• 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!

Definition of an assault weapon

I was wondering when somebody would catch that. You have to admit that I was reasonable in dropping the price from $5000 to $1600 a bullet.

Sometimes a good sense of humor is needed on both sides of an argument.
With my credit score I can get about five.
Thank you for the price drop.
Now it is off to the mountains for elk.
(and hope i don't miss)
 
Every weapon is an assault weapon. That is the entire point of a weapon, even if used for defense. Making the term a political exercise is a futile gesture of ignorance.

I carried an auto-knife in combat. A black ebony handle housing a blackened blade 2 1/2" wide, 8" long, total weight 2.2 lbs., a Toledo type steel. Place it up against the opponent at the center of his back, pull the trigger back with a light touch of the thumb, press the trigger with a second lite touch, and the internal steel spring releases the blade from the head of the handle at 200 psi right through the spine. The man doesn't know he's dead and neither does the devil, before slitting his throat for insurance. An assault knife. Excellent for removing a sentry at night. A surprise during hand to hand. It takes about 2-2 1/2lbs of psi to stab a human manually with a sharp pointed knife. A bit more if it is dull. Push the trigger forward, the blade slides back into the housing. Push down the trigger after pulling a slide to load the spring, the blade locks in place, all done with the thumb.

This knife was my Dad's. He used it during WWII. He bought it from a custom knife maker in Brooklyn. He bought it at age 12, for self protection. It cost him $2.80, two weeks of wages from his after school job in a shoe store bringing up shoes and bringing them back to the basement storage area as the customers requested them from salesmen for trying on. 1931. Better than any combat knife issued by the US Army in any war. I still have it, but don't carry it without reason. NYC law limits a pocket knife blade to 3 1/2". Sharp enough to slice a clove of garlic paper thin. Triggered stilettos are popular with European criminals. Yes, this is a stiletto.

I carry a myerco x-ray military auto side opener. has the best safety release on the market. I have drawers full of Microtechs, keyshaws and other autos. I make lots of bowstrings and I have a crock stick on my workbench to sharpen these up. Now I can open a flipper faster but I like autos. laws against autos are based on stupidity and too many senile politicians watching west side story too much. I gave my Green Beret nephew a MOD Auto and a Chris Reeve fixed blade when he was running combat missions as a ranger in Iraq. he got another CR when he became a GB and I told him to give the other one to one of his ranger friends which he did. He said he used the CR the two times he had to stick someone in a house clearing operation-it allowed him time to zap the guy with his M4
 
The so called assault weapons that were banned during the Clinton administration, a ban which expired during the Bush administration and has not since been renewed, are simply guns with certain cosmetic features. For instance, a semi automatic rifle that has features such as a pistol grip and an adjustable stock. Now, a semi auto rifle that had just a pistol grip was fine. A semi auto rifle that had just an adjustable stock was fine. But, if the semi auto rifle has both a pistol grip and an adjustable stock all of a sudden it becomes an assault weapon and is subject to the ban. So for anybody who is in favor of banning so called assault weapons, why would you want to ban a gun simply because it has both a pistol grip and an adjustable stock?

If you have the IQ of a brick it makes perfect sense.

Just like. White hats = good guys. Black hats = bad guys.

So if I buy a gun with an adjustable stock because I am 6'3" I can't have a pistol grip. This doesn't seem fair.

What if I don't wear a hat. Do we go by the color of my skin? I guess it makes as much sense as the pistol grip and the adjustable stock dilemma.

IQ of a brick is the only logical answer.
 
So 31 bullets in a clip at $200 a bullet? On second thought, that's really not as cost prohibitive as I would have hoped. If I really wanted to take out a dude and meant business, $6200 wouldn't slow me down for an instant. I think if you really wanted to make sure that the target had it coming, $50,000 for a clip would slow down everybody but Bruce Wayne. Therefore each bullet should cost $1600. In fact, you could probably bet on the shooter going up to his victim and asking for the bullets back.

or buy an $8 knife on Amazon and slit the (*&^(*&'s throat.
Much more messy, but equally effective.
Atom bombs or crap on a stick in a hole....dead is dead.
 
I carry a myerco x-ray military auto side opener. has the best safety release on the market. I have drawers full of Microtechs, keyshaws and other autos. I make lots of bowstrings and I have a crock stick on my workbench to sharpen these up. Now I can open a flipper faster but I like autos. laws against autos are based on stupidity and too many senile politicians watching west side story too much. I gave my Green Beret nephew a MOD Auto and a Chris Reeve fixed blade when he was running combat missions as a ranger in Iraq. he got another CR when he became a GB and I told him to give the other one to one of his ranger friends which he did. He said he used the CR the two times he had to stick someone in a house clearing operation-it allowed him time to zap the guy with his M4

Autos are weapons that keep the user alive. More power to you. Nothing wrong with carrying a quality 14-16" sheath knife for combat, especially with a knuckle duster grip. A good tempered steel, and always kept sharpened with a stone. I pulled a 14" Arkansas toothpick out on a Viet Mihn, he saw it and fainted. I first thought that occurred because of my pretty face.
 
or buy an $8 knife on Amazon and slit the (*&^(*&'s throat.
Much more messy, but equally effective.
Atom bombs or crap on a stick in a hole....dead is dead.

Are you going to hunt that elk with that $8 knife from Amazon?
 
again that proves ignorance on your part. a 12G shotgun loaded with #4 buckshot is brutal at close ranges against massed targets.

its worthless against a concealed sniper 200M away and a concealed sniper with a bolt action 5 shot sniper rifle can kill dozens of people in an urban environment if the sniper has a position of concealment and height. On the other hand-a guy carrying a bolt action SAKO sniper rifle with a 16 power scope isn't going to last very long if he tries to attack 200 citizens who are massed 10 yards away from him

so you need to understand that the "lethality" of a firearm depends on the environment

...enter the FAL carbine.
Good enough in all those scenarios.
Not perfect, but good enough.
(shhhhh)
 
I was wondering when somebody would catch that. You have to admit that I was reasonable in dropping the price from $5000 to $1600 a bullet.

Lol, I completely forgot about that bit.
 
Are you going to hunt that elk with that $8 knife from Amazon?

Hey, this is the internet. I can be as bad assed as I want.
At least until i log off.

Ask me about when i was "back in 'Nam" at Firebase Bang Foo Fok.
I was born in 1965, so that would mean i was about 4 years old in '69, but hey, they let me in under a special program.
Like the guy that said he got hit with a .50 caliber round in the chest and keeps the recovered round on a chain around his neck.
Many legends were born on the internet.
 
Last edited:
Correct.



See: Nirvana Fallacy.



So I've been told.



That's not my concern.

So your only concern is limiting law abiding citizens, no matter if it adversely effects the poor, increases government spending, people losing jobs, less tax revenue, reduction in training for not only citizens, but police and military.

Those are pretty much garaunteed.

The pros however are questionable.

It is possible that it could lead to fewer deaths overall but there is a chance that the net result could be worse.

It seems to much of a gamble when weighing the two options.

Also, we seem to have conflicting world views that has us at an impasse. Where you seem to value the common good over the individual, I place more value on the individual over the collective good.

I don't believe a rape survivor should be told she can't have a gun when that gun could possibly be the only reason she is not living in constant fear. I don't want to render the father unable to defend his family from an intruder. There is evil in this world and the gun is the only equalizer. Once we have better nonlethal options I would be more inclined even though I still ultimately believe every responsible citizen should have a gun and the ability to use it in order to protect the people from a tyrannical government.
 
Thank God none of them have a bayonet lug on them.
I loose sleep at night when i see a bayonet lug.
So many crimes have been committed with bayonets attached to rifles with lugs on them it has become a national epidemic.

Well, damn...guess Im going to have to register my rifle or turn it in...

nb1840f__1.webp
 
So your only concern is limiting law abiding citizens, no matter if it adversely effects the poor, increases government spending, people losing jobs, less tax revenue, reduction in training for not only citizens, but police and military.

Those are pretty much garaunteed.

The pros however are questionable.

It is possible that it could lead to fewer deaths overall but there is a chance that the net result could be worse.

It seems to much of a gamble when weighing the two options.

Also, we seem to have conflicting world views that has us at an impasse. Where you seem to value the common good over the individual, I place more value on the individual over the collective good.

I don't believe a rape survivor should be told she can't have a gun when that gun could possibly be the only reason she is not living in constant fear. I don't want to render the father unable to defend his family from an intruder. There is evil in this world and the gun is the only equalizer. Once we have better nonlethal options I would be more inclined even though I still ultimately believe every responsible citizen should have a gun and the ability to use it in order to protect the people from a tyrannical government.

My concern is reducing the number of firearm related deaths. If raising the price of ammo to prohibitive levels reduces access to ammo and therefore its use in murdering people, then that will be a desirable outcome.
 
My concern is reducing the number of firearm related deaths. If raising the price of ammo to prohibitive levels reduces access to ammo and therefore its use in murdering people, then that will be a desirable outcome.

Not if you're poor and wish to defend yourself.

Why do you hate the poor? /s
 
Not if you're poor and wish to defend yourself.

Why do you hate the poor? /s

Why do you take joy in the death of children?

See? I can ask stupid, hyperbolic questions too.
 
Are you going to hunt that elk with that $8 knife from Amazon?

No, but I've hunted and brought home elk with an arrow I personally fletched that cost me about 40 minutes of my time during times when the minimum wage was a $1.25 per hour. Elk are just big deer, and not too bright.
 
My concern is reducing the number of firearm related deaths. If raising the price of ammo to prohibitive levels reduces access to ammo and therefore its use in murdering people, then that will be a desirable outcome.

Don't worry about it, with elimination of all guns, murderers will still find other methods for committing murder en masse. People enjoy killing people. The one part of the equation no one speaks about.
 
Don't worry about it, with elimination of all guns, murderers will still find other methods for committing murder en masse. People enjoy killing people. The one part of the equation no one speaks about.

Nirvana Fallacy.
 
Don't worry about it, with elimination of all guns, murderers will still find other methods for committing murder en masse. People enjoy killing people. The one part of the equation no one speaks about.

On the contrary far from never being spoken of, it's the same tired argument that's always trotted out. "Guns dont kill people people kill people!" Well, people with guns kill a lot more people than people with none.
 
On the contrary far from never being spoken of, it's the same tired argument that's always trotted out. "Guns dont kill people people kill people!" Well, people with guns kill a lot more people than people with none.

sorry, your desire to get rid of our right to legally own guns won't cut it here
 
Hey, this is the internet. I can be as bad assed as I want.
At least until i log off.

Ask me about when i was "back in 'Nam" at Firebase Bang Foo Fok.
I was born in 1965, so that would mean i was about 4 years old in '69, but hey, they let me in under a special program.
Like the guy that said he got hit with a .50 caliber round in the chest and keeps the recovered round on a chain around his neck.
Many legends were born on the internet.

Wait a second, that didn't happen as he told it? Sure was believable for a nanosecond.

I was hit with shrapnel from a mortar in the back and leg. Friendly fire, and it did a number on my leg. The good doctors who worked on me didn't bother removing some of the smaller pieces, they had more serious cases to move on with. Every now and then, when it's cold enough or when I'm sitting still for too long, I can feel the muscle tissues around those tiny pieces pinch up. Not painful, but annoying. I wouldn't mind wearing them on a chain around my neck.
 
My concern is reducing the number of firearm related deaths. If raising the price of ammo to prohibitive levels reduces access to ammo and therefore its use in murdering people, then that will be a desirable outcome.

If your goal is preventing deaths, why such a fervent stance on guns? If you believe protecting lives is more important than personal freedom then why not be against things that would have a greater impact on preventing deaths? While school shootings are terrible and any death is a tragedy statistically it is insignificant compared to things like pools and car crashes. For instance, in 2016 and 2017 there were 7 deaths from school shootings for both years combined.
 
Back
Top Bottom