• 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 .
On another note... a sick and devious mind is going to employ tactics like making gasoline bombs, homemade grenades, and generally any other IED device. All it takes is a little time, a place to experiment with the chemicals, and maybe MINOR technical knowledge. I mean how many people are certified electricians, and how many of us can go online and find out about simple electrical devices? Hell you could go to the public library if you wanted too. I am sure if (and when) any redneck put their mind to it...they could come up with explosives that could kill dozens.
 
Yes, I'd own one. Better to be prepared, having one, than to need one and not have a mosquitoes chance in hell if you did need it. As we have seen from the past, a people unprotected is a people left at the hands of lunatics.

When a government makes laws to take away weapons or not allow any from the get go, the people are left vulnerable to the evil doers.
 
On another note... a sick and devious mind is going to employ tactics like making gasoline bombs, homemade grenades, and generally any other IED device. All it takes is a little time, a place to experiment with the chemicals, and maybe MINOR technical knowledge. I mean how many people are certified electricians, and how many of us can go online and find out about simple electrical devices? Hell you could go to the public library if you wanted too. I am sure if (and when) any redneck put their mind to it...they could come up with explosives that could kill dozens.

Easy on the rednecks, they ain't the ones been doing ****. BTW, myself at least and probably several others have been intentionally not pointing out more deadly ways. Now how are you going to feel if the next idiot that does something actually uses something you mentioned?
 
Easy on the rednecks, they ain't the ones been doing ****. BTW, myself at least and probably several others have been intentionally not pointing out more deadly ways. Now how are you going to feel if the next idiot that does something actually uses something you mentioned?

A) I am a redneck and pointing out one of our fundamental flaws when it comes to Darwinism is hardly an insult. Just a simple observance of truth.

B) I have said nothing that hasn't already been done. Columbine, aurora, Oklahoma, Aryan nation , and for god's sake even the animal liberation front. I mean if those numbskulls have the ability to do it? Plus with all the coverage in aurora you think that isn't news?
 
gun control was never intended to be crime control but ethnic control

Klansman didn't want freed blacks having guns

wasps didn't want "papists" having guns

the Irish pols who ran NYC didn't want Italians having guns

and once again, rich dems don't want poor whites or blacks having guns

There's a subtle but important difference.

Democrats don't claim an inherent SUPERIORITY over poor people.

Klownsmen claimed SUPERIORITY over black people.

Wasps claimed SUPERIORITY over Catholics

Irish claimed SUPERIORITY over Italians, not to mention that at the time there were immigration crime groups like Irish mobs and the American Mafia.

Democrats who hated the poor would be much more blatant about it.
 
Good news for you, as I'll address further, most of what you want is already law to and extent. Though that can be refined a bit. I'll explain.

Anyone with a felony conviction or dishonorable discharge is already disbarred legally from owning a weapon. To refine that I would rather that the felonies be only those that are violent or have violence as a component(black market felonies) and I would remove dishonorable discharge, they are both catchalls that overgeneralize the removal of rights. If they were shortened in scope to eliminate non-violent offenses and had a period certain opportunity for the restitution of rights for good behavior it would be perfect law.
I think only violent FELONS should have gun rights removed, as well as those with ties to violent organized crime groups.

Anyone involuntarily committed to an institution of mental health is disqualified from owning a gun, I like your idea of only limiting mental disorders to those of violence or potential psychotic breaks, makes more sense than someone within the fully functioning autism spectrum being disbarred "just because". I think upon conditions of medicating the problem within control some people could have their rights restored. But I am not willing to go as far as mandatory testing for everyone who wants a gun, it's a little too far on the prior restraint side for my tastes. Rights do have some responsibilities and risks.
A lot of the disorders I listed don't confine people to mental institutions. Obviously under normal circumstances someone in an asylum isn't going to get guns anytime soon. Psychopaths, however, aren't delusional, and they are very good at pretending to be normal, so it would be harder to catch them without a psych exam. If a shrink evaluating gun customers leads to too many accidental lack of gun rights for people who are sane, I would be willing to go with your idea.

I also don't think that ALL mental disorders should lead to no gun rights. I'm on the autism spectrum and I could probably handle guns, although I don't particularly like having them around. It is an unsupported myth that aspies are violent - only if they have comorbidity with a mental illness that causes aggression they are not really prone to violence.

No argument to your first group.........but you have to prove it, street gangs would be the most preferable group, they are the most random in application of violence. You have to go out of your way to be on a Mafia hit list, and cartels are a combination of being in the wrong place at the wrong time OR being in their way. Street gangs will shoot at the wrong address and call it a write off.
I'm talking about actually being a member or a voluntary associate. Street gang members should definitely have no gun rights removed.

[/QUOTE]Okay, no problem with restricting WMDs, they are indifferent weapons, area effective, and you don't aim them as much as disperse them. Explosives have a purpose, and a semi-safe handling, they shouldn't be outright legal but permittable, I have no problem with an advance license requirement for ownership and detonation. "Sniper" rifles are really just long guns, there is nothing about them that makes them deadlier than a hunting rifle, most large bore hunting rifles are accurate from +705yds to a little over a mile, with the longest shot ever placed on target at about 2mi. by a Canadian sniper using a Barrett .50cal. but just about any long barreled hunting rifle will shoot up to about a mile and on target if you know how to adjust for windage and loss of velocity.[/QUOTE]
When I talk about explosives I'm talking more about bombs. Anything that can demolish an entire building or CITY is definitely out of line. I'm uncomfortable with allowing grenades as they have a very limited self-defense purpose. Any grenade license must have STRINGENT requirements and restrictions. I don't see why anyone who's not an LEO or in the armed forces would have explosives and grenades in the first place, as they would not work well for home defense or a possible mass shooting situation, but if grenades can be used responsibly in such a manner a strict registration program would not be a problem. Having illegal explosives and firearms without a license should be a FELONY with at LEAST 5-10 years in prison.

Criminal background check, IF there is a further question by civilians(such as the gun range owner in Colorado) who notice behaviors that are a little off allow for them to sign a sworn affadavit, legally binding, that allows for further questioning/testing.

The thing is
 
There's a subtle but important difference.

Democrats don't claim an inherent SUPERIORITY over poor people.

Klownsmen claimed SUPERIORITY over black people.

Wasps claimed SUPERIORITY over Catholics

Irish claimed SUPERIORITY over Italians, not to mention that at the time there were immigration crime groups like Irish mobs and the American Mafia.

Democrats who hated the poor would be much more blatant about it.

Do remember that a Democrat then was not what a Democrat is today.
 
I think only violent FELONS should have gun rights removed, as well as those with ties to violent organized crime groups.


A lot of the disorders I listed don't confine people to mental institutions. Obviously under normal circumstances someone in an asylum isn't going to get guns anytime soon. Psychopaths, however, aren't delusional, and they are very good at pretending to be normal, so it would be harder to catch them without a psych exam. If a shrink evaluating gun customers leads to too many accidental lack of gun rights for people who are sane, I would be willing to go with your idea.

I also don't think that ALL mental disorders should lead to no gun rights. I'm on the autism spectrum and I could probably handle guns, although I don't particularly like having them around. It is an unsupported myth that aspies are violent - only if they have comorbidity with a mental illness that causes aggression they are not really prone to violence.


I'm talking about actually being a member or a voluntary associate. Street gang members should definitely have no gun rights removed.
We're about on the same page I believe. With psych testing, and I realize I made a bit of a mistake, I am not okay with mandatory but the same sworn affadavit system for further scrutiny could be applied to people who seem to have violent tendancies. With explosives, I think a good compromise is an explosives and explosive ordnance license covering everything from homemade bombs to C4, but only controlled explosives or ordnance and not WMDs in any way. As well, with ordnance and explosives anything not related to a controlled demolition would have to have an open space requirement, i.e. sure you can go blow stuff up but it better be a large field away from others.
 
Easy on the rednecks, they ain't the ones been doing ****. BTW, myself at least and probably several others have been intentionally not pointing out more deadly ways. Now how are you going to feel if the next idiot that does something actually uses something you mentioned?



Im pretty sure that Timothy McVeigh was a redneck. Those crazy Militia guys are all rednecks as well. And all KKK idiots are rednecks.


What iI find stereotypical of rednecks is that they are too stupid to realize that the redneck title is a insult. Its kind of like those African American gang bangers running around calling themselves niggers. Whats next white guys calling themselves honkies or white trash? Oh wait some already call themselves rednecks...
 
Last edited:
Im pretty sure that Timothy McVeigh was a redneck. Those crazy Militia guys are all rednecks as well. And all KKK idiots are rednecks.


What iI find stereotypical of rednecks is that they are too stupid to realize that the redneck title is a insult. Its kind of like those African American gang bangers running around calling themselves niggers. Whats next white guys calling themselves honkies or white trash? Oh wait some already call themselves rednecks...

"What most people call a redkneck ain't noth'n but a working man
he makes his living by the sweat of his brow and calluses on his hands
...
What this world needs is a few more rednecks
Some people ain't afraid to take a stand
What this world needs is a little more respect
For the Lord and the law and the workin' man
We could use a little peace and satisfaction
Some good people up front to take the lead
A little less talk and a little more action
And a few more rednecks is what we need"

CDB--What this World needs is a Few More Rednecks.
 
Last edited:
Im pretty sure that Timothy McVeigh was a redneck. Those crazy Militia guys are all rednecks as well. And all KKK idiots are rednecks.


What iI find stereotypical of rednecks is that they are too stupid to realize that the redneck title is a insult. Its kind of like those African American gang bangers running around calling themselves niggers. Whats next white guys calling themselves honkies or white trash? Oh wait some already call themselves rednecks...

"I ain't nothin' but a simple man
They call me a redneck I reckon that I am
But there's things going on
That make me mad down to the core.

I have to work like a dog to make ends meet
There's crooked politicians and crime in the street
And I'm madder'n hell and I ain't gonna take it no more.
...
Well, you know what's wrong with the world today
People done gone and put their Bible's away
They're living by the law of the jungle not the law of the land
The good book says it so I know it's the truth
An eye for and eye and a tooth for a tooth
You better watch where you go and remember where you been
That's the way I see it I'm a Simple Man."

CDB--Simple Man
 
"I ain't nothin' but a simple man
They call me a redneck I reckon that I am
But there's things going on
That make me mad down to the core.

I have to work like a dog to make ends meet
There's crooked politicians and crime in the street
And I'm madder'n hell and I ain't gonna take it no more.
...
Well, you know what's wrong with the world today
People done gone and put their Bible's away
They're living by the law of the jungle not the law of the land
The good book says it so I know it's the truth
An eye for and eye and a tooth for a tooth
You better watch where you go and remember where you been
That's the way I see it I'm a Simple Man."

CDB--Simple Man

"What most people call a redkneck ain't noth'n but a working man
he makes his living by the sweat of his brow and calluses on his hands
...
What this world needs is a few more rednecks
Some people ain't afraid to take a stand
What this world needs is a little more respect
For the Lord and the law and the workin' man
We could use a little peace and satisfaction
Some good people up front to take the lead
A little less talk and a little more action
And a few more rednecks is what we need"

CDB--What this World needs is a Few More Rednecks.
Yes Charlie Danials thinks that the term redneck equals the working man.

Redneck - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Redneck is a derogatory slang term used in reference to poor, uneducated white farmers, especially from the southern United States.[1][2] It is similar in meaning to cracker (especially regarding Georgia and Florida), hillbilly (especially regarding Appalachia and the Ozarks),[3] and white trash (but without the last term's suggestions of immorality).[4][5][6]
In recent decades, the term has expanded its meaning to refer to bigoted, loutish reactionaries who are opposed to modern ways,[7] and has often been used to attack Southern conservatives and racists.[8] At the same time, some Southern whites have reclaimed the word, using it with pride and defiance as a self-identifier.[9]


Again it is just like a African American calling them self a nigger. Its just makes them self look stupid. You know you are a redneck when? All of those jokes the Jeff Foxworthy are making implies that rednecks are stupid. And rednecks are stupid enough to agree with that implication which I find pathetic. As a American I am embarrassed by stupid rednecks. On top of the idiotic stereotypical redneck behavior you have rednecks running around claiming that America is a Christian nation as if Christianity is the state religion. Which just shows how stupid these rednecks really are. Next they believe the rhetoric that rednecks have to be right wing hacks. And even further they somehow believe the extreme Rights weird ass belief that America is not a democracy and that the people dont need to vote for anything. Further making me think that rednecks should not breed with their cousins anymore. But what does one expect from a bunch of women beating beer belly drunks out getting stuck in the mud?

Not that I really think that all rednecks fit that description but that is what normally a redneck is. And when someone calls them self a redneck that is what everyone but rednecks think of them.
In other words only a idiot would call them self a redneck if they knew what everyone else thinks a redneck is. And none of us really equates a redneck with a working man we equate it with fat stupid drunk white men. As a white man myself I am embarrassed for our race if rednecks are what people think of when they think of us.

Redneck = racial slur
 
Yes Charlie Danials thinks that the term redneck equals the working man.

Redneck - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Redneck is a derogatory slang term used in reference to poor, uneducated white farmers, especially from the southern United States.[1][2] It is similar in meaning to cracker (especially regarding Georgia and Florida), hillbilly (especially regarding Appalachia and the Ozarks),[3] and white trash (but without the last term's suggestions of immorality).[4][5][6]
In recent decades, the term has expanded its meaning to refer to bigoted, loutish reactionaries who are opposed to modern ways,[7] and has often been used to attack Southern conservatives and racists.[8] At the same time, some Southern whites have reclaimed the word, using it with pride and defiance as a self-identifier.[9]


Again it is just like a African American calling them self a nigger. Its just makes them self look stupid. You know you are a redneck when? All of those jokes the Jeff Foxworthy are making implies that rednecks are stupid. And rednecks are stupid enough to agree with that implication which I find pathetic. As a American I am embarrassed by stupid rednecks. On top of the idiotic stereotypical redneck behavior you have rednecks running around claiming that America is a Christian nation as if Christianity is the state religion. Which just shows how stupid these rednecks really are. Next they believe the rhetoric that rednecks have to be right wing hacks. And even further they somehow believe the extreme Rights weird ass belief that America is not a democracy and that the people dont need to vote for anything. Further making me think that rednecks should not breed with their cousins anymore. But what does one expect from a bunch of women beating beer belly drunks out getting stuck in the mud?

Not that I really think that all rednecks fit that description but that is what normally a redneck is. And when someone calls them self a redneck that is what everyone but rednecks think of them.
In other words only a idiot would call them self a redneck if they knew what everyone else thinks a redneck is. And none of us really equates a redneck with a working man we equate it with fat stupid drunk white men. As a white man myself I am embarrassed for our race if rednecks are what people think of when they think of us.

Redneck = racial slur

An insult from my enemy is a compliment to me and if you are not my enemy, they you wouldn't try to insult me.
 
An insult from my enemy is a compliment to me and if you are not my enemy, they you wouldn't try to insult me.
Im just trying to point out that people who do not consider themselves as rednecks think that the term redneck is derogatory and more often than not that is how they will use the term redneck when talking about people that call themselves rednecks.

Im just cluing you into the reality that society thinks that the term redneck means stupid white people from the south. You can do what you want with that information accept it deny it I really do not care, but either way it wont change that perception as a truth. Rednecks are the punch line of a insulting joke and as I said it is stereotypical of a redneck to miss that obvious fact. My suggestion is to not be stereotypical of a racist accusation or you just confirm their prejudices against rednecks or a class of Americans.
 
My point is that longrange data does not support your point of view.

It most certainly does as the US with the highest number of guns per person has the highest number of intentional homicide rates with guns by far of all the wealthy populous nations as has been shown. Nothing in the data you referenced disputes that.
 
Last edited:
It most certainly does as the US with the highest number of guns per person has the highest number of intentional homicide rates with guns by far of all the wealthy populous nations as has been shown. Nothing in the data you referenced disputes that.
What's the murder rate?
 
It most certainly does as the US with the highest number of guns per person has the highest number of intentional homicide rates with guns by far of all the wealthy populous nations as has been shown. Nothing in the data you referenced disputes that.

What was the murder rate in 1900 vs present, and what was the gun ownership rate in 1900 vs present?

Could something have changed in the last 100 years that affected the homicide rate, other than gun ownership? I'd say there have been massive changes in our society over that time period.


BTW, since you don't like gun ownership, want the government to supply things like UHC and Welfare, support tighter and tighter enviromental restrictions, etc, what are you doing still living in the US? Most of your stances wouldn't be changes in France where your view point is a lot more common. Why don't you just pack your bag and head there, I think would think you'd be happier there.
 
We're about on the same page I believe. With psych testing, and I realize I made a bit of a mistake, I am not okay with mandatory but the same sworn affadavit system for further scrutiny could be applied to people who seem to have violent tendancies. With explosives, I think a good compromise is an explosives and explosive ordnance license covering everything from homemade bombs to C4, but only controlled explosives or ordnance and not WMDs in any way. As well, with ordnance and explosives anything not related to a controlled demolition would have to have an open space requirement, i.e. sure you can go blow stuff up but it better be a large field away from others.

I'm actually more uncomfortable with the affadavit thing, because that seems more fascistic than simply visiting a shrink, the whole "Watch your Neighbor" thing. I think no explosives period, especially war explosives, grenades can be an exception. Like I said, terrorist-type bombs that can blow up a building (not controlled explosives used in peaceful demolitions) should not be allowed with strict licensing.
 
It most certainly does as the US with the highest number of guns per person has the highest number of intentional homicide rates with guns by far of all the wealthy populous nations as has been shown. Nothing in the data you referenced disputes that.

african countries have higher intentional murder rates than the US and they have fewer guns. you can try to qualify it all you want, but nothing you've posted proves that more guns = more murders.

guns don't kill people....africans kill people. :lamo and a very big j/k
 
I'm actually more uncomfortable with the affadavit thing, because that seems more fascistic than simply visiting a shrink, the whole "Watch your Neighbor" thing. I think no explosives period, especially war explosives, grenades can be an exception. Like I said, terrorist-type bombs that can blow up a building (not controlled explosives used in peaceful demolitions) should not be allowed with strict licensing.
I get where the affadavit thing sounds pretty bad, but I don't mean that it could be used to empower neighbors to harass people for just any reason. I think with the sworn affadavit things like the gun range owner in Colorado, or gun dealers who refused sale to someone because of behaviors that could be dangerous should be able to report extreme things they run across to authorities, and there should be legal penalties for a bad faith reporting, i.e., making something up for harassment, payback, or any agendas not based on immediate public interest. Explosives are legal already, they require a license though, and these are used by professional demolition crews, oil surveyors, mine companies, etc. the weaponized explosives aren't currently legal but I say if a person has plenty of space and wants to blow stuff up at their own risk.........more power to them.

What concerns me isn't necessarily the professional explosive materials, it's the criminals who weaponize household chemicals, average lawnscaping nitrate products, and other over the counter consumer grade stuff to do bad things. It's impossible to track those things versus say......C4, TNT, etc.
 
Absolutely correct. In fact the very first gun control was southern Democrats looking to disbar slaves, escaped slaves, and freedmen from firearms ownership. What followed was a decades long period of lynching innocents, KKK domestic terrorism against not only blacks but Catholics and other non-Baptist christians, and those of the Jewish faith.

As well, current African regimes LOVE gun control, it keeps the weapons in their hands while they are free to rape, oppress, murder, and otherwise pillage their rival tribes. German gun control was the first step to solidifying the Third Reich's position to centralize the Deutschlands into Nazi SS control, we all know how that turned out. Very few dictatorships actually armed their citizens, I believe the only one that did was that of the Iraqi regime, that's the only one I can remember anyway.

those in most need of being shot tend to be people who want to deprive others of owning guns
 
african countries have higher intentional murder rates than the US and they have fewer guns. you can try to qualify it all you want, but nothing you've posted proves that more guns = more murders.

guns don't kill people....africans kill people. :lamo and a very big j/k

West African Dictator Macias was once asked if his goon squads were killing people with sledge hammers

his answer

Bullets cost money
 
West African Dictator Macias was once asked if his goon squads were killing people with sledge hammers

his answer

Bullets cost money


Most citizens would be amazed at the myriad of ways people are murdered without a gun everyday in every major city....
 
Most citizens would be amazed at the myriad of ways people are murdered without a gun everyday in every major city....

machetes rang up thousands in Middle Africa over the last few decades.
 
machetes rang up thousands in Middle Africa over the last few decades.
The Viet Cong killed many of our guys out there with traps made of wooden sticks and other non firearms related nastyness.
 
Back
Top Bottom