Run To State

I thought it would have motivated the left to start looking at the crime/act and criminal/terrorist rather than the gun, but I should have known better.

Yet there were still killings by people that don't care about laws or bans and law abiding citizens rights were infringed.

If that were true we wouldn't have had a useless ban in 90s that was based on lies, half truths and fear of how something looked.

:lol2: Try appearance of said weapon.

When they're lawmakers? I recall some Dem lawmakers wanting to tax ammo so it's unaffordable not too long ago.

And yet no one screamed for them to be banned and it wasn't included in the Clinton ban. Ask yourself why.

How can you blame the pro gun crowd when we've had pro ban people say as much, even on here on ocassion? Banning or wanting a ban on something based on how it looks is flat out fearmongering, as well as stupid, IMO.

That would be what the media and the pro-ban crowd are guilty of.

Will fall on blind eyes and deaf ears. Several of us pointed this out on here before. Nothing sunk in. Some are just ruled by fear and are driven by the lies they're fed.

The way I understand it, the 2008 Heller decision the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed that the Second Amendment guaranteed (not granted) a pre-existing right of individuals to keep and bear arms. Further, it said that the government cannot ban guns which are in common use. While there is no universally-accepted number, it’s widely acknowledged that tens of millions of MSRs have been sold, and are owned by Americans. This certainly puts them in "common use" as an AR-15 is an extremely popular (common use) rifle. So, IMO, a ban on them would be an infringement.

When it's based on lies and looks, if banned, it's a liberty taken away. I hold my liberties dear. Telling and forcing are two different things.

Doesn't mean you wouldn't fight for it. Yes, it is.

You mean mislabeled. They might not be that great, but they are vastly different. If they weren't, you'd be able to buy them as easily.

How about something you enjoy that's a constitutional right?

The problem is many on here don't know anything about firearms, it shows. Heck, most of the law makers don't have a clue about them. BTW, no, they didn't use weapons in the assault weapon classification. That's grossly misleading and they know it.

Should other people tell you to give up booze because they think it's dangerous and they don't see any reason for you to drink it?

:lol2: I don't need to feel important, I just want people to educate themselves at least a little if they want to debate infringing on others constitutional rights.

To save me time, I copied and pasted: It's a modular, multi-caliber (able to swap to different calibers, including 5.56 NATO, 300 BLK, and 7.62×39) rifle system that sometimes utilizes STANAG magazines common to more than 60 different firearms, but otherwise has no major parts that interface with AR-15s in any way, shape or form. Here's an article on the rifle

Who freaked out? No one that I've seen. You start a thread posting a ridiculous article to start a debate. The same tired debate we have every time something tragic happens like what happened in Orlando and we get the same outcry blaming the object rather than the sick, twisted, hateful coward that committed the murders. I find it rather ridiculous when more than half of the people arguing in here don't know the difference between an AR-15, an M4A1 carbine, and quite possibly (with some) an air rifle.

They are comparable if you're honest and you compare similar cars as JD did guns.

I don't doubt you don't see it that way.

That's a pretty arrogant statement in and and of itself.

Happy Belated, JJ! Hope you had a great day!