• 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:
I watched a slightly built British veteran of the Africa Campaign with Montgomery whack three Hyenas running at full speed in three different directions, with a Winchester 458 Magnum bolt gun This was 43 years ago but I had hit the first one with a 30-06 or a 7mm Remington Magnum and this guy had shot all three by the time I was lining up a second shot-and I was really fast. I remember saying-Damn, Steve that was fast-and he said "Laddie, you should have seen what I could do with an SMLE shooting at a bunch of Jerrys"
Click to expand...

Some people are just naturally great shooters. My dad was that way. First year I went deer hunting a buck crossed the powerlines about 100 yards down hill from us at a full run. There was 4 of us walking together. My dad and his best friend both got off a shot almost simultaneous before I or the other hunter even got our guns up to our shoulders to take aim. I could not believe how fast they got off the shots. My dad said he knows he killed it because he shot it through the neck severing the spinal cord. His best friend said he shot it through the front shoulder. When we walked up to the deer it had a hole through the neck and the front shoulder. But what was even more amazing is neither one of them did much shooting anymore. He didn't need to practice.
 
PIPEWRENCH said:
Some people are just naturally great shooters. My dad was that way. First year I went deer hunting a buck crossed the powerlines about 100 yards down hill from us at a full run. There was 4 of us walking together. My dad and his best friend both got off a shot almost simultaneous before I or the other hunter even got our guns up to our shoulders to take aim. I could not believe how fast they got off the shots. My dad said he knows he killed it because he shot it through the neck severing the spinal cord. His best friend said he shot it through the front shoulder. When we walked up to the deer it had a hole through the neck and the front shoulder. But what was even more amazing is neither one of them did much shooting anymore. He didn't need to practice.
Click to expand...

yeah some people have a talent. I did lots of sports-tennis, table tennis, squash, track, volleyball, but shooting fast-ISU skeet or steel plate shooting was something I had talent in. the others I had to work pretty hard to be decent.
 
KevinKohler said:
Because the second says arms, not arms and ordnance.
Click to expand...

I feel like we're going in circles. The 2nd amendment is not a grant of rights. Its a restriction on govt. WE have all rights. The govt has limited power. There is no such power to regulate ordinance.
 
Media_Truth said:
I don't play your silly games. You know what kind of weapons are being discussed. If not, perhaps you should get involved in the conversation instead of this incessant bickering. Dude - don't you get it? It ain't working!!! You just had 3 mass killings in 2 days. We all need to take responsiblity. Most Republicans approve of assault weapon bans. The NRA-brainwashed are now a very minor minority. Politicians need to start listening to their constituents.
Click to expand...

Did you know that during the "assault weapons" ban there were still AR-15s sold legally? The definition didn't make a lot of sense so the rifles were modified and sold on the shelves. The Definition makes a huge difference in a ban. If you go by the original definition nothing will change if they re-enact that ban.

That is why people ask the question.
 
jonny5 said:
I feel like we're going in circles. The 2nd amendment is not a grant of rights. Its a restriction on govt. WE have all rights. The govt has limited power. There is no such power to regulate ordinance.
Click to expand...

technically you are correct but the government (federal) bans on ordnance is a tenth amendment issue not a second amendment one
 
Fledermaus said:
I can shoot 9 man sized targets in 30 seconds with pair of cap and ball revolvers..

I can likely hit 9 man sized targets in 30 seconds with a lever action.

A few less with a bolt action.

Why do people automatically assume a semi auto is a magic thing?
Click to expand...

Because the shooter doesn't need any skills, it is a weapon made to kill lots of people in a short period of time. By the way, I said 'kill 9 people, not hit them'.
 
mrjurrs said:
Because the shooter doesn't need any skills, it is a weapon made to kill lots of people in a short period of time. By the way, I said 'kill 9 people, not hit them'.
Click to expand...

Edify us as to your training and skills as a shooter. When I noted what someone with my skill set could do, I am referring to a USPSA or Steel shooter with a master or Grandmaster rating. Those of us who have that sort of rating, have shot hundreds of thousands of rounds.
 
Fledermaus said:
Why not a Smart Car? A Prius? Or a basic Civic? A Ranger perhaps?

Deer are regularly taken with an AR15. The round fired from an AR15 are not low yield tactical nukes.

That and not all hunting is for meat. Some is pest removal. Varmint shooting. Defense of livestock.
Click to expand...

And all of those can be accomplished without using a firearm developed to kill as many people as possible in a short period of time.
 
zsu2357 said:
How big of an animal? Do you even know what an AR-15 is or are you going by what you heard? I've shot rabbits without a problem. You make it sound like an elephant gun.
Click to expand...

No, I'm referring to the load and the velocity the projectile exits the barrel.
 
mrjurrs said:
And all of those can be accomplished without using a firearm developed to kill as many people as possible in a short period of time.
Click to expand...

Stupid lies don't help you position. Tell us what proof you have for the idiotic claim that semi automatic sporting weapons-which are used in less murders than knives or bats, were developed to "kill as many people as possible in a short period of time"

this idiotic claim only demonstrates that you are completely ignorant about firearms and firearms designs or you post dishonest nonsense because you don't have a valid argument
 
KevinKohler said:
Wild boar, deer, elk, anything over 150lbs, really.

Honestly, what do you think happens to HUMANS shot by them...they explode into little bits?

No, it makes a hole in them. A nasty hole, yes...but, just a hole. Same with other similar sized animals.
Click to expand...

Previous poster talked about smaller game. You can make that same nasty hole without using a weapon designed to kill as many people as possible in a short amount of time.
 
TurtleDude said:
You are mistaken. and your all guns are evil sort of disqualifies your opinions as having any merit in this debate.
Click to expand...

Ok. Your inability to correctly use an apostrophe disqualifies you from posting because you are grammatically challenged.
 
mrjurrs said:
Ok. Your inability to correctly use an apostrophe disqualifies you from posting because you are grammatically challenged.
Click to expand...

I suppose that when you constantly lie about firearms issues, and demonstrate a complete lack of understanding of the topic, that is the most potent comeback available in your puny arsenal.
 
haymarket said:
The Second Amendment protect a citizens right to own a gun. Not any gun you want. Not any style of gun you may desire. No Amendment is necessary tp get reasonable gun control banning certain weapons.
Click to expand...

Whatever a militia would have in current time. A militia would have exactly the same handheld infantry weapons and firearms regular Army would have.

I gather Democratic progressives demand the USA surrender to the UK because in the Revolutionary war the American militias cheated by not being limited to throwing rocks and using spears. Some of the best, most lethal rifles of all in the Revolutionary War were the rifles of the militias.

The founders wanted the collective military power of we-the-people to exceed that of government, because to the founders the greatest of all dangers to ordinary people for the entire history of the human race was from their own government or invading foreign government armies.
 
mrjurrs said:
That is so weak, so you wouldn't consider a nuclear bomb to be evil?
Click to expand...

NOt to the million or so US soldiers, sailors and marines who didn't die while trying to invade Japan
 
joko104 said:
Whatever a militia would have in current time. A militia would have exactly the same handheld infantry weapons and firearms regular Army would have.

I gather Democratic progressives demand the USA surrender to the UK because in the Revolutionary war the American militias cheated by not being limited to throwing rocks and using spears. Some of the best, most lethal rifles of all in the Revolutionary War were the rifles of the militias.
Click to expand...

when the patriots realized going head to head with British regulars-trading volleys with smooth bore muskets, was not a winning strategy, things got better. Patriots had the Kentucky long rifle-which was fairly worthless in the volley fire tactic since the shooter had to pound the ball down the barrel due to engaging the rifling. However, several riflemen, concealed behind cover, such as rocks or stout trees, could kill British soldiers-especially officers on horses-at ranges far beyond that which a brown bess musket was effective. And when you had enough patriots that some were firing, while the others were loading, that made charging their line a most unpleasant task.
 
joko104 said:
Whatever a militia would have in current time. A militia would have exactly the same handheld infantry weapons and firearms regular Army would have.

I gather Democratic progressives demand the USA surrender to the UK because in the Revolutionary war the American militias cheated by not being limited to throwing rocks and using spears. Some of the best, most lethal rifles of all in the Revolutionary War were the rifles of the militias.

The founders wanted the collective military power of we-the-people to exceed that of government, because to the founders the greatest of all dangers to ordinary people for the entire history of the human race was from their own government or invading foreign government armies.
Click to expand...

Good. I will put some artillery in the back yard
 
daeler said:
Did you know that during the "assault weapons" ban there were still AR-15s sold legally? The definition didn't make a lot of sense so the rifles were modified and sold on the shelves. The Definition makes a huge difference in a ban. If you go by the original definition nothing will change if they re-enact that ban.

That is why people ask the question.
Click to expand...

I posted this earlier. "Legislation starts with definitions. If gun-owners and the NRA were smart, they would be instrumental in helping to adopt those definitions. At one time, the NRA got involved in gun control legislation. Now, they are nothing but a top-heavy organization, with people skimming millions in payroll and bonuses..."
 
mrjurrs said:
And all of those can be accomplished without using a firearm developed to kill as many people as possible in a short period of time.
Click to expand...

The term "a firearm developed to kill as many people as possible in a short period of time" is a meaningless term since every advancement in firearm design since the 1300s has been so one could fire as many rounds as possible in a short period of time.

Muskets were superseded by cartridge weapons. Single shots were superseded by manually repeating weapons. manually repeating weapons were superseded by semi automatic weapons.

You are stuck on buzz words and phrases.

And you never answered.... Why not a drive a Smart Car? A Prius? Or a basic Civic? A Ranger perhaps? Why the El Blimpo Land Yacht?
 
Last edited:
mrjurrs said:
Because the shooter doesn't need any skills, it is a weapon made to kill lots of people in a short period of time. By the way, I said 'kill 9 people, not hit them'.
Click to expand...

What the hell are you talking about?

Not all shots are kills.

Someone understanding firearms would know that.
 
mrjurrs said:
Previous poster talked about smaller game. You can make that same nasty hole without using a weapon designed to kill as many people as possible in a short amount of time.
Click to expand...

What feature Or features of the AR15 design makes it, in your opinion, such an effective killing tool?
 
TurtleDude said:
Edify us as to your training and skills as a shooter. When I noted what someone with my skill set could do, I am referring to a USPSA or Steel shooter with a master or Grandmaster rating. Those of us who have that sort of rating, have shot hundreds of thousands of rounds.
Click to expand...

Irrelevant. How many times did the Gilroy murderer practice. How many did he hit out of the 40+ rounds he fired. Unskilled, and still killed.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom