• 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!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Do you know an "assault weapon" when you see it?

Which of the guns, below, are "assault weapons"?


  • Total voters
    12
The assault weapon ban was probably the worst gun control legislation ever written. I mean Bayonet mounts and pistol grips? That is just insane. The term "assault weapon" is a vague term with no real meaning. Its merely used by idiots to try and ban certain weapons. The Tec-9 was indeed a weapon that needed to banned. However, that is because it was designed and marketed towards criminals. Assault weapon is a useless term that is only used to obscure real definitions for weapons. "cop killer bullets" is another term of equal nonsense.
 
Really? So citizens that don't break laws are a myth? Prove this please.

I dont have to prove it to you. It's common sence. Everyday millions of people brake laws. They loiter, drive faster then the law allows, trespass, jaywalk, leave their kids in cars and commit fraud and download music off the internet, and movies and buy bootlegged CDs etc. To say that you've never done any of these things is an outright lie. We've all broken the law atleast once in our lives wether or not we're aware that what we're doing is unlawful is another story. "Law abiding" means to obey the law. The moment you do anything remotely illegal you stop being a law abiding citizen and should therefor(according to you) not be eligeable to own guns.
 
Last edited:
W000. Whats that? :\

What that 10/22 is doctored up to look (somewhat) like.

Its close on the top half, but mag is off enough to skewer the illusion.
 
No being allowed to and not being able to are very different things DocAR . ;)

You'll not that I also mention that most people don't possess the ability to make that happen, either.

Not the easiest thing to do, on a 10/22. Its easier on a AR-15, but you still have to know what parts to get and where to drill the hole in the reciever for the pin that doesn't exist on civilian versions. If you do that wrong, the show is off.

Now, if you can lay your hands on a lightning link or a RDIAZ, its a lot easier. Those are not easy to come by, however, and are mostly all (99.999999%) registered items that are tracked just like NFA weapons. Someone with enough knowledge can probably make one, but someone that smart probably also understands how much trouble they can get in for making one. Its not worth the risk.
 
Well what is your definition of an assualt rifle? If it happens to be one that is fully automatic, then are those you have depicted fully automatic or are they cheap replicas. Caliber has nothing to do with whether or not it is an assult rifle, I don't care if they happen to be rim-fire 22's (which is what that last one looks like).
 
I dont have to prove it to you. It's common sence. Everyday millions of people brake laws. They loiter, drive faster then the law allows, trespass, jaywalk, leave their kids in cars and commit fraud and download music off the internet, and movies and buy bootlegged CDs etc. To say that you've never done any of these things is an outright lie. We've all broken the law atleast once in our lives wether or not we're aware that what we're doing is unlawful is another story. "Law abiding" means to obey the law. The moment you do anything remotely illegal you stop being a law abiding citizen and should therefor(according to you) not be eligeable to own guns.
Or vote.
But you dont have any problem with that, do you?
 
Well what is your definition of an assualt rifle? If it happens to be one that is fully automatic, then are those you have depicted fully automatic or are they cheap replicas. Caliber has nothing to do with whether or not it is an assult rifle, I don't care if they happen to be rim-fire 22's (which is what that last one looks like).

Yes, caliber has bearing on a weapon being an "assult rifle' or not, in proper military terminology (Yes, the military created the word, so they get to define it.)

The weapon, by definition, has to fire an intermediate cartridge and must be capable of select fire. There are PLEANTY of fully-automatic weapons out there (perfectly legal for everyday, ordinary citizens to own, BTW) that are not assult weapons.

If you want to use the misinterpertation of the word that alarmists and the ignorant like to throw about to prove they have no idea what they're talking about, then yes, you can say all of the above.
 
Well what is your definition of an assualt rifle? If it happens to be one that is fully automatic, then are those you have depicted fully automatic or are they cheap replicas.
An assault rifle is a magazine-fed select-fire rifle that fires a cartridge of "intermediate" power, such as 5.56 NATO, 7.62x39 or 7.92x33K.

Caliber has nothing to do with whether or not it is an assult rifle, I don't care if they happen to be rim-fire 22's (which is what that last one looks like).
It makes all the difference in the world. The M14, FAL and G3 are all magazine-fed select-fire rifles, but as they are in 7.62 NATO, they are battle rifles, not assault rifles.
 
I'm not sure exactly what an assault weapon is... But none of those weapons have any buisness being on the street.

None of them? Why?
 
Hmmmm no not really I just find it funny how you say every U.S. citizen should be allowed to own w/e weapon they want. Does that include drug dealers? What about gang bangers? psychopaths?

Who argues that "every U.S. citizen should be allowed to own w/e weapon they want"?

You arent putting up a strawman, are you?
 
I dont have to prove it to you. It's common sence. Everyday millions of people brake laws. They loiter, drive faster then the law allows, trespass, jaywalk, leave their kids in cars and commit fraud and download music off the internet, and movies and buy bootlegged CDs etc. To say that you've never done any of these things is an outright lie. We've all broken the law atleast once in our lives wether or not we're aware that what we're doing is unlawful is another story. "Law abiding" means to obey the law. The moment you do anything remotely illegal you stop being a law abiding citizen and should therefor(according to you) not be eligeable to own guns.

Alright then, every US citizen that has not been convicted of a felony should be allowed to own whichever gun they chose.
 
Please pick out the "assault weapon(s)" from the pictures, below....

I'm shootin for B.

It looks to have a short enough barrel, extended capacity mag. and a folding stock.

....put a scope on D and I'd still be deciding, though....
 
I own a TAR-21, Galil, G-36, M-16, and M-4. All are considered assault weapons in Israel. There are no legal own/carry hassles as long as you are either active military or a military reservist.
 
Alright then, every US citizen that has not been convicted of a felony should be allowed to own whichever gun they chose.

But once again we have a problem. There are 1000s of drug dealers and gang members in the U.S. who have yet to be convicted of felonies or even misdemeanors. Does that include them?
 
But once again we have a problem. There are 1000s of drug dealers and gang members in the U.S. who have yet to be convicted of felonies or even misdemeanors. Does that include them?

Yes, if they haven't been convicted what do you have against them Hatuey?
 
But once again we have a problem. There are 1000s of drug dealers and gang members in the U.S. who have yet to be convicted of felonies or even misdemeanors. Does that include them?

Innocent until proven guilty.

Who argues that "every U.S. citizen should be allowed to own w/e weapon they want"?
You arent putting up a strawman, are you?
 
Innocent until proven guilty.

Who argues that "every U.S. citizen should be allowed to own w/e weapon they want"?
You arent putting up a strawman, are you?

Alright then, every US citizen that has not been convicted of a felony should be allowed to own whichever gun they chose.

I'm simply asking who is included in this "should" situation. First he said law-abiding. Then I stated there is no such thing. He by my count agreed and then said any U.S. citizen that hasn't been convicted of a felony and/or misdemeanor. Then I stated that there are 1000s of criminals on the street that have never been convicted of anything.

Should we make it easier for criminals who have yet to be convicted to have access to guns simply because they have yet to be convicted of anything?

I find it funny how my concern about how many people his notion of who can and can't own guns is strawman.

Is the possibility that a gang member might oh I dont know decide to buy a firearm to do a driveby, commit a robbery or decide to murder a gang member from a different gang and then hit innocent bystanders that remote?
 
I'm simply asking who is included in this "should" situation. First he said law-abiding. Then I stated there is no such thing. He by my count agreed and then said any U.S. citizen that hasn't been convicted of a felony and/or misdemeanor. Then I stated that there are 1000s of criminals on the street that have never been convicted of anything.
Unless you have had your right removed through due process -- criminal conviction, etc -- then you have a right to own a gun. Does this mean that anyone that has not been convicted of a felony but has committed a felony can buy a guns? Yes, because in this country, we are Innocent until proven guilty.

How else you would suggest we define who can/can;t own a gun?

Should we make it easier for criminals who have yet to be convicted to have access to guns simply because they have yet to be convicted of anything?
Its already as easy for them as it is for me. How do you suggest we make it easier?

I find it funny how my concern about how many people his notion of who can and can't own guns is strawman.
You'll find that I suggested your statement is a strawman because no one has suggested that "every US citizen be allowed to own w/e weapon they want."

Is the possibility that a gang member might oh I dont know decide to buy a firearm to do a driveby, commit a robbery or decide to murder a gang member from a different gang and then hit innocent bystanders that remote?
Until the guy is convicted of a crime, there's no way to keep him from legally getting a gun, as until he is convicted of a crime, he has a right to buy/own a gun.
 
Unless you have had your right removed through due process -- criminal conviction, etc -- then you have a right to own a gun. Does this mean that anyone that has not been convicted of a felony but has committed a felony can buy a guns? Yes, because in this country, we are Innocent until proven guilty.

How else you would suggest we define who can/can;t own a gun?


Its already as easy for them as it is for me. How do you suggest we make it easier?


You'll find that I suggested your statement is a strawman because no one has suggested that "every US citizen be allowed to own w/e weapon they want."


Until the guy is convicted of a crime, there's no way to keep him from legally getting a gun, as until he is convicted of a crime, he has a right to buy/own a gun.

So by your count....you're only a criminal and a danger to society until you're behind bars? Prevention is obviously not a word in your vocabulary. We have to wait for people to commit the crime before we do anything. We should take no measures to ensure that the wrong people dont get their hands on weapons and commit crimes. I have no problem with people wanting to defend their homes. I have a problem with the sale of guns to any random guy who for all I know might use it to kill me right after I hand him the gun because he might have a grudge against black guys.
 
So by your count....you're only a criminal and a danger to society until you're behind bars?
It appears you dont agree with the concept of "innocent until proven guilty". If so, then you have a problem with the basis for our entire criminal justice system. Given your eception to this concept, maybe you could explain to me why we should bother with the 4th and 5th amendments.

Prevention is obviously not a word in your vocabulary. We have to wait for people to commit the crime before we do anything. We should take no measures to ensure that the wrong people dont get their hands on weapons and commit crimes.
I've asked you twice:
What do you suggest we do?
 
It appears you dont agree with the concept of "innocent until proven guilty". If so, then you have a problem with the basis for our entire criminal justice system. Given your eception to this concept, maybe you could explain to me why we should bother with the 4th and 5th amendments.

I'm not saying I have a problem with innocent until proven guilty. I have a problem with the sale of firearms to any random person who manages to provide 2 pieces of ID and can come up with the money to buy one.

I've asked you twice:
What do you suggest we do?

Personally I believe owning a gun should be like taking out a loan. You should only be allowed if you meet certain requirements.
 
I'm not saying I have a problem with innocent until proven guilty. I have a problem with the sale of firearms to any random person who manages to provide 2 pieces of ID and can come up with the money to buy one.
Until this person has been stripped of his rights through due process, he retains all his rights.

If you have a problem with that, then maybe you can suggest a way for someone to be stripped of his rights without due process, and how stripping him of those rights in that manner would not violate the 6th amendment.

Personally I believe owning a gun should be like taking out a loan. You should only be allowed if you meet certain requirements.
Thats exactly how it is now.
 
I'm not saying I have a problem with innocent until proven guilty. I have a problem with the sale of firearms to any random person who manages to provide 2 pieces of ID and can come up with the money to buy one. Personally I believe owning a gun should be like taking out a loan. You should only be allowed if you meet certain requirements.


Sorry to just jump in, but where can you buy a firearm with two ID's and with out any NICS?
 
Until this person has been stripped of his rights through due process, he retains all his rights.

If you have a problem with that, then maybe you can suggest a way for someone to be stripped of his rights without due process, and how stripping him of those rights in that manner would not violate the 6th amendment.

Preventing somebody with a high probability of committing a crime is not stripping them or their rights.

Thats exactly how it is now.

Can you please post a link to these requirements?
 
So by your count....you're only a criminal and a danger to society until you're behind bars? Prevention is obviously not a word in your vocabulary. We have to wait for people to commit the crime before we do anything. We should take no measures to ensure that the wrong people dont get their hands on weapons and commit crimes. I have no problem with people wanting to defend their homes. I have a problem with the sale of guns to any random guy who for all I know might use it to kill me right after I hand him the gun because he might have a grudge against black guys.

While if you haven't already proven yourself to be a danger who is anyone else to judge? Criminals will get their hands on weapons one way or the other, denying them to people who don't break the law shouldn't be hindered because of your suspicions.
 
Back
Top Bottom