• 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!

The Assault Weapons Ban Is A Dumb Idea Pushed By Dumb People

TurtleDude said:
semi auto magazine fed centerfire rifles were sold to the US public BEFORE WWI. and our own government's Dept of Civilian Marksmanship distributed thousands upon thousands of MI carbines and MI Garand rifles to citizens after the Korean war. I own about 5 of each that I got from the DCM and its successor, the CMP
Click to expand...
MMMMM M1 carbines huh. Did I mention I got a birthday coming up?:mrgreen:
 
ObamacareFail said:
What the libruls just cannot seem to work out is that when you ban a specific gun, all you are doing is creating a bigger demand for it.
Click to expand...

They seem to always fail in the topic in supply and demand economics.
 
jamesrage said:
Probably a term invented by the same people who think the terms "assault weapon" and "assault rifle" synonymous. They probably figure if they attach a scary sounding name to a handgun then it would make it easier to ban.
Click to expand...

Typical liberal mentality.

Close to none...
 
minnie616 said:
The one thing the Brady Bill did was make those who are/were convicted of killing someone while using a banned assault gun during a
crime was they got a mandatory life sentence with no parole.

Because of the Brady Bill our friends and relatives know the two murderers who killed my husbands cousin with a semi during a robbery gone wrong ,we can know the Those responsible for robbing and killing him will spend the rest of their life’s in jail.
Click to expand...

What about self defense?
 
JMR said:
I was accused of lying for stating ar-15 was made more available to mass market in 1989 by jamesrage
Click to expand...

Is there some way to view the chart from say 1989 - 2018. The AR-15 became mass produced and introduced to the consumer market in 1989. So the previous 7 years would not add much validity to the quoted stats above. And the last 3 years would certainly be germaine...Just saying
Click to expand...
This is what you said in post #24
 
JMR said:
I was accused of lying for stating ar-15 was made more available to mass market in 1989 by jamesrage
Click to expand...

I cannot remember what year the patent expired and Colt was no longer the only maker. the popularity of these style rifles-fueled by the huge aftermarket suppliers of accessories has skyrocketed.
 
Is it easier to buy an assault weapon than it is to buy a handgun - and if so, why?
 
TurtleDude said:
that's based on the tired and stupid idea the passing gun control will deter someone who wasn't deterred about the consequences of being convicted of multiple counts of capital murder
Click to expand...

So we shouldn’t outlaw murder nor pass gun controls because people disobey laws? The whole idea is to reduce the number of innocents killed, recognizing that we cannot eliminate those incidents. But relax. My side has lost the battle. We can happily have our high end homicide rates, the envy of the world which has little chance of ever catching us. Maybe conservatives are right: we just might have more mental illness than other countries, and that’s where we should focus our energy. And, of course, send thoughts and prayers.
 
sanman said:
Is it easier to buy an assault weapon than it is to buy a handgun - and if so, why?
Click to expand...

well given "assault weapon" can mean so many different things who knows

one of the reasons why the civilian legal UZI carbine was imported by IMI in the late 80s was because defensive handguns were banned or hard to acquire legally in Democrat anti gun cities like Chicago NYC etc. those carbines were easier to shoot than pistols, weren't much different in terms of power and were compact and legal to buy. You can buy a semi auto rifle at age 18 federally while a pistol requires you to be 21.
 
Grand Mal said:
Ohferchristsakes.
Usually I like irony but in cases like this it's painful.
Click to expand...

Without looking it up, do you know the difference between an assault weapon and an assault rifle?

I have never met a liberal who did know the difference without looking it up.
 
Nickyjo said:
So we shouldn’t outlaw murder nor pass gun controls because people disobey laws? The whole idea is to reduce the number of innocents killed, recognizing that we cannot eliminate those incidents. But relax. My side has lost the battle. We can happily have our high end homicide rates, the envy of the world which has little chance of ever catching us. Maybe conservatives are right: we just might have more mental illness than other countries, and that’s where we should focus our energy. And, of course, send thoughts and prayers.
Click to expand...

1) we know that politics drive many on the left to attack gun owners and the NRA

2) do you believe the people who ignore the consequences of being convicted of armed robbery or murder are more likely to be disarmed by gun laws than honest citizens who don't break laws?

3) why do so many on the left push for laws that ONLY restrict the rights of honest people. FELONS cannot own any gun legally. so assault weapon (lol) bans and magazine restrictions and waiting periods ONLY harass people who can legally own guns
 
Lord of Planar said:
Without looking it up, do you know the difference between an assault weapon and an assault rifle?

I have never met a liberal who did know the difference without looking it up.
Click to expand...

I don't give a damn about it. Means absolutely nothing to me. In case you care, I support your right to own any kind of gun you want.
Tell you this about those AR-type rifles. If you ever meet me or one of my frinds in the bush and you're carrying one of those fashion statements, you're liable to get laughed and pointed at and called 'Rambo'.
Tell you something else- where I live damned near every house contains at least one liberal and at least one gun.
And just one last thing- you don't have a clue what you're talking about, nearly every time I read one of your posts.
 
Last edited:
TurtleDude said:
well given "assault weapon" can mean so many different things who knows
Click to expand...

But that's not a moral/constitutional argument - we can define what an assault rifle is - it's a rifle which allows you to fire shot after shot without reloading, by pressing the trigger again and again.
It's not hard to categorically identify AR-15 type weapons.

one of the reasons why the civilian legal UZI carbine was imported by IMI in the late 80s was because defensive handguns were banned or hard to acquire legally in Democrat anti gun cities like Chicago NYC etc. those carbines were easier to shoot than pistols, weren't much different in terms of power and were compact and legal to buy. You can buy a semi auto rifle at age 18 federally while a pistol requires you to be 21.
Click to expand...

So don't you see something absurd in that? It seems to me that the more lethal a weapon is, the more restricted it should be (ie. the harder it should be to get such a weapon). By the same logic, getting access to high explosives should be even more difficult than getting access to a semi-automatic or a pistol.

A pistol is not more deadly than a semi-automatic rifle. If you or I were planning to go on a school-shooting spree, we'd probably prefer the semi-automatic rifle over the pistol.

Therefore it's absurd that a semi-automatic rifle should be easier to purchase than a pistol. If we can tolerate an age limit of 21 for pistols, why can't we tolerate this for an AR-15 type of rifle? Or is it that we should allow easier access to AR-15 because it's "cooler" and more attractive due to its greater lethality?
 
Grand Mal said:
I don't give a damn about it. Means absolutely nothing to me. In case you care, I support your right to own any kind of gun you want.
Tell you this about those AR-type rifles. If you ever meet me or one of my frinds in the bush and you're carrying one of those fashion statements, you're liable to get laughed and pointed at and called 'Rambo'.
Tell you something else- where I live damned near every house contains at least one liberal and at least one gun.
And just one last thing- you don't have a clue what you're talking about, nearly every time I read one of your posts.
Click to expand...

I'm glad the stereotype is broken.
 
zsu2357 said:
I was sure I linked guess not. https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/...ld-ar-15s-to-civilians-for-more-than-50-years
But it sure sounded like you thought 1989 was when the AR-15 went on the civilian market. It did look that way on your link to an ammo land article with a timeline.
Click to expand...

I bought a Colt AR 15 in 1986. In 1967 or 68 one of my friend's father (who was a multi millionaire) had two real M16s. I asked him how he got them when those were next to impossible to get due to the war. Something like having "connections". that was the first of that type of rifle I ever saw. I didn't see them much when i was in College (77-81) but by the time I was in grad school, they were getting more an more popular. I bought an AR 15 in 9mm in 84 for 325. It was a colt
 
sanman said:
But that's not a moral/constitutional argument - we can define what an assault rifle is - it's a rifle which allows you to fire shot after shot without reloading, by pressing the trigger again and again.
It's not hard to categorically identify AR-15 type weapons.



So don't you see something absurd in that? It seems to me that the more lethal a weapon is, the more restricted it should be (ie. the harder it should be to get such a weapon). By the same logic, getting access to high explosives should be even more difficult than getting access to a semi-automatic or a pistol.

A pistol is not more deadly than a semi-automatic rifle. If you or I were planning to go on a school-shooting spree, we'd probably prefer the semi-automatic rifle over the pistol.

Therefore it's absurd that a semi-automatic rifle should be easier to purchase than a pistol. If we can tolerate an age limit of 21 for pistols, why can't we tolerate them for an AR-15 type of rifle? Or is it that we should allow easier access to AR-15 because it's "cooler" and more attractive due to its greater lethality?
Click to expand...

sadly you demonstrate you really don't know much about this. claiming one weapon is more lethal than another is problematic. At 15 feet, the single most lethal weapon you can carry-short of a flamethrower perhaps-against massed humans is a semi automatic shotgun loaded with buckshot. however, at 200 meters, that weapon (or a flamethrower for that matter) is worthless and a man armed with a single shot bolt action rifle will make short work of someone armed with a shotgun, flamethrower etc. my attitude-anything civilian police are issued for self defense against violent criminals in our civilian environments should be legal for those with clean records to own and acquire rather easily. when you get to things like belt fed crew served machine guns, etc, then we can talk
 
Lord of Planar said:
I'm glad the stereotype is broken.
Click to expand...

Bullcrap. I've been liberal all my life and most of the people around me have, too. The stereotype doesn't really exist, never has. It's just a cartoon character invented by low-functioning right-whingers to give them something easy for them to understand. Like the rest of the world, make it 2-dimensional and monochromatic and able to fit on a bumper-sticker and now the average low-functioning conservative has something he can wrap his mind around.
 
Grand Mal said:
Bullcrap. I've been liberal all my life and most of the people around me have, too. The stereotype doesn't really exist, never has. It's just a cartoon character invented by low-functioning right-whingers to give them something easy for them to understand. Like the rest of the world, make it 2-dimensional and monochromatic and able to fit on a bumper-sticker and now the average low-functioning conservative has something he can wrap his mind around.
Click to expand...

without discussing your politics, why do you think that almost all the anti gun politicians and posters in the USA are left wingers?
 
sanman said:
But that's not a moral/constitutional argument - we can define what an assault rifle is - it's a rifle which allows you to fire shot after shot without reloading, by pressing the trigger again and again.
It's not hard to categorically identify AR-15 type weapons.
Click to expand...
Yet the M1 Carbine and Mini-14 which allow this have never been considered "assault weapons".
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom