• 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 .
How about you just look at the rest of the post you're responding to, you know the part you omitted, which clearly stated:

"Because if you're referring to my vote, thats a want not a need. Liar"

No need, your vote is part of the public record that all can see that your response to the poll question, "Why would you own an assault rifle", was, "Yes, for self defense."
 
No need, your vote is part of the public record that all can see that your response to the poll question, "Why would you own an assault rifle", was, "Yes, for self defense."

Obviously reading comprehension isn't your strong suit.

Done with you, liar.
 
here is your problem

people like you whine about REASONABLE GUN CONTROL and never use reasonable arguments

rather you start that penis envy crap...

how is that any different than you accusing "gun-haters" of being fearful cowards & hoplophobes?
 
I had no idea people hunted marmots until now. That must be about the easiest hunting imaginable other than the fact you have to get your self up to tree line. (i know this is way off topic)

Some guy I know used to make big money getting rid of prairie dogs for land developers. The AR-15 is perfect for that kind of stuff. It's also a good coyote gun from what I hear. These rifles do have a place, and where they fit in, they work extremely well.
 
how is that any different than you accusing "gun-haters" of being fearful cowards & hoplophobes?

Because your lot in fact loves to prattle on about safety when discussing limiting freedom.
 
Or it could be that you call anyone that disagrees with you on this topic at any level anti-gun even if that individual is a life long gun owner (I am) and owns a few guns themselves ( I do). I am not anti-gun, I am anti absolutism. Its obvious we are not going to see eye to eye and thats why its pointless though. For example, if you have a fundamentalist and a biologist arguing about evolution, most likely they are not going to agree on anything no matter how long they go back and forth about it.



your first post I read on this topic was the penis idiocy crap you posted the other day

you are anti gun because you believe in idiotic restrictions that you cannot come close to justifying as rational


I couldn't care less if you own guns. Some of the most anti gun politicians have guns-Diane Feinstein had a carry permit in a city where she wouldn't allow most other folks to get one

but you spew idiocy, those of us who understand the issue kick your butt, and then you start getting butt hurt
 
your first post I read on this topic was the penis idiocy crap you posted the other day

you are anti gun because you believe in idiotic restrictions that you cannot come close to justifying as rational


I couldn't care less if you own guns. Some of the most anti gun politicians have guns-Diane Feinstein had a carry permit in a city where she wouldn't allow most other folks to get one

but you spew idiocy, those of us who understand the issue kick your butt, and then you start getting butt hurt

Owning guns gives one no credibility while spewing anti-gun tripe. In fact it may very well be a lie.

Reminds me of when fundamentalists claim "I used to be an atheist" for some credibility before spewing faith based tripe.
 
your first post I read on this topic was the penis idiocy crap you posted the other day

No I did not, I made a tongue-in-cheek reference to it being a compensator for an inferiority complex.

you are anti gun because you believe in idiotic restrictions that you cannot come close to justifying as rational


I couldn't care less if you own guns. Some of the most anti gun politicians have guns-Diane Feinstein had a carry permit in a city where she wouldn't allow most other folks to get one

but you spew idiocy, those of us who understand the issue kick your butt, and then you start getting butt hurt

What is up with the homosexual references....
 
your first post I read on this topic was the penis idiocy crap you posted the other day

you are anti gun because you believe in idiotic restrictions that you cannot come close to justifying as rational


I couldn't care less if you own guns. Some of the most anti gun politicians have guns-Diane Feinstein had a carry permit in a city where she wouldn't allow most other folks to get one

but you spew idiocy, those of us who understand the issue kick your butt, and then you start getting butt hurt

try it again, turtledude
only this time lose the anger and make solid points to defend your argument
something that will convince someone sitting on the fence that your position is the more plausible one
 
how is that any different than you accusing "gun-haters" of being fearful cowards & hoplophobes?

I wouldn't say fearful cowards... that's pretty strong.

Hoplophobes though... and ignorant as dirt about the thing you want to regulate... does seem that way a lot of the time. So many of you gun-control types are astonishingly ignorant about firearms and pontificate on banning this and that when you don't even know what you're talking about banning. You resolutely ignore that something like 99.98%+ of legally owned firearms are never used in a crime, that gun crime and gun accidents are WAY down and trending still lower, that so-called "assault weapons" are very rarely used in crime, etc.... that we can only assume it is an irrational fear, a phobia.


Not to mention I can't COUNT how many gun-control threads were started by someone using this penis-compensation bull****, or tarring us as brainless rednecks.... well you get what you give....
 
Owning guns gives one no credibility while spewing anti-gun tripe. In fact it may very well be a lie.

Reminds me of when fundamentalists claim "I used to be an atheist" for some credibility before spewing faith based tripe.

Ben and Jerry used to tell their far left gay Bush haters to always preface an anti Bush rant or letter with "I AM A REPUBLICAN"
 
Obviously reading comprehension isn't your strong suit.

Done with you, liar.

All anyone that doubts me has to do is check the poll results to see who is the liar. There was a choice, for "Yes, for recreational use", but instead you chose, "Yes, for self defense."
 
try it again, turtledude
only this time lose the anger and make solid points to defend your argument
something that will convince someone sitting on the fence that your position is the more plausible one

when you start holding the lefties to the same standard I will listen to you

I did respond to his idiocy with logic and you must have missed that

I don't care about convincing people-people who try to restrict our rights based on idiocy need to be called on it
 
All anyone that doubts me has to do is check the poll results to see who is the liar. There was a choice, for "Yes, for recreational use", but instead you chose, "Yes, for self defense."

None of that addresses the matter of need, which was your baseless claim to which my 1st post on this thread contradicts.

Please learn the difference between needs and wants, its a big distinction.

I asked you to quote me saying I needed one, which you failed at so you chose to quote the vote. But that vote reflects a want, just as I don't need one for sport but would like one.

EDIT: By the way, what was my lie? I'd love to hear you nail this one down.
 
Last edited:
If the Constitution guarantees our right to bare arms, then shouldn't we the people be given a fairly wide latitude as to what constitutes personal firearms? The more you cramp that freedom the closer you get to revoking it completely. And for what a little more perceived safety? Besides the techy in me being fascinated with weapons I think guns are an abomination. But in the world we live they are a part of reality and must be dealt with respect.
 
when you start holding the lefties to the same standard I will listen to you

I did respond to his idiocy with logic and you must have missed that

I don't care about convincing people-people who try to restrict our rights based on idiocy need to be called on it

so what are you saying? that you cannot present a reasoned argument?
well, if you can, then offer it
explain why it is not reasonable to impose restrictions on arms ownership
 
so what are you saying? that you cannot present a reasoned argument?
well, if you can, then offer it
explain why it is not reasonable to impose restrictions on arms ownership

so why do you ask me when a guy posts idiocy about penis envy or compensation issues that has no basis in fact

I guess you missed the very rational argument that if a city or state determines that 17 or 20 or 30 round magazines are suitable for civilian employees of that city or state to use in SELF DEFENSE than US OTHER CIVILIANS ought to be able to use them too for self defense
 
so what are you saying? that you cannot present a reasoned argument?
well, if you can, then offer it
explain why it is not reasonable to impose restrictions on arms ownership

No, he's already explained ad infinitum. You keep bringing up the same debunked talking points as if the discussion never happened. Have you been around firearms much in your life? Ever changed a magazine on the fly, cleared a jam?

Most firearms restrictions are nonsensical and only come into play after the crime. The government doesn't typically know when you buy a unlicensed firearm from an unlicensed dealer, and that happens every single day. Same with ammo. The restrictions only serve to restrict those who follow the rules and allow us to add on charges when we catch the perp with an unlicensed firearm.
 
...I guess you missed the very rational argument that if a city or state determines that 17 or 20 or 30 round magazines are suitable for civilian employees of that city or state to use in SELF DEFENSE than US OTHER CIVILIANS ought to be able to use them too for self defense

cops aren't civilians.
 
No, he's already explained ad infinitum. You keep bringing up the same debunked talking points as if the discussion never happened. Have you been around firearms much in your life? Ever changed a magazine on the fly, cleared a jam?

Most firearms restrictions are nonsensical and only come into play after the crime. The government doesn't typically know when you buy a unlicensed firearm from an unlicensed dealer, and that happens every single day. Same with ammo. The restrictions only serve to restrict those who follow the rules and allow us to add on charges when we catch the perp with an unlicensed firearm.

one of the tactics of lefties trying to derail threads where their "feelings" are getting squashed is to demand answers to inane questions over and over and over
 
Back
Top Bottom