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.

 

Banning assault weapons again.

page: 12
0
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 13 2005 @ 04:06 PM
link   
Good point Beefotronx about the cities with strict gun control laws being the ones with the highest crime rates. Could it be that the criminals don't have to worry about the law-abiding citizens having anyway to protect themselves hhhmmmm (most of these gun control cities also have laws against a citizen carrying pepper spray, stun gun, baton, knife, etc as well). Of course all one would have to do if get the criminals to start following these laws and everything would be right in the world. What I don't get is how the cities and states were suddenly exempt from following that "shall not be infringed" part of the 2nd Amendment.




posted on Mar, 13 2005 @ 06:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by LNJAXFL
In response to the title of this thread, so called "assault weapons" were never banned in the US in the first place so it would be impossible for it to happen again. The 1994 ban that recently expired banned the firearm from looking like an "assault weapon". They still had the same action, same bullet, same fire rate. The firearm could not be sold with more than two cosmetic aspects of an "assault weapon" such as a bayonet, pistol grip, folding stock, detachable magazine, flash suppressor etc. So you could have a bayonet and detachable magazine but no pistol grip for example. Of course any manufactured before the ban (and now after) could still be sold with all the cosmetic goodies but were essentially the same weapon.

The only other main thing was it banned the importation or manufacture of hi-capacity magazines(more than 10 rounds). The possession and sale of existing magazines(millions) was still allowed so other than a little price gouging they were still available.

So all in all it was a toothless ban the Democrats barely passedbefore losing the majority of seats to the Republicans (Al Gore as VP had to cast the deciding vote).

[edit on 13-3-2005 by LNJAXFL]


LNJAXFL, if you revisit my first post you will notice that I am talking about the City of Columus, Ohio. At one time they had a complete ban on so called assault rifles and the ban eventually expired. The city council is now bringing forth legislature to ban them again. Please do your homework before posting.

This following goes to show that criminals will get guns no matter what type of laws you pass especially in a free society.


Black Market Guns -- Lessons from Hong Kong

by Angel Shamaya
KeepAndBearArms.com

Hong Kong has some of the strictest anti-gun laws in the world. Gun smugglers can expect to be executed for their trade. Possession of a gun can get you imprisoned for life, or simply killed. It's a police state; only the police and criminals have guns.

Fortunately, unlike some other countries, Hong Kong's press doesn't try to hide the fact that plenty of guns are smuggled into the country. In Living in the Shadow of the Gun (July 3, 2001, Hong Kong iMail Newspapers), Lara Wozniak, reveals with candor just how bad the Hong Kong black market gun problem truly is. While she says people pay as much as $5000 for an illegal firearm there, she explains that "you might not have to even spend a $10 coin on a gun if you are purchasing a big drug shipment." A tenspot for a criminal, while lawful citizens face lengthy jail terms or a bullet in the head if they are caught possessing a gun for defense against Hong Kong's brazen underworld thugs.


Article



HK to stop inflow of guns after shooting case
2005-02-21 00:24:16 XinhuaEnglish

HONG KONG, Feb. 21(Xinhuanet)-- Hong Kong's Secretary for Security Ambrose Lee Monday voiced his grave concern about Sunday's shooting case and pledged that Hong Kong police will do their utmost to stop the inflow of guns into Hong Kong illegally.

Lee said the shooting case, the second involving guns in Hong Kong in less than one month, has drawn great attention of the HongKong Special Administrative Region government and the Hong Kong police.

Hong Kong police is looking into the robbery and shooting of a 49-year-old man in a Causeway Bay restaurant Sunday, and will do their utmost to stop the inflow of guns into Hong Kong illegally, he said.

At 4:15 p.m. Sunday the culprit went into a restaurant on HysanAvenue and reportedly fired one shot at the victim at the staircase when the latter was leaving after a meal. It is believedthe culprit struggled with the victim. He fled afterwards and the victim's watch was reported missing.

The victim has been sent to Queen Mary Hospital with abdominal injuries.

The culprit, about 1.73 meters and strongly built, was last seen wearing a light-colored knitted hat, a white mask, a coat anda pair of dark trousers.


Article

I was going to buy one of these just before the importation of them was made illegal. I am talking about the semi-auto civilian model.





posted on Mar, 13 2005 @ 07:50 PM
link   
Hey Guys,

First of all, let's credit Black Flag for what he or she or it is... A TROLL - as proven by the following quote:


I posted this here as bait...

I knew one of you - what to call you in this case? - GUN NUT's would take the bait.

Predictable.


Time to add one more to my ignore list I suppose, just as I did "Xpert11". Do not be goaded by ploys such as this!

Second, for all you utopian existants that want to push that crap you are spewing about how less guns = less crime, how about backing it up with some verifiable facts? Don't have any - can't find them? Duh... why does that not surprise me? Because they simply don't exist in the REAL world that the rest of us mere mortals are forced to live in.

If you read my previous posts, I have stated that I am thankful for those of you who live in countries where "no gun" laws work, and that I hope it always continues to be that way. But the FACTS tell a far different story - Britain, Australia, and Canada (just as examples) have all seen their violent crime rates go up as a result of their gun control laws. And please, to whomever the poster was that submitted that Australia's increase in crime was because of an increase in the population, give me a frigging break - did they restrict birth control or advocate wanton sex at the same time as the gun control? Whatever you have been smoking, I want some of it, because it must be some REALLY good stuff! Never mind... because I have a carry permit for a weapon, I have to be a little more responsibile in my actions.

I will post one more quote from my old buddy Thomas Jefferson, which is:

"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms... disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve to encourage rather than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man."

Why don't all you "ANTI-GUN NUTS" put that one in your pipe and smoke it?



posted on Mar, 13 2005 @ 09:20 PM
link   
I'm pretty liberal in my beliefs but one thing I wish people would drop is this whole "gun control" nonsense a gun is a piece of machinery nothing more nothing less. I shouldnt have to be rich to qualify to purchase a piece of machinery nor should said piece of machinery be restricted because it has a doohickey on it that makes it look more dangerous to the weak willed .

All guns are equaly lethal a .22 calibre target pistol will kill you just a as dead as an overhyped politically unpopular assault rifle. Some people will draw the conclusion that since all guns are equally dangerous that they should all be banned. To this I say that the steak knife I have in my kitchen drawer will kill you just as dead as a bullet from any weapon.

I can kill you just as dead with a multitude of items I have in my house items ranging from knives to exercise weights to two by fours should we ban these as well? Just remember that you'll be every bit as dead if a killer beats you to death with his bare hands as you would if you'd been shot in the face with a .50 barret rifle. I think the key item to remember here is that the violent component in the equation isnt the gun its the criminal using it. A criminal will find a way to commit a crime whether he has a gun or not. My living in the harsh antigun environment of NYC hasnt made me any safer in life I'm still as likely to be killed by a criminal as I would be in a society where weapons grew on trees and were readily available. Oh wait a minute they do...:@@

What really irks me is the fact that these gun control people dont even know the law. They're just reacting out of fear not out of logic or sense of social justice. I was watching the news the other day about a press conference some people were having about the FN FiveseveN (a grounbreaking pistol which deserves serious legal debate in my opinion regardless of the idiots forcing the issue) and how it should be banned out of hand in New York and the Metro area . The idiot actually confused the first ammendment with the second. Does this sound like the type of person you would want drafting important laws in your society?



posted on Mar, 13 2005 @ 10:19 PM
link   
AS AN AMERICAN CITIZEN ALWAYS BELIEVES THE SECOND AMENDMENT THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS,SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.
THERE WILL ALWAYS BE SOME DUMB ASS POLITICIAN THAT WILL TRY TO TAKE GUNS AWAY VIA SPECIAL INTEREST GROUPS FOR THEIR BIG $ & VOTES



posted on Mar, 14 2005 @ 04:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by Ruins

I was raised around guns so to me they are no more dangerous than a hammer or any other tool. It all comes down to how they are used.

There are no gun accidents, only lapses in peoples judgment, decisions or reasoning.


Compare a hammer or any other tool is simply too silly.
A weapon is a tool, YES.....a tool created to kill.

If you carry a weapon its for only one purpose, to shoot someone.
Doesnt matter if its self defense or not, NOBODY has the right to make justice with its own hands.

You said;
"There are no gun accidents, only lapses in peoples judgment, decisions or reasoning."
Do you(ppl,not only this member) think that you are perfect and can have PERFECT judgment, decision and reasoning ALL THE TIME ?
NO, nobody is perfect...and like this you increase alot the accident situations.


Im not against weapons and i used most of time for my job.
But the ideas of some ppl , thinking that weapons are safe is WRONG !



posted on Mar, 14 2005 @ 07:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by Krpano

Compare a hammer or any other tool is simply too silly.
A weapon is a tool, YES.....a tool created to kill.

Exactly. Firearms are almost the perfect personal weapon-- very lethal and relatively easy to use, which is what makes them a good thing for peaceful people to own.




If you carry a weapon its for only one purpose, to shoot someone.
Doesnt matter if its self defense or not, NOBODY has the right to make justice with its own hands.

Wrong. Self defense is a right as essential as life, liberty or property. If you don't have the right to defend your rights, your other rights amount to absolutely nothing. Situations happen from time to time when you can't wait for the authorities to handle the problem, such as when there is an immediate threat to your person. It's either this or a police state, and we are not going to tolerate a police state like the subjects of the UK have.



NO, nobody is perfect...and like this you increase alot the accident situations.


You know what? It's worth it. The vast majority of instances where guns are used to save lives and property, often without even firing a shot, are worth the occasional accidental death. Take away the guns and you put many more lives at risk than if you leave people armed.

Far more people die from automobiles, but that risk seems to be justified by the massive convenience conferred by having a car.

Going back to the subject of an assault weapons ban, it's a deceptive attempt to follow the Second Amendment literally while evading its purpose. Letting the people have guns, but denying them any that are too large, too accurate, have too long of a range, or hold too many bullets leaves them outgunned against anyone who doesn't mind using the black market, effectively infringing on their right of self defense. Banning scary looking cosmetic/ergonomic features is just ridiculous.


This continues to be a problem because while the federal assault weapons ban has expired, there are localities that still maintain similar bans that stand against the Constitution, and are therefore illegal, which means the citizens of states like California, New York, and Illinois are failing in their duty to keep the government under control. If you're wondering what the later consequences of such behavior might be, just look across the pond to the UK.



posted on Mar, 16 2005 @ 11:41 AM
link   
^^
You are not in the old western anymore.
The laws and justice exist to avoid ppl to do justice with their own hands.

Watch this

Thats a fully trainned person....if accidents happen with those ppl, imagine with anyone else.



[edit on 16-3-2005 by Krpano]



posted on Mar, 16 2005 @ 11:55 AM
link   
Didn't want to read all 10pages of this post but, regarding assault weapons.....What does the average citizen need with an assault weapon? What are you going to do with it? I underestand we have a right to bear arms, but we also have a right to judge some "arms" to be more than necessary for the average person to have. Should I be allowed to have Lars Rockets and C4 and hand grenades and land mines, as well as these assault weapons?? I would think I'd be watched by the FBI?CIA if I did.

Seriously....you gun freaks. What do you need an assault weapon for? Do you use them to hunt? Because if so, that's pretty gross and pathetic. Why not just take an animal you want to kill and put it in a cage and then shoot it....sounds about as difficult as killing an animal with an assault weapon.



posted on Mar, 16 2005 @ 12:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zabilgy
Didn't want to read all 10pages of this post but, regarding assault weapons.....What does the average citizen need with an assault weapon? What are you going to do with it? I underestand we have a right to bear arms, but we also have a right to judge some "arms" to be more than necessary for the average person to have. Should I be allowed to have Lars Rockets and C4 and hand grenades and land mines, as well as these assault weapons?? I would think I'd be watched by the FBI?CIA if I did.

Seriously....you gun freaks. What do you need an assault weapon for? Do you use them to hunt? Because if so, that's pretty gross and pathetic. Why not just take an animal you want to kill and put it in a cage and then shoot it....sounds about as difficult as killing an animal with an assault weapon.


Seriously .... Using a term like "you gun freaks" does nothing to further your cause. It only serves to show your frustration.

I happen to own a number of firearms. Having never, ever shot anyone outside of possible military service, I find myself feeling rather good about that, and not a gun freak.

I am a freeman, born and raised in the US. I have firearms because I choose to, and the bill of rights guarantees that right. Not seeing life through your eyes or in your fashion really give you no reason to use terms that you consider derogatory, in order to try and prove a point that I do not see nor do I wish to.

I think, however, Iwill keep my firearms, just in case someone of your bent but with more nefarious purpose comes into power. As to what I own? If you never break into my house with evil on your mnd, you won't ever have to worry about them.



posted on Mar, 16 2005 @ 03:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zabilgy
What does the average citizen need with an assault weapon?


Self defense from below-average citizens with assault weapons.


What are you going to do with it? I underestand we have a right to bear arms, but we also have a right to judge some "arms" to be more than necessary for the average person to have. Should I be allowed to have Lars Rockets and C4 and hand grenades and land mines, as well as these assault weapons??


Explosives aren't very useful against most criminals, but there's always the off chance that the people trying to murder or rob you could have armored vehicles, or a small army. They might come in handy in such a situation. I'm talking about a number of possible situations-- The Chinese invade, Stalinists take over Washington, or some kind of large Mafia organization starts getting bold. I don't have any explosives, but I'm not going to complain if my neighbor thinks he needs some. All I care is that he stores the stuff properly.


I would think I'd be watched by the FBI?CIA if I did.

You're not going to prevent those agencies from turning into the KGB if you back down from exercising your rights at a mere 'being watched'.



Seriously....you gun freaks. What do you need an assault weapon for? Do you use them to hunt? Because if so, that's pretty gross and pathetic. Why not just take an animal you want to kill and put it in a cage and then shoot it....sounds about as difficult as killing an animal with an assault weapon.


Oh, I bet you're a real man. You hunt with spears like our ancestors did, right?


And of course, spears are not "assault weapons"... yeah, sure. The phrase is redundant. Any half-decent weapon had better be capable of being used for assailing something. If it can't be used for assault, it's not a weapon. Understand?



posted on Mar, 26 2005 @ 08:20 PM
link   


Paul Hager: "One of the arguments that had been made against gun control was that an armed citizenry was the final bulwark against tyranny. My response had been that untrained, lightly-armed non-soldiers couldn't prevail against a modern army. I had concluded that the qualitative difference in firepower was such that all of the previous rules of guerilla war no longer applied. Both Vietnam and Afghanistan demonstrated that wasn't true. Repelling an armed invasion is not something that American citizens are likely to face, but the possibility of a despotic government coming to power is not wholly unthinkable. One of the sequellae of Vietnam was the rise of the Khmer Rouge and slaughter of perhaps a million Cambodian citizens. Those citizens, like the Jews in Germany or the Armenians in Turkey, were unarmed and thus utterly and completely defenseless against police and paramilitary. An armed minority was able to kill and terrorize unarmed victims with total impunity." – Paul Hagar, "Why I Carry"





George Mason: "To disarm the people is the most effectual way to enslave them."





Adolf Hitler: "The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subject races to possess arms. History shows that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by so doing. Indeed, I would go so far as to say that the supply of arms to the underdogs is a sine qua non for the overthrow of any sovereignty. So let's not have any native militia or native police. German troops alone will bear the sole responsibility for the maintenance of law and order throughout the occupied Russian territories, and a system of military strong-points must be evolved to cover the entire occupied country." Adolf Hitler, dinner talk on April 11, 1942, quoted in Hitler's Table Talk 1941-44: His Private Conversations, Second Edition (1973), Pg. 425-426. Translated by Norman Cameron and R. H. Stevens.





Mao Tse Tung: "All political power comes from the barrel of a gun. The communist party must command all the guns, that way, no guns can ever be used to command the party." (Problems of War and Strategy, Nov 6 1938, published in "Selected Works of Mao Zedong," 1965)



posted on Mar, 26 2005 @ 10:42 PM
link   


What does the average citizen need with an assault weapon?


First of all, "assault weapons" specifically means rifles capable of fully automatic fire ("ratatatatat" like a machine gun, not "bang! bang!" like a semi-autmatic), which the average citizen already cannot get.

Second of all you can take "assault weapon" from that sentence, and replace it with "sports car" or "private plane", and still sound reasonable at first examination. But the burden of proof in a free society should be on the person who wants to ban a thing, rather than on the one who wants to obtain it.



posted on Mar, 27 2005 @ 01:12 AM
link   


I dont know why you Americans see the need to obtain military hardware for personal use. Why not use some common sense and stay out of situations where possession of a AK-47 is neccesary. I have never required military stlye hardware to assist me in my daily life. Why not park and Abrams in the garage too, just in case.


Here in Australia it only took one wacko to off 38 ppl with a semi-automatic rifle and they were banned henceforth. You would not believe what we have to go through to legally posess even a simple air rifle. Consequently possesion of weapons is limited to professionals, criminals and collectors.

"Hey Raylene, Ahm a goin down to the supermahhket. Theyres a speshul on 7.62mm ammo. Do you want me to pick you up a belt for that MG-42 you take to square dances?"

"Nahh Baybeee. They're all bringin bazookas now, see iffn you caint pick me up an M-202 while you're theyre. Mah toenails are gettin lawng agin."



posted on Mar, 27 2005 @ 04:37 AM
link   
What will it take?

How many lives?

How long until assualt weapons no longer have the protection of a legal document?

How long until weaponry like this is in the past, like slavery?

How many more innocent lives have to be snuffed out until this farce is erased from our history?



posted on Mar, 27 2005 @ 09:16 AM
link   


Sigmund Freud: "A fear of weapons is a sign of retarded sexual and emotional maturity.





Admiral Yamamoto: "You cannot invade mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind each blade of grass." Advising Japan's military leaders of the futility of an invasion of the mainland United States because of the widespread availability of guns. It has been theorized that this was a major contributing factor in Japan's decision not to land on North America early in the war when they had vastly superior military strength. This delay gave our industrial infrastructure time to gear up for the conflict and was decisive in our later victory.





Ted Nugent: "To my mind it is wholly irresponsible to go into the world incapable of preventing violence, injury, crime, and death. How feeble is the mindset to accept defenselessness. How unnatural. How cheap. How cowardly. How pathetic."





U.S. Sen. Malcolm Wallop: "The ruling class doesn't care about public safety. Having made it very difficult for States and localities to police themselves, having left ordinary citizens with no choice but to protect themselves as best they can, they now try to take our guns away. In fact they blame us and our guns for crime. This is so wrong that it cannot be an honest mistake." - former U.S. Sen. Malcolm Wallop (R-Wy.)


If you noticed, the theme for most of the above quotes is the need keep government in check by having an armed populous. If we have to endure gun related deaths in order to achieve that goal than that is the price we have to pay. That price is small compared to the alternative. For those that say an armed populous cannot fight back against a Government check out htis quote.




Paul Hager: "One of the arguments that had been made against gun control was that an armed citizenry was the final bulwark against tyranny. My response had been that untrained, lightly-armed non-soldiers couldn't prevail against a modern army. I had concluded that the qualitative difference in firepower was such that all of the previous rules of guerilla war no longer applied. Both Vietnam and Afghanistan demonstrated that wasn't true. Repelling an armed invasion is not something that American citizens are likely to face, but the possibility of a despotic government coming to power is not wholly unthinkable. One of the sequellae of Vietnam was the rise of the Khmer Rouge and slaughter of perhaps a million Cambodian citizens. Those citizens, like the Jews in Germany or the Armenians in Turkey, were unarmed and thus utterly and completely defenseless against police and paramilitary. An armed minority was able to kill and terrorize unarmed victims with total impunity." – Paul Hagar, "Why I Carry"



posted on Mar, 27 2005 @ 09:20 AM
link   
Prevention is better than cure cryptorsa.

I see that you are making some valid points but why not keep these arms in a cache if it is so neccessary to have them? People need to be made more accountable than ever when it comes to weapons of any kind. The SS is not roaming your streets and you will know about it before they arrive so why not lock the guns away til then?



posted on Mar, 27 2005 @ 09:35 AM
link   
The SS creaped up on the Germans. The SS came from within. The Nazis passed laws in order to strip its populous of arms before they took total control.

In the US we have some of our Represatives making statements like this;



Diane Feinstein: "US Senator, If I could have banned them all - 'Mr. and Mrs. America turn in your guns' - I would have!" (Statement on TV program 60 Minutes, Feb 5 1995)


In the 90,s we had the Government use the military against its citizens in Waco, Texas and at Ruby Ridge.

I wish that I could totally trust my Government to do what is best for me or at least best for the populous as a whole but time has proven that I can't trust them. Money and power corrupts. An armed populous is an equalizer. It would be difficult for a form of Government to take over due to the fact that Americans are well armed. I am personally apalled at people that murder others especially when they do it with a firearm since I feel that the second amendmant protects all of my other rights given to me in the Constitution.



posted on Mar, 28 2005 @ 02:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by cryptorsa1001

I wish that I could totally trust my Government to do what is best for me or at least best for the populous as a whole but time has proven that I can't trust them. Money and power corrupts. An armed populous is an equalizer. It would be difficult for a form of Government to take over due to the fact that Americans are well armed. I am personally apalled at people that murder others especially when they do it with a firearm since I feel that the second amendmant protects all of my other rights given to me in the Constitution.


Interesting sentiments cryptorsa. Are there many other Americans who share you're views on this topic? Is the support of an armed populous coming from groups with similar intentions or are many supporters simply pursuing their own agenda? I have a basic level of mistrust for government which spawns for similar reasons as you have stated here (the corrupting influence of power and money) yet I have never felt that mistrust s deeply as to require a weapon to defend myself. Are there any specific personal reasons why you feel the need to be armed or are you just preparing for a forseeable contingency? I do not expect you to provide a detailed response to that last question if you feel uncomfortable in doing so but this topic has aroused my curiosity.



posted on Mar, 28 2005 @ 03:32 AM
link   
If the 2nd Amendment didnt not exist, what would the justification be?

Without the somewhat dubious protection of the Constitution, what argument would you use defend the poliferation of assualt rifles amongst the populace?



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join