re: What's the best argument against an all out AR ban?

This is actually an interesting argument concerning the 5.56 AR platform vs a Glock (19) 9mm.

I can't believe I am contemplating this situation in light of the events but...

The cyclic rate is high enough in both that the finger and reload time will be the limiting factor. The Glock (since we are talking off the shelf and comparing to what the shooter used) has a 10% advantage in mag cap since the Glock high capacity magazine is 33 shots vs 30. Since the shooter used ~450 rounds (based on what I read) that would be one less reload. The Glock is more likely to have a failure to drop free though. The Glock has a lighter trigger pull (stock) than most stock AR platforms so one should have less finger fatigue (actually an issue with 450 rounds in quick succession). The 9mm round would be more effective at short range EXCEPT if the church had pews or other cover one needed to penetrate then the smaller higher velocity round might be an advantage though it would result in more through and throughs.

I think I would choose a AR from the two but don't see a lot of difference as I see advantages and disadvantages for each but honestly no huge difference in the effective rate of fire.

Nope. You're wrong. Zero chance you can shoot a semi automatic glock at the same rate as a semi automatic ar15. That isn't how semi autos work. Due to the ergonomics, your rate of fire in the hand gun will be slower than the rifle.

No way in hell you could shoot a full mag out of a glock just as fast as out of an AR. Nope. No way. It's impossible

You can get a 100 round magazine for an AR-15.

An AK-47 or AK 12 gauge would be far better in close range than either the AR-15 or a 9mm pistol.

quote:

---

You can get a 100 round magazine for an AR-15.

An AK-47 or AK 12 gauge would be far better in close range than either the AR-15 or a 9mm pistol.

---

Yes, you can get 100 round mags or drums for the AR but that is outside the context here.

I mean if we are choosing any weapon then a LWRC SMG45 would be hard to beat. I don't think that is the context here.

quote:

---

an AR-15 refers only to .223/5.56

---

BS

quote:

---

That's rich coming from someone who thinks there's no limit on 1st ammendement

---

You obviously have failed to comprehend the point of my argument.

My point is there should be no limits to the bill of rights. These rights are inalienable.

The only way to truly stop gun violence is to ensure there is always a gun around to stop that violence.

What are the limits of the second amendment?

Really?

Go buy a nuclear weapon at the gun store.

There is precedent for making various weapons off limits.

quote:

---

The second amendment has limits.

---

It doesn't though. Activist judges have allowed the intent to be overstepped.

"...The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

Let's start with a couple definitions. All taken from Google.

Arms - weapons and ammunition; armaments.
Weapons - a thing designed for or used to inflict bodily harm or physical damage.
Infringed - act so as to limit or undermine.

Now that we know what we are talking about. Let's list something's that we can all agree on are weapons.

Knives
Bats
Batons
Swords
Guns

Are there types of guns that are illegal to own currently? If so the illegality of those guns, which are weapons, which are arms, is being limited.

So yes the restrictions on the second amendment are overstepping the amendment to the Constitution.