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.

 

White House: Reinstating 'Assault' Weapons Ban to Prevent Terrorism is Common Sense

page: 11
50
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 10 2015 @ 07:30 AM
link   

originally posted by: djz3ro
What's absolutely maddening is 'muricans like you who think they need powerful firearms such as assault rifles and are willing to bend all logic and common sense to defend your insane belief...


There is no test of need under US law regarding the ownership of an 'assault rifle.' The burden in this case is actually on those who would ban them to prove why a law-abiding citizen shouldn't have them. Why should a law-abiding citizen suffer restrictions on their rights when they're guilty of nothing?

Now, you can argue the homicide numbers, but the fact is, 'assault rifles' are used in only a very small percentage of those cases. Most of the time, they involve handguns (including the Virginia Tech incident several years ago). Should we ban handguns, too? How about shotguns? They're probably used more often as well.

This is where the public safety argument falls apart, because its obvious that our domestic gun controllers are being disingenuous in saying that they only want to ban 'assault rifles'. Everyone knows they're not going to stop there. If you're going to ban 'assault rifles' on the basis of public safety, then you have to take the ban hammer to almost the entire 2nd Amendment. That's not going to happen any time soon, but its the only way it'll actually be effective.

edit on 10-12-2015 by vor78 because: (no reason given)




posted on Dec, 10 2015 @ 07:31 AM
link   

originally posted by: Konduit
I'm actually starting to think that Obama may have a stake in the firearms market, considering all his limp wrist anti-gun statements do is sell them by the millions.

Has anyone ever looked into this? Or are the liberals really that ****ing stupid?


It's also possible that the right has been wrong for the last 7 years and Obama really ISN'T coming for your guns. But why should you ever reconsider your own rhetoric when its been proven wrong for the last 7 years? It's obviously because the other side is at fault right?



posted on Dec, 10 2015 @ 07:41 AM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
It's also possible that the right has been wrong for the last 7 years and Obama really ISN'T coming for your guns. But why should you ever reconsider your own rhetoric when its been proven wrong for the last 7 years? It's obviously because the other side is at fault right?


Obama's own rhetoric is sufficient proof that he's coming after some of them. He clearly wants an 'assault weapons' ban, never mind what they'd actually call an 'assault weapon.' But he's also praised Australian style gun laws, which go beyond just that and affect all semi-automatics, and also handguns.

The simple fact is that every time Obama starts talking about gun control, it starts a gun buying panic. That alone should be a clue to this administration that their own rhetoric, right or wrong, is greatly counterproductive to their policy and that perhaps either a change of message or even a change of overall policy might be in order.



posted on Dec, 10 2015 @ 07:45 AM
link   

originally posted by: vor78

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
It's also possible that the right has been wrong for the last 7 years and Obama really ISN'T coming for your guns. But why should you ever reconsider your own rhetoric when its been proven wrong for the last 7 years? It's obviously because the other side is at fault right?


Obama's own rhetoric is sufficient proof that he's coming after some of them. He clearly wants an 'assault weapons' ban, never mind what they'd actually call an 'assault weapon.' But he's also praised Australian style gun laws, which go beyond just that and affect all semi-automatics, and also handguns.


Negative. Even IF Obama were ever successful with an assault rifle ban, they still wouldn't confiscate them. Just like the automatic weapons ban 20 years ago or so, the current rifles in civilian possession would be grandfathered in.


The simple fact is that every time Obama starts talking about gun control, it starts a gun buying panic. That alone should be a clue to this administration that their own rhetoric, right or wrong, is greatly counterproductive to their policy and that perhaps either a change of message or even a change of overall policy might be in order.


Maybe. It's hard to say. It seems that anything Obama says is going to make Obama critics do the opposite though, so I doubt that Obama could change his approach up much and be more successful in that regard.



posted on Dec, 10 2015 @ 07:49 AM
link   
a reply to: chefc14

'Assault rifles' are fairly common for hunting use in my area as well. The AR-15 platform, for example, is relatively popular choices for coyotes and hogs. Technically, its legal for deer hunting as well in my state, though personally, I'd want something more effective than the relatively weak .223/5.56 round.



posted on Dec, 10 2015 @ 07:55 AM
link   
a reply to: vor78

Australian style gun laws are praised with good reason. I have never in my lifetime felt fear because someone might have a gun. A knife, perhaps, but if they have a knife I can just run away really fast. Not so with a gun. And it's not actually that hard to acquire one, I know several people who own legal guns, and several people who own... Less than legal ones, let us say. My now-deceased stepfather had a rifle and pistol, no idea what kind of weapons they were. The Rifle had that wooden look (I shot it myself when I was about seven or so. Scope was arse.) but anything he had would have been Vietnam Era and I can't seem to find any wooden rifles from that time. I digress.

