It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Help me understand why people need assault rifles to protect themselves

page: 8
15
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join
share:
(post by stormbringer1701 removed for political trolling and baiting)

posted on Jun, 7 2014 @ 10:58 AM
link   
God I love hindsight.

Indeed my phrasing was wrong, I've screwed up before and I'll more than likely do it again. But this was never meant to be a personal attack against gun ownership or a majority of it's owners, if it was I would've titled it "Why guns are wrong and why you are wrong."

You want to hunt? fine by all. Take whatever firearms you need to get the job done, no fault there and there is no fault with the responsible gun ownership that most members adhere to. I'm talking about the other owners in the world who's Samity Sam mentality leads them to purchase 'advanced' weapons when they have no need for them and brandish them whenever they get the chance. Even the NRA have frowned upon such behavior which was alluded to in another post.

The problem is that sometimes these people will equate power to safety. January last year I was accosted by a man wielding a large butchers knife, and I was unarmed. Five minutes later he was also unarmed and in pain, and in the end I didn't need a bigger knife to subdue him.

I don't want those who are responsible gun owners disarmed because of the acts of the few, and since you are responsible gun owners I want to know why some of the less responsible feel the need to be so proficiently armed when it's not necessary?










edit on 7-6-2014 by Thecakeisalie because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 7 2014 @ 11:04 AM
link   

originally posted by: Thecakeisalie
I don't want those who are responsible gun owners disarmed because of the acts of the few, and since you are responsible gun owners I want to know why some of the less responsible feel the need to be so proficiently armed when it's not necessary?


And who determines what a 'responsible' firearms owner happens to be, you?

As long as they are not in violation of any law they should be able to own anything they want.



posted on Jun, 7 2014 @ 11:16 AM
link   
When all government agencies turn in their guns, then maybe we can have a discussion about gun control for citizens. Of course giving up their guns makes the government's goal of enslaving us impossible, so we can rule that out. If you seriously can't understand why Americans are arming themselves, then I beg you to study the history of governments, it will make a Stephen King novel look like a children's book.



posted on Jun, 7 2014 @ 01:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: Thecakeisalie

You want to hunt? fine by all. Take whatever firearms you need to get the job done, no fault there and there is no fault with the responsible gun ownership that most members adhere to. I'm talking about the other owners in the world who's Samity Sam mentality leads them to purchase 'advanced' weapons when they have no need for them and brandish them whenever they get the chance. Even the NRA have frowned upon such behavior which was alluded to in another post.


I'm just curious what exactly you mean by advanced weapons? Generally when that comes up its simp,y a reflection of a weapons aesthetics as opposed to its functionality.


The problem is that sometimes these people will equate power to safety. January last year I was accosted by a man wielding a large butchers knife, and I was unarmed. Five minutes later he was also unarmed and in pain, and in the end I didn't need a bigger knife to subdue him.


And that's your prerogative. If for example, I had a rifle like an AR 15, I would likely only take it out of my house to go to the range. Otherwise it would be in the safe. Could I do as well with a shotgun for home defense? Certainly so, however I can't be in my home 24/7 and sometimes my wife is home alone with my kids. It's far easier for her t fire an AR than it is a 12 gauge. The limited recoil is easier for her to handle than the much bigger kick from the 12 gauge making her more comfortable operating it as well as feeling less at risk if I'm away from the house.


I don't want those who are responsible gun owners disarmed because of the acts of the few, and since you are responsible gun owners I want to know why some of the less responsible feel the need to be so proficiently armed when it's not necessary?



Maybe I'm reading that wrong but it looks almost like you're implying that people with "tricked out" rifles with a military appearance are irresponsible because they lack personal confidence making them irresponsible if they are, you say, so proficiently armed. I'm curious what your criteria is fr a "responsible gun owner".



posted on Jun, 7 2014 @ 02:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: Thecakeisalie
I don't want those who are responsible gun owners disarmed because of the acts of the few, and since you are responsible gun owners I want to know why some of the less responsible feel the need to be so proficiently armed when it's not necessary?


And who determines what a 'responsible' firearms owner happens to be, you?

As long as they are not in violation of any law they should be able to own anything they want.


Conversely, can you determine who's a responsible gun owner? NO. I'm on your side to a certain extent, but the answer to my question goes unanswered.



posted on Jun, 7 2014 @ 02:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: Thecakeisalie
Conversely, can you determine who's a responsible gun owner? NO. I'm on your side to a certain extent, but the answer to my question goes unanswered.


Is there such a determiner for our other enumerated rights listed in the Constitution? Do you have to be a responsible voter to be allowed to vote? Do you need to have a religion that someone else deems 'responsible' before being permitted to practice it? People may want it to be so but it is not.

To answer your question a 'responsible' firearms owner is one who is not breaking the law.



posted on Jun, 7 2014 @ 03:04 PM
link   
a reply to: Thecakeisalie

I can't fathom that you can not fathom the reasoning behind their wish for owning an automatic militairy grade weapon.




posted on Jun, 7 2014 @ 03:21 PM
link   
a nation and people who are self governing must also be capable of self defense.

The second amendment was written within a decade of a war that was fought for freedom and independence from a dictator who tried to confiscate all of the firearms available for military operations at the time.

The right to keep (purchase) arms is not about defending your home and it is not about deer hunting.

The right speaks to a people being able to fight against enemies both foreign and domestic.

And the term WELL REGULATED when the 2A was written meant WELL EQUIPPED.



posted on Jun, 7 2014 @ 03:55 PM
link   

edit on 7-6-2014 by JustACoincidence because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 7 2014 @ 04:20 PM
link   
Because one bullet isn't enough to spend all of your anger.



posted on Jun, 7 2014 @ 04:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: Thecakeisalie
God I love hindsight.

I don't want those who are responsible gun owners disarmed because of the acts of the few, and since you are responsible gun owners I want to know why some of the less responsible feel the need to be so proficiently armed when it's not necessary?



Please read the preamble to the bill of rights.

The second amendment is not about hunting.

The second amendment is not about home defense.

Those are fringe issues.

The second amendment is about securing a free state,
and since the United States is a free state wherein the
people govern themselves and must also defend themselves

A well regulated Militia,
(A population of well equipped citizens)
being necessary to the security of a free State,
(are needed to keep the state free)
the right of the people to keep and bear Arms,
(means that the citizens can buy and use military grade arms)
shall not be infringed.
(without any restrictions imposed upon them).



posted on Jun, 7 2014 @ 05:00 PM
link   
Actually, mr Cake, you have no idea what the average home invader/burglar is equipped with and you sound like you've never shot at or been shot at. All that you know is that the invader is in your face and your kids are in the next room. Would you rather a round like a .308 putting a hole the size of a quarter through his chest or a dinky little pistol which might not even kill or incapacitate on the first shot?

Oh wait, you know how to disarm people with your hands. Let me know how that works out when 12 gangbangers are walking down the block with bats and pipes and heaters in their belt trying to find you and get you. Or if a pack of wild animals are threatening you and they all weigh almost as much as you.

Or if the government decides to do what almost every government has done in human history and *gasp* abuse its power by abolishing the people's rights and doing whatever the # they feel like.

It's not about needing a fully automatic weapon, which by the way IS NOT EVEN USED BY THE MILITARY IN MOST APPLICATIONS due to the large amounts of ammo being used or the inaccuracy of FA, or needing an anti-tank rifle. It's about the 2nd Amendment saying we can own these weapons for whatever reason we want. Because this is America

0/10 you made me respond



posted on Jun, 9 2014 @ 08:43 AM
link   

originally posted by: kruphix

Any half intelligent person will tell you there are too may guns in America and that is what causes are gun problems.

So a fully intelligent person would say that your full of crap???
Seems that you have set the playing field low for you and your fellow Anti-2nd bros.
Sad day when people allow Half-intelligent people to state moronic facts that don't add up.



originally posted by: kruphix
I don't expect you to understand.

You are right. I just don't get statements from the half-intelligent.

How about these whoppers???
www.breitbart.com...

So yes, the half-intelligent people have a lot to say. But, they seem to never get it right.



posted on Jun, 9 2014 @ 10:13 AM
link   

originally posted by: kruphix
Any half intelligent person will tell you there are too may guns in America and that is what causes are gun problems.


I am going to help with grammar and differentiating synonyms hear:

your sentence uses the word ARE when you really need to use the word OUR.

The word are and the word our sound similar and are therefore called synonyms.

Ewe should no this by the time yew our typing things on the internet.
If ewe don't practice differentiating between synonyms people will
think yew our half-intelligent person because you only get it right half the time.
Sea what eye mean?



posted on Jun, 10 2014 @ 06:13 PM
link   
"I can see how YOU would not understand" comments are for YOU actually I have knowledge,training and 35 years of experience,I don't forsee the need to move to an area where I too could be forced into the role of a victim or be incarcerated. My intelligence ALONE would prevent that much less instinct as a scout.



posted on Jun, 10 2014 @ 06:36 PM
link   
a reply to: Thecakeisalie

Because a rifle is a rifle. A semi-automatic rifle from the 40's is no more or less scarier than a rifle in black. It's just your inane perception and the usage of the term "assault" rifle. If you want to get down to it, any rifle can be an assault rifle if you use it to assault another person. Same for a spoon, if I came lunging at you with a dull spoon, wouldn't it technically be an assault spoon?

Better watch your back, there are tons of unregistered assault spoons trading hands unchecked!



posted on Jun, 10 2014 @ 06:50 PM
link   
a reply to: cavtrooper7

Amen brother. A warrior never allows himself to be cornered or to be a victim.

He fights for what he believes in and right now the warriors of today are fighting another man's war. But soon we will fight for what we believe again.

The right for life, liberty, and the pursuit of happyness as granted to us by the Founding Fathers a long time ago. It is not a privilege or an allowance by the government. It is an unalienable universal right that every person should be able to have but haven't had because of evildoers and those who stand by and do nothing, thus making them worse than evil.

Soon, we will be able to fight the good fight. Soon



posted on Jun, 10 2014 @ 07:08 PM
link   
The 2nd amendment exists to allow people to have guns to protect your 1st amendment right to complain about people having guns.



posted on Jun, 11 2014 @ 02:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: thisguy27
a reply to: cavtrooper7

The right for life, liberty, and the pursuit of happyness as granted to us by the Founding Fathers a long time ago. It is not a privilege or an allowance by the government. It is an unalienable universal right that every person..

Soon, we will be able to fight the good fight. Soon


1. Life liberty and the pursuit of happiness was NOT granted to us by the founding fathers.
2. An inalienable or unalienable right is innate, inborn, natural right conferred by our Creator.



new topics

top topics



 
15
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join