• 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 .
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.

not the issue. lets get back to dealing with those who think no one should be able to own a magazine that holds more than 10 rounds and other oozing idiocy.
 
still diverting

still lying

As shown, the definition of civilian specifically excludes members of the military, members of the police, and members of belligerent groups. Also as shown, civilians have more restrictions on weapons than the police and the military.
 
Last edited:
As shown, the definition of civilian specifically excludes members of the military, members of the police, and members of belligerent groups. Also as shown, civilians have more restrictions on weapons than the police and the military.

stop lying stop diverting

your definition is irrelevant and wrong

federal statute has two categories

military and civilians

you are employing the squid defense-lots of ink and lots of suck



the issue involves the statement by governments

something you have spewed ink and suck at
 
1. The political definition of "assault rifle" bordered on the ridiculous. My brother has a little .22. I could turn it into an "assault rifle" simply by attaching a lugnut to the end of it - not that it had a "bayonette mount", it was an "assault rifle" :roll:

2. The best weapon to have when the zombies arise is an M-4 variant with the .306 caliber. Ergo, I need one.
 
1. The political definition of "assault rifle" bordered on the ridiculous. My brother has a little .22. I could turn it into an "assault rifle" simply by attaching a lugnut to the end of it - not that it had a "bayonette mount", it was an "assault rifle" :roll:

2. The best weapon to have when the zombies arise is an M-4 variant with the .306 caliber. Ergo, I need one.

308 caliber?
 
No issue if you clean your weapon.

true enough but the MNs are inferior to the garand and the modern heavy stuff like the AR 10 or the FN FAL
 
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

Please tell me where I am "Wrong".

And...it DOES matter that these weapons were designed with the sole purpose of killing humans.

What...pray tell, is a REAL ASSAULT RIFLE?

"Since the Firearms Owners' Protection Act of May 19, 1986, ownership of newly manufactured machine guns has been prohibited to civilians. Machine guns which were manufactured prior to the Act's passage are regulated under the National Firearms Act, but those manufactured after the ban cannot ordinarily be sold to or owned by civilians.Since 1934, there appear to have been at least two homicides committed with legally owned automatic weapons.

One was a murder committed by a law enforcement officer (as opposed to a civilian). On September 15th, 1988, a 13-year veteran of the Dayton, Ohio police department, Patrolman Roger Waller, then 32, used his fully automatic MAC-11 .380 caliber submachine gun to kill a police informant, 52-year-old Lawrence Hileman. Patrolman Waller pleaded guilty in 1990, and he and an accomplice were sentenced to 18 years in prison. The 1986 'ban' on sales of new machine guns does not apply to purchases by law enforcement or government agencies. "

GunCite - Gun Control: Machine Guns
 
true enough but the MNs are inferior to the garand and the modern heavy stuff like the AR 10 or the FN FAL

I've hit 3" groups at 200 yard's with the stock sights. That's good enough for me. ;)
 
Please tell me where I am "Wrong".

And...it DOES matter that these weapons were designed with the sole purpose of killing humans.

What...pray tell, is a REAL ASSAULT RIFLE?

"Since the Firearms Owners' Protection Act of May 19, 1986, ownership of newly manufactured machine guns has been prohibited to civilians. Machine guns which were manufactured prior to the Act's passage are regulated under the National Firearms Act, but those manufactured after the ban cannot ordinarily be sold to or owned by civilians.Since 1934, there appear to have been at least two homicides committed with legally owned automatic weapons.

One was a murder committed by a law enforcement officer (as opposed to a civilian). On September 15th, 1988, a 13-year veteran of the Dayton, Ohio police department, Patrolman Roger Waller, then 32, used his fully automatic MAC-11 .380 caliber submachine gun to kill a police informant, 52-year-old Lawrence Hileman. Patrolman Waller pleaded guilty in 1990, and he and an accomplice were sentenced to 18 years in prison. The 1986 'ban' on sales of new machine guns does not apply to purchases by law enforcement or government agencies. "

GunCite - Gun Control: Machine Guns

you are wrong claiming that the only purpose is to kill people

dayton cop is a civilian

wow two cases -the second case is not listed


in Dayton the police will not sign off on Class III stamps. he got the chief LEO consent since he is a cool

the fact remains banning registration and sales of post May 19, 1986 MGs was not due to crime control
 
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.


Lot of disinformation and factual errors there.

For one thing, the vast majority of what are widely termed "assault weapons" owned by US civilians are NOT capable of full auto fire, only semi-auto.

For another, a shotgun or pistol is NOT "useless" against an AK47 on "full auto". Full auto is not some magic wand. Militarily it is used mainly for fire suppression. Recoil and muzzle climb tend to make most shots after the first miss high, unless we're talking mounted weapons or something.

Put a man with a shotgun vs a man with a "full auto" AK47 and the outcome is going to depend on a variety of things...
Who sees who first
Who shoots first
Who is more skilled with arms and mentally more steady under fire
Cover, concealment, maneuver
Who shoots ACCURATELY first
Range between the two when someone first opens fire

An "assault rifle" has three main advantages over a shotgun: range, mag capacity and rapid reloading. These advantages make it a more versatile weapon but they aren't necessarily the decisive factor in a combat situation.
 
Lot of disinformation and factual errors there.

For one thing, the vast majority of what are widely termed "assault weapons" owned by US civilians are NOT capable of full auto fire, only semi-auto.

For another, a shotgun or pistol is NOT "useless" against an AK47 on "full auto". Full auto is not some magic wand. Militarily it is used mainly for fire suppression. Recoil and muzzle climb tend to make most shots after the first miss high, unless we're talking mounted weapons or something.

Put a man with a shotgun vs a man with a "full auto" AK47 and the outcome is going to depend on a variety of things...
Who sees who first
Who shoots first
Who is more skilled with arms and mentally more steady under fire
Cover, concealment, maneuver
Who shoots ACCURATELY first
Range between the two when someone first opens fire

An "assault rifle" has three main advantages over a shotgun: range, mag capacity and rapid reloading. These advantages make it a more versatile weapon but they aren't necessarily the decisive factor in a combat situation.

which is why many civilian police agencies are issuing full or semi only carbines to cops rather than shotguns which used to be the by far most popular long arm for civilian police agencies-federal or state
 
Please tell me where I am "Wrong".

And...it DOES matter that these weapons were designed with the sole purpose of killing humans.

What...pray tell, is a REAL ASSAULT RIFLE?

"Since the Firearms Owners' Protection Act of May 19, 1986, ownership of newly manufactured machine guns has been prohibited to civilians. Machine guns which were manufactured prior to the Act's passage are regulated under the National Firearms Act, but those manufactured after the ban cannot ordinarily be sold to or owned by civilians.Since 1934, there appear to have been at least two homicides committed with legally owned automatic weapons.

One was a murder committed by a law enforcement officer (as opposed to a civilian). On September 15th, 1988, a 13-year veteran of the Dayton, Ohio police department, Patrolman Roger Waller, then 32, used his fully automatic MAC-11 .380 caliber submachine gun to kill a police informant, 52-year-old Lawrence Hileman. Patrolman Waller pleaded guilty in 1990, and he and an accomplice were sentenced to 18 years in prison. The 1986 'ban' on sales of new machine guns does not apply to purchases by law enforcement or government agencies. "

GunCite - Gun Control: Machine Guns


Two whole cases, and the one that is described was committed by a police officer.... out of many thousands of MGs in civilian hands, this is statistically insignificant.

By the way...

Yes, weapons are dangerous; they're SUPPOSED to be. If they weren't we'd call them something else.

When I buy a weapon for self-defense I'm buying something lethal, something designed to kill, to help me protect myself from another person with a weapon designed to kill. So what?

"Designed with the sole purpose of KILLING HUMAN BEINGS!" (gasp! faint!) This phrase does not horrify me, sorry.
 
Two whole cases, and the one that is described was committed by a police officer.... out of many thousands of MGs in civilian hands, this is statistically insignificant.

By the way...

Yes, weapons are dangerous; they're SUPPOSED to be. If they weren't we'd call them something else.

When I buy a weapon for self-defense I'm buying something lethal, something designed to kill, to help me protect myself from another person with a weapon designed to kill. So what?

"Designed with the sole purpose of KILLING HUMAN BEINGS!" (gasp! faint!) This phrase does not horrify me, sorry.


when Hughes (Dem-NJ) tried to derail the McClure Volker Firearms protection act of 1986 by putting in an amendment that probably violated the rules when it was attached, he was trying to derail a bill that anti gun extremists hated. At that time there were NO CASES of legally owned machine guns being used in crime


so what I want the leftwing gun haters to explain

if CRIME CONTROL IS ALL THAT MOTIVATES THEM-why the ban?
 
Let me expand a bit on this whole "designed to kill human beings" thing.

In the event that scumbags kick in my door one night, I don't want to be armed with a deer rifle.


For one thing, a deer rifle (typically 30-06) has MORE capacity to overshoot or overpenetrate than most "assault rifles", if that is a concern in your area (depends on where you live, population density, etc).

For another, many deer rifles only hold three rounds and were not really designed for combat, self-defense, or man-killing.

Double barrel sporting shotguns are also not designed for this purpose. You only get two shots... that might not suffice.

I prefer (depending on circumstances) either a handgun, shotgun or "assault" rifle that IS designed with combat, self-defense, or "killing human beings" in mind, because they serve the purpose in question much more effectively. No, I probably would never need to shoot 30 rounds in a home defense scenario... but I don't want to have to worry about running out of ammo before the scumbags are down or running, and with a 2 or 3 cap sporter weapon I probably would. With a 10 round mag cap I might.

I ran into a pack of aggressive feral dogs one day on my farm, about six of them. Good thing I wasn't carrying a three-shot deer rifle.
 
Recently, A Democrat senator suggested that he has no idea why anyone would need to have an assault rifle. His ignorance is the premise of his decision to limit the 2nd amendment. To me the answer is pretty easy.

I would own an assault reason for the exact same reason I would own a superfast sports car that is built to exceed legal speed limits. So that if the Chinese drilling off our coast where we are not allowed to ever decided to sneak soldiers and nukes into the gulf instead of oil rig workers and equipment and invaded Florida blitzkrieg style, I'd have a chance of getting out alive.

Seriously though, would you own an assault rifle? And if so, why?

I'm really afraid of guns and given my size (4' 11) and my weight an assault weapon would probably knock me on my kiester!
 
Let me expand a bit on this whole "designed to kill human beings" thing.

In the event that scumbags kick in my door one night, I don't want to be armed with a deer rifle.


For one thing, a deer rifle (typically 30-06) has MORE capacity to overshoot or overpenetrate than most "assault rifles", if that is a concern in your area (depends on where you live, population density, etc).

For another, many deer rifles only hold three rounds and were not really designed for combat, self-defense, or man-killing.

Double barrel sporting shotguns are also not designed for this purpose. You only get two shots... that might not suffice.

I prefer (depending on circumstances) either a handgun, shotgun or "assault" rifle that IS designed with combat, self-defense, or "killing human beings" in mind, because they serve the purpose in question much more effectively. No, I probably would never need to shoot 30 rounds in a home defense scenario... but I don't want to have to worry about running out of ammo before the scumbags are down or running, and with a 2 or 3 cap sporter weapon I probably would. With a 10 round mag cap I might.

I ran into a pack of aggressive feral dogs one day on my farm, about six of them. Good thing I wasn't carrying a three-shot deer rifle.

you have to understand that many of those anti gun nuts do NOT BELIEVE in a right of self defense so arguing self defense scenarios to them is not going to register with them.

there are no empirical studies supporting the ten round limit. its something CLinton and Biden and Schumer pulled out of their colons
 
I'm really afraid of guns and given my size (4' 11) and my weight an assault weapon would probably knock me on my kiester!


Nah. A 5.56 doesn't have much recoil and the newer models are very light weight. With a little training you could handle one quite readily I'm sure.
 
Nah. A 5.56 doesn't have much recoil and the newer models are very light weight. With a little training you could handle one quite readily I'm sure.

my son-at 14 who has over 6 years of serious shooting under his belt, started shooting an AR 15 several years ago. The AR with the collapsing stocks are ideal because the L O P on the stock can be adjusted for short people (or those wearing body armor) I built him a 22 LR only AR and then bought one made that way later on. Then a AR 15 in 545x39 Russian since it kicks even less than the NATO ROUND.

at 14 he is small-5-0 90 pounds but the AR in 556 is no problem. He shoots clays with a semi auto rem 1100 but Last night I bought him a Beretta 12 g with the short youth stock since I compete with a similar gun (and thus he can use the expensive an top flight Briley competition chokes that I have)

we have a couple friends in the Men's archery (they got into the medal round with a one point win over Japan) and when that is over we will be trying out his new shotgun on the skeet range

a AR 15 kicks less than a 20G shotgun. The AKs in 762x39 kick a bit more than ARs-the AK 74 in the 545 kicks less
 
stop lying stop diverting

your definition is irrelevant and wrong

federal statute has two categories

military and civilians

you are employing the squid defense-lots of ink and lots of suck



the issue involves the statement by governments

something you have spewed ink and suck at


:lamo

A "lawyer" that not only doesn't believe in the rule of law and can't tell the difference between the police and civilians. Keep us laughing "counselor"!
 
Last edited:
:lamo

A "lawyer" that not only doesn't believe in the rule of law but can't tell the difference between the police and civilians. Keep us laughing "counselor"!

He cited to you the legal definition, you cited answers.com...

Goodness you cannot help lying, trolling and repeating yourself despite being proven wrong can you?
 
Back
Top Bottom