• 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

Luna Tick

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 31, 2010
Messages
2,148
Reaction score
867
Location
Nebraska
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
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.
 
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.

I wouldn't make being convicted of a violent crime the only thing that disqualifies you, but yes, I think anyone who could currently own any other kind of firearm should be allowed to own a fully automatic one.
 
I wouldn't make being convicted of a violent crime the only thing that disqualifies you, but yes, I think anyone who could currently own any other kind of firearm should be allowed to own a fully automatic one.

What else do you think should disqualify someone?
 
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.

Yeah sure. Why not?

The ones I'm more worried about are people who don't care about the law, don't want to follow rules, don't practice weapons safety and just are overall untrustworthy with a penny let alone a PDW. These people often obtain their weapons illegally anyway - and regardless of WHAT type of weapons they have they're going to do harm with it - regardless of what it is.

I don't think any of this would be a problem if police (etc) did their jobs in response to things like gang violence and so on (which is what most people tend to focus on when they oppose ownership of firearms of some type). When these groups cause trouble there should be dire and harsh consequences - the heavy hand of the law should fly freely and be happy to pluck away rights from those who prove they aren't capable of appreciating them.

That - I think - would solve most of these issues that come up.
 
Didn't we have one of these threads just a month or two ago?
 
Bearing arms is the most fundamental human right. People who attempt to relieve you of your weapon very, very rarely have your best interests at heart.
 
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.

of course for several reasons

1) such a rifle is the most constitutionally protected weapon around

2) since civilian police officers are commonly issued such weapons, other civilians who have the same right of self defense should be able to use them too

3) fully automatic is used to cover retreat, prevent movement by an enemy or suppress fire, semi automatic is used to inflict casualties
 
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.

Yes. Because we have to the right to keep and bear arms and it specifically says shall not be infringed. A couples of the reasons the 2nd amendment exists is to protect us against the government and for us to have the ability to overthrow the government. This need doesn't change just because it is 220 + years after the amendment was authored. Therefore the government has no business banning citizens from certain arms or requiring citizens to jump through hoops for something that is a constitutional right that says shall not infringe.If you want infringements then go through the amendment process. to repeal or alter the 2nd amendment.
 
Im not sure on every state but you can buy fully automatic weapons. Its just really hard to get permission to own one and it should be easier.
 
Clearly, yes.
 
I don't think so but if you a member of a Mexican Drug Cartel Obama's Justice Dept. (ATF) will supply all of them you want.
 
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.

Had to put a star there. Where any* excludes those of serious mental illness and/or police documented history of violence.
 
Yes. Because we have to the right to keep and bear arms and it specifically says shall not be infringed. A couples of the reasons the 2nd amendment exists is to protect us against the government and for us to have the ability to overthrow the government.

Want to tell me how civilians owning automatic weapons will stop a tank division backed with air support? The notion that the 2nd amendment exists today to allow us to overthrow the government is lunacy is context of what the military actually has these days. Thermobaric weapons easily could wipe out a huge number of civilians with automatic weapons before they even knew what hit them.
 
Want to tell me how civilians owning automatic weapons will stop a tank division backed with air support?

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.

The notion that the 2nd amendment exists today to allow us to overthrow the government is lunacy is context of what the military actually has these days. Thermobaric weapons easily could wipe out a huge number of civilians with automatic weapons before they even knew what hit them.

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.
 
Want to tell me how civilians owning automatic weapons will stop a tank division backed with air support? The notion that the 2nd amendment exists today to allow us to overthrow the government is lunacy is context of what the military actually has these days. Thermobaric weapons easily could wipe out a huge number of civilians with automatic weapons before they even knew what hit them.
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?
 
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.

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.

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.

But they don't need to kill all civilians. Just enough to force the rest to cower.

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.

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.
 
Last edited:
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.
 
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
 
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
 
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
 
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.
 
Back
Top Bottom