• 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!

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

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

  • Yes

    Votes: 33 70.2%

  • No

    Votes: 14 29.8%
  • Total voters
    47
Last edited:
bicycleman said:
You can fire any semi-automatic weapon or pistol by the technique known as bump firing, and that could be used to cover someone's retreat if need be.

The art of bump firing takes some practice if you don't mind wasting ammo, or you could get your AK or AR-15 equipped with this special stock. Then everybody can own an automatic, legally, too.

Incredible Bump Fire! - YouTube

Bump Fire Everyone trying the new slide fire stock. - YouTube

Slide Fire Solutions SSAR15 Lone Wolf Distributors 9mm Carbine Test - YouTube
Click to expand...

cheap toys
 
Luna Tick said:
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.
Click to expand...

How about a tank?

Or a mortar launcher and some aerosol anthrax??

VX-Gas... Because that's what the founders intended.
 
hazlnut said:
How about a tank?

Or a mortar launcher and some aerosol anthrax??

VX-Gas... Because that's what the founders intended.
Click to expand...




Because they aren't legitimate small arms or infantry weapons. Most of those are WMD, of course. Obviously. :roll:


Let's keep the conversation halfway rational shall we....
 
Another DH-Wannabe pissing contest, giving gun collectors and great shooters of unarmed rabbits and cans a chance to boast about their knowledge of can-killing machines.
 
Goshin said:
Because they aren't legitimate small arms or infantry weapons. Most of those are WMD, of course. Obviously. :roll:


Let's keep the conversation halfway rational shall we....
Click to expand...

WMD's were not even in our founders' vocabulary. Then neither were automatic weapons. With that thought, there are those in power, who would seek to limit one's fire arms freedoms to single shot weaponry.
 
hazlnut said:
Another DH-Wannabe pissing contest, giving gun collectors and great shooters of unarmed rabbits and cans a chance to boast about their knowledge of can-killing machines.
Click to expand...

We'll arm the rabbits just for you so that you won't feel so bad.
 
OWN JUST ONE?....HELL NO!!!!

Any true blooded self respectin American would own at least two.
Can't forget the misses.
 
hazlnut said:
Another DH-Wannabe pissing contest, giving gun collectors and great shooters of unarmed rabbits and cans a chance to boast about their knowledge of can-killing machines.
Click to expand...

The fact is that the constitution grants people the right to own firearms, not WMD's, or high explosives, firearms, and all firearms should be able to be sold legally, to people who aren't mentally incapable, and or a felon, or a violent criminal.
 
obvious Child said:
Too bad that's not the topic here.

Let's review:

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

No one is discussing the merits of semi-automatic per se.



It's the issue of size in close quarters more than anything else. I agree wholeheartly with Viktyr Korimir that a rifle really isn't the best choice in home defense for the average person.



Or just knock them out with one hit to the head with a baseball bat as they turn the corner. I'd rather give them a concussion then risk actually killing them if I don't have to.



Then you don't have the close quarters issue that many of us do.



That's what the police are for.
Click to expand...

The OP stated the M16 and the Kalashnikov as the examples of such full automatic assault rifles, so Goshin was stating how Kalashnikovs are acceptable in semi-automatic modes.
The entire thread is flawed with the description of the M16 and Kalashnikov as "full automatic assault rifles". That's what I hate about people. They pretend to be experts by speaking in jargon, while completely misusing them. If one wants to speak jargon, at least search.
 
Your Star said:
The fact is that the constitution grants people the right to own firearms, not WMD's, or high explosives, firearms, and all firearms should be able to be sold legally, to people who aren't mentally incapable, and or a felon, or a violent criminal.
Click to expand...

I hope you never encounter a mentally incapable person gone haywire with a Machete, Hand Axe, or Butcher Knife.
 
dixiesolutions said:
I hope you never encounter a mentally incapable person gone haywire with a Machete, Hand Axe, or Butcher Knife.
Click to expand...

If your views are indeed true, then I hope you never encounter a ROKMC armed with a K2 or K1.
This is something honest, not just sarcasm
 
dixiesolutions said:
I hope you never encounter a mentally incapable person gone haywire with a Machete, Hand Axe, or Butcher Knife.
Click to expand...

Yep, because if a cop is confronted with this type, they draw their guns and drop them in their tracks. Yet, we citizens are faced with the dilemma by the courts on why we didn't back up, run to another room, or cower behind a table with our hands covering our eyes. Heaven forbid that we be allowed to defend ourselves from criminals. One poster says that is the police's job to defend us from criminals. Actually the policeman's job is to bring body bags to pick up my lifeless corpse after I have been slaughtered. The police are never on the scene until after the deed is done.
 
bicycleman said:
Yep, because if a cop is confronted with this type, they draw their guns and drop them in their tracks. Yet, we citizens are faced with the dilemma by the courts on why we didn't back up, run to another room, or cower behind a table with our hands covering our eyes. Heaven forbid that we be allowed to defend ourselves from criminals. One poster says that is the police's job to defend us from criminals. Actually the policeman's job is to bring body bags to pick up my lifeless corpse after I have been slaughtered. The police are never on the scene until after the deed is done.
Click to expand...


Makes me glad I live in a "no duty to retreat" state.
 
Goshin said:
Because they aren't legitimate small arms or infantry weapons. Most of those are WMD, of course. Obviously. :roll:
Click to expand...

Semantics and 'most' don't cut it, pal.


Let's keep the conversation halfway rational shall we....
Click to expand...

It doesn't say small arms or Non-WMDs in the second amendment. Right? You gun buyers and shooters of cans always complain about what is and is not in the wording of the second amendment.

You love to accuse SCOTUS of overstepping when they inconvenience you, when you have to fill out paperwork to buy another gun you'll NEVER fire at an actual person. So let's follow YOUR LOGIC...

Why then can Americans own a weapon designed specifically to mass murder a crowed room (full-auto) but they can not own an ARM specifically designed to murder a crowded building or town? Is it just a question of numbers? Isn't mass murder, mass murder?

(let the gun boys chew on that one)
 
bicycleman said:
In Virginia, the Castle Doctrine was voted down in 2010 by you guessed it, a majority of Democrats.
Click to expand...



Sorry to hear that. I'll have to cross VA off my list of "places I might ever move to".
 
bicycleman said:
Yep, because if a cop is confronted with this type, they draw their guns and drop them in their tracks. Yet, we citizens are faced with the dilemma by the courts on why we didn't back up, run to another room, or cower behind a table with our hands covering our eyes. Heaven forbid that we be allowed to defend ourselves from criminals. One poster says that is the police's job to defend us from criminals. Actually the policeman's job is to bring body bags to pick up my lifeless corpse after I have been slaughtered. The police are never on the scene until after the deed is done.
Click to expand...

+1
Awesome ....And very true.

"I carry a gun, because a cop is too heavy".
 
Goshin said:
Sorry to hear that. I'll have to cross VA off my list of "places I might ever move to".
Click to expand...

We Virginians are allowed to open carry and if you're a law abiding citizen, you can get a concealed carry permit, but in reality you are not supposed to use that same weapon to defend yourself.

A friend of mine was a grocery store owner, who lived across the street from his store. His wife heard glass break, so he retrieved his Glock 21 (.45 cal) and ran to confront the burglar. He saw the guy through the window, and he looked like he had something in his hand. My friend ducked behind a wall and ordered him to put his hands up. Instead, the guy made threatening motions. My friend fired from outside the store through the window and killed the guy outright. The problem was the guy didn't have a gun, was inside the store, and all he had in his hand was a pocket knife. The police came, questioned him profusely and then confiscated his weapon. He wasn't arrested, but he spent several months wandering whether he would be charged with murder. He was finally exonerated by the Commonwealth's Attorney. That may be because we live in a predominantly rural environment where it takes time for the police to respond, and my friend was engaged in a quick-second decision whether to fire or not to fire against a criminal with a long record.. In other towns in Virginia, my friend might be doing time for defending his store. It just depends on the prosecutor.
 
Last edited:
hazlnut said:
Semantics and 'most' don't cut it, pal.




It doesn't say small arms or Non-WMDs in the second amendment. Right? You gun buyers and shooters of cans always complain about what is and is not in the wording of the second amendment.

You love to accuse SCOTUS of overstepping when they inconvenience you, when you have to fill out paperwork to buy another gun you'll NEVER fire at an actual person. So let's follow YOUR LOGIC...

Why then can Americans own a weapon designed specifically to mass murder a crowed room (full-auto) but they can not own an ARM specifically designed to murder a crowded building or town? Is it just a question of numbers? Isn't mass murder, mass murder?

(let the gun boys chew on that one)
Click to expand...


I personally don't care to shoot cans. When I do, they invariably fly off way away from where I'm shooting, and I have to run around looking for them, almost like playing golf. So, I use the drawing module in Microsoft Word and make my own round targets, about the size of a man's head. Then I know, I will always hit my target when I center mass him. Remember those famous lines in The Patriot? "Aim small, miss small."

Here's something to chew on. Americans aren't allowed to own fully-automatic weapons. That law was passed way back in the 1930's. Now if an American wants to really own a fully-automatic weapon, he will have to buy a Federal Firearms license and pays hundreds of dollars just for that right, plus undergo heavy scrutiny by the BATF. Of course, he can always be a Hollywood producer and then get many fully automatic weapons if he wants to make a movie.
 
Last edited:
Luna Tick said:
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.
Click to expand...

Yes. I think they should be allowed to own them; carefully registered and ballistics checked. I do not think that the owner of such a gun should be allowed to sell it on the secondary market. If the gun is used in a violent crime and someone is shot with it, then I think the owner of the gun should be held civilly and criminally responsible.

Being able to sell these guns at gun shows in states where licensing is not required should be outlawed by Federal law. After all is said and done, if these guns fall into the wrong hands, they are very dangerous...to other citizens and to law enforcement.

I'd also add that the definition of a "dangerous" automatic weapon probably needs to be tightened.
 
What about ammunition, do people here think people should be able to buy tracer rounds, hollow point, etc etc?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom