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.

 

POLITICS: California Sniper Rifle Ban Goes Into Effect

page: 3
0
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 5 2006 @ 08:38 PM
link   
lets all get rid of our gun!!


thats good so when the abusive government comes in, we can all fight them with sticks and stones...maybe we will get a couple...

the guns are meant to protect us. handing your protection over to the police force and such is a bad idea, and not what the founders of this country had in mind.




posted on Mar, 5 2006 @ 09:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by grimreaper797
the guns are meant to protect us. handing your protection over to the police force and such is a bad idea, and not what the founders of this country had in mind.


I couldnt agree more people like to debate the wording of the second amendment to have it fit their own agenda. But if you look at quotes on the subject from the founding fathers it becomes abudently clear what they meant.


None but an armed nation can dispense with a standing army. To keep ours armed and disciplined is therefore at all times important." --Thomas Jefferson, 1803.



"What country can preserve its liberties if its rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms."


It wasnt about hunting or target shooting. It was for protection of the people from all enemies foriegn or god forbid domestic. Some will argue what resistance could people armed with rifles out up against a super power military.

The answer is one heck of one. Look what perhaps a few thousand are doing in Iraq. Now theirs 90 million gun owners with 200 million plus guns in the US. Thats almost four times the entire population of Iraq.

Ther founding fathers were smart they new tyranny can happen anywhere even in the United States so they wanted the peoples right to bear arms to be firmly protected. But over the years bit by bit they have chipped away at them.



posted on Mar, 5 2006 @ 09:12 PM
link   
The big rifles pose a unique threat to the national guard and law enforcement officers. That being said, the right of the people shall not be infringed...

One big problem I can see is a few men with big boy rifles taking the high ground and blocking access to a town or geographical area of significance. Without bringing in stand-off weapons to dispense with the threat, there's not much to be done to resolve the situation.

So, if people have these weapons in great quantity (the cost limits availability presently), what are the options available to law enforcement? How do you respond to a shooter that's putting big holes in your squad cars as they approach the scene? Bring in the APC and he'll put big holes in that too. Bring in the helos and he'll knock them right out of the sky.

How do you effectively respond to a situation involving a shooter armed with a weapon that makes short work of anything at 9k feet or more? The solutions are a lot easier to come by in a combat zone, than they are in a domestic civilian population.

If snipers wanted to put this country on lock-down, they most certainly could do so. That should inspire the government with an abiding sense of comfort and stability, after all, it makes the spectre of foreign invasion practically irrelevant. Unfortunately, the government, more often than not, finds itself opposed to the people, rather than sympatico.

So maybe that issue should be adressed, instead of limiting the availability of firearms.

: shrug :



posted on Mar, 5 2006 @ 09:15 PM
link   
i rarely agree with you shadow, but when it comes down to the basic freedoms of an american, any true american will agree. this isnt some "patriot act" the recent corrupt government thought up. these are the real rules the true patriots of our country put down in order to found a nation of the free. when it comes down to our basic freedoms, any american that will disagree is a shame to the foundations of our very nation. our freedom shall not have exceptions, followed by more exceptions till our freedom is nothing more then when the british controlled our colonies.

Taxation without representation is to say the least treason, and we are paying our taxes, but these politicians fail to represent our country and its foundations. our representatives should start representing america again, and that includes our freedoms. and these freedoms include the right to bare arms.

[edit on 5-3-2006 by grimreaper797]



posted on Mar, 6 2006 @ 04:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by WyrdeOne
Unfortunately, the government, more often than not, finds itself opposed to the people, rather than sympatico.

So maybe that issue should be adressed, instead of limiting the availability of firearms.

: shrug :


Right on there. The question shold not be how to deal with someone with a .50 but why the gov. would have to worry about one.



posted on Mar, 6 2006 @ 06:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by DrHoracid
Do not fall into the anti-gun trap of legitemate use of any weapon. It is a right period. Also this garbage about "criminals" not having guns.....The founders didn't say the "right to keep and bear arms" (except criminals). Anyone should be able to own any weapon. No exceptions.


