• 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!

Why would you own an assault rifle?

Would you own an assault Rifle? Why?


  • Total voters
    110
  • Poll closed .
Yes, that's what you said. What you have not done is show where it is wrong under our rule of law "counselor."

I posted a law that you apparently were unable to understand or find

Thunder made an idiotic claim and you whine about my arguments

your dishonest postings are patent

get back to me when you can understand the argument I made about estoppel-I tire of your evasive nonsense
 
Another "why" occurred to me while posting in the self-defense methods thread:

Because if I have to defend myself against armed criminals, I want to be holding the better weapon. It is an advantage on many levels, both tactically and psychologically.

There have actually been studies on this in the military: the soldiers issued with heavier-than-usual weapons had more confidence and were more inclined to use aimed fire than those equipped with weaker weapons.

Not to mention the psychological effect on the scumbags.

I'll take every advantage I can when someone is trying to unjustly end my life or invade my home.
 
I posted a law that you apparently were unable to understand or find

Thunder made an idiotic claim and you whine about my arguments

your dishonest postings are patent

get back to me when you can understand the argument I made about estoppel-I tire of your evasive nonsense



Your "law" was as convincing as your claim that you are a lawyer. There was nothing in your "law" that stated police have the same weapons restrictions as civilians.
 
I do have an assault rifle. A Ruger SR-556 AR-15. I bought it because it's fun to shoot. Of all the guns I own, that one is my favorite.
 
Your "law" was as convincing as your claim that you are a lawyer. There was nothing in your "law" that stated police have the same weapons restrictions as civilians.

a complete concession of a failure to argue


the issue involves a statement by a government entity about the utility of certain weapons
 
a complete concession of a failure to argue

Only in your mind.


the issue involves a statement by a government entity about the utility of certain weapons


You made the claim that police are civilians, yet cannot explain why civilians and police have different weapons restrictions.
 
Only in your mind.





You made the claim that police are civilians, yet cannot explain why civilians and police have different weapons restrictions.

still avoiding my point (everyone else knows I am correct except you and Thunder-Cops are civilians not military)

if say NYC says a 17 shot glock is suitable for a civilian NYC employee to use for self defense in the confines of that city how can it possibly say that the weapon has no suitable purpose for OTHER civilians


focus on that and use all your impressive credentials in firearms issues to answer that
 
In warfare...having more powerful weaponry is of great importance. Police officers logically go by a similar logic.

I would hope the folks charged to protect me (Soldiers/Police), are given the tools to do so...and would also hope the bad guys (Criminals/enemy soldiers), are far less well armed.

I would prefer a shotgun, over a AR-15 any day.
 
In warfare...having more powerful weaponry is of great importance. Police officers logically go by a similar logic.

I would hope the folks charged to protect me (Soldiers/Police), are given the tools to do so...and would also hope the bad guys (Criminals/enemy soldiers), are far less well armed.

I would prefer a shotgun, over a AR-15 any day.

in many home defense scenarios a shotgun is a superior weapon for defense.

but that should be your choice-not the choice of people who have no clue about weapons or think they should restrict what you own because of their own ignorance, fear of weapons, or spite
 
well free choice is a good thing

you pick your targets as you see fit and I won't have any say in that

Well free choice absolutely is. I urge you to consider what a jury might say at a pot shot killing a someone driving away at 500m. Certainly would look bad here.
 
Well free choice absolutely is. I urge you to consider what a jury might say at a pot shot killing a someone driving away at 500m. Certainly would look bad here.

I am an expert on the laws of self defense having shot someone years ago and then defending a major police department that sometimes was sued for "wrongful death" claims
 
still avoiding my point (everyone else knows I am correct except you and Thunder-Cops are civilians not military)

if say NYC says a 17 shot glock is suitable for a civilian NYC employee to use for self defense in the confines of that city how can it possibly say that the weapon has no suitable purpose for OTHER civilians


focus on that and use all your impressive credentials in firearms issues to answer that



Police definition - "The governmental department charged with the regulation and control of the affairs of a community, now chiefly the department established to maintain order, enforce the law, and prevent and detect crime.


1. A body of persons making up such a department, trained in methods of law enforcement and crime prevention and detection and authorized to maintain the peace, safety, and order of the community"


Read more: police: Definition, Synonyms from Answers.com


Civilian definition - " A person following the pursuits of civil life, especially one who is not an active member of the military, the police, or a belligerent group."

Read more: civilian: Definition from Answers.com


See if your "impressive credentials" in law allow you to discern the difference between civilians and the police.
 
Last edited:
in many home defense scenarios a shotgun is a superior weapon for defense.

but that should be your choice-not the choice of people who have no clue about weapons or think they should restrict what you own because of their own ignorance, fear of weapons, or spite

In many ways , I agree. However...I love my 10 gauge as home defense and piece of mind. I am pleased that my wife has her little .38.

I also know neither will be much use against an AK47 on automatic.

Both my weapons serve an acceptable purpose in my mind...assault weapons have ONLY one designed purpose.

Killing as many people as possible.
 
Police definition - "The governmental department charged with the regulation and control of the affairs of a community, now chiefly the department established to maintain order, enforce the law, and prevent and detect crime.


1. A body of persons making up such a department, trained in methods of law enforcement and crime prevention and detection and authorized to maintain the peace, safety, and order of the community"


Read more: police: Definition, Synonyms from Answers.com


Civilian definition - " A person following the pursuits of civil life, especially one who is not an active member of the military, the police, or a belligerent group."

Read more: civilian: Definition from Answers.com


See if your "impressive credentials" in law allow you to discern the difference between civilians and the police.

Not relevant-deal with my argument and stop diverting

That definition is not consistent with the United States Code that distinguishes between the military and CIVILIAN Law enforcement

just GOOGLE ARE COPS OR POLICE CIVILIANS


deal with my argument rather than trying to avoid it with your silliness
 
I am an expert on the laws of self defense having shot someone years ago and then defending a major police department that sometimes was sued for "wrongful death" claims

Some expert that doesn't know the difference between civilians and the police! :lamo
 
In many ways , I agree. However...I love my 10 gauge as home defense and piece of mind. I am pleased that my wife has her little .38.

I also know neither will be much use against an AK47 on automatic.

Both my weapons serve an acceptable purpose in my mind...assault weapons have ONLY one designed purpose.

Killing as many people as possible.

well you would be wrong then but that is not really relevant

the only thing that counts is HOW the person who possesses the weapon uses it

and with several hundred legally owned real machine guns in the USA-including many real assault rifles" there are no instances of anyone being killed in decades
 
Not relevant-deal with my argument and stop diverting

That definition is not consistent with the United States Code that distinguishes between the military and CIVILIAN Law enforcement

just GOOGLE ARE COPS OR POLICE CIVILIANS


deal with my argument rather than trying to avoid it with your silliness


LOL! Not relevant is your pat answer when you have been stumped.


The definition of civilian specifically states not a member of the the military or the police. So much for your legal expertise!
 
Some expert that doesn't know the difference between civilians and the police! :lamo

you are again divert because you don't have the ability to argue the pending point

many sources including the US Code consider CIVILIAN POLICE OFFICERS CIVILIANS

anyone is not a member of the military is a CIVILIAN

which is why the POTUS being the CinC is to show that civilian authority presides over the military

here is an interesting article on civilian vs military police


Are Military Police Above Civilian Police Officers?



now deal with the point of if a government entity decrees a weapon suitable for self defense by civilian employees why does that not justify other civilians using that weapon as a suitable self defensive tool
 
LOL! Not relevant is your pat answer when you have been stumped.


The definition of civilian specifically states not a member of the the military or the police. So much for your legal expertise!

your definition is not accepted and your dishonesty in evading the real point with this nonsense is obvious

Is a police officer a civilian


Are police officers Civilians or not? - Yahoo! Answers

two "authorities" that are more valid than the crap you posted

so get back to the main issue
 
I have no need of an assault rifle - but I don't care if others own them. :shrug:
 
you are again divert because you don't have the ability to argue the pending point

many sources including the US Code consider CIVILIAN POLICE OFFICERS CIVILIANS

anyone is not a member of the military is a CIVILIAN

which is why the POTUS being the CinC is to show that civilian authority presides over the military

here is an interesting article on civilian vs military police


Are Military Police Above Civilian Police Officers?



now deal with the point of if a government entity decrees a weapon suitable for self defense by civilian employees why does that not justify other civilians using that weapon as a suitable self defensive tool



You don't know the difference between civilians and the police and you claim to be a lawyer! :lamo
 
You don't know the difference between civilians and the police and you claim to be a lawyer! :lamo

still diverting

still lying
 
what exactly are you doing here when you already admitted you don't feel a need to own such a weapon?

It seems he is trying to kill it by flooding it with stupidity. For the love of all that is good, quit responding to him, maybe he will go away.
 
It seems he is trying to kill it by flooding it with stupidity. For the love of all that is good, quit responding to him, maybe he will go away.

they flood threads where their idiocy is getting destroyed with lies about tangents
 
I am an expert on the laws of self defense having shot someone years ago and then defending a major police department that sometimes was sued for "wrongful death" claims

Even if you were an expert...do you think a jury would be so leniant on someone who fired upon a target 500m away? I mean sure if someone was shooting at YOU from 500m, but firing at someone stealing a tractor at 500m away or in a vehicle moving around your land at 500m...come on man. YOu should know that won;t look good.
 
Back
Top Bottom