• 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 .
So? Your absolute statements remains debunked.



Yeah okay, keep trying to pretend its us that are the cowards.

Its you that feel you need one.
 
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.

Here is the flaw in your argument. You have put forth that 'banning high capacity magazines' is reasonable. It's no more reasonable than NYC banning soft drinks over a certain size. If a crazy person wanted to take out a lot of people, they'd just bring more mags. Or they'd just plant a bomb. There is no evidence that limiting the number of rounds per mag would make any difference. Would it help to pacify some of the anti-gun people, yeah, but that's all it would accomplish.
 
Its you that feel you need one.

More lies from you. Can you quote me claiming to need one?

I want one for fun, I have no need of one for self/home defense. Thats what my 12 gauge is for.

Edit: And even if I felt that I needed one, the willingness to defense oneself is in no way an indication of fear. Prattling on about safety however...
 
Last edited:
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


Is it your claim that police have the same gun restrictions as civilians?
 
Is it your claim that police have the same gun restrictions as civilians?

when it comes to using a weapon against other people they often have more but because of wrongful laws they can use stuff other civilians cannot own. I understand the concept of estoppel is probably something you don't understand but its idiotic for say the city of NY to issue its CIVILIAN agents certain weapons and then claim that those same weapons have "no legitimate purposes" when owned by other civilians

other than to ridicule (conservatives it appears) who own weapons that you are fearful of what is your purpose here?
 
different ranges-different guns-home defense in the home-Mossberg Mil Spec 12G with a flash light, block 19 with a flash light

dealing with threats on the farm where shots of up to 800M are possible Rock River M4 carbine with a scope and a roll over Gen 3 NVD

I seriously doubt there will be a danger shots over 500m...or really even 15m. Also keep in mind I live in Florida. Good luck finding an open space that you can make a shot like that. A shotgun will do just fine. If it is outside the range of a shotgun...what the hell am I doing not taking cover and waiting for the police? lol.
 
Yes, from the poll above -

Where does it say I "need it" for self defense. In fact, what post # was that? Can you link it?

Because my 1st post in this thread was quite clear.

Of course I would, I still need one, a revolver, a black powder and a 1911 to complete my collection.

I would use it for sport, probably never for home defense. I have my 12 gauge for that.

Because if you're referring to my vote, thats a want not a need. Liar
 
why are you on this thread?


Same reason you are, to express my views on assault rifles.



btw look up Public Law 97-86, Title 10 USC chapter 18

Enforcement agencies for civilian law? No where in there do I see that law enforcement is limited to the same weapons as civilians.
 
I seriously doubt there will be a danger shots over 500m...or really even 15m. Also keep in mind I live in Florida. Good luck finding an open space that you can make a shot like that. A shotgun will do just fine. If it is outside the range of a shotgun...what the hell am I doing not taking cover and waiting for the police? lol.

I live on a farm-there are more things that might need killing then a mope

like coyotes in the horse field etc

and there are some cases where a car might be a target needing interdiction
 
when it comes to using a weapon against other people they often have more but because of wrongful laws they can use stuff other civilians cannot own.


Who has determined these "wrongful laws" under our rule of law "counselor"?
 
Recently, A Democrat senator suggested that he has no idea why anyone would need to have an assault rifle. His ignorance is the premise of his decision to limit the 2nd amendment. To me the answer is pretty easy.

I would own an assault reason for the exact same reason I would own a superfast sports car that is built to exceed legal speed limits. So that if the Chinese drilling off our coast where we are not allowed to ever decided to sneak soldiers and nukes into the gulf instead of oil rig workers and equipment and invaded Florida blitzkrieg style, I'd have a chance of getting out alive.

Seriously though, would you own an assault rifle? And if so, why?

I have no idea what an assault rifle is, but I own an Egyptian Maddi AK-47. They are far more rare than the Romanian AK's that are a dime a dozen. I also own a 5 rd and 30 rd magazine for it. By the way, the proper term is "magazine", not "clip."

Is that an assault rifle?

Mine looked exactly like this, before it was "evilized" and black synthetic stocks and handgrips were added.

maadi_8.jpg
 
Last edited:
I live on a farm-there are more things that might need killing then a mope

like coyotes in the horse field etc

and there are some cases where a car might be a target needing interdiction

I understand the coyote lol. But if it is in Florida and outside of 50...you probably won't be seein it lol. Lotta woods here.

I find it highly improbable that you would need to shoot at a vehicle. I would pontificate that decision as a civillian. Shooting at a vehicle would PROBABLY not be considered self defense if it were outside 100m...let alone beyond 500.
 
I am here to fight for truth and justice and the American way.

more socialism and more gun control is hardly justice or truth or even American

it seems that these gun threads attract several far lefties who want to hassle gun owners -not for owning guns-but for the fact most gun owners tend not to buy into the far left koolade
 
Here is the flaw in your argument. You have put forth that 'banning high capacity magazines' is reasonable. It's no more reasonable than NYC banning soft drinks over a certain size. If a crazy person wanted to take out a lot of people, they'd just bring more mags. Or they'd just plant a bomb. There is no evidence that limiting the number of rounds per mag would make any difference. Would it help to pacify some of the anti-gun people, yeah, but that's all it would accomplish.

It took the Unabomber 20 years to kill 3 people with bombs. High capacity magazines have been used in several mass murders in recent years. Its much easier to walk into a crowded place and start killing people when you don't have to reload. If it was not easier, then why do these psychopaths use them? They are not cut from the same cloth as some extreme jihadist that straps a bomb to themselves. These mass murderers are looking to shoot people, that’s what they want to do, and by letting them get off dozens of shots off without having to reload, all we do is make it easier for them.
 
I understand the coyote lol. But if it is in Florida and outside of 50...you probably won't be seein it lol. Lotta woods here.

I find it highly improbable that you would need to shoot at a vehicle. I would pontificate that decision as a civillian. Shooting at a vehicle would PROBABLY not be considered self defense if it were outside 100m...let alone beyond 500.

well free choice is a good thing

you pick your targets as you see fit and I won't have any say in that
 
Where does it say I "need it" for self defense. In fact, what post # was that? Can you link it?

Just look at the public poll above where you responded, "yes for self defense." Anyone can look there and see that is what your answer was to the poll question.
 
It took the Unabomber 20 years to kill 3 people with bombs. High capacity magazines have been used in several mass murders in recent years. Its much easier to walk into a crowded place and start killing people when you don't have to reload. If it was not easier, then why do these psychopaths use them? They are not cut from the same cloth as some extreme jihadist that straps a bomb to themselves. These mass murderers are looking to shoot people, that’s what they want to do, and by letting them get off dozens of shots off without having to reload, all we do is make it easier for them.

what do you consider a high capacity magazine
 
Just look at the public poll above where you responded, "yes for self defense." Anyone can look there and see that is what your answer was to the poll question.

How about you just look at the rest of the post you're responding to, you know the part you omitted, which clearly stated:

"Because if you're referring to my vote, thats a want not a need. Liar"
 
Depends on the gun, but in general in excess of 10 rounds.

that is idiotic given most civilian police departments issue 15-17 round magazines.

where did you get ten rounds
 
Back
Top Bottom