• 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

Luther said:
Let us




It wouldn't be like that. You think the sides would just meet out on an open field?(LOL)

Urban warfare neutralizes. Jungle warfare neutralizes

How long did the war in Iraq go?

How long has America's longest war "Afghanistan" been?(cough)
Click to expand...

NO - I think they would squash you where you lie.
 
pinqy said:
You’ve never been to Afghanistan or Iraq, have you? IEDs and AK-47s and they have not been obliterate after over 16 years.
Click to expand...

Are you under the delusion that you live in Afghanistan or Iraq?
 
haymarket said:
NO - I think they would squash you where you lie.
Click to expand...

Well, you think wrong

You see, we haven't even gotten into the desertions/ Not following orders in our military and politics that would take place if such an event would take place(wink)


Boy, This "squashing" that you speak of has really worked in our LONGEST war EVER?(LOL)

Keep the faith
 
haymarket said:
Are you under the delusion that you live in Afghanistan or Iraq?
Click to expand...

Why do you think it would be different in terms of type of conflict? I don’t seee it happening and it’s not really a concern, but it has clearly beeen demonstrated that a better equipped military cannot easily obliterate fritillary fighters.
 
haymarket said:
Yes they do. They do NOT want weapons like the AK47 and the AR15 and similar thing on the street. They do not want massive clips on the street.

People know what they want.

Unlike most people here, I actually wrote bills for the Michigan legislature and knows what goes in to writing definitions for something as technical as the weapons that would be covered by any potential law. It will be a very technical test and it will be done by experts.

This idea of posing the question now is simply one of the usual right wing tactics designed to derail the effort. It is that in a nutshell.
Click to expand...


They do NOT want weapons like the AK47 and the AR15 and similar thing on the street. They do not want massive clips on the street.
Click to expand...

Did you know that up until Aug of 2016(Not that long ago) it was the Hand gun that held the most casualties in a mass shooting?(Virginia tech)


 
Luther said:
Well, you think wrong

You see, we haven't even gotten into the desertions/ Not following orders in our military and politics that would take place if such an event would take place(wink)
Click to expand...

right... you are going to pay those people and keep their families financially afloat. What a joke.
 
Luther said:
Did you know that up until Aug of 2016(Not that long ago) it was the Hand gun that held the most casualties in a mass shooting?(Virginia tech)


Click to expand...


Please do not attempt the shoddy tactic of trying to make the PERFECT the enemy of the GOOD.
 
pinqy said:
Why do you think it would be different in terms of type of conflict? I don’t seee it happening and it’s not really a concern, but it has clearly beeen demonstrated that a better equipped military cannot easily obliterate fritillary fighters.
Click to expand...

You keep clinging to that right wing fantasy. Anything that helps you sleep at night I suppose.
 
haymarket said:
right... you are going to pay those people and keep their families financially afloat. What a joke.
Click to expand...

No, that statement was really the funny one(LOL)

I think money at that point of "chaos" will take a back seat.
 
haymarket said:
Nothing vague at all. Think the overwhelming majority of people know just what they mean when they say they support this ban.
Click to expand...

Now even YOU know you're full of Crap, lol.
 
KevinKohler said:
So you would define assault weapons as all purpose built weapons...fighting knives, guns, bows, swords, etc.
Click to expand...

If the purpose is to attack, yes. The purpose of many 'assault rifles' for example, is sport. Like owning a race car you dont race.
 
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...

Ok.

These I can reason with. I can accept that you made the 12 rounds per minute claim due to ignorance, but now you know.

So, for you, is semi auto (1 shot per trigger pull, automated reload mechanism) to high of a fire rate? Most semi autos, you can empty its ammo in a matter of a couple seconds just by quickly pulling the trigger, as most don't have ammo capacity beyond 8-10 shots, without increased magazine sizes. However, doing so ruins accuracy. For the average Joe, you can probably achieve firing, recovering, re-acquiring the target, aiming, and firing again at a rate of about 1 shot every 3-4 seconds at close range (less than 50 yards), and 1 shot ever 6-10 seconds at longer range (100 yards and greater). What if semi auto guns could be designed to not fire above a certain rate...a pause between each trigger pull...and this design feature can be removed or not included for those who use them for sport?

I have no problem with limiting the number of rounds to 10-15 per magazine, again, unless some requirement or specification is met and needed.

Limiting the effectiveness at a distance, lol? You need to think that through...accuracy is accuracy...either at close or long range. You don't want 300 million innacurate guns...
 
MrWonka said:
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.



There is no valid hunting reason to be shooting at anything that far away.
Click to expand...

Then you've never hunted larger game.
 
MrWonka said:
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.
Click to expand...

Then why would police? They operated in the areas, under the same conditions as we do...you know, our towns, our neighborhoods?
 
haymarket said:
Why would I pretend to provide it when I am not a member of Congress and they will author the bill.
Click to expand...

So talking to you is a waste of time. At least now I know.
 
Tlrmln said:
There's a definition in the proposed federal ban, and in every state ban. And none of the gun haters can explain the point of them. When asked, they simply dodge the question.
Click to expand...

Have you read them, lol? They're Aweful. They look like they were written by 8th graders learning how to write a thesis for the first time...
 
Manc Skipper said:
Two thirds of normal people not wanting them to have them seems as good a reason as any.
Click to expand...

Then it behooves those 2/3s to clearly define what they don't want the rest of us to have, wouldn't you agree?
 
Logician Man said:
@ thread OP-Define Assault Weapon- ' Any keyboard' with access to a message board in which people with differing views involving religion,politics, or abortion are open to debate. If all three are available, and open for debate, you have the 'Perfect Storm' and the ingredients and potential for making a nuclear bomb.
Click to expand...

I LOL'ed...



I knew it would get rocky here and there...and I'm trying to keep it on topic, and I figured I could provide middle ground...



But...
 
KevinKohler said:
I LOL'ed...



I knew it would get rocky here and there...and I'm trying to keep it on topic, and I figured I could provide middle ground...



But...
Click to expand...

Sometimes a little humor is good for us all. At the end of the day we are all Americans.
 
haymarket said:
Yes they do. They do NOT want weapons like the AK47 and the AR15 and similar thing on the street. They do not want massive clips on the street.

People know what they want.

Unlike most people here, I actually wrote bills for the Michigan legislature and knows what goes in to writing definitions for something as technical as the weapons that would be covered by any potential law. It will be a very technical test and it will be done by experts.

This idea of posing the question now is simply one of the usual right wing tactics designed to derail the effort. It is that in a nutshell.
Click to expand...

So, they will outlaw the AR15...specifically.

What about when a new gun is made, very similar to the AR, but called something different?
 
Shall we treat guns like drugs?

Don't focus on effects, but the substance itself? And when new substances are made, they are legal. Until the authorities find out, and add it to the list?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom