It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


I have had enough.

page: 5
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in


posted on Jun, 20 2016 @ 08:00 AM

edit on 20-6-2016 by lightedhype because: (no reason given)

posted on Jun, 20 2016 @ 08:37 AM
a reply to: TrueBrit

I am talking about one shot then reload type weapons. Not auto or semi just one shot then reload no magazines.

posted on Jun, 20 2016 @ 09:45 AM
a reply to: ms898

And tell me, do you believe that there is no legitimate use for a semi automatic firearm of any kind?

Pistols and rifles all alike, no excuse or use for any semi automatic weapon in America today? I think you may have been duped there, to be quite frank. There are lots of incidents involving a totally legitimate use of such firearms to defend the home, and communities in general from criminals, that you could go and look up. But these incidents do not fit the narrative that the media are pushing, that being guns are bad, wait for the cops and pray in the meantime, for goodness sake do not fight back... All familiar.

The reality of the situation is this:

While armed thugs are running about using guns to rob homeowners, to hold up convenience stores, to commit acts of mass murder, it makes little sense to limit Joe Average to some sort of bolt action remnant of yesteryear, when the threats he will be facing as a member of the public would render such a tool impotent at best, and a liability at worst, in a critical situation.

Joe is about to go to bed, when his wife stirs having heard a noise downstairs. Quietly, he grabs up his rifle, and a handful of ammunition, then puts his dressing gown on so that he can use the pockets to carry bullets in. He chambers a round, carefully slapping the bolt into place and readying the rifle to fire. He takes to the stairs, panning back and forth, waiting for a target. He spots someone all in black, pistol in one hand, crowbar hung at his hip. Joe fires, and misses. The adrenaline in his system, and a lack of a will to kill the invader force his hands to shake.

He retreats under return fire, back up the stairs while the infiltrator shoots five or six times in his direction. Joe finally reaches the cover of the landing (unlikely, since his assailant would probably have hit him with at least one of the handful of shots he got off). While Joe Average manfully clears the spent casing from his personal defence weapon, his assailant, who has not had to reload, and does not have to manually load each round, takes to the stairs and gives chase.

The invader is halfway up the stairs now, and Joe is fumbling in his pocket for a round, amongst the fluff that always builds up in a dressing gown pocket. He grasps a round, goes to pull it from his pocket, but it gets caught on his pockets edge, and flips out of his hand. He desperately scrambles for another round, finally getting one into the breech. Before he can chamber the round and ready the rifle to fire, his assailant gains the landing and has Joe dead to rights, with what may as well be a club for all the use it will be, till the bolt gets pushed home.

If Joe had of been carrying a rifle with a thirty round magazine, he would not have had to fumble. If the weapon he had was not bolt action, but semi automatic, he could have kept firing as he walked down the stairs, forcing the attacker to flee, or injuring the invader beyond their ability to respond. He could also have stayed on the landing, gone prone, and held the attacker at bay for an extended period, even with shaking hands. As it is, slowing down a homeowner defending his home is not going to slow down a criminal. Not one bit.

posted on Jun, 20 2016 @ 01:08 PM
a reply to: seasonal

Do you know of anyone that owns an automatic weapon, let alone an arsenal?

I'm not a gun owner, but I do know there are many gun enthusiasts that own automatic weapons. My uncle who passed away several years ago had a huge gun collection. He belonged and worked at a gun club and won many gun shooting competitions. Surprisingly he was against gun owners owning automatic weapons.

As far as knowing someone who has an arsenal, heck no!

A regiment has 3000 men in it in WWII.

I was thinking more around the time the constitution was signed. During the civil war they really didn't have regiments, they were called company's. They were only made up of 10 militia men. It's why I said our forefathers wouldn't be able to imagine one gun taking out an entire regiment/company in a few seconds.

posted on Jun, 20 2016 @ 02:17 PM
a reply to: Bybyots

i dont know what you mean by playing army.

whomever has and trains with a firearm is a potential threat including civilians that are hired and directed by the government

therefore it is every persons right(unless they prove otherwise) to own and train with a firearm in order to allow a system in which not one side monopolizes control.

even if one side has access to bigger and better weapons such as the military and police force of america today, they would still face a huge challenge in trying to employ martial law, and in order to win would have to destroy the cattle that feeds them thus making it a self destructive fight.

so one does not play army(unless its paintball)

one trains with and collects firearms in order to protect themselves and family and neighbor from a possible threat of forced slavery.

after all the goverment and police force are just hired civilians why do those civilians get more rights then others?
edit on 20-6-2016 by DOCHOLIDAZE1 because: (no reason given)

edit on 20-6-2016 by DOCHOLIDAZE1 because: (no reason given)

posted on Jun, 20 2016 @ 03:27 PM
a reply to: TrueBrit

Well I have to give you credit for your story writing and while you make some good points in that situation, I believe that scenario is highly unlikely to occur. Firstly from a protection standpoint I would choose a shotgun (non pump action of course) and secondly let me paint another picture.

Joe gets home from work one day to find his wife has left him and taken away his children. Talking to freinds, gathering information he starts to blame her workplace colleagues for his wifes actions. His life spirals out of control as he becomes more and more depressed he looses his job and doesn't have a great support network. In a drunken state he calls his ex wife pleading for her to take him back but she hangs up on him. It was the straw that breaks the camels back and in a rage he goes and gathers some ammunition and his machine gun. Well you get the picture. People change

posted on Jun, 20 2016 @ 04:41 PM

originally posted by: INEVERQUIT
Listen up people. I have some venting to do. Since this is the rant section, a ranting I will go.

Let's get this straight------>

Guns do not kill without assistance from PEOPLE.

Yup. You figured it out. The solution is allow the guns, but ban the PEOPLE.

Why are there no mass shootings in the desert?

posted on Jun, 20 2016 @ 05:12 PM
a reply to: Agit8dChop

don't you realize bombs don't kill people, people with bombs kill people. People who make bombs kill people. Bombs are not the problem.. BOMBS have rights too you know

I suppose you think your being smart with your "bombs have rights too" sarcasm, of course we all know bombs kill people but they don't manifest out of thin air... Something much more troubling is the shear amount of Nuclear arsenal that various country's have and want in the name of defense, but lets not say anything about that, it's fine as long as our highly trust worthy leaders and PTB say it's ok then surely it is? I'm guessing and hoping you would want those banded too though right? I surely do...

It occurs to me that it's not just a few maniacs that manifest in these mass shootings that are the real problem though, it's the twisted thinking/belief construct/ideology/brainwashing which drives them, and unfortunately a fair number of these said nutters obviously hold positions of power at least some of the time..

posted on Jun, 20 2016 @ 08:08 PM
a reply to: DOCHOLIDAZE1

Sorry, took me a while to find your response.

So, you are saying that since they have the ammo, that we, civilians, should have the ammo?

Please pardon me and I mean no disrespect for how much time and thought you may have put in to this, but even at the access level that we civilians have now we would be no match for weapons-systems that the folks that you seem to be talking about (the U.S. military and law enforcement) have.

It's a dangerous illusion that escalates violence.

I can't participate in that.


edit on 20-6-2016 by Bybyots because:

posted on Jun, 20 2016 @ 08:17 PM

originally posted by: OtherSideOfTheCoin
Guns kill get over it.

Your backwards country seems to be the only one full people who don't get it.

Saying guns don't kill people people do is the most stupid argument second amendment advocates have.

Guns kill people just acsept it.

It's a bit like saying heart attacks or nuclear bombs don't kill people..... Stupid

Yes they do kill people, so do knives. So can a spoon. So can a sharp stick.

The point you are missing is the person behind the attack.

Someone who is pissed with an agenda to harm others.

That is the real issue.

Why are they so pissed that they need to harm others?

That is the question that shuold be investigated and addressed.

posted on Jun, 20 2016 @ 08:31 PM

...because we haven't fixed what is broken inside the person.

We aren't going to "fix" it. Not me. Not you. Only everyone together traveling only as fast as our slowest ships will ever "fix" it.

I think that it is high time that we brought back the duel, with a strict code.

Violence would be controlled and in fact it would not lead to any sort of escalation for civilians beyond the "civil duel"


I'd like to add that as a "provider of solutions" you are pretty short-sighted. What do fire-fighters do to control wild fires? They use controlled burn.

Dueling is controlled burn and we need it very badly.

That means, when you go shopping for a firearm as a civilian, you will be able to choose from a selection of fine single-shot pistols that use great big primitive white-phosphorous-covered rounds*.


* Or a rapier. I'm betting the rapier is starting to sound good.
edit on 20-6-2016 by Bybyots because: ???

posted on Jun, 20 2016 @ 08:52 PM
a reply to: Onesmartdog

That is the real issue.

Why are they so pissed that they need to harm others?

That is the question that should be investigated and addressed.

If you could imagine a metrical system that could achieve that knowledge before the person harmed others, what would it look like? Where would it derive it's statistics from?

posted on Jun, 21 2016 @ 01:42 AM
a reply to: Bybyots

yes we should have access to the same ammo that the hired thugs that the government employs, and like i said even though the government does have the weapons advantage if they used there advantage then the peasants that fund them start to thin out and all the sudden they have no more peasants to sow, trench, build, and tax, the moment we give up the weapons and ammo we do have we stop being peasants and we become real slaves

posted on Jun, 21 2016 @ 12:14 PM

originally posted by: TrueBrit
a reply to: ms898
-- snip --
But these incidents do not fit the narrative that the media are pushing, that being guns are bad, wait for the cops and pray in the meantime, for goodness sake do not fight back... All familiar.
-- snip --

A spot on assessment of the situation. Shame it will be lost on the readers that need to understand it the most. You describe a situation that I have first-hand experience with and it was settled law in the US as far back as the mid '50s.

The Supreme Court ruled that the police Are Not Allowed To Protect You!!! All they can do is file a report after something happens!

The town was beautiful little Evansville, Indiana and it was 1956 or '57. My aunt lived down the hill from Ritz High School just a short walk from the State Highway Department facility.

She made repeated, frantic calls to the police about her ex-husband who had just gotten out of prison. He'd called several times promising to kill her and all three of their kids before the sun went down and she was home alone with no way to defend herself. For hours he had been driving past the house and up her block's alley slowly and stopping a few seconds just to stare at her.

They told her they had no way of helping. He'd been released, not escaped, and he had the right to drive where he wanted.

To shorten the story...

She had the kids ready, regardless of which direction he came in from and when he kicked in the front door she was headed out the back. Her youngest was just three years old. He grabbed at my aunt and got her instead. The handful of hair he grabbed took most of the scalp off the back of her head as he jerked it out.

Mom & Dad lived about 40 miles away but I'll never forget what her house looked like when we got there. She literally didn't have ONE light in the house. He'd even smashed the ceiling lights! Every bed, the couch and two seats were totally slashed and every other piece of furniture had been smashed. Before the police arrived and he managed to slip away, he busted every window out of the ground floor.

My aunt didn't own the house, she rented it...

And I have to keep seeing and hearing lectures about how there is no reasonable use for a weapon? I can sure think of one!

posted on Jun, 21 2016 @ 12:28 PM
a reply to: CornShucker

Poor lady, and poor nipper
I hope the scalp damage was not permanent!

People under threat will always have a better grasp of these things than those who have never experienced it, or something like it. It galls me to my core that my nations people, for all that there is, technically, a way to purchase and own firearms legally, have no genuine right to be protected in their homes.

I know that the Bowie knife I keep in my room would be adequate to deal with any but a professionally applied threat to my life in the home, but I am a hale and hearty chap, who does a physical job and knows anatomy very well. There are, however, those who are not so physically capable, and have suffered in my nation, because our gun laws say you must give a reason why you would want to have a weapon, and "for home defence" is not considered an acceptable reason by our authorities. It was only relatively recently that laws were passed which give the householder staunch protection in the event that an intruder is mortally wounded on a householders premises in this country.

A bloody shambles. For my part, I would, if laws were passed allowing it, carry a sword at my hip at all times. Guns are what they are, but I would feel less concerned about collateral damage if my weapon had limited reach, and I would rather take one to the dome than hurt someone by accident.
edit on 21-6-2016 by TrueBrit because: Clarity and grammatical error corrections

posted on Jun, 21 2016 @ 05:53 PM
a reply to: TrueBrit

What is really disgusting is that we live in a world where other people feel the need to kill other people over idiotic issues when there is so much to be thankful for. It does not matter how, what matters is why.

posted on Jun, 21 2016 @ 05:59 PM
a reply to: INEVERQUIT

Why the killing?

That is a rather large and thorny question, and the answer is, that there is not one answer. There are as many answers to that question as there are murderers walking the world.

new topics

top topics

<< 2  3  4   >>

log in