• 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
Jryan said:
No because the sole intention of a sharp pencil is to write, not to kill.
Click to expand...

How does an inanimate object's sole intention of production have anything to do with it. You stated:

Jryan said:
Guns kill, that's all I need to know.
Click to expand...

You've given an inanimate object the ability to kill regardless of intent, therefore, I stated any object can kill to which you then step back and state that this inanimate object now has a consciousness and knows it's own intentions. That of course is ludicrous... the gun does not kill, nor does any inanimate object have a conscious or an intent. ALL of those things come from the person use the object, be it a pencil or a gun. Both a pencil and a gun can kill - it's means or intent of manufacture is irrelevant. Intent and consciousness are human qualities, therefore:

Guns do not kill, people kill. People kill other people in a myriad of ways as you well know. Stop projecting intent and consciousness on inanimate objects and start projecting intent where it belongs, with the human.
 
You've given an inanimate object the ability to kill regardless of intent, therefore, I stated any object can kill to which you then step back and state that this inanimate object now has a consciousness and knows it's own intentions. That of course is ludicrous... the gun does not kill, nor does any inanimate object have a conscious or an intent. ALL of those things come from the person use the object, be it a pencil or a gun. Both a pencil and a gun can kill - it's means or intent of manufacture is irrelevant. Intent and consciousness are human qualities, therefore:

Guns do not kill, people kill. People kill other people in a myriad of ways as you well know. Stop projecting intent and consciousness on inanimate objects and start projecting intent where it belongs, with the human.
Click to expand...

While I agree with guns don't kill people, people kill people, a pencil was made (by society) to write. It was not made to kill someone, but the gun is made to kill things (Excluding for sport because we didn't invent a gun for sport).
 
Jryan said:
While I agree with guns don't kill people, people kill people, a pencil was made (by society) to write. It was not made to kill someone, but the gun is made to kill things (Excluding for sport because we didn't invent a gun for sport).
Click to expand...

You don't seem to be getting it - intent to product an object doesn't matter. Steak knives are meant to cut food, butcher knives are produced to cut raw animal meat - it doesn't mean they cannot be used for other purposes. Guns are not only created to kill people, some are created to specifically created for hunting, for sport, and others to stun or to incapacitate.

Why an object is created is not relevant - how it is ultimately used is relevant. Get it?
 
Why an object is created is not relevant - how it is ultimately used is relevant. Get it?
Click to expand...

Though with a pencil, you can't stab down 15 people in less than 3 seconds.
 
Jryan said:
Though with a pencil, you can't stab down 15 people in less than 3 seconds.
Click to expand...

That's true... effectiveness depending on an objects purpose is an entirely different subject.
 
Anyways, like I said earlier, I think people should be able to own assault rifles under VERY heavy restrictions. My logic on this is if a shotgun/rifle (Hunting) has very little regulation and pistol has more regulations and carrying that pistol on you all the time has even more regulation. Then a AR should have even MORE regulation.
 
Jryan said:
Anyways, like I said earlier, I think people should be able to own assault rifles under VERY heavy restrictions. My logic on this is if a shotgun/rifle (Hunting) has very little regulation and pistol has more regulations and carrying that pistol on you all the time has even more regulation. Then a AR should have even MORE regulation.
Click to expand...

why, edify me on why an M16 is more deadly in a typical urban scenario than a beretta 391 semi auto shotgun loaded with #4 buckshot
 
TurtleDude said:
why, edify me on why an M16 is more deadly in a typical urban scenario than a beretta 391 semi auto shotgun loaded with #4 buckshot
Click to expand...

That is obvious, why don't they use the beretta 391 semi auto shotgun loaded with #4 buckshot over a M16 in Iraq/Afghanistan? Because the M16 is more deadly.
 
TurtleDude said:
why, edify me on why an M16 is more deadly in a typical urban scenario than a beretta 391 semi auto shotgun loaded with #4 buckshot
Click to expand...

Here we go... :popcorn:
 
Jryan said:
That is obvious, why don't they use the beretta 391 semi auto shotgun loaded with #4 buckshot over a M16 in Iraq/Afghanistan? Because the M16 is more deadly.
Click to expand...

Oops you just stepped in it

I am talking about an urban environment full of unarmed targets

and guess what, My nephew is a special forces captain. he has man carrying shotguns for use in house clearing operations

lets see, 20 rounds in 2 seconds out of a M16 versus 150 lethal projectiles out of a 6 shot shotgun in 2 seconds

You need to give it up-you are unarmed in this sort of contest
 
Well, if they are on the streets the shotgun would be useless at a certain range. Say 100 yards and the M16 is the choice hands down. So the M16 is more versatile.
 
Jryan said:
Well, if they are on the streets the shotgun would be useless at a certain range. Say 100 yards and the M16 is the choice hands down. So the M16 is more versatile.
Click to expand...

true, it is more versatile. but in many situations it is not as "deadly"

especially the situations that involve illegal killing-the sort of stuff that the laws you want supposedly will stop

its sort of hard to conceal a M16 BTW. that's why you don't hear of many cases involving people being robbed or murdered with rifles-
 
TurtleDude said:
true, it is more versatile. but in many situations it is not as "deadly"

especially the situations that involve illegal killing-the sort of stuff that the laws you want supposedly will stop

its sort of hard to conceal a M16 BTW. that's why you don't hear of many cases involving people being robbed or murdered with rifles-
Click to expand...

True, you do agree that not everyone who can buy a gun should be able to buy a M16? (I'm okay with people using them at the firing range, you go there, you assume the responsibility if someone decides to go nuts).
 
My view is this: Any semi-automatic rifle up to .50, and any fully automatic rifle up to .30. Any fully or semi automatic pistol caliber weapon up to .50. The only requirement for buying and owning a weapon or ammunition would be a license, similar to a driving license. To get it, you'd have to take a short gun safety class and pass a background check. The license also gives you the right to concealed carry.
 
Jryan said:
True, you do agree that not everyone who can buy a gun should be able to buy a M16? (I'm okay with people using them at the firing range, you go there, you assume the responsibility if someone decides to go nuts).
Click to expand...

yeah, if you are able to own a centerfire bolt action rifle (which I can kill someone at 800 meters with) or a semi auto shotgun-( like the one my 13 year old uses for sporting clays) or the smith and wesson I used to shoot my way out of a mugging, then yes you should be able to own the most constitutionally valid weapon in the USA-the standard infantry weapon of both our regular army, our national guardsmen and is used by every major CIVILIAN law enforcement agencies in the USA
 
atrasicarius said:
My view is this: Any semi-automatic rifle up to .50, and any fully automatic rifle up to .30. Any fully or semi automatic pistol caliber weapon up to .50. The only requirement for buying and owning a weapon or ammunition would be a license, similar to a driving license. To get it, you'd have to take a short gun safety class and pass a background check. The license also gives you the right to concealed carry.
Click to expand...


That seems to be a common sense rationally thought out position
 
Anything that law enforcement has, the People should be able to have. This means that the People should have automatic weapons, tear gas, tasers, batons, bullet proof vests, sniper rifles, flash grenades, water cannons, etc.

What the military has does not fall under domestic purview, as those weapons are intended for defending us from outside invasion; hence I do not support citizens having access to all military technology.
 
Temporal said:
Anything that law enforcement has, the People should be able to have. This means that the People should have automatic weapons, tear gas, tasers, batons, bullet proof vests, sniper rifles, flash grenades, water cannons, etc.

What the military has does not fall under domestic purview, as those weapons are intended for defending us from outside invasion; hence I do not support citizens having access to all military technology.
Click to expand...

I think you are referring to the swat team here. We should not be able to defend ourselves from the SWAT team because they are only called on in extreme cases (From what I have seen).
 
Jryan said:
I think you are referring to the swat team here. We should not be able to defend ourselves from the SWAT team because they are only called on in extreme cases (From what I have seen).
Click to expand...

what stupidity again. "we should not be able to defend ourselves from the SWAT Teams"

did it ever occur to you that many criminal organizations have the same weapons swat teams have

Hell I have most of the weapons swat teams have and can outshoot most of them
 
TurtleDude said:
what stupidity again. "we should not be able to defend ourselves from the SWAT Teams"

did it ever occur to you that many criminal organizations have the same weapons swat teams have

Hell I have most of the weapons swat teams have and can outshoot most of them
Click to expand...

Ummm... you don't have a SMG do you?
 
Jryan said:
Ummm... you don't have a SMG do you?
Click to expand...

No but I have a Colt 9mm carbine which is pretty similar. I can own SMGs -its just not worth the money. But I have state of the art combat shotguns, state of the art "sniper" rifles etc. A benelli shotgun properly loaded is more lethal than a SMG
 
TurtleDude said:
No but I have a Colt 9mm carbine which is pretty similar. I can own SMGs -its just not worth the money. But I have state of the art combat shotguns, state of the art "sniper" rifles etc. A benelli shotgun properly loaded is more lethal than a SMG
Click to expand...

So then what do you have against our current system? When have you ever heard of a criminal organization using flash bangs?
 
Jryan said:
So then what do you have against our current system? When have you ever heard of a criminal organization using flash bangs?
Click to expand...

I think you are not understanding the current laws

we should be able to buy a M4 select fire carbine TOMORROW that was made last week without spending 20K for a weapon that costs a police department 1000 dollars
 
flash bang grenades-we used to call those M-80s when I was a kid
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom