• 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

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...

So, you want to ban everything but crack-barrels?
 
MrWonka said:
1.) Any weapon that would allow a person of average skill level to fire a deadly payload at a rate of more than about 12 rounds per minute.
That's the equivalent of two full six shooters. If you ever need to fire more than than in under a minute you're an incredibly ****ty hunter or you're probably not on the defensive.

2.) Any weapon that is designed help a person of average skill level be accurate and lethal at a distance of more than 100 yards.
There's really no defensive reason why you would ever need to hit a target that's more than 100 yards away from you. If you're a hunter, you're not shooting at anything that far away either.

3.) Any weapon or modification that is designed to improve conceal-ability.
This obviously causes an issue with hand guns. I would like to see a requirement that all guns or at least hand guns be required to be painted blaze orange or bright pink at the time of manufacture. I would also like to do away with conceal and carry and replace it with an open carry requirement so that if you want to carry a gun legally in public it must be visible at all times.
Click to expand...

So, you want to ban everything?...lol
 
iguanaman said:
The SC has got it wrong for a very long time.
Click to expand...

The Constitution says "the right of the people...", not, "the right of militia members...".

The 1st Amendment says "the right of the people..." and it's understood that the right of free speech is for everyone, not just the press.
 
KevinKohler said:
1. 12 rounds per minute is one shot every 5 seconds. That's slower than bolt action. So you would ban all bolt action?

2. So, all rifles? They're all designed to be easily accurate up to 100 yards, unless we go back to muskets.

3. How far? All guns can be disassembled, broken down into small parts...the ultimate concealment. How would you fix this?

Also, what about shotguns?
Click to expand...

Banning all guns is the goal.
 
KevinKohler said:
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...
Click to expand...

To be fair, Haymarket claims to have written some of them.
 
Luther said:
So it's say "Hypothetically" that our Gov turned on it's people

What kind of weapon would you use?

Pitchfork?

Sword?

(LOL)
Click to expand...

Right, I'm really concerned about the United States government attacking the people militarily. :roll:
 
haymarket said:
The law will provide the proper definition.
Click to expand...

There are plenty of laws. Pick one and tell us how banning the weapons it defines as assault weapons will make us safer. It's really not that hard. I started a whole thread on it, which you and the other gun control fans here on DP decided to dodge.
 
mrjurrs said:
A weapon designed to mimic military weaponry, with no specific recreational features.
Click to expand...

WOW...that's pretty specific. Finally, I know exactly what to look for in an assault weapon. That makes my WWI flare gun an assault weapon. Never would have guessed. But what's this "recreational features"? Do you mean like a cup holder attached to the stock? Or a built in cigarette lighter? Or a gun that also plays CD's?
 
mrjurrs said:
A weapon designed to mimic military weaponry, with no specific recreational features.
Click to expand...

So all semi-automatic rifles then? Look up the M1 Garand, most bolt action rifles etc.
 
MrWonka said:
1.) Any weapon that would allow a person of average skill level to fire a deadly payload at a rate of more than about 12 rounds per minute.
That's the equivalent of two full six shooters. If you ever need to fire more than than in under a minute you're an incredibly ****ty hunter or you're probably not on the defensive.

2.) Any weapon that is designed help a person of average skill level be accurate and lethal at a distance of more than 100 yards.
There's really no defensive reason why you would ever need to hit a target that's more than 100 yards away from you. If you're a hunter, you're not shooting at anything that far away either.

3.) Any weapon or modification that is designed to improve conceal-ability.
This obviously causes an issue with hand guns. I would like to see a requirement that all guns or at least hand guns be required to be painted blaze orange or bright pink at the time of manufacture. I would also like to do away with conceal and carry and replace it with an open carry requirement so that if you want to carry a gun legally in public it must be visible at all times.
Click to expand...

#1. eliminates almost ALL guns including six shooters and some muzzle loaders.

#2 eliminates rifling, scopes, sights.

#3 eliminates handguns, and most finishes.

Basically you want to ban all guns.
 
TurtleDude said:
I have won over 400 shooting events. all kinds of shooting events. Some of my guns are for self defense. some are for skeet shooting (several time all-American, JO national champion), ISU trap shooting (2X state Champion, collegiate silver medal), USPSA pistol (Class A-current equivalent is grand master), "Pin Shooting" (set national record), steel plate shooting, 3 position small bore rifle, NRA Service Rifle (using those scary looking AR 15s and before that the scary Looking MIAI), 3G (using scary looking handguns, shotguns and rifles) among other things.
Click to expand...

In that case your support for unlimited gun laws is more despicable. You know more than non-shooters the damage a gun can do to a human.
 
mrjurrs said:
In that case your support for unlimited gun laws is more despicable. You know more than non-shooters the damage a gun can do to a human.
Click to expand...

I totally oppose UNLIMITED gun laws-gun laws should be severely limited by the application of the second amendment to state laws-and federal gun control laws should be extremely limited since the federal government doesn't have much-if any -proper power in that area.

Now I fully support laws that penalize-severely-those who use firearms to illegally harm others or those who engage in reckless and dangerous behavior with firearms
 
TurtleDude said:
I totally oppose UNLIMITED gun laws-gun laws should be severely limited by the application of the second amendment to state laws-and federal gun control laws should be extremely limited since the federal government doesn't have much-if any -proper power in that area.

Now I fully support laws that penalize-severely-those who use firearms to illegally harm others or those who engage in reckless and dangerous behavior with firearms
Click to expand...

I understand your states rights arguments, but I believe you are wrong about the Fed's role. The Gilroy CA shooter bought a gun legally in Nevada and then brought it to CA where the purchase would have been restricted. Unless we set up a liability program where NV would have to reimburse CA for their injury, guns should be regulated federally.
 
Assault Weapon -- a bull **** term liberals came up with to drum up fear in the populous so that the people will willingly give up their 2nd Amendment rights.
 
We have enough laws. Let’s try enforcing those first.
 
mrjurrs said:
I understand your states rights arguments, but I believe you are wrong about the Fed's role. The Gilroy CA shooter bought a gun legally in Nevada and then brought it to CA where the purchase would have been restricted. Unless we set up a liability program where NV would have to reimburse CA for their injury, guns should be regulated federally.
Click to expand...

that violated California law. The commerce clause was never intended to allow such regulations, and short of an amendment, there is no grounds for federal involvement. The California shooter didn't violate any state laws in Nevada but he did violate california law. Now tell me how another law would have deterred him
 
Moon said:
We have enough laws. Let’s try enforcing those first.
Click to expand...

enforcement of existing substantive law=impedes criminals

merely passing more laws that ONLY interfere with what honest people can do-=impedes honest people. After you see democrats constantly push for laws that ONLY restrict what honest people can do, you pretty well know that is the real goal of the gun banners

1) criminals cannot own any firearms-"assault weapon bans" only harms honest people

2) criminals cannot own guns that accept detachable magazines-Magazine limits only restrict the rights of honest gun owners

3) criminals cannot buy guns at gun shops-waiting periods or limits on how many firearms you can buy in a month, only restricts those who can legally buy guns
 
=haymarket;1070493806]I am not the one afraid of an assault weapons ban. I would welcome it.
Click to expand...
Which screams to me your afraid of guns, especially the black evil looking ones.:roll:
There is no reason for me to leave as the majority will prevail.
Click to expand...
What it depends on is how bad certain politicians want to be re-elected.
 
TurtleDude said:
that violated California law. The commerce clause was never intended to allow such regulations, and short of an amendment, there is no grounds for federal involvement. The California shooter didn't violate any state laws in Nevada but he did violate california law. Now tell me how another law would have deterred him
Click to expand...

You may believe that the Commerce Clause was not meant for this type of situation, but the courts have disagreed with you (unless you consider guns to hold a special place in our transported goods categories). No amendment required. I never spoke about deterrence. If you could tell me one law that deters a criminal, I'd be interested in hearing about it. You'd prefer no laws? If so, gun owners may actually have a use for high-capacity magazines.
 
mrjurrs said:
You may believe that the Commerce Clause was not meant for this type of situation, but the courts have disagreed with you (unless you consider guns to hold a special place in our transported goods categories). No amendment required. I never spoke about deterrence. If you could tell me one law that deters a criminal, I'd be interested in hearing about it. You'd prefer no laws? If so, gun owners may actually have a use for high-capacity magazines.
Click to expand...

so you believe that the FDR nonsense was what the framers intended?. What is a "high capacity magazine"?
 
=haymarket;1070494560]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.
Click to expand...
And how do you know they do NOT. All the polls out of N.J. and MA.? And if I saw any "massive clips" on the street I would pick them up.Along with any assault "weapons"or "weapons of war" laying around. Hmm AK47s and the AR15s. Now if they got those nasty,nasty evil things off the street what would they go after next? Hi Point 995s and Keltec 2000s They look evil. Actually the skies the limit.

People know what they want.
Click to expand...
unfortunately a lot of people are told what they want and just go along.
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.
Click to expand...
Unlike some here I have hands on experience and got a clue. I guess I might be able to write a gun bill up , the difference is I would know what I was writing about.
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...
I can imagine you writing bills with your mind already made up. In a nutshell so to say.
 
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...
Better yet imagine the mass desertions. I don't even think the military would get involved much and then on our side.
 
KevinKohler said:
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...
Click to expand...
I sometimes think they write them like that as a means of entrapment ,and probably also to make them look very knowledgeable on something nobody understands. Let alone themselves.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom