• 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
See my post above regarding the black market and you will find your precious legal gun dealers are the worst of the lot.

Do you think the foreign black market would expand should these dealers disappear?

But I haven't seen a mass murder yet in this country that didn't involve guns. (cue nota bene) Not even Richard Speck.
Well, I linked one in the post you quoted. I also linked an article about one in China, which is part of an ongoing trend in China, but I guess it's somehow impossible in the US? I don't know.


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.

Okay. What point are you making? That the suicide or homicide the gun was involved in wouldn't have occurred if not for the gun?
 
Any semi-auto rifle that fires the .223 bullet is an assault rifle and needs to be banned along with that ammo. No more *****footing around with the law this time. Simple and to the point.
 
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?

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.
 
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?

The point is they want you to justify your having it, they don't feel they need to justify taking it away. I've asked for the justification several times and have gotten no relevant answer.
 
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?

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.
 
Do you think the foreign black market would expand should these dealers disappear?
No, not really.

Well, I linked one in the post you quoted. I also linked an article about one in China, which is part of an ongoing trend in China, but I guess it's somehow impossible in the US? I don't know.
Sorry, I must have missed the link. Did it pertain to the US?

Okay. What point are you making? That the suicide or homicide the gun was involved in wouldn't have occurred if not for the gun?

It was just food for thought.
 
No, not really.

Oh. All the killers will say "oh well" and go on living happy normal lives because they'd have to go to an out of country supplier. Am I understanding your thought process?

Sorry, I must have missed the link. Did it pertain to the US?

Yes.



It was just food for thought.

What kind of thought?

The type of thought that should dictate policy?
 
The point is they want you to justify your having it, they don't feel they need to justify taking it away. I've asked for the justification several times and have gotten no relevant answer.

So you think you have no need for justifying why a civilian needs a gun designed for war and uses ammo that is designed to kill humans with one shot. Are you at war? Not without Congressional approval I hope.
 
So you think you have no need for justifying why a civilian needs a gun designed for war and uses ammo that is designed to kill humans with one shot. Are you at war? Not without Congressional approval I hope.

No I don't, because it's the second right guaranteed in our constitution.
 
Oh. All the killers will say "oh well" and go on living happy normal lives because they'd have to go to an out of country supplier. Am I understanding your thought process?
Killers live normal happy lives? Then what are the rest us of doing? If killers want a gun bad enough to go out of the country to get one, then I'd have to say the gun ban and laws were working in this country.


I have already in included this in my list of mass murders of the 20th century and that was the only one that didn't involve a gun. The only one. So, there were three mass murders during the entire 80 years prior to 1980. Now compare that to the 62 mass murders since 1980 all of which involved guns. All of them. That is what I meant.


What kind of thought?

The type of thought that should dictate policy?

Critical thought...

Critical thinking - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
Killers live normal lives? Then what are the rest us of doing? If killers want a gun bad enough to go out of the country to get one, then I'd have to say the gun ban was working in this country.

They don't need to go out of the country, foreign suppliers come here. Even then, so what if they have to leave to go get them? You're saying killing themselves and a bunch of others is fine but leaving the country would be too much of a bother? Never mind that I've already demonstrated that a gun is not needed to commit such a massacre. What are you thinking will happen to these people if they can't get a gun period?


I have already in included this in my list of mass murders of the 20th century and that was the only one that didn't involve a gun. The only one.

So you were lying when you said:

moot said:
But I haven't seen a mass murder yet in this country that didn't involve guns. (cue nota bene) Not even Richard Speck.

Also, your statement about that being the only one is inaccurate. I've already pointed out the knife massacres that go on in China. There's also Oklahoma City Bombing, the unabomber, obviously, and possibly a few others. Regardless, the prevalence of guns in these shootings are only relevant if a ban would be effective in stopping them. Why wouldn't a mass killer use some other method instead once guns are no longer available?

So, there were three mass murders during the entire 80 years prior to 1980.

I really doubt that. There were three that you know of. Media wasn't as sophisticated in the olden days.

Now compare that to the 62 mass murders since 1980 all of which involved guns. All of them. That is what I meant.

Also incorrect.

There are mass killings once every two weeks:

A third of mass killings didn't involve guns at all. In 15 incidents, the victims died in a fire. In 20 others, the killer used a knife or a blunt object. When guns were involved, killers were far more likely to use handguns than any other type of weapon.






No, a meaningless platitude like yours is not an example of critical thinking. In fact, critical thinking is what leads me to reject such a silly argument.
 
Well said! Well said!

Weird. I need to reread the second amendment as the part about it only applying to muskets isn't in my memory.

I'll ask you the same thing as our well spoken friend, is free speech limited in the same capacity? Can I look at methods of speech that did not previously exist and say the first amendment has no bearing on them?


Actually, what about the fourth amendment? The founders couldn't possibly have foreseen the modern suburban household or metropolitan condo.

(Interestingly enough, pistols existed loooooong before the constitution was signed.)
 
Weird. I need to reread the second amendment as the part about it only applying to muskets isn't in my memory.

I'll ask you the same thing as our well spoken friend, is free speech limited in the same capacity? Can I look at methods of speech that did not previously exist and say the first amendment has no bearing on them?


Actually, what about the fourth amendment? The founders couldn't possibly have foreseen the modern suburban household or metropolitan condo.

(Interestingly enough, pistols existed loooooong before the constitution was signed.)



Dude, Let's take one thing at a time. You haven't even convinced me yet you are part of a well regulated militia?
 
Dude, Let's take one thing at a time. You haven't even convinced me yet you are part of a well regulated militia?

Well, I'm an able bodied citizen, so yes, I'm part of the militia. That's what that means.

Nonetheless, the first clause is not restrictive on the second, it does not require one to be a member of the well-regulated militia to have the right to bear arms. Your confusion, of course, is based on your lack of knowledge of common usage back then, and clearly there would be no such distinction between the two.

Now do you want to address my point or do you have something else to deflect with?
 
Who regulates you?

So that's a yes to more deflection.

Regulated simply means "in good order." In other words, readily available to serve.

Again, none of this is relevant because the first clause is not restrictive.
 
Well, I'm an able bodied citizen, so yes, I'm part of the militia. That's what that means.

Nonetheless, the first clause is not restrictive on the second, it does not require one to be a member of the well-regulated militia to have the right to bear arms. Your confusion, of course, is based on your lack of knowledge of common usage back then, and clearly there would be no such distinction between the two.

Now do you want to address my point or do you have something else to deflect with?


Who regulates you?

Its all one sentence, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.


If you want to join the National Guard knock yourself out. That would actually qualify as a well regulated militia!
 
Who regulates you?

That's not what regulated meant.

Here, let me help you:

Republic Now! said:
Regulated simply means "in good order." In other words, readily available to serve.


Its all one sentence, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Yes, absolutely nothing that implies the need to be in the "well regulated militia," in fact, it says "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." The people. Not the militia; though these terms were largely synonymous at the time.

If you want to join the National Guard knock yourself out. That would actually qualify as a well regulated militia!

No, the national guard is not synonymous with militia.
 
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.

Yeah, that's true but I prefer to call it my friend. Much like a red solo cup. It's not just a cup. It's...my...friend.

Yes the Phalynx. Close in Weapons System. (Or Seawiz <C.I.W.S.> as it is affectionately called.) Shoots around 3000 rounds per minute. Sounds like a chainsaw. It can shoot an incoming target five miles away correcting it's own trajectory and firing until the target is obliterated off the screen. Then it can fire five miles the opposite direction, doing the same, in a matter of seconds.

You see now why I call this rifle my friend. Uncle Sam wouldn't let me take it home. Certainly we can come up with some legislation that would allow Turtledude to take one home and mount it in the bed of his pick-up truck, no? We should write the NRA.
 
No, the national guard is not synonymous with militia.

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.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom