• 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!

Define assault weapon

haymarket said:
This is about the environment society wants for our people.
Click to expand...

That's a cop out. Name. One. Law.

What "environment" are you talking about, anyway? You want to take people's rights away because you don't like the "environment" they create?
 
ttwtt78640 said:
Imagine the nerve of folks wanting to know the details of a (gun control) law (or proposal) before they decide whether to support or oppose it. ;)
Click to expand...

Funny, especially since not one of has even attempted to provide a definition, might get a better discussion from a rock
 
jet57 said:
We're talking about velocity. Your hunting rifle is for taking down large animals at long range. Assault rifles are taking down lots of people at short range: these are bush guns and their velocity gives them much more fire power. They were and are designed for heavy combat.
Click to expand...
223-vs-308-cartridge-size-w-saami.webp

Take a look at this 223-vs-308-trajectory.webp

The hunting round beats a .223 round.

Really, most of the popular hunting round were used by the military at some point.
 
KevinKohler said:
Exactly.


Probably wanna....define...what it is you're trying to regulate.
Click to expand...

When I worked for the Michigan Legislature one of my jobs was writing legislation and a big part of that is providing a definition of terms. I have no doubt of any kind that firm definitions will be supplied by the experts. It is pointless to argue it now.
 
Tlrmln said:
That's a cop out. Name. One. Law.

What "environment" are you talking about, anyway? You want to take people's rights away because you don't like the "environment" they create?
Click to expand...

The environment we all live in as a society. Nobody is talking about taking away any rights you have.
 
DebateChallenge said:
Because if you're going to have a rational discussion about anything, first you've got to know what you're talking about.
Click to expand...

You mean when Scalia said that the second amendment was NOT an unlimited right? Did HE know what he was talking about?

Was he a ballistics expert?
 
Harshaw said:
Isn't that the most fun irony?

Most of the people who insist that the Second Amendment is about protecting the militia also say that it doesn't protect military (or "military-style") weapons.

It's almost as if they don't really understand what they're arguing, or don't care.
Click to expand...

Scalia said that the second was not an unlimited right. Did he know what he was talking about? Did he care?
 
haymarket said:
When I worked for the Michigan Legislature one of my jobs was writing legislation and a big part of that is providing a definition of terms. I have no doubt of any kind that firm definitions will be supplied by the experts. It is pointless to argue it now.
Click to expand...

I have every doubt, because their last attempt failed.
 
haymarket said:
You are NOT a professional who requires usage of the tools of their trade. That is why.
Click to expand...

You did not answer the question, exactly what kind of weapons used by the military should private citizens not have access to?
 
Cardinal said:
Nope. You have to jump another hurdle. Now jump!
Click to expand...

Is it your position that defining the term assault weapon is impossible, in much the same way defining green, or art, is?
 
KevinKohler said:
Is it your position that defining the term assault weapon is impossible, in much the same way defining green, or art, is?
Click to expand...

No, I just want you to define "green" before I'll define "assault rifle."
 
Harshaw said:
You "must" pass it because most of the time he's asked a question he doesn't want to answer, he plays a childish game of "NO! YOU answer MY question first!!"

You should just take it as his concession, because that's what it effectively is.
Click to expand...
Yes, I've figured that out.
 
KevinKohler said:
The problem is, the 94 ban was unsuccessful. It listed off a bunch of specific guns, and specific manufacturers, but did not define characteristics that were not to be allowed. So, new weapons were made, new options, and in short, that law was skirted entirely. It prevented not one single fire arm sale.
Click to expand...

No, it WAS successful. How many mass shootings with such weaponry were there during that period?
 
DebateChallenge said:
You did not answer the question, exactly what kind of weapons used by the military should private citizens not have access to?
Click to expand...

That is up to the duly elected representatives of the American people. If a person wants to use military weapons they should join our fine military. If they want to use weapons police are given, take up that career.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom