Ask a Question
or
Create a Poll
  1. Home /
  2. Questions /
  3. Social Sciences
  4. / Politics And Modern Events
  5. / More Politics And Modern Events

by dothat on April 4th, 2007

dothat

Question

Help answer this question below.

If you could get rid of inexpensive assault rifles world wide, or nuculear weapons, which would you choose?

  • Like
  • Report
Share:
Other

Answers. 14 helpful answers below.

  • by cctuba2000 on June 17th, 2009

    cctuba2000

    a disabled one!

    • Like
    • Report

    No comments. Post one | Permalink

  • by Old School on June 17th, 2009

    Old School

    The ones rusting away unused in storage...:-P...
    .
    .
    .

    • Like
    • Report

    No comments. Post one | Permalink

  • by The0Rising on June 20th, 2009

    The0Rising

    An M4 I think :)
    .
    PS why is everybody so caught up with the AK-47? Its rubbish compared to alternatives.

    • Like
    • Report

    No comments. Post one | Permalink

  • by Anonymous on June 20th, 2009

    Anonymous

    A loaded g36E.

    • Like
    • Report

    3 comments | Post one | Permalink

  • by Nemesis on June 17th, 2009

    Nemesis

    a Minigun!

    • Like
    • Report

    1 comment | Post one | Permalink

  • by jin jang on June 20th, 2009

    jin jang

    I like the ultimate skirt gun,that can shoot water 20 feet.Watch out,you can get a wet shirt.I have no favorite real rifle,or gun.

    No comments. Post one | Permalink

  • by 1858 Remington 1-21-13 on June 20th, 2009

    1858 Remington 1-21-13

    The AK-47. And the minigun.

    No comments. Post one | Permalink

  • by That Guy Again on June 17th, 2009

    That Guy Again

    Assault Rifle is a silly term for any kind of firearm, today it is mostly used by the uninformed media to describe a "black" (synthetic stock) gun or anything that is a scary looking gun.

    Any weapon, not just a firearm can be used to "assault" and both pistols and hunting shotguns can and are rifled.

    The original concept of a "Storm Rifle" as coined by Adolf Hitler was basically a small, light, inexpensive (inaccurate at distance) automatic rifle that fired a pistol cartridge similar to the American “Grease Gun” made by General Motors.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_rifle

    Both the AK47 and AR15 the most common firearms identified as "Assault Rifles" fire a round similar to a typical hunting cartridge, not a pistol round. The definition suggests a rifle that can selectively fire semi or fully automatic. Actually, only military versions have that capability.

    No comments. Post one | Permalink

  • by edndori on February 21st, 2009

    edndori

    Hate is the killer. Assault rifles and nuclear weapons are just the tools. Eliminate BOTH and hate would still find a way to kill. Rocks, bare hands, whatever is to be had.

    No comments. Post one | Permalink

  • by BAM@Cyberscrewed.tk on April 9th, 2007

    BAM@Cyberscrewed.tk

    Nuclear weapons, this might be logical for the everyman for world security but I am hardly concerned with world security. They say that the real weapon of mass destruction is not the biological or chemical agents that the various world powers possess, nor is it the high number of nuclear based warheads and weapons of the such hidden in various corners of the world. 9/10 war "victims" today are killed by assault rifles and small arms. Those nuclear missles sit in their silos, AK-47s are readily available to anyone that wants them, in some countries you can buy them for the price of a ticket.

    Now, at this point you wonder, why did I not choose to eliminate the assault rifles? I believe that war is a good thing, yes, it can stimulate an ailing economy, free an oppressed people and much more. If the fear of nuclear weapons is gone, it would allow some countries to expand. These days, no country will make a move that could be deemed offensive for fear of the UN and its attack dog, the U.S.

    Let me also remind you of the cost of maintaining the Ohio submarine fleet, the silos, the clean-up of obsolete weapons and the upkeep of warheads throughout the world. The cost of each weapon could feed a village in Africa lavishly for roughly 50 years, and there are many many of these.

    If rifles were to become expensive somehow, some countries could not afford to defend themselves or perhaps initiate an offensive move. What could they use instead? Oh, just the nuclear weapons that have been sitting around for thirty years, relics of the cold war waiting vigilantly for action.

    In addition to this, nuclear weapons are not part of the clause that I consider "honorable combat". They are a last ditch effort by a desparate people, life suicide bombers. Let me qualify this a bit, an old friend of mine is into strategy computer games. One in particular being Command and Conquer: Red Alert 2. In this simulatation the main screen allows the player to switch off "super weapons". I found that he always had this option off, when I asked why, he said that there was no point in using them and that they simply irritated. Apparently one strike does not keep the soldiers down as they rebuild and since both sides have the weapons, the opposite player strikes back to the same useless effect. It's like stabbing each other in the leg, you slow down but you stab back and accomplish nothing. Perhaps this is not a great metaphor but it seems to make sense to me.

    Warfare is not warfare with weapons of mass destruction.

    No comments. Post one | Permalink

  • by GraduateStudent on June 16th, 2009

    GraduateStudent

    AK-47 Russian made

    No comments. Post one | Permalink

  • by bluemanunder on June 17th, 2009

    bluemanunder

    In service I'll choose the MK12 Rifle System Navy seals Uses it as a Medium Sniper. but in future I'll Choose the Magpull Masada. Why? because you can use an AK AMMOs by just swapping the barrel and it's futuristic looks and design.

    No comments. Post one | Permalink

  • by Fiddle Playing Creole Bastard on June 17th, 2009

    Fiddle Playing Creole Bastard

    A Lee Enfield No. 1 Mk III. Not an assault rifle, per se, but a rifle used to assault! None of that fancy plastic crap they have these days, the good old Enfield was 9 pounds of steel and wood and could hit a target two Eastern European Countries over!

    No comments. Post one | Permalink

  • by Nightwatchdog on August 26th, 2009

    Nightwatchdog

    Neither - I am a strong believer in free will and freedom of choice.

    No comments. Post one | Permalink

Want to attach an image to your answer? Click here.

Did this answer your question? If not, then ask a new question or create a poll.

More Questions. Additional questions in this category.

You're reading If you could get rid of inexpensive assault rifles world wide, or nuculear weapons, which would you choose? - which can also be phrased in the following ways:

  • What is your favorite assault rifle.

Follow us on Facebook!

Related Ads

Related Questions

Professionally Researched

ANSWERBAG BUZZ

How to get the nuklear assault rifle
Reasonable needs
Which automatic rifle would you choose
Synthetic stock for lee enfield rifles

Answerbag

a Demand Media company