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.

 

“We need automatic guns so to defend against the military. ” - What???

page: 6
22
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 20 2014 @ 11:39 AM
link   
a reply to: starheart What if, there is a whole gang of armed home invaders, and they have already shot the person who was standing at the door when they kicked it in, maybe they would all run away if you got off your one shot.




posted on Jun, 20 2014 @ 11:41 AM
link   
a reply to: chopperswolf

Or maybe, if this gang didn't have guns in the first place, or at worst had only a one-shot gun, life wouldn't be a "who has more guns than who" pissing contest.

Here in Canada guns are a privilege (not a right). Yet we live a normal life. Why do you americans have to be so obsessed with weapons?


edit on 20-6-2014 by swanne because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 20 2014 @ 11:49 AM
link   
a reply to: swanne

If it has to be explained, you already won't get it.

And why is that people in Canada feel it necessary for the US to change to what you have?

It is a Right. Nothing more really needs to be addressed.

We have this Right. You don't.



posted on Jun, 20 2014 @ 11:50 AM
link   

originally posted by: Aliensun
a reply to: swanne

It is really absurd to suggest that a government can have any toys that it can produce to keep the populace subdued, but the people, under the Second Amendment, must be restrained in the type of arms that they can have on hand to do battle if it came to that.


So you seriously think that every one around you should have his/her own nuclear bomb?

Because that's what you guys imply: "If the Military has it, we must have it too". This include nuclear bomb.



posted on Jun, 20 2014 @ 11:51 AM
link   

originally posted by: swanne
a reply to: chopperswolf

Or maybe, if this gang didn't have guns in the first place, or at worst had only a one-shot gun, life wouldn't be a "who has more guns than who" pissing contest.

Here in Canada guns are a privilege (not a right). Yet we live a normal life. Why do you americans have to be so obsessed with weapons?



We Americans are obsessed with our rights.
Why are outsiders obsessed with taking them away?



posted on Jun, 20 2014 @ 11:51 AM
link   
a reply to: swanne

That's a cute utopian world you live in. But guns exist and here in the real world criminals don't care if it's illegal to have guns.....that's why they are criminals.

Making meth illegal hasn't stopped criminals from buying, selling, and making it has it?



posted on Jun, 20 2014 @ 11:53 AM
link   

originally posted by: macman
We have this Right. You don't.



Indeed. Because it seems that, unlike you guys, in Canada we found a way to live together without having to rely on guns.



posted on Jun, 20 2014 @ 11:54 AM
link   
a reply to: swanne

That is a statement of ignorance and I'm tired of hearing it. A nuclear bomb is not an arm. Someone earlier posted that arms and ordnance are synonymous, but from a legal definition and from a military definition they aren't mutually inclusive.

There is a gray area in between ordnance and arms, and this area is covered by the national firearms act, whos subgroups are SBR (short barrel rifle), SBS (short barrel shotgun), Machine gun, destructive device, AOW (any other weapon that is neither an arm or ordnance).

If you are to be taken seriously, I suggest you redact your statement, because it's a huge red flag as to how knowledgeable you actually are on the subject.



posted on Jun, 20 2014 @ 11:54 AM
link   
a reply to: ManBehindTheMask

So the solution is to give everyone machine guns, including those who are not yet criminals.



posted on Jun, 20 2014 @ 11:56 AM
link   
a reply to: swanne

Canada has a pretty high gun ownership rate. As a country it has more guns per capita than 90% of the rest of the world's countries. Poor argument. Society-wise? Yep, Canada is stronger and more stable. The correlation with firearms is extremely low. This is becoming bad comedy.
edit on 20-6-2014 by Galvatron because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 20 2014 @ 11:56 AM
link   
removed: double post
edit on 20-6-2014 by Galvatron because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 20 2014 @ 11:56 AM
link   
a reply to: swanne

No. Did you read the thread?



posted on Jun, 20 2014 @ 11:57 AM
link   

originally posted by: Galvatron
a reply to: swanne

That is a statement of ignorance and I'm tired of hearing it. A nuclear bomb is not an arm. Someone earlier posted that arms and ordnance are synonymous, but from a legal definition and from a military definition they aren't mutually inclusive.

There is a gray area in between ordnance and arms, and this area is covered by the national firearms act, whos subgroups are SBR (short barrel rifle), SBS (short barrel shotgun), Machine gun, destructive device, AOW (any other weapon that is neither an arm or ordnance).

If you are to be taken seriously, I suggest you redact your statement, because it's a huge red flag as to how knowledgeable you actually are on the subject.

I am not talking about those small pistols. I am talking about those ATSers who think that the Second Amendment applies to heavy machine guns, bazookas and tanks.



posted on Jun, 20 2014 @ 11:58 AM
link   
a reply to: swanne

Regardless of what they think, the law isn't on their side regarding that, and so again it's a poor argument. Argue what is, rather than what people think. Arguing the subjective is like describing the color yellow.



posted on Jun, 20 2014 @ 12:18 PM
link   
a reply to: swanne It would seem that you were the one worried, about hindering my rights. You wouldn't happen to work for the government would you?


edit on 20-6-2014 by chopperswolf because: just because



posted on Jun, 20 2014 @ 12:21 PM
link   
a reply to: swanne


I am not talking about those small pistols. I am talking about those ATSers who think that the Second Amendment applies to heavy machine guns, bazookas and tanks.


It does apply to those!!

Always has!!

Somewhere along the way some Idiots allowed the 2nd to be defined by those who oppose it.



posted on Jun, 20 2014 @ 12:27 PM
link   
a reply to: swanne

And that means what to me?
We aren't Canada. We don't want to be Canada.



posted on Jun, 20 2014 @ 12:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: swanne

So you seriously think that every one around you should have his/her own nuclear bomb?

Because that's what you guys imply: "If the Military has it, we must have it too". This include nuclear bomb.



really??? A tired old talking point of "nuclear bombs"?

Nuclear bombs are not considered "arms".


Want to try another platitude?



posted on Jun, 20 2014 @ 12:31 PM
link   
a reply to: macman



....don't get me wrong. I'd find a couple buddies and go in on a nuke if there was one available.

We throw BIG 4th of July parties here in Texas!!



posted on Jun, 20 2014 @ 12:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: swanne

If you really think that an organized military will be scared by your machine guns, then I’m sorry but you live in a fairy tale. The minute a zone is declared hostile territory, they won't bother gently knocking at every wannabe-Rambo redneck's doors. If they judge the place too hostile, then they'll simply blast the place sky high.

Now you understand why I conclude that in modern, everyday life, automatic guns are only a promise of death at worst, and a promise of chaos at best.

In the end, this "ammunophilia" will have profited but the same, old industries: the Big Corporations which are selling the guns and the bullets.



Well Stated. Kudos.



new topics

top topics



 
22
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join