• 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!

To buy or not to buy...

Question: Should I get this or my daughter's birthday?


  • Total voters
    25
Are you telling me that there is no functional difference between a hunting rifle and an assault rifle?
That's exactly what I'm saying.



You can't control how a bullet ricochets.
Yes you can, don't fire it into concrete, hardwood, or ground that is so arid that it is rigid.



:lol:

When did you start school?
Age 5, I wasn't adressing the pre-school angle as much as appropriate age angle of your argument.
 
I don't think the opponents know the lack of difference in functionality. They assume that there is a difference. I suppose technically, they oppose their looks. It's the look that has them assume that that they can fire in bursts. It's the assumed bursts that they oppose. They are assuming something and protesting that assumption based on looks.

Whenever you find yourself in a debate about the AWB, make sure you point this out. I've seen people be really ignorant about guns. This was a good video. Bookmark it.
First, the anti-gun crowd doesn't care about the facts in general, like the very fact that they do not have a leg to stand on when suggesting gun control in the U.S. they have to stretch semantics to the limit in order to violate the second and pass it off as legal, so why would this crowd care about the fact that "assault weapons" their meaningless term and definition don't exist as they define them and are no more dangerous than other weapons. Secondly, it has been pointed out repeatedly by the pro bill of rights side that there is little difference in the weapons and they don't care, it's not about guns, it's about control.
 
First, the anti-gun crowd doesn't care about the facts in general, like the very fact that they do not have a leg to stand on when suggesting gun control in the U.S. they have to stretch semantics to the limit in order to violate the second and pass it off as legal, so why would this crowd care about the fact that "assault weapons" their meaningless term and definition don't exist as they define them and are no more dangerous than other weapons. Secondly, it has been pointed out repeatedly by the pro bill of rights side that there is little difference in the weapons and they don't care, it's not about guns, it's about control.

Educate them. The fact that there is no difference between those and a hunting rifle is the strongest argument.
 
Educate them. The fact that there is no difference between those and a hunting rifle is the strongest argument.

I'd imagine someone will chime in and say, "what difference does that make...they are both protected by the 2nd Amendment". This may be true, but, just as a precursor, it doesn't answer the question.
 
I'd imagine someone will chime in and say, "what difference does that make...they are both protected by the 2nd Amendment". This may be true, but, just as a precursor, it doesn't answer the question.

Yep, and the wheels on the bus go round and round. :mrgreen:
 
Educate them. The fact that there is no difference between those and a hunting rifle is the strongest argument.
For those like yourself who are willing to ask the appropriate questions, I agree. There are the agendists and the brainwashed that are quite a bit more difficult.

I'd imagine someone will chime in and say, "what difference does that make...they are both protected by the 2nd Amendment". This may be true, but, just as a precursor, it doesn't answer the question.
Fair statement. And I agree, the more knowledgable one is about the subject the better the chance of them coming to that understanding.
 
A black ...or a pink AK 15
NOT what our nation needs
IMO, this is sick...
But, then, we must be realistic......do we have the quality or intellect of people to be anti-gun, as I am ??....



Some of us strive for higher intellect, so no, we choose instead of low quality prohibitionist intellect, we strive for the freedoms, our founding fathers envisioned. :2wave:
 
You can't win a fight with an imaginary weapon. That's why I'd bring a gun instead of my intellect to a fight.





Even still with of the prohibitionists, can we consider them bringing thier intellect as being armed in the fight of "life"? :mrgreen:
 
Even still with of the prohibitionists, can we consider them bringing thier intellect as being armed in the fight of "life"? :mrgreen:

I don't know. I was interested in the whole concept so I tested the "fighting my battles with intellect" theory this weekend.

I walked up to a big dude and pushed him really hard to initiate the fight sequence. Here's how it went:

Him: What the **** is your problem, asshole?!?!

Me: The square root of 1849 is 43, bitch!!!

Him: **** off before I kick your ass, you little weirdo. [Big dude takes threatening posture]

Me: If all zips are zoodles and all zoodles are zonks, then logically speaking, all zips must therefore be zonks, *****!!!

Him: [Punches me in the face]

Me: [On the ground now, bleeding profusely from my nose] Dr. Karl Landsteiner first identified the major human blood groups in 1901, ****tard!!!

Him: [begins kicking me repeatedly in the chest]

Me: [Wakes up in hospital] Ow.



So I would have to say, that you cannot defeat a person in a fight using intellect.
 
I don't know. I was interested in the whole concept so I tested the "fighting my battles with intellect" theory this weekend.

I walked up to a big dude and pushed him really hard to initiate the fight sequence. Here's how it went:

Him: What the **** is your problem, asshole?!?!

Me: The square root of 1849 is 43, bitch!!!

Him: **** off before I kick your ass, you little weirdo. [Big dude takes threatening posture]

Me: If all zips are zoodles and all zoodles are zonks, then logically speaking, all zips must therefore be zonks, *****!!!

Him: [Punches me in the face]

Me: [On the ground now, bleeding profusely from my nose] Dr. Karl Landsteiner first identified the major human blood groups in 1901, ****tard!!!

Him: [begins kicking me repeatedly in the chest]

Me: [Wakes up in hospital] Ow.



So I would have to say, that you cannot defeat a person in a fight using intellect.

I bet that dudes hand and foot hurt really bad. ;)
 
A black ...or a pink AK 15
NOT what our nation needs
IMO, this is sick...
But, then, we must be realistic......do we have the quality or intellect of people to be anti-gun, as I am ??....
Anti-gun and intellect rarely go hand in hand, as witnessed by the fact that the anti-gun side, time after time after time, shows that it cannot carry on a conversation on the subject using an infromed, rational argument.
 
It's not the looks that people oppose.
Explain, then, how it is that 'assault weapon' is defined by and differentiated from mechanically identical NON-'assault weapons' the inclusion of cosmetic accessories.

See:
awbi6.jpg

By goobieman

They are dangerous even when not pointed at you.
How so?
 
Ah. A typo nazi, trying to cover a complete lack of sound argument with petty attacks.
That's what I was thinking. How many threads has this guy been owned on to date?
 
I have a question, what is the difference between the two guns?
They look the same to me o_O
One of them, the 'assault weapon', has a bayonette lug. Its the litle bump under the front sight near the muzzle.

The other rifle does not have that lug.

Because the one rifle has the bayonette lug, under the 'assault weapon' ban, it was illegal.

The other rifle? Even though it was indentical in every other aspect, it was completelty legal.
 
One of them, the 'assault weapon', has a bayonette lug. Its the litle bump under the frint sight near the muzzle.

The other rifle does not.

Because the one rifle has the bayonette lug, under the 'assault weapon' ban, it was illegal.

The other rifle? Even though it was indentical in every other aspect, it was completelty legal.

Right .. thanks.
You lost on after the first sentence but i'll google it =D
 
I have a question, what is the difference between the two guns?
They look the same to me o_O
Look at the bottom of both barrels, one has a little attachment on it that could fit a bayonet. That's the thing I noticed, I think there may be one other difference, but for the most part "assault weapons" bans are mainly based on a guns cosmetics.
 
Right .. thanks.
You lost on after the first sentence but i'll google it =D

No offense, but this illustrates why a large number of people have no business discussing guns and gun control -- they dont have the basic knowledge necessary to carry on an informed conversation about same.
 
Back
Top Bottom