system
Given the following post, respond as if you're commenting on Reddit:
human
CMV: I believe civilians should be able to own AR15s.

No one needs to own it, but that's not the question. The question is whether the government ought to prohibit you from having it.

There's plenty of things which we don't need but which we also don't think they government has any right to ban. Take Wild Turkey 101. Do you really need a 101 proof whiskey? No. Or what about a 7.9% beer? Don't need that either.

But, modern western democracy starts with the premise of individual liberty. You can have whatever you want; you're not limited to just that which you need. The burden is on the government to make the case that something needs to be forbidden.

So, I believe civilians should be able to own AR15s. Change my view.

Edit: This post only about the US, and want to keep most of the current restrictions on them today.
gpt
If your argument boils down to: the government should allow citizens to own anything regardless of its destructive potential (unless doing so would create diplomatic tension with other nations), then you seem to be ignoring the entire field of consumer protection. For the same reason you can't drive a car without headlights. Owning certain items poses so much of a danger to others, that freedoms need to be curtailed for the sake of having a safe society. You can argue over whether the AR specifically falls into that category, but you can't deny the government has a responsibility to regulate the safety of products sold to the public.