Aurora Colorado Violence

The writers of the Consititution and the Bill of Rights, could not fathom that the 2nd Ammendment would later allow automatic and semi-automatic weapons with such deadly accuracy and lethality to be legal. I believe they would be the first to ammend it to prevent such lethal weapons from being legalized. The Ammendment stated the right to form militias and bear arms not the right to have weapons of mass destruction.

There are many people who have experience with weapons who want tougher gun laws, myself included. Stop speaking from ignorance.

The AR-15 is the predecessor to the military's now adopted M-16. It is the semi-automatic version of the M-16 which is used in all branches of service.Again. There is no reason this weapon should be able to be purchaced legally in the same way you should not be able to legally purchace an RPG launcher or live hand grenades. These are not covered under "the right to bare arms" of the 2nd Ammendment.Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.

It is not the size it is the speed at which you can refire that makes it more lethal. In fact, the round is sometimes considered too small for deer hunting.The point is, why the hell do you need a military semi-automatic rifle to shoot a deer.Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.

I mentioned nothing about it being an "assault" anything. My reasoning, is that military weapons are made specifically for killing lots of people in battle. That is their purpose and that is why they are so fast to fire, accurate and deadly. Saying this is a weapon civilians should have access to, is ridiculous.

Bullshit. The sem-automatic AR-15 has a rate of fire of rds much more than a manual handgun. No, I am saying bring back the Federal Assault Weapons ban on semi-automatic weapons that expired in 2004. The AR-15 was designed specifically FOR the military before it was sold to Colt, who then modified it and sold it to the military as the M-16. The restrictions should be on the average joe blow purchasing a rapid fire i.e. semi-automatic weapons to massace 30 people in one wac (the shooter would have killed more if his magazine did not jam). Why we let this ban expire is beyond my understanding. Absolutely ridiculous.

I am talking specifically about the increased lethality to large number of people at one time. Specifically the rapidity of refire. There was a Federal Assault Weapons Ban, I am saying that this law needs to be revisited.

Why do you need a semi-automatic rifle that can shoot dozens of rds a minute to kill a deer. You don't. That is a bullshit excuse. Why. Because a. it is bad sportsmanship to be able to shoot up your game with thousands of bullets and b. have you every tried removing that many bullets from a carcus.

It ends. When some deranged person LEGALLY purchases an AR-15 and a 100-rds magazine and kills innocent 12 men, women and children. That is where it ends.Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.

Ridiculous. Bump fire, the AR-15 can fire much faster than the average person can pump his finger. 15 rds per minute is the average accurately fire semi-automatic weapon. Accuracy is not needed in a movie theater with dozens of people. In addition, finger fatigue would slow him down. The world-record holder shoots revolvers only because firing an automatic or semi would not be competitive. There is very little skill involved in rapid firing these weapons compared to that of a manual handgun or rifle. I am not talking about a specific grip or mere cosmetic differences. I am talking about rate of fire. Your wrong. Actually it did but the gun manufactures circumvented the law. The problem was the law was not strong enough as the VPC states above. I agree that the ban was ineffective as I said above. The gun is similar to the M-16 with minor procedural changes (bump fire) or minor modifications ( which can be circumvented to make it as fast if not faster than the fully automatic M-16 as the video yourself attached earlier showed. Even, the military rarely uses the M-16 in fully auto. In the Navy, we train with it in burst mode usually.

Agreed. But again, why does the average citizen need a semi-automatic weapons that can fire much fast rate of fire for a longer amount of time than a manual weapon. What is the purpose?Again if you are going to limit magazine why not limited weapons that increase lethality to greater numbers of people. It is much harder to disarm someone with a semi-automatic weapon with a large magazine and higher rate of fire than one that with a manual handgun is it not? Why are they more accurate? Because they are modeled off of military rifles, that is why. That is not a need. That is an unjustified want in my opinion. Public safety is higher than this desire for an 'accurate' weapon IMHO.

No, some of us believe that reregulating areas of public safety outweigh someones want to have a cool military toy. Has nothing to do with fear (from someone who fires weapons on a regular basis in the military).Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.

Are you saying there are NO restrictions to freedom of press much less any other freedom (i.e. freedom of speach). Of course there are.
Can you publish anything you want without restriction? Of course not (i.e. slander, inciting violence and unlawful activity, etc). The question is balancing freedom with moral responsibility and the public good. It is a balancing act. All of our freedoms are restricted in one way or another. Why should the right to bear arms not also be restricted (in fact it is, you can't buy an RPG from your local gun shop).

Granted. Do you think he could have put out over 100 rds within a few minutes and killed 12 and wounded over 70 people with a manual handgun alone? REALLY!?! Your off your rocker.Yes, I know he had a hand gun, but it was the semi-automatic rifle that he did nearly all the damage with. If he only had a handgun or even a shotgun, it would be that much easier for him to be subdued. Slightly lower only compared to other automatic guns. High enough for him to wound and kill 71 people withing a couple of minutes. Agreed. It should be base on appearance but on lethality. Again military weapons are meant to kill lots of people. Why do we need to legalize that.And you are wrong, the AR-15 was created and designed specifically by ArmaLite for sale to the Army. ArmaLite sold the AR-15 design to Colt who then marketed it to the Army as the M-16. The AR-15 IS the M-16 with some modifications to make it only a semi-automatic weapon rifle. There are a few internal differences between the two, to satisfy BATF requirements. Login

I would call for stronger gun laws and am not ashamed to say it.