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.

 

Over 1,000 Gun Owners Violate Washington’s I-594- A Gun Control Law- In Front Of Police!

page: 5
43
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 30 2014 @ 12:07 AM
link   

originally posted by: HomerinNC
a reply to: stormbringer1701

I got this from your link:



In response, the city argued that federal law doesn't apply to the plaintiffs' claims against city officials "because the right to keep and bear arms has never been recognized as a fundamental individual right."


All I gotta say is wow, I guess they never read the Constitution....


that actually was the liberal argument for some time despite case law saying otherwise and despite the founder's own writings and speeches and debates being a matter of permanent record. gun grabbers actually tried that even though it was totally unsupported by the written record. they are not above obfuscation, misdirection, outright lies and even ignoring laws to get their way.




posted on Dec, 30 2014 @ 12:16 AM
link   


And I take it you are not a loser...?


No, because I'm not stupid enough to believe that guns are the basis of a society.



posted on Dec, 30 2014 @ 12:31 AM
link   
a reply to: CB328

How are you going to react to being shot at if you can't shoot back? I guess you'll just die. Please do not run to my house wanting me to protect you. You do see the police are all militarized right? Not just here either. You take away your power and someone will force theirs on you. Simple as that. Nature's way. Might makes right. There's no kumbaya in reality, just checks and balances.

I never had to shoot anyone on the street or in my home and hope it doesn't come to that. I feel safer not needing it than I would if something did happen and need it. Crime is the least of my worries. It's the government. I always thought this country was for the people by the people. I'll stay armed, thank you.

Don't get complacent now. Do your duty to protect your way of life because no one is going to do it for you.



posted on Dec, 30 2014 @ 08:24 AM
link   

originally posted by: ScientificRailgun


Last I checked, in the U.S. it is illegal to own a fully operational tank without some SERIOUS permits and paperwork.

You had better check again.
Tanks can be owned. Permits are required for on road use, if that is even wished.


originally posted by: ScientificRailgun
Same goes for the minigun.

A minigun falls under the NFA act. But, can be owned in certain instances.


originally posted by: ScientificRailgun
I can't own an F-22 Raptor, nor the missiles to arm it.

You can.
I have a line on the Hind Helicopters which are ownable. Same goes for T38 and many other aircraft.

Missiles are not arms.



originally posted by: ScientificRailgun
I can't own a naval Railgun. (Booo!)

Says who?

You can make a railgun. You can even make a railgun.


originally posted by: ScientificRailgun
There's a lot of weapons U.S. citizens cannot legally own.


And by the 2nd, most of those restrictions are illegal.

And please, stop with the whole Nuke and Aircraft Carrier BS.



posted on Dec, 30 2014 @ 08:29 AM
link   

originally posted by: Onslaught2996
Hmmm..so does that whole law abiding thing go out the door...since they are breaking the law.

These people are breaking the law....do LEOs have the right to shoot them?

Or are there certain laws than can be broken because you have decided it isn't a good one...why can't everyone do that?





Illegal laws are illegal.

And what basis is there for LEO to shoot them???



posted on Dec, 30 2014 @ 08:30 AM
link   

originally posted by: DrJunk

originally posted by: NavyDoc

originally posted by: DrJunk
2nd Amendment is idiotic.

Give us a law that doesn't need to be interpreted.


It does not need to be interpreted. It is quite clear. The "interpretation" is an excuse used by politicians who do not want to follow it.


That's crap.

You get 100 people, and you will get 100 interpretations.

Lets get something with clear language, even the word "arm" needs to be interpreted, and YOU are doing the interpreting...


No, it's not crap. It says quite clearly, that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. US code, due to the militia act of 1791 (written by the same man who gave us the second amendment and made law the same year) defines arms as "in common use by the average soldier." This understanding was crucial in the 1934 NFA act. The meaning was clear for the first 150 years of our nation's existence. Only recently in our history have statists attempted to cloud the issue with "interpretations" to push their agenda.



posted on Dec, 30 2014 @ 08:31 AM
link   
a reply to: DrJunk

How much more simple can it get??

The only reason why there is as much of an issue with is, is due to Progressives and Morons.



posted on Dec, 30 2014 @ 08:32 AM
link   

originally posted by: DrJunk

originally posted by: Xtrozero
Does it matter that more people are killed by hammers each year than assault rifles, but it seems we spend most of the debate with them. If I was going to outlaw a type of gun I would outlaw any gun that cost less than 1000 bucks...hehe


I would say that less people are killed with assault rifles than are killed with hammers because assault rifle restrictions are working to curb that sort of violence.


