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: 4
0
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 7 2006 @ 06:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by curme

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?


Ill bite your flame bait

They clearly stated the people and if you look at their quotes on the subject you can see they were talking about the Free man. Last time I check Blacks and all other races are free so they are entitled under the second amendment just the same.

Things change yes that indeed true, but the reason for the second amendent hasnt changed. Should we use your arguement things change to get rid of the first amendent as well. No because that would be stupid.

The reason for the second is perhaps more important today just like free speech. It was created to allow the people to protect themselves from all enemies foreign and domestic even ones own goverment. And the way the goverment is heading domestic is looking more and more like the bigger threat.

See they understood a important step to tyranny from ones own goverment was disarming the people. They knew this because the saw it first hand




Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed

NOAH WEBSTER




[edit on 7-3-2006 by ShadowXIX]




posted on Mar, 7 2006 @ 06:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by HowlrunnerIV

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.


infringe- to encroach upon in a way that violates law or the rights of another

Thats called infringing the second amendment makes no mention if I need a weapon or not. The second amendment wasnt about hunting or target shooting. Banning any gun infringes on that right.

You are infact saying I cant can't use arms. Just the ones you choose I can and cant have thats infringing

If you think thats the regulating or even the point of the second amendment was to only use weapons for hunting thats sad.

do you even live in the US?

[edit on 7-3-2006 by ShadowXIX]



posted on Mar, 7 2006 @ 06:20 PM
link   
yeah... I find it strange how the government can change the constitution however they see fit.



posted on Mar, 7 2006 @ 06:59 PM
link   
I would be all for regulation steps like a extra background check or tax stamp for people that purchase a 50.cal I dont think its right but I would be able to compromise with that.

Im mean many people think full auto guns are illegal. There not you just have to be rich to afford the taxes and permits on them.

I guess if you can drop 15k up to half a million (minigun) on a gun the goverment considers you safe enough to own one. If your poor no full auto gun for you



posted on Mar, 7 2006 @ 08:19 PM
link   
its not like this stops illegal guns anyway, so whats up with that? theres still going to be automatic weapons, just not in the hands of responsible gun owners. to me that doesnt make things any more "safe". just another way to make them look good and try to protect us from ourselves.



posted on Mar, 7 2006 @ 08:25 PM
link   
I agree look at places where they ban guns outright in the US NYC and DC for example man those are some safe places no criminals get guns there


Criminals dont care about gun laws only law abidding citizens care and follow them.



posted on Mar, 7 2006 @ 08:41 PM
link   
Cause if you don't, its the stench of your 2nd amendment getting raped from right under your noses.

This is what we call the 2nd Amendment.

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.
www.post-gazette.com...

Read here.. Interesting isn't it



The amendment as first written contained language exempting religious objectors from bearing arms, language that was dropped after lengthy debate. Elbridge Gerry, a congressman from Massachusetts, worried in 1789 "that this clause would give an opportunity to the people in power to destroy the Constitution itself" by making state militias impossible.



I have a strong issue with guns, but I do think that they are vital to keep things in check.. kinda like the government or whatever.

I think that there should be no ban on any type of weapon, for it is just stripping the amendment above for what its purpose truly is.

And yes I agree with my statement 100%.

I don't care if someone got ahold of one of these here cause at least I know its a right we are supposed to have, not a privledge as some might call our rights.



[edit on 3/7/2006 by ThichHeaded]



posted on Mar, 7 2006 @ 08:58 PM
link   
ThichHeaded, I pretty much agree.
The day guns are outlawed is the day I become an outlaw.

I'm pretty sure terrorists arn't running through cali grabbing up all the 50 cals...

It's just a chip at the block.

Just like the 10 round mag laws, just like how in massachusetts, an FID was fine for any rifle/shotgun over 18" barrel.

Now, do you know why I had to get rid of my mossberg 590? cause it holds 8 shots.

Now I need a class B carry permit instead of an FID card to own the shotgun I bought when I was 18.

So even though I wasn't really going to bother, now I'm going to get a pistol too, since I need that permit to even own my old shotgot which was a really nice arm, I may as well.

I'm not an NRA "I need an AK to shoot deer" I'm a "If you keep taking and taking and taking....I'll fight you with a god damn stick at the end if need be"

-DT



posted on Mar, 7 2006 @ 08:58 PM
link   
Calling the .50 BMG round a sniper round and any rifle capable of shooting it a sniper rifle is simply word smithing by the anti-gunners. The .50 cal is no more a sniper rifle than a .22 cal, but calling a gun a sniper rifle gets peoples emotions involved in their decision making and made it easier to pass leglislation against the .50 cal. California has a long history of passing very stupid anti-gun leglislation--they have been doing it since long before the terrorist issue ever came up, so there is no link to the Patriot Act at all--none.

The argument that people don't "need" a .50 cal rifle has no merit whatsoever. The right to keep & bear arms is not based on need, or hunting either. It is a right guaranteed by the Constitution period. You have the right to breathe, or get married & have children, or own a gun if you want to there is no threshold test to this right and there doesn't need to be one. The anti-gunners have sung their song so long now that most people have bought into it without even realizing it--"need" indeed. The way things are going lately you may wake up and realize you need a gun to defend yourself and your loved ones from the government, but you won't have one because you couldn't see why you "needed" it before that.



posted on Mar, 7 2006 @ 09:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by Astronomer68
The way things are going lately you may wake up and realize you need a gun to defend yourself and your loved ones from the government, but you won't have one because you couldn't see why you "needed" it before that.


I hate to be a moron but, I have to show you guys something.

Eminem -We As Americans



We as a Americans
Us as a citizen
Gotta protect ourselves
Look at our # has been
We better check ourselves
Livin up in these streets
Through worse and through better health
Surviving by any means
We as Americans
Us as a citizen
We are samaritans
What do we get us in
We better check ourselves
Look at our # has been
Take a look where you live
This is America
And we are Americans



posted on Mar, 7 2006 @ 09:10 PM
link   
i think its funny though. because i come in here and i read the responses of people im usually always opposing greatly. but when it comes to this we couldnt agree more. i think what it comes down to reguardless of political opinion is the understanding of our rights. liberal, republican or whatever, as an american we will all agree when it comes to our basic freedoms if we truely call ourselves american. this is the REAL patriot act, the ones who made a document for our freedoms, for the people by the people. we call it the bill of rights but those were the real patriots.

when it comes to our bare rights, no matter how much we oppose eachothers views we will tend to band together because we all can agree that we should remain free.



posted on Mar, 7 2006 @ 09:30 PM
link   
ThichHeaded, I'm not writing this to tick you off or anything and if you find it offensive, I'm sorry, I don't mean it that way at all. But that thing you put up from Em&m reads like nonsense to me, I don't see any point to it whatsoever; further, I think the writer is an absolute idiot.



posted on Mar, 7 2006 @ 09:43 PM
link   
im real into rap music and all, but i agree, the eminem things was pretty pointless. get something with some substance like this



Tupac- Letter 2 The President

How hypocritical is Liberty?
That blind bitch ain't never did # for me
My history, full of casket and scars
My own black nation at war, whole family behind bars
And they wonder why we scarred, thirteen lookin hard
Sister had a baby as an adolescent, where was God?




Tupac- Me Against The World

The message I stress: to make it stop study your lessons
Don't settle for less - even the genius asks-es questions
Be grateful for blessings
Don't ever change, keep your essence
The power is in the people and politics we address
Always do your best, don't let the pressure make you panic
And when you get stranded
And things don't go the way you planned it
Dreamin of riches, in a position of makin a difference
Politicians and hypocrites, they don't wanna listen


it may not be on topic but next time your going to post lyrics, do it with something that has substance and meaning to it.



posted on Mar, 7 2006 @ 11:17 PM
link   
What's so bad about owning a .50 cal anyway. All guns are made for the same purpose which is to punch through # (I would say kill # but that doesn't allow for target shooting guns) And they all can do that very well. Has anyone heard of lemark blendend metal bullets. They can penetrate almost the same or even better than some armor peircing rounds and I haven't seen them banned last time I checked



posted on Mar, 7 2006 @ 11:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by grimreaper797
i think its funny though. because i come in here and i read the responses of people im usually always opposing greatly. but when it comes to this we couldnt agree more.


I think its great Americans all over the political spectrum can share common and such strong views on our basic constitutional rights. Thats something even today I think the founding fathers could easily identify on with us even two plus centuries later.



posted on Mar, 8 2006 @ 12:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by Damocles
thats another thing that amuses me...they are calling the bullets for them "ARMOR PIERCING!!!!!"


uhhhh riiiiiiiiight.




You would have loved the "Myth buster" when they were testing the underwater protected from bullet myth.

They tested a 50 cal and you could see it was a standard FMJ bullet and the called it a "armour piercing" round. You could see it had no colored tip showing it was a AP round and it clearly was not a sabot round.

True AP rounds will have something more then a FMJ a steel or tungsten core.

They are in Cali so they were lucky to just get their hands on a BMG round I guess

[edit on 8-3-2006 by ShadowXIX]



posted on Mar, 8 2006 @ 05:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by ShadowXIX
You are infact saying I cant can't use arms.


No, I'm not. Read again. I never said you can't use arms.


If you think thats the regulating or even the point of the second amendment was to only use weapons for hunting thats sad.


And where did I say that?


do you even live in the US?


It must be along time since we've encountered each other here for you to ask that.

I do not live in the US, I am not a US citizen, let alone American, and I thank God for that every day.

[edit on 7-3-2006 by ShadowXIX]



posted on Mar, 8 2006 @ 05:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by Astronomer68
Calling the .50 BMG round a sniper round and any rifle capable of shooting it a sniper rifle is simply word smithing by the anti-gunners. The .50 cal is no more a sniper rifle than a .22 cal, but calling a gun a sniper rifle gets peoples emotions involved


Actually, it's classified as an anti-material rifle. Which doesn't change the fact that it's a sniper rifle. This is not a family-friendly hunting rifle like a .22. It is not a home-defence friendly weapon like a 12 guage, or a Vice-Presidential hunting friendly weapon like a 28 gauge.

This is a weapon of extreme size, weight and killing power. It is also a wepon that requires a great deal of knowledge and skill to use correctly, and a bare minimum of knowledge or skill to use extremely dangerously.



posted on Mar, 8 2006 @ 05:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by HowlrunnerIV
I do not live in the US, I am not a US citizen, let alone American, and I thank God for that every day.

[edit on 7-3-2006 by ShadowXIX]


Then you know what? it dosent matter one bit what you think of the second amendment to me or any american. What a waste of my time though, man I wish people would state they dont live in the US before the voice their opinion on what our constitution says.

I thank God everyday I dont live in some country that fears its own people so much it has to disarm them.



posted on Mar, 9 2006 @ 12:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by HowlrunnerIV

This is a weapon of extreme size, weight and killing power. It is also a wepon that requires a great deal of knowledge and skill to use correctly, and a bare minimum of knowledge or skill to use extremely dangerously.


Its a rifle just like any other. ANY rifle or firearm can be extremely dangerous. I figured that liberals would love the 50 because it is both expensive to own and to shoot (like $1.50 a round for the cheap stuff).

There is no point to the argument that it is dangerous because of its size. First of all, no one is going to hold up a bank with a 30+ pound rifle, thats just stupid.

Second about killing power. Where does it gets its killing power? Velocity? Bullet Diameter? Range?Maybe anything tha shoots faster than 2800fps like the 50 should be banned, so lets get rid of 30-30, 270, 308, and those evil 243's as well.

Well what about bullet diameter? 50 is rather large and so are 50cal muzzle loaders, so they should be gone too. How about 50 beowolf and 50 AE as well? And .45 is only 50 thounds of an inch smaller so lets get rid of the 45acp, 45-70, 45 colt, and 454 cassul. Lets also get rid of the 44 magnum because it is close to that size as well. Besides Dirty Hairy was right, its powerful.

Well the 50BMG has a long range, so lets get rid of the 308, 338 Lapula Mag, and 30-378 Weatherby mag as well. Also round up all the benchrest guns beacuse of their extreme range.

Do you see my point to this madness? All guns are dangerous. The 50BMG is just the new scapegoat.

[edit on 9-3-2006 by Uni_Brow]




top topics



 
0
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join