why do people need an AR15?

the democrats have been anti gun, generally speaking for a while now, at least as far back as Bill Clinton, and if guns is your make or break issue the proof seems to be in the sales, or lack of.  I'm not saying people should be one issue voting but if you are then the stats seem to speak for themselves.  The B.S. ban was studied and discontinued because they couldn't determine if it made any difference or not.  Now if you put in the democratic bans on cosmetic features and other things that are mostly irrelevant in any practical sense, they are anti 2a, which fmpov is anti constitution.  Picking and choosing the parts you like and tossing out the rest is fine if you are having dinner, but not when it comes to rights.  There is no "needs" test and there shouldn't be for obvious reasons.  I do participate in these silly "needs" threads but the reality is they are arguing from a potion of ignorance.  That's not all that different than the elected officials who stand up in front of cameras and make such stupidly wrong claims, like ghost gun, and it shoots 30 clips in half a second blah blah blah, the sheep need to be culled, but that's a different thread.

I'm not necessarily a one issue voter, but guns are a big issue for me. So if a candidate seems to be hyper-focused on guns i don't vote for them. Of course, most on the left have a bad view in my opinion on gun laws, but not all of them have it as their main focus. For instance, i think Bernie would focus on other issues rather than guns. Of course he has dumb views on guns too... but i don't think it would be front and center. Whereas Newsom seems to focus a lot on guns and is why i am really not happy he is governor now. I didn't like Cox either bc of all the religious belief crap he wanted to do... but, i'd rather have him than Newsom which is likely going to shit in Cali's gun laws even more now.   

sure I get that, makes sense to me.  although I reply to you, some of the verbiage is put in anticipating others will read, so it's for their benefit, as you are pretty level headed imo

mostly I was pointing out to the o.p. to get what he really wants he'd have to vote for the opposite party, I love good irony.

full ban would be bloody and the end of the U.S. as we know it, would be a prime time for invasion by a foreign country.

You're asking the wrong question. Why shouldn't people be allowed to own AR-15s? Freedom should be our default position; the government needs a definitive reason to impose restrictions on our freedom. And no, "the costs outweigh the benefits" isn't a sufficient reason because that could be used to ban a lot of stuff we'd never want banned. Swimming pools arguably cause far more suffering than happiness. The same could be said of alcohol, fast food, motorcycles, and much more. There needs to be a higher standard for government intervention than pure cost/benefit analysis.

best argument ever, end of thread.

you think gun control has no effect on the murder rate, despite the scientific consensus, so don't talk to me about who is being willfully ignorant. plus all the loads of other corroborating evidence in that link

With that said, there is a lot more to homicide than gun control, duh... Once you can tell me why Switzerland or let's get closer Vermont have such low intentional homicide rates despise having lax gun laws vs. other places (and vice versa)... i'm not convinced you know what you're talking about.

I think sports cars are cool, and speeding tickets are appropriate for public roads.  Proven and practical safety features should be prioritized in a manner which increases the supply to a point where consumers can make free informed decisions in the current system.  

Given the number of speed related deaths per year vs death by irregular/non-regular guns, I think you found your hill to battle and die on.

USA: paranoia capitol of the world.

What country are you from?