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: 2
50
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 9 2015 @ 11:23 AM
link   
100 million guns where purchased by americans since obama has been in the white house, but hell yea obama is taking your guns. Hes pandering to his voters
While helping gun makers to make profit what an evil commie muslim.

edit on 9-12-2015 by dukeofjive696969 because: (no reason given)




posted on Dec, 9 2015 @ 11:23 AM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Be nice if people use 'right wing' in it's correct sense.

Gun control is a RIGHT WING ideology.



posted on Dec, 9 2015 @ 11:24 AM
link   
a reply to: neo96

Sure. Whatever. I'm done in this thread since I see it was authored by you.



posted on Dec, 9 2015 @ 11:25 AM
link   

originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: introvert

I know what I said.

Mosques will never be raided here because it isn't PC.


The only way they would be raided for firearms is if we have an AWB like France.

Why would you praise the actions in France that separated Muslims from their firearms, but knee-jerk for it being suggested here?

You did say viva La France, right?



posted on Dec, 9 2015 @ 11:25 AM
link   
a reply to: neo96

I fully believe that our unique gun culture in America is the cause for a lot of our issues. But... terrorism isn't one of them.

I simply do not see the connection. Stricter gun control would prevent many of the shootings as many shootings occur in rapidly developed situations where the lack of a readily available gun would mean nobody got shot.

Terrorism and premeditated killing is not that sort of situation. Using a planned terrorist attack as a platform for gun control is crossing a line in my eyes. This is honestly the first time I have felt that some of the conservatives are not overreacting in their frustration with this.



posted on Dec, 9 2015 @ 11:26 AM
link   

originally posted by: rossacus
It us common sense though. What is the need for an "assault" weapons. You can have your guns, maintain paranoid thoughts of someone breaking in to your homes as justification for the gun in the first place.

Isn't a standard gun enough? Genuine question guys? Is there a possible reason outside constitutional right and amendments, because on the level, it's a poor reason, for owning a gun that can cause maximum damage simply for defensive reasons.

Hunting is different, if you get your kicks out of mutilating animals with multiple bullets then that's your choice, but still not a justifiable reason for high powered automatic weapons.


You obviously know nothing about guns, the features that make a gun an "assault weapon" are all cosmetic.

They do not effect functionality, nor increase effectiveness.

So what difference does it make if my gun looks like a hunting rifle or an assault weapon, if both are functionally the exact same?



posted on Dec, 9 2015 @ 11:27 AM
link   

originally posted by: forkedtongue
a reply to: neo96

Why do they keep saying " common sense"?

Because it is not common sense, it is in fact senseless.

Millions upon millions of gun owners don't use their guns for I'll every day week month year decade.....

But yes we should punish all gun owners, for a tiny fraction that does evil.

But we shouldn't judge all muslims, based off the evil acts of a tiny fraction.

"Common sense " in its most inept version on full display.


Because that is how they fool progressives. They say "common sense" to deflect from the fact the proposal is idiotic. It is like how with Obamacare they kept repeating over and over the $2500 savings and "If you like your Doctor..." Typical Gruber progressives take everything at face value without actually looking at the details.

This is why they keep saying "Assault Weapons" as the typical idiot progressive doesn't know it is a made up term based on cosmetics or they keep saying guns that shoot faster when they don't shoot any faster than any other semi-auto rifle.

They also love to mix and match statistics. They hold up an example of mass shootings, but then parrot several thousand gun deaths most of which are gang violence committed with handguns while talking about banning assault rifles which aren't even used in 5% of gun deaths.

You cannot take these people seriously.



posted on Dec, 9 2015 @ 11:27 AM
link   
a reply to: neo96

For the record I am of the crowd that is for legalization and decriminalization of all those things mentioned. Firearms included, although would you not agree that some regulation should be instituted for the possession firearms?


+5 more 
posted on Dec, 9 2015 @ 11:28 AM
link   

originally posted by: rossacus
It us common sense though. What is the need for an "assault" weapons. You can have your guns, maintain paranoid thoughts of someone breaking in to your homes as justification for the gun in the first place.

Isn't a standard gun enough? Genuine question guys? Is there a possible reason outside constitutional right and amendments, because on the level, it's a poor reason, for owning a gun that can cause maximum damage simply for defensive reasons.

Hunting is different, if you get your kicks out of mutilating animals with multiple bullets then that's your choice, but still not a justifiable reason for high powered automatic weapons.


Could you please tell me about these "high powered automatic weapons"

I have a few, but they are all semi-auto. Full auto weapons are HUGELY expensive and require a lot of red tape and money to own.

Is it possible that you are entering a discussion you are not equipped to be in?



posted on Dec, 9 2015 @ 11:29 AM
link   

originally posted by: dukeofjive696969
100 million guns where purchased by americans since obama has been in the white house, but hell yea obama is taking your guns. Hes pandering to his voters
While helping gun makers to make profit what an evil commie muslim.


Your argument would make sense if it weren't for the fact the sales are in spite of him.

Not because he wants them to happen. ...



posted on Dec, 9 2015 @ 11:30 AM
link   

originally posted by: rossacus
It us common sense though. What is the need for an "assault" weapons. You can have your guns, maintain paranoid thoughts of someone breaking in to your homes as justification for the gun in the first place.

Isn't a standard gun enough? Genuine question guys? Is there a possible reason outside constitutional right and amendments, because on the level, it's a poor reason, for owning a gun that can cause maximum damage simply for defensive reasons.

Hunting is different, if you get your kicks out of mutilating animals with multiple bullets then that's your choice, but still not a justifiable reason for high powered automatic weapons.


For brevity, I will ignore your clear ignorance and lack of knowledge of firearms to answer the question of a possible reason for owning a semi-automatic rifle. I help friends defend ranch lands here in TX from wild hogs, that destroy crops, ruin fencing, etc. I've come upon 8-12 hogs before, some of the 150 - 220 lbs (or more) all mean, nasty, tusked SOBs. You need a semi-automatic weapon if a few of them decide to run up on you. That also goes for coyotes that destroy cattle and other game animals. Have you ever come upon a pack of yotes tearing up a Sow giving birth? The yotes have blood lust and you need a semi-auto that can reach out to start dropping them and help protect the farmer / cattle ranchers way of life. Just one of many legit reasons why one may want to legally own a semi-auto rifle with a detachable magazine.



posted on Dec, 9 2015 @ 11:32 AM
link   
Did I just see the words "White House" and "Common Sense" used in the SAME sentence?



posted on Dec, 9 2015 @ 11:33 AM
link   

originally posted by: Edumakated

originally posted by: forkedtongue
a reply to: neo96

Why do they keep saying " common sense"?

Because it is not common sense, it is in fact senseless.

Millions upon millions of gun owners don't use their guns for I'll every day week month year decade.....

But yes we should punish all gun owners, for a tiny fraction that does evil.

But we shouldn't judge all muslims, based off the evil acts of a tiny fraction.

"Common sense " in its most inept version on full display.


Because that is how they fool progressives. They say "common sense" to deflect from the fact the proposal is idiotic. It is like how with Obamacare they kept repeating over and over the $2500 savings and "If you like your Doctor..." Typical Gruber progressives take everything at face value without actually looking at the details.

This is why they keep saying "Assault Weapons" as the typical idiot progressive doesn't know it is a made up term based on cosmetics or they keep saying guns that shoot faster when they don't shoot any faster than any other semi-auto rifle.

They also love to mix and match statistics. They hold up an example of mass shootings, but then parrot several thousand gun deaths most of which are gang violence committed with handguns while talking about banning assault rifles which aren't even used in 5% of gun deaths.

You cannot take these people seriously.



You said that right!



posted on Dec, 9 2015 @ 11:34 AM
link   
You want some common sense? I've got some for you. How about we stop bombing these people and maybe, just maybe they'll stop wanting to bomb us back. We've been doing it for 15yrs and things have gotten progressively worse. What's the definition of insanity again???



posted on Dec, 9 2015 @ 11:35 AM
link   
a reply to: NateTheAnimator




Firearms included, although would you not agree that some regulation should be instituted for the possession firearms?


Nope according to the BIll of Rights particularly the 2nd,4th,10th, and 14th amendment's it's VERBOTEN.

Shall not be infringed, Deny,Disparage, and :



All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.


www.law.cornell.edu...

But hey the constitution is just a GD piece of paper.

It's not like it matters to the brown shirts.

RIGHTS explicitly laid out.



posted on Dec, 9 2015 @ 11:41 AM
link   
The biggest threat to our freedoms, all of them, is the word security. They want to use fear as a tool to say we are only doing this for your safety, and people will say well if it is for my safety then I guess it is OK to erode all my freedoms. There will always be a level of risk in freedom and that is something we all need to understand unless you feel George Orwell's totalitarian society is a safe good thing to have.



posted on Dec, 9 2015 @ 11:42 AM
link   

originally posted by: jtma508
You want some common sense? I've got some for you. How about we stop bombing these people and maybe, just maybe they'll stop wanting to bomb us back. We've been doing it for 15yrs and things have gotten progressively worse. What's the definition of insanity again???



You are at the wrong place.
www.whitehouse.gov...

Please redirect your statement to the proper place.



posted on Dec, 9 2015 @ 11:45 AM
link   

originally posted by: rossacus
It us common sense though. What is the need for an "assault" weapons. You can have your guns, maintain paranoid thoughts of someone breaking in to your homes as justification for the gun in the first place.

Isn't a standard gun enough? Genuine question guys? Is there a possible reason outside constitutional right and amendments, because on the level, it's a poor reason, for owning a gun that can cause maximum damage simply for defensive reasons.

Hunting is different, if you get your kicks out of mutilating animals with multiple bullets then that's your choice, but still not a justifiable reason for high powered automatic weapons.


There are several aspects of your comment that I would like to address. Some I believe you have not considered.

A ban on anything is only common sense if it will actually work. If government could say with confidence that banning a certain type of firearm would actually solve a problem, that would be one thing. But banning weapons has not worked in this country. Chicago is the best example there is. Then Mayor Daley fought tooth and nail to get his signature legislation passed and won, making Chicago a gun free zone, as he called it. One look at the crime rates should be convincing enough that gun bans do not work. If that isn't enough, look at Washington DC. There are many cities that could be used as evidence that banning simply does not work.

Legislation does not stop crime. It only gives you a reason to prosecute people after the fact. Criminals break the law. That is why we call them criminals. The only people who abide by the law, by definition, are law abiding citizens. Banning simply cant work.

Our borders are crossed daily by people carrying all sorts of contraband. That includes weapons. And if there is a ban in place, the number of black market weapons smuggled in will increase dramatically. In other words, the bad guys will always find a way to get the weapons they desire. The only people who will truly be limited are the law abiding citizens.

As for the style of rifle, they are not 'assault' rifles. They are just rifles. There is a broad range of rifles with many varying characteristics. Assault is an act, not a type. Would people be so upset if they were called 'fluffy bunny rifles'? After all, its just a name.

Our right to bear arms does not stem from fear or paranoia of home invasion. It was meant to let us, the people, defend ourselves collectively against any who would oppress us. If you disarm the individual, you disarm the collective, leaving us all defenseless.

And lastly, these are not fully automatic weapons as you eluded to. These are semi-auto. Fully automatic weapons have already been banned. And when that happened we were assured that it was only fully automatic weapons that were being banned because it was common sense. Government has shown far too many times that if you give them an inch they will take a mile. If you give them a foothold, the battle is lost - its just a matter of time. We are already behind in this battle to preserve our rights. That is why we fight so hard, even for things that seem innocuous on their own. It is all part of a greater erosion of our rights that must be prevented.
edit on 9-12-2015 by Vroomfondel because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 9 2015 @ 11:47 AM
link   
a reply to: forkedtongue

So explain to me why americans are buying guns in a record sales since obama is in office, cant be the fear mongers that tell us we will die on a daily basis.

I still stand by what i said obama is the greatest gun seller in the usa.
edit on 9-12-2015 by dukeofjive696969 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 9 2015 @ 11:47 AM
link   

originally posted by: rossacus
It us common sense though. What is the need for an "assault" weapons. You can have your guns, maintain paranoid thoughts of someone breaking in to your homes as justification for the gun in the first place.

Isn't a standard gun enough? Genuine question guys? Is there a possible reason outside constitutional right and amendments, because on the level, it's a poor reason, for owning a gun that can cause maximum damage simply for defensive reasons.

Hunting is different, if you get your kicks out of mutilating animals with multiple bullets then that's your choice, but still not a justifiable reason for high powered automatic weapons.



Our government (U.S.) has thousands of nukes, planes , tanks, helicopters and We, the People can't have a stinkin' AR-15 ?? What if things were really bad and the people decided to take back our government ?



new topics

top topics



 
50
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join