• 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!

Limits to Private Arsenals

Which should be legal for average citizens to own and use?


  • Total voters
    48
4th time:
You caught the part where it is specifically noted that the license in questio is for ALL reporters, not just for boradcast, and that said license is for the persnoal exercise of a right, not the priviledged use of public property, yes?

If so, you understand how your responses here aren't relevant, and you're simply trolling.
If not, then you need to learn how to read.
Your call.

And I've explained to you that it's not as simply as wanting to be a reporter and having a broadcasting license. Even with a broadcasting license you still need other legal documents acrediting you as a reporter if you plan on reporting anything more important then ducks swimming in a pond. You don't simply get to walk into the White House press room because you say you're a reporter.
 
And I've explained to you that it's not as simply as wanting to be a reporter and having a broadcasting license. Even with a broadcasting license you still need other legal documents acrediting you as a reporter if you plan on reporting anything more important then ducks swimming in a pond. You don't simply get to walk into the White House press room because you say you're a reporter.

No you don't my Girlfriend is a Concert Reporter for a very well know A2 size mag. and she doesn't have nor does she need a license to do her job.

But with that said I would like to point out that this whole section on Braodcasting is :bs:eek:t
 
And I've explained to you that it's not as simply as wanting to be a reporter and having a broadcasting license.

This attempted parallel fails on more than one level.

The Constitution protects the right to free speech, not the right to broadcast on a certain band of the EM frequency.

If you broadcast on a frequency you haven't rented, it is like stealing a gun.

Even though the Second amendment gives you the right to keep and bear, it does not give you the right to steal your arms from your neighbor.
 
And I've explained to you that it's not as simply as wanting to be a reporter and having a broadcasting license. Even with a broadcasting license you still need other legal documents acrediting you as a reporter if you plan on reporting anything more important then ducks swimming in a pond. You don't simply get to walk into the White House press room because you say you're a reporter.




Is that how Drudge got so rich? :doh
 
I'm glad I missed most of this thread while I was on vacation. :rofl
 
:lol: it was a rhetorical question to expose the ignorance of the poll. ;)

I wasn't aware you could belt feed a Steyr AUG without considerable re-engineering of the entire weapon. Could you point me to a site that shows this?

For one who attacks others on alleged ignorance, you should be informed as how to turn a rifle like the Steyr AUG into a belt fed machine gun without having to significently redesign the weapon.
 
I wasn't aware you could belt feed a Steyr AUG without considerable re-engineering of the entire weapon. Could you point me to a site that shows this?

For one who attacks others on alleged ignorance, you should be informed as how to turn a rifle like the Steyr AUG into a belt fed machine gun without having to significently redesign the weapon.




:lol: so you are going to teach me about weapons platforms?


Not all "machine guns" are belt fed. :2wave:



Steyr aug LMG (light machine gun)

Steyr AUG-LMG (AUG-HBAR) - Light Machine Gun - History, Specifications and Pictures - Infantry Weapons

[ame]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Machine_gun[/ame]


A machine gun is a fully automatic mounted or portable firearm, usually designed to fire rifle cartridges in quick succession from an ammunition belt or large-capacity magazine, typically at a rate of several hundred rounds per minute. The first weapon that falls under this definition was the Maxim Gun, invented by Sir Hiram Maxim in 1884.

In United States law, machine gun is a term of art for any fully-automatic firearm, and also for any component or part that will modify an existing firearm into a fully-automatic firearm.[1]




If you are going to read another post and pretend to know about something, perhaps you should at least google something before you make yourself look silly and be left with your blatant ignorance in full plumage! :thumbs:
 
Last edited:
Fair enough. You win on definitions (which are rather retarded as it makes mere parts machine guns thus begging the question of rationality of the law) Add that to your single digit list of victories. This makes...5?
 
heheheheheheh
 
Fair enough. You win on definitions (which are rather retarded as it makes mere parts machine guns thus begging the question of rationality of the law) Add that to your single digit list of victories. This makes...5?


A drop in auto sear makes my semi auto m4 type carbine a whole different animal.





:lol:


So what is the best technuique when knitting a quilt? :2wave:
 
Fair enough. You win on definitions (which are rather retarded as it makes mere parts machine guns thus begging the question of rationality of the law)

Your statement marked in red is what scares me about most gun laws. The people making the laws don't know anything about the actual weapons. If they did, most gun laws would go away.
 
Your statement marked in red is what scares me about most gun laws. The people making the laws don't know anything about the actual weapons. If they did, most gun laws would go away.

The term “machinegun” means any weapon which shoots, is designed to shoot, or can be readily restored to shoot, automatically more than one shot, without manual reloading, by a single function of the trigger. The term shall also include the frame or receiver of any such weapon, any part designed and intended solely and exclusively, or combination of parts designed and intended, for use in converting a weapon into a machinegun, and any combination of parts from which a machinegun can be assembled if such parts are in the possession or under the control of a person.

US CODE: Title 26,5845. Definitions

Mere parts are machine guns?

That isn't the case for the rifle and shotgun section of the law.
 
So what is the best technuique when knitting a quilt? :2wave:

Enjoying your smack?

For someone who wins on definitions (especially retarded ones that makes the trigger of a machine gun a machine gun in itself), you outta try harder elsewhere. You know, like the economics forum. Which requires a brain. Why do I never see you in there?
 

It has to do with function. Most of the time the line is blurred simply by looks. Just look at the original assault weapons ban. The original ban was for the most part nothing but cosmetics that did not affect the function of the weapon. That is why it failed miserably.

An assault rifle for example can fire semi-automatic, 3 round burst and/or full auto. A self loading carbine can only fire semi-automatic.

If you placed an SAR-1 (AK style semi-auto) next to a true AK-47 (fully automatic) cosmetically they look exactly the same. Now take and add a slightly longer barrel, drum magazine and stock to the true AK-47 and you have the AKM light Machine gun. Do the same to the SAR-1, and you have a cool looking self loading carbine and nothing more.

So waisting the tax payers money on a stupid an ineffective law because you know nothing about weapons is just ignorant. Yet this is exactly what our anti-gun politicians do. They go strictly by the look of a weapon rather than it's true fundtion.

That isn't the case for the rifle and shotgun section of the law.

Not true at all. They have fully automatic shotguns and rifles as well. You are like most legislators confusing function with style.

"Automatic rifle is a term generally used to describe a self-loading rifle chambered for a rifle cartridge, capable of delivering both semi- and fully automatic fire. This "select-fire" capability, as well as the (general) use of magazine-fed rifle ammunition, differentiate it from other classes of automatic firearm such as the machine gun and submachine gun." - [ame]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automatic_rifle[/ame]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p4ebtj1jR7c]YouTube - AA-12. World's deadliest shotgun![/ame]

PS: I want one!
 
Last edited:
Enjoying your smack?

For someone who wins on definitions (especially retarded ones that makes the trigger of a machine gun a machine gun in itself), you outta try harder elsewhere. You know, like the economics forum. Which requires a brain. Why do I never see you in there?


I agree the definition is retarted in the sense of US law. But thems the facts. However, the initial definition calls for a magazine or belt. I also answered your snide question about a Steyr, putting you in your rightful place.



As for the Economics forum. Most of that crap bores me. This is why I have a staff of accountants for both my business and personal. I am far to rich to count my own money. I have "the help" do it. Anyway, I am in there time to time, But I don't start dumb threads that demonstrate a fundamental ignorance on a topic simply to get off on some hoplophobic hard-on. :lol::2wave:
 
I agree the definition is retarted in the sense of US law. But thems the facts. However, the initial definition calls for a magazine or belt. I also answered your snide question about a Steyr, putting you in your rightful place.



As for the Economics forum. Most of that crap bores me. This is why I have a staff of accountants for both my business and personal. I am far to rich to count my own money. I have "the help" do it. Anyway, I am in there time to time, But I don't start dumb threads that demonstrate a fundamental ignorance on a topic simply to get off on some hoplophobic hard-on. :lol::2wave:
Do you agree with this definition?
http://www.debatepolitics.com/polls/49857-limits-private-arsenals-19.html#post1058076561
 
So in a discussion with a nameless handle, he agreed that the average citizen should have the legal right to own any and all kinds of armaments. I'd like to see just what the rest of the forum agrees should be legal and what the rest of you people think about the list.

I'm against every kind of war weapons in privat property.
 
Not true at all. They have fully automatic shotguns and rifles as well. You are like most legislators confusing function with style

Not what I said. You just talked about general accepted definitions.

The law for rifles and shotguns doesn't have the same kind of dumb writing.

(d) Shotgun
The term “shotgun” means a weapon designed or redesigned, made or remade, and intended to be fired from the shoulder and designed or redesigned and made or remade to use the energy of the explosive in a fixed shotgun shell to fire through a smooth bore either a number of projectiles (ball shot) or a single projectile for each pull of the trigger, and shall include any such weapon which may be readily restored to fire a fixed shotgun shell.

Notice the legal definition is just entire weapon. Not individual parts.

(c) Rifle
The term “rifle” means a weapon designed or redesigned, made or remade, and intended to be fired from the shoulder and designed or redesigned and made or remade to use the energy of the explosive in a fixed cartridge to fire only a single projectile through a rifled bore for each single pull of the trigger, and shall include any such weapon which may be readily restored to fire a fixed cartridge.

No individual parts writing either.

But for machinegun, we see clear specific writings calling mere parts a machinegun. Making the trigger of a machinegun a machinegun by legal definition.
 
Back
Top Bottom