Right. On that note, I'll put my order in for a minuteman right now.

With a side order of M2HB 50cal Browning for home defence and I'll trade my Honda in for a Staghound.

Someone want to pull out their copy of the constitution and the Bill of Rights and actually quote the amendment. In full.



posted on Mar, 6 2006 @ 10:52 PM
link   
fine I'll get rid of my 50 cal then I'll steal a XM-109 payload rifle from you. Their going the right way to stir up an armed resistance at this rate. I bet in a few years there will be armed rebels.



posted on Mar, 7 2006 @ 08:29 AM
link   
California Here we Come

The law-abiding US citizens and their state and local law enforcement agencies of California may now purchase the .416 Barrett which shoots faster, flatter and is inheremtly more accurate then even the .50BMG.

-Shotgun News (Barrett advertisment)

God I love Barrett, For anyone that does not know Barrett is the largest producer of military grade .50 cal rifles. IMO they produce by far the best 50cal rifles on the planet. Now the .416 Barrett rifle is available in California for legal purchase


You might say why did they mention law enforcement agencies of California. This is because after California’s passing of AB 50 Barrett refused to sell or service any of our products to ANY Government agency of the State of California. Even the LAPD uses the Barrett 82A1 but looks like they arent getting a new ones or any service from Barrett.



posted on Mar, 7 2006 @ 08:48 AM
link   
Personally I'd rather a psg-1(probably also banned especially the psg-1sd) but that's just me. Also what about us people who like military looking rifles. not much there. Maybe the sl8 which actually looks nice kinda... sorta... not really...
There is no practical use for a .50 call sniper rifle. Keyword there practical. Just because there is no practical reason to use it doesn't mean its not fun. Also some cars are banned because of speed (see NO2) To the person who said that. Interesting thought a kid takes out his dads .50 can then he shoot's it misses by a mile and the recoil snapps his shoulderblade teaching him about gun saftey
lmao



posted on Mar, 7 2006 @ 11:55 AM
link   
HAHAHAHAHA about gun safety....kinda dangerous for everyone else at the same time though.

forget california and their stupid worthless bans. let the sheep of california fall on their asses if they wish to take such stupid rules against their basic freedoms. pitiful old californians.



posted on Mar, 7 2006 @ 03:02 PM
link   
if they banned every car that went over 65mph im sure they would save many lives
well more then they will banning a type of scary rifle that could be used for bad stuff.

Heck they would save more people making old people retest to keep on driving.

www.cnn.com...

This old geezer killed 9 more people then any civilian califorina 50cal rifle ever has.



posted on Mar, 7 2006 @ 05:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by Damocles

Amendment II

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed


So, unless you plan to climb a clocktower soon, what do you need a Barret or its competitor for? And which part of Californian civilians owning Barrets is a well regulated Militia?...

Thanks, Damocles.

edit: highlights mine

[edit on 7-3-2006 by HowlrunnerIV]



posted on Mar, 7 2006 @ 05:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by HowlrunnerIV

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed


So, unless you plan to climb a clocktower soon, what do you need a Barret or its competitor for? And which part of Californian civilians owning Barrets is a well regulated Militia?...

Thanks, Damocles.


Thats hard to do pick any part that supports your agenda and highlight it.

The Militia as mentioned in the second amendment is the people of the US. Every able body person.If you look at what the founding fathers said its clear what they meant in the second ammendant.

"A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves ... and include all men capable of bearing arms."
-Richard Henry Lee - Senator, First Congress

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms."
-Thomas Jefferson, Proposed Virginia Constitution, 1776, Jefferson Papers 344.

"Americans [have] the right and advantage of being armed, unlike the citizens of other countries whose governments are afraid to trust their people with arms."
-SAMUEL ADAMS

"The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms . . ."
GEORGE MASON

"To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of people always possess arms..."
-ELBRIDGE GERRY









[edit on 7-3-2006 by ShadowXIX]



posted on Mar, 7 2006 @ 05:33 PM
link   
Shadow, none of what you just wuoted is the constitution of the United States of America.

And banning .50 calibre sniper rifles is regulating the militia (to take your assertion that the people are the militia) well.



posted on Mar, 7 2006 @ 05:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by ShadowXIX

"To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of people always possess arms..."
-ELBRIDGE GERRY


Arms, huh, plural. So are you out there demanding that the government begin a program to return all amputees to their natural, two-armed, state? How about the Tahalidomide victims...



posted on Mar, 7 2006 @ 05:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by ShadowXIX

Thats hard to do pick any part that supports your agenda and highlight it.

The Militia as mentioned in the second amendment is the people of the US. Every able body person.If you look at what the founding fathers said its clear what they meant in the second ammendant.

"A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves ... and include all men capable of bearing arms."
-Richard Henry Lee - Senator, First Congress

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms."
-Thomas Jefferson, Proposed Virginia Constitution, 1776, Jefferson Papers 344.

"Americans [have] the right and advantage of being armed, unlike the citizens of other countries whose governments are afraid to trust their people with arms."
-SAMUEL ADAMS

"The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms . . ."
GEORGE MASON

"To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of people always possess arms..."
-ELBRIDGE GERRY

[edit on 7-3-2006 by ShadowXIX]



So are you saying that only white men should be able to have guns? That's what the people you are quoting mean. Or are you willing to allow women and non-whites to have guns? I mean, shouldn't our laws be a reflection of the changing times? Should we accept the institutionalized racism of our founding fathers? Or realize that our nation has changed?



posted on Mar, 7 2006 @ 05:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by HowlrunnerIV
Shadow, none of what you just wuoted is the constitution of the United States of America.

And banning .50 calibre sniper rifles is regulating the militia (to take your assertion that the people are the militia) well.


regulating
no thats called infringing on the rights of the people to keep and bear arms, which is in the constitution.

But your looking at the second amendment with 2006 eyes putting your own spin on it and your understanding of it is flawed it you think they meant taking away guns from the people ie the milita was "regulating" it.

Its quite clear what the founding fathers meant in it from their own words.

No freeman shall ever be debarred the use of arms thats pretty clear along with the dozens of other quotes the founding fathers had on gun control

But lets see should I believe your take on the second amendment or the people that wrote it ...hmmm thats a hard one I have to pick the founding fathers



posted on Mar, 7 2006 @ 06:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by Damocles
cureme...thats just ignorant nitpicking. seriously...that post was nothing but inflamitory. do you REALLY think that or are you just looking for a reason to start a flame war?


Either people admit that things change, that our country has changed, from 1776, or agree nothing has changed.

You can't pick and choose and say, "Well, this part of what they said can never be changed, but obviousy that part should be changed."



posted on Mar, 7 2006 @ 06:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by ShadowXIX
Its quite clear what the founding fathers meant in it from their own words.

No freeman shall ever be debarred the use of arms thats pretty clear along with the dozens of other quotes the founding fathers had on gun control


Where did I imply that you can't use arms? You want a shotgun, have a shotgun. You want a bolt-action hunting rifle? Have a bolt-action hunting rifle.

You don't need a Barret M82A1 Light Fifty, so you can't have one.

That's called regulating.

Regulate (v) Control or supervise by means of rules and regulations.



posted on Mar, 7 2006 @ 06:09 PM
link   
i want a sniper rifle like that, i should be able to have it. thats my right given by the constitution. nowhere does it say, have the right to bear arms if its a reasonable weapon. no it doesnt. if i wanted a damn cannon i should be able to have one for all i care. as long as im a law abiding citizen, i should be allowed to have whatever gun i want, reguardless if you see it as reasonable.







 
0
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join