NO, that's incorrect. Less than 200 murders a year by ALL long arms--from shotguns to deer rifles to so called "assault weapons." No "assault weapons ban" which is really simply a ban on scary looking cosmetic features has stopped a single murder or a single crime.



posted on Dec, 30 2014 @ 08:33 AM
link   

originally posted by: CB328



And I take it you are not a loser...?


No, because I'm not stupid enough to believe that guns are the basis of a society.


Being afraid of an inanimate object owned and used in a non-criminal manner by a law abiding citizen makes one a "winner?"



posted on Dec, 30 2014 @ 10:11 AM
link   

originally posted by: NavyDoc
No "assault weapons ban" which is really simply a ban on scary looking cosmetic features has stopped a single murder or a single crime.


Oh no?

Where do you get that information from?

From the same ass you pulled the rest of your information from?

usnews.nbcnews.com...

If guns aren't dangerous and lethal implements, it kind of defeats their purpose, doesn't it?



posted on Dec, 30 2014 @ 10:12 AM
link   

originally posted by: NavyDoc

originally posted by: DrJunk

originally posted by: NavyDoc

originally posted by: DrJunk
2nd Amendment is idiotic.

Give us a law that doesn't need to be interpreted.


It does not need to be interpreted. It is quite clear. The "interpretation" is an excuse used by politicians who do not want to follow it.


That's crap.

You get 100 people, and you will get 100 interpretations.

Lets get something with clear language, even the word "arm" needs to be interpreted, and YOU are doing the interpreting...


No, it's not crap. It says quite clearly, that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. US code, due to the militia act of 1791 (written by the same man who gave us the second amendment and made law the same year) defines arms as "in common use by the average soldier." This understanding was crucial in the 1934 NFA act. The meaning was clear for the first 150 years of our nation's existence. Only recently in our history have statists attempted to cloud the issue with "interpretations" to push their agenda.


Looks like you need a history lesson on the SCOTUS interpretation of the second amendment, and I'm not interested enough in you to educate you on it.



posted on Dec, 30 2014 @ 10:42 AM
link   

originally posted by: DrJunk

originally posted by: NavyDoc
No "assault weapons ban" which is really simply a ban on scary looking cosmetic features has stopped a single murder or a single crime.


Oh no?

Where do you get that information from?

From the same ass you pulled the rest of your information from?

usnews.nbcnews.com...

If guns aren't dangerous and lethal implements, it kind of defeats their purpose, doesn't it?


Better than your Brady organization campaign propaganda. According to the FBI, deaths from all types of rifles, so called "assault weapons" and hunting rifles alike, was 322 last year. Half that of fists and feet, almost 1/2 that of blunt objects, and 1/3 that of knives. This is the facts, not hysteria from a political group with an agenda and it makes logical sense. The criminal minded are not going to use an unconcealable, 3 foot long, 10 pound firearm for crime.

www.fbi.gov... known-to-law-enforcement/expanded-homicide/expanded_homicide_data_table_8_murder_victims_by_weapon_2008-2012.xls

Of course firearms are designed to kill. The whole point of being able to stop a criminal is the ability to use or at least threaten to use deadly force.



posted on Dec, 30 2014 @ 10:48 AM
link   

originally posted by: DrJunk

originally posted by: NavyDoc

originally posted by: DrJunk

originally posted by: NavyDoc

originally posted by: DrJunk
2nd Amendment is idiotic.

Give us a law that doesn't need to be interpreted.


It does not need to be interpreted. It is quite clear. The "interpretation" is an excuse used by politicians who do not want to follow it.


That's crap.

You get 100 people, and you will get 100 interpretations.

Lets get something with clear language, even the word "arm" needs to be interpreted, and YOU are doing the interpreting...


No, it's not crap. It says quite clearly, that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. US code, due to the militia act of 1791 (written by the same man who gave us the second amendment and made law the same year) defines arms as "in common use by the average soldier." This understanding was crucial in the 1934 NFA act. The meaning was clear for the first 150 years of our nation's existence. Only recently in our history have statists attempted to cloud the issue with "interpretations" to push their agenda.


Looks like you need a history lesson on the SCOTUS interpretation of the second amendment, and I'm not interested enough in you to educate you on it.


Nope. I know the history of firearms and SCOTUS decisions on it very well and the first one was US vs Miller where they ruled that since sawed-off shotguns were not typically used by soldiers, Miller's sawed-off was not covered by the 2nd Amendment, citing the militia act and US code as defining the "arms of the average soldier." Since the average soldier was not issued a sawed-off, then they decided that the 2nd did not protect sawed-off shotguns.

Perhaps you are the one needing an education on the subject.



posted on Dec, 30 2014 @ 11:15 AM
link   

originally posted by: NavyDoc

originally posted by: DrJunk

originally posted by: NavyDoc
No "assault weapons ban" which is really simply a ban on scary looking cosmetic features has stopped a single murder or a single crime.


Oh no?

Where do you get that information from?

From the same ass you pulled the rest of your information from?

usnews.nbcnews.com...

If guns aren't dangerous and lethal implements, it kind of defeats their purpose, doesn't it?


Better than your Brady organization campaign propaganda. According to the FBI, deaths from all types of rifles, so called "assault weapons" and hunting rifles alike, was 322 last year. Half that of fists and feet, almost 1/2 that of blunt objects, and 1/3 that of knives. This is the facts, not hysteria from a political group with an agenda and it makes logical sense. The criminal minded are not going to use an unconcealable, 3 foot long, 10 pound firearm for crime.

[url=[/url]
www.fbi.gov... e_data_table_8_murder_victims_by_weapon_2008-2012.xls]http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2012/crime-in-the-u.s.-2012/offenses-known -to-law-enforcement/expanded-homicide/expanded_homicide_data_table_8_murder_victims_by_weapon_2008-2012.xls
Of course firearms are designed to kill. The whole point of being able to stop a criminal is the ability to use or at least threaten to use deadly force.


Yeah, you keep mentioning "long rifles", which is a common tactic for gun nutters, especially when trotting out these statistics. They are silly, truth be told, and using them like this is disingenuous, and I think you know that, because you claim to be a thinker.

First of all, these are murder statistics. People are killed with guns far more often every year than are ever accounted for on murder statistics. When you look at overall homocides, the numbers spike.

Secondly, handguns, which are generally less regulated than assault rifles, account for an overwhelming majority of murder weapons. Again, it would appear that regulation works in curbing rifles, howeverI do concede, handguns are generally easier to use than rifles, which make them less useful for mobility when used in criminal enterprise, unless of course, you are looking for maximum lethality and no intention of survival.

So, since we are in agreement that firearms are designed to kill, I think it makes sense that we have some regulation on a tool that if used for its designated purpose, ends the life of a human being.



posted on Dec, 30 2014 @ 11:20 AM
link   

originally posted by: NavyDoc
Nope. I know the history of firearms and SCOTUS decisions on it very well and the first one was US vs Miller where they ruled that since sawed-off shotguns were not typically used by soldiers, Miller's sawed-off was not covered by the 2nd Amendment, citing the militia act and US code as defining the "arms of the average soldier." Since the average soldier was not issued a sawed-off, then they decided that the 2nd did not protect sawed-off shotguns.

Perhaps you are the one needing an education on the subject.


As was suggested, you are lacking in your education of second amendment interpretations.

en.wikipedia.org...

Cruikshank paints a starkly differing opinion of the Second Amendment, and frankly, it is one that I would like to see reinstated.



posted on Dec, 30 2014 @ 11:30 AM
link   
a reply to: DrJunk

So a Wikipedia article, which can be edited/changed by anyone, is your rebuttal for a very simple and concise statement of the 2nd???


Honestly. DO you Anti-2nd people even try anymore?

And please do explain where rifles are more restricted then handguns. I would love to see this.



posted on Dec, 30 2014 @ 11:37 AM
link   

originally posted by: macman
a reply to: DrJunk

So a Wikipedia article, which can be edited/changed by anyone, is your rebuttal for a very simple and concise statement of the 2nd???


Honestly. DO you Anti-2nd people even try anymore?

And please do explain where rifles are more restricted then handguns. I would love to see this.



Uh... The United States v. Cruikshank isn't a "wikipedia article". It's a SCOTUS decision that predates US v Miller.

en.wikipedia.org...

FOPA is what you are looking for in regards to rifles restrictions.



posted on Dec, 30 2014 @ 11:46 AM
link   
a reply to: DrJunk

What you provided was a Wiki Article, that gives an opinion on the case. That opinion can be edited and changed by anyone.

As for the FOPA act. I will ask again. What restrictions on rifles are there, that make it more strict over owning a handgun.

Please, an explanation would be nice, of what you read and think you understand.



posted on Dec, 30 2014 @ 11:53 AM
link   

originally posted by: DrJunk

originally posted by: NavyDoc

originally posted by: DrJunk

originally posted by: NavyDoc
No "assault weapons ban" which is really simply a ban on scary looking cosmetic features has stopped a single murder or a single crime.


Oh no?

Where do you get that information from?

From the same ass you pulled the rest of your information from?

usnews.nbcnews.com...

If guns aren't dangerous and lethal implements, it kind of defeats their purpose, doesn't it?


Better than your Brady organization campaign propaganda. According to the FBI, deaths from all types of rifles, so called "assault weapons" and hunting rifles alike, was 322 last year. Half that of fists and feet, almost 1/2 that of blunt objects, and 1/3 that of knives. This is the facts, not hysteria from a political group with an agenda and it makes logical sense. The criminal minded are not going to use an unconcealable, 3 foot long, 10 pound firearm for crime.

[url=[/url]
www.fbi.gov... e_data_table_8_murder_victims_by_weapon_2008-2012.xls]http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2012/crime-in-the-u.s.-2012/offenses-known -to-law-enforcement/expanded-homicide/expanded_homicide_data_table_8_murder_victims_by_weapon_2008-2012.xls
Of course firearms are designed to kill. The whole point of being able to stop a criminal is the ability to use or at least threaten to use deadly force.


Yeah, you keep mentioning "long rifles", which is a common tactic for gun nutters, especially when trotting out these statistics. They are silly, truth be told, and using them like this is disingenuous, and I think you know that, because you claim to be a thinker.

First of all, these are murder statistics. People are killed with guns far more often every year than are ever accounted for on murder statistics. When you look at overall homocides, the numbers spike.

Secondly, handguns, which are generally less regulated than assault rifles, account for an overwhelming majority of murder weapons. Again, it would appear that regulation works in curbing rifles, howeverI do concede, handguns are generally easier to use than rifles, which make them less useful for mobility when used in criminal enterprise, unless of course, you are looking for maximum lethality and no intention of survival.

So, since we are in agreement that firearms are designed to kill, I think it makes sense that we have some regulation on a tool that if used for its designated purpose, ends the life of a human being.


First of all, it is unnecessary to insult me or impugn my intelligence or all me a "nutter." Although I find that behavior typical of the hysterical, emotion driven, anti-gun rights fanatics, it is really not part of a rational discussion.

As for the rifle thing: Facts are not disingenuous. An AR-15 is a long arm. It is considered one because (gasp) it is long. I'm sorry if the facts do not fit your preconceived notions. You can all an apple an orange all you want, but it is still an apple. "Nutter" do not delineate the two, the FBI did, and they demonstrate that long arms of all types, be they an AR-15 or your uncle's deer rifle are simply used in a minority of crimes.

Of course they are murder statistics. One would think that a logical person would want to stop murder. What is disingenuous is the anti-gun fanatics lumping in justifiable killings, such a police shooting an armed and violent criminal, into their "victim of gun crime" list to pad their numbers. That is disingenuous and that is deceitful because it does not tell the whole story nor the true facts of the situation.

Want to know how I know that you don't have a clue about what you are talking about? Because you are under the delusion that handguns are less regulated than rifles. That is completely incorrect. In most states to buy a rifle of any time, be it an AR-15 or a bolt action deer rifle, you have to do the same form 4473 and the same background check and be over 18 with a clean record. To buy a handgun, you do the 4473 FBI background check, have a clean record, be over 21, and get a pistol purchase permit from your local sheriff or Chief of Police. Thus handguns are more regulated than rifles and your statement that regulation of rifles limiting their use in crime is false. Their size and shape limits their use.

Firearms are already regulated and the vast majority are never used in a crime. The issue is not removing them from law abiding citizens, the issue is to put violent criminal sin jail and keep them there.

Thus we have demonstrated that the anti-gun rights fanatic has little need for facts and logic, feelings and hysteria are all they need or care for.



posted on Dec, 30 2014 @ 11:57 AM
link   

originally posted by: DrJunk

originally posted by: macman
a reply to: DrJunk

So a Wikipedia article, which can be edited/changed by anyone, is your rebuttal for a very simple and concise statement of the 2nd???


Honestly. DO you Anti-2nd people even try anymore?

And please do explain where rifles are more restricted then handguns. I would love to see this.



Uh... The United States v. Cruikshank isn't a "wikipedia article". It's a SCOTUS decision that predates US v Miller.

en.wikipedia.org...

FOPA is what you are looking for in regards to rifles restrictions.


LOL. FOPA REDUCED the restrictions of long arms sales. Although WIKI sucks, I'll quote it since you referenced it:


were the reopening of interstate sales of long guns


I can go to another state and buy a long arm legally as long as the long arm is legal to buy in my home state but I can't do that with a handgun--I have to buy a handgun in my own state. You actually provided a reference that disproved your own claim and confirmed that you a haven't a clue what you are talking about.




top topics



 
43
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join