• 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 .
friday said:
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.
Click to expand...

How is banning assault weapons a unreasonable limit on the second amendment.

RPG are banned. As are tanks.

Why do you need an assault rifle? You don't.
 
Catawba said:
That is the legal definition of civilian. If you had read even further, you would have learned that back before the 19th century we actually had civilian volunteers serving as police. By the end of the 19th century however all the civilian forces had been replaced by a professional trained police force.
Click to expand...

Look, since you don't seem to get the stupidity of your claim or 'definition'... I'll bring it to a 'legal' level of absurdity for you... All citizens that belong to the NRA, are not civilians, because they belong to a particular group. All seniors that knit, are partaking in a particular activity (knitting), so they are not civilians. Are you starting to see the insanity of your argument?
 
Why would I buy an assault rifle?

Because I can.
 
hazlnut said:
Why do you need an assault rifle? You don't.
Click to expand...

Are you defining them as 'full automatics' or just 'scary guns that look like military weapons'?

Rights have nothing to do with 'need' btw...
 
hazlnut said:
How is banning assault weapons a unreasonable limit on the second amendment.

RPG are banned. As are tanks.

Why do you need an assault rifle? You don't.
Click to expand...

I own them partially because people who are clueless about guns, self defense and the manly duty of self defense tell me I "don't need them"

You aren't in any position to tell anyone what they need


You only are able to tell us what you THINK YOU need
 
hazlnut said:
How is banning assault weapons a unreasonable limit on the second amendment.

RPG are banned. As are tanks.

Why do you need an assault rifle? You don't.
Click to expand...

No they aren't with the right licenses and money.
 
Lachean said:
No they aren't with the right licenses and money.
Click to expand...

its too bad that threads like these don't have a knowledge requirement before posting on them. we have so many people who know nothing about Title II weapons, class three tax stamps, or what an assault rifle is but those are the ones who lecture us on what we "need" or don't "need"
 
TurtleDude said:
its too bad that threads like these don't have a knowledge requirement before posting on them. we have so many people who know nothing about Title II weapons, class three tax stamps, or what an assault rifle is but those are the ones who lecture us on what we "need" or don't "need"
Click to expand...

In reality it's simply too bad that there isn't a knowledge requirement for breeding. That's the reason so much ignorance exists.
 
Arbo said:
In reality it's simply too bad that there isn't a knowledge requirement for breeding. That's the reason so much ignorance exists.
Click to expand...

certain policies encourage the least capable to breed like rabbits. it serves the agenda of those who promulgate the policies though for it creates more dependent voters and more "reasons" for more welfare socialism
 
Police officers are civilians. Period.

They are sworn law enforcement officers who are part of the civil authority of the local, state or national government.

There is military, and there is civilian. That which is not military is civilian. Senators are civilians. Judges are civilians. Governors are civilians. Police are not military: therefore they are civilian.

When I was in LE there was never any question that we were in any way part of the military; we were part of civil government, therefore civilian.

We were armed citizens with legal enforcement authority, not soldiers.

Stick a big period right there.
 
Arbo said:
Look, since you don't seem to get the stupidity of your claim or 'definition'... I'll bring it to a 'legal' level of absurdity for you... All citizens that belong to the NRA, are not civilians, because they belong to a particular group. All seniors that knit, are partaking in a particular activity (knitting), so they are not civilians. Are you starting to see the insanity of your argument?
Click to expand...

You are equating NRA subscribers now to cops? It takes training and authorization to be a police officer. You and Turtledude may dress up like policemen if you want, and you don't get arrested for impersonating a police officer, but that doesn't make you policemen and you don't get the same weapons that police officers are authorized to use, which was Turtledudes point originally in our discussion when he said that civilians should be allowed to use the same weapons as the police.
 
Last edited:
Catawba said:
You are equating NRA subscribers now to cops? It takes training and authorization to be a police officer. You and Turtledude may dress up like policemen if you want, and you don't get arrested for impersonating a police officer, but that doesn't make you policemen and you don't get the same weapons that police officers are authorized to use, which was Turtledudes point originally in our discussion when he said that civilians should be allowed to use the same weapons as the police.
Click to expand...

you miss the point again in your haste to divert this thread

I said that the governmental units have decreed certain weapons useful for self defense by civilian employees of the relevant government agency and thus other civilians can find those weapons useful as well and its dishonest for a government that issues weapons to some civilians to say there is no legitimate use for other civilians to have such weapons
 
TurtleDude said:
you miss the point again in your haste to divert this thread

I said that the governmental units have decreed certain weapons useful for self defense by civilian employees of the relevant government agency and thus other civilians can find those weapons useful as well and its dishonest for a government that issues weapons to some civilians to say there is no legitimate use for other civilians to have such weapons
Click to expand...

You are not trained, or authorized to be be a police officer, therefore you don't get the same weapons.
 
Catawba said:
You are not trained, or authorized to be be a police officer, therefore you don't get the same weapons.
Click to expand...

LOL I teach police officers

so much blabbering

so little knowledge
 
Actually the police are Commissioned law enforcement Officers. They are not civilians in that they enjoy many special exemptions not even the military enjoy.

In a court of law one Commissioned law enforcement officer's word on events vs a civilians and the Commissioned Officer's word is accepted over the civilians.

Many Agencies grant CCW to their officers as a matter of course, some require it

In most states retired LE gets concealed carry again as a matter of course.

Except for a few old school Southerners, few people routinely call anyone, 'Sir' as much as Commissioned Officers in Law Enforcement are so addressed.

You can tap dance it if you want, Commissioned Officers are not civilians. Civilians get to run away from danger.
 
notquiteright said:
Actually the police are Commissioned law enforcement Officers. They are not civilians in that they enjoy many special exemptions not even the military enjoy.

In a court of law one Commissioned law enforcement officer's word on events vs a civilians and the Commissioned Officer's word is accepted over the civilians.

Many Agencies grant CCW to their officers as a matter of course, some require it

In most states retired LE gets concealed carry again as a matter of course.

Except for a few old school Southerners, few people routinely call anyone, 'Sir' as much as Commissioned Officers in Law Enforcement are so addressed.

You can tap dance it if you want, Commissioned Officers are not civilians. Civilians get to run away from danger.
Click to expand...

that might be the most stupid post I have seen on this issue given that you obviously believe it
 
TD, I have taught cops as well, it doesn't make either one of us special. Unless you hold a Commission you are just another civilian, yeah a born fairly well off one but still just another guy who rubbed shoulders with cops but nothing more.
 
TD, I have noticed a trend.
Some folks refuse to discuss, just call others stupid or blathering and move on.

Must be a special world.
 
notquiteright said:
TD, I have taught cops as well, it doesn't make either one of us special. Unless you hold a Commission you are just another civilian, yeah a born fairly well off one but still just another guy who rubbed shoulders with cops but nothing more.
Click to expand...

YOu miss the point. under the jurisdiction of the courts there are the military and there are civilians

state police are civilians
FBI special agents are civilians
City cops are civilians

none of them are military

they are all civilian law enforcement officers
just as county DAs are
just at each judicial district's United States attorneys are and the US Attorney is the ranking federal law enforcement officer in a District
United States attorneys (political appointees whose tenure is that of the administration that appointed them) and career Assistant United States attorneys and Department of Justice line attorneys are civilian employees. They take the same oath that FBI special agents etc take
probably the same one you took to join the military

and guess what. federal law enforcement officers answer to the highest ranking federal law enforcement officer in their district-that being the US Attorney
 
notquiteright said:
TD, I have noticed a trend.
Some folks refuse to discuss, just call others stupid or blathering and move on.

Must be a special world.
Click to expand...

and some miss the entire point because they jumped on here late

the issue was how can a governmental entity claim a 17 shot pistol is useful for some civilian employees to use for self defense and turn around and say that other civilians-who might well be better trained and more knowledgeable of the law than those civilian employees-have no legitimate use to own those weapons
 
Most people who own more guns then they need feel inadequate in some way. They were bullied by a parent or father figure, made to feel inadequate, and the fix for this self-esteem deficiency is to intimidate others, or feel like they're intimidating others--hence the dick wagging with guns.
 
hazlnut said:
Most people who own more guns then they need feel inadequate in some way. They were bullied by a parent or father figure, made to feel inadequate, and the fix for this self-esteem deficiency is to intimidate others, or feel like they're intimidating others--hence the dick wagging with guns.
Click to expand...

do you have any empirical evidence for this

actually studies show that men who whine about weapons are generally cowards

others being armed and demonstrating a willingness to make personal safety an individual responsibility accentuate the feelings of cowardice in the eunuchs. So when we see a "man" complaining about guns we generally see a eunuch who doesn't like to be reminded of his failings

so his solution is to ridicule gun owners which is a psychologically infirm but popular method to banish those thoughts that remind him of his own failings

A Nation of Cowards

Snyder
 
friday said:
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?
Click to expand...

A better question would be "Is your need for an assault rifle greater than the need to control mass murders made worse by high-power weapons that make killing humans faster and easier?
You don't think the man that sold that AR-15 wonders whether he made things worse in that theater?. And please don't tell me they are just like any other gun....then why are they so important to you?
 
Last edited:
iguanaman said:
A better question would be "Is your need for an assault rifle greater than the need to control mass murders made worse by high-power weapons that make killing humans faster and easier?
You don't think the man that sold that AR-15 wonders whether he made things worse in that theater?. And please don't tell me they are just like any other gun....then why are they so important to you?
Click to expand...


that is based on the silly presumption that infringing on the rights of law abiding citizens will decrease crime

sadly for you there is no empirical evidence supporting that faith based belief and without it freedom is the default position

they are important to me because in some situations they are the proper solution to a problem
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom