The idea is always to kill as many enemies as you can as quickly as you can. There is a reason the military are no longer equipped with much cheaper muskets. Engage with the issue honestly. Being charged with murder is not legislating which guns are available to buy. Who a murderer was is not considered when deciding on the legality of assorted firearms either. This is piss poor debate. You are wasting you own time.
And are they legal or banned? Answer: banned. Pedantry doesn't get you anywhere. Refusing to address the point, doesn't get you anywhere. I'm sorry you don't like it. I'm sorry you can't face the reality. I appreciate it's not your fault. That you didn't kill any children. That you too are an innocent victim of these shootings. That sucks. Talking stupid however, won't bring any of those kids back and it won't stop any more from getting murdered either. Nor will it stop people banning AR 15's when this keeps on happening. We are all very impressed that you can find a difference between two different guns. Well done. I am clapping for you.
Did you serve? Do you have any experience with firearms at all. When the military wishes to kill many people quickly, they use aerial bombs, artillery and mortars. The service rifle is the least effective way of doing so and requires that the user get within rifle range of the enemy. Trust me, Joe Snuffy would much rather have bombs, shells and machine guns to engage the enemy with. And the aim is to destroy the enemy's will and capability to fight. It isn't necessary or even desirable to kill as many enemies as quickly as we can to accomplish that mission. You seem to be the one presenting the poor arguments in favor of legislation to ban the AR-15. We understand you want to. You've even attempted to explain why. You just can't seem to explain how.
No one cares mate. You refuse to discuss this honestly, you get to discuss it with your echo chamber only. Adult conversation always welcomed, but this falls short.
No, they aren't banned. I've already posted a link to one that's currently for sale. It's expensive due to the Hughes Amendment, but anyone who can pass a standard background check and has the money can buy it, own it, and shoot it legally. If they can ban AR-15s for the rare even of them being used in a school shooting, then the political power will exist to ban all firearms. All it will take then is to turn a Conservation SCOTUS liberal. That's not going to happen for a long time.
An apartment if you have access to frangible Ammo anything from a 9mm to a .45acp is fine. Though a .44magnum is pushing safety concerns for you neighbors more than you probably should. Not to mention potential hearing damage in an enclosed space. And Definitely forget those things like a Casul .456
The opinions of some random general are of no relevance to the discussion, as the opinion has nothing to do with matters pertaining to facts.
Then there is neither legitimate point or purpose in attempting to pursue a prohibition on the private ownership of semi-automatic rifles.
Then if such is truly the case, there is no legitimate reason for law enforcement officers in the united states to be issued a rifle that is purpose designed for killing lots of people quickly. Explain why they are actually issued such firearms.
If I can legally buy one, they aren't "banned", unless the UK has some definition of "banned" that means "legal to own". Look, here it is again: https://www.gunbroker.com/item/788509560 Here's another: https://www.gunbroker.com/item/787946750 Any American citizen or permanent alien resident can purchase one of these if they aren't prohibited under 18 USC 922g. Not. Banned. You seem to be the one who can't face reality. AR-15s have been used in mass shootings in a K-12 school three times since 1964, when they first went on sale to civilians. 36 students over 54 years were killed in those shootings. These firearms "in common use for lawful purposes" are protected by Heller under the Second Amendment. We have a conservative court and will continue to have one for decades. Nothing will prevent children from being murdered. We see that in the filicide statistics where 200-300 children every year are killed by their own parents with their bare hands. If all AR-15s magically disappeared overnight, the number of children murdered each year wouldn't change one bit. I am truly sorry for your innumeracy in this matter.
True, and they've had to ignore Miller, Heller and McDonald to do so. With the current makeup of SCOTUS, appeals to the decisions in Friedman v Highland Park, Kolbe v Hogan and Shew v Malloy will be accepted by SCOTUS. Under strict scrutiny and the aforementioned SCOTUS decisions the bans will be found unconstitutional. If "assault weapons" can be banned, any class of weapons can be banned.
No. It hasn’t been established by the SC that an assault weapon is common for home defense. It doesn’t matter what some think. It matters what the court think.
True, it hasn't. However, the 4th Circuit Court in Kolbe v Hogan so stated, so the precedent is there. And that was a liberal majority decision. Edit: It isn't a requirement that it be "in common use for home defense"; the requirement is "in common use for lawful purposes, such as home defense". According to the Gun Control Act of 1968, target shooting, hunting and self defense are all lawful purposes.
No. It hasn’t been established by the SC that an assault weapon is common for home defense. It doesn’t matter what some think. It matters what the court think.
And then, consider already that courts have not accepted challenges, if there have been any, for localities to determine hunting zone restrictions, especially in case proximity to houses. Ie, shotgun only zones. That seems like a pretty good president for allowing hand guns and shot guns but not assault weapons in areas with higher population density. Remember, the neighbor who lives next door has rights too.
According to Brett Kavanaugh, firearms such as the AR-15 are in common use on the mere basis of being owned by those who will use them for legal purposes, even if that use constitutes nothing more than ownership itself. And since he is the latest justice on the united state supreme court, such will eventually become the legally binding precedent. If something can legally be owned, it cannot be prohibited from ownership as a result.
Hunting is a privilege, not a right. In no place that restricts rifle use in hunting restricts rifle use in self defense. Likewise, an AR-15 shooting frangible rounds has a lower chance of missing and lower chance of overpenetration through walls than does a shotgun firing buckshot or a handgun firing JHP rounds.
Who cares until it’s brought before the SC. He could be impeached by then. Don't count your chickens till they’ve been hatched.
