• 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 .
TurtleDude said:
that is idiotic given most civilian police departments issue 15-17 round magazines.

where did you get ten rounds
Click to expand...

Same reason there are 10 commandments, its a nice round number; Sounds official. Hurray for marketing.
 
10 rounds was the limit while the Federal Assault Weapons ban was in effect, and a few states that still have a capacity limit generally limit them to about 10 rounds. It depends on the gun though, for a .22 it would not be unheard of getting off that many shots within a few minutes squirrel hunting. However, that would be unheard off for 7mm mag in the deer woods.
 
Last edited:
SouthernDemocrat said:
10 rounds was the limit while the Federal Assault Weapons ban was in effect, and a few states that still have a capacity limit generally limit them to about 10 rounds.
Click to expand...

and it was proven that 10 rounds was pulled out of some dem politician's butt-it had no basis in evidence of criminal misuse etc

its just something that was made up and the minute it passed gun haters wanted to go down to 6

if a city issues cops 17 round magazines other civilians should not be limited to anything less

now that is a really sound limit if people like you engage in the idiocy of thinking magazine bans will decrease crime
 
SouthernDemocrat said:
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.
Click to expand...

Mass murderer in Atlanta some time ago killed several people with a hammer and some kitchen knives.

The bombing of the Murrah building, using a fertilizer bomb.

The single biggest killer weapon in modern memory was three jetliners that killed 3000 people in America.


In any case, banning hi-cap mags won't work there are too many millions of the things floating around already. I've got a couple dozen myself (got a bulk discount deal I couldn't resist).
 
SouthernDemocrat said:
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.
Click to expand...

The Unabomber had specific individual targets, he wasn't going for mass kill. McVey however took out quite a few folks with LEGAL fertilizer. Another fellow almost took out many thousands with ricin he was making from LEGAL castor beans. Thank goodness they caught the goober (mostly by accident) before he got to the local water supply.

I could, but won't, list a 100 different ways to mass kill without using a firearm. We have lots of them, so folks go that way. But without them, it'd be something else for the mass kill set. And btw, for the determined mass murderer, firearms aren't all that difficult to make.

Reagrdless, what you're ignoring is that the only reason the theatre shooter didn't have a greater death toll is BECAUSE he was using a high capacity magazine. They jam. It's common. Had he been using the magazines you want to restrict everyone to, he could very well have taken out much more of the crowd.
 
TurtleDude said:
and it was proven that 10 rounds was pulled out of some dem politician's butt-it had no basis in evidence of criminal misuse etc

its just something that was made up and the minute it passed gun haters wanted to go down to 6

if a city issues cops 17 round magazines other civilians should not be limited to anything less

now that is a really sound limit if people like you engage in the idiocy of thinking magazine bans will decrease crime
Click to expand...

If you don't think that smaller magazines would reduce the number of people killed in a mass murder then you are delusional. Moreover, if you want to carry the 17 rounds a cop does, then become a cop and do the job they do.
 
SouthernDemocrat said:
10 rounds was the limit while the Federal Assault Weapons ban was in effect, and a few states that still have a capacity limit generally limit them to about 10 rounds. It depends on the gun though, for a .22 it would not be unheard of getting off that many shots within a few minutes squirrel hunting. However, that would be unheard off for 7mm mag in the deer woods.
Click to expand...

Actually not true. I bought 30 round mags DURING the AWB, and I did it legally.

How? Millions of the things were "grandfathered in" because they were already imported or manufactured and sitting in a warehouse for later sale. As long as they were manufactured prior to the ban they were legal to buy and sell and possess.

So the AWB was, in essence, total horse ****.
 
SouthernDemocrat said:
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.
Click to expand...

The amount of time to reload is negligible. They have those mags because they are available, and they look 'scary', if they weren't, they would have used multipule mags. If you think someone that has decided they need to go shoot people is not going to because they can't get a 100 round mag, you are so badly mistaken.
 
Goshin said:
Mass murderer in Atlanta some time ago killed several people with a hammer and some kitchen knives.

The bombing of the Murrah building, using a fertilizer bomb.

The single biggest killer weapon in modern memory was three jetliners that killed 3000 people in America.




In any case, banning hi-cap mags won't work there are too many millions of the things floating around already. I've got a couple dozen myself (got a bulk discount deal I couldn't resist).
Click to expand...

bravo something or other will sell you 100 MIL SPEC M16 mags for 1000 bucks

CDNN Investments has a deal with a backpack and 50 THERMOLD (Canadian Mil spec) mags for far less

I bought a crate of G 17 mags at 14 bucks a mag and a crate of beretta 92 mags (Mec-Gar-best brand) which came down to about what the military was paying for POS USA Mags.
 
SouthernDemocrat said:
10 rounds was the limit while the Federal Assault Weapons ban was in effect, and a few states that still have a capacity limit generally limit them to about 10 rounds. It depends on the gun though, for a .22 it would not be unheard of getting off that many shots within a few minutes squirrel hunting. However, that would be unheard off for 7mm mag in the deer woods.
Click to expand...

You do understand that during the AWB it wasn't illegal to possess or use a high capacity magazine, it was only illegal to manufacture or sell one that was made post ban. So if it was manufactured pre-ban, it was legal to sell. Just like any weapon manufactured pre-ban. It didn't make these guns "illegal" to own or use, only to sell. All were legal to use. It just drove the price of high capacity magazines up as the volume was reduced artificially by the stupid ban.

There are a lot of misunderstandings about the AWB.
 
dontworrybehappy said:
You do understand that during the AWB it wasn't illegal to possess or use a high capacity magazine, it was only illegal to manufacture or sell one that was made post ban? So if it was manufactured pre-ban, it was legal to sell. Just like any weapon manufactured pre-ban. It didn't make these guns "illegal" to own or use, only to sell. All were legal to use. It just drove the price of high capacity magazines up as the volume was reduced artificially by the stupid ban.

There are a lot of misunderstandings about the AWB.
Click to expand...

It seems like misunderstandings and ignorance are all we can expect from the prohibition crowd.
 
Thunder said:
are you saying we should be prepared for a shoot-out with the police?
Click to expand...

what is your posting purpose thunder? you ask idiotic questions that you cannot honestly believe are relevant or accurately express the sentiments of the person you are pestering with your idiotic queries. IF A GOVERNMENT HAS DECREED THAT A 17 shot magazine is SUITABLE FOR CIVILIANS TO USE FOR SELF DEFENSE than OBVIOUSLY those magazines are equally suitable for other CIVILIANS TO USE FOR SELF DEFENSE

when I shot a mugger the DA said-why did you have a smith and wesson. Answer-because the cops in my town carry them so I figured it was a good choice

DA--Good answer son-good answer
 
friday said:
Seriously though, would you own an assault rifle? And if so, why?
Click to expand...
Stable platform, relatively low recoil (depending on what you get), light weight (also dependent on what you get), the design of the "assault rifle" pushes the rifle straight back into the shoulder pocket, and not upward like more traditionally shaped rifles making a follow up shot quicker. Critical during certain shooting sports, and marmot hunting. Capacity is dependent on the magazine, more rounds means more time shooting that reloading, plus the amount of accessories and optics are near infinite. It's not my preferred rifle type, but I can definitely see its advantages for sport and hunting.
 
Last edited:
SouthernDemocrat said:
If you don't think that smaller magazines would reduce the number of people killed in a mass murder then you are delusional. Moreover, if you want to carry the 17 rounds a cop does, then become a cop and do the job they do.
Click to expand...

How about you do what nobody else in our history has been able to do, and provide some empirical evidence that reducing mag capacity would have reduced the deaths in any of the previous mass murders.
 
This thread is emblematic of why gun control of any kind, even perfectly sensible forms of it, is a political loser for almost any politician. Here I have been roped into arguing this all evening long and its not even an issue I really care about that much. However, those that do care about having as little restrictions as possible on firearms purchases and ownership care a lot about this issue.

My point is, that most people feel the same way I do on it. They are against gun control in general, but they believe that it should be harder for a mental case to buy one and that you probably should not be able to buy 100 round magazines. However, they are not passionate about the issue, while the other side is super passionate about it. This is why I avoid abortion threads too, its pointless to get into arguments about something you really don’t even give a **** about when the other side would give up a testicle if that’s what it took to win.
 
Last edited:
SouthernDemocrat said:
If you don't think that smaller magazines would reduce the number of people killed in a mass murder then you are delusional. Moreover, if you want to carry the 17 rounds a cop does, then become a cop and do the job they do.
Click to expand...

If you think prohibition works, you're delusional.

Statements like the bold are no less delusional than the fantasy that "if there were no guns there'd be no shootings."
 
SouthernDemocrat said:
This thread is emblematic of why gun control of any kind, even perfectly sensible forms of it, is a political loser for almost any politician. Here I have been roped into arguing this all evening long and its not even an issue I really care about that much. However, those that do care about having as little restrictions as possible on firearms purchases and ownership care a lot about this issue.

My point is, that most people feel the same way I do on it. They are against gun control in general, but they believe that it should be harder for a mental case to buy one and that you probably should not be able to buy 100 round magazines. However, they are not passionate about the issue, while the other side is super passionate about it. This is why I avoid abortion threads too, its pointless to get into arguments about something you really don’t even give a **** about when the other side would give up a testicle if that’s what it took to win.
Click to expand...

Appeal to population is a logical fallacy, and though we live in a democracy our rights, especially those that "shall not be infringed" should never be voted away. In fact that's the whole point of constitutionality.

Its a political loser for the same reasons the War on Drugs is a loser. Show me a political loser, and I'll show you a loser.
 
SouthernDemocrat said:
This thread is emblematic of why gun control of any kind, even perfectly sensible forms of it, is a political loser for almost any politician. Here I have been roped into arguing this all evening long and its not even an issue I really care about that much.
Click to expand...

