• 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!

Define assault weapon

vegas giants said:
It was clearly defined federal law. It could not be clearer
Click to expand...

Agreed but it's intent is the problem - to establish some arbitrary limits on one's legal ability to make a more accurate follow-up shot. The premise is that since gun type (feature?) X makes firing a more accurate follow-up shot (slightly?) easier than gun type (feature?) Y then X should be banned for future sale.

Do we really want law abiding citizens to make a less accurate follow-up shot? Of course not, but LEOs and other government agents should have that enhanced (defensive?) capability. ;)
 
apdst said:
You said "no" assault weapon ban has been overturned.
Click to expand...

And I was referring to the ten year ban that was not overruled by the Court.

Of course you know this since it has already been explained to you previously and your wrong impression was corrected. As if it matters with you anyways. :doh:roll:
 
Casper said:
So because you have not attended a meeting they no longer exist? Hmmm, interesting way of thinking.
Click to expand...

Then simply post a meeting schedule.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
Agreed but it's intent is the problem - to establish some arbitrary limits on one's legal ability to make a more accurate follow-up shot. The premise is that since gun type (feature?) X makes firing a more accurate follow-up shot (slightly?) easier than gun type (feature?) Y then X should be banned for future sale.

Do we really want law abiding citizens to make a less accurate follow-up shot? Of course not, but LEOs and other government agents should have that enhanced (defensive?) capability. ;)
Click to expand...

I dont want that. But to say they cant just denies reality
 
Casper said:
Then I would think you would be more Pro firearms
Click to expand...

Why would I be pro or anti an extremely wide variety of weapons that can be used or misused depending on the person and the situation?
 
jet57 said:
Nonsense again.

Your litmus test didn't save you from the '94 ban, nor will it save you from the coming one.

So, here's your question: which of the founders who wrote and debated and and passed the second amendment were ballistics experts and where's their well researched papers that prove what experts they were?


When you've successfully answered that and sourced credible proof of same, then we can continue our discussion.
Click to expand...

Difference is I did not own any of those scary firearms in 94, I do now and will continue to ban or not, I only care based on principle and the rights of future generations.

The founders did not need to be experts on ballistics but they obviously believed in our right to bear arms.

LOL why on Earth would I waste my time you not shown any ability to learn when others have provided you with the facts I doubt anything changed there
 
Casper said:
Difference is I did not own any of those scary firearms in 94, I do now and will continue to ban or not, I only care based on principle and the rights of future generations.

The founders did not need to be experts on ballistics but they obviously believed in our right to bear arms.

LOL why on Earth would I waste my time you not shown any ability to learn when others have provided you with the facts I doubt anything changed there
Click to expand...

(chuckle)

So the ones that invented the "right to keep and bear" didn't have to be experts but anybody with a counter opinion to gun thug BS HAS to be an expert...

The bans are coming, so get used to the idea.
 
jet57 said:
(chuckle)

So the ones that invented the "right to keep and bear" didn't have to be experts but anybody with a counter opinion to gun thug BS HAS to be an expert...

The bans are coming, so get used to the idea.
Click to expand...

You don't know enough to even understand basic principles or firearms. Let me prove that and put a stop to nonsense, answer this do you even know what an AR10 or M1A is? Now while you are looking that up look up the caliber, opps there goes your BS arguement.
You're Welcome and Dismissed.
 
Casper said:
You don't know enough to even understand basic principles or firearms. Let me prove that and put a stop to nonsense, answer this do you even know what an AR10 or M1A is? Now while you are looking that up look up the caliber, opps there goes your BS arguement.
You're Welcome and Dismissed.
Click to expand...

You've not the slightest idea what you're talking about dude. Maybe you should research what you preach before you make ridiculous comments.
 
Casper said:
Why, you are not a member.
Click to expand...

As an American citizen, I would think membership is automatic.

Still waiting for that schedule. In the absence of it, it is obvious that it does not exist.
 
jet57 said:
You've not the slightest idea what you're talking about dude. Maybe you should research what you preach before you make ridiculous comments.
Click to expand...

Run along genius, your time with me has run out
 
haymarket said:
As an American citizen, I would think membership is automatic.

Still waiting for that schedule. In the absence of it, it is obvious that it does not exist.
Click to expand...

Nope.
If you say so...
 
Why do gun people always demand that the rest of us pass a definition test before gun control can be discussed?
 
lurchadams said:
Weapons designed to kill multiple people in a short period of time such as weapons issued to the military. There is no reason for these type of weapons to be in the hands of private citizens.

It's that simple.
Click to expand...
Exactly what kinds of weapons that are issued in the military should not be available to private citizens? Should the handguns that officers routinely carry as sidearms not be available to citizens? How about the fighting knives that soldiers are issued?

If you're talking about the standard rifles that soldiers use as their primary weapon, those already aren't available to private citizens.
 
Cardinal said:
Why do gun people always demand that the rest of us pass a definition test before gun control can be discussed?
Click to expand...

Because if you're going to have a rational discussion about anything, first you've got to know what you're talking about.
 
DebateChallenge said:
Because if you're going to have a rational discussion about anything, first you've got to know what you're talking about.
Click to expand...

I will define it, but first you need to define "fine art."
 
DebateChallenge said:
What does "fine art" have to do with it? We're not discussing fine art.
Click to expand...

Irrelevant. That is the exercise you must pass before I will define "assault weapon."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom