agree:
There's no rational, reasoned, argument for banning the AR15.
You should have just said so in the first place.
Thank you

Fucking hell, this is pointless. You're not here for a proper discussion, you're here for someone to say something simple so you can be like "oh, people agree with me."

I'm not interested in this childish pointless nonsense.

 

[Kilroy2]

assault rifles are deadly weapons because of the ability of the weapon to shoot multiple times in a short time span. Thus when used will cause more casualties with little hope of escape for the victims than other weapons. So what is the purpose of a firearm that can shoot rapidly? Is it useful in hunting? Why because it makes it easier to kill the target without any skill by the shooter. Where is the challenge? Does it make target practice easier because the odds of hitting the target are increased?

So the argument is not how often it is used but why would it be needed by it users.?
The question is why were they invented and the answer is in war, it best to kill than be killed.

 

[2aguy]

assault rifles are deadly weapons because of the ability of the weapon to shoot multiple times in a short time span. Thus when used will cause more casualties with little hope of escape for the victims than other weapons. So what is the purpose of a firearm that can shoot rapidly? Is it useful in hunting? Why because it makes it easier to kill the target without any skill by the shooter. Where is the challenge? Does it make target practice easier because the odds of hitting the target are increased?

So the argument is not how often it is used but why would it be needed by it users.?
The question is why were they invented and the answer is in war, it best to kill than be killed.

And you just showed us you have no idea what you are talking about........

Nashville

AR-15 rifle 6 killed

Kerch, Russia

5 shot, pump action shotgun, not a rifle, no magazine

20 killed

Navy Yard shooting

5 shot, pump action shotgun,not a rifle, no magazine

12 killed

Cumbria shooting in Britain...

...no semi-auto rifle...... Double barrel shotgun, bolt action rifle

13 killed, 11 injured....

Santa Fe, High school shooting

No rifle, pump action shotgun, .38 caliber revolver

10 killed

The gun does not determine how many are killed

The amount of time the killer has in a gun free zone before someone shoots and stops them determines how many get killed as the two example above show.


==========

 

[2aguy]

assault rifles are deadly weapons because of the ability of the weapon to shoot multiple times in a short time span. Thus when used will cause more casualties with little hope of escape for the victims than other weapons. So what is the purpose of a firearm that can shoot rapidly? Is it useful in hunting? Why because it makes it easier to kill the target without any skill by the shooter. Where is the challenge? Does it make target practice easier because the odds of hitting the target are increased?

So the argument is not how often it is used but why would it be needed by it users.?
The question is why were they invented and the answer is in war, it best to kill than be killed.

Here........learn something......

 

[2aguy]

assault rifles are deadly weapons because of the ability of the weapon to shoot multiple times in a short time span. Thus when used will cause more casualties with little hope of escape for the victims than other weapons. So what is the purpose of a firearm that can shoot rapidly? Is it useful in hunting? Why because it makes it easier to kill the target without any skill by the shooter. Where is the challenge? Does it make target practice easier because the odds of hitting the target are increased?

So the argument is not how often it is used but why would it be needed by it users.?
The question is why were they invented and the answer is in war, it best to kill than be killed.

Here.......learn some more.......

 

[badbob85037]

Open carry of hand gun is not even the best idea, but I worked with and sold to contractors and know the places they go and work and the people they legitimately work on projects for. Lots of places, I would never go unarmed at high noon and for damned good reason. The side arm is just another tool of safety and security, as they don't live in the places they work and are at times attacked, robbed, both personally, their vehicles, material on the job sites. The contractor himself maybe overseeing workers of all different character on multiple job sites in and out of what you and I would almost think of as demilitarized zones, checking each site and moving to the next and just maintenance workers, plumber, electrical repair people sent by building management companies face the same thing. There are times it pays to have that tool, but just too hot to conceal under a shirt or coat. People don't think of this stuff if they haven't been involved and of course most of these people not used to firearms, would never think of attacking or robbing the guy they see that has been sent to unclog their garbage disposal.
That said, I never saw a maintenance man that had a spare hand for a rifle or shotgun. But, a handgun is just a tool, possibly necessary, you hope you never have to use, but just having it on your side seen may actually discourage some people that may consider doing you harm.
I don't work for anybody, except myself (if I choose for me to work) or PJ if she chooses for me, but I do get around and I do carry. I don't around the house, as one or several are fairly handy, but if I leave the property at night, I definitely am. If it is hot, broad daylight and I go to Walmart, I throw a short sleeve top shirt, over my t-shirt and shoulder holster, to avoid alarming the straights and timids, but these days you just never know when it might be an important tool to have on you. That's just good citizenship on my part. That’s just me and anybody that knows me would say I am well-trained and self controlled.
Still, I cannot think of a single justification on earth (other than proclaiming a supposed right) to open carry my AR, rifles or shotguns on the streets, as an intimidation technique, which I would never do. The justification, just doesn't exist. If I to the range, (and I do often), my AR is inside the back of my vehicle, unloaded along with my range bag of loaded magazines, ammo and other equipment, and my Walther is in my shoulder holster. If I get out between the house and range, I throw a shirt or jacket on over it. The other more tactically correct reason I conceal, is there is no need for a possible threat to see my armament until they commit to a course of action. I get that from my military days. Never expose your strength and weaponry and disposition to the opposing force, only as small a portion as necessary before becoming decisively engaged or needing to deploy to face the threat. Which is proven sound advice to any size unit, all the way down to single combatant. I come by it honest. You trained and paid me to think this way.

In the state of Arizona all having their right to bear arms can carried conciled. As a Chandler Police Officer put it "Nobody picks on the little guy because anyone can be armed." That makes good sense to me. Open carry gives every yahoo the right to sneek up behind you and take your firearm because they know you have it. Believe it or not growing up I lived in the California Bay Area. When the week end would come we straped our .22's on our bikes and ride out to hunt or shoot. We were always safe because we all passed the NRA safety class that was given at the local Jr. High. Today the NRA has been kicked from the schools in California with their gun laws that violate the Dick Act and it shows with a nation with over 400 million firearms. I mean it's common sense nothing the left have. They believe what they are told to believe never believing anything else Which is just as well being with no training it would be a bloody mess. But these die hard libs I have taken out shooting most end up spending any exter money on the sport the rest of their life.

Never knowing the joy of putting a small piece of lead through the center of a target from 3 feet out to over a thousand yards.

 

[2aguy]

In the state of Arizona all having their right to bear arms can carried conciled. As a Chandler Police Officer put it "Nobody picks on the little guy because anyone can be armed." That makes good sense to me. Open carry gives every yahoo the right to sneek up behind you and take your firearm because they know you have it. Believe it or not growing up I lived in the California Bay Area. When the week end would come we straped our .22's on our bikes and ride out to hunt or shoot. We were always safe because we all passed the NRA safety class that was given at the local Jr. High. Today the NRA has been kicked from the schools in California with their gun laws that violate the Dick Act and it shows with a nation with over 400 million firearms. I mean it's common sense nothing the left have. They believe what they are told to believe never believing anything else Which is just as well being with no training it would be a bloody mess. But these die hard libs I have taken out shooting most end up spending any exter money on the sport the rest of their life.

Never knowing the joy of putting a small piece of lead through the center of a target from 3 feet out to over a thousand yards.

Actually, how someone carries their gun is up to the individual. The problem with concealed carry is the anti-gunners exploit it.......if you accidentally expose your gun, for whatever reason, you can be arrested for "brandishing," for example......reaching up to a tall shelf in a store, or your shirt or jacket pulls back revealing your holstered weapon.......and if some anti-gun nut complains, you are now in legal trouble......

 

[badbob85037]

I don't think you live in California. You just don't seem like my idea of a Californian, definitely not a major southern Californian coastal city. You seem more like the rural forested area type, maybe near a river that has flowed down from the mountains on it's way to the sea. That said, my permit is honored in over 30 states but California is not one of them and if my guess is correct your state doesn't either. It is unlikely I will ever travel in your state. I guess I cherish my freedom of personal responsibility more. My evaluations of far western states is probably clouded by talking with my uncle that lived in one of the states years ago and saw it change. He made good money, but the people change, (he said the influx of Californians) the government changed, the politics changed and of course the taxes changed going way up, as freedoms went away. He lived well, in a beautiful area near a town called Grant Pass in the state of Oregon, but he couldn't stomach the changes in that state as mentioned, so after making his money, he moved back. If you are in a state like that which has undergone those kind of changes and lost the freedoms most the rest of country still enjoy, you should ask yourself, is it really worth it?

When I left the Army I went home to California. I rounded a corner into a nest of California Highway Patrol pulling me over for a 'safety inspection'. Even though once a year at registration you have an inspection and get a sticker put on the lower left side of your windsheild. They inspected under my seats, my trunk, and every place you could stash a joint. Two weeks latter I left that state and the only way I would enter that state is as a force to return the people's rights. I left Cal. when they started by taking the people's Forth Amendment and had just gotten started with the Second Amendment. Anyone still in Cal. is there by choise. Screw them.

 

[badbob85037]

Actually, how someone carries their gun is up to the individual. The problem with concealed carry is the anti-gunners exploit it.......if you accidentally expose your gun, for whatever reason, you can be arrested for "brandishing," for example......reaching up to a tall shelf in a store, or your shirt or jacket pulls back revealing your holstered weapon.......and if some anti-gun nut complains, you are now in legal trouble......

In Arizona the cops love citizens carrying. It has saved many cops. They don't spend their time trying to rail road honest gun owners as California and the West Coast. I see by order of the idiot dictater of Cal. Murders are no longer put to death. That's good to know by all low lifes trying to add up a large number of innocent.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Fucking hell, this is pointless. You're not here for a proper discussion, you're here for someone to say something simple so you can be like "oh, people agree with me."
I'm not interested in this childish pointless nonsense.

I accept your surrender.

 

[ralfy]

 

[2aguy]

Because the anti-gun left has made them popular......they are no different from any other rifle, but the anti-gunners think if they can get the AR-15 banned, that will give them the opening they need to demand all other semi-automatic rifles, pistols and shotguns be banned....

And since mass public shooters by far choose hand guns.....that video is a lie....

Nashville

AR-15 rifle 6 killed

Kerch, Russia

5 shot, pump action shotgun, not a rifle, no magazine

20 killed

Navy Yard shooting

5 shot, pump action shotgun,not a rifle, no magazine

12 killed

Cumbria shooting in Britain...

...no semi-auto rifle...... Double barrel shotgun, bolt action rifle

13 killed, 11 injured....

Santa Fe, High school shooting

No rifle, pump action shotgun, .38 caliber revolver

10 killed

The gun does not determine how many are killed and you have been explained this over and over

The amount of time the killer has in a gun free zone before someone shoota and stops them determines how many get killed as the two example above show.


==========
From 1982....various attacks.....most done without rifles, you twit.


Gilroy, semi-auto rifle with large magazine....3 killed

Dayton, democrat, socialist, antifa member, elizabeth warren supporter, semi-auto rifle with regular magazine....9 killed.

Umpquaa Community college shooting....5 pistols, 9 killed

Charleston Church shooting, 9 dead, 1 pistol.

Atlanta spree shooting.... 9 dead 3 pistols

Red Lake shooting 10 dead 2 pistols.

Santa Fe High school shooting...no rifle, no magazine.....shot gun and .38 revolver... 10 killed

Russian Polytechnic school shooting.... no rifle, no magazine.....tube fed, 5 shot, pump action shotgun....20 killed, 40 injured.

Navy Yard shooting.... no rifle, no magazine, tube fed pump action shotgun, 5,6 or 7 shot pump action shotgun....12 killed

Virginia Tech.... 32 people killed, 2 pistols.

Luby's cafe.... 24 killed, 2 pistols

British, Cumbria shooting....no semi-auto rifle...... Double barrel shotgun, bolt action rifle 13 killed, 11 injured....

Fort Hood....1 pistol....13 killed

Virginia beach...2 pistols .... 12 killed

 

[White 6]

When I left the Army I went home to California. I rounded a corner into a nest of California Highway Patrol pulling me over for a 'safety inspection'. Even though once a year at registration you have an inspection and get a sticker put on the lower left side of your windsheild. They inspected under my seats, my trunk, and every place you could stash a joint. Two weeks latter I left that state and the only way I would enter that state is as a force to return the people's rights. I left Cal. when they started by taking the people's Forth Amendment and had just gotten started with the Second Amendment. Anyone still in Cal. is there by choise. Screw them.

Good job, Badbob. You sound like a sound decision maker to me!

 

[saveliberty]

Every time an AR15 is used in a mass shooting - and quite often, even when they aren't - the anti-gun left, in a pre-packaged reactionary response , screams from a ban on same, complete with "information" designed to evoke an emotional response, and, they hope, gain your support for said ban.

What do they NOT tell you?

-American civilians own ~20,000,000 AR15s
-Of the 636 mas shootings in the US, 2022, 8 involved an AR15
-OF the 660 people killed in those mass shootings 54 were killed with an AR15.
[ SOURCES NOTED BELOW ]

Why do they not tell you this?

Because they know there's no sound argument for the ban they call for.
Because they know they need to prey on the emotions of the ignorant to move their ban forward
Because they know preying on the emotions of the ignorant works.
Because they don't care about mass shootings or the people in them - they just want to ban AR15s.

There's no rational, reasoned argument for a ban on AR15s; those who support said ban, in their responses, will demonstrate the truth of this statement.


20,000,000 AR15s:

Why even more Americans are arming up with AR-15 guns

What's behind the popularity of the AR-15, and what responsibility do gun makers have when their products are used in mass shootings?

www.cnbc.com

Mass shootings as defined by:
Mass Shootings in 2022 | Gun Violence Archive
Supplemental / detailed information from;
US mass shootings, 1982–2022: Data from Mother Jones’ investigation

There is if your premise is to make people dependent and subservient to government. Fear of the people is the only true check on government.

 

[Kilroy2]

Here.......learn some more.......

your argument is that it looks cool, so what is there to learn other than it looks cool .

 

[Kilroy2]

Here.......learn some more.......

If it looks cool then that is your argument. You still avoid the question which is why would you need a weapon that was based on killing the eneny in war time. So I would guess your at war with ?????????

 

[2aguy]

If it looks cool then that is your argument. You still avoid the question which is why would you need a weapon that was based on killing the eneny in war time. So I would guess your at war with ?????????

The AR-15 is not a military rifle.....that you repeat that lie shows you are either ignorant, or a liar........likely both....

The FOIA request itself was prompted from a Nov. 2017 article in The Atlantic in which the magazine, unsurprisingly to anyone familiar with its anti-gun bent, attempted to bolster a claim that “these rifles were meant for the military, not civilians.”

“Colt sent a pilot model rifle (serial no. GX4968) to the BATF for civilian sale approval on Oct. 23, 1963. It was approved on Dec. 10, 1963, and sales of the ‘Model R6000 Colt AR-15 SP1 Sporter Rifle’ began on Jan 2, 1964,” one critic of the article contended. “The M16 wasn’t issued to infantry units until 1965 (as the XM16E1), wasn’t standardized as the M16A1 until 1967, and didn’t officially replace the M14 until 1969.”

Original ATF AR-15 Classification Refutes Claim that Rifle ‘Not Meant’ for Civilians