• 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

TurtleDude said:
my bright line common sense view-if civilian cops can use it in CIVILIAN neighborhoods, etc, than lawful CIVILIANS ought to be able to own the same or similar firearms in their homes for lawful use in emergencies or on proper ranges etc
Click to expand...

I used to think that, but now my position is cops should be limited to what firearms civilians can own(without any special permits). Make the gun grabbing scum take firearms out of police hands and still try and pretend it's really about safety.
 
TurtleDude said:
my bright line common sense view-if civilian cops can use it in CIVILIAN neighborhoods, etc, than lawful CIVILIANS ought to be able to own the same or similar firearms in their homes for lawful use in emergencies or on proper ranges etc
Click to expand...

That is not a good criteria. Civilians should have unlimited access to any and all firearms, and it is the police and the military who should be using a subset of those firearms. Not the reverse. If I were restricted to only those firearms that law enforcement uses, I would consider that an infringement. Nobody in law enforcement would ever use a Remington .458 Win. Mag., but I have.
 
Chillfolks said:
Too bad so many people want to restrict that right to people who wish to live in an environment that allows for owning many of the firearms we see people trying to outlaw
Click to expand...

Cheer up - you can always find your own island.
 
KevinKohler said:
I hope so. Their last one was a mess, did a piss poor job, which resulted in every state having to set their own deal...
Click to expand...

We need a national law that applies everywhere in the USA.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
Unless, of course, that upsets some folks and they run to a judge to get that law deemed unconstitutional.
Click to expand...

Well there was no challenge to the last assault weapons ban.
 
pinqy said:
But what is being defined? There are multiple laws, from the defunct federal ban to multiple state laws. None are quite the same. So what is the concept, the idea, behind the bans, and do the definitions make any sense in that regard? I’m not seeing it
Click to expand...

What is being defined is what weapons that are to be banned.
 
haymarket said:
Cheer up - you can always find your own island.
Click to expand...
No need to I live in a country that was smart enough to put in its constitution limits on the government restricting what they fear. But you and those afraid of gun are free to leave. A private island is free, last owner supposedly hung himself
 
Chillfolks said:
No need to I live in a country that was smart enough to put in its constitution limits on the government restricting what they fear. But you and those afraid of gun are free to leave. A private island is free, last owner supposedly hung himself
Click to expand...

I am not the one afraid of an assault weapons ban. I would welcome it. There is no reason for me to leave as the majority will prevail.
 
haymarket said:
I am not the one afraid of an assault weapons ban. I would welcome it. There is no reason for me to leave as the majority will prevail.
Click to expand...
I'm not afraid of ban, just think it's stupid and recognize those pushing for one are afraid of certian guns.
 
KevinKohler said:
so you consider all guns to be assault weapons?
Click to expand...

By definition they are for the most part. Weapons are used to assault people. Assault weapons is kind of a moronic term when you think about it. Weapons by definition are tools used to assault people and their property. So assault weapons more assaulting? Maybe better at assaulting. Assaultier? Is that even a word? :confused: FIIK.
 
When you bring bear spray, bleach, acid, baseball bat to a rally you've brought assault weapons. If your wearing a mask or any forms of body armor and have such weapons you are there to commit assault.

An assault weapon is totally a function of the mind set of those in possession.

Sent from my SM-G892A using Tapatalk
 
pinqy said:
That eliminates everything but muzzleloaders. It doesn't take particular skill to fire 1 shot every 5 seconds even with a single shot pistol or rifle.

I am not particularly skilled with my revolver, but I can certainly fire more than 12 shots in a minute, even without a speedloader. You're making a qualitative judgement which cannot possibly be true for all ciRcumstances.


So now you've eliminated even muzzleloader rifles


You already eliminated all handguns a with your 12 shots/minute rule.
Click to expand...

Awww...well that's too bad. Thoughts and prayers. The general point stands. Limit the number of rounds that can be fired to a reasonable amount. Limit the effectiveness at a distance. Make it hard to sneak them into places.
 
=haymarket;1070492771]Are there not experts in this matter who will write the definitions into the bill?
Click to expand...
Oh I'm sure there are experts that would just love to. California Sen. Kevin De Leon for one. Of ghost gun fame. In other words politicians that don't know the muzzle from the butt plate.
 
MrWonka said:
Awww...well that's too bad. Thoughts and prayers. The general point stands. Limit the number of rounds that can be fired to a reasonable amount. Limit the effectiveness at a distance. Make it hard to sneak them into places.
Click to expand...

Those who dislike guns and see gun control laws as a political weapon, really aren't ones who can define reasonable. If Police officers have magazines of 15-20-30 rounds, that amount is reasonable for law abiding citizens.
 
zsu2357 said:
Oh I'm sure there are experts that would just love to. California Sen. Kevin De Leon for one. Of ghost gun fame. In other words politicians that don't know the muzzle from the butt plate.
Click to expand...

Or the moron McCarthy from NY who wanted to ban BARREL SHROUDS but didn't have a frigging clue what one was.
 
Fledermaus said:
12 rounds per minute?

A bolt action can do that.
Click to expand...
With a lot of fiddling around trying to reload you might get there. If you'd like to push it to 16 I'm not super worried.

Fledermaus said:
And many a hunter shoots longer than 100 yards.
Click to expand...

There is no valid hunting reason to be shooting at anything that far away.
 
TurtleDude said:
Those who dislike guns and see gun control laws as a political weapon, really aren't ones who can define reasonable. If Police officers have magazines of 15-20-30 rounds, that amount is reasonable for law abiding citizens.
Click to expand...

No, it really isn't. There is no valid reason for a civilian to be in any kind of prolonged gunfight where that many rounds would be necessary.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom