After AR15's are banned, then what?

If, in a magical world, all AR15's were gone, banned, confiscated and destroyed, and mass shootings didn't stop, or even slow appreciably, what would be the next step? If you had cases where 10 or 20, or more people were murdered by a madman using an different weapon, what would be your solution?
Just for sh**s and giggles, throw in your universal background checks.

Honest answers, please.

 

Since the ultimate goal is a gun free America because until then there will always be gun deaths, the desire to pass more gun legislation will always be there. We could give the libs every gun control measure they want today, but as long as people die by guns, they will keep pushing for more.
Give em an inch and they will take a mile.

 

The reason for the question is: The liberals always say "No one is coming for your guns". I would like them to state the limits of their attempts, or admit them.

 

When you start thinking how much difference removing ARs an AKs that are responsible for a minuscule number of deaths per year that we see now and consider that mad hatters out there will still be determined to sow fear, think of the 10,000 bombing between 1969 and 1990 in the 6 counties of the North of Ireland, or the toll of IEDs on allies in Iraq and Afganstan and the fact the effective explosives are easy to make.

The terrorist's strategists aren't stupid, they know the political realities of the US, those that are for banning weapons and for now using AR type weapons will serve to increase calls for disarming citizens... Music to the ears of any terrorist.

 

They'll do what liberals always do: claim they failed because they didn't go far enough.

 

I notice none have chimed in...wonder why?

 

what happened after AR-15s were banned for the first time?

nothing

 

I clearly said banned, confiscated and destroyed. The first ban only prohibited new production and importation. Nice try. Well, a try, anyway.

 

They pick out another gun they hate and go after that. The Orlando Massacre was an ISIS inspired attack. The solution to terror from ISIS isn't for us to disarm ourselves. Obama doesn't want to have a conversation about immigration and border control, hence, the full court press to change the subject to gun control.

LEFTY COLUMNIST NEIL STEINBERG TRIES TO BUY AR-15, GETS SHOT DOWN:

Maxon Shooter’s explained later in a statement to the Chicago Sun-Times that it rejected Stenberg’s application because a background check uncovered that Mr. Steinberg has an admitted history of alcohol abuse, and was charged for beating up his wife.

That’s exactly what background checks are supposed to do.

Also, this is the same writer who got multiple Pinocchios for claiming that 40% of gun sales in the US don’t have a background check.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...-are-sold-at-gun-shows-and-over-the-internet/

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/columnist-fails-gun-check-blames-store-owners/article/2594417

 

My point exactly. If the goal is to reduce gun deaths, and the first step doesn't provide the result desired, then FURTHER MEASURES would logically follow, on down the line to total confiscation, as any firearm in the hands of a murderer, is a tool of mass destruction against unarmed people.
This would validate the slippery slope argument. If, on the other hand, no further restrictions were pursued, then the goal wasn't to reduce gun deaths at all, but to arbitrarily ban one class of weapons for political purposes.

As far as the 40% figure, that was one cherry picked stat to support UBC's. What they will not admit, is that UBC will necessitate registration, or it cannot be enforced, with the exception of forearms manufactured and sold AFTER the law was passed. That leaves 300 million or so guns unaffected, but gives the ATF a tool with which to harass otherwise legal gun owners.
Their whole position is a lie, start to finish.

 

There will be no gun bans and definitely no gun confiscations in our lifetime.

 

Not the point. I was simply trying to get the liberal side to articulate their plan, or admit it's a sham. It's not working out to well for me, they've gone mum when presented with the scenario.

 

Wow, still nothing except ronstar. C'mon people. You guys been huffing and puffing about how we need to ban the so called assault rifles now all of a sudden you're quiet when asked what's next.

 

Once someone has bought into the bs that banning honest people from owning something will prevent criminals from obtaining the item and misusing it, they are pretty much guaranteed to keep demanding more and more stuff be banned

its like the Bannerrhoids who want to ban 30 round magazines. anyone with a brain actually think that they will stop at 30-20-15-10? of course not

 

plus all that happened was the makers got rid of bayonet lugs or flash hiders and continued to sell them. I bought a bunch and when the stupid ban was over, I put the stuff that caused the firearm to be dishonestly called an "assault weapon" . Bayonet lugs don't have much use, flash hiders and adjustable length stocks do. many people are buying up stripped lower receivers (about 60-100 dollars) since if there is another ban, you can put them together with what ever parts you want since the part that is sold with the BGC was owned before the next round of Democrat party idiocy. and there is no way that Bannerrhoid bureaucrats can prove you "Made" that rifle after the ban.

 

They need to start making m-lok bayonet attachments so you can stick like 4 of em on the end of your rifle.

That would make liberal heads explode.

You're welcome for the million dollar idea magpul.

 

can't do that-we'd have drive by bayonetings of multiple victims!

 

Howsabout Bayoneting a Home Invader ???

 

That's odd. History and the present have proven you incorrect. But you already know that.

 

We need to fight to preserve the right to keep and bear arms for our children, grandchildren and generations to come.

 

I think we all know what would happen next. We are all well aware of the ultimate agenda of the anti-rights folks. Total government control over the citizens.

 

Very true.

The tree of Liberty needs to be watered every now and then.

 

no one says these problem goes away, but what if we ban them and mass murders stop using them? choose guns the do not kill 50 in one attack as easy

do you think Machine guns should be as easy to purchase as hand guns, if not, why not?

should a well armed Melita be allowed to own hand grenades and bombs..... do we have limits on weapons of mass murder

.

 

Until this recent terror attacks the mass shooting record was held by a guy with handguns and 10 round mags.

It is not the weapon used that results in the most casualties, it is areas full of people where they are not allowed to be armed.

When you look at areas where mass shootings were successful, they were gun free zones. When you look at areas where a shooter attempted a mass shooting and people were armed, fewer people were killed.

Orlando would have been far worse had it not been for a guy with a gun that engaged the shooter almost immediately.

If terrorists want to kill large numbers of people, they are going to do so. If firearms were completely banned in the US, terrorists would have no trouble getting fully automatic weapons across our southern border.