Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)

The AR15

Posted by on Feb. 24, 2018 at 7:29 PM
  • 115 Replies
11 moms liked this
The AR-15 is NOT an assault rifle. The "AR" is the original platform designer, ArmaLite, which was founded as a division of Fairchild Engine and Aircraft Corporation. "15" was the pattern for the rifle. Nothing more and nothing less. The AR-15 is nothing new, it was designed and first sold in the mid-1950's. It was and is designed and manufactured for civilian use, specifically because it is semi-automatic, fires one round per trigger pull, and is not capable of select-fire or automatic fire. The AR-15 is NOT a machine gun. "Assault Weapons" is a made up term coined by the media in the 1980's, and then used in order to create hysteria in an effort to ban their possession.

2) The AR-15 is not a "military style" weapon. Nor is it a "weapon of war". Not one military in the world, including the US armed forces, uses the AR-15. The military uses the M4 or M16, which while superficially resembling the AR-15, it is not. The M4 and M16 are capable of semi auto AND fully automatic fire (i.e. an ACTUAL assault rifle). Saying "that's just semantics" or that they are the same is like saying that your Mom's '04 Toyota hatchback is the same as a NASCAR race car with a custom race engine, custom high performance suspension, hand built high performance transmission and capable of exceeding 200mph. They are not the same. The AR-15 is, by definition, a "civilian style" weapon. Intentionally ignoring the distinction is intellectually dishonest.

3) No one needs a machine gun? The AR-15 is NOT a machine gun, nor can it be readily or legally converted to one, pursuant to the following: Machine guns are already highly restricted at the Federal level since the National Firearms Act of 1934. Legal ownership of machine guns is highly regulated and requires substantial paperwork, rigorous background checks, time, and expense. You can not walk into any gun store (or gun show) in the US, and walk out minutes later with a machine gun. You can't. I can't. No one can. That's a main stream media lie. The average gang-banger or even a deranged psychotic student is NOT toting a machine gun, another Hollywood / main stream media myth. While a semi-auto civilian AR-15 might be legally purchased for anywhere from $500 to $1,500.00, the few actual transferable machine guns in circulation in the US start at $10,000.00 to $15,000.00 and depending on type quickly rise into the multiple tens of thousands of dollars. No one needs a machine gun? Well guess what....hardly anyone has one, and not one single machine gun has been used in a school shooting...EVER. Fact.

4) The AR-15 does not fire 700 rounds per minute. It's physically impossible. Even a military issued M4 or M16, while achieving a sustained rate of fully automatic gunfire, is limited to the capacity of its 30-round magazine before it needs to be reloaded. Hollywood movies would have you believe that firearms don't need to be reloaded, but they do. While a machine gun could theoretically achieve a much higher rate of fire than the semi-auto AR-15 (again, one-bullet-per trigger-pull), you still could not load a military M4 or M16 fast enough to fire enough 30-round magazines in a minute to achieve the main stream media's fantasy of 700 rounds per minute. It's impossible, and a lie.

5) ALL GUNS are deadly, that is their purpose. Show me a gun that isn't capable of killing, and I'll show you a gun manufacturer that is going out of business. No one buys a firearm that isn't capable of killing. Trying to say that you only want to ban "the dangerous guns" is exactly the same as saying you want to ban all guns.

6) The bullet doesn't care what gun it is fired from. The AR-15 is no more deadly than any other rifle, and frankly less destructive than most others. The AR-15 fires an intermediate cartridge --- the .223 --- which is not particularly known for it's stopping power, nor is it known as a long distance round. It is however known for being a light weight, low recoiling, relatively easy to shoot cartridge, which is what makes it accurate and safe to operate in the hands of law abiding men and women alike, both small and large in stature. There are many other semi-auto rifles that fire much larger and more devastating cartridges capable of causing far more injury and death...the .30-30, the .30-06, the .308, the 300 win mag, the .338 lapua, the .50 BMG ----- just to name a few, and all of which have been around for many many years.

7) The AR-15 scares me. The AR-15 is no different in function that any one of a great number of other "less scary looking" semi automatic rifles. While the AR-15 is the most popular civilian rifle in the hands of law abiding citizens in the US, there are literally 1000's of other makes and models of semi-auto rifles that function identically to the AR-15. The fact that the the AR-15 is black doesn't make it more dangerous than any other semi-automatic rifle with pretty wood furniture. The reason the AR-15 is so popular is because its features & relative light weight make it easier to operate safely and fire accurately. It's easily customized to the individual shooter, and has a sleek modular ergonomic design -- it's basically the iPhone X of rifles. Would you rather people shoot guns that are less safe, so that a bystander gets injured? Would you rather they shoot rifles that are less accurate, so that unintended targets are shot, injuring or killing bystanders? So when you say you want to ban the AR-15, you really are saying you want to ban the safest of all semi-automatic firearms.

8) All pistols (not revolvers) are semi-automatic too. Pistols take far more lives every year than AR-15's. In fact, Pistols take far more lives every year than ALL RIFLES of ALL TYPES combined. So why focus on the AR-15, when the real instrument of death is the pistol? It's because the main stream media has for years ignored the murders from handguns, and only seeks to sensationalize the statistically very rare occurrences of actual mass shootings with an AR-15, either for ratings, or to push an agenda. While all murders, particularly of school children, are tragic -- and no gun owner or member of The NRA would claim otherwise, the small percentage of total deaths per year caused by the AR-15 simply do not support the false outrage.

9) All guns scare me. I get it. The AR-15 is particularly scary to you. It's black, has a lot of scary looking attachments that you're not sure what they do exactly, and well, it's a gun. For non-gun owners, all guns seem intimidating and scary. They. Can. Kill. It's natural for people to fear what they do not understand or the unfamiliar, especially when it can cause lethal harm. It's your defense mechanism, and this is normal and healthy. You have recognized this fear in yourself, you don't want to take a human life or kill anything or anyone, and you have realized that if you did own a firearm that perhaps your emotions might get the best of you, and you might use a gun in an unlawful manner resulting in injury or death to you or someone you know. You don't trust yourself with something as powerful and scary as a gun, and have come to the conclusion that you should not own a firearm. We get it, and you're probably right. YOU should not own a firearm if you're not going to be responsible for your own actions, but for you to then project your fear and inadequacy on others is unfounded. There are millions of law abiding citizens that are not scared to accept personal responsibility for their actions, respect the function and capabilities of firearms, have educated themselves on the safe operation of firearms, have trained with their use, and strongly believe in their right to self defense. You may not like guns, but in this free society, no one is forcing you to buy one.

10) Only the Police should have guns. Is this the same police that you were protesting a few months back because they shot an unarmed man? The same police that you were claiming are becoming overly militaristic, corrupt, and fascist? I'm not by any means saying all cops are bad...quite the contrary as some of my best friends are honest hard working law enforcement officers and I'm quite aware that they do a nearly impossible job and under the worst of circumstances -- but --- you should probably know that not all cops are "gun guys". In fact, the overwhelming number of law enforcement officers only fire their weapons a few times per year to maintain their qualifications so they can keep their jobs. In nearly all cases, outside of special units (like S.W.A.T. teams for example), this amounts to most law enforcement officers only firing a few hundred rounds per year. Guess what? That's not enough. But budget constraints and the cost of ammunition limit how much training we afford our Police. Meanwhile, most civilian gun owners who shoot or train regularly, exceed a few hundred rounds of ammo in a single range session. Most civilian competitive shooters, and there are many, shoot 1000's and 1000's of rounds per year. Have you ever seen the number of rounds fired in typical officer involved shootings? How many of those rounds fired went astray and missed their intended target? The average Police Officer is not a sniper, nor is reality anything like the movies where every round fired results in a bad guy going down. It takes training, and a lot of practice ammo. Time and money that most Police departments don't have. But civilians often do.

11) AR-15's ARE used for hunting, in spite of what you've been told. The main stream media will lie to you and tell you they are not. They will say "nobody needs an AR-15 to hunt" I challenge you to simply GOOGLE the keywords "AR-15 deer" or even "AR-15 pigs" and click on the image tab. You will find literally 1000's of photos of successful and humane harvesting of animals with AR-15's. After all....it's just a rifle...like any other lawfully owned semi-automatic rifle....but with features that make the AR-15 safer to use.

12) But guess what ---- The 2nd Amendment wasn't written for hunting --- so whether an AR-15 is used for hunting or not really has no bearing on the conversation. The 2nd Amendment is about 2 things and 2 things only: The right to self defense, and the right to defend against a tyrannical government. You ask if gun owners are afraid of a tyrannical government? And the answer is NO --- exactly BECAUSE we have The 2nd Amendment in our Constitution, and rightfully so. It's part of our system of checks and balances, and it's fundamental to our free society. When the government tells you to trust them, that they will take care of you, to turn in your guns.....well, that's when it's time to take up arms. You want gun owners to turn in their guns to the government? The same government that you were just complaining about last month that is so corrupt and evil? In fact, why ban anything at all -- why not just overturn the 2nd Amendment to The Constitution of The United States completely and confiscate all civilian owned firearms? That way -- only the government will have guns. After all...isn't that what you're really after? Don't pussy foot around and say "I only want to ban assault weapons / ar-15's / machine guns / semi-autos / dangerous guns". If you've been reading this, you should understand that that DOES mean nearly ALL guns in civilian hands. If you want tyranny, that's exactly how you get tyranny. I saw a movie once where only the government had guns. It was called "Schindler's List". How did that work out for the people that didn't have the guns? Weren't you just saying last year that President Trump was Hitler? You really trust the government so much -- because they never make mistakes --- that you believe ONLY the government should have arms? Well, there are plenty of other countries where that isn't working out so well.

13) "The framers of The Constitution never intended for civilians to have "military style weapons". There were no semi-autos back then, they only had muskets, and they didn't envision these advancements in technology!" Well, you're couldn't be more wrong. During The Revolutionary War, pretty much any firearm in civilian hands was a "military style weapon", as civilians reported for duty with their own personal arms. The 2nd Amendment was written to ensure that The People would be able to defend themselves from a tyrannical government -- and the only way to do this is for The People to be armed in a like manner to the government, that is to say with military type arms. This has been expressed and confirmed repeatedly everywhere from The Federalist Papers written by our founding fathers on through to decisions from The Supreme Court of The United States. The fact is, The People SHOULD have ACTUAL military arms, but our rights have been whittled away over the years by infringements like the National Firearms Act of 1934. As to semi-autos, The Girandoni semi-auto rifle has a 20-round magazine, fires a .46 caliber projectile, and has an effective range of 150-yards. It was available in 1779, 12 years before the 2nd Amendment was written. Even before the Girandoni, there was the Puckle Gun. It also is an early semi-auto firearm design, with multiple revolving chambers, and created in 1718.....73 years before the 2nd Amendment. The fact is -- they were aware of -- and wrote about these advancements in firearms. You do of course remember from your history classes that Benjamin Franklin was one of our founding fathers and a signer of The Declaration of Independence. Are you really suggesting that Franklin, one of the most prolific and industrious inventors of the modern age, who loved science and discovery above (nearly) all other pursuits, was not aware that technology would advance? If we were to accept your logic, the First Amendment would be limited to speech from a flat bed printing press as the framers certainly did not envision the internet, and yet your speech on the internet is still protected by the 1st Amendment. If what you suggest were true, the framers certainly did not envision the advent of cell phones, or that one day cell phones might need to be protected from unreasonable search and seizure, and yet the 4th Amendment protects your cell phone today.

14) Nobody needs a 30 round magazine? Then why does the military use them? Why do the police use them? Life isn't a movie. Hollywood would have you believe that every bullet equates to a dead bad guy, and that's just a lie. Short of perfect shot placement under stress in a target's vital organ, most people simply do not just drop dead from a gun shot wound. They can and do continue to fight and can often remain a lethal threat even after they have been shot multiple times. And that's just one bad guy. Guess what? Bad guys often travel in groups of two or more, and 30 rounds may not be enough. Many women have made the claim that since men don't have vaginas, that men should not be able to legislate a woman's biology. You say, "but you're not in a war, you don't need 30 rounds" or "you don't need an AR-15" ---- yet you're not a gun owner -- and you have no expertise with their operation or their capabilities, but yet you feel qualified to dictate and legislate their use? In a free society such as ours, why should anyone let anyone else tell you "what they need"? Do you need a car that goes faster than 55 mph? Do you need more than 2 pair of shoes, or more than one home? What YOU think anyone "needs" has nothing to do with what what someone else can own. If the Police and the military are the definitive authority on defending themselves with firearms, shouldn't civilians follow their lead and respect their expertise on the subject and arm themselves with the same capabilities? No, you don't need a 30 round magazine to hunt --- but like I said earlier, the 2nd Amendment wasn't written to protect us from a deer uprising.
by on Feb. 24, 2018 at 7:29 PM
Add your quick reply below:
You must be a member to reply to this post.
Replies (1-10):
Carpy
by Emerald Member on Feb. 24, 2018 at 7:30 PM
4 moms liked this
15) "If he only had a knife, he wouldn't have been able to kill so many. If it weren't for the AR-15, not as many children would have died." Not necessarily. There was just a stabbing knife attack in a train station in China. There were 27 murdered and over 100 injured......with a knife. It's a shame private gun ownership in China is banned. If only one of those 127 victims had been armed and been able to defend themselves from a mad man, things may have turned out differently. But no -- basically the entire country is a gun free zone. Speaking of which, you don't see mass shootings at NRA meetings. You don't see mass shootings at gun stores, gun shows, or police stations. You do see mass shootings at gun free zone schools, gun free zone theaters, gun free zone colleges, all in states and countries with strict gun control laws. Are you seeing a pattern here? Gun free zones DO NOT SAVE LIVES.

OH -- ----- wait -- gun free zones did recently save ONE life! ---------- His name was Nick Cruz, and he killed 17 innocent people, mostly children, because there wasn't a good guy with a gun there to protect them.

16) The NRA is complicit in murder? The NRA is buying off Congress? The truth is the NRA is not some big shadow corporation boogie man. The NRA is made up of law abiding citizens that hold a common belief in the fundamental governing principles of our Nation. The NRA is your neighbor, and your friends. We don't all feel the need to brag, but we are everywhere. The strength of the NRA does not lie in supposed gun manufacturer political slush funds, but rather in the voting power of its membership. The NRA's total lobbying budget of a few million dollars per year pales in comparison to what gun control groups are spending. NYC billionaire Mike Bloomberg alone spent over $50 MILLION in 2017 to thwart and demonize law abiding gun owners. If you're looking for lies and corruption of our political system, you need not look any further than Bloomberg and his gun control groups Moms Demand Action and Everytown for Gun Control. When you hear the propaganda from the main stream media that "90% of Americans" or "90% of gun owners" support stricter gun control -- that's a flat out lie. No one polled me. No one polled any of the thousands of gun owners that I've ever met or spoken with online. In fact, I've never heard of anyone being polled for these statistics. Did someone poll you? Didn't think so. So, 90%? Again, more fabricated lies from the main stream media.

17) But what about Australia? The Australia gun ban and confiscation has frankly been a failure on many levels. While many may claim that Australia hasn't had any mass shootings since their gun ban and confiscation started in 1996, that would be an outright lie purported by the main stream media. With the entire country now effectively being a 'Gun Free Zone', it might come as a surprise that as recently as December of 2014 in Sydney, a lone gun man named Man Haron Monis took 18 hostages and shot and killed one. Not a mass shooting, you say? Well, he was about to kill all 18 before he was shot dead by a good guy with a gun. September 2014 in New South Wales, crazed man Geoff Hunt shoots and kills a family of 4. April 2011 in Hectorville, a man named Donato Anthony Corbo shoots 6 people, killing 3 and wounding 3 including 2 police officers. In October 2002 in Melbourne, a man named Huan Yun "Allen" Xiang enters Monash University and begins shooting classmates and his teacher, shooting 7 and killing 2. October 1999 in Adelaide, 3 shot dead in an apparent gang war. Not a lot of shootings you say? Well, you must first note that Australia has less than 8% of the population of the United States, not to mention the completely different social / economic / ethnic / and geographic make up of the two nations. Regardless of the total number of shootings, or Australian shootings of individuals not listed here, statistics from multiple sources have revealed that Australia's gun ban and confiscation has had little impact on their on their overall homicide rate. As for their suicide rate, in the first 10 years of their ban and confiscation, suicide deaths using firearms more than halved, but over the same period, suicides by hanging increased by over 52%. Multiple studies have been conducted by Dr Jeanine Baker and Dr Samara McPhedran. In 2006 they reported a lack of a measurable effect from the 1996 firearms confiscation and ban legislation in the British Journal of Criminology. Using ARIMA analysis, they found little evidence for an impact of the laws on homicide, but did for suicide. Subsequently, they compared the incidence of mass shootings in Australia and New Zealand. Data was standardized to a rate per 100,000 people, to control for differences in population size between the countries and mass shootings before and after 1996/1997 were compared between countries. That study found that in the period 19801996, both countries experienced mass shootings. The rate did not differ significantly between countries. Since 1996-1997, neither country has experienced a mass shooting (*not entirely true as Australia's claim of 'no mass shootings' relies on a requirement of an artificially high number of deaths per shooting to enable that claim, while US gun control advocates seem to regularly include any shooting with 2 or more shot and not necessarily killed) event despite the continued availability of semi-automatic firearms in New Zealand. The Doctors concluded that "if civilian access to certain types of firearms explained the occurrence of mass shootings in Australia then New Zealand would have continued to experience mass shooting events." In 2012, McPhedran and Baker found there was little evidence of any impact of the gun laws on firearm suicide among people under 35 years of age, and suggest that the significant financial expenditure associated with Australia's firearms restriction measures may not have had any impact on youth suicide. Head of the New South Wales Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research, Don Weatherburn described the Baker and McPhedran article as "reputable" and "well-conducted". Weatherburn noted that there was little evidence that the new laws had helped. He also stated that the 1996 confiscation and ban legislation had little to no effect on violence saying the "laws did not result in any acceleration of the downward trend in gun homicide". A 2008 study on the effects of the firearm confiscation and ban by Wang-Sheng Lee and Sandy Suardi of University of Melbourne and La Trobe University studied the data and concluded "the Australian gun (confiscation and) ban did not have any large effects on reducing firearm homicide or suicide rates." In 2009 another paper from the Australian Institute for Suicide Research and Prevention at Griffith University also studied suicide in Queensland only. They said "No significant difference was found in the rate pre/post the introduction of the Australian gun (confiscation and) ban in Queensland." A 2014 report stated that approximately "260,000 guns are on the Australian 'grey' or black markets"...with Australia being an island with controlled ports, while the US has one of the most porous borders of any civilized nation resulting in the smuggling of not only guns, but also significant amounts of drugs and occurrences of human trafficking. While other studies have been performed with results that counter or conflict with these, at best the effectiveness of the Australian gun confiscation and ban remains muddied and unclear. Further, in Australia - where there is no Right To Keep And Bear Arms, the total number of firearms confiscated and destroyed under their ban was optimistically around 700,000 to 1,000,000. That's simply not practical in The United States where we DO have The Right To Keep and Bear Arms, and there are well over 300,000,000 firearms in civilian hands. Even Australia's ambassador to the U.S., Joe Hockey, who helped craft Australia's gun confiscation and ban while serving in their Parliament, says that the idea to implement the policy in the US is naive. Shortly after the recent Las Vegas shooting, Hockey tweeted: "I was in Govt. that changed Aussie gun laws. Guns are more pervasive & cultural here in USA. We all 'wish' for change but it'd be a miracle." In interviews, Hockey has gone on to explain, "Australia and the United States are completely different situations, and it goes back to each of our foundings. America was born from a culture of self-defense. Australia was born from a culture of "the government will protect me." Australia wasn't born as a result of a brutal war. We weren't invaded. We weren't attacked. We weren't occupied. That makes an incredible difference, even today...The U.S. had a horrendous civil war, with more casualties than every other war combined. We didn't have that history. It really went to the core of what it means to defend your people. And so you have a Second Amendment...the gun culture is so ingrained in America...Where (our confiscation and ban) hurts the most are (the) unreported suicides, and threats against women." So, when US gun control advocates say that they "aren't coming for your guns" and that they just want "Australian style gun control", what they are REALLY saying is that they want gun confiscation, and a muddled ineffective policy.
Carpy
by Emerald Member on Feb. 24, 2018 at 7:33 PM
4 moms liked this

18) What about other countries? Gun control advocates attempts to point to England or Japan as shining examples to be mirrored are equally false narratives. Removing guns from the equation in both these countries had negligent impact on their overall homicide rates per capita. In fact, if you were to remove the US's most violent cities from the stats - cities like Detroit, Chicago, and Los Angeles, all of which are Democratically controlled cities with over bearing gun control laws -- then the US would drop to the bottom of the list of countries for homicides per capita. It's just not as simple as pointing to other civilized countries as population densities vary along with other social and economic factors. Take Honduras for example...a population of 8.2 million and they have banned citizens from owning guns, yet they have the HIGHEST homicide rate in the entire world. Contrast that with Switzerland, who also has a population of 8.2 million, but REQUIRES its citizens to own guns, and has the LOWEST homicide rate in the entire world. How can anyone reconcile these two facts and conclude gun control is THE answer, especially without first addressing the underlying root causes of social and economic disparities which create the unrest? The truth, while difficult for gun control advocates to hear, is that cities and states in the US with less gun control have lower homicide rates.

19) The 2nd Amendment is a civil right. When you talk about removing guns, you're actually talking about removing civil rights from an entire class of people (law abiding gun owners) because of the illegal actions of a statistically small number of criminals who committed murder with an AR-15. Do you also support banning ALL Muslims because of the terrorist actions of a few radical fundamentalist Islamist murderers? Ask yourself why you're so focused on "the gun". When you get a speeding ticket, is it the car's fault? When you put on a few pounds, is it the fork's fault? If you don't like what I've written here, is it my keyboard's fault? No, obviously. So why are you blaming "the gun"? Clearly -- terrorists, psychopaths, and murderers don't need guns as they have repeatedly demonstrated that they can do equal or greater damage with knives, cars, trucks, planes, pressure cookers, fertilizer, box cutters, sticks, stones, fists and feet, bottles and bricks, just to name a few. In every single circumstance where mass murder occurred using one of these mechanisms -- WHICH ARE FAR MORE READILY & EASILY AVAILABLE THAN A GUN --- not once was the gun control crowd asking for a ban of these items. Why not?

20) "Shall Not Be Infringed" only appears once in The Bill of Rights, and it's in The 2nd Amendment. In spite of that, we as firearm owners are always told "you need to compromise.for safetyfor the children". Well, a compromise requires BOTH sides to get something. It seems to me that firearm owners are always giving everything, and get nothing. There is nothing 'reasonable' or 'common sense' about the restrictions to our 2nd Amendment rights that exist currently, let alone what is currently proposed. We compromised in 1934 with the National Firearms Act. What did firearm owners get? Nothing. We compromised with the The Mulford Act of 1967 and the Gun Control Act of 1968. We compromised with the Clinton Executive Orders. We compromised with the Lautenberg Act. We compromised with the HUD/Smith and Wesson Agreement. We compromised with the Brady Law. We compromised with the School Safety and Law Enforcement Improvement Act. We compromised with the Roberti-Roos Assault Weapons Control Act of 1989. We compromised with Senate Bill 23 in 2000. Here in California, we compromised with the Roster of Hand Guns "Certified for Sale". We compromised with CCR 11 5469 (a), with PC 30655, with PC 30510(a), with PC 17170, with PC 30600, and with PC 30515(a). We compromised with PC 12280, with PC 12276Each time, what did firearm owners get? Nothing but infringements of our rights. And yet still we are asked "why won't we compromise? Why won't we be reasonable? Don't you want the children to be safe?" Gun control advocates have had their little experiment, and it hasn't worked. If you want to protect the children, and you want to have a serious discussion, then that discussion must include hardening the security for schools with trained armed guards & reciprocity for concealed carry. Anything short of that is a non-starter.

21) The right to self defense is an inalienable right. Your right to self defense existed before The Constitution and The Bill of Rights was written, it existed before this country was formed, and it existed before man created the firearm. The 2nd Amendment in The Bill of Rights to The Constitution of The United States of America WAS NOT written to give you the right to keep and bear arms. IT WAS written to tell you the government of The United States DOES NOT have the right to take your firearms. The founding fathers and framers of The Constitution have written extensively about our inalienable rights being sacrosanct -- that no matter which party comes into power, that your rights remain, particularly if a majority attempts to remove rights rights from a minority. The truth is, if your rights can be voted away, they were never rights to begin with. So if your right to self-defense can be removed, and and or all of your rights can be removed. And that, my friends, is tyranny.

22) There are over 300,000,000 guns in the US --- a very conservative and likely low estimate. If guns were the problem, you'd all be dead by now. If you ban AR-15's tomorrow, how does that stop the killing? There are already millions and millions of AR-15's in civilian hands. All you're really doing is prohibiting the sale of new AR-15's. AR-15's can easily (and legally) be manufactured for your own use in your garage with simple tools available anywhere. It's not hard. So if you really want to get rid of the AR-15, how are you going to do it? Are you going to go door-to-door and confiscate them? You couldn't muster the will to go door-to-door to deport a few million illegal aliens ---- how do you expect to find tens of millions of AR-15's? If all the guns are banned tomorrow, and magically scooped up and 'disappeared' from existence -- what are you going to ban next? Cars? Trucks? Rocks? When all that is left to kill with is bare hands, will the killing magically stop? Or will killing continue with bare hands, and then what? Are you going to start removing hands to stop the killing? You can't remove all the tools that can kill. But firearms are the tool that equalizes our society. A gun in the hands of a single mother is able to defend herself against a home invasion. A gun in the hands of a sorority girl walking back to her dorm at night enables her to defend against a gang rape or an abduction. It is the firearm that puts a 98-pound person on equal footing with a 200-pound attacker. Without firearms, do we go back to 'Might is Right'? In that scenario -- the strong molest the weak with impunity, and women dare not leave the house without being dependent on a man for protection. Is that really what we want to go back to? Is that really progress?

23) You may not be aware, but we already have a law against murder. Criminals don't obey laws. We already have a law against rape. Criminals don't obey laws. We already have laws against assault, and criminals don't obey laws. We already have laws against felons purchasing firearms, and guess what? Criminals don't obey laws. See a pattern forming? Make a law against AR-15's -- and -- wait for it --- criminals don't obey laws. All gun control does is make our country and our society weaker, by making the criminal's job easier, and the lawful citizen's ability to defend themselves harder. Tell me what law you can create that will stop the killing? One more new law? Ten more? Twenty? Criminals don't obey laws.
EireLass
by Ruby Member on Feb. 24, 2018 at 7:40 PM
2 moms liked this

Great!

DSamuels
by Platinum Member on Feb. 24, 2018 at 7:52 PM
6 moms liked this
Wow! Excellent post!!

Thank you for making it all so sensible and understandable.
grandmab125
by on Feb. 24, 2018 at 7:59 PM
10 moms liked this

Excellent and informative article, Carpy. I doubt the anti-gun fanatics on CM will bother to read it.

I was just told when I posted my article on the term 'assault  weapons' that I was deflecting.  Why is it deflecting to post an informative article, just because it doesn't agree with the their agenda?  


DSamuels
by Platinum Member on Feb. 24, 2018 at 8:03 PM
5 moms liked this
They can’t handle the truth!


Quoting grandmab125:

Excellent and informative article, Carpy. I doubt the anti-gun fanatics on CM will bother to read it.

I was just told when I posted my article on the term 'assault  weapons' that I was deflecting.  Why is it deflecting to post an informative article, just because it doesn't agree with the their agenda?  

Carpy
by Emerald Member on Feb. 24, 2018 at 8:05 PM
5 moms liked this
You nailed it.

Quoting grandmab125:

Excellent and informative article, Carpy. I doubt the anti-gun fanatics on CM will bother to read it.

I was just told when I posted my article on the term 'assault  weapons' that I was deflecting.  Why is it deflecting to post an informative article, just because it doesn't agree with the their agenda?  

Curlymom234
by on Feb. 24, 2018 at 8:09 PM
2 moms liked this
Enough with you and your logic!!

Also, just for conversation, what would you hunt with an AR-15? I’m not a hunter, so I can’t answer that question.
billsfan1104
by Emerald Member on Feb. 24, 2018 at 8:11 PM
1 mom liked this
This is great Carpy. Do you have a link to it so I can share.
Carpy
by Emerald Member on Feb. 24, 2018 at 8:13 PM
2 moms liked this
Feral hogs are most common. Coyote, some states allow deer.

Quoting Curlymom234: Enough with you and your logic!!

Also, just for conversation, what would you hunt with an AR-15? I’m not a hunter, so I can’t answer that question.
Add your quick reply below:
You must be a member to reply to this post.
Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)