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.

 

Lesson on "Assault weapons".

page: 5
35
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 14 2016 @ 04:59 AM
link   
a reply to: Soloprotocol

Gun fights don't happen the way you want them to.

There are many instances where people take multiple rounds in vital areas and keep on fighting.

When I was in Afghanistan I saw a dude take multiple rifle rounds before going down. It wasn't pretty, but he kept fighting.

Handguns are even less reliable when it comes to stopping a threat.

Then there's the very real possibility that a self defender of police officer will be faced with multiple opponents. Like home invasions with multiple burglars.

Limiting magazine size will get people killed.

It is obvious you don't know what combat is. A home invasion is combat, a rape is combat, a murder is combat. Whether or not these crimes are successful depends so much on the intended victims ability to fight back. Armed or not.

Please don't go around talking about life and death situations like you know what you're talking about. You have ZERO accurate insight to offer in that regard.




posted on Jun, 14 2016 @ 05:04 AM
link   
a reply to: Soloprotocol

Who gets to decide your mental stability? The fed... that has already had high ranking members say veterans are the next wave of terrorists in the USA?

You cant rush to claim one thing will fix it... without stopping to go what unintended consequence might occur from this decision?



posted on Jun, 14 2016 @ 05:10 AM
link   

originally posted by: Soloprotocol

3 rounds in the right hands is enough to take any man down. We are not talking about a combat situation here, We are talking about a lone gunman no doubt shooting from the hip, Spray and pray.

Anyone with a decent level of training and a cool head should be able to bring the guy down with three shots. But then again, Maybe the next time there will be a team of perps, then your three round mags weapons would as effective as a bar stool.

I would still place my money on a combat trained weapons expert with 3 rounds being the victor over a unskilled spray and pray with 30 rounds in a mag any day of the week. Lets face it, in these situations the chances of you being the perps first target are what,?...In a night club with 200 people?...200-1 ?

Maybe there should be a licencing system where you only get 15 - 30 round mags once you have proven your are not a terrorist threat, Mentally unstable or a dick. I know, buying 15 round magazines in the US is probably like buying candy but you gotta start somewhere.

What would you rather have?. The Government taking away your weapons or decent control measures on the amount of rounds a Magazine holds for certain individuals. One thing is for sure, The breaking point has be reached a long time ago.
Now instead of digging your heals in and throwing your toys out the pram everytime someone mentions taking away your weapons or diluting your rights, the NRA and like minded people need to get round the table and start talking sense instead of this gung ho, "from my dead fingers" rhetoric we hear everytime there's a mass shooting and the subject of gun control is brought up again.

You cant keep on ignoring it. Putting fingers in ears and La la la-ing solves nothing.


I'm not sure how you define combat situation, but to me some ass*&^% trying to kill me and the innocent people around me certainly qualifies as a combat situation.

Licensing is restricting. I don't think I should have to prove innocence. If the government can prove I'm a threat then I should have my right to own a gun curtailed. If they can't prove it then my constitutional right should remain intact. I support concealed carry rights without a license or permit for every citizen. Restriction of guns only stops law-abiding citizens from carrying. Terrorists and gang-bangers will not stop carrying because law prevents it. There is no situation in which you can convince me that having a gun when attacked is to my detriment.
edit on 6/14/16 by Ksihkehe because: quote error.



posted on Jun, 14 2016 @ 05:13 AM
link   

originally posted by: projectvxn
a reply to: Soloprotocol

Gun fights don't happen the way you want them to.

There are many instances where people take multiple rounds in vital areas and keep on fighting.

When I was in Afghanistan I saw a dude take multiple rifle rounds before going down. It wasn't pretty, but he kept fighting.

Handguns are even less reliable when it comes to stopping a threat.

Then there's the very real possibility that a self defender of police officer will be faced with multiple opponents. Like home invasions with multiple burglars.

Limiting magazine size will get people killed.

It is obvious you don't know what combat is. A home invasion is combat, a rape is combat, a murder is combat. Whether or not these crimes are successful depends so much on the intended victims ability to fight back. Armed or not.

Please don't go around talking about life and death situations like you know what you're talking about. You have ZERO accurate insight to offer in that regard.


I have fired my fair share of "Assault weapons". I have been in my fair share of life or death struggles...You know nothing of me and never will know anything of me.

You can argue all you like about terminology of what is and what isn't classed as a assault weapon, the fact remains, you can re-brand a AR 15 or similar weapon whatever you want. Go on, pick a name, It's still ####ing deadly and a perfect weapon for mass killings.

Now back to my point. How you gonna fix the problem. I have given you my take on it. what yours?...Bigger magazines for all by the sounds of it.
edit on 14-6-2016 by Soloprotocol because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 14 2016 @ 05:23 AM
link   

originally posted by: Irishhaf
a reply to: Soloprotocol

Who gets to decide your mental stability? The fed...

Your doctor would be a good start..




You cant rush to claim one thing will fix it... without stopping to go what unintended consequence might occur from this decision?


I'm not rushing to claim one thing will fix the problem, but at least i'm admitting there is a problem. As i said, some people in this thread are just doing what they have always done, Turning a blind eye in the hope it will all just go away. It wont. So get talking and come up with a solution or the government will fix the problem without your input..!!!
edit on 14-6-2016 by Soloprotocol because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 14 2016 @ 05:47 AM
link   

originally posted by: charlyv
Name one other gun, where this kind of morph-ism is possible.

1911 .45ACP can be adapted to a .22lr with a barrel and kit. But why does adaptability frighten you?

And perhaps, most importantly, if rapid fire is such a threat, why has none of the shooters used it? I have an idea, and it's exactly what was said. (you can't hit the side of a barn from inside like that)



posted on Jun, 14 2016 @ 05:54 AM
link   
a reply to: Soloprotocol

Military.com



WASHINGTON -- A Senate panel chairman rekindled a debate Wednesday over whether veterans who cannot manage their own benefits should be considered "mentally defective" by the FBI and barred from buying guns.


Some folks have already been running into what you want, the only people this approach would hinder are folks that are going to obey the law anyways.



posted on Jun, 14 2016 @ 05:56 AM
link   

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: charlyv
Name one other gun, where this kind of morph-ism is possible.

1911 .45ACP can be adapted to a .22lr with a barrel and kit. But why does adaptability frighten you?

And perhaps, most importantly, if rapid fire is such a threat, why has none of the shooters used it? I have an idea, and it's exactly what was said. (you can't hit the side of a barn from inside like that)

Controlled 3 round burst and you'll not miss much close quarters.



posted on Jun, 14 2016 @ 05:59 AM
link   

originally posted by: Soloprotocol

originally posted by: Ksihkehe

originally posted by: Soloprotocol
Me bouncing a stool off the perps head from pick up to plant would be under a second. See where i'm coming from.?


That's great and in the situation where I didn't have a gun I'd do that.

What about somebody like me going into a place? I'm 6'4" and 400 pounds. You can bounce stools off my head for a while without doing much more than pissing me off.

I see where you're coming from, but I don't think you've been in a situation that informs you well about the reality of combat.

Even if a 90 pound weakling is shooting up a place I want a gun to defend myself, not an environmental weapon like a stool. Bad guys can always get guns even if they're outlawed. Good guys can only get them if it remains a legal right.

3 rounds in the right hands is enough to take any man down. We are not talking about a combat situation here, We are talking about a lone gunman no doubt shooting from the hip, Spray and pray.

Anyone with a decent level of training and a cool head should be able to bring the guy down with three shots. But then again, Maybe the next time there will be a team of perps, then your three round mags weapons would as effective as a bar stool.

I would still place my money on a combat trained weapons expert with 3 rounds being the victor over a unskilled spray and pray with 30 rounds in a mag any day of the week. Lets face it, in these situations the chances of you being the perps first target are what,?...In a night club with 200 people?...200-1 ?

Maybe there should be a licencing system where you only get 15 - 30 round mags once you have proven your are not a terrorist threat, Mentally unstable or a dick. I know, buying 15 round magazines in the US is probably like buying candy but you gotta start somewhere.

What would you rather have?. The Government taking away your weapons or decent control measures on the amount of rounds a Magazine holds for certain individuals. One thing is for sure, The breaking point has be reached a long time ago.
Now instead of digging your heals in and throwing your toys out the pram everytime someone mentions taking away your weapons or diluting your rights, the NRA and like minded people need to get round the table and start talking sense instead of this gung ho, "from my dead fingers" rhetoric we hear everytime there's a mass shooting and the subject of gun control is brought up again.

You cant keep on ignoring it. Putting fingers in ears and La la la-ing solves nothing.


It just seems like you misdeed the point by so much. As I said in the OP, all guns are made for killing. Full stop. that's what they do. A hammer is for pounding nails into the board, and a gun is for killing. Responsible gun owners are aware of that, and understand that.

The purpose of this thread is to explain the truth about the particular weapon that the media conflates and screws up. There are many weapons that have magazines with high capacity. The problem with mass shootings isn't guns, it's the guy holding it. figure out WHY he wants to kill others and fix that before he does. Removing guns doesn't fix that. Remember, guns are not allowed in Mexico. Yet, somehow, people still get shot.

Mental Health. Find out where the US is on that, then look at all the mass shootings that don't happen other places. See a correlation? I sure do.



posted on Jun, 14 2016 @ 06:04 AM
link   

originally posted by: Irishhaf
a reply to: Soloprotocol

Military.com



WASHINGTON -- A Senate panel chairman rekindled a debate Wednesday over whether veterans who cannot manage their own benefits should be considered "mentally defective" by the FBI and barred from buying guns.


Some folks have already been running into what you want, the only people this approach would hinder are folks that are going to obey the law anyways.


What benefits.? I thought you guys had welfare cards or whatever they are called, or is that only some states. oh, and it's not what i want, It's maybe what you guys need. Some form of control agreed by both parties. ie, between the government and the people.
You cant keep on blackmailing the government on gun laws and control because the NRA has x and x amount of members/voters. it's insane.

I'm on the outside looking in here.



posted on Jun, 14 2016 @ 06:10 AM
link   
a reply to: Soloprotocol

Couple of the cases I saw the wife handled all the finances, including any disability claims etc from there time in service, most of the people (I think) answered honestly when they started asking us if we owned any firearms. for about 6 years every time we (vets active and retired) saw a doctor we were asked if we owned guns... my response was always piss off its none of your business.

It doesnt work, it will only stop law abiding citizens from practicing their constitutional rights, it will never stop a pyscho from getting a firearm, or going on a killing spree..

a much better use of time and money would be to rebuild the mental health care of the country... it is basically non-existent in America.



posted on Jun, 14 2016 @ 06:50 AM
link   

originally posted by: Irishhaf
a reply to: Soloprotocol

Couple of the cases I saw the wife handled all the finances, including any disability claims etc from there time in service, most of the people (I think) answered honestly when they started asking us if we owned any firearms. for about 6 years every time we (vets active and retired) saw a doctor we were asked if we owned guns... my response was always piss off its none of your business.

It doesnt work, it will only stop law abiding citizens from practicing their constitutional rights, it will never stop a pyscho from getting a firearm, or going on a killing spree..

a much better use of time and money would be to rebuild the mental health care of the country... it is basically non-existent in America.


It Horrifies me when i hear of kids in the US under 8 being fed drugs because they are a bit hyper. Yeah, sure it can happen in any country but not on the scale it happens in the US. Suits everyone but the kid. Parents and teachers have a controllable item again. Doctors and big pharma make a "Killing"...Eventually. Most of the mass shootings in the US are home grown young adults with both a history of mental illness and of prescription and non-prescription drug use.

Anyway, I digress. What does it matter if a AR15 or Similar is labeled a "Assault Weapon" or not. What matters is they appear to be the weapon of choice for mass killers and therein lies the problem.
edit on 14-6-2016 by Soloprotocol because: (no reason given)

edit on 14-6-2016 by Soloprotocol because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 14 2016 @ 06:53 AM
link   
a reply to: network dude

Thank you for posting this, when Hillary, Bernie, and Obama say they want to ban automatic weapons, they have no idea what they are talking about. Which is why I am not voting for them. I sick of really stupid people.



posted on Jun, 14 2016 @ 06:56 AM
link   

originally posted by: Soloprotocol


Anyway, I digress. What does it matter if a AR15 or Similar is called a "Assault Weapon" or not. What matters is they appear to be the weapon of choice for mass killers and therein lies the problem.


What about the glock? Most of the shooters also had a specific model of handgun with them. A glock of some caliber. Yet nobody is calling for a ban on glocks. Why do you think that is? Could it be an engineered push to attack a certain weapon? Like I said, this thread is only for the purpose of explaining how an AR-15 is just a rifle.

I believe the real issue lies in the mental health system and it's complete and utter failure in the US.


ETA: I just thought of a good analogy. Banning the AR-15 because it's scary is like banning Ksihkehe because he's big. Never mind that he has done nothing wrong, he looks scary and like he could do some damage, so he must be put in a safe place. Now that isn't fair and it isn't accurate.
edit on 14-6-2016 by network dude because: added thought



posted on Jun, 14 2016 @ 07:05 AM
link   
a reply to: Soloprotocol

biggest beef I have with labeling it an assault weapon is it deflects from the bigger problem (IMO)... how many of the shooters were on a drug cocktail... how many had long standing mental health issues where the go to treatment in the US is more drugs.

How many came form broken homes, how many are poorly educated...

an attack on 1 amendment is an attack on all of them again IMO.. (and yes civil asset forfeiture is a huge separate rant of mine)

The guy(orlando shooter) was investigated by the FBI twice... he was a licensed to carry armed guard with a contracting company that does a lot of Federal work, so he was investigated multiple times at multiple levels and nobody saw anything that was actionable..I doubt any law in the country would have stopped this.



posted on Jun, 14 2016 @ 07:13 AM
link   

originally posted by: Irishhaf
a reply to: Soloprotocol


The guy(orlando shooter) was investigated by the FBI twice... he was a licensed to carry armed guard with a contracting company that does a lot of Federal work, so he was investigated multiple times at multiple levels and nobody saw anything that was actionable..I doubt any law in the country would have stopped this.


Maybe his old man pulled some strings or at least got someone in Government to. ?



posted on Jun, 14 2016 @ 07:15 AM
link   
a reply to: Soloprotocol

No idea... unfortunately after nearly 20 years in the military/civil service... him just falling through the red tape cracks is a very real possibility.



posted on Jun, 14 2016 @ 07:44 AM
link   
a reply to: Soloprotocol

I'm sorry, but if you remove them, something else will become the new "weapon of choice." Then what do you do? Take that away too?



posted on Jun, 14 2016 @ 07:45 AM
link   

originally posted by: network dude
What about the glock? Most of the shooters also had a specific model of handgun with them. A glock of some caliber. Yet nobody is calling for a ban on glocks. Why do you think that is? Could it be an engineered push to attack a certain weapon?


Give them time. As soon as a new AWB is passed, the left will almost immediately start crying about a ban on handguns. You and I both know it. They'll never stop pushing more and more bans and restrictions. Ever.
edit on 14-6-2016 by vor78 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 14 2016 @ 07:46 AM
link   
a reply to: Irishhaf


The guy(orlando shooter) was investigated by the FBI twice... he was a licensed to carry armed guard with a contracting company that does a lot of Federal work, so he was investigated multiple times at multiple levels and nobody saw anything that was actionable..I doubt any law in the country would have stopped this.


And THAT right there is the rub, we've said it in other cases, but especially in this one, because of the circumstances nothing they are likely to pass would have prevented this guy because of what you just typed.



new topics

top topics



 
35
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join