• 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!

Open carry question [W:46]

Is it justifiable?

  • yes

    Votes: 10 30.3%
  • no

    Votes: 23 69.7%

  • Total voters
    33
Feigning obtuseness does nothing whatsoever for your argument.

An assault rifle is select fire from semi to full auto, or 3 round burst.

Way to demonstrate your utter ignorance in regards to firearms.

Shouldering a rifle is brandishing in the context of normal social behavior.

Only to hoplophobes, legally speaking you haven't a leg to stand on because such an action is not only non-threatening but perfectly LEGAL.
 
stop making excuses for Murder... it ain't cool.

I am anti-murder, but I am also a realist. If an individual has a store in a high crime area where other business owners are robbed and victims of violent crime, then its not unreasonable for them to fear for the lives if someone walks into their store openly carrying a gun. Surely you can empathize with that.
 
Shouldering a rifle is brandishing in the context of normal social behavior.


sorry no.... banishing means waving.......not shouldering it.

as it stated, in the past soldiers banished swords.

you cannot brandish a sword in its scabbard from your waist.
 
assault rifles, are designed to spray lead...not shoot one per pull of the trigger.

the FAL, is the only assault rifle, which i know of which does have a full auto capacity, but is useless to use and must be semi-auto fired.

wrong technically

assault rifles are select fire meaning both semi and full auto

the FN FAL is a BATTLE RIFLE because it is a full sized rifle firing a FULL SIZED cartridge

it is in the same class as the third generation battle rifles

the first generation was the Mauser 98, the British SMLE, the Springfield

second generation was the Garand, the FN 49

third generation was the M14 (which had full auto) the FN-FAL (some had full auto) the BM-59 and the AR-10

the BAR was not a battle rifle because it only had automatic fire. it was an automatic rifle which is one step down from a light machine gun. the bren gun was similar
 
An assault rifle is select fire from semi to full auto, or 3 round burst.

Way to demonstrate your utter ignorance in regards to firearms.



Only to hoplophobes, legally speaking you haven't a leg to stand on because such an action is not only non-threatening but perfectly LEGAL.

this is factually correct, the first assault rifle the STG 44, was the first to have select fire control......
 
wrong technically

assault rifles are select fire meaning both semi and full auto

the FN FAL is a BATTLE RIFLE because it is a full sized rifle firing a FULL SIZED cartridge

it is in the same class as the third generation battle rifles

the first generation was the Mauser 98, the British SMLE, the Springfield

second generation was the Garand, the FN 49

third generation was the M14 (which had full auto) the FN-FAL (some had full auto) the BM-59 and the AR-10

the BAR was not a battle rifle because it only had automatic fire. it was an automatic rifle which is one step down from a light machine gun. the bren gun was similar

Don't most military assault weapons have a 3 round burst setting? (just a general question)
 
wrong technically

assault rifles are select fire meaning both semi and full auto

the FN FAL is a BATTLE RIFLE because it is a full sized rifle firing a FULL SIZED cartridge

it is in the same class as the third generation battle rifles

the first generation was the Mauser 98, the British SMLE, the Springfield

second generation was the Garand, the FN 49

third generation was the M14 (which had full auto) the FN-FAL (some had full auto) the BM-59 and the AR-10

the BAR was not a battle rifle because it only had automatic fire. it was an automatic rifle which is one step down from a light machine gun. the bren gun was similar

i made a correction in another post

the FAL does have full auto capacity, which was used by the Argentinians of the Falklands war, ...but were found to be unstable in that mode, the British used the same rile, however it as semi-auto

Fallschirmjäger used the fg42, a battle rifle with a full length cartridge, in full auto.
 
Last edited:
I am anti-murder, but I am also a realist. If an individual has a store in a high crime area where other business owners are robbed and victims of violent crime, then its not unreasonable for them to fear for the lives if someone walks into their store openly carrying a gun. Surely you can empathize with that.

i fully support them being prepared to defend themselves and I fully support them being vigilant ...only an idiot would ignore a person with a gun

if they decide to shoot someone for simply carrying a firearm, then they are Murderers, plain and simple...carrying a gun is not a valid justification for homicide, if it was, we could be killing cops all day long.
 
this is factually correct, the first assault rifle the STG 44, was the first to have select fire control......

the M2 Carbine was almost the same time of introduction. it was the US's "assault rifle" since it met all the criteria. the MI was intended to be select fire which would have made it the first but in order to get the MIs in production that was omitted. the stg 44 was deployed before the M2

intermediate cartridge
select fire
carbine
 
there is a huge difference from the military term ASSAULT RIFLE and the bogus nonsensical term assault weapon. You cannot use a semi auto weapon to properly conduct a military assault on a fixed position of the enemy

you see the term assault weapon was a weapon that could be fired individually at semi automatic to inflict casualties or used on full auto by a mass of infantry to "assault a position" by using said automatic fire to suppress movement or return fire by the enemy while artillery or sappers using satchel charges or flamethrowers or grenades destroy the position

that is why its idiotic to call non military non-select fire weapons "assault weapons" because they are lacking the essential feature of a weapon useful for "assault'

anti gun jerks figured the average sheeple wouldn't understand the military term "assault" but transpose CRIMINAL assault to those firearms and be more willing to support bans on them
Not going to get into a semantic pissing contest with you.
I will be glad to substitute the term "military style rifle" .
Everyone including Ronald Reagan and Gerald Ford Knows what I mean.
"I do not believe in taking away the right of the citizen for sporting, for hunting and so forth, or for home defense," he said. "But I do believe that an AK-47,... is not a sporting weapon or needed for defense of a home."
To Members of the U.S. House of Representatives: We are writing to urge your support for a ban on the domestic manufacture of military-style assault weapons. This is a matter of vital importance to the public safety. Although assualt weapons account for less than 1% of the guns in circulation, they account for nearly 10% of the guns traced to crime.

Every major law enforcement organization in America and dozens of leading labor, medical, religious, civil rights and civic groups support such a ban. Most importantly, poll after poll shows that the American public overwhelmingly support a ban on assault weapons. A 1993 CNN/USA Today/Gallup Poll found that 77% of Americans support a ban on the manufacture, sale, and possession of semi-automatic assault guns, such as the AK-47.

The 1989 import ban resulted in an impressive 40% drop in imported assault weapons traced to crime between 1989 and 1991, but the killing continues. Last year, a killer armed with two TEC9s killed eight people at a San Francisco law firm and wounded several others. During the past five years, more than 40 law enforcement officers have been killed or wounded in the line of duty by an assault weapon.

While we recognize that assault weapon legislation will not stop all assault weapon crime, statistics prove that we can dry up the supply of these guns, making them less accessible to criminals. We urge you to listen to the American public and to the law enforcement community and support a ban on the further manufacture of these weapons.

Sincerely,

Gerald R. Ford
 
Not going to get into a semantic pissing contest with you.
I will be glad to substitute the term "military style rifle" .
Everyone including Ronald Reagan and Gerald Ford Knows what I mean.

Reagan was well known to be senile at the end of his term and Ford was hardly a conservative. and those to guys hardly had any expertise about weapons.
 
i made a correction in another post

the FAL does have full auto capacity, which was used by the Argentinians of the Falklands war, ...but were found to be unstable in that mode, the British used the same rile, however it as semi-auto

yeah I have shot one as well as an M14 in full auto

unless you are using a sling from a prone position, the control is rather dubious, and this is coming from a distinguished rifle shot
 
sorry no.... banishing means waving.......not shouldering it.

as it stated, in the past soldiers banished swords.

you cannot brandish a sword in its scabbard from your waist.

Excellent example...So put your friggin' rifle in a case when you sling it across your back... then maybe I will not consider it "brandishing".
 
Not going to get into a semantic pissing contest with you.
I will be glad to substitute the term "military style rifle" .
Everyone including Ronald Reagan and Gerald Ford Knows what I mean.

what can be more constitutionally protected under the 2A than a Military style rifle?
 
Excellent example...So put your friggin' rifle in a case when you sling it across your back... then maybe I will not consider it "brandishing".

so you reject the dictionary, for your own description.....interesting.


maybe that is why the left, does not believe in the actual writings of the constitution and instead listen to judges.
 
If a dude walks into a store with an assault rifle with no intention to commit a crime and the store owner shoots him is that justifiable homicide?

How is he carrying it? Is it slung over his shoulder? Or does he have his finger on the trigger with the barrel leveled at folks? In my opinion, the reaction of the store owner is based less on what the dude's actual intent is and more about what the store owner thinks his intent is. I think it's reasonable to assume that a person carrying an assault weapon into a store in a threatening manner poses a threat, so, lacking evidence to the contrary, I would have no problem as a juror finding the owner innocent of any crime. I'd invoke jury nullification if necessary.
 
Not going to get into a semantic pissing contest with you.
I will be glad to substitute the term "military style rifle" .
Everyone including Ronald Reagan and Gerald Ford Knows what I mean.

not too defend either Reagan or Ford, but a the time, these "assault weapons" were not " in common use at the time".

today, they are extremely common.

another clause that guides regulations states these weapons must be "dangerous and unusual" ... IMO, the "dangerous " part is silly.... every firearm can be dangerous in hte wrong hands, sometimes even in the right hands... but "unusual"?... assault weapons are hardly unusual now.


not that I agree with these guiding principles ( I'm more of a " if it's a firearm, you can keep and bear it" kinda guy, primarily because i'm not clueless about firearms) , but they just don't stand up to reality in regards to "assault" weapons anymore.
assault weapons are in common use, and they are not unusual.
 
Now a days when you see a person with an assault rifle, you assume the worst.
That is a ridiculous assertion.
What you assume is that a person is exercising their right to carry.


israel3vk9.jpg


beS7X.jpg


2d6e91f5.jpg


33mar5-i-like-tough-girls.jpg


in-israel.jpg




That is unless, as pointed out by others, it is being brandished or pointed at you or another in a threatening manner.
 
this is factually correct, the first assault rifle the STG 44, was the first to have select fire control......

A man who knows what the Sturmgewehr is, is a man after my own heart.

That is a ridiculous assertion.
What you assume is that a person is exercising their right to carry.


israel3vk9.jpg


beS7X.jpg


2d6e91f5.jpg


33mar5-i-like-tough-girls.jpg


in-israel.jpg


That is unless, as pointed out by others, it is being brandished or pointed at you or another in a threatening manner.

Thats hot...
 
not too defend either Reagan or Ford, but a the time, these "assault weapons" were not " in common use at the time".

today, they are extremely common.

another clause that guides regulations states these weapons must be "dangerous and unusual" ... IMO, the "dangerous " part is silly.... every firearm can be dangerous in hte wrong hands, sometimes even in the right hands... but "unusual"?... assault weapons are hardly unusual now.


not that I agree with these guiding principles ( I'm more of a " if it's a firearm, you can keep and bear it" kinda guy, primarily because i'm not clueless about firearms) , but they just don't stand up to reality in regards to "assault" weapons anymore.
assault weapons are in common use, and they are not unusual.

assault weapon is a stupid term-in Kalfornia the most popular olympic target pistol was deemed an "assault weapon" because it was semi auto and the magazine was housed forward of the trigger housing
 
How is he carrying it? Is it slung over his shoulder? Or does he have his finger on the trigger with the barrel leveled at folks? In my opinion, the reaction of the store owner is based less on what the dude's actual intent is and more about what the store owner thinks his intent is. I think it's reasonable to assume that a person carrying an assault weapon into a store in a threatening manner poses a threat, so, lacking evidence to the contrary, I would have no problem as a juror finding the owner innocent of any crime. I'd invoke jury nullification if necessary.

it would probably be a good shoot if the weapon is carried in a threatening manner....
 
assault rifle noun
: a gun that can shoot many bullets quickly and that is designed for use by the military
Full Definition of ASSAULT RIFLE

: any of various automatic or semiautomatic rifles with large capacity magazines designed for military use
.

Must be the civilian PC definition.

I tend to use the definition used by the military who used the first assault weapon in combat, the Wehrmacht during WW ll which was the Sturmgewehr-44(English translation, storm/assault rifle.)

Any rifle chambered for a cartridge larger than a pistol round but smaller than a rifle round.
Capable of full automatic fire.

There was no mention of magazines or cosmetic features like pistol grips, flash suppressors or having a bayonet lug.

When I served and when they took away my M-14 and issued me a M-16 it was never referred to as an assault rifle, it was referred to what it was, an infantry rifle or service rifle.

There were only two known assault rifles at the time during the Vietnam War era, the Sturmgewehr-44 and the AK-47. Both were chambered for a shorten version of the 8mm Mauser cartridge and the Russian 7.62X54 R.
The M-16 didn't meet the classification of an assault rifle because it was chambered for the 5.56 mm/ Remington .223 which was developed from the varmint rifle cartridge the Remington .222 that was developed to shoot groundhogs not Commies.
 
not too defend either Reagan or Ford, but a the time, these "assault weapons" were not " in common use at the time".

today, they are extremely common.

another clause that guides regulations states these weapons must be "dangerous and unusual" ... IMO, the "dangerous " part is silly.... every firearm can be dangerous in hte wrong hands, sometimes even in the right hands... but "unusual"?... assault weapons are hardly unusual now.


not that I agree with these guiding principles ( I'm more of a " if it's a firearm, you can keep and bear it" kinda guy, primarily because i'm not clueless about firearms) , but they just don't stand up to reality in regards to "assault" weapons anymore.
assault weapons are in common use, and they are not unusual.

the DCM after WWII sold hundreds of thousands of semi auto MI carbines and MI Garand rifles to civilians through the government run Civilian Marksmanship program. By the time Ford was in office there was at least a million of each weapon in civilian hands.
 
Back
Top Bottom