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: 8
35
<< 5  6  7    9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 16 2016 @ 06:07 AM
link   

originally posted by: Soloprotocol

originally posted by: Winstonian
a reply to: Soloprotocol


I dont believe the Founding fathers could have conceived the Modern Weaponry of today. The right to Bear single shot Musket is a bit different to the right to owning a ####ing armoury.


How many time do I have to debunk this idea?

They knew very well about maching guns and multi shoot rifles. The machine gun was invented in 1717 by Puckle and the Austrian Army issued a 20 shot repeating rifle in 1780. True they where crude by our standards, but you don't think the men of the caliber and mental ability of the founding Fathers could not see some of the coming future?




posted on Jun, 16 2016 @ 06:09 AM
link   

originally posted by: projectvxn
a reply to: Soloprotocol




I dont believe the Founding fathers could have conceived the Modern Weaponry of today. The right to Bear single shot Musket is a bit different to the right to owning the ####ing armoury.


girandoni rifle look it up.

To think that a group of inventors, scientists, merchants, and philosophers "couldn't conceive" of improving firearms technology is ridiculous and doesn't hold true with respect to what was available at the time.



This is a weapon with a 20 round magazine and a single action trigger semi auto type loading system(not sure what to call it..Except maybe a gravity feed) invented in 1779.

I'm just going to continue to tear apart your ignorance until you either capitulate and admit you have zero clue what you're talking about, or abandon the thread. All you have left now are snide remarks about my country and fellow countrymen, and supposition based on nothing but ignorance.




OPPS didn't see you post this. Also remember the Puckle gun 1717 first machine gun.



posted on Jun, 16 2016 @ 07:04 AM
link   

originally posted by: projectvxn
a reply to: Soloprotocol

What does it matter?

They are western nations with total bans on civilian ownership of firearms. Especially the kinds we're all talking about here.


I honestly don't get you guys's fascination/admiration for guns. I've served my time in the army and have had my fair share of experience with them, but I never ever got infatuated by them. I've just seen too much dumb **** happen on the firing ranges to trust anyone without a full licence in public to carry one.

For wanting to appear the expert on the case you haven't got much knowledge about our gun laws here in Belgium and France. Anyone above 18yrs old here can own a gun, you just have to take an exam (safety standards and such) and get some range-time in to apply for one, which isn't that much to ask for when you basically express your wish to kill stuff from a distance. We also don't get shootings here every year, as far as I recall Brussels was bombs and no mass-shooting.

The argument that those with evil intent will get a gun no matter how much laws you put up is also fallacious. Not every evil-intented person has ties with the underground conglomerates.

What I do notice is that everytime gun-control comes up in America, gun-sales rise astonishingly. Do you guys never stop to think about that, or the fact that a very very big part of the American economy is built around the weapons industry. I would think just these two facts alone would make one ponder the whole authenticity of the anti-gun campaigns. It's basically free commercials...



posted on Jun, 16 2016 @ 07:29 AM
link   
a reply to: Soloprotocol


I dont believe the Founding fathers could have conceived the Modern Weaponry of today. The right to Bear single shot Musket is a bit different to the right to owning a ####ing armory.

Yes it did. The people are to be armed with the same weaponry as the military. Standing armies are the biggest threat to liberty of the people.

When misused by a Authoritarian government to oppress the people, the people need an equivalent ability to resist. Thats why there was a cannon in every town square for instance, to fight against the government if it ever came to take the peoples arms again. Also why the distinction was made early on between civilian police and military authority.

Both distinctions are long gone…

Image search, "Cannon in the Town Square"



posted on Jun, 16 2016 @ 07:56 AM
link   
a reply to: Balans

Never said I was an expert on European gun laws so I have a lot of room for improvement there and welcome your insight.

I am an expert on US gun laws. So when someone chimes with "there are no background checks " I get a little irritated. When someone chimes with with "we need to ban these automatic weapons of war" I get even more irritated. Then, invariably, someone else chimes in with "you don't need that for hunting", this completely ignoring the point of the 2nd Amendment, I start to get angry.


