• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

President Obama takes the stage at VFW convention in Phoenix

It matters very much, because at the heart of this issue for me.. is there are people like Kernel Sanders who for all intensive purposes do not understand the differences.

Combine that with the push in the media about all the violence and how they've generally ALWAYS got people on there telling everyone that guns are to blame.

They're spreading misinformation in hopes of making people believe it who either don't understand or just believe it out of the sheer numbers of incorrect reports such as this.

Most people do not need to know the difference. I know the difference, but not out of any real interest.

This reporter was not really spreading misinformation. He made a minor goof in a story on an entirely different topic. It is not going to effect the gun debate, it is not going to have any impact at all really. Besides, what do you care what some one says? Guns are a right, period. There is no need to justify, or even argue about weather guns are good or bad.
 
Most people do not need to know the difference. I know the difference, but not out of any real interest.

This reporter was not really spreading misinformation. He made a minor goof in a story on an entirely different topic. It is not going to effect the gun debate, it is not going to have any impact at all really. Besides, what do you care what some one says? Guns are a right, period. There is no need to justify, or even argue about weather guns are good or bad.



It isn't a minor goof when it's done all the time.

Sorry, but you're not going to convince anyone that the systematic villification of firearms in the media is something other than just that.
 
A semi-automatic rifle is not an assault rifle... because it's ancestors were... That's some messed up logic.

Its not an ancestor, its the same damn gun with one small change. The Ar-15 was built and designed as an assault rifle and then modified to strip its semi-automatic function away for legal reasons. Semi-automatic assault rifle is a functional term than describes the weapon, if not fitting some perfect definition.

Assault rifle only exists as a term because Hitler hated submachine guns so they needed to invent some term to get a new weapon approved. Getting all up in arms about it is pointless.
 
Its not an ancestor, its the same damn gun with one small change. The Ar-15 was built and designed as an assault rifle and then modified to strip its semi-automatic function away for legal reasons. Semi-automatic assault rifle is a functional term than describes the weapon, if not fitting some perfect definition.

Assault rifle only exists as a term because Hitler hated submachine guns so they needed to invent some term to get a new weapon approved. Getting all up in arms about it is pointless.

You deny that the current revision of the ar15 is different than the previous ones?

That would make it an ancestor of an older rifle... would it not?

Getting all up in arms about the media villifying an inanimate object isn't pointless... when they're drumming up reasons for giving our current government political capita for trying to take them from law abiding citizens.
 
Its not an ancestor, its the same damn gun with one small change. The Ar-15 was built and designed as an assault rifle and then modified to strip its semi-automatic function away for legal reasons.
You better look at that again.

Semi-automatic assault rifle is a functional term than describes the weapon, if not fitting some perfect definition.
You mean except for being correct.

You're arguing that its OK to refer to the AR15 is an assault rifle because it LOOK like an assault rifle. This is as stupid as arguing its OK to refer to some black guy is a gang banger because he LOOKS like one.
 
You better look at that again.

The AR-15 was the name of the armalite product for the rifle that was designated the m16 in U.S. military service. I can source it if you really want.

You're arguing that its OK to refer to the AR15 is an assault rifle because it LOOK like an assault rifle. This is as stupid as arguing its OK to refer to some black guy is a gang banger because he LOOKS like one.

The AR-15 doesn't look like an assault rifle, it is one barring a small technical change.
 
The AR-15 was the name of the armalite product for the rifle that was designated the m16 in U.S. military service. I can source it if you really want.



The AR-15 doesn't look like an assault rifle, it is one barring a small technical change.

The difference between select fire and semi-automatic only.. is a very large difference..

Just an fyi.
 
The AR-15 was the name of the armalite product for the rifle that was designated the m16 in U.S. military service. I can source it if you really want.
YOU said:

The Ar-15 was built and designed as an assault rifle and then modified to strip its semi-automatic function away for legal reasons.

As I said: You better look at that again.

The AR-15 doesn't look like an assault rifle, it is one barring a small technical change.
You mean how like a man is a woman, save for one small technical change.
Gotcha.
 
The difference between select fire and semi-automatic only.. is a very large difference..

Making an ar-15 into a fully automatic weapon requires a bit of fiddling around with the sear. From a technical perspective it is a fairly minor change.
 
Making an ar-15 into a fully automatic weapon requires a bit of fiddling around with the sear. From a technical perspective it is a fairly minor change.


If you were talking about an ak47, one might be inclined to believe you... But I rather enjoy having my face / head all in one piece.


gl with that.
 
Making an ar-15 into a fully automatic weapon requires a bit of fiddling around with the sear. From a technical perspective it is a fairly minor change.
Remember what I said about people talking about guns when they dont know what they;re talking about?

You need more than the sear, and you need to machine the receiver.
 
As I said: You better look at that again.

You are correct, the mistake is mine. I mean to say its automatic function was stripped away.

You mean how like a man is a woman, save for one small technical change.
Gotcha.

There is far larger difference between a man and women than converting a ar-15 into a fully automatic weapon. Removing the sear is good enough for a gun, going loretta bobbit on a man doesn't make him a women.
 
You are correct, the mistake is mine.
There is far larger difference between a man and women...
No. There is one techincal detail.
 
Remember what I said about people talking about guns when they dont know what they;re talking about?

You need more than the sear, and you need to machine the receiver.

I don't really want to explain the fully process for converting an ar-15 to full auto. I will end with this. The AR-15 shares enough similarities with assault rifles from both a technical and historical point of view. Calling a semi-automatic assault rifle is perfectly acceptable for a journalist point of view. A best, you can claim he got a tiny detail wrong in an honest mistake.
 
I don't really want to explain the fully process for converting an ar-15 to full auto.
Good -- because I doubt you can.

I will end with this. The AR-15 shares enough similarities with assault rifles from both a technical and historical point of view.
You making that statement doesnt make the AR15 an assault rifle; any statement to that effect is absolutely incorrect.

That they are 'similar' doesn't excuse the journalist for not getting it right.
 
I'm sorry, but needs and purpose aren't required to exercise your constitutionally given rights.

And, again I'm sorry that you believe that the "fears" or "dislikes" of others of me exercising my rights trump my rights... Maybe we could apply that to the liberals and their precious freedom of speech... and start restricting when they can talk about subjects that make me uncomfortable? Or subjects that I don't like?

It is not my problem if you're uneasy about seeing a gun in a law abiding citizens hand's.

So while I respect your right to object to me carrying a rifle, I have to politely tell you to bite my ass while I exercise my rights.

You ignored several aspects of my post and the overall point I was driving at. Maybe I didn't phrase the questions in a clear enough manner.

Your position on this does not account for a reasonable purpose or need to carry a semi-automatic riffle around in a city public area. Yes, it may be his legal right to do so, but why do that?

"Law abiding citizen just trying to make a point about the 2nd amendment by doing something outrageous." -- is that what it said on his t-shirt to let everyone know it was okay, he was just making a political statement?

This uneducated, narrow-minded reading of the second amendment has done more to hurt your cause than help it. The majority of gun owners enjoy their interest/hobby in a safe and respectful manner. They are intelligent and mature about exercising their rights, fully acknowledging that guns represent a lethal weapon and respectful of friends and neighbors that don't share this particular interest or fascination with guns.

Then there is this hot-headed overzealous minority who thinks the ATF and DOJ are tapping their phones. They buy books on building hidden storage compartments, spend ridiculous amounts of money on the latest, coolest guns and ammo, waiting for the rebellion or race war that never comes.

Does any reasonable, intelligent person who saw this asshole walking around with an assault riffle think, "There goes a Patriot defending my second amendment right." No, they go home with a distaste for guns and gun rights because some total loser had to misrepresent what gun ownership and responsibility is all about.

What was it, two weeks ago, some lame walked into a health club and shot up the place? You can not be that lacking in common sense to understand why a person walking around with a semi-auto riffle as described in this news story would make people uncomfortable. His actions, though technically not illegal, are totally inappropriate. He has no respect for his community and the people in it.
 
You ignored several aspects of my post and the overall point I was driving at. Maybe I didn't phrase the questions in a clear enough manner.

Your position on this does not account for a reasonable purpose or need to carry a semi-automatic riffle around in a city public area. Yes, it may be his legal right to do so, but why do that?

"Law abiding citizen just trying to make a point about the 2nd amendment by doing something outrageous." -- is that what it said on his t-shirt to let everyone know it was okay, he was just making a political statement?

This uneducated, narrow-minded reading of the second amendment has done more to hurt your cause than help it. The majority of gun owners enjoy their interest/hobby in a safe and respectful manner. They are intelligent and mature about exercising their rights, fully acknowledging that guns represent a lethal weapon and respectful of friends and neighbors that don't share this particular interest or fascination with guns.

Then there is this hot-headed overzealous minority who thinks the ATF and DOJ are tapping their phones. They buy books on building hidden storage compartments, spend ridiculous amounts of money on the latest, coolest guns and ammo, waiting for the rebellion or race war that never comes.

Does any reasonable, intelligent person who saw this asshole walking around with an assault riffle think, "There goes a Patriot defending my second amendment right." No, they go home with a distaste for guns and gun rights because some total loser had to misrepresent what gun ownership and responsibility is all about.

What was it, two weeks ago, some lame walked into a health club and shot up the place? You can not be that lacking in common sense to understand why a person walking around with a semi-auto riffle as described in this news story would make people uncomfortable. His actions, though technically not illegal, are totally inappropriate. He has no respect for his community and the people in it.

Bolded first.

Funny you mention that whacko... considering the location that he did it... in one of the more heavily gun regulated parts of our country... by all definitions and their laws he shouldn't even have had his guns there.


So, you're under the same impression with gay people who flaunt their sexuality in the light of "it's my right"?

What about liberals who go on about being pro-choice anytime they can in public? Cause it's their right to speak freely?

I am intelligent and mature about my rights to possess firearms and use them. While I'd never have done this, I admire this person for being brave enough to take unfounded criticism from the likes of you, and rathi for exercising his constitutional rights.

I'd imagine you're the same person who looks down on those who open carry pistols in public as well... boy, you just can't win with some of them.


Again, I am under ABSOLUTELY NO OBLIGATION to have a purpose or need to justify my rights in your eyes, or in society's eyes. They are my inalienable rights afforded to me by the constitution. Just because you don't like them, doesn't mean that they've changed and I should moderate myself in your presence.
 
Last edited:
Bolded first.

Funny you mention that whacko... considering the location that he did it... in one of the more heavily gun regulated parts of our country... by all definitions and their laws he shouldn't even have had his guns there.

So, you're under the same impression with gay people who flaunt their sexuality in the light of "it's my right"?

What about liberals who go on about being pro-choice anytime they can in public? Cause it's their right to speak freely?

Couples of any sexual orientation need to be mindful and respectful of their surroundings when displaying affection for one another.

I know that gay is not contagious so gay pride demonstrations don't bother me. Harmless self-expression. My children are only going to be more tolerant by learning that some people are just naturally different.

Re: Pro-Choice, I'm not sure what you're saying. Usually the people displaying inappropriate depictions of abortions are pro-life. I've never known a pro-choice activists to use graphic descriptions of abortions to win people over. So, could you be more specific?

I am intelligent and mature about my rights to possess firearms and use them. While I'd never have done this, I admire this person for being brave enough to take unfounded criticism from the likes of you, and rathi for exercising his constitutional rights.

There's no reasoning with you. By freaking people out, he did more to hurt the public perception of gun owners. You want to win people over. Let mature, reasonable people who understand and appreciate the concerns of the unarmed public be your representative. Not wingnuts trying to make a point and misfiring all the way.

I'd imagine you're the same person who looks down on those who open carry pistols in public as well... boy, you just can't win with some of them.

If they have a carry permit and legitimate need to be armed, sure, it's all good as long as they follow the law.

See, in Wyoming, I don't even think they need guns laws. Those people are smart and sensible and can police themselves as far as firearms. But in New York City and Los Angeles, gun regs should be draconian. I want anyone in L.A. county purchasing ammo to leave a fingerprint. I want the California carry permits to be strictly regulated. People who don't live in one of three or four really big cities with diverse populations really don't get it. There are more people in L.A. and Manhattan than in some states. Your gun laws will not work for us.

You could fit roughly 3 Maricopa County's (which is surrounded by desert) into 1 L.A. county which is surrounded by Orange and Ventura County. That jackass would have been shot dead if he tried a stunt like that in L.A. or NYC.

The Thune amendment was thankfully shot down this July--it would have lowered all state gun laws to the lowest common denominator.


Again, I am under ABSOLUTELY NO OBLIGATION to have a purpose or need to justify my rights in your eyes, or in society's eyes. They are my inalienable rights afforded to me by the constitution. Just because you don't like them, doesn't mean that they've changed and I should moderate myself in your presence.

Funny, you started this post with examples of people, Gays and Pro-Choice, who should moderate themselves in your presence. Your examples were a particular speech or personal expression that you feel infringes on your space.

What I'm talking about is the carrying of a lethal weapon, a rifle, into a public space for no other purpose than to press your rights. How can you not see the very big difference?
 
So the major difference between naming it as an assault rifle and a normal rifle is that "assault rifle" is a liberal scare tactic? And bringing a loaded gun of any type to a crowded area in protest of a hated and feared President (for one subset of the population) won't provoke fear?
 
So the major difference between naming it as an assault rifle and a normal rifle is that "assault rifle" is a liberal scare tactic? And bringing a loaded gun of any type to a crowded area in protest of a hated and feared President (for one subset of the population) won't provoke fear?

I wish I could thank this 10,000 times over.
 
This is an AR15

300px-Stag2wi.jpg


To most people an assault rifle is anything that looks like a combat weapon. It is dull black, pistol grip, magazine, short and easy to handle. Kind of looks like these m16 assault rifles to the untrained eye.

300px-M16a1m16a2m4m16a45wi.jpg


Get over it.
 
There is nothing wrong with calling an ar-15 a semi-automatic rifle.

There is a big problem with calling it a semi-automatic assault rifle.

Well, an AR-15, or any variant of, is an assault rifle. It's an assault rifle, because of it's capability to use a high capacity magazine; 20, 30, 40 rounds.

Now, if the Libbos are successful in completely eradicating box magazines that are capable of holding more than 5 rounds, it's no longer an assault rifle.
 
Remember what I said about people talking about guns when they dont know what they;re talking about?

You need more than the sear, and you need to machine the receiver.

That's not true. Most civilian variants of the M-16 come with the reciever already milled out to accept an automatic sear.
 
Holy ****!!!!!! Just saw the CNN vid on Hotair. The cat totin' the AR-15 is black!!!!

I'm sure that with this new revelation, the issue will die very quickly...:rofl
 
Holy ****!!!!!! Just saw the CNN vid on Hotair. The cat totin' the AR-15 is black!!!!

I'm sure that with this new revelation, the issue will die very quickly...:rofl

I was unaware race had anything to do with this conversation until you brought it up.
 
Back
Top Bottom