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: 8
0
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 9 2005 @ 11:48 PM
link   
cryptorsa1001 I wouldnt trust the government as far as I could poke a stick. fortunately the likes of neighborhood watch dosnt need government involvement.
I agree with you for the most part people in the wildness are more friendly.
Just because I dont think guns are the answer dosnt mean that I dont think people should take some responsibility for there personal safety weather it be locking car doors or avoiding a dark alley at night.




posted on Feb, 10 2005 @ 02:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by Black Flag
Hypothetical question:
Which would result in fewer deaths across the country?
1. If there were no guns, or almost none.
or
2. If almost everyone had one.
Be honest. Which would result in fewer deaths?


IF there were -no- guns to be had, legally or illegally, then there would be fewer deaths. I am not uncomfortable answering your question because it is a red herring- it is irrelevant. Nothing about an assault weapons ban serves to eliminate the availability of illegally obtained weapons, which are already the cause of most gun related deaths.
I also need to stress that street violence would not end as a result of any firearm ban, and that is a HUGE source of crime-related death. If low-life gang members can't shoot you they'll stab you. I have known or known of 3 people who were killed with knives, and 1 who was shot.

You have also asked that we bring the topic specifically back to assaut weapons, fair play. First we need a definition. Assault rifles are those designed for combat and should be solely defined by full-auto or 3-shot burst capability. However because the "ugly gun law" estabished other standards, I will be referring to both the true and legal standards.

1. The right to bear arms is generic on purpose. The founding fathers did not say "The right to bear arms as approved by future laws", "The right to bear arms less sophisticated than those used by the military" etc. The founding fathers had just fought a war against their government using their privately owned weapons. Their intent was clearly to keep the citizenry armed and capable of matching government forces so that the government ruled only by consent. Back then, your town could pool funds to acquire the artillery of the day for the town's defense. I believe that if the people of my city feel the need and vote to pay the taxes to fund it, we should be able to buy a couple tanks and a small battery of howitzers.

2. Right now ALMOST ALL assault weapons used for criminal purposes are obtained illegally through foreign smugglers. It's not a domestic weapon like the M-14 or the AR-15 that's causing all the problems on the street- it's the AK-47 which is coming in illegally from China and other nations right along with our drug supply.

3. The availability of assault weapons to law abiding citizens becomes a deterrent. It is possible for a cool-headed shooter with a revolver to engage and kill someone who has an assault rifle, but that's the exception to the rule, and that certainly isn't a thought which deters gang members.
I have lived in places where gunfights occure occasionally. Suppose I'd had an AR-15 and could have stepped out onto my porch and started killing shooters whenever there was a driveby or a shooting at the dealer's house down the street? Doesn't matter how many of them there are- they aren't gonna be shooting back at me very well if I'm pumping rounds at them at a right rate of speed with a high level of accuracy, which I have been taught to do. Do you think violence on my block would have gone up or down if I had done that to the gang-bangers who brought trouble?



posted on Feb, 10 2005 @ 12:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by Black Flag
What has driven the fear into you?

What would drive someone to feel that way? I am serious, that is not a rhetorical question, I really am interested.


I am not sure how to fully answer your questions, but here goes.

My brother in law was in (MACVSOG) Special Forces. He ended doing low-level type of stuff for the CIA. He told me enough to know how my Government really works.

Here is an example of how the government works here in the US that I have witnessed myself. We the people in Ohio voted on a seat belt law. We the people of Ohio voted the law down because we felt that it was our right to decide whether we wanted to wear the darn thing or not and we did not want law enforcement to be able to pull us over and give us a ticket for not wearing our seatbelt. The Feds stepped in and said if Ohio did not enact the law that all federal dollars for highway building and repair would not be disbursed to Ohio. The State of Ohio decided to enact the law against the wishes of its citizens. Does not sound too alarming by itself. They promised that law enforcement would not just pull you over and give you a ticket for not wearing the seatbelt. They said they would just give a ticket if they pull you over for something else and see you are not wearing your seatbelt. They honored that for a few years. Then they said if they see you driving down the road they could pull you over and give you a ticket. Then they said they could randomly pull drivers over to see if they are wearing their seatbelt. Now when they pull you over they want to search your vehicle to make sure of the safety of the cop pulling you over. Now they want to have a dog run through you vehicle to ensure that you do not have any drugs. We the people of Ohio have no legal right to privacy in our vehicles anymore. If you are in your vehicle you can be pulled over at any time and you and your vehicle can be searched even though they do not have probable cause.

Now how does that relate to assault weapons? After the first federal assault weapons ban the government put forth legislature that would set up a commission that could ban any guns that they deemed fit to ban. They also proposed legislature that they wanted to have gun owner’s register their guns which would give the Government (ATF branch) the right to come into your house and search it because you have guns in your house. This would effectively strip the right to privacy away from us in our own homes. Luckily the assault weapons ban expired and the other laws were not passed. These same laws are now being proposed again at the City and State levels. The government will say oh it is just a minor inconvenience (put your seatbelt on) and the next thing you know law enforcement can pull you over anytime they want and search you and your private property without probable cause. What would happen if gun bans end up going the same way the seatbelt law went?

Another thing is the Government illegally using the military to kill men, women and kids at waco. That was outright murder. Then there was Ruby Ridge were a government agent sniper shop a woman while holding a baby in her arms. After these 2 incidents no one was ever fired. Some of them were actually promoted.

So I fear the government because they are trying to gain more and more control over my life (stripping my rights away as they go) and they have murdered its own citizens. Now I have people from other countries telling me I should not own assault weapons. I am under gunned as it is.


[edit on 10-2-2005 by cryptorsa1001]



posted on Feb, 10 2005 @ 12:56 PM
link   
I recently purchased a Yugoslavian SKS. This carbine did not fall under the assault weapons ban, since it is considered a Curio and Relic, being manufactured in the late 50's. This rifle has an attached bayonet, and a Nato Spec grenade launcher.

I was excercizing my 2nd Amendment Rights. I had to give no reason as to "why" I wanted to own this particular weapon. I obtained it legally. I have a wife and two children at home. I am a hard-working American. I am not a gun nut, but I do believe we should excercize our rights, while we still have them. I do not intend to use the weapon illegally; that was not my intent when I purchased it.

Once you give up a right, you will never get it back.

" The day they come for my guns, is the day the Revolution starts."



posted on Feb, 10 2005 @ 02:40 PM
link   
I'm just hoping they don't get the stupid ban back up before I can save some cash. As soon as I'm done getting my vehicles in working order and setting money aside to start school next fall I plan on getting an AR-15. The only problem is that sometimes I forget to lock the door to my house, so if it came around that they wanted to take my weapon away after I got it, there's always a slight chance that it would be stolen and I would be unable to hand it over


Of course, if the government was so out of line that I really needed a gun, I know where to get them. The military has LOTS of guns, and at certain times during training they carry them around with no ammunition in them. Not like it's hard to get on base either.
Reminds me of a line from We Were Soldiers
"Time comes that I need (an M-16) there'll be plenty of 'em lyin' on the ground."



posted on Feb, 10 2005 @ 05:46 PM
link   
You guys are being silly. There are more guns in private hands in the U.S. than the military has. It may be a bizarre assortment of arms but estimates are somewhere around 300 Million. My guess is closer to 700...
If there were ever such a horrible event as a revolution, we would be well armed.



posted on Feb, 10 2005 @ 06:16 PM
link   
Back to "other uses of guns".
I carry a firearm every day during the work week. I'm not a cop, security guard or anything like that. I just happen to work in a bad section of an inner city. There are crack deals going on in front of the building almost constantly! Last year, someone who while being robbed was shot in the head about 100 feet from the entrance to my building.
I have stopped two crimes in the past just by showing a firearm and firing no shots. Thankfully, I have not had to ever shoot and kill anyone.
Guns can and DO prevent crime.... To an extent.

Crime can only be solved by getting to the root of it. Need and Greed.
People have been trying to address these issues for millennia yet everyone thinks they have the "New Solution".
Here is the solution:

Take the humans out of the problem.

Obviously, we don't want to accept that answer so we grasp for little straws like banning things that only some people like.
Alcohol Oops that was a mistake
Tobacco I see a lucrative black market forming to avoid the taxes.
"Drugs". Such a broad term. Anyhow, Drug war is costing BILLIONS with no results but bloated prisons(and associated costs).
Guns Clinton made a huge mistake and his party is still paying the price for that. So called "assault weapons" have such a miniscule effect on the violent crime statistics that the ban was of immesurable difference.
Many of us who are gun owners were PISSED when that law passed even though we didn't own any of the cited firearms. I always wanted an AR-15 for 300 yard target. Even though the Federal law died my "ultra liberal" state passed it's own STRICTER ban right after the Federal went through
.


[edit on 10-2-2005 by Fry2]

[edit on 10-2-2005 by Fry2]



posted on Feb, 10 2005 @ 08:36 PM
link   
Fry2, what state do you live in? I have not heard of any state legislature passing untill now.



posted on Feb, 10 2005 @ 09:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by cryptorsa1001
Fry2, what state do you live in? I have not heard of any state legislature passing untill now.

He's almost certainly from California. We have our own bans here which go above and beyond the federal "ugly gun law".
Under the "ugly gun law" a weapon had to possess 2 "assault weapon characteristics". Under California law, any semi-automatic centerfire rifle with a detatchable magazine and only 1 assault rifle characteristic qualifies as an assault rifle.
Under the federal law I could have had a rifle with a pistol grip as long as that weapon didn't have a bayonet stud, flash supresser, grenade launcher, or one of several other features. In California the only way I could have a pistol grip is if the rifle has a fixed magazine of less than 10 rounds capacity.
A full list of california laws can be seen at the NRA website, here.

www.nraila.org...



posted on Feb, 10 2005 @ 09:29 PM
link   
Man that sucks. Most of the laws are like the federal assault weapons ban except california has more guns listed as being assault weapons. I won't be moving to your neck of the woods anytime soon.



posted on Feb, 10 2005 @ 09:48 PM
link   
this was so long I wasn't going to say anything.

a long time ago, like 15 years ago, I got an FID card.
Never expires...
bought a rifle and a shotgun.

couple years back, I go looking for a LTC, fid has changed.
have to update it every 4 years.

No worries...but hey.....little print....over a 5 round shotgun mag is no longer covered under and FID!

#, I bought the damn thing, have the paper and all.

So now I need a Class B license to carry for a shotgun I bought as a kid.

Come pick it up.
I'll get to that license when I find some time.



posted on Feb, 10 2005 @ 10:34 PM
link   
I don't know, a lot of the areas on the east coast (MD DC, and NY, among others) have pretty strict gun laws. as well. I feel for the CA residents too, you guys have it pretty bad. So far in Washington we have it pretty easy, but the new state-wide ban that was proposed would define an assualt weapon as having any ONE of the previously defined "evil" features, plus we would have to submit to annual searches of our homes to keep our rifles. So far they have sucessful at stalling the legislation, but it doesn't mean they will stop trying.

[edit on 2/10/05 by para]



posted on Feb, 10 2005 @ 11:49 PM
link   
Someone with some spare time and money ought to sue California for their illegal legislation.



posted on Feb, 11 2005 @ 07:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by BeefotronX
Someone with some spare time and money ought to sue California for their illegal legislation.


No can do. California is dominated by major cities on the coast, which are overwhelmingly liberal. On top of that guns aren't even the main issue. Everybody votes for whoever will take less of peoples money while giving more of it away. Tax cuts, welfare, abortion, gay rights- that's the winning platform, and you have to turn a blind eye to the border issue because it pisses off union men and conservatives but it makes hispanics and employers happy. As for guns- you get what you get, and since it's a liberal state you usually get somebody who wants to make the bow and arrow standard fare at the shooting range.
Thank god for Arizona. We can always visit the rugged individualists next door to enjoy American freedoms without having to actually move out of our precious welfare state.



posted on Feb, 14 2005 @ 05:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by cryptorsa1001
Fry2, what state do you live in? I have not heard of any state legislature passing untill now.


Here is the list:

Firearms-Assault Weapons List


Algimec Agmi
Armalite AR-180
Australian Automatic Arms SAP Pistol
Auto-Ordnance Thompson type
Avtomat Kalashnikov AK-47 type
Barrett Light-Fifty model 82A1
Beretta AR-70; Bushmaster Auto Rifle and Auto Pistol
Calico models M-900, M-950 and 100-P
Chartered Industries of Singapore SR-88
Colt AR-15 and Sporter
Daewoo K-1, K-2, Max-1 and Max-2
Encom MK-IV, MP-9 and MP-45
Fabrique Nationale FN/FAL, FN/LAR, or FN/FNC
FAMAS MAS 223
Feather AT-9 and Mini-AT
Federal XC-900 and XC-450
Franchi SPAS-12 and LAW-12
Galil AR and ARM
Goncz High-Tech Carbine and High-Tech Long Pistol
Heckler & Koch HK-91, HK-93, HK-94 and SP-89
Holmes MP-83
MAC-10, MAC-11 and MAC-11 Carbine type
Intratec TEC-9 and Scorpion
Iver Johnson Enforcer model 3000
Ruger Mini-14/5F folding stock model only
Scarab Skorpion
SIG 57 AMT and 500 series
Spectre Auto Carbine and Auto Pistol
Springfield Armory BM59, SAR-48 and G-3
Sterling MK-6 and MK-7
Steyr AUG
Street Sweeper and Striker 12 revolving cylinder shotguns
USAS-12; UZI Carbine, Mini-Carbine and Pistol
Weaver Arms Nighthawk
Wilkinson "Linda" Pistol

or


A part or combination of parts designed or intended to convert a
firearm into an assault weapon, or any combination of parts from
which an assault weapon may be rapidly assembed if those parts
are in the possession or under the control of the same person.



from: www.state.ct.us...

Now they are pushing legislation to require a background check for gifts as well as a .50 ban.
Sometimes it's scary to live among sheep.



posted on Feb, 14 2005 @ 06:32 PM
link   
Fry2 What is wrong with giving background checks ?
surely you dont think someone who is mentaly unstable should own a gun. If someone has a crimnal record should own a gun? Im not talking about parking tickets but the likes of armed robbery.
I know what you will say crimes are commited with illegal guns well chances are the gun was legal before it was stolