View Poll Results: Should an American citizen have the right to own a fully automatic assault rifle?

Voters
61. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes

    45 73.77%
  • No

    16 26.23%
Page 3 of 18 FirstFirst 1234513 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 180

Thread: Should an American citizen have the right to own a fully automatic assault rifle?

  1. #21
    Equal Opportunity Hater
    obvious Child's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    0.0, -2.3 on the Political Compass
    Last Seen
    12-09-14 @ 11:36 PM
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    19,883

    Re: Should an American citizen have the right to own a fully automatic assault rifle?

    Quote Originally Posted by petaluna View Post
    Actually, as we would be having another civil war, there is some hope that those in our Armed forces would not take part in destroying their fellow citizens, and we might at least have a chance.
    This is far more likely. The idea that Americans would shoot their own civilians is kind of crazy to me. Not even the Soviets did that during the Yeltsin's coup. IMO, our right to bear arms in today's world has nothing to do with overthrowing the government, it has far more to do with personal defense, hunting and recreation.
    "If your opponent is of choleric temperament, seek to irritate him." - Sun Tzu

  2. #22
    Global Moderator
    Custom User Title
    LaughAtTheWorld's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Seoul/Chicago
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:36 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    9,542

    Re: Should an American citizen have the right to own a fully automatic assault rifle?

    Quote Originally Posted by Luna Tick View Post
    Vote on whether you think any American not convicted of a violent crime should have the right to own a fully automatic assault rifle like an AK-47 or an M-16.
    Obviously, you have no experience of firearms.
    Ak-47s are normal assault rifles, they are selective fire (meaning the modes semi-automatic and full automatic are changeable and selectable)
    M-16s are likewise, mostly selective fire
    "The misery of being exploited by capitalists is nothing compared to the misery of not being exploited at all" - Joan Robinson
    "The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings; the inherent virtue of socialism is the equal sharing of miseries" - Winston Churchill

  3. #23
    Global Moderator
    Custom User Title
    LaughAtTheWorld's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Seoul/Chicago
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:36 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    9,542

    Re: Should an American citizen have the right to own a fully automatic assault rifle?

    Quote Originally Posted by petaluna View Post
    Then I guess we need to stock up on the big stuff, too........weapons are weapons. Actually, as we would be having another civil war, there is some hope that those in our Armed forces would not take part in destroying their fellow citizens, and we might at least have a chance. Maybe a few allies would show up for our American Spring......who knows?
    The dream of another US revolution is already a dismissed and thoroughly debunked theory, so no need to bring it up here
    "The misery of being exploited by capitalists is nothing compared to the misery of not being exploited at all" - Joan Robinson
    "The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings; the inherent virtue of socialism is the equal sharing of miseries" - Winston Churchill

  4. #24
    Global Moderator
    Custom User Title
    LaughAtTheWorld's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Seoul/Chicago
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:36 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    9,542

    Re: Should an American citizen have the right to own a fully automatic assault rifle?

    Quote Originally Posted by Viktyr Korimir View Post
    By waiting until the tank division and air support are somewhere else and attacking their supply lines and the military police assigned to maintain order. Tanks and jets don't grow on trees.



    Power is about what you can control. Freedom is about what you can unleash. Even the craziest of military dictatorships understands the concept that if all the civilians are dead, their power doesn't amount to anything.
    Attacking supply lines and dumps aren't easy as one imagine. They are guarded too, you know
    "The misery of being exploited by capitalists is nothing compared to the misery of not being exploited at all" - Joan Robinson
    "The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings; the inherent virtue of socialism is the equal sharing of miseries" - Winston Churchill

  5. #25
    Politically Correct

    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 08:33 PM
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    2,850
    Blog Entries
    8

    Re: Should an American citizen have the right to own a fully automatic assault rifle?

    No. These are war weapons, not recreational or self-defense weapons. If you permit AK-47s and M-16s, why not permit people to build their own explosives? Make their own tear gas?

    If a compromise is really necessary, I'd say people should have to be at least 25 and undergo a background check and additionally something along the lines of a character and fitness exam.
    (avatar by Thomas Nast)

  6. #26
    Equal Opportunity Hater
    obvious Child's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    0.0, -2.3 on the Political Compass
    Last Seen
    12-09-14 @ 11:36 PM
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    19,883

    Re: Should an American citizen have the right to own a fully automatic assault rifle?

    Honestly, if you need an AK to hunt......you're a pretty ****** hunter. Spray and pray anyone?

    Furthermore, an AK is really not the best defense weapon in close quarters. You're better off buying a civilian P90. Compact, light, sufficient stopping power against non-armored opponents, easy to sight, easy to shoot.
    "If your opponent is of choleric temperament, seek to irritate him." - Sun Tzu

  7. #27
    Anti-Hypocrite
    molten_dragon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Southeast Michigan
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:06 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Liberal
    Posts
    9,351

    Re: Should an American citizen have the right to own a fully automatic assault rifle?

    Quote Originally Posted by Krhazy View Post
    No. These are war weapons, not recreational or self-defense weapons. If you permit AK-47s and M-16s, why not permit people to build their own explosives? Make their own tear gas?
    This is an interesting point actually. I think I'm going to start another poll on this so as not to derail the thread.
    If you build a man a fire, he'll be warm for a day.

    If you set a man on fire, he'll be warm for the rest of his life.

  8. #28
    Professor

    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Last Seen
    03-23-13 @ 02:33 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    1,265

    Re: Should an American citizen have the right to own a fully automatic assault rifle?

    Just kinda wonder if I'm missing something here ? I don't think just “anyone” can own a fully automatic weapon as it stands now .. Here is what I'm finding about ownership of a fully auto weapon ..



    There are currently 37 states here in the U.S. that allow the possession of automatic weapons. The requirements are that you submit an application to BATFE (Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco &, Firearms & Explosives. As part of that application a complete criminal background investigation is done and you must submit a set of current fingerprints as part of the process.(Finger Prints fee's vary from $15-$20 depending on the state of residence)

    Once approved, you will be required to pay a one-time fee of $200 for a
    Federal Tax Stamp per weapon (There are NO, REPEAT NO additional FEE'S,Dealer's Licenses or anything additional required!!)

    With the GCA of 1986 (Gun Control Act) Civilians are not allowed to posess fully automatic weapons unless they were manufactured prior to 1986. The weapons manufactured before 1986 are "Grandfathered" meaning they can still be LEGALLY transfered thru a licensed/bonded Class III NFA Weapons Dealer.NO fully automatic weapons made after 1968 are legal for civilians to own or possess.

    Am I wrong and missing something ?

    Now on to the 2nd amendment, I think people are forgetting the time it was written, back then armed citizens would have been a very formidable force against an overbearing government. Then take into consideration of why this country was founded in the first place ...... wasn't it get away from such a government? So wouldn't it be logical to assume that our fore-fathers in writing the constitution were doing so to protect the citizens from a government that could become like the one we fled ?

    Last edited by The Barbarian; 10-08-11 at 07:54 AM.

  9. #29
    Equal Opportunity Hater
    obvious Child's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    0.0, -2.3 on the Political Compass
    Last Seen
    12-09-14 @ 11:36 PM
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    19,883

    Re: Should an American citizen have the right to own a fully automatic assault rifle?

    Quote Originally Posted by obvious Child View Post
    Honestly, if you need an AK to hunt......you're a pretty ****** hunter. Spray and pray anyone?

    Furthermore, an AK is really not the best defense weapon in close quarters. You're better off buying a civilian P90. Compact, light, sufficient stopping power against non-armored opponents, easy to sight, easy to shoot.
    Speaking of the PS90....

    PS90 Standard Black

    Go to "dealers" and plug in your zipcode. I found a store selling to civilians within 10 miles of me!
    "If your opponent is of choleric temperament, seek to irritate him." - Sun Tzu

  10. #30
    Baby Eating Monster
    Korimyr the Rat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Laramie, WY
    Last Seen
    11-23-17 @ 02:02 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Left
    Posts
    18,709
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Should an American citizen have the right to own a fully automatic assault rifle?

    Quote Originally Posted by obvious Child View Post
    That's not how it's going to work. They're going to come for your homes and families first. That's somewhat how a civil war works when one side is massively Superior in weapons. Basically force asymmetrical forces to defend positions that they choose, rather than what the asymmetrical force chooses. Furthermore, to actually overthrow the government, you're going to eventually have to neutralize those units. Can't do that with automatic weapons.
    I'm not intimately familiar with insurgency and counterinsurgency strategy, unfortunately. I'm a weapons and tactics guy; I know a lot more about how to do damage than where. But one thing that I have observed about guerrilla warfare, just from watching the news, is that guerrillas are willing to eat a lot more casualties than formal militaries and the occupying power always does far, far more damage to the civilian population than it does to the guerrillas themselves. Guerrilla wars are fought on the field of public opinion and all of the devastating tactics you describe are things that cause horrific amounts of damage to civilians.

    Remember, we're talking about a country that gets its panties in a bunch when we waste enemy civilians.

    Quote Originally Posted by obvious Child View Post
    If this is the ideology behind the 2nd amendment, we're better off simply banning guns to force the people to ensure that their government never gets to that point rather then rely on some asinine hope to overthrow a government that never should have been allowed to get that bad in the first place.
    Well, honestly, I don't care about the 2nd Amendment and I don't approve of loose talk about treason. I just believe that everyone should be as well-armed as they feel they need to be and that the decision to go to war should be as much of a personal decision as it is a collective decision. Who a man takes up arms for or against is between him and his gods.

    Quote Originally Posted by obvious Child View Post
    A more reasonable and logical view behind the right to bear arms is to defend one's self and property and to provide for one's livelihood if necessary. If our right to bear arms was meant to overthrow the government, we wouldn't need a military as our civilian weapons would be enough to kick out invaders.
    Fair enough. I'm inclined to agree with you on this point, but I consider warfare a part of a man's livelihood.

    Quote Originally Posted by Proud South Korean View Post
    Attacking supply lines and dumps aren't easy as one imagine. They are guarded too, you know
    I'm not saying it's easy. I'm saying it's doable. I'm very proud of our military, I have a lot of respect for their professionalism, and I'm not ashamed to admit that if I took a run at them I would almost certainly die.

    Quote Originally Posted by obvious Child View Post
    Honestly, if you need an AK to hunt......you're a pretty ****** hunter. Spray and pray anyone?
    The AK is a perfectly reasonable hunting rifle in semi-auto mode.

    Quote Originally Posted by obvious Child View Post
    Furthermore, an AK is really not the best defense weapon in close quarters. You're better off buying a civilian P90. Compact, light, sufficient stopping power against non-armored opponents, easy to sight, easy to shoot.
    Yeah. I wouldn't use a rifle of any kind for home defense. On the other hand, I prefer shotguns to pistols for sheer stopping power.

Page 3 of 18 FirstFirst 1234513 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •