• 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!

Should an American citizen have the right to own a fully automatic assault rifle?

Should an American citizen have the right to own a fully automatic assault rifle?

  • Yes

    Votes: 33 70.2%

  • No

    Votes: 14 29.8%
  • Total voters
    47
Honestly, if you need an AK to hunt......you're a pretty ****** hunter. Spray and pray anyone?

Furthermore, an AK is really not the best defense weapon in close quarters. You're better off buying a civilian P90. Compact, light, sufficient stopping power against non-armored opponents, easy to sight, easy to shoot.
 
Krhazy said:
No. These are war weapons, not recreational or self-defense weapons. If you permit AK-47s and M-16s, why not permit people to build their own explosives? Make their own tear gas?
Click to expand...

This is an interesting point actually. I think I'm going to start another poll on this so as not to derail the thread.
 
[FONT=arial, helvetica, clean, sans-serif]Just kinda wonder if I'm missing something here ? I don't think just “anyone” can own a fully automatic weapon as it stands now .. Here is what I'm finding about ownership of a fully auto weapon .. [/FONT]




[FONT=arial, helvetica, clean, sans-serif]Am I wrong and missing something ?

Now on to the 2nd amendment, I think people are forgetting the time it was written, back then armed citizens would have been a very formidable force against an overbearing government. Then take into consideration of why this country was founded in the first place ...... wasn't it get away from such a government? So wouldn't it be logical to assume that our fore-fathers in writing the constitution were doing so to protect the citizens from a government that could become like the one we fled ?

[/FONT]
 
Last edited:

Speaking of the PS90....

PS90 Standard Black

Go to "dealers" and plug in your zipcode. I found a store selling to civilians within 10 miles of me!
 

I'm not intimately familiar with insurgency and counterinsurgency strategy, unfortunately. I'm a weapons and tactics guy; I know a lot more about how to do damage than where. But one thing that I have observed about guerrilla warfare, just from watching the news, is that guerrillas are willing to eat a lot more casualties than formal militaries and the occupying power always does far, far more damage to the civilian population than it does to the guerrillas themselves. Guerrilla wars are fought on the field of public opinion and all of the devastating tactics you describe are things that cause horrific amounts of damage to civilians.

Remember, we're talking about a country that gets its panties in a bunch when we waste enemy civilians.


Well, honestly, I don't care about the 2nd Amendment and I don't approve of loose talk about treason. I just believe that everyone should be as well-armed as they feel they need to be and that the decision to go to war should be as much of a personal decision as it is a collective decision. Who a man takes up arms for or against is between him and his gods.


Fair enough. I'm inclined to agree with you on this point, but I consider warfare a part of a man's livelihood.

Proud South Korean said:
Attacking supply lines and dumps aren't easy as one imagine. They are guarded too, you know
Click to expand...

I'm not saying it's easy. I'm saying it's doable. I'm very proud of our military, I have a lot of respect for their professionalism, and I'm not ashamed to admit that if I took a run at them I would almost certainly die.

obvious Child said:
Honestly, if you need an AK to hunt......you're a pretty ****** hunter. Spray and pray anyone?
Click to expand...

The AK is a perfectly reasonable hunting rifle in semi-auto mode.

obvious Child said:
Furthermore, an AK is really not the best defense weapon in close quarters. You're better off buying a civilian P90. Compact, light, sufficient stopping power against non-armored opponents, easy to sight, easy to shoot.
Click to expand...

Yeah. I wouldn't use a rifle of any kind for home defense. On the other hand, I prefer shotguns to pistols for sheer stopping power.
 


As others said, an AK in semi-auto mode is perfectly fine for hunting.

You diss the AK for self-defense and advocate the P90?? You do realize the 5.7x28 ammo is a high velocity round intended to penetrate body armor? I've fired guns that use that caliber... I don't care for them, think they're overhyped. Tiny slugs with carbide tips travelling at very high velocity are not the way to go for close range self-defense.

Also the word for a subgun that can't autofire is "oversized pistol". Again, no thanks... a .45 caliber 1911 or Glock would suit me better.

If I lived in an apartment in the city, I'd probably use a shotgun loaded with #6 shot for home defense, to avoid overpenetration. However I live out in the country, on a farm... a semiauto AK47 is my go-to gun for any major problems. It is more accurate than any pistol at common engagement ranges, and more powerful as well. Overpenetration out here isn't much of an issue.

I'd hate to have to take a hostage-rescue shot with that warped abomination POS P90.
 
obvious Child said:
Want to tell me how civilians owning automatic weapons will stop a tank division backed with air support?
Click to expand...

Armored vehicles require lots of fuels to travel. Troops need a base.Troops need food. Any vehicle requires fuel. Tanks and other other tracked vehciles can be defeated using anything that can jam on the track gears. I am pretty sure a group of heavily armed civilians can take these things out especially since not all troops are trained for combat.


The notion that the 2nd amendment exists today to allow us to overthrow the government is lunacy is context of what the military actually has these days.
Click to expand...

Thinking that the 2nd amendment and its intent doesn't apply to today is lunacy.

Thermobaric weapons easily could wipe out a huge number of civilians with automatic weapons before they even knew what hit them.
Click to expand...



Yet as advanced as our military they are still in Iraq and still in Afghanistan.
 

There's no doubt about that, but in terms of destroying a homegrown insurgent force that actually gives a **** about its families, you attack their homes and families. That really doesn't work against Islamists though.

Remember, we're talking about a country that gets its panties in a bunch when we waste enemy civilians.
Click to expand...

Well, they aren't really civilians then are they? Furthermore, the actual chance of this is pretty much nil. If the Russians couldn't even shoot their own protestors during the Yeltsin Coup, American troops will not either. Hell, if Egyptian forces couldn't bring themselves down to mow down revolutionaries, this whole point of using civilian firearms to overthrow the government is moot as there won't be people to defend the government.


Some men perhaps.

My main issue is with the idea that we can absolve ourselves of watching over our government to ensure it doesn't get corrupt on the basis that we can always overthrow it via force. It's kind of like thinking that 500 pounds of cure is a superior choice to 1 nano-gram of prevention. It's clearly the superior choice to ensure that our government doesn't get that corrupt by ensure the people are a check on it in its various processes. But the whole "guns are needed to overthrow the corrupt government" just seems to toss that out the window.

The AK is a perfectly reasonable hunting rifle in semi-auto mode.
Click to expand...

But that's not what the topic is. Using an AK in automatic is a sign of a real bad hunter.

Yeah. I wouldn't use a rifle of any kind for home defense. On the other hand, I prefer shotguns to pistols for sheer stopping power.
Click to expand...

Nah. Baseball bat. No need to reload. Plus it's a perfect ambush weapon.
 
Goshin said:
As others said, an AK in semi-auto mode is perfectly fine for hunting.
Click to expand...

Too bad that's not the topic here.

Let's review:

"Should an American citizen have the right to own a fully automatic assault rifle?"

No one is discussing the merits of semi-automatic per se.


It's the issue of size in close quarters more than anything else. I agree wholeheartly with Viktyr Korimir that a rifle really isn't the best choice in home defense for the average person.

If I lived in an apartment in the city, I'd probably use a shotgun loaded with #6 shot for home defense, to avoid overpenetration.
Click to expand...

Or just knock them out with one hit to the head with a baseball bat as they turn the corner. I'd rather give them a concussion then risk actually killing them if I don't have to.

However I live out in the country, on a farm... a semiauto AK47 is my go-to gun for any major problems. It is more accurate than any pistol at common engagement ranges, and more powerful as well. Overpenetration out here isn't much of an issue.
Click to expand...

Then you don't have the close quarters issue that many of us do.

I'd hate to have to take a hostage-rescue shot with that warped abomination POS P90.
Click to expand...

That's what the police are for.
 

Read the thread. This is already addressed.

Thinking that the 2nd amendment and its intent doesn't apply to today is lunacy.
Click to expand...

Want to tell me how automatic weapons can deal with thermobaric long range weapons?

You can't overthrow a superiorly armed enemy that is entrenched without at some point moving to conventional warfare. As much as the US sucked in Vietnam, every time the Communists tried conventional combat they got annihilated. Only after the US left and the North turned to conventional did the South fall. Harassing does not equate to overthrow.

Yet as advanced as our military they are still in Iraq and still in Afghanistan.
Click to expand...

That's because we choose too. Furthermore, have the governments been overthrown there? No.
 

Not all warfare is fought with just tanks, aircraft and long range weapons. They still need ground troops to back them up. Which is why BFVs even though they are armored and having long range weapons still depend on infantry squads on the ground to wipe enemy ground troops and anything else wanting to wipe out that BFV. The fact that you think it is impossibility does not negate the fact that citizens are constitutionally allowed to have enough fire power to be able to overthrow the government. Automatic weapons are just a piece of what civilians should be allowed to own. Gaddafi seems to be getting his ass handed to him by an inferior force.

If you look at what an American infantry squad has its not just automatic rifles(M-16s that fire semi-automatic and 3 round burst), they have AT4s or some other similar weapon, they have hand grenades as well as M203 grenade launcher, they have M249 SAWs(now called M249 LMGs) as well as M240B(or M240G depending on branch of service) and various other weapons that make them a threat to other infantry squads and armored vehicles and aircraft.

That's because we choose too.
Click to expand...

So we choose to let a inferior force keep us in Iraq and Afghanistan for so long?
Furthermore, have the governments been overthrown there? No
Click to expand...

Those countries would be fine if our troops left those countries even though they have armored vehicles, air craft and long range weapons?
 
Last edited:
If you gave civilians the right to own fully automatic weapons, more innocent police would start dieing in droves.

I will also add, if you are so paranoid that you need a fully automatic assault rifle to defend yourself, I don't want you to have a gun.
 
Last edited:

We already permit AKs and m16s. I own an AK.
 

Some AKs come with folding stocks and are great for room to room fighting. The P90 actually doesnt have much stopping power. The 5.7mm bullet is meant to pierce armor pretty well but is pretty weak when it comes down to it.
 
Proud South Korean said:
Obviously, you have no experience of firearms.
Ak-47s are normal assault rifles, they are selective fire (meaning the modes semi-automatic and full automatic are changeable and selectable)
M-16s are likewise, mostly selective fire
Click to expand...

I'm aware of the different settings. Right now in the United States, citizens are allowed to own assault rifles that are set to only be able to shoot in semiautomatic mode. The exception is if you owned one prior to the 1986 law being passed. That's why the question is about whether Americans should be allowed to own fully automatic ones. Some Americans buy a semiautomatic assault rifle and then convert it into being fully automatic. I understand it's not that difficult to do. However, it's currently illegal.


I'm inclined to agree with you. I don't think a citizenry owned with automatic assault rifles would stand a chance against the US military. However, it seems to me it's useful for citizens to be armed in the event of a hostile invasion. If we were occupied by a foreign army, citizens armed with automatic AK-47s and similar rifles could cause a lot of nuisance for the invaders until the US military arrives.
 


Nonsense. Automatic weapons are far from impossible to obtain, yet their use by criminals is negligible. Nor are they necessarily so damn deadly as some think.

My Class III vest can stop bullets from a typical submachinegun, like an Uzi, no problem. A 30-06 bolt-action deer rifle will go right thru my vest like it isn't there and kill the **** out of me in between.


I'm an American, and bearing arms is a Constitutional right: I don't have to have a "reason" to have an autofiring weapon other than "I want one", and the only qualifications I need are "I'm not a felon or a nutter."
 
Last edited:
Yes, of course.
 
obvious Child said:
There's no doubt about that, but in terms of destroying a homegrown insurgent force that actually gives a **** about its families, you attack their homes and families. That really doesn't work against Islamists though.
Click to expand...

Government men have homes and families, too. They might be able to protect the homes of the men who give the orders, but they'll never be able to cover everyone who carries them out.

I care about my family, but I also recognize that the only real leverage I have in dealing with anyone in power is my capacity for escalation. If I'm always willing to go further than they are, and they always have more to lose than I do, then I am always capable of hurting them infinitely more than they are capable of hurting me. Sometimes, reminding everyone what's really on the table does more to keep the conversation civilized than any amount of false diplomacy.


It may be a little more sophisticated than most of the people making the argument, but it really comes down to Jefferson's assertion that the government should fear the people. The constant threat of armed insurrection isn't a substitute for preventing the government from becoming corrupt, it's a part of the strategy to keeping it from becoming so. Constant vigilance keeps rogue individuals in line, but the only thing that can keep institutional organizations in check is the threat of MAD.

obvious Child said:
But that's not what the topic is. Using an AK in automatic is a sign of a real bad hunter.
Click to expand...

Hell yeah it is. First and foremost, it indicates a hunter who has no idea why in the Hell he's shooting at an animal that could easily kill him.

obvious Child said:
Nah. Baseball bat. No need to reload. Plus it's a perfect ambush weapon.
Click to expand...

If I'm sacrificing the reach of a firearm, I'd rather have a blade. It takes a much smaller injury to convince someone to give up with a blade.
 
Jryan said:
I will also add, if you are so paranoid that you need a fully automatic assault rifle to defend yourself, I don't want you to have a gun.
Click to expand...

If you're so paranoid that you think you need to take my guns away to defend yourself, I don't want you to have a vote. See how that works?
 

1) so the USA is going to nuke the USA- I don't think so

2) you don't fight it out with the army-you kill the politicians who have ordered the army to attack its own civilian population. If 20 million people want say a certain politician dead, he's gonna die rather quickly

3) assassination and terror is the way to deal with despots. Kill them and their families, not the army under them
 

there are gray areas as to what civilians should be able to own. Portable rocket launchers, automatic grenade launchers, surface to air missiles are such weapons. Automatic rifles are not. ANYTHING CIVILIAN POLICE OFFICERS USE or the STANDARD INDIVIDUAL WEAPON OF AN INFANTRYMAN are clearly something all civilians (able to own other guns) should be able to possess
 

Full automatic rifle (as opposed to a heavy machine gun designed to run at full auto at extended periods of time) is designed to

1) suppress enemy movement or fire

2) allow your side to maneuver

3) break off an ambush

Semi Auto selector on the same rifle

1) inflict casualties

2) inflict casualties

3) inflict casualties
 

why do you post crap that is incredibly stupid?

we have had the right to own these things in many states since the day they were invented and there has ONLY BEEN ONE REPORTED CRIME WITH A FULLY AUTOMATIC legally owned weapon in the last 75 years.

If you don't trust someone to own the same weapon civilian police officers own I don't want you voting or having any say in our government
 
Viktyr Korimir said:
If you're so paranoid that you think you need to take my guns away to defend yourself, I don't want you to have a vote. See how that works?
Click to expand...

He is completely ignorant of the subject-in most states you can own fully automatic weapons-albeit the price prevents anyone but those fairly well off from owning them legally because of the Hughes ban that prevents Full Autos made after may 19, 1986 from being purchased by non dealers or non law enforcement agencies
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…