• 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
double barrel coach gun is good for home defense. but a mossberg pump is better and a benelli M2 semi shotgun even better

That presumes that either:

1. The person has the time and money to become proficient with a handgun as well.
or
2. The person has no interest in owning a handgun, nor ever carrying.

I'd say, 9 times out of 10, a small frame revolver is the way to go. It covers all the needs, shooting a shotgun at a pistol range is not so nice and training is all on a single weapon with cheap range ammo. Not to mention that going around corners with a long gun sucks.
 
You reckon we can write off our ammo on our income tax?




Hey, you know me. Always thinking.

With the price of some self-defense rounds (extra safety for everyone), those should be a write-off.
 
everyone i know who hunts in texas carries a 44 or higher as a side arm,not cuz of jamming,but because when you are deer hunting,and a deranged boar gets ready to charge,you pop of all your bolt action rounds and hes still standing,you could reload but your best bet is to grab a high powered revolver and pop off as many as you can into tha boar.

in both bears and boars,precise shots count,a slight failure means a pissed off animal,and if your in texas,hunting anyting means youll probably run into a boar,theyare so huge and overpopulated here cities in certain areas actually pay hunters to kill them and set up no limit kill zones for them.boars are just crazy,3 30-06 rounds to the head and they just shake it off like nothin happened,if you didnt hit your mark a 44 cal or higher is needed or your dead.
Boars are the worst from what I understand, I've been told bear attacks usually come from getting too close or encroaching at the wrong time but boars are aggressive and will charge whenever they feel like it.
 
Boars are the worst from what I understand, I've been told bear attacks usually come from getting too close or encroaching at the wrong time but boars are aggressive and will charge whenever they feel like it.

Boar hunting spears have a cross-bar ~1/3 up because a boar will impale itself to get to you. Hunting them with a bow is not a joke. Chicks chasing down and hogtieing little half-wild babies is not the same thing, that's circus crap.
 
Last edited:
Me so horny!

16732_1320314606764_2159831_n.jpg
 
Not really a rifle though.

Actually, it is a rifle.

The PHALANX (as is it's predecessor) is commonly called a "cannon", but in reality it is a gatling style rifle. It fires closed cartridges with a fixed propellent that is non-explosive (but it is incendiary bursting). And it is fired from a 6-barrel (progressive RH parabolic twist, 9 grooves) electric or hydraulically revolving firing system.

So yes, it is a rifle.
 
So far as I know, ALL pistols are semi-auto. You would ban ALL pistols. It's only a trick question if you don't know what you're talking about. One round per trigger pull = semi-auto.
Does a single action revolver qualify as semi-automatic? A six shooter can only take six bullets limiting the amount of carnage. Handguns with clips holding more rounds = more carnage. But if you can't defend yourself using six bullets, then you probably need training and shouldn't have a gun.


So far as I know, ALL pistols are semi-auto.

See, that's the problem right there. Gun righters don't know half of what they claim and worse yet, they can't even agree among themselves on terminology and types of weapons. I see you guys constantly correcting each other. So if you can't agree on your own verbage, then how can you expect a novice like me to know more than you in order to ban the type of weapons that don't belong in our communities?
 
Actually, it is a rifle.

The PHALANX (as is it's predecessor) is commonly called a "cannon", but in reality it is a gatling style rifle. It fires closed cartridges with a fixed propellent that is non-explosive (but it is incendiary bursting). And it is fired from a 6-barrel (progressive RH parabolic twist, 9 grooves) electric or hydraulically revolving firing system.

So yes, it is a rifle.

Fair enough. Though most rifle definitions also require the weapon to be shoulder mounted.
 
I don't play games Moot, and I don't take bait willingly.

Games? Moi? But you said you could take someone out with one "well placed shot." So I assume you don't need a semi-automatic with a clip holding 10 or 30 rounds to defend yourself. Too bad lizzie, you set yourself up, no bait neccessary.


".... Assuming that my aiming is good (which it is), a well-placed shot with my Ruger 10/22 can take out just about anyone, unless he has an extraordinary amount of fat on his chest...."
 
Does a single action revolver qualify as semi-automatic? A six shooter can only take six bullets limiting the amount of carnage. Handguns with clips holding more rounds = more carnage. But if you can't defend yourself using six bullets, then you probably need training and shouldn't have a gun.




See, that's the problem right there. Gun righters don't know half of what they claim and worse yet, they can't even agree among themselves on terminology and types of weapons. I see you guys constantly correcting each other. So if you can't agree on your own verbage, then how can you expect a novice like me to know more than you in order to ban the type of weapons that don't belong in our communities?

Why not muskets?
 
Why should anyone have to justify being allowed to posses something that is outlined as a right? It would seem more prudent to justify banning it instead. If, for instance, I proposed an outlaw to a certain phrase, such as "pink turkey," which is a nonsensical thing to say, would you accept it openly because "you don't need" to be allowed to say it? Or, would like some meaningful evidence that such a phrase is harmful?
Hey, I thought it was all about self defense with you guys? If not then you do need to justify your possession of guns that don't belong in a decent, civilized, society......and by the looks of what I'm seeing on TV and in the polls...your justifications doesn't seem to be holding much water. The wheat is finally separating itself from the chaffe as I speak. lol
 
Nope, all we've gotten so far is doublespeak. ie: "If you don't know the precise terminology and what all the accessories are, then how can you ban guns that kill massive amounts of innocent people?"

Your the one who wants so called assault weapons and so called high capacity magazines banned when clearly the weapons used in these rare school shootings are not military weapons and are mostly standard magazines.You should know what the hell you are talking about instead of just uttering nonsense.

So I asked the gun righty's, then what weapons should be banned? Answer: <crickets>

Why would 2nd amendment proponents want weapons that are currently legal to be banned?
 
Well, how about this?

It might require some regulation and I know how you hate the word, but check it out.
1. Anyone who uses a gun, any gun, during the commission of a crime gets capitol punishment within 45 days of conviction.
2. Anyone who sells or tranfers a gun to anyone without going through the proper procedures get twenty years in prison for each offense with no time off for good behavior.
3. Anyone who steals a gun gets capitol punishment within 45 days of conviction.
4. Any felon caught with a gun gets capitol punishment within 45 days of conviction.
5. No plea bargaining when guns are in the equation.

Think that might help?

I think it couldn't hurt to try.

that is really stupid

if you are going to kill people for crimes that do not actually hurt others you are telling the criminals they might as well execute every possible witness since that might lessen their chances of being caught and they won't get a more severe punishment. cops are going to be dying in droves if you pass that stupidity

most mopes won't kill a cop for getting collared over a theft. IF they know they are going to die they will be killing cops left and right

you need to actually think things through
 
Hey, I thought it was all about self defense with you guys? If not then you do need to justify your possession of guns that don't belong in a decent, civilized, society......and by the looks of what I'm seeing on TV and in the polls...your justifications doesn't seem to be holding much water. The wheat is finally separating itself from the chaffe as I speak. lol

No, I can make ample arguments as to what use I can get out them, but really I'm not going to play that game because I shouldn't need to justify the second right guaranteed in our constitution and something held as a mainstay of free societies for hundreds of years. If you can't justify your prohibition, no matter the temporary effectiveness of the emotional manipulation used to favor it with others, then I see no reason why any calm rational individual should take you seriously, unless they have an authoritarian complex.
 
That would qualify as Constitutional.

Why do people need revolvers?

Mass shootings would be impossible with a musket!

Surely killers couldn't just obtain them illegally from black markets (that would be illegal!), nor could they use a knife or something else...
 
You know. You might be on to something. What if off duty police donated time to guard the schools their children attend and then the city will credit them at time and half pay scale in property tax credit. That way, the officer has no extra income to pay income taxes on, our children are guarded and the city just has to do without one convention trip or christmas party.

A penny saved is a penny earned.

Vote for Captain America!

A pot in every chicken!
Hey, I like that idea. You got my vote on that one. Goooooooo Captain America. woo woo wooo....assuming they own property of course. I even know the county sheriff personally and I'm going to mention your idea to him when I see him at our annual xmas party. Good one captain. It would be so kewl if he went for it. I'll let you know what he says.
 
yeah there is

get rid of victim disarmament zones


if we accept that wolves exist, we need wolf hounds to be among the sheep or give the rams some pistols
Stopping these bad guys might go a long way to helping reduce crime and homicide across the board....

•Corrupt federally licensed gun dealers: Federally licensed gun dealers send more guns to the criminal market than any other single source. Nearly 60% of the guns used in crime are traced back to a small number—just 1.2%—of crooked gun dealers. Corrupt dealers frequently have high numbers of missing guns, in many cases because they’re selling guns “off the books” to private sellers and criminals. In 2005, the ATF examined 3,083 gun dealers and found 12,274 “missing” firearms.

Fact Sheet: Illegal gun trafficking arms criminals & youth « Gun Victims Action Council

Hey TD, have you figured out what a gun loophole is yet? lol
 
Why do people need revolvers?

Mass shootings would be impossible with a musket!

Surely killers couldn't just obtain them illegally from black markets (that would be illegal!), nor could they use a knife or something else...
See my post above regarding the black market and you will find your precious legal gun dealers are the worst of the lot. But I haven't seen a mass murder yet in this country that didn't involve guns. (cue nota bene) Not even Richard Speck.


Did you know that more people are killed annually in this country from a gun than all the deaths of our soldiers during Vietnam War? Think about that.
 
Fair enough. Though most rifle definitions also require the weapon to be shoulder mounted.

That all depends on who makes it.

"Rifling" actually describes the lands and groves cut into the barrel itself. This is what diferentiates a Rifle from a Musket.
 
Why would 2nd amendment proponents want weapons that are currently legal to be banned?

Because, as it has been drilled into us for the last several years by the gun fanatics, there are only cosmetic differences between the assault weapons and other weapons that are available legally. Therefore, there is no hardship that can legitimately be claimed by the fanatics now.
 
That all depends on who makes it.

"Rifling" actually describes the lands and groves cut into the barrel itself. This is what diferentiates a Rifle from a Musket.

Good point.
 
Good point.

This is part of the problem when discussing firearms. A lot of people simply do not understand them, so throw around all sorts of random garbage, simply because that is the way they believe they should be. I see things like this all the time.

For example, the mention earlier in this threat about a "double action" revolver being considered "semi-automatic". No, it is not, it is a revolver. A semi-automatic weapon stops when it reaches the Firing phase, and the next trigger pull is what starts the rest of the cycle. In a semi-automatic weapon, the cycle stops at locking. In a machine gun, it stops after cocking.

And what I am talking about is the "8 cycles of operation". Starting from the beginning, they are:

Firing (gun goes BANG)
Unlocking (in non-revolvers, this is unlocking the bolt from the barrel)
Extracting (pulling the cartridge from the barrel)
Ejecting (kicking the spent round from the weapon)
Cocking (moving the hammer so it is prepared to fire again)
Feeding (pulling a new round out of the magazine)
Chambering (inserting the round into the barrel)
Locking (locking the bolt to the barrel, so weapon is ready to fire)

revolvers ignore/combine several of these, since they have no "chamber", rounds are pre-loaded into the cylinder. So all are seated, there is no ejection, and no bolt is involved to lock. Pulling the hammer back (manually in single action or by trigger squeeze in double action) rotates the cylinder and pulls the hammer back 9cocks the weapon).

Machine guns are only different in that they fire from the "open bolt", as opposed to rifles, which fire from the closed bolt.
 
Because, as it has been drilled into us for the last several years by the gun fanatics, there are only cosmetic differences between the assault weapons and other weapons that are available legally. Therefore, there is no hardship that can legitimately be claimed by the fanatics now.

Well, I for one am not a "gun fanatic". I own a single pistol (.380), and have no intention of buying any rifle over .22 rimfire.

So tell me, what are the differences, other then cosmetic? What makes a original issue M1 rifle different then an AR-15? Because by almost all definitions, an M1 is not an "assault rifle", yet an AR-15 is an "assault rifle".

So please, if the differences are not cosmetic, what are they?
 
Back
Top Bottom