Why you can’t ban AR-15s

So, was having a discussion with my husband about the latest mass murders in schools--We don't have children, but I asked him, if we had children, as a parent, what would we do---without hesitation my husband said, first, repeal the 2nd Amendment,second,have everyone that owns a gun, make them take out an insurance policy , third, either make bullets more expensive or perhaps use rubber bullets, & forth, ban all weapons that would be used by our soldiers in war---

 

But what happens when most of the state legislators like in California are reconquista socialist who have really short roots in America ?

In California Democrats focused almost exclusively on legislation which either has to do with wealth redistribution, disarming law abiding citizens or creating new “rights” for alleged victims such as illegal aliens, criminals, union members, homosexuals, transgenders and other “oppressed” groups. Californian's haven't had representation in the halls of Sacramento for decades.

In California they are on record of not recognizing the U.S. Constitution or federal law.

In California they are trying to disarm all law abiding citizens.

 

Semantics.
Here are some semantics.

If a load of kids got murdered with an AR 15.
Ban them.

Ban anything remotely similar to them too.
Sayonara. Good riddance to all things associated with that act of gross inhumanity.

AR 15 owners are expected to be royally pissed off. And deserve to be. It's not just the parents who have lost from this tragic crime.

 

Lol.

In the UK, not only will they not grant you a lisence for an automatic rifle, but they won't grant you a lisence for a .223 if you want to shoot deer. You'll have to have something bigger or go without.

 

1966?

And virtually all of those attacks have something in common. Know what it is?

Magazine fed semi-auto weapons

 

I do agree that the only way guns can be banned is with an amendment to do so. That said, I don't see it happening in my lifetime. You're not going to get 38 states to sign off on it.

 

Assault weapon is... whatever we choose to list as "Assault weapon". AR-15 is a rifle that is designed to kill a large number of people in a short amount of time. Well... that needs to be banned. Anything... weapon, accessory, rifle, slingshot... anything that is designed to kill a large number of people in a short amount of time should not be in the hands of the public.

It's as good a name as any.

I haven't seen a single argument on your post to support the statement that we can't ban assault weapons.

 

They don't have Florida sized deer. FL deer are hardly bigger than dogs. A .223 is about ideal for Florida deer.

 

Okay, fine. Amend the Constitution to make it Constitutionally viable. I'll wait.

 

Apparently it works real well on schoolkids too...

 

It varies by state currently, but in CA, any semi-auto weapon with a removable magazine, a collapsible stock, a pistol grip, and a flash suppressor is considered an "assault weapon" and must be specially registered. Additionally in CA, the magazine must be "fixed" if the other attributes are present. Of course we got around this with the bullet button.

So my SIG 516 is an assault weapon according to California, but my 6.5 Creedmoor RPR is not - even though it has all the "assault weapon" attributes, it is as you likely know a bolt action... and far more accurate and powerful that any AR-15!

 

The date is irrelevant. The same thing could be done today.

Bolt action rifles have been used in more of those attacks than magazine fed rifles.

A large number of them also involved shotguns.

Actually the commonality in all those attacks is a guy with a gun surrounded by targets that can't defend themselves.

 

We do. We have muntjak and Chinese water deer. Both stand only 20'' tall.
A .22 is not guaranteed to kill in one shot.

 

A .458 winchester magnum is not guaranteed to kill in one shot.

 

Not as good as a 9mm and .22LR

 

British hunters won't take the shot unless they think it will kill in one.

 

Guns have been banned or restricted through US history. Some may feel this is unconstitutional, but that does not stop it from occurring and won't in the future if the public supports it. That includes the present court which has let many stand (nearly all recently).

 

Every time the DP goes after the ARs they alienate more of their core political base.
I wonder if they hired Murphy and Schmidt to advise them?

 

This is the rifle that the world feared, an American armed with one of these and they weren't originally designed to kill people but game.



Just as the cartridge that M-16's and most AR's are chambered was originally developed for not shooting people but varmints. Little critters like ground hogs and squires. The 5.56X45 mm (Remington .223) is based upon the Remington .222.

But it was the the 5.56 mm 55 gr. M-193 ball ammunition that had the politically correct in the world getting their panties all wadded up in a bunch.

The 5.56 mm M-193 ammunition was declared to be politically incorrect back during the 1970's.

 

I love to rain on the democrat party's parade, but there is a whole boat load of crap about to fall on them before Nov. They'll be lucky if any are left in office come 2019.

Steve

 

What's the difference between an AR15 and a mini14?

 

Even Bill Clinton tried to warn Crooked Hillary and the DNC, if you want to lose elections, attack the Second Amendment and pass anti gun legislation.

 

If they are, my hope is that they hunt you down for classlessly exploiting the deaths of their children promoting your agenda

 

The AR-15 uses an ArmaLite action that has a gas tube where the gas travels down the tube to operate the action.

The Mini-14 has a gas piston that operates the action like on the M-1 Garand, M-14, M-1 carbines.

 

That's what makes the AR15 mean and evil I suppose