• 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
TurtleDude said:
flash bang grenades-we used to call those M-80s when I was a kid
Click to expand...

You are comparing flash bangs to m-80's LOL
M84 stun grenade - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
M-80 (explosive) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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
Click to expand...

Alright, I agree with you their, the paperwork shouldn't cost 20k dollars.
 
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...

I think you miss the point of the Second Amendment. We do not have the right to bear arms just to defend ourselves from outside invasion, but MORE IMPORTANTLY to defend ourselves from the tyranny of the State.

If we aren't allowed to have the same weapons that SWAT has, then how do we protect ourselves if government becomes tyrannical and uses SWAT to enforce draconian laws?
 
Temporal said:
I think you miss the point of the Second Amendment. We do not have the right to bear arms just to defend ourselves from outside invasion, but MORE IMPORTANTLY to defend ourselves from the tyranny of the State.

If we aren't allowed to have the same weapons that SWAT has, then how do we protect ourselves if government becomes tyrannical and uses SWAT to enforce draconian laws?
Click to expand...

Why do you feel the need to defend yourself form the SWAT team?
 
atrasicarius said:
Click to expand...


The OP didn't include the constitution in the OP, so therefore I thought it was not in this thread. These people who are posting are bringing it in to defend their point of view.
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...
 
Jryan said:
The OP didn't include the constitution in the OP, so therefore I thought it was not in this thread. These people who are posting are bringing it in to defend their point of view.
Click to expand...

It's not about the constitution. Temporal said he'd want automatic weapons to defend himself from SWAT teams if the government ever became tyrannical. You then asked him why he would want to defend himself from SWAT teams. He just told you that. Seriously, reading comprehension. It's good stuff.
 
Temporal said:
I think you miss the point of the Second Amendment. We do not have the right to bear arms just to defend ourselves from outside invasion, but MORE IMPORTANTLY to defend ourselves from the tyranny of the State.

If we aren't allowed to have the same weapons that SWAT has, then how do we protect ourselves if government becomes tyrannical and uses SWAT to enforce draconian laws?
Click to expand...

Use a chainsaw launcher and bear cavalry.
Much more psychologically effective. :2razz:
 
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...

I voted "No." I think that owning an assault rifle should be considered a privilege, not a right, and so federal and state governments have the right to regulate them.
 
samsmart said:
I voted "No." I think that owning an assault rifle should be considered a privilege, not a right, and so federal and state governments have the right to regulate them.
Click to expand...

that sort of mentality is why I own weapons and want free citizens to be able to own automatic weapons. Those who think gun ownership is a privilege are ultimately the enemies of freedom
 
TurtleDude said:
that sort of mentality is why I own weapons and want free citizens to be able to own automatic weapons. Those who think gun ownership is a privilege are ultimately the enemies of freedom
Click to expand...

It is a privilege because if you commit certain crimes it can be taken away. If it were a right, no matter what, everyone would be able to own a gun.
 
TurtleDude said:
that sort of mentality is why I own weapons and want free citizens to be able to own automatic weapons. Those who think gun ownership is a privilege are ultimately the enemies of freedom
Click to expand...

I didn't say gun ownership was a privilege. I said ownership of an assault rifle is a privilege.

Good for you for being unable to understand nuance.
 
Jryan said:
It is a privilege because if you commit certain crimes it can be taken away. If it were a right, no matter what, everyone would be able to own a gun.
Click to expand...

gee that's a moronic definition

Freedom, your ability to marry, and your right to vote can all be taking away from you if you commit a crime

same with your freedom of association etc

MASSIVE FAIL
 
samsmart said:
I didn't say gun ownership was a privilege. I said ownership of an assault rifle is a privilege.

Good for you for being unable to understand nuance.
Click to expand...

Again its a disgusting position. under the constitution there is no difference between the standard infantry arm of the USA and a semi automatic version thereof
 
TurtleDude said:
Again its a disgusting position. under the constitution there is no difference between the standard infantry arm of the USA and a semi automatic version thereof
Click to expand...

We the people can always amend the constitution.
 
TurtleDude said:
gee that's a moronic definition

Freedom, your ability to marry, and your right to vote can all be taking away from you if you commit a crime

same with your freedom of association etc

MASSIVE FAIL
Click to expand...

Seriously?

I voted "yes", however if one is convicted of armed robbery or armed assault we should reconsider whether or not this person should have the right to own a firearm. If the US government can take away your freedom by arresting you or by executing you, taking away an armed robber's gun isn't that absurd.

Under most circumstances, assault rifles should be obtainable by the general public.
 
Jryan said:
We the people can always amend the constitution.
Click to expand...

Yeah, for example, we could amend it to prohibit you anti-gun folks from speaking freely on the topic. Howzat sound?
 
Neomalthusian said:
Yeah, for example, we could amend it to prohibit you anti-gun folks from speaking freely on the topic. Howzat sound?
Click to expand...

Or we could amend it so more libertarians could jump into threads that they havn't read. I have clearly stated twice in this thread that I think all GUNS should be attainable.
 
Bardo said:
Seriously?

I voted "yes", however if one is convicted of armed robbery or armed assault we should reconsider whether or not this person should have the right to own a firearm. If the US government can take away your freedom by arresting you or by executing you, taking away an armed robber's gun isn't that absurd.

Under most circumstances, assault rifles should be obtainable by the general public.
Click to expand...

you clearly failed to comprehend my point

the college kid claimed the ability to own a weapon is merely a privilege because committing a crime forfeits that ability

that is not a proper argument that the ability is a privilege because many undeniable rights are forfeited if you commit a crime
 
TurtleDude said:
you clearly failed to comprehend my point

the college kid claimed the ability to own a weapon is merely a privilege because committing a crime forfeits that ability

that is not a proper argument that the ability is a privilege because many undeniable rights are forfeited if you commit a crime
Click to expand...

Definition of Privilege:
A special right, advantage, or immunity granted or available only to one person or group of people.
 
Jryan said:
Definition of Privilege:
A special right, advantage, or immunity granted or available only to one person or group of people.
Click to expand...

fail

and the real fail is claiming that if something can be taken away by due process of law it is a privilege and not a right
 
TurtleDude said:
fail

and the real fail is claiming that if something can be taken away by due process of law it is a privilege and not a right
Click to expand...

You are ms-interpretting me. I am merely claiming that the government, could and should, have the right to take away your privilege to own a gun (On a personal level). IE, if I rob a bank, the government can take away your right to buy a gun if you rob a bank.
 
Jryan said:
You are ms-interpretting me. I am merely claiming that the government, could and should, have the right to take away your privilege to own a gun (On a personal level). IE, if I rob a bank, the government can take away your right to buy a gun if you rob a bank.
Click to expand...

being an attorney I see the term RIGHT and PRIVILEGE as distinct Items and when you confuse one with another I find that disturbing
 
Jryan said:
So you are officially ignoring definitions then?
Click to expand...

just the ones used incorrectly by someone who is clueless concerning the fact that firearms ownership is a RIGHT not a PRIVILEGE
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom