The Deadly Selfishness Behind the AR-15

[JackA]

No one needs an AR-l5. At least no one other than a killer seeking the most efficient weapon that exists for what he is planning. Gun owners don’t need AR-15's. Life would go on without them. But they like having their AR-15‘s, and it’s not their fault that for unlucky children and their unlucky teachers life has stopped going on because of them, a tragedy that repeats itself more and more frequently, year after year. But it is the fault of gun owners that AR-15‘s continue to be on the market. Congress could outlaw them and any other assault weapon tomorrow. States that have not banned them, as Connecticut has, could ban them tomorrow. But the selfishness of law abiding gun owners won’t let this happen.

It’s about as simple as that.

 

[chuckiechan]

No one needs an AR-l5. At least no one other than a killer seeking the most efficient weapon that exists for what he is planning. Gun owners don’t need AR-15's. Life would go on without them. But they like having their AR-15‘s, and it’s not their fault that for unlucky children and their unlucky teachers life has stopped going on because of them, a tragedy that repeats itself more and more frequently, year after year. But it is the fault of gun owners that AR-15‘s continue to be on the market. Congress could outlaw them and any other assault weapon tomorrow. States that have not banned them, as Connecticut has, could ban them tomorrow. But the selfishness of law abiding gun owners won’t let this happen.

It’s about as simple as that.

You don't need a 60" TV either, and you don't need a lawn. In fact, if you leave it up to me, you don't even need anymore that I, the government decides to give you. I will bury you with regulations and permits making your freedom to choose just too damn expensive. If you let me roll back one thing, I will be energized to roll back more and more until I roll you up in a little ball and store you in the closet.

What about the millions of gun owners who own AR15's that didn't kill anyone?

 

[Chillfolks]

As opposed to your selfishness in forcing your will upon others. Blaming the gun for the deaths is as stupid as blaming the keyboard for your post. In both cases it's the fool behind the tool that is to blame.

 

[TheGoverness]

No one needs an AR-l5. At least no one other than a killer seeking the most efficient weapon that exists for what he is planning. Gun owners don’t need AR-15's. Life would go on without them. But they like having their AR-15‘s, and it’s not their fault that for unlucky children and their unlucky teachers life has stopped going on because of them, a tragedy that repeats itself more and more frequently, year after year. But it is the fault of gun owners that AR-15‘s continue to be on the market. Congress could outlaw them and any other assault weapon tomorrow. States that have not banned them, as Connecticut has, could ban them tomorrow. But the selfishness of law abiding gun owners won’t let this happen.

It’s about as simple as that.

There's a lot of things that people have that we don't need.

 

[GermanLife]

No one needs an AR-l5. At least no one other than a killer seeking the most efficient weapon that exists for what he is planning. Gun owners don’t need AR-15's. Life would go on without them. But they like having their AR-15‘s, and it’s not their fault that for unlucky children and their unlucky teachers life has stopped going on because of them, a tragedy that repeats itself more and more frequently, year after year. But it is the fault of gun owners that AR-15‘s continue to be on the market. Congress could outlaw them and any other assault weapon tomorrow. States that have not banned them, as Connecticut has, could ban them tomorrow. But the selfishness of law abiding gun owners won’t let this happen.

It’s about as simple as that.

So if they ban the AR - Mass shooters will just find a diff gun.

 

[Mach]

There's a lot of things that people have that we don't need.

And yet he wrote this:

unlucky children and their unlucky teachers life has stopped going on because of them, a tragedy that repeats itself more and more frequently, year after year.

Clearly having things we don't need, that are also used routinely in human massacres, is a question for consideration of legal action. Why play coy on this.

 

[JackA]

There's a lot of things that people have that we don't need.

Not a lot of things designed to kill, and kill quickly, and in large numbers. If there were such things offered for sale they wouldn't be legal for long.

 

[Spartacus FPV]

No one needs an AR-l5. At least no one other than a killer seeking the most efficient weapon that exists for what he is planning. Gun owners don’t need AR-15's. Life would go on without them. But they like having their AR-15‘s, and it’s not their fault that for unlucky children and their unlucky teachers life has stopped going on because of them, a tragedy that repeats itself more and more frequently, year after year. But it is the fault of gun owners that AR-15‘s continue to be on the market. Congress could outlaw them and any other assault weapon tomorrow. States that have not banned them, as Connecticut has, could ban them tomorrow. But the selfishness of law abiding gun owners won’t let this happen.

It’s about as simple as that.

What does need have to do with ANYTHING?!?

In a free country, must a person need a thing in order to own it? Serious question

Not a lot of things designed to kill, and kill quickly, and in large numbers.

I should hope my firearms could kill, and quickly, if I need to use them for my defense. If they were harmless I'd want my money back.

I certainly didn't buy a bubble gun.

 

[Lutherf]

No one needs an AR-l5. At least no one other than a killer seeking the most efficient weapon that exists for what he is planning. Gun owners don’t need AR-15's. Life would go on without them. But they like having their AR-15‘s, and it’s not their fault that for unlucky children and their unlucky teachers life has stopped going on because of them, a tragedy that repeats itself more and more frequently, year after year. But it is the fault of gun owners that AR-15‘s continue to be on the market. Congress could outlaw them and any other assault weapon tomorrow. States that have not banned them, as Connecticut has, could ban them tomorrow. But the selfishness of law abiding gun owners won’t let this happen.

It’s about as simple as that.

So is it fair to say that someone with this rifle is fine -


while someone with this rifle isn't fine?

 

[<alt>doxygen]

No one needs an AR-l5. At least no one other than a killer seeking the most efficient weapon that exists for what he is planning. Gun owners don’t need AR-15's. Life would go on without them. But they like having their AR-15‘s, and it’s not their fault that for unlucky children and their unlucky teachers life has stopped going on because of them, a tragedy that repeats itself more and more frequently, year after year. But it is the fault of gun owners that AR-15‘s continue to be on the market. Congress could outlaw them and any other assault weapon tomorrow. States that have not banned them, as Connecticut has, could ban them tomorrow. But the selfishness of law abiding gun owners won’t let this happen.

It’s about as simple as that.

The AR-15 is just a popular rifle with a load of variants. It's not the only long gun capable of firing a lot of really deadly rounds quickly.

 

[ttwtt78640]

No one needs an AR-l5. At least no one other than a killer seeking the most efficient weapon that exists for what he is planning. Gun owners don’t need AR-15's. Life would go on without them. But they like having their AR-15‘s, and it’s not their fault that for unlucky children and their unlucky teachers life has stopped going on because of them, a tragedy that repeats itself more and more frequently, year after year. But it is the fault of gun owners that AR-15‘s continue to be on the market. Congress could outlaw them and any other assault weapon tomorrow. States that have not banned them, as Connecticut has, could ban them tomorrow. But the selfishness of law abiding gun owners won’t let this happen.

It’s about as simple as that.

That (bolded above) applies to anyone that lost their life as a crime victim - not only those that were murdered with an AR-15. A murder victim that was stabbed, beaten, hung, strangled, suffocated, poisoned, drowned, burned, blown up, run over, crushed or shot by a "less scary looking" gun is just as dead. Simply because a particular tool is abused, or even preferred, by criminals does not make it evil, ban worthy or less useful for lawful purposes.

 

[Vox]

No one needs an AR-l5. At least no one other than a killer seeking the most efficient weapon that exists for what he is planning. Gun owners don’t need AR-15's. Life would go on without them. But they like having their AR-15‘s, and it’s not their fault that for unlucky children and their unlucky teachers life has stopped going on because of them, a tragedy that repeats itself more and more frequently, year after year. But it is the fault of gun owners that AR-15‘s continue to be on the market. Congress could outlaw them and any other assault weapon tomorrow. States that have not banned them, as Connecticut has, could ban them tomorrow. But the selfishness of law abiding gun owners won’t let this happen.

It’s about as simple as that.

Not going to happen.

As thugs become more abundant and better armed, the AR-15 has become the home and road defense weapon of choice.......more than eight million sold and new ones coming out as fast as the factories can produce them.

Harsh realities dictate that the AR-15 will never be banned except in a few of the more socialist states.

Free men will move to free American states anyway, and leave the sheep to be brutalized by the thugs.

 

[ataraxia]

You don't need a 60" TV either, and you don't need a lawn. In fact, if you leave it up to me, you don't even need anymore that I, the government decides to give you. I will bury you with regulations and permits making your freedom to choose just too damn expensive. If you let me roll back one thing, I will be energized to roll back more and more until I roll you up in a little ball and store you in the closet.

What about the millions of gun owners who own AR15's that didn't kill anyone?

If 60" TVs and lawns were responsible for regular monthly massacres too, you can bet we would take away your right to them.

 

[ataraxia]

Not going to happen.

As thugs become more abundant and better armed, the AR-15 has become the home and road defense weapon of choice.......more than eight million sold and new ones coming out as fast as the factories can produce them.

Harsh realities dictate that the AR-15 will never be banned except in a few of the more socialist states.

Free men will move to free American states anyway, and leave the sheep to be brutalized by the thugs.

Did you ever wonder why we didn't have this problem with the thugs when the assault weapon ban was in effect?

 

[ttwtt78640]

So if they ban the AR - Mass shooters will just find a diff gun.

Yep, that's the plan - so, naturally, it will then be "reasonably" banned next once the precedent has been established.

 

[JackA]

As opposed to your selfishness in forcing your will upon others. Blaming the gun for the deaths is as stupid as blaming the keyboard for your post. In both cases it's the fool behind the tool that is to blame.

My selfishness won’t foreseeably get anyone killed. Unlike yours.

 

[lefty louie]

No one needs an AR-l5. At least no one other than a killer seeking the most efficient weapon that exists for what he is planning. Gun owners don’t need AR-15's. Life would go on without them. But they like having their AR-15‘s, and it’s not their fault that for unlucky children and their unlucky teachers life has stopped going on because of them, a tragedy that repeats itself more and more frequently, year after year. But it is the fault of gun owners that AR-15‘s continue to be on the market. Congress could outlaw them and any other assault weapon tomorrow. States that have not banned them, as Connecticut has, could ban them tomorrow. But the selfishness of law abiding gun owners won’t let this happen.

It’s about as simple as that.

Are you Diane Feinstein? It looks like it hurts more then other guns so we don't need them.

 

[Vox]

Did you ever wonder why we didn't have this problem with the thugs when the assault weapon ban was in effect?

We did.

 

[ataraxia]

Yep, that's the plan - so, naturally, it will then be "reasonably" banned next once the precedent has been established.

Of course. That's what Chief Justice Antonin Scalia meant when he said:

" “Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited…. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose....We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of ‘dangerous and unusual weapons.’ ”
-Antonin Scalia

 

[ataraxia]

We did.

And your conclusion?

 

[JackA]

What does need have to do with ANYTHING?!?

In a free country, must a person need a thing in order to own it? Serious question



I should hope my firearms could kill, and quickly, if I need to use them for my defense. If they were harmless I'd want my money back.

I certainly didn't buy a bubble gun.

Need is the only possible justification for marketing a product used for killing people.

 

[ttwtt78640]

Did you ever wonder why we didn't have this problem with the thugs when the assault weapon ban was in effect?

Yes, we did.

The final report concluded the ban’s success in reducing crimes committed with banned guns was “mixed.” Gun crimes involving assault weapons declined. However, that decline was “offset throughout at least the late 1990s by steady or rising use of other guns equipped with [large-capacity magazines].”

Ultimately, the research concluded that it was “premature to make definitive assessments of the ban’s impact on gun crime,” largely because the law’s grandfathering of millions of pre-ban assault weapons and large-capacity magazines “ensured that the effects of the law would occur only gradually” and were “still unfolding” when the ban expired in 2004.

https://www.factcheck.org/2013/02/did-the-1994-assault-weapons-ban-work/

 

[Spartacus FPV]

If 60" TVs and lawns were responsible for regular monthly massacres too, you can bet we would take away your right to them.

The guns aren't responsible, nor do we have regular massacres. But at least you admit to wanting to take away people's rights.

 

[ataraxia]

Yes, we did.

https://www.factcheck.org/2013/02/did-the-1994-assault-weapons-ban-work/

From your link:

"The final report concluded the ban’s success in reducing crimes committed with banned guns was “mixed.” Gun crimes involving assault weapons declined. However, that decline was “offset throughout at least the late 1990s by steady or rising use of other guns equipped with [large-capacity magazines].”

So that just means the large capacity magazines had to go too.

 

[ataraxia]

The guns aren't responsible, nor do we have regular massacres.

Buddy, what planet do you live on?