Draug, Republicans would shit themselves

Technically, the AR-15 isn't an assault rifle. It's a semi automatic rifle so you have to squeeze the trigger to fire each round. No three burst or full auto capability in it like the M-16 has.

@Santa - I am a Republican. I am representative of the typical Republican in middle America. Unfortunately, the news latches onto the gun nuts and extreme right wing and like to call semi-automatics "assault rifles". But, that said, the AR-15 doesn't beling in civilian hands outside of a gunlocker at a registered firing range. It is useless for home defense.

I repeat, Republicans would shit themselves, perhaps not you, but republicans in general. You don't think so? Do some reading.

and when i say rrepublicans I mean the party

"Technically, the AR-15 isn't an assault rifle. It's a semi automatic rifle so you have to squeeze the trigger to fire each round. No three burst or full auto capability in it like the M-16 has. "

I'm sorry, if high powered Semi-automatic rifles fitted with 100+ round drum magazines weren't allowed on the street. Thank god this kid wasn't good at this stuff

Oh, I agree and said as much, Santa. I was just pointing out that even the expired Assault Weapons Ban didn't classify semi-autos as assault weapons. They had to have a multi burst (controlled full auto) capability like the M-16 has to be an assault weapon. But the AR-15 (and it is a fine semi-auto rifle) only belongs in firing ranges and should have more controls in place regarding the purchase of the weapon, continued ownership, and munitions purchasing.

S real simple solution would be to ban the sale of magazines larger than 10 rounds. No way anyone could argue that you need more than that to defend your home (not the a high powered rifle would do nearly the job as a Walther, H&K, or S&W handgun anyhow).

But they do Draug, if you remember after the congresswoman was shot they had the same outcry, conservatives resisted.. Remember its a slippery slope Draug.

Draug is making a genuine argument as to why some guns should be allowed and some shouldn't. This means that he is free from legitimate slippery slope accusations.

Who has been reading freakonomics?
Statistically, it is safer to drive drunk than walk home drunk but, really, does that mean that we should let people drive drunk? The initial argument is specious. It presupposes that there are an equal number of instances of people bearing arms in the US as there are people driving cars. And let's face it. As a society, we accept deaths due to auto accidents as a necessary evil that we minimize through ABS brakes, seat belts, child seats (not as effective as commonly thought), etc. we accept this because the benefits of the automobile are perceived to FAR outweigh the costs. Now, I don't know about you, but it has been a while since I got 27 MPG with my AR15 while getting to work, or buying groceries, or visiting friends and relatives, etc.
Now bearing arms is a right in the Bill of Rights. Still, I don't recall the 2nd Amendment mentioning thinly failed assault rifles. Let me just squeeze the trigger once per round so that I don't waste ammo with a three round burst.
And one more thing. The framers of the Constitution got together in large part because they feared the result of a central government that had too LITTLE power, not too much. Shay's Rebellion had made clear the need for a strong central government to prevent discontented citizens from taking up arms to force their way upon the state governments. Now what did Gen. Washington do as the first president under the Constitution? He activated the army and marched against a bunch of Pennsylvania farmers who had taken up arms in protest of a tax on whiskey. He quickly put down the Whiskey Rebellion.
We have a right to bear arms, but not any arms, and not anywhere at any time. I have free speech, but I can't yell, "Fire!" in a crowded theater without facing the strong possibility of arrest. The only right we have without limits is our right to believe what ever we want. The moment we begin to take rights out of the realm of thought and put them into action, they immediately come into conflict with other rights,and become limited and constrained.
I can believe I'm writing this. If you only knew my background. I'm just getting tired of the nonsense. No one in that theater the other night wished the shooter had the right or even the ability to secure firearms, but he sure did secure them. He made effective and horrible use of them, too. Are we, as a society, going to say that the benefits of being able to own AR15s outweigh the costs?