In your discussion of the different features of the rifle you did mention the speed of the ammo as it leaves the barrel, then moved on talking about selective fire, which it lacks and dismissing that section. You, and it appears quite deliberate to me, that you didn't go into the damage done to the human body by the velocity of the round, one of the reasons in the development of the military version.
It is a weapon of war and it and others like it should be banned. As a gun owner this weapon has no place in civilian market, it is not needed and the 2nd Amendment didn't intend for you to have any weapon you desire.
We know the results of the last ban on assault style rifles and that was a drastically reduced incident of mass shootings.
I have never heard of an AR-15 being described as "Military Grade". I have heard it described as Assault and from I have read the definitions of the two are different.
It always amazes me how Second Amendment advocates say "we have the right to bear arms" and that is that. They seem to have failed to have read the first part of that amendment, "“A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,". The first part of the Second Amendment makes it clear that the purpose of arming the citizenry is to equalize the fighting power of the citizenry with that of the government thus giving them the ability to overthrow a dictatorial government should one arise. The use and possession of guns was just a means to that end, it was not an end in itself. At that point in history when the Second Amendment was passed the weapons that the citizenry possessed were comparable to those of the government, hence it was a good deterrent to the development of a dictatorial government. That situation no longer exists. Even if every man, woman, and child were armed with machine guns, they would be no match for a government with missiles, drones, bomber jets, and nuclear weapons. Zelensky isn’t asking for machine guns, he is asking for multiple launch rocket systems, tanks, military aircrafts. Let’s face it, if Ukraine had attempted to fight the Russians with only machine guns, the war would have been over in a month with Russia the victor. Although the original purpose of the Second Amendment has been rendered moot, there is a more basic principle which undergirds that amendment that supports the right of the people to be armed. It is the right of a weaker victim to use a weapon in order to have the ability to overcome a stronger assailant. When people tell me that they would like to outlaw all guns, I ask them if a man needs a gun to kill a woman. All agree that he doesn’t. I then ask them if a woman having a gun can prevent a man from harming or killing her. Almost all agree that it would prevent that from occurring. I am a strong supporter of the right of law-abiding citizens to have and use guns for their self-defense, but the current lack of gun restrictions is inhibiting this right, is making the law-abiding citizens more vulnerable to violent attacks from the criminal elements of society. Remember the purpose of the Second Amendment is to create the means by which the citizenry can live in a free and secure state not the freedom to have unrestricted possession and use of a weapon. To put it bluntly it was not meant to have a bunch of good ole boys achieving an almost orgiastic high as they feel the power which a gun in hand confers upon them.
The only problem that you have is that an AR-15 is NOT the weapon of choice for mass shooters. There is not ONE list, study, etc. where the AR-15 is the firearm used in most mass shootings. So, it's not the fact that you read the wrong one - you assumed.
In your discussion of the different features of the rifle you did mention the speed of the ammo as it leaves the barrel, then moved on talking about selective fire, which it lacks and dismissing that section. You, and it appears quite deliberate to me, that you didn't go into the damage done to the human body by the velocity of the round, one of the reasons in the development of the military version.
It is a weapon of war and it and others like it should be banned. As a gun owner this weapon has no place in civilian market, it is not needed and the 2nd Amendment didn't intend for you to have any weapon you desire.
We know the results of the last ban on assault style rifles and that was a drastically reduced incident of mass shootings.
I have never heard of an AR-15 being described as "Military Grade". I have heard it described as Assault and from I have read the definitions of the two are different.
It always amazes me how Second Amendment advocates say "we have the right to bear arms" and that is that. They seem to have failed to have read the first part of that amendment, "“A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,". The first part of the Second Amendment makes it clear that the purpose of arming the citizenry is to equalize the fighting power of the citizenry with that of the government thus giving them the ability to overthrow a dictatorial government should one arise. The use and possession of guns was just a means to that end, it was not an end in itself. At that point in history when the Second Amendment was passed the weapons that the citizenry possessed were comparable to those of the government, hence it was a good deterrent to the development of a dictatorial government. That situation no longer exists. Even if every man, woman, and child were armed with machine guns, they would be no match for a government with missiles, drones, bomber jets, and nuclear weapons. Zelensky isn’t asking for machine guns, he is asking for multiple launch rocket systems, tanks, military aircrafts. Let’s face it, if Ukraine had attempted to fight the Russians with only machine guns, the war would have been over in a month with Russia the victor. Although the original purpose of the Second Amendment has been rendered moot, there is a more basic principle which undergirds that amendment that supports the right of the people to be armed. It is the right of a weaker victim to use a weapon in order to have the ability to overcome a stronger assailant. When people tell me that they would like to outlaw all guns, I ask them if a man needs a gun to kill a woman. All agree that he doesn’t. I then ask them if a woman having a gun can prevent a man from harming or killing her. Almost all agree that it would prevent that from occurring. I am a strong supporter of the right of law-abiding citizens to have and use guns for their self-defense, but the current lack of gun restrictions is inhibiting this right, is making the law-abiding citizens more vulnerable to violent attacks from the criminal elements of society. Remember the purpose of the Second Amendment is to create the means by which the citizenry can live in a free and secure state not the freedom to have unrestricted possession and use of a weapon. To put it bluntly it was not meant to have a bunch of good ole boys achieving an almost orgiastic high as they feel the power which a gun in hand confers upon them.
Here ya go - https://www.statista.com/statistics/476409/mass-shootings-in-the-us-by-weapon-types-used/
The only problem that you have is that an AR-15 is NOT the weapon of choice for mass shooters. There is not ONE list, study, etc. where the AR-15 is the firearm used in most mass shootings. So, it's not the fact that you read the wrong one - you assumed.