• 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 .
Thunder said:
then where do the illegal gun-sales originate from?
Click to expand...

I suggest you do a bit of research. Every gun dealer must track every sale them make, including serial #'s, for all guns received into their possession and sold. So selling to someone illegally will come back on that dealer. When doing your research, stay away from left-wing sights... it will help you.

Thunder said:
limiting your handgun purchases to one per month, doesn't mess with your freedom.

it simply slows down you ability to stockpile your arsenal of deadly weapons. This is an inconvenience, that all adults would learn to deal with in a mature fashion.
Click to expand...

Limiting purchases to one per month would have stopped NONE of the mass shootings that have happened so far. It would make ZERO difference in terms of stopping such things. Putting laws in place that do not have the desired end result or effect, is a waste of time and money, as well as cluttering up the system.

requiring background checks for ALL gunshow sales, would require all sales to go through a 2-minute background check.
Click to expand...

You really have no idea at all what you are talking about on this one.

TurtleDude said:
does anyone honestly believe that gun crime is what really motivates the far left when it comes to guns.
Click to expand...

I hope not.

This brings up something I'd like to ask the anti-gun crowd though. If somehow they managed to ban all guns, how do they think this would be handled, and what sort of cost would be related to collecting all the guns and destroying them? Just wondering if any of the anti-gun people has any idea what their 'dream' would actually entail.
 
Thunder said:
so rather than discussing the issue, you fallback to childish remarks. And you have the hypocrisy to accuse ME of diverting threads.

:applaud
Click to expand...

you have a cavalier attitude in your posts towards the rights of others. I find that a bit more disturbing than "Childish"
 
lizzie said:
I believe that they believe it. :lol:
Click to expand...

the minions yes-like the multitude of morons in say the million mom march. The leaders-not a chance.
 
Arbo said:
I suggest you do a bit of research....
Click to expand...

you failed to answer my question and support your claim.

if they don't come from licensed gun-dealers, WHERE DO THEY COME FROM????

...This brings up something I'd like to ask the anti-gun crowd though. If somehow they managed to ban all guns, how do they think this would be handled, and what sort of cost would be related to collecting all the guns and destroying them?....
Click to expand...

I take it you guys always fallback to this strawman, because you know that not only do we not discuss banning all guns, but we also know it would be impossible to do.

how about you deal with the ACTUAL suggestions, and not the fear-mongering strawman boogeyman claims?
 
TurtleDude said:
you have a cavalier attitude in your posts towards the rights of others. I find that a bit more disturbing than "Childish"
Click to expand...

yes, I want to add some convenience to your life and my life, in order to work towards a greater good.

its the same with stop signs, stop lights, traffic signs, speed limits, seatbelt laws, etc etc.

sorry for the inconvenience folks, but its for a greater good. We will all learn to deal with it like adults.
 
Thunder said:
yes, I want to add some convenience to your life and my life, in order to work towards a greater good.

its the same with stop signs, stop lights, traffic signs, speed limits, seatbelt laws, etc etc.

sorry for the inconvenience folks, but its for a greater good. We will all learn to deal with it like adults.
Click to expand...

If people run traffic lights others may be harmed from that VIOLATION alone

If I buy a bunch of thirty round magazines that doesn't hurt anyone whatsoever.

you need to start thinking things out rather than posting crap for the sole purpose of trying to stir stuff up so you can engage in contrarian posting
 
Thunder said:
you failed to answer my question and support your claim.

if they don't come from licensed gun-dealers, WHERE DO THEY COME FROM????
Click to expand...

Dude, you haven't supported anything you have claimed for almost 31K posts, so you might as well quit with that tactic. Secondly, I asked you to do your own research on that one. You will find what I told you to be accurate. Perhaps teachers from your past are to blame if you can't do your own research.

I take it you guys always fallback to this strawman, because you know that not only do we not discuss banning all guns, but we also know it would be impossible to do.

how about you deal with the ACTUAL suggestions, and not the fear-mongering strawman boogeyman claims?
Click to expand...

Oh BS. You want 10 round mags now. Then there will be another mass shooting, and you will require single shot only guns, then there will be another mass shooting, and .... the cycle repeats.

Your 'actual' suggestions have been shown to be flawed and that they would not stop any future mass shooting. Repeatedly. For 500 posts.
 
TurtleDude said:
If people run traffic lights others may be harmed from that VIOLATION alone...
Click to expand...

not wearing a seatbelt, not following traffic laws, may harm someone.

and it may not.

just as buying 10 handguns at a time may be the work of a criminal enterprise, and may not be.

just as someone buying a handgun without a background check may be the work of a criminal, and may not be.

sorry, but for the sake of the common good, or shall I say "the General Welfare", I'm willing to deal with a little inconvenience.
 
Thunder said:
not wearing a seatbelt, not following traffic laws, may harm someone.

and it may not.

just as buying 10 handguns at a time may be the work of a criminal enterprise, and may not be.

sorry, but for the sake of the common good, or shall I say "the General Welfare", I'm willing to deal with a little inconvenience.
Click to expand...

more idiocy-running a traffic light alone can kill someone

buying ten handguns alone will not-it requires some additional action )(and all of those are already illegal)

when you can come up with some evidence come back. right now you are just posting nonsense for the sake of apparently engaging in mental masturbation
 
Thunder said:
you failed to answer my question and support your claim.

if they don't come from licensed gun-dealers, WHERE DO THEY COME FROM????
Click to expand...

Friends, family, the street, borrowed, stolen. Most of these guns aren't purchased through legal means, which is why it's futile to think we can control gun crime with gun control.
 
Arbo said:
Dude, you haven't supported anything you have claimed for almost 31K posts.....
Click to expand...

that is a baseless & pathetic lie. I joined the forum twelve months before you did, so are you claiming you backtracked & analyzed six months of my posting history??????????????
 
Thunder said:
prove it.

prove that most guns used in crimes were NOT part of a criminal gun-sale enterprise. this is your claim...so prove it.
Click to expand...

you don't understand the concept of burden of proof

you WANT TO RESTRICT OUR RIGHTS-the burden is ON you to prove that your proposed restrictions will do enough good to overcome the undeniable interference with our rights

you have spewed thousands of posts and you have yet to post one bit of evidence supporting your schemes

its pretty obvious you have no real knowledge in this area. You don't even own a gun yet
 
TurtleDude said:
you don't understand the concept of burden of proof...
Click to expand...

he made a claim.

its his burden to prove it.

the fact is, the great majority of gun used in crimes that were seized in NYC, were originally purchased OUT OF STATE.

what does this tell us? this tells us that on average, guns used in crimes in NYC are being bought by assholes in Virginia, NC, SC, FL, and TX, and then brought up to NYC to be sold to murderers & rapists.

this needs to stop!!!!
 
Thunder said:
he made a claim.

its his burden to prove it.

the fact is, the great majority of gun used in crimes that were seized in NYC, were originally purchased OUT OF STATE.
Click to expand...

Uh how many laws were violated to merely get those guns there?
 
lizzie said:
Then your points are not really valid. Restrictions on legal gun owners wouldn't have any appreciable effect on gun crimes in this country.
Click to expand...

"The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence reminds us that since 1968, when Martin Luther King and Robert Kennedy were assassinated, over one million people have been killed with guns in the United States. On average, almost 100,000 people in the United States are shot or killed with a gun annually. Since guns are not ubiquitous in many other industrialized countries, far fewer people die by gunshot than in the United States. In fact, the U.S. firearm homicide rate is about 20 times higher than in 22 other populous high-income countries combined, despite similar non-lethal crime and violence rates. Unsurprisingly then, they claim that in recent years, among 23 populous, high-income countries, 80 percent of all firearm deaths occurred in the United States.

Further, research they cite by Wiebe (2003) indicates that 94 percent of gun-related suicides would not occur had no guns been present. Since keeping a firearm at home increases the risk of homicide by a factor of three, it is not surprising that guns are more likely to raise the risk of injury than to confer protection. In fact, they claim that every year there are only about 200 legally justified self-defense homicides by private citizens.

In short, there appears to be substantial evidence that removing guns saves lives. Interestingly, while the rates of assault with knives and guns in the United States are similar, there are five times as many deaths from guns. And many of these lethal guns can be obtained in the U.S. without a background check. Close to one-half of gun acquisitions in the U.S. occur on the secondary market, and sales between individuals do not require a background check.

For instance, undercover sting operations found that 94 percent of licensed dealers at gun shows in Ohio, Tennessee, and Nevada completed sales to people who appeared to be criminals or straw purchasers, and 63 percent of private sellers at those gun shows sold guns to purchasers who stated they probably could not pass a background check. Furthermore, while lethal “assault weapons” (semi-automatic firearms) have no known civilian use benefits whatsoever, the ban on their use in the United States was lifted in 2004."
Aurora and the U.S. Obsession with Guns: Leadership Wanted to Fight Political Capture | Brookings Institution
 
Arbo said:
Fallacy: Appeal to emotion.



The shooter MADE bombs, his apartment was rigged. If he wanted to make one to take to the theater he would have. The 100 round mag jammed on him. Because bigger mags do that. Had he brought 20 10 round mags and just reloaded, more people would have died as the chance of a jam would have been less. You really shouldn't talk about the distorted views of others when you are putting forth non-factual information.



I googled photos, looks like a lot of people. No doubt some extremists. But they are no more extremists to one side than you can find on the other side at an 'Occupy' event or any other numerous 'left wing' event.
Click to expand...


" The 100 round mag jammed on him. Because bigger mags do that. Had he brought 20 10 round mags and just reloaded, more people would have died as the chance of a jam would have been less."

I love the insanity of your statement. So 100 round mags are defective, but I still want anyone to be able to buy one on the internet and it's a good thing he had one ? If they don't work why do you still want them to be sold? This "slippery slope" BS has gotten ridiculous.

And I ask you the same question how many died from his homemade bombs? None at Columbine either. Guns are far more available and just as deadly.

And why is this nutcases AR-15 so much less culpable that those "evil" weapons that killed Brian Terry?
 
Last edited:
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...

I actually own 4. My dad gave me my first one when, I was about 16

2 were semi-auto and converted to full-auto and 2 are *stock* full auto

Why?...better yet, why not?
 
I will end the night noting the crap spewed by Catawba when it claims "no known benefits"

they feel the same way about all guns. That is merely the opinion of a far left anti gun hack unsupported by any evidence

of course Catawba laps that crap up without even subjecting it to any critical thought

one of the benefits-to deal with people like that if they start trying to imposing their idiotic views on the rest of us.

there was no known evidence that the clinton gun ban did anything positive
 
TurtleDude said:
the minions yes-like the multitude of morons in say the million mom march. The leaders-not a chance.
Click to expand...

Let your racist flag fly man!
 
Thunder said:
prove it.

prove that most guns used in crimes were NOT part of a criminal gun-sale enterprise. this is your claim...so prove it.
Click to expand...

That's not how it works. YOU are the one that claimed that criminals get their guns through normal gun dealers. It is your job to PROVE IT. It's called supporting your argument, you know that thing you don't do.
 
iguanaman said:
I love the insanity of your statement. So 100 round mags are defective, but I still want anyone to be able to buy one on the internet and it's a good thing he had one ? If they don't work why do you still want them to be sold? This "slippery slope" BS has gotten ridiculous.
Click to expand...

They are not defective, they are just more likely to jam. This is a fact. Nice try at an insane spin though.
 
Arbo said:
That's not how it works. YOU are the one that claimed that criminals get their guns through normal gun dealers. It is your job to PROVE IT. It's called supporting your argument, you know that thing you don't do.
Click to expand...

the vast majority of guns used in crimes that were seized by the NYPD and identified, were originally sold OUT-OF-STATE.

this is a fact that you cannot deny.

and here's your evidence, from the NYPD Commissioner Raymond Kelly

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/16/opinion/16kelly.html

In New York City, about 90 percent of the guns used in crimes come from out of state
 
Last edited:
lizzie said:
Friends, family, the street, borrowed, stolen. Most of these guns aren't purchased through legal means, which is why it's futile to think we can control gun crime with gun control.
Click to expand...

interesting claim.

got any evidence to support this claim?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom