After AR15's are banned, then what?

Except for the fact the 2A protects the right to own firearms commonly used for traditionally legal purposes, and not nukes.
Thus, a ban on nukes not an infringement, while a ban on such firearms is.

 

I am not understand your question. "Give" who 100 round magazines so who would " leave us alone"??

 

I did not say anything about public property.

 

The courts have not declared our modern version of a well regulated militia AKA the National Guard.

 

I see the right to drive a car the same way that a man n 1783 had the right to ride his horse.

 

Let the anti-gun left have their ban on 100rd magazines, with the hop that they will then not demand more restrictions.

 

You discussed driving,. Did you -not- mean on state roads?

 

You said "the right to hear arms is for defense of the community or the nation against outside forces."
This runs against current jurisprudence.

 

There are rifles out there that are more deadlier, have twice the range, are more accurate and are chambered for a cartridge that is more destructive and has no cosmetic features that scares the left.

If I were have been exposed to political correctness every day during my entire life and became a snowflake and stopped taking my meds (Redlin) and because I couldn't find a safe space to run to when being bullied and decided to go loony and decided to commit a mass shooting, I'm not going to say on the internet what kind of rifle I would use and what kind of ammunition I would use. It sure wouldn't be an AR or AK.

Military service rifles are more designed to take a beating in combat and keep on shooting.
The world's militaries under the Geneva Convention aren't allowed to use the same type of ammunition that civilians use for hunting.

Throughout America's history the civilian population were armed with deadlier rifles than the U.S. military ever was.
When Union and Confederate soldier met on the battlefield during the early years of the Civil War they were armed with smooth bore muskets while many civilians were already armed with rifles.

The metal ammunition cartridge was already being used in civilian firearms before the world's militaries went over to the metal cartridge during the late 1860's.

All of the improvement of the M-16 and M-4 over the past thirty years came from civilians AR's.

But it's the ammunition, the actual bullet that kills and is destructive not the rifle.

 

If the definition of the ‘right wing extremist’ new MaCarthism slur (along with the other popular slurs of the day) is someone that disagrees with most of your posts and rejects the mindless DOGMA of the Left’s conformist mob... yes, I reject the mindless DOGMA of the Left’s conformist mob.

 

Hood will not do it. What will do it are a variety of measures and one could be some restrictions, better background checks, mental health delivery, red flags etc.
Crazy gun violence has a lot of reasons not just one therefore the solution has to be broad. You every hear the addage that a complex problem is not solved with a simple dumb assed solution. Taking guns away from all of us is a dumb assed solution.

 

On public roads. None of us have the right to drive on private roads unless invited or we are paying for that right.

 

I did forget state that it is was also for self defense but I assumed that was nderstood.

 

00

The same right wing extremism that promotes white supremacy and sees Mexicans as rapists.

 

Meaning individuals that can actually read crime statistics pertaining to the race of the offenders.

 

Totally irrelevant.

 

Nor is it unconstitutional to ban assault weapons and large capacity magazines.
California, Maryland, Massachusetts, NewJersey, and New York) and D.C., the ban applies to large capacity ammunition magazines used with any firearm.

 

If the statistics pertaining to the race of sexual assailants shows a disproportionate number of hispanics rather than any other race, it is indeed relevant, and a statement of fact to regard them as being rapists.

 

The very fact both proposals are paired together as being complimentary goods shows the overall weakness of the argument being presented.

If so-called "assault weapons" such as the AR-15 rifle and similar firearms were truly the problem in need of being addressed, there would simply be no need to target magazines capable of holding more than ten rounds of ammunition. Simply focus on the specific firearms, leave the detachable magazines alone, and the matter would be solved. But such is not being done. By also targeting the magazines capable of holding more than ten rounds of ammunition, you are admitting that the problem is not the firearms such as the AR-15, but instead claiming the problem is all semi-automatic firearms capable of accepting a detachable box magazine, even if it does not possess any of the physical characteristics necessary to be classified as a so-called "assault weapon".

If magazines capable of holding more than ten rounds of ammunition were truly the problem in need of being addressed, there would simply be no need to target firearms such as the AR-15, and any other firearms that are classified as so-called "assault weapons". Simply focus on the magazines that hold more than ten rounds of ammunition, leave the firearms alone, and the matter would be solved, since an AR-15 limited to ten round magazines supposedly poses no risk to anyone with regard to a mass shooting being committed. But such is not being done. By also targeting firearms that are classified as so-called "assault weapons", you are admitting the problem is not the detachable magazines, but instead claiming the problem is specific firearms.

One cannot support both arguments, without demonstrating the weaknesses of each individual talking point. Nor can one support a particular argument without demonstrating the weaknesses of the other argument.

 

Thing is... no one argues that explosives should be as easily available as an ar 15
Just because we cannot eliminate every every threat... that is no excuse not to control those that we can

 

And yet the threat of firearms being misused by those with criminal intentions is a threat that simply cannot be controlled.

 

Since they will always demand more, why should we give them anything?

 

No one has a right to drive on public roads, either. Its a privileged granted by the state.

 

Oh bs.. it is a right purchased with out taxes and fees. The right to use a road for travel is owned by the vehicle by paying fees and taxes to build the roads. The right to use public roads is not restricted to the driver or to the passengers. A privately owned bus has passengers who may or may not have a license to drive but they have a right to use the road. A drivers license is grant for a operator to use the vehicle while traveling but passengers do not need to be licensed nor own a vehicle.