• 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!

What is an assault rifle?

What is an assault rifle?


  • Total voters
    56
No, "as part of" is a construct of your agenda, and never appears in the second amendment.

If it makes you feel warm and fuzzy to ignore that the sentence begins with a well regulated militia, knock yourself out.
 
That's very true. But when I served in the Texas State Guard (a militia,) we worked very closely with the National Guard and often trained with them.

Then you got your gun nutter, special forces fat wannabe type militias that are preparing for doomsday or Mexicans, or blacks, or commies, or liberals, or whatever words that make their chewing tobacco taste better.

Then you got your Black Panther militia.

There are all kinds of militias I suppose. When does a militia cross the fine line from good to bad and start being watched by big brother? I would think there are good and bad militias. But that would depend on who you ask I suppose.

For the eighty billionth time, the milita was simply able bodied citizens. Your personal opinion of others doesn't change the right they are guaranteed.

If it makes you feel warm and fuzzy to ignore that the sentence begins with a well regulated militia, knock yourself out.

Where did I ignore it? I've addressed it several times.
 
For the eighty billionth time, the milita was simply able bodied citizens. Your personal opinion of others doesn't change the right they are guaranteed.

So, you are saying that we all are a militia????? I mean, we ARE able bodied citizens, are we not?

I don't FEEL like a militia. Did I miss the memo?

When's our next meeting?
 
So, you are saying that we all are a militia????? I mean, we ARE able bodied citizens, are we not?

I don't FEEL like a militia. Did I miss the memo?

When's our next meeting?
As per the Constitution...yes...you are. As more recently defined by the US Code...yes...you are. Unless you are:

(a) The following persons are exempt from militia duty:
(1) The Vice President.
(2) The judicial and executive officers of the United States, the several States, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, Guam, and the Virgin Islands.
(3) Members of the armed forces, except members who are not on active duty.
(4) Customhouse clerks.
(5) Persons employed by the United States in the transmission of mail.
(6) Workmen employed in armories, arsenals, and naval shipyards of the United States.
(7) Pilots on navigable waters.
(8) Mariners in the sea service of a citizen of, or a merchant in, the United States.
(b) A person who claims exemption because of religious belief is exempt from militia duty in a combatant capacity, if the conscientious holding of that belief is established under such regulations as the President may prescribe. However, such a person is not exempt from militia duty that the President determines to be noncombatant.

2 types...Organized and non-organized. They don't send a memo...doesn't mean the definitions don't exist.
 
As per the Constitution...yes...you are. As more recently defined by the US Code...yes...you are. Unless you are:

(a) The following persons are exempt from militia duty:
(1) The Vice President.
(2) The judicial and executive officers of the United States, the several States, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, Guam, and the Virgin Islands.
(3) Members of the armed forces, except members who are not on active duty.
(4) Customhouse clerks.
(5) Persons employed by the United States in the transmission of mail.
(6) Workmen employed in armories, arsenals, and naval shipyards of the United States.
(7) Pilots on navigable waters.
(8) Mariners in the sea service of a citizen of, or a merchant in, the United States.
(b) A person who claims exemption because of religious belief is exempt from militia duty in a combatant capacity, if the conscientious holding of that belief is established under such regulations as the President may prescribe. However, such a person is not exempt from militia duty that the President determines to be noncombatant.

2 types...Organized and non-organized. They don't send a memo...doesn't mean the definitions don't exist.

I am an army of one. LOL!
 
I am an army of one. LOL!
Think how easily you can make rank. Sucks though that as the General you still have to empty your own trash. Oh...and the pay isn't all that great either.
 
Last edited:
Switzerland has an actual well-regulated militia. There each person is subject to mandatory military service.
 
Think how easily you can make rank. Sucks though that as the General you still have to empty your own trash. Oh...and the pay isn't all that great either.

I made it all the way to Captain so far! But you're right. I STILL gotta iron my own military creases and spitshine my boondockers.
 
Is free speech also limited in that way?

Of course not! Funny, how "Free Speach" and "Freedom of the Press" have all adapted over time to include Radio, Television, and the Internet. Technologies that in no way were anticipated when the Constitution was written.

But in this instance, the Constitution obviously does not apply. It only covers what were "guns" when it was written, and nothing else.

Funny how some people think, how it adapts only for things they believe in, but is locked for things they do not.
 
Of course not! Funny, how "Free Speach" and "Freedom of the Press" have all adapted over time to include Radio, Television, and the Internet. Technologies that in no way were anticipated when the Constitution was written.

But in this instance, the Constitution obviously does not apply. It only covers what were "guns" when it was written, and nothing else.

Funny how some people think, how it adapts only for things they believe in, but is locked for things they do not.

Yes, I figured that's why they wouldn't answer and instead tried to argue that the "well regulated militia" clause meant that the 2nd amendment somehow becomes "Oh well the government can have an army if it likes to, and it can give them guns, if it wants," even though it says explicitly "the right of the people... shall not be infringed."
 
One word...AMMO. The military spec .223 bullet the AR-15 used is especially designed to turn it's victims insides into hamburger. It's a killing machine with no recreational use.

Ohh, so that ammunition is never used for hunting?

And by these definitions, an AK-47 is not an assault rifle, and neither is an M-1, an M-14, or a great many other things.

Great, let me buy those then, since they are not assault rifles.

This is why the ban is proposed for assault weapons:

They have a shorter barrel for easy maneuvering in tight spaces, are more accurate, are more powerful ballistically, and they are capable of killing large numbers of without reloading. That is why they are the gun of choice for gangs in the US and Mexico, and to more and more of the mentally deranged.

They do? I never considered the M-1 as a "short weapon", but it is an assault rifle.

And sorry, the weapon of choice is either pistols, or sub-machine guns. Not Assault Rifles.

The Uzi? MAC-10? MAC-11? Thompson? TEC-9? Those are not "Assault Rifles" at all, but sub-machineguns. A very different type of weapon, these all fire conventional pistol rounds, normally the 9mm or .45.

So once again, what is the definition? Because every time somebody gives up a definition here, it leaves out a tun of other weapons that it does not apply to.
 
Yes, I figured that's why they wouldn't answer and instead tried to argue that the "well regulated militia" clause meant that the 2nd amendment somehow becomes "Oh well the government can have an army if it likes to, and it can give them guns, if it wants," even though it says explicitly "the right of the people... shall not be infringed."

Funny, how many of those who scream to love Thomas Jefferson in some things, ignore him in others.

It is more a subject of joy [than of regret] that we have so few of the desperate characters which compose modern regular armies. But it proves more forcibly the necessity of obliging every citizen to be a soldier; this was the case with the Greeks and Romans and must be that of every free State. Where there is no oppression there can be no pauper hirelings.

[The] governor [is] constitutionally the commander of the militia of the State, that is to say, of every man in it able to bear arms.

Uncertain as we must ever be of the particular point in our circumference where an enemy may choose to invade us, the only force which can be ready at every point and competent to oppose them, is the body of neighboring citizens as formed into a militia. On these, collected from the parts most convenient, in numbers proportioned to the invading foe, it is best to rely, not only to meet the first attack, but if it threatens to be permanent, to maintain the defence until regulars may be engaged to relieve them.

We must train and classify the whole of our male citizens, and make military instruction a regular part of collegiate education. We can never be safe till this is done.

One loves to possess arms, though they hope never to have occasion for them.

A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises, I advise the gun. While this gives a moderate exercise to the Body, it gives boldness, enterprise, and independence to the mind . . . Let your gun therefore be the constant companion of your walks.

And of course, one of my absolute favorites:

Laws that forbid the carrying of arms . . . disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes . . . Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.

And yes, these were all written by Thomas Jefferson, one of the most intellectual of the Founding Fathers. A man deeply involved in the founding of this country, and it's form of government.

Now is anybody going to stand up in here and tell one of the founding fathers he did not know what he was talking about? Seems pretty clear to me.
 
Ohh, so that ammunition is never used for hunting?

And by these definitions, an AK-47 is not an assault rifle, and neither is an M-1, an M-14, or a great many other things.

Great, let me buy those then, since they are not assault rifles.

They do? I never considered the M-1 as a "short weapon", but it is an assault rifle.

And sorry, the weapon of choice is either pistols, or sub-machine guns. Not Assault Rifles.

The Uzi? MAC-10? MAC-11? Thompson? TEC-9? Those are not "Assault Rifles" at all, but sub-machineguns. A very different type of weapon, these all fire conventional pistol rounds, normally the 9mm or .45.

So once again, what is the definition? Because every time somebody gives up a definition here, it leaves out a tun of other weapons that it does not apply to.


"Assault weapons are routinely the weapons of choice for gang members and drug dealers. They are regularly encountered in drug busts and are all too often used against our officers. In fact, one in five law enforcement officers slain in the line of duty between January 1, 1998, and December 31, 2001, was killed with an assault weapon, according to "Officer Down," a report from the Violence Policy Center. The weapons in question—including the Colt AR-15, a semiautomatic version of the M-16 machine gun used by our armed forces, the Uzi, and the Tec-9 pistol, whose manufacturer's advertisements hailed its "fingerprint-resistant" finish—have been used in countless murders such as the Stockton schoolyard and Columbine High School shootings.

Opponents of the assault weapons ban often argue that the ban only outlawed certain weapons because of their "cosmetic features" and not because they are inherently more dangerous than other weapons. This is simply not true." - Police Chief Joseph M. Polisar

Police Chief Magazine - View Article
 
This is why the ban is proposed for assault weapons:

They have a shorter barrel for easy maneuvering in tight spaces, are more accurate, are more powerful ballistically, and they are capable of killing large numbers of without reloading. That is why they are the gun of choice for gangs in the US and Mexico, and to more and more of the mentally deranged.
Laughably false. Shorter barreled weapons are not "more accurate" what happens is that they have a "tumble effect" the longer a bullet travels down a barrel the longer it keeps a tight flight pattern, as well tighter v. looser rifling determines how tight the original path will be, longer barreled rifles are better at any range BUT if there is a need for mid range capabilities like say...........being charged by a coyote or other aggressive medium sized predator the longer rifle may have setbacks such as being able to swing around relatively quickly. Assault rifles (select fire not semi automatic) are dubbed so because they are good for either assaulting in tight quarters OR if one finds themself under assault, mid-range to close quarters combat.

Finally, the .223 is not a large round, it's considered an "intermediate cartridge" and is really just a flared out .22 round with a hotter load than your standard .22 caliber rifle. The reason there is tearing and bouncing about on contact is twofold the tumble effect I mentioned earlier and basic physics the .22 round and it's variants are small, not as dense as larger rounds and have a high velocity, upon impact they do not transfer as much of their force through target at initial impact and don't tend to break bones, so if it hits bone it bounces around and continues to tumble through the target. Because the bullet has not transferred as much energy on initial impact it continues to fly around rather than punching it's energy through mass. This is why the .223 does what it does.

Educate yourself further on the subject before you issue more incorrect statements about firearms.
 
Perhaps we need to clarify what an assault RIFLE as opposed to an assault WEAPON means. My understanding is that an assault rifle is capable of automatic or burst fire, with a detachable magazine, firing an intermediate cartridge, and is generally issued to armed forces.
An assault weapon is something slightly less effective as a killing machine, but with the features pictured in James' confused OP.
Many assault weapons such as the Bushmaster, come in different configurations depending of which state's restrictions you wish to avoid.
 
Last edited:
In what well regulated militia are you actively serving?
All males 18-45 capable of military service are considered the milita. Militia service is not compelled for the right to keep and bear arms to not be infringed.
 
Laughably false. Shorter barreled weapons are not "more accurate" what happens is that they have a "tumble effect" the longer a bullet travels down a barrel the longer it keeps a tight flight pattern, as well tighter v. looser rifling determines how tight the original path will be, longer barreled rifles are better at any range BUT if there is a need for mid range capabilities like say...........being charged by a coyote or other aggressive medium sized predator the longer rifle may have setbacks such as being able to swing around relatively quickly. Assault rifles (select fire not semi automatic) are dubbed so because they are good for either assaulting in tight quarters OR if one finds themself under assault, mid-range to close quarters combat.

Finally, the .223 is not a large round, it's considered an "intermediate cartridge" and is really just a flared out .22 round with a hotter load than your standard .22 caliber rifle. The reason there is tearing and bouncing about on contact is twofold the tumble effect I mentioned earlier and basic physics the .22 round and it's variants are small, not as dense as larger rounds and have a high velocity, upon impact they do not transfer as much of their force through target at initial impact and don't tend to break bones, so if it hits bone it bounces around and continues to tumble through the target. Because the bullet has not transferred as much energy on initial impact it continues to fly around rather than punching it's energy through mass. This is why the .223 does what it does.

Educate yourself further on the subject before you issue more incorrect statements about firearms.


Yeah, I don't see how those kids would be any less dead if they were hit with an 06 round instead.
 
Perhaps we need to clarify what an assault RIFLE as opposed to an assault WEAPON means. My understanding is that an assault rifle is capable of automatic or burst fire, and is generally issued to armed forces. An assault weapon is something slightly less effective as a killing machine, but with the features pictured in James' confused OP.
Mnay Assault weapons such as the Bushmaster, come in different configurations depending of which state's restrictions you wish to avoid.
There is no such thing as an assault weapon, it's a created term by legislators that means nothing. The catagories of gun are; pisol, shotgun, rifle, machine gun, sub-machine gun. Sub catagories are revolver(pistol), bolt-action, semi-automatic(one trigger pull, one round fired), automatic(loading mechanism), burst fire(3x rounds per trigger pull), fully automatic(fires until trigger release).

Pistols - Handheld firearms
shotguns - typically smooth bore, ported for shells, fire in a spread pattern. Some rifled barrels exist to fire slugs which are the shotgun equivalents to bullets
Rifle - medium to long barreled rifled weapons, rifling is the pattern grooved in which the bullet's flight path will be directed.
LMG or Light Machine Gun - Large belt fed full autos capable of being handled with or without tripod
Machine gun - crew served mounted fully automatic
Sub-Machine gun - Full auto that fires pistol ammo, larger than a machine pisol but shorter than a fully automatic rifle.
 
I understand weapons for defense. I am having trouble with weapons meant to use for offensive tactics. That is to say, a weapon designed specifically to assault.

I plan to hunt until the day I can hunt no more, Lord willing. And I intend on keeping Roscoe close by to defend myself if need be.

But these gun nutters that insist on defending their ability on keeping these super dooper weapons around, that were designed to assault and solely for the purpose of taking human lives, are starting to scare me a bit. I used to identify with them but here lately I am wondering if it's not, in fact, those people that we need to protect ourselves from. It seems their desire to have their nutsack's tickled by the latest, greatest, killing machines at the expense of 6 and 7 year olds makes me question THEIR mental conditions. I dunno. Jury is still out with me.
 
Yeah, I don't see how those kids would be any less dead if they were hit with an 06 round instead.
Humans are fragile, it doesn't matter what you get hit with but rather where and what the assailant is willing to do to finish. I carry large caliber pistols because I don't know what the other guy is capable of should I ever need it, for instance if the assailant is high on extreme uppers, or if heaven forbid I find an active shooter hell bent on accomplishing a larger body count who won't stop until dead.
 
All males 18-45 capable of military service are considered the milita. Militia service is not compelled for the right to keep and bear arms to not be infringed.

You missed the well regulated part.
 
I understand weapons for defense. I am having trouble with weapons meant to use for offensive tactics. That is to say, a weapon designed specifically to assault.

I plan to hunt until the day I can hunt no more, Lord willing. And I intend on keeping Roscoe close by to defend myself if need be.

But these gun nutters that insist on defending their ability on keeping these super dooper weapons around, that were designed to assault and solely for the purpose of taking human lives, are starting to scare me a bit. I used to identify with them but here lately I am wondering if it's not, in fact, those people that we need to protect ourselves from. It seems their desire to have their nutsack's tickled by the latest, greatest, killing machines at the expense of 6 and 7 year olds makes me question THEIR mental conditions. I dunno. Jury is still out with me.

I'd agree with you but for the knowledge that the second was put in place in large part to keep a populace armed to a point where the government could not "overthrow" them. So the population would have a defense against runaway government.
 
I understand weapons for defense. I am having trouble with weapons meant to use for offensive tactics. That is to say, a weapon designed specifically to assault.

I plan to hunt until the day I can hunt no more, Lord willing. And I intend on keeping Roscoe close by to defend myself if need be.

But these gun nutters that insist on defending their ability on keeping these super dooper weapons around, that were designed to assault and solely for the purpose of taking human lives, are starting to scare me a bit. I used to identify with them but here lately I am wondering if it's not, in fact, those people that we need to protect ourselves from. It seems their desire to have their nutsack's tickled by the latest, greatest, killing machines at the expense of 6 and 7 year olds makes me question THEIR mental conditions. I dunno. Jury is still out with me.
It's a myth that assault rifles are super weapons. Full autos not on tripod are notoriously hard to aim, the rideup takes you off target within a couple of rounds and it's very easy to run yourself out of ammo if you don't pick your shots. Assault rifles tend to be lower calibers, and they are used for close quarters, they actually were initially designed for being under assault, but they have the counter of being useful for offense as well.
 
Back
Top Bottom