• 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 .
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?

nor did he address the seminal point-how can the city of NY say a 17 round magazine in in pistol is good for SOME CIVILIANS for self defense but those same things are COMPLETELY UNSUITABLE FOR OTHER CIVILIANS?
 
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?

He did no such thing. Post the link where he cited the legal definition, if you can.
 
He did no such thing. Post the link where he cited the legal definition, if you can.

more evasion

US Code

MIlitary vs civilian courts of law

FBI agents are under the CIVIL SERVICE regulation



MORE INK FROM YOU


200px-Squid-cache_logo.jpg
 
Legal definition of police: "A body sanctioned by local, state, or national government to enforce laws and apprehend those who break them.

The police force as we know it came into being in England in the 1820s when Sir Robert Peel established London's first municipal force. Before that, policing had either been done by volunteers or by soldiers. Police officers in the twenty-first century have technological advantages at their disposal to help them solve crimes, but most rely primarily on training and instinct to do their work.

In the United States, policing was originally done by the "watch system" in which local citizens would go on patrol and look for criminal activity. As cities grew, so did the amount of crime, and it became impossible to control it through volunteers. In the mid-1840s, New York City established the first paid professional police force in the United States. By the end of the nineteenth century, major cities across the nation had their own police forces. Regional police organizations were also established. Federal policing agencies such as the U.S. Park Police (who patrolled national parks), the Postal Inspectors (who helped ensure safe mail delivery) and the Border Patrol (which kept criminals from sneaking into or out of the country) were introduced. In 1905, Pennsylvania established the nation's first state police; other states quickly followed suit."

police legal definition of police. police synonyms by the Free Online Law Dictionary.


Legal definition of civilian: "Civilian is a person not serving in military or a person who does not belong to a particular group or engage in a particular activity. Any activity pursued by an ordinary citizen can be called a civilian pursuit. "

http://definitions.uslegal.com/c/civilian-pursuits/
 
Last edited:
Three no answers and five yes. Could this "poll" be rigged?

Yes or no are pretty definitive answers. There is no requirement to weight out the number of yesses and nos. Everone could chose one of the nos if they wanted. Basically, that's a stupid question. However, if you can think of more "no" reasons that I left out (such as I'm a liberal from England where every move I make outside my front door is caught on government cameras so I'm not worried about personal safety), feel free to share them and I'll consider editing it.
 
The poll should have included an option for "I own an assault weapon to compensate for my cronic inferiority complex". That was the reason at least half the guys that had an assault weapon had one for.

The problem isn't assault weapons though. Its the very high capacity magazines sold today.

I have to disagree. Take any "assault" weapon, with the biggest magazine you can find, lay it on a table out of the way. Come back years later and I bet, baring someone else touching it, that it will be in the same place and except for maybe rust, the same condition. The magazine will not of moved it's self or the rifle and caused any problems. IT IS AN INANIMATE OBJECT, it cannot be a problem.

People are and always will be the problem, not inaniate objects that do nothing without being used by a person. People can preach love one another and sit around singing "kumbya" all they want, but until every single person in the world joins you, there is and always will be "bad" people. Don't blame the tools that they use, blame the person. The only way to counter these "bad" people is with "good" people who also use the same tools but for good. Guns have no inherit "evil" or "good", only the person holding a gun can be "evil", "bad" or "good". Any law you pass that "limits the bad guys" also limits the good guys, unless you are willing to pay enough police to be with you and everyone else constantly, non-police "good" guys/gals are needed and you need to take responsibility for yourself.

If you support limits and restrictions on "good" people, but a "bad" person does something "bad" because as a "badguy" he doesn't follow the rules anyways, then you are an accessary and enabler of that "badguy" and bear some responsibility for any bad he does beyond what would of occurred had a "good" person been able to intervene. Because there were no "goodguys" with the tools needed to limit the actions of the badguys, everyone who supports or votes for limits on the "goodguys" hold a share of the responsibility for the murders at Aurora, Tucson and elsewhere.
 
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..

wrong. by the definitions provided by some very prestigious dictionaries, LEOs are NOT civilians.
 
wrong. by the definitions provided by some very prestigious dictionaries, LEOs are NOT civilians.

that does not trump the US code that has one division

civilian vs military


why are police officers tried in civilian courts while military members in Military courts

why are Federal law enforcement officers-be they FBI, DEA, CIA or US attorneys under the same retirement systems as IRS revenue officers, Department of Labor employees etc

why does the POSSE COMMITATUS ACT prevent MILITARY from engaging in CIVILIAN LAW ENFORCEMENT ACTIONS

here is another one

What Is Federal Civilian Employment? | eHow.com

If you work for the United States government and are not a uniformed member of the military or an elected official, you are a federal civilian employee. This includes both United States citizens as well as foreign nationals working within the continental United States and abroad. A
 
more than a few very legit. dictionaries define LEOs as NOT being civilians.

why do you ignore the real point I made

how does a glock 17 go from being the issued self defense weapon for some civilians to totally unsuitable for other civilians in the same city?
 
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.....

unfortunately, its ignorant & incorrect to accuse someone of hoplophobia, simply because they dislike or even fear guns.

Hoplophobia is the fear of WEAPONS, not guns. That includes knives, clubs, tazers, mace, etc etc.
 
according to the Webster's & Cambridge dictionary, LEOs are not civilians.

for the purposes of legal jurisdiction LEOs are civilians and that is what matters.

so address the pending point
 
for the purposes of legal jurisdiction LEOs are civilians and that is what matters.

so address the pending point

As previously documented all of the civilian police were phased out by the end of the 19th century.
 
Last edited:
Congratulations catawba, you have reached your gold of derailing the thread with pointless twaddle.
 
Congratulations catawba, you have reached your gold of derailing the thread with pointless twaddle.

Sure glad to know I've reached my "gold!" I knew there had to be a nugget in this thread somewhere!

The turtledude made a claim he couldn't back up. If he had owned up to it, there would have been no need to prove his claim was false.
 
Sure glad to know I've reached my "gold!" I knew there had to be a nugget in this thread somewhere!

The turtledude made a claim he couldn't back up. If he had owned up to it, there would have been no need to prove his claim was false.

Your claim was the moronic claim.
 
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!
An 'assault weapon' (whatever that means) is typically easier to fire with far less recoil than a single shot shotgun. You can empty a complete magazine from my .45 'assault rifle' in under five seconds and remain very accurate. Your 'fear' is prompted by the word, not the actual weapon. We have a gal that lives with us...very diminutive...Id say maybe a bit shorter than you. She fires every weapon I have effectively. Its understandable if someone doesnt LIKE weapons...I wish people didnt live in 'fear' of weapons. Fear tends to make one a victim.
 
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.
The only people you have fear from that might use or even possess an "AK47 on automatic" would be a criminal, and criminals have shown, throughout history, that they are pretty much immune to bans. These guys...those weapons and magazine restrictions didnt have much of an impact on them for example...

 
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
A 'machine gun'...to kill one person. If only the guy in question had been restricted to a .44. :roll: And the weapon you cited hardly qualifies as an 'assault rifle'.
 
Back
Top Bottom