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: 15
0
<< 12  13  14    16  17  18 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 31 2005 @ 02:19 PM
link   
assault rifle
n.

Any of various automatic or semiautomatic rifles designed for individual use in combat.

This is the definition of assault rifle on dictionary.com.

I tend to belong in your camp xmotex but this is what the general public calls them so I have used the same term as to not confuse people.

[edit on 31-3-2005 by cryptorsa1001]




posted on Mar, 31 2005 @ 03:50 PM
link   
Well, that's not the defenition the military uses anyway.

There is a world of difference between a fully automatic rifle and a semiautomatic one, and the people who clamor for a ban seem to consistently ignore it.



posted on Mar, 31 2005 @ 04:01 PM
link   


There is a world of difference between a fully automatic rifle and a semiautomatic one, and the people who clamor for a ban seem to consistently ignore it.


Well...maybe if the person that opened this thread didn't call it "Banning ASSAULT weapons again".....we wouldn't have all this confusion.

I asked "Why do you need assault wepons" and was told why do people like to speed or ride motorcycles or do other unsafe things.....nice un-answer. People like to speed because of the rush. People like motorcycles because they are fun and again the dangerous aspect is fun.

Give me an answer as to why you would NEED an assault weapon? No one seems to want to answer that question!! Is the dangerous aspect fun? Like if you point it at your neighbors or shoot their dog or something? Or sit in the back of your buddy's pick up truck and drive around town shootin' up mailboxes.....I'm serious. I'm just curious what the need for these weapons is.



posted on Mar, 31 2005 @ 04:09 PM
link   
There is, strictly speaking, no need for them at all, just like there is no need for sportscars, private planes, or motorcycles. That there is not a need for a thing is an insufficient reason to ban it.

That is the point I was tring to make.

[edit on 31-3-2005 by xmotex]



posted on Mar, 31 2005 @ 04:22 PM
link   
Xmotex, the military has its own words for just about everything. The military calls pants BDU’s as an example. I have used the term that is used by the media and the term that is used in the laws passed by individual states and the Federal Government concerning these types of firearms.

Zabilgy, there are quite a few url’s listed on this post stating the reasons for civilians to own assault weapons.



posted on Mar, 31 2005 @ 05:13 PM
link   
Why does the government make us so resticted. I personally prefer the theroy Israel(excuse the spelling) used back when it first got it's independence. They didn't have much af an army so to protect themsleves the invented the Uzi and gave it to farmers on the egyptian border. Their training was,"trigger is here. see an egyptian soldier, point, and shoot."
Now how come the US doesn't give us an Uzi or an M16 of someting. How Unfair



posted on Mar, 31 2005 @ 05:39 PM
link   
If you point your car at someone and press the gas, you will most likely kill them.
If you point a gun at someone and pull the trigger, you will most likely kill them.

So why is that we allow just about anyone to drive around a 3000-4000 pound steerable projectile at 70+ MPH that with 100 or so pounds of combustible liquid strapped to it? Because it is convenient for us. Far more people die every year from car crashes than they do from firearms, but there is no movement to outlaw the automobile. Why is this? I will venture to guess that the majority of you drive or make use of public transportation fairly frequently. As such, you see the value of the vehicle in your everyday life, either as a tool to get from place to place or as a source of recreation (sports cars, motorcycles, etc.). But neither vehicles or guns are a need; you could survive without them.

I think what it comes down to is that you don't have a need for a gun, or any desire to own one, so why should anyone else? If you can't justify it, how can someone else? Despite the best efforts to provide you with reasons why we own "assault rifles" (recreation, target shooting/competition, defense, hunting, etc.), you either ignore them or refuse to recognize them as valid. Well, whatever. If after fifteen pages of discussion you can't find one reason why someone would want to own an assault rifle than I doubt I will be the one to change your mind.

If you are anti-gun that is a personal choice. If you choose not to own firearms because you find them inherently unsafe, or for whatever reason, I can respect that. By the same token, I ask that you respect my choice as well. It's when people argue that we need to ban guns in whatever capacity that I become suspicious. Just because you see no need for the gun is not sufficient reason to take it away from me.



Originally posted by Jakko
It's a never ending story like this.
Untill people no longer feel the need to own guns, and gun factories get closed down because guns are no longer in great demand, untill someone takes the first step, it will never end.
The "legal" guns and the illegal ones.

Do you really think that making guns illegal for the average civilian will decrease supply? Russia is ready to supply Venezuela with 100,000 AK47s. Colt and HK primarily deal with military and LEO sales around the globe. How about FN Herstal? Or Beretta? Glock?

Making guns illegal will do very little to make them harder for criminals to get, it will do everything to make sure you are defenseless against them. All the laws in the world don’t mean a thing to someone who is intent on breaking them.



Originally posted by Jakko
How about "people with less rights are not shooting eachother at schools".
It is so ridiculously easy to get a gun in the USA, that incidents with depressed unhappy children at schools are hardly unpredictable.
[edit on 28-3-2005 by Jakko]

No, your right. They stab each other instead (2) (3). America is not the only country with school violence, and guns are not used exclusivley.


EDIT: formatting and clarification

[edit on 3/31/05 by para]



posted on Mar, 31 2005 @ 06:04 PM
link   
Here are two different weapons. the first one is classified as an assault weapon and the second one is not.






Now, can you tell the difference. That is one reason that the law is so stupid. they say it is to protect people by prohibiting the ownership of these guns but yet they allow guns with the same functionality to remain legal. It is my opinion that the reason they are trying to take the so called assault rifles is becasue they have an agenda. That agenda is the elimination of firearms ownership accept for single shot type of firearms.


[edit on 31-3-2005 by cryptorsa1001]



posted on Apr, 1 2005 @ 06:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by para
Do you really think that making guns illegal for the average civilian will decrease supply? Russia is ready to supply Venezuela with 100,000 AK47s. Colt and HK primarily deal with military and LEO sales around the globe. How about FN Herstal? Or Beretta? Glock?


Yes, looking at my own country at least.
Maybe what I would really want is just a global decrease in the amount of gunfactories, and it seems to me the US is not really helping.
I think either ALL countries should bann weapons, or ALL countries should allow them. If rules change a lot per country, the countries that bann weapons will have a hard time keeping their country gunfree anyways.



posted on Apr, 1 2005 @ 07:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by Amuk

Originally posted by Black Flag
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?



Dubious protection of the Constitution?

The Document our entire country is built upon is "Dubious"?

THAT is why we need assualt rifles, to protect this "Dubious" Document from those who think like that


Let's give you a mulligan. Read that again. There is nothing in my post referring to the Constitution as "dubious".

What is dubious is the interpretation of the 2nd Amendment by gun "enthusiasts" who highjack it to justify their "right" to own an assault weapon.

People who refuse to acknowledge the context or intent of the Amendment so they can enroll it in their otherwise undefensable position.

There is nothing in the 2nd Amendment protecting the right of individual citizens owning assault weapons. Any interpretation otherwise is dubious.

SO...

Lets try again:

What is the justification for allowing the proliferation of assault weapons?

[edit on 1-4-2005 by Black Flag]



posted on Apr, 1 2005 @ 09:38 AM
link   
What is the justification for preventing law abiding citizens from owning them?

Prove to me that legally owned "assault rifles" (semiautomatic rifles) are used in any signifigant percentage of gun related crimes, please.

Some justification for making criminals out of thousands of law abiding citizens would be nice, beyond your dubious and unsupported view of the meaning of the Second Amendment.

Or do you consider your position so self-evidently correct that it requires no justificaion?

It's funny (and alarmingly inconsistent) how people who will (rightly) rail against the destruction of civil liberties in say, the Patriot Act, will gladly jump at the chance to supress those civil liberties when it comes to gun ownership, simply because they sterotype gun owners as being on the other side of a political/cultural divide. Much like the rightwingers who think it's OK to supress the rights of Arab Americans, because they are currently the cultural enemy du jour for the right.

Why is it so important to you to have the power to determine what other ctizens can or can not own? Is it really because you think they represent a signifigant threat to you (despite a lack of any evidence), or it it simply a reflexive way to strike back at those you consider political opponents?



[edit on 1-4-2005 by xmotex]



posted on Apr, 1 2005 @ 09:46 AM
link   
From what I read, assult rifles are used in only "one-fifth of one percent (.20%) of all violent crimes" and only only 2 -- 3.8 % of mass murder cases. Also as pointed out, many of these assult rifles are not legal for use in hunting deer since the caliber is considered too small to kill the animal.

Source Article



posted on Apr, 1 2005 @ 11:11 AM
link   
One of my pics is missing from my last post and I am unable to edit it. What gives?



posted on Apr, 1 2005 @ 11:35 AM
link   
Zabilgy, answer me just this one simple question:

If, as you say, it would be better if only the police and military had assault weapons, how exactly is the power of the government going to be kept in check? I wouldn't put too much faith in democracy. After all, if an assault weapon ban were to go down again you can be sure that the majority of voters have put safety above liberty already.



posted on Apr, 2 2005 @ 06:11 AM
link   
I am interested in an honest dialogue on this subject to better understand both sides of the issue, but it seems almost impossible.

The polarization, anger and rhetoric on BOTH sides seems to lead to nothing more than each side talking AT each other. Spouting stats, sound bites and the justifications of others - mostly lobbyists for either side.

Anyone interested in a real, honest debate?



posted on Apr, 2 2005 @ 09:40 AM
link   
I'll have an honest dialogue with you.



posted on Apr, 2 2005 @ 11:02 AM
link   


If, as you say, it would be better if only the police and military had assault weapons, how exactly is the power of the government going to be kept in check? I wouldn't put too much faith in democracy. After all, if an assault weapon ban were to go down again you can be sure that the majority of voters have put safety above liberty already.


I said military..not police. I'm not sure I trust the police with any type of guns. How is the power of the government kept in check now? It's not. Who's running this country? Not the government. So if you think assault weapons are going to help protect us from our own government, you're talking gibberish. Having an assault weapon will keep our government in check? Explain that to me!

I have no faith in democracy. There is no democracy in this country any longer and there hasn't been for a long time.

Once again, all you gun nuts are just afraid that if "the man" takes away your BIG guns, eventually he's going to want to take away all your guns.

And whoever compared a car to a gun....well, now that is humorous.



posted on Apr, 2 2005 @ 12:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by cryptorsa1001
One of my pics is missing from my last post and I am unable to edit it. What gives?

I don't know what happened to your second picture, but you only have a two hour window to edit a post before that little edit box goes away.

Hope this helps.



posted on Apr, 2 2005 @ 06:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zabilgy


So if you think assault weapons are going to help protect us from our own government, you're talking gibberish. Having an assault weapon will keep our government in check? Explain that to me!


Well, if a bloc of citizens, suppose 1 million of them, had said assault weapons, and then actually threatened to use them from time to time, then wouldn't the government think twice on some things?



Once again, all you gun nuts are just afraid that if "the man" takes away your BIG guns, eventually he's going to want to take away all your guns.


It is not difficult to understand... By prohibiting the most effective types of weapons to civilians, you reduce their ability to stand up against an oppressive government significantly, while sidestepping the alarms that would go off if you actually banned all guns. Whether it's done deliberately with the intent to ban everything else later or not is irrelevant. The fact is that banning "assault weapons" guarantees the fact that the civilians will be outgunned by the military, and renders them utterly dependent on the government whenever such firepower should be necessary to handle a problem. It forces the people into a position where they have to trust the government with their lives, a force too big and impersonal to react to all problems. What happens when the government itself is the problem, or the problem is one the government refuses to take care of?



posted on Apr, 5 2005 @ 02:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by cryptorsa1001
I'll have an honest dialogue with you.


Hey, excellent.

I know it has been a while, but are you still keen?

If so, I am still interested on my side.

Cheers.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 12  13  14    16  17  18 >>

log in

join