Or perhaps it's because the 'sensible' solutions you and the anti-gun people put forth have been shown again and again to have no effect on crazies.
 
SouthernDemocrat said:
If you don't think that smaller magazines would reduce the number of people killed in a mass murder then you are delusional. Moreover, if you want to carry the 17 rounds a cop does, then become a cop and do the job they do.
Click to expand...

Been there, done that. IF the day ever comes that scumbags kick my door in the middle of the night (and it happens somewhere every night), I don't want the ammo capacity of my weapon arbitrarily limited by some politician or some well-intentioned but misguided do-gooder who fails to realize why his idea won't really help.


Rights, especially those specifically enumerated in the BoR, should not be infringed unless a law can stand the test of Strict Scrutiny: Absolutely necessary purpose, narrowly focused on a specific issue, and the least restrictive means possible of achieving the end in question. Mag cap limits do not meet those tests.
 
Lokiate said:
Stable platform, relatively low recoil (depending on what you get), light weight (also dependent on what you get), the design of the "assault rifle" pushes the rifle straight forward, and not upward like more traditionally shaped rifles making a follow up shot quicker. Critical during certain shooting sports, and marmot hunting. Capacity is dependent on the magazine, more rounds means more time shooting that reloading, plus the amount of accessories and optics are near infinite. It's not my preferred rifle type, but I can definitely see its advantages for sport and hunting.
Click to expand...

I had no idea people hunted marmots until now. That must be about the easiest hunting imaginable other than the fact you have to get your self up to tree line. (i know this is way off topic)
 
SouthernDemocrat said:
This thread is emblematic of why gun control of any kind, even perfectly sensible forms of it, is a political loser for almost any politician. Here I have been roped into arguing this all evening long and its not even an issue I really care about that much. However, those that do care about having as little restrictions as possible on firearms purchases and ownership care a lot about this issue.

My point is, that most people feel the same way I do on it. They are against gun control in general, but they believe that it should be harder for a mental case to buy one and that you probably should not be able to buy 100 round magazines. However, they are not passionate about the issue, while the other side is super passionate about it. This is why I avoid abortion threads too, its pointless to get into arguments about something you really don’t even give a **** about when the other side would give up a testicle if that’s what it took to win.
Click to expand...

here is your problem

people like you whine about REASONABLE GUN CONTROL and never use reasonable arguments

rather you start that penis envy crap and then spew idiocy why ten rounds should be the limit.

then you get butt hurt when we dismiss your blatherings as idiotic which of course they are

when you then try to downshift to a less idiotic argument we have already seen what you really think and continue to dismiss your arguments which are merely a facade fro what really motivated you in the first postings
 
SouthernDemocrat said:
This thread is emblematic of why gun control of any kind, even perfectly sensible forms of it, is a political loser for almost any politician.
Click to expand...


That is extremely good news. I am very pleased it is so.



My point is, that most people feel the same way I do on it.
Click to expand...


Really? It doesn't look that way. Politicians wouldn't lose elections for supporting what you consider "common sense gun control" if the majority were with you on this.


They are against gun control in general, but they believe that it should be harder for a mental case to buy one and that you probably should not be able to buy 100 round magazines.
Click to expand...

I am fine with the first, underlined point, if we can find a way to do it that doesn't violate medical confidentiality, inhibit people from seeking help, or draw the line at ridiculously minor things like anxiety.

The second, bolded part.... well I don't really care about 100 round drum magazines, they are pieces of crap and the Colorado shooter's drum jammed as they often do. But you were saying you want a 10 round limit and I have a big problem with that. It is arbitrary; it is unnecessary and won't help; it does not meet Constitutional Strict Scrutiny; it infringes on an enumerated right in a way that is unlikely to have any large postive effect in the venue that it is intended to have.

No thanks. I'm glad this issue is a dead one for politicans for the time being... may it remain so. We have compromised on 2A rights MORE than enough already; we have MORE than enough gun control laws already on the books; what we need is criminal control and loonie control, not gun control.
 
Last edited:
TurtleDude said:
here is your problem

people like you whine about REASONABLE GUN CONTROL and never use reasonable arguments

rather you start that penis envy crap and then spew idiocy why ten rounds should be the limit.

then you get butt hurt when we dismiss your blatherings as idiotic which of course they are

when you then try to downshift to a less idiotic argument we have already seen what you really think and continue to dismiss your arguments which are merely a facade fro what really motivated you in the first postings
Click to expand...

Or it could be that you call anyone that disagrees with you on this topic at any level anti-gun even if that individual is a life long gun owner (I am) and owns a few guns themselves ( I do). I am not anti-gun, I am anti absolutism. Its obvious we are not going to see eye to eye and thats why its pointless though. For example, if you have a fundamentalist and a biologist arguing about evolution, most likely they are not going to agree on anything no matter how long they go back and forth about it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom