• 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!

President Obama takes the stage at VFW convention in Phoenix

angrycarpenter said:
Is that "hello kitty"? That may be even sillier than your hair splitting. I have fired both of these weapons and when it comes down to it there is no real difference between semi and auto when you have a thirty round mag and a fast trigger finger. You can quickly throw a lot of lead downrange on semi and in the end probably hit your target more accurately than just spraying bullets. After three or four rounds you are no longer aiming, only pointing.
Click to expand...





I train CQB carbine and pistol. I can say without a doubt, you are clueless as to what you are talking about.


:2wave:
 
stevenb said:
No, an assault rifle is a rifle that has assault capabilities.

Merely possessing a large magazine capacity does not make a rifle an assault rifle.

Hell, by that definition my 10/22 with a 30 round magazine in it is an assault rifle.

Get informed before you continue to parrot liberal media talking points.
Click to expand...




In NJ, that is an assault weapon. :shrug:
 
Reverend_Hellh0und said:
In NJ, that is an assault weapon. :shrug:
Click to expand...

I discount almost everything that comes from the East coast, except for New Hampshire, and Florida... The rest of those states are pretty much ****ing retarded like California and don't really deserve the air they use to breathe.
 
apdst said:
An assult rifle is anything with a large capacity magazine. Typically, those weapons are designed with a combat'esque look.
Click to expand...
Again, this is so very very wrong.
 
apdst said:
Anyone that knows even a little bit about these weapons should already be familiar with this information. It's the difference between, "pre-ban", and, "post-ban", lower receivers. Purdy much common knowledge among firearms enthusiasts.
Click to expand...
I didn't ask you to provide an example, I asked you to provide a souce that backs up your claim.
 
[quote='Smoke[MaxX]
Oh really? So I have the right to suppress your rights (2nd Amendment) because I'm scared of them? That's news to stevenb.
[/quote]
The 2nd amendment doesnt cover going to a public place with gun and using it to scare the crap out of people, just like the first amendment doesnt cover yelling fire in a theater. If you do either, you can be arrested.

Undertstand that simple posession is different than use.
 
angrycarpenter said:
Is that "hello kitty"? That may be even sillier than your hair splitting. I have fired both of these weapons and when it comes down to it there is no real difference between semi and auto when you have a thirty round mag and a fast trigger finger. You can quickly throw a lot of lead downrange on semi and in the end probably hit your target more accurately than just spraying bullets. After three or four rounds you are no longer aiming, only pointing.
Click to expand...
Sorry that the technical, practical and legal aspects of firearms are lost on you.

Not that it will, but this -should- cause you to recuse yourself from any discussion regarding same.
 
Goobieman said:
I didn't ask you to provide an example, I asked you to provide a souce that backs up your claim.
Click to expand...

I gave you pics of milled out receivers. That's the source backing up the facts that I presented.
 
Goobieman said:
Again, this is so very very wrong.
Click to expand...

How am I wrong?

Is this an assault rifle?

m14.jpg


Yeah, it is.

Is this?

FWWspringf.jpg


No, not really, huh? Although, it's a military rifle, with all the trappings of a military firearm: easy disassembly, multi-range sights, a bayonet lug, ability to accept stripper clips. It even has a single shot feature.

How about this?

M1A1-Thompson.jpg


That's not technically a rifle, but a sub-machine gun. but still made for assaulting.

What about this one?

Buffalo1.jpg


Definitely not an assault rifle.

What is the one major thing that all those assault rifles have in common?
 
stevenb said:
I discount almost everything that comes from the East coast, except for New Hampshire, and Florida... The rest of those states are pretty much ****ing retarded like California and don't really deserve the air they use to breathe.
Click to expand...

Oh, we're talking about other states now...

Well, on a recent trip to AZ, I noticed you have a little :roll: meth problem. You've got these road sings, freaking giant billboards, warning people what happens to their face, their teethe, their life when they get hooked on meth. You even have to put these disturbing signs in the shopping malls. How freaking bad is your meth problem?

I'm sure the meth dealers and meth cookers love your AZ 'liberal' open-minded gun laws. In that line of work, you need to be well-armed. Our conservative gun laws must seem so oppressive to a state full of crystal smokin', crank lovin' high school drop outs.


You don't deserve the Grand Canyon.
 
Reverend_Hellh0und said:
I train CQB carbine and pistol. I can say without a doubt, you are clueless as to what you are talking about.


:2wave:
Click to expand...

Just repeating what they told me repeatedly in basic, If you are shooting at something any distance away, after three or four rounds on full auto the recoil has pulled your aim high. They drilled the concept of the three round burst continuously .They also said that full auto is only good for making the enemy keep his head down. suppression fire. I guess the Army was just clueless.
 
apdst said:
How am I wrong?
Click to expand...
Becaus eyou arent using the correct definition?

Assault rifle
Definition
....
-It must be an individual weapon with provision to fire from the shoulder (i.e. a buttstock);
-It must be capable of selective fire;
-It must have an intermediate-power cartridge: more power than a pistol but less than a standard rifle or battle rifle;
-Its ammunition must be supplied from a detachable box magazine.
Click to expand...
[ame=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_rifle]Assault rifle - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]

But dont believe just wiki.. this is the same definion the US military uses.

Is this an assault rifle?
Yeah, it is.
Click to expand...
No. The M14 is NOT an assault rifle because it does not meet the defintion.

What is the one major thing that all those assault rifles have in common?
Click to expand...
Aside from the fact you didnt present any...
They meet the defintion.
 
Last edited:
apdst said:
I gave you pics of milled out receivers. That's the source backing up the facts that I presented.
Click to expand...
You claimed that "Most civilian variants of the M-16 come with the reciever already milled out to accept an automatic sear".

You havent provided substantiation for that claim.

You have claimed that most you have seen are milled, and you rpovided pics of some that are, but neither substatiate the claim in question.
 
Assault rifle
Definition
....
-It must be an individual weapon with provision to fire from the shoulder (i.e. a buttstock);
-It must be capable of selective fire;
-It must have an intermediate-power cartridge: more power than a pistol but less than a standard rifle or battle rifle;
-Its ammunition must be supplied from a detachable box magazine.
Click to expand...

I hate to say this to a brother Connie, but that's the dumbest I've ever heard. Where'd you get that from?
 
Goobieman said:
You claimed that "Most civilian variants of the M-16 come with the reciever already milled out to accept an automatic sear".

You havent provided substantiation for that claim.

You have claimed that most you have seen are milled, and you rpovided pics of some that are, but neither substatiate the claim in question.
Click to expand...

You said NONE do. Care to back that up?
 
apdst said:
I hate to say this to a brother Connie, but that's the dumbest I've ever heard.
Click to expand...
However dumb you think it is, its the -actual- defintion of assault rifle.

Where'd you get that from?
Click to expand...
I cited the source.
 
Last edited:
apdst said:
You said NONE do. Care to back that up?
Click to expand...
On the contrary. I said:

I have seen scores of these rifles, none of which have the machining you mention. I know none of mine have it, nor any of those of anyone I know.
Click to expand...

So, now, please back up your claim that "Most civilian variants of the M-16 come with the reciever already milled out to accept an automatic sear".
 
I have seen scores of these rifles, none of which have the machining you mention. I know none of mine have it, nor any of those of anyone I know.
Click to expand...

That makes me question how many you have actually seen. I've very few that aren't milled and none that are solid metal.
 
apdst said:
That makes me question how many you have actually seen. I've very few that aren't milled and none that are solid metal.
Click to expand...
This does nothing to bolster your claim that "Most civilian variants of the M-16 come with the reciever already milled out to accept an automatic sear".
 
Goobieman said:
This does nothing to bolster your claim that "Most civilian variants of the M-16 come with the reciever already milled out to accept an automatic sear".
Click to expand...

You've yet to bolster your claim that I'm wrong. I've shown you evidence that they do exist and excplained the difference between pre and post ban lowers and provided docs to support that explanation.
 
apdst said:
You've yet to bolster your claim that I'm wrong.
Click to expand...
I -questioned- your claim, gave my reason for that question, and then asked you to support it.

Onus: You.
 
Goobieman said:
The 2nd amendment doesnt cover going to a public place with gun and using it to scare the crap out of people, just like the first amendment doesnt cover yelling fire in a theater. If you do either, you can be arrested.

Undertstand that simple posession is different than use.
Click to expand...

Well good for him to know, but why don't you explain your position more. At what point can I get you arrested for having a gun. I've always been afraid of accidental firings or some lunatic grabbing another person's gun and shooting people with it. What if I claim that I am scared that you even HAVE a concealed weapon? Does that suppress your right to bear arms? Does my fear trump your rights? In addition, who said this person went to the meeting to scare people? I may have, but Conservatives will argue that he didn't. Since neither of us are the person in question, none of us know what were the true intentions. Thus, he could argue that he wasn't trying to scare people and should not be deprived of his gun rights.

Oh and in addition, we have two "Very Conservative" gun-rights activists (<--okay this is an assumption) that can't even agree with the definition of an Assault Rifle. How can we fault the reporter for not knowing what the gun was? Especially (enter conspiracy land) since the media is liberal and obviously liberals want to take away guns.
 
Smoke[MaxX] said:
Well good for him to know, but why don't you explain your position more. At what point can I get you arrested for having a gun. I've always been afraid of accidental firings or some lunatic grabbing another person's gun and shooting people with it. What if I claim that I am scared that you even HAVE a concealed weapon? Does that suppress your right to bear arms? Does my fear trump your rights? In addition, who said this person went to the meeting to scare people? I may have, but Conservatives will argue that he didn't. Since neither of us are the person in question, none of us know what were the true intentions. Thus, he could argue that he wasn't trying to scare people and should not be deprived of his gun rights.

Oh and in addition, we have two "Very Conservative" gun-rights activists (<--okay this is an assumption) that can't even agree with the definition of an Assault Rifle. How can we fault the reporter for not knowing what the gun was? Especially (enter conspiracy land) since the media is liberal and obviously liberals want to take away guns.
Click to expand...


Your fear of my rights, does not trump my rights.

Period.
 
Smoke[MaxX] said:
Well good for him to know, but why don't you explain your position more. At what point can I get you arrested for having a gun.
Click to expand...
Whenever I do something with it that is comparable to yelling fire in a theater, inciting a riot, or directly putting someone in harms way.

Oh and in addition, we have two "Very Conservative" gun-rights activists (<--okay this is an assumption) that can't even agree with the definition of an Assault Rifle. How can we fault the reporter for not knowing what the gun was?
Click to expand...
Reporters are supposed to fact check. Getting a fact wrong is unforgivable.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom