• 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!

Why would you own an assault rifle?

Would you own an assault Rifle? Why?


  • Total voters
    110
  • Poll closed .
Thats what it is. I looked at the Tommy gun...but I could get the whole set up for under 350 vs 1200 for the Tommy. It took about 19 minutes to get the thing completely railed and sighted. Ive gone through several bricks of ammo...my wife, kids, even one of the grandkids. Never had a single problem. Very happy with it.

I might need to pick one up. I have one of their handguns, not super happy with it, but have heard the carbines are nice.
 
Apples and oranges. You can't easily in mass grow or manufacture a high capacity magazine in your backyard or basement, thats why the war on drugs and prohibition was a total failure. There is a reason why LSD is much harder to come by than Pot or Meth is. LSD is difficult and complicated to manufactor, Pot can be grown in your basement and Meth can be made in your kitchen.

The reasons why prohibition doesn't work are the same, and unless you can convince all owners in the world to melt them down you're dealing with a product that is easily maintained and not consumed like drugs are.
 
Would you own an assault Rifle? Why?


I voted no, I have no need. Being afraid of one's own shadow, is the only reason I can think of why someone would have an assault rifle.
 
Why not ban them anyway then if there are millions out there? If you ban the sell of them, then even to sell them in a private sale would be illegal. Most people do not like to engage in illegal gun transactions because they are worried that if they were caught they would lose all their guns, and people like their guns. So you would only have a tiny fraction of that on the black market. Moreover, everything wears out eventually. If you ban the sale of them, with every passing year there are a few less out there in private hands. Finally, being that few people had this crap 30 years ago, I can't imagine that there would be millions of them in private hands. I am a life long gun owner, yet I have never had the need or want for one. The vast majority of the people that I know that own guns own them for hunting purposes primarily.
turtledude
rather than assert that he has no basis to interject that argument
why not explain for us why his proposal is unrealistic
 
I voted no, I have no need. Being afraid of one's own shadow, is the only reason I can think of why someone would have an assault rifle.

That is pretty consistent with what I thought would be posted. That merely demonstrates how little you know about the shooting sports
 
I voted no, I have no need. Being afraid of one's own shadow, is the only reason I can think of why someone would have an assault rifle.

Are you calling our military cowards?

The only cowards here are those afraid of guns, gun owners, and would never engage in self defense because its "dangerous."
 
The reasons why prohibition doesn't work are the same, and unless you can convince all owners in the world to melt them down you're dealing with a product that is easily maintained and not consumed like drugs are.

Look, I am not for "gun control" at all. I think you have a constitutional right to own firearms. However, if "gun prohibition" doesnt work, then why do we have such high gun related homicide rates compared to other developed nations with stronger gun control? All I am saying is that the gun nuts out there have gotten so irrational in the last 20 years that you can't even propose something reasonable like banning high capacity magazines. You can't drive a formula one car on the street, but you can buy a 100 round magazine. Oddly enough, there is no huge black market for formula one cars even though lots of people love fast cars.
 
Look, I am not for "gun control" at all. I think you have a constitutional right to own firearms. However, if "gun prohibition" doesnt work, then why do we have such high gun related homicide rates compared to other developed nations with stronger gun control? All I am saying is that the gun nuts out there have gotten so irrational in the last 20 years that you can't even propose something reasonable like banning high capacity magazines. You can't drive a formula one car on the street, but you can buy a 100 round magazine. Oddly enough, there is no huge black market for formula one cars even though lots of people love fast cars.

You can however own these cars, and take them to the track. Where its safe and legal to use them. Same goes for guns.

There is no reason I can't have my 25 round mags for my little Ruger 10/22.
 
Last edited:
turtledude
rather than assert that he has no basis to interject that argument
why not explain for us why his proposal is unrealistic

1) there are over a billion "high capacity" (we call them normal capacity) magazines in the world. even in countries that ban them the military and the police buy hundreds of thousands each year. they are not fitted with serial numbers and most have no date of manufacturer (the USA ban resulted in many mags being stamped FOR LAW ENFORCEMENT ONLY-I own dozens that were sold after the ban) so if they were to be banned there are billions overseas. One of the things dealers did during the idiotic clinton ban was to offer police departments trade ins

the cops would get brand new "banned" magazines for old ones that the dealers could sell at inflated prices to the non LEO buyers.

anyone who understands the issue understands that a ban would be ineffective if old mags were grandfathered

no one would want to make owning a pre ban mag illegal-it would get lots of people killed
 
Paducah Kentucky 1997 Weapon of choice: .22caliber Lugar handgun

San Ysidro 1984 Uzi semi-automatic (a Winchester pump-action 12-gauge shotgun, and a 9 mm Browning HP in the restaurant, killing 21 people and wounding 19 others. All low capacity. Total rounds fired 297.

Oregon, 1998 a 9mm Glock 19 pistol, a Ruger .22-calibersemi-automatic rifle, and a .22-caliber Ruger MK II pistol. He was carrying 1,127 rounds of ammunition All low capacity weapons.

This is just round...I dont know...whatever...for the typical dance in the blood of the victims to pass SOME sort of gun laws bull****. Magazine capacity is irrelevant when it comes to an individual and the will to kill. Of particular note in the Colorado shooting...doods 'assault rifle' jammed and that high capacity magazine was worthless. He still managed to shoot a whole lot of unarmed vulnerable victims.
 
You can however own these cars, and take them to the track. Where its safe and legal to use them. Same goes for guns.

Actually, no you can't, not without a sufficient racing license. Which you will have to qualify for and go through quite a process to get before you could even own a Formula 1 car. Not the case with a high capacity magazine.
 
Actually, no you can't, not without a sufficient racing license. Which you will have to qualify for and go through quite a process to get before you could even own a Formula 1 car. Not the case with a high capacity magazine.

Unless you're suggesting we license people for high cap mags your point is irrelevant.
 
Actually, no you can't, not without a sufficient racing license. Which you will have to qualify for and go through quite a process to get before you could even own a Formula 1 car. Not the case with a high capacity magazine.

LOL what idiocy. race cars are not issued to civilian employees of local governments. there is no constitutional amendment for McClarens.


only supreme ignorance or dishonesty thinks a 20 round magazine is OK but a 30 is not or 10 is good and 20 bad
 
The poll should have included an option for "I own an assault weapon to compensate for my cronic inferiority complex". That was the reason at least half the guys that had an assault weapon had one for.

The problem isn't assault weapons though. Its the very high capacity magazines sold today.


Well SD, I expected better of you. It is a common fallacy to tar anyone who owns a gun you think is "too much gun" with lame, trite and overused nonsense like "penis extenders" or your more subtly rendered "inferiority complex", but I figured you as too big of a man to stoop to such mopery.

F'rinstance.... I don't own a .44 magnum. I don't care for them, don't like the recoil; I don't aim to hunt bear or backpack in Griz country much so I don't feel that I need one... my .40 is plenty of handgun for self-defense. If I wanted to be snooty about it, I might say 44mag owners were "compensating" or some such drivel.... but in reality most of them just LIKE having a high-powered pistol that kicks like a mule, and I seriously doubt that most consider it in any way related to their penis nor compensation for feelings of inferiority. Some own one for very specific and perfectly understandable reasons, like as a backup weapon for bear hunting or because they live in the backwoods in Grizzly land. Others just like to target shoot with something that makes a big-ass BOOM and kicks like a mule, for the fun of it.

So-called "Assault rifles" are much the same: some people own one for specific and purposeful reasons that make sense, others just because they like to shoot them.

Are there some guys out there with a 44mag or an M4 who have "compensation issues"? Probably. But tarring so many with the lowest-common-denominator is unfair, unreasonable, and inaccurate.
 
Are you calling our military cowards?

The only cowards here are those afraid of guns, gun owners, and would never engage in self defense because its "dangerous."

The poll did not say why would you own an assault rifle if you were in the military. It makes sense for the military, not civilians, except for those that are easily frightened.
 
The poll did not say why would you own an assault rifle if you were in the military. It makes sense for the military, not civilians, except for those that are easily frightened.

I guess you don't understand that police are civilians too

and with people like you running around and possibly getting in power, everyone who values freedom ought to buy these weapons while they are legal
 
I guess you don't understand that police are civilians too...

by what logic?

according to Merriam-Webster's, cops ain't civilians.

same with the Cambridge Dictionary.

and Random House Webster's College Dictionary.
 
Last edited:
What is your purpose on this thread?

My purpose on any thread does not change with the rising or setting of the sun on a new day or night. It remains constant.
 
The poll did not say why would you own an assault rifle if you were in the military.

So? Your absolute statements remains debunked.

It makes sense for the military, not civilians, except for those that are easily frightened.

Yeah okay, keep trying to pretend its us that are the cowards.
 
Or, another way of putting it is: that since so many anti's misuse and misconstrue these terms, either for their own benefit or out of sheer ignorance, we like to make sure the discussion is specific enough that everyone knows EXACTLY what we're talking about.


It is called "clear communication".

You know what is terribly ironic Goshin - just the other day one of the people who liked our post - Turtle - defended the use of his favorite term "death tax" and when called out on it and it was shown to him that nobody has their death taxed he relented and said that its use was still fine and dandy since "everybody knows what it means".

Why is that right for the right on the subject of inheritance taxes but so wrong in this case?
 
by what logic?

according to Merriam-Webster's, cops ain't civilians.

look up the posse committals act

why is the FBI and DEA called CIVILIAN law enforcement agencies

if an FBI Special Agent or a state trooper or a deputy sheriff assaults another citizen where are those people tried

yeah a civilian court of law

you lose
 
I guess you don't understand that police are civilians too

and with people like you running around and possibly getting in power, everyone who values freedom ought to buy these weapons while they are legal


Police and the military are part of our well regulated militia.

Having nuts running around with the idea that an assault riffle is a substitute for political debate is even more reason to ban them.
 
Police and the military are part of our well regulated militia.

Having nuts running around with the idea that an assault riffle is a substitute for political debate is even more reason to ban them.

LOL more idiocy. where in the US Code is that idiocy to be found?

the police are civilian agencies

do you just lie because you are outgunned or out of ammo in this topic
 
Back
Top Bottom