I would never get rid of my own country's gun laws, but I also honestly believe that it's too late for America to actually be able to integrate effective gun control measures. They're just too ingrained in the culture, and there are guns bleeding out of every orifice at the moment anyway.



posted on Dec, 10 2015 @ 07:58 AM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

I agree with you that confiscation would be difficult at best, both legally and practically. Of course, this also means that, practically, an AWB is largely pointless, because there are many millions of them floating around in public circulation. Still, I should have been more clear; I'm only referring to future availability. In that sense, the panics are being caused by the age old phenomenon of supply and demand. People are anticipating the possibility of future supply of a popular product being reduced to zero, so they're running out to get theirs now.

I also agree that at this point, Obama has long since destroyed any credibility he might have been able to establish with the majority of 2A supporters. Regardless of who is to blame for that (and both sides are, IMO), the more he talks, the more they sell. It might be time to stop talking.



posted on Dec, 10 2015 @ 08:00 AM
link   

originally posted by: vor78
a reply to: Krazysh0t

I agree with you that confiscation would be difficult at best, both legally and practically. Of course, this also means that, practically, an AWB is largely pointless, because there are many millions of them floating around in public circulation. Still, I should have been more clear; I'm only referring to future availability. In that sense, the panics are being caused by the age old phenomenon of supply and demand. People are anticipating the possibility of future supply of a popular product being reduced to zero, so they're running out to get theirs now.


Oh I know. I've been following the gun controversy since Obama started talking about it. I used to be one of the guys yelling that Obama was coming for our guns. I figured out the supply and demand aspect a while ago. It is what lead me to believe that there is going to be no gun grab attempt.


I also agree that at this point, Obama has long since destroyed any credibility he might have been able to establish with the majority of 2A supporters. Regardless of who is to blame for that (and both sides are, IMO), the more he talks, the more they sell. It might be time to stop talking.


He's a politician. When do they ever stop talking?



posted on Dec, 10 2015 @ 08:00 AM
link   
a reply to: Eilasvaleleyn

I'm not suggesting that Australia should change their gun laws, only that they're not going to work here and that by suggesting them as a model for the US, Obama is fueling the gun-buying panics in this country. But as far as Australia is concerned...your country, your laws. I'm fine with that.



posted on Dec, 10 2015 @ 08:04 AM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

What automatic ban from 20 years ago? You should probably get the existing laws straigjt before you push new ones.

It makes your knees look blurry and out of focus.



posted on Dec, 10 2015 @ 08:08 AM
link   
a reply to: vor78

Saying that Australian gun laws wouldn't work in the US is fine, I agree with that. Hell, same thing with most gun control in general. I just think it's too late for the US.

What really pisses me off are the people that argue the pro-gun stance using the constitution as a basis, yet are silent as other bits of the constitution are being torn to shreds. Makes the whole thing seem disingenuous to me. As I said earlier, when the primary reasons someone wants a gun is so they can defend their right to have a gun, it seems quite insane.



posted on Dec, 10 2015 @ 08:22 AM
link   

originally posted by: ISawItFirst
a reply to: Krazysh0t

What automatic ban from 20 years ago? You should probably get the existing laws straigjt before you push new ones.

It makes your knees look blurry and out of focus.

Firearm Owners Protection Act

Sorry, I was off by 10 years, but that is why I said "20 years ago or so". I wasn't sure of the exact time it happened. You can take your foot out of your mouth now.

PS: Where have I ever pushed any new gun laws?
edit on 10-12-2015 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 10 2015 @ 08:25 AM
link   
Washington needs punished, all our problems came from Washington. Its time they are Banished from America, Since the district of Columbia isn't even part of the US and answers to no one. Its time



posted on Dec, 10 2015 @ 08:27 AM
link   

originally posted by: rossacus
a reply to: network dude
My bad. I thought in definitions provided in an earlier thread that assault rifles are classed as semi automatic/fully automatic weapons. I know assault rifles is a false term. I suppose the term being used in this thread is assault weapon so I apologise.
I use the term high powered for all guns to help dramatise my point.

But why doesn't anyone ever address the main point .why do you need more than a basic handgun outside hunting and shooting ranges. No one ever answers. The honest people here admit it's for the love of guns, which I appreciate, but others who claim for defense reasons tend to avoid the point.


Guns are tools. Simple as that. Like a hammer. Is there only one type of hammer? nope. You have roofing hammers, ball peen hammers, tack hammers, sledge hammers. Now on to guns. You have small caliber rifles. good for plinking (shooting targets for cheap fun) small game hunting. Then you have mid grade rifles, like the AR-15, or the .223. A good size rifle for mid sized game. Like wild boar. With boar, coyote, or other varmint type game, you might need more shots as they run in packs. Then you have high caliber rifles. For big game, like deer, elk, antelope, moose. Usually bolt action with 5 shots is fine as these animals travel along or in small groups, and you only usually want to harvest one.

Then on to hand guns. Some are home protection, some are plinking, some are big game hunting, and some are just cool looking. (for collectors)

So there are many reasons for having different weapons, but all of these are either single shot, or semi-automatic. Meaning one pull of the trigger = 1 shot. Fully automatic weapons are not a reality for most people and have no real use other than war, or terrorism. (or collecting, but shooting them is expensive just like owning them is)

All the hype is about the scary looking AR-15. Since it's black, has a pistol grip and uses a magazine that can be reloaded, people automatically think it's an "assault weapon". They even went so far as to claim the "AR" meant Assault Rifle, when in fact the "AR" stands for Armalite, which is the company that first manufactured this weapon.

When I was in the military, I was taught how to use an M-16. the AR-15 is the same weapon, but in strictly semi-automatic. So I am very familiar with this weapon and chose to own some. And amazingly enough, none of my weapons have ever killed a human. Ever. A few squirrels, and a few deer is all.



posted on Dec, 10 2015 @ 08:28 AM
link   

originally posted by: Eilasvaleleyn
a reply to: vor78

Saying that Australian gun laws wouldn't work in the US is fine, I agree with that. Hell, same thing with most gun control in general. I just think it's too late for the US.

What really pisses me off are the people that argue the pro-gun stance using the constitution as a basis, yet are silent as other bits of the constitution are being torn to shreds. Makes the whole thing seem disingenuous to me. As I said earlier, when the primary reasons someone wants a gun is so they can defend their right to have a gun, it seems quite insane.
Its called Freedom..Fleeting yes, but its all we have



posted on Dec, 10 2015 @ 08:40 AM
link   

originally posted by: CB328



Because, you know, terrorists obey the law


That's not the point, the point is that if you decrease the number of assault weapons in the country then it will be harder and more expensive for criminals and terrorists to get them, legally or illegally. You know, the whole supply and demand thing.


A terrorist plans a job 3 years in advance. Do you suppose in those 3 years, he can find the weapon he is looking for to do the job? (hint, he could take a few classes, rent machine equipment, and MAKE the weapons he would use in that time.)

And what is an 'assault weapon'?



posted on Dec, 10 2015 @ 08:44 AM
link   
a reply to: Eilasvaleleyn

I agree, but both sides do that. We see an excellent example, again, from Obama in his statements just this week. On one hand, we're told we should respect freedom of religion under the 1st Amendment, while on the other hand, he tells us we need to restrict our 2nd Amendment rights. In both cases, those who want to restrict rights make a public safety argument.

In reality, we need to uphold our Constitutional values and rights in BOTH cases.
edit on 10-12-2015 by vor78 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 10 2015 @ 08:46 AM
link   
a reply to: vor78

Not BOTH cases, in ALL cases, like your now basically non-existent fourth amendment.



posted on Dec, 10 2015 @ 09:04 AM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: ISawItFirst
a reply to: Krazysh0t

What automatic ban from 20 years ago? You should probably get the existing laws straigjt before you push new ones.

It makes your knees look blurry and out of focus.

Firearm Owners Protection Act

Sorry, I was off by 10 years, but that is why I said "20 years ago or so". I wasn't sure of the exact time it happened. You can take your foot out of your mouth now.

PS: Where have I ever pushed any new gun laws?


No one even really knows about FOPA. It was only a modification of the existing laws. More specifically, the GCA. It didnt ban autos, just closed the market. I think what you meant to be referring to was the assault weapons ban from about 20 years ago. Which was a joke.

Speaking in defense of this thread title, would be construed by many as pushing for laws.



posted on Dec, 10 2015 @ 09:06 AM
link   

originally posted by: ISawItFirst

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: ISawItFirst
a reply to: Krazysh0t

What automatic ban from 20 years ago? You should probably get the existing laws straigjt before you push new ones.

It makes your knees look blurry and out of focus.

Firearm Owners Protection Act

Sorry, I was off by 10 years, but that is why I said "20 years ago or so". I wasn't sure of the exact time it happened. You can take your foot out of your mouth now.

PS: Where have I ever pushed any new gun laws?


No one even really knows about FOPA. It was only a modification of the existing laws. More specifically, the GCA. It didnt ban autos, just closed the market. I think what you meant to be referring to was the assault weapons ban from about 20 years ago. Which was a joke.


Nope. I meant what I said.


Speaking in defense of this thread title, would be construed by many as pushing for laws.


Who said I was speaking in defense of the thread title? You?



new topics

top topics



 
50
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join