• 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!

Are These "Assault Rifles" ?

Which one is an "Assault Rifle"

  • Colt is - I mean, look at it

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Marlin is.

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Ruger is.

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • They all are.

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • None of them - they're all 22 caliber

    Votes: 9 75.0%
  • other

    Votes: 3 25.0%

  • Total voters
    12
They're .22s. Dressed up and fancy....but .22s none the less.

Try to ban .22 rifles, and, honestly, their WILL be some problems, like some avid folks say. The .22 rifle is the single most common rifle in the US, and possibly the world.
 
One must first define "assault rifle", since you have not done so, thus my answer is "other".

Colt .22:

22 rifle.jpg

Marlin .22:

marlin rifle.jpg

Ruger .22:

ruger rifle.jpg

Most "reasonable liberals" would likely say only the Colt is "scary looking" enough to warrant the immediate execution of the "terrorist" that would carry such a rifle on our streets, the others would simply warrant immediate arrest and confiscation of the "military style" (black) rifle. ;)
 
Oh, I don't know. I've "assaulted" many a squirrel with those, in my day. To a squirrels, those may as well be a 50 cal sniper rifle.
 

None of them are assault rifles.Assault rifles have burst or automatic selective firing.None of those weapons have those.


Now if you are trying to argue which one is an "assault weapon".Then because the top one pictured has a telescoping stock,pistol grip,bayonet lug and what looks like a flash suppressor(it could be a muzzle brake/compensator instead of a flash suppressor) then that would be an assault weapon as defined by the brady bill assault weapons ban. Now if it only had one of those features instead of two(assuming the Ruger .22 is a semi-automatic firearm with a detachable magazine,I am not that familiar with firearms) or more of those features then it would not be an "assault weapon". If those other two rifles had two or more of those features then those would be defined as assault weapons under the brady bill assault weapons ban.
 
Last edited:
None of them are assault rifles.
 
None of them are assault rifles.Assault rifles have burst or automatic selective firing.None of those weapons have those.


Now if you are trying to argue which one is an "assault weapon".Then because the top one pictured has a telescoping stock,pistol grip,bayonet lug and what looks like a flash suppressor(it could be a muzzle brake/compensator instead of a flash suppressor) then that would be an assault weapon as defined by the brady bill assault weapons ban. Now if it only had one of those features instead of two or more of those features then it would not be an "assault weapon". If those other two rifles (assuming the Ruger .22 is a semi-automatic firearm with a detachable magazine,I am not that familiar with firearms) had two or more of those features then those would be defined as assault weapons under the brady bill assault weapons ban.
This should be there.
 

I don't know guns. I understand that none of them are, but the M4 looks like "my idea of an assault rifle." I'm going to guess that it has all the cosmetics of one, but not the firepower. I saw someone explaining the different cosmetic parts of a gun that are the same as an assault rifle without it actually being one.

I question I don't know the answer to: If two guys come tearing into a convenience store decked out like terrorists sporting these guns, rob the store, pistol whip the patrons, are they guilty of something more because they're using those guns?

Precedent: I think if one uses even a toy gun in a robbery, they're guilty of armed robbery. Like, in addition to armed robbery, would they be guilty of something more? Like terrorist threats or something? This is an innocent question.
 
But they are all:

1) semi automatic
2) use magazines to feed bullets
3) can accept larger magazine capacities than 10 rounds

Isn't that the broad definition being used for "assault-styled" weapons?
 
But they are all:

1) semi automatic
2) use magazines to feed bullets
3) can accept larger magazine capacities than 10 rounds

Isn't that the broad definition being used for "assault-styled" weapons?
That is what the anti-2nd crowd is trying to get to apply to the term assault weapon. But your poll asked about assault rifles.Assault rifles have either burst or automatic.
 
That is what the anti-2nd crowd is trying to get to apply to the term assault weapon. But your poll asked about assault rifles.Assault rifles have either burst or automatic.

But "why would anybody need a semi-automatic rifle?!?!" even a 10/22? I mean that can hold "high capacity magazines" that need to be banned! :lamo
238525.jpg

I mean really, these anti-gun hoplophobes almost NEVER talk about the caliber of the bullet. They wouldn't know .22 from .223. So the Ruger 10/22 is no more safe than the Mini-14
 
That is what the anti-2nd crowd is trying to get to apply to the term assault weapon. But your poll asked about assault rifles.Assault rifles have either burst or automatic.

Correct. I know that. You know that.

So what's any of that got to do with AR-15's?

Only difference between the AR-15 and any of the guns in my poll is simply caliber.

(note: some of these are rhetorical questions...)
 
I don't know guns. I understand that none of them are, but the M4 looks like "my idea of an assault rifle." I'm going to guess that it has all the cosmetics of one, but not the firepower. I saw someone explaining the different cosmetic parts of a gun that are the same as an assault rifle without it actually being one.

I question I don't know the answer to: If two guys come tearing into a convenience store decked out like terrorists sporting these guns, rob the store, pistol whip the patrons, are they guilty of something more because they're using those guns?

Precedent: I think if one uses even a toy gun in a robbery, they're guilty of armed robbery. Like, in addition to armed robbery, would they be guilty of something more? Like terrorist threats or something? This is an innocent question.

In my area it would the robbery plus the use of a firearm in the commission of a felony plus aggravated assault for the pistol whipping.
 
Back
Top Bottom