• 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!

Stop the Slaughter of Our Children With These Weapons of War

Rogue Valley

Lead or get out of the way
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 18, 2013
Messages
111,605
Reaction score
101,856
Location
Barsoom
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Stop the Slaughter of Our Children With These Weapons of War

Assault weapons are designed to kill as many people as possible in the shortest time possible. They are for war; they are not for sport.




You've got it right Sir. This is absolute madness.
 
End abortion now! Oh wait were we talking about slaughtering children?
 
He got it wrong and is fully aware that an AR-15 is not "just like" an M-4 or M-16 (which are assault rifles).


He's been to war. I think I'll go with his logic and experience over yours.

There is no reason to have weapons of war easily available on the civilian market.
 
Stop the Slaughter of Our Children With These Weapons of War

Assault weapons are designed to kill as many people as possible in the shortest time possible. They are for war; they are not for sport.

The Second Amendment was made to safeguard citizen's right to keep and bear arms meant for war. Not for sport.

If our founding fathers meant it otherwise, they could have made the preamble:

"A well-fed population able to hunt game for food and sport, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
 
He's been to war. I think I'll go with his logic and experience over yours.

There is no reason to have weapons of war easily available on the civilian market.

What, exactly, transforms a semi-auto rifle into a "weapon of war" other than how it is used? As a follow-up question, why should LEOs be permitted to have a "weapon of war"?
 

Prepare yourself for "the militia clause was intended to define the type of people, not the type of arms, that the (federal?) government could not infringe upon".
 
He's been to war. I think I'll go with his logic and experience over yours.

There is no reason to have weapons of war easily available on the civilian market.
Which of these is the "assault rifle"...the "weapon of war"...and why?



 
End abortion now! Oh wait were we talking about slaughtering children?

A fetus is not a living breathing person. And why is the right so fascinated with a fetus but couldn't care less about innocent living breathing people slaughtered time after time? When our america did nothing after sandy hook, we reached a new low for money and politics.

Grow some balls or a vagina and put your careers on the line and 'do something'. How can these folks in congress who refuse to do anything live with themselves?
 
Its funny...but its almost like people that advocate for disarming Americans either dont understand the Constitution, or dont care about the Constitution.
 
132,000 rapes occur every year. Assuming you still have a dick, wont you chop off YOUR dick to make sure no one else gets raped? Dont you CARE about women?
 
He got it correct. Look up the definition of assault weapon.

Who's definition of "assault weapon" do you consider to be 'official' and why did you not post it for discussion?
 

There is a reason we've been seeing more AR and AK style weapons in civilian hands and it goes back to the Hollywood bank robbery in 1997. In that incident a couple of guys dressed in body armor, armed themselves with AKs, robbed a bank and shot it out with police. The police were severely outgunned and ended up commandeering arms from a local gun shop to better address the threat. People watching this all go down immediately thought (like the cops did) that if criminals had these weapons then it would be a good idea to have them as well for personal defense.

The bottom line in self defense is to be prepared to meet any threat you're likely to encounter with at least comparable and preferably superior force. For most of us that means carrying a sidearm. In years past we would carry .38s and .357s. They provided the ability to meet most of what one was likely to run across. Today we generally carry 9mm, .40 and .45 because those rounds pack a little more punch and we're also looking for more ammo capacity. We ARE NOT carrying ARs because they are a common threat but we do like to have them available for when we encounter an uncommon threat.

The biggest mistake that the "gun control" crowd makes is that they absolutely refuse to think of civilians considering defensive use of weapons. For the gun control crowd the only conceivable use of a weapon by a civilian is hunting or homicide. That just isn't the case. The VAST majority of gun owners choose to own firearms for defensive purposes. They see these incidents happening and think to themselves "waiting around 5 minutes, or even ONE minute, for the cops to show up when someone is shooting at me will totally suck. Maybe if I could shoot back I can protect myself for that short period of time".
 
132,000 rapes occur every year. Assuming you still have a dick, wont you chop off YOUR dick to make sure no one else gets raped? Dont you CARE about women?

The arguments from you folks get crazier and crazier. With your thinking we should ban motor vehicles too and matches.
 
The arguments from you folks get crazier and crazier. With your thinking we should ban motor vehicles too and matches.

Either that or the whole point is that we SHOULDN'T ban stuff that the vast majority of people use lawfully and regularly every day.
 
The sentence "Stop the Slaughter of Our Children With These Weapons of War" is a poorly written and confusing sentence.

It could either mean "stop these weapons of war which are slaughtering our children", or "use these weapons of war to stop the slaughter of our children."
 
Either that or the whole point is that we SHOULDN'T ban stuff that the vast majority of people use lawfully and regularly every day.

It's the right who keeps using words like ban or take your guns, never miss an opportunity to play the fear card. We are speaking about ideas to help cut down on these massacres and all I basically hear from the right is words like ban. Keep your guns, limit the amount of rounds it can carry. Do you really need thirty rounds for deer hunting?
 

Thank you. That (bolded above) is the truth - the terms 'assault rifle', 'assault weapon' and 'weapon of war' are purely political in nature and are designed to equate (to machine guns) functionally dissimilar guns based on their physical appearance and features that have no ballistic effect whatsoever. Magazine capacity is usually tossed in based on the theory (assumption?) that a shooter requiring a few more seconds to fire multiple rounds would be "less deadly" rendering his/her selected human targets "more safe" (at less risk of injury or death?).

The Truth About Assault Weapons
 
The arguments from you folks get crazier and crazier. With your thinking we should ban motor vehicles too and matches.
Its rather ironic, don't you think? You advocate for targeting the rights of 120 million law abiding citizens because of the actions of a handful of people a year...yet when it comes to YOU sacrificing your dick to prevent 132000 rapes, you find that crazy. THEN you offer the ludicrous concept of banning motor vehicles and matches while ignoring the fact that THAT stupid notion is PRECISELY what you are doing with firearm ownership.

There is a lesson in there for you.
 
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…