Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
 

beevul

(12,194 posts)
79. The ar-15 regardless of magazine is no military weapon.
Tue Dec 8, 2015, 06:55 PM
Dec 2015
The fact that the national assault weapons ban expired in 2004 and these abominations have been sold to civilians does not make them any less military weapons.


They've been sold to civilians for over 50 years. Once again you don't seem to have much of a grasp on history.

They were originally designed FOR THE MILITARY and made to inflict maximum damage on large numbers of enemy soldiers at close range. But you knew that.


Another misleading screed by you.

Reality says:

The AR-15 was first built in 1959 by ArmaLite as a small arms rifle for the United States armed forces. Because of financial problems, ArmaLite sold the design to Colt. After some modifications, the redesigned rifle was adopted as the M16 rifle. In 1963, Colt started selling the semi-automatic version of the rifle for civilians as the Colt AR-15. Although the name "AR-15" remains a Colt registered trademark, variants of the firearm are made, modified, and sold under various names by multiple manufacturers

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AR-15

No military in the world issues its troops an ar-15. Not a single one. Its a semi-automatic version of a military weapon, not a military weapon in itself. Argue all you like but that's a fact and no amount of spin doctoring or bluster is going to make it go away.

They were designed for mass killing and have no business in civilian hands.


That's your less than unbiased opinion.

ALL Democratic presidential candidates agree with this position. You are out of step with your party.


I have a greater loyalty and duty to truth, fact, and reality, than I have to any political party.

The fact that you insist these are not military weapons shows that pro-gun folks are not to be trusted.


No. The fact that you insist that they're military weapons is refuted by the fact that no military in the history of the world has or ever will issue its troops at large ar-15s.


Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

The mental health angle lancer78 Dec 2015 #1
I think mental health INSTEAD of sensible gun regulation is a right-wing talking point, but plenty Attorney in Texas Dec 2015 #2
No proposed gun laws lancer78 Dec 2015 #20
Stopped - probably not. Reduce death toll significantly - absolutely. Mopar151 Dec 2015 #28
"Reduce"... Only based on your preconceived notions Taitertots Dec 2015 #68
No it is not. TM99 Dec 2015 #4
No, the mental health angle is the correct angle zalinda Dec 2015 #7
There isn't just a single cause, and mental health does play a role. PersonNumber503602 Dec 2015 #45
I see Sanders is STILL defending his gun manufacturer immunity vote. SunSeeker Dec 2015 #3
So you believe that Kitchenaid should be sued for stabbing deaths? d_legendary1 Dec 2015 #6
Blenders weren't designed to kill mass amounts of people. SunSeeker Dec 2015 #9
Neither were guns d_legendary1 Dec 2015 #15
Yes, they were. Especially AR-15s with 100 round magazines. SunSeeker Dec 2015 #19
They're selling a weapon to the public that is allowed by LAW d_legendary1 Dec 2015 #37
No ar-15 comes with a 100 round magazine. beevul Dec 2015 #70
The U.S. Assault Weapons Ban expired in 2004; the PLCAA was passed the next year. nt SunSeeker Dec 2015 #77
So what? N/T beevul Dec 2015 #80
Under this legislation, can someone sue thucythucy Dec 2015 #65
They can still be sued for selling guns to people who commit crimes d_legendary1 Dec 2015 #66
Thanks. Good to know. thucythucy Dec 2015 #74
How're those cluster bombs working out? Scootaloo Dec 2015 #8
Ask Bernie. He voted to pay for cluster bombs. nt SunSeeker Dec 2015 #10
Clinton voted against restricting their use in civilian areas Scootaloo Dec 2015 #11
If I was a Bernie supporter I would deflect from gun discussions too. nt SunSeeker Dec 2015 #12
I'm calling out your hypocrisy Scootaloo Dec 2015 #13
Seems to me you are the one displaying hypocrisy here. SunSeeker Dec 2015 #16
I'm not arguing that guns are good. Scootaloo Dec 2015 #17
So you admit Sanders' vote in favor of the PLCAA was bad? SunSeeker Dec 2015 #18
Actually, I don't regard it either way Scootaloo Dec 2015 #21
You are wrong. Those lawsuits were gaining taction. That is why the PLCAA was an NRA priority. SunSeeker Dec 2015 #22
Those SLAPP suits most certainly were NOT gaining traction, GGJohn Dec 2015 #24
GGJohn, I am QUOTING the PLCAA. SunSeeker Dec 2015 #31
The question is whether a manufacturer is liable for criminal use of their product Scootaloo Dec 2015 #25
I'm not "gyrating" a "special exception." I'm QUOTING the PLCAA.. SunSeeker Dec 2015 #29
Show me the quote. Scootaloo Dec 2015 #30
See post 19. nt SunSeeker Dec 2015 #32
That doesn't say anything that I haven't already covered. Scootaloo Dec 2015 #35
A car manufacturer would still be liable for defects even if driven criminally. SunSeeker Dec 2015 #38
See post 37. nt d_legendary1 Dec 2015 #40
Post 37 appears to admit I quoted the PLCAA correctly. SunSeeker Dec 2015 #41
Post 37 states the opposite of what you said d_legendary1 Dec 2015 #42
No, post 37 does not say I misquoted the PLCAA. SunSeeker Dec 2015 #43
You should google more d_legendary1 Dec 2015 #44
WTF? Neither of the NY labor law cases you cite involve statutory product liability immunity. SunSeeker Dec 2015 #47
You asked for it d_legendary1 Dec 2015 #48
No, read again. I asked for consumer product manufacturers that were bestowed the same immunity. SunSeeker Dec 2015 #49
I did say the Monsanto Protection Act d_legendary1 Dec 2015 #55
No, you only cited two irrelevant cases. SunSeeker Dec 2015 #57
Read section 735 of the act d_legendary1 Dec 2015 #67
I did. It does not affect nor even mention consumer product liability for any manufacturer. SunSeeker Dec 2015 #69
Now you're nit picking d_legendary1 Dec 2015 #71
No, I am giving words their actual meaning. SunSeeker Dec 2015 #76
Nonsense. beevul Dec 2015 #72
There is no legitimate consumer use for an AR-15 with a 100 round magazine. SunSeeker Dec 2015 #78
Thats your opinion. beevul Dec 2015 #81
It's a shame, too, because that totally would've prevented these mass shootings. arcane1 Dec 2015 #33
You mean defending the US constitution? Guilty! n/t Old Union Guy Dec 2015 #50
No, he's defending gun manufacturers who sell shit that should not be in the hands of civilians. nt SunSeeker Dec 2015 #51
If they "shouldn't be in the hands of citizens," get a law passed to that effect. Lizzie Poppet Dec 2015 #53
The courts are there for when the government fails to do its job. SunSeeker Dec 2015 #54
That's not remotely how the checks and balances are supposed to work. Lizzie Poppet Dec 2015 #56
No, it's not. Courts are how we protect our environment and civil rights. SunSeeker Dec 2015 #58
The right to sue over actual product defects remains intact. Lizzie Poppet Dec 2015 #59
False. Victims can't sue for military weapons sold irresponsibly to nuts. SunSeeker Dec 2015 #61
Um...I quite specifically said DEFECTIVE products. Lizzie Poppet Dec 2015 #62
That IS a defective product: an unreasonably dangerous design and irresponsibly marketed. nt SunSeeker Dec 2015 #63
There are no " military weapons sold" to anyone in the civilian market... beevul Dec 2015 #73
An AR-15 with a 100 round magazine is a military weapon. SunSeeker Dec 2015 #75
The ar-15 regardless of magazine is no military weapon. beevul Dec 2015 #79
Agree with some of it, disagree on a couple of points madville Dec 2015 #5
France has some very restrictive christx30 Dec 2015 #36
Straw man laws TexasBushwhacker Dec 2015 #39
Sometimes the straw purchaser is a victim, too. JustABozoOnThisBus Dec 2015 #52
I didn't that of that TexasBushwhacker Dec 2015 #60
Yup. Criminals will use any means necessary to get what they want. pablo_marmol Dec 2015 #64
This is why Bernie Sanders will be the next President of the United States. Major Hogwash Dec 2015 #14
I tend to like Sanders, but I'm not sure that will help him win PersonNumber503602 Dec 2015 #46
That sounds a lot like what the GOP says MaggieD Dec 2015 #23
Yep! leftofcool Dec 2015 #26
Sanders knows we have a long ways to go, not in his lifetime likely, before the randys1 Dec 2015 #27
Because terrorists might also hunt ... LannyDeVaney Dec 2015 #34
Latest Discussions»Latest Breaking News»Sanders: Gun control no &...»Reply #79