The best part is when an anti gunner starts simply making stuff up and placing this blanket of accusations upon anyone who owns a gun.

Examples: you must have a small dick. I guess they'll include all the female gun owners who are the largest growing group of new gun owners in the nation in that.

You must be a coward for wanting a gun. Because the 120 lbs female is equal in capability to a 200 lbs rapist...

Or the best one, you just wanna be Rambo. Why don't you join the military if you want a gun?

I already joined the military. I did my time in combat. I am highly trained. I have more time behind the trigger than most people you will ever meet. I know what weapons can and can't do, what is and isn't effective, and at no point did I believe I was tougher or better than anyone else for that knowledge.

Then we start talking about putting gun owners on lists and denying rights based on ZERO due process.

What a lot of our foreign membership doesn't understand is that this isn't a matter of legislation. This is a matter of repealing the second amendment or not. You will NEVER get enough states to agree to repeal the 2nd Amendment. You cannot ban any gun prior to that.

Even if you did, the ship has long ago sailed on getting rid of guns. The US would turn into a turkey shoot the day you disarm the law abiding population.

No one seems to care about that. It's all name calling, lies, supposition, and propaganda.



posted on Jun, 16 2016 @ 10:10 AM
link   

originally posted by: Soloprotocol
I dont believe the Founding fathers could have conceived the Modern Weaponry of today. The right to Bear single shot Musket is a bit different to the right to owning a ####ing armoury.


Maybe, maybe not. One thing that is indisputable, however, is that the founders created the 2nd Amendment with a purpose in mind, that purpose being to allow an armed citizenry to act as a last line of defense for the country. There's also little doubt that they understood that achieving that purpose would not be possible with obsolete weaponry. So unless we're going to argue that the 2nd Amendment came with an expiration date, it seems most likely that the founders intended for it to remain relevant for its originally intended purpose, which most certainly isn't possible with a musket in the modern era.

I would also note that weapons technology of the day wasn't limited to single shots. Some have given other examples, but I'll also add in the Lorenzoni and Kalthoff repeating rifles and pistols that were invented in the late 1600s. The Cookson repeaters that came a few decades later are another example and there were a very few of them in the US during the timeframe of the Revolutionary war. You could consider both of these to be ancestors of the lever action rifles that most think of from the mid/late 1800s.




edit on 16-6-2016 by vor78 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 16 2016 @ 02:11 PM
link   
a reply to: Hazardous1408

"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well ARMED lamb contesting the vote" Benjamin Franklin. If you want to take away people's right to own weapons to defend themselves from tyranny than you are part of the problem. Just sayin.



posted on Jun, 16 2016 @ 02:46 PM
link   
a reply to: Soloprotocol

I wonder if they envisioned our government operating tanks on our streets. I wonder if they envisioned lack of due process. I wonder if they envisioned openly spying on every single communication made in the country without cause. I wonder if they envisioned our country waging wars of aggression all over the globe. I wonder if they envisioned suspension of our constitutional rights.

I wonder if they envisioned the American people trying to disarm themselves.

I bet they did. I bet that's why they wrote "shall not be infringed" because they understood that government ends up inherently spiraling into tyranny, because it is operated by human beings.

Nothing to be afraid of, or suspicious of right?



posted on Jun, 16 2016 @ 03:17 PM
link   
a reply to: projectvxn


originally posted by: projectvxn
a reply to: Balans
Never said I was an expert on European gun laws so I have a lot of room for improvement there and welcome your insight.

I admit that was kind of a cheap twist on my part, my apologies.
I tend not to get invoved in these threads because I am not an American and do feel I have no say in your discussions, other than to maybe share another viewpoint once in a while or correct a wrong. I feel that being raised and growing up under a different set of laws concerning weapons tends to put one on his/her respective side of the fence. I do sometimes forget that.




What a lot of our foreign membership doesn't understand is that this isn't a matter of legislation. This is a matter of repealing the second amendment or not. You will NEVER get enough states to agree to repeal the 2nd Amendment. You cannot ban any gun prior to that.

Even if you did, the ship has long ago sailed on getting rid of guns. The US would turn into a turkey shoot the day you disarm the law abiding population.


This is part of the point i was trying to make. Your 2nd amendment will indeed never be repealed and I am surely not advocating in favour of it being repealed.
Although I very highly doubt that an armed militia would ever have a chance of defeating your army, police and alphabet agencies alltogether, even just considering your recent divisiveness caused by politics, it is a part of your constitution that has it's merit and should be defended.

That being said, it's the last paragraph in my previous post that reflects what I was trying to bring to the table:



What I do notice is that everytime gun-control comes up in America, gun-sales rise astonishingly. Do you guys never stop to think about that, or the fact that a very very big part of the American economy is built around the weapons industry. I would think just these two facts alone would make one ponder the whole authenticity of the anti-gun campaigns. It's basically free commercials...


One of these companies for example is FN Herstal over here in Belgium, they've joined forces with Winchester and Browning and supply a good part of weapons in the American army too as far as I know (correct me if I'm wrong, they surely used to, like the Minimi and M2 .50). Lots of shady business going on there, even more so after the deliveries to Nepal during their civil war in 2002 which even led to one of our ministers resigning at the time.

I guess I'm just trying to relay my suspicions that behind all the big exposure, your 2nd amendment is being milked by the weapons industry to enrich themselves.



posted on Jun, 16 2016 @ 06:54 PM
link   
a reply to: Balans

Guns sell themselves.

In all of my life since I moved to the US I have NEVER seen a commercial advertising real firearms on any channel except the Outdoors channel and that is a brand new development. Guns have never been more popular and it's because people understand that the benefits outweigh the detriments.

There will never be a point in this worlds history where the swordsmith is irrelevant.

I'm very familiar with FNH. In basic training I used an FNH M16A4.

I would appreciate it if you'd march down to their HQ and please ask them to lower the price on FNX line of pistols.
edit on 16 6 16 by projectvxn because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 16 2016 @ 07:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: 191stMIDET
a reply to: Hazardous1408

"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well ARMED lamb contesting the vote" Benjamin Franklin. If you want to take away people's right to own weapons to defend themselves from tyranny than you are part of the problem. Just sayin.


hey...when this so called tyranny starts, the government is going to come in tanks and APC's, if it hits the fan, they won't screw around with you, they'll have plenty of different weapons to blow you to bits. you make it sound as if it's going to be some type of musket barrage on some type of Gettysburg battlefield



posted on Jun, 16 2016 @ 07:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: Soloprotocol


I dont believe the Founding fathers could have conceived the Modern Weaponry of today. The right to Bear single shot Musket is a bit different to the right to owning a ####ing armory.

Yes it did. The people are to be armed with the same weaponry as the military. Standing armies are the biggest threat to liberty of the people.

When misused by a Authoritarian government to oppress the people, the people need an equivalent ability to resist. Thats why there was a cannon in every town square for instance, to fight against the government if it ever came to take the peoples arms again. Also why the distinction was made early on between civilian police and military authority.

Both distinctions are long gone…

Image search, "Cannon in the Town Square"


so, how many drone guided rockets are you going to buy,?....how many tanks shells will you buy?, how many 20mm cannons do you have on hand?....do you think they will stand in front of you and engage in a gunfight with small arms?.....you won't even hear it until it's too late, because if one of them go down, your whole area will be one big bomb blast.....



posted on Jun, 16 2016 @ 07:20 PM
link   
a reply to: jimmyx

And who will be piloting these tanks and APC's against law abiding constitutional Americans?



posted on Jun, 16 2016 @ 07:44 PM
link   
Democrats and liberals are justified in being frustrated, but it says right in the text "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."

The "well-regulated" part is the place to focus. How is buying an AR-15 over the counter with no proven training or discipline "well regulated"? How does allowing such unfettered access increase security of a free state?



posted on Jun, 16 2016 @ 08:00 PM
link   
a reply to: spiritualzombie

I think some may be missing the fact that background checks are already in place. Felons etc are already on a "no buy" list. They have been tried and convicted of a felony resulting in being on the list. To put an American citizen on a list that declares them a criminal before having been convicted is a constitutional violation.

As it relates to the topic, Mateen already was on a list , then removed. He bought a rifle legally.
As it relates to say San Bernadino, the shooter had someone else buy for them. So it's a no win situation.

Simply adding more laws will not change how weapons are obtained. While I surely don't claim to know all of the answers, I do believe the gun is the wrong boogeyman.



posted on Jun, 17 2016 @ 12:00 AM
link   

originally posted by: spiritualzombie
The "well-regulated" part is the place to focus.


A bit of searching on that term would have told you that it didn't mean "lots of laws passed to regulate it", it means "well trained" or "expert". Also 'properly calibrated' or 'in correct working order'. In the time since, it's fallen out of use. But Oxford English Dictionaries of the time have the thing in.

The point being, if your militia does not have access to arms,they will not be expert in using them when you need to field them.
edit on 17-6-2016 by Bedlam because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 17 2016 @ 01:37 AM
link   

originally posted by: jimmyx

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: Soloprotocol


I dont believe the Founding fathers could have conceived the Modern Weaponry of today. The right to Bear single shot Musket is a bit different to the right to owning a ####ing armory.

Yes it did. The people are to be armed with the same weaponry as the military. Standing armies are the biggest threat to liberty of the people.

When misused by a Authoritarian government to oppress the people, the people need an equivalent ability to resist. Thats why there was a cannon in every town square for instance, to fight against the government if it ever came to take the peoples arms again. Also why the distinction was made early on between civilian police and military authority.

Both distinctions are long gone…

Image search, "Cannon in the Town Square"


so, how many drone guided rockets are you going to buy,?….how many tanks shells will you buy?, how many 20mm cannons do you have on hand?….do you think they will stand in front of you and engage in a gunfight with small arms?.....you won't even hear it until it's too late, because if one of them go down, your whole area will be one big bomb blast.....

Like I said, long gone notions of liberty and 'redress of grievances'. One package of airstrikes ad clsterbombs…

bye bye revolt…



posted on Jun, 17 2016 @ 11:57 AM
link   

originally posted by: dismanrc

originally posted by: Orionx2
a reply to: network dude
True on the looks.
Well somewhat accurate on the caliber. The mini 14 is .223 however you can get ar15 from .17 all the way to 50cal.

You can use the same lower on the ar15 and swap out the upper with a few pins. That is one of the main reasons ar15s are so popular. You can put on your .22 cal barrel for plinking, your .223 for longer range, or your .308 and a scope for hunting. They are a very diverse gun.

I find it odd that a family of 8 got killed by a drunk driver and it doesn't make the big news but 3+ random people get shot and it is a nation wide mass murder catastrophe worthy of the politicians to call for more gun control. It used to be Buzz words, now days it is Buzz events.



Just to clarify you can't use the same lower for .223 and .308. The 308 takes the AR10 lower.


Way more people are killed by drunk driving, falls, bath tub accident and the biggest is... medical accidents. But let blame the scary black gun.


You are correct. In fact I might go pickup a AR-10 this weekend. Apparently we can't hunt bigger game with a .223 here and I would rather have a.308 or 30.06 anyway. Also 100% agree with the rest of your post.



posted on Jun, 17 2016 @ 06:03 PM
link   
a reply to: intrptr

What about the REST of the country watching the US bomb it's OWN?
will YOU sit there and watch that S##T?
Or would they cut off the media THEN do it in EVERY city...HOW many ordinance carrying aircraft DOES the USAF have?
By MY calculations they could tie up an ENTIRE region up for a week...then we MIGHT be a TAD upset...think it through.
They want the resources so the land CAN'T be irradiated.
Bugs are notoriously hard to control and BY the way what makes you think the world would stand by and watch it's primary economic bread basket get commandeered by oligarchs?



posted on Jun, 17 2016 @ 06:38 PM
link   
a reply to: cavtrooper7

You gonna lead the charge there, general?

The US gubment, our elected representatives, endanger the people everyday by bombing the s** out of foreign lands.



new topics

top topics



 
35
<< 5  6  7    9 >>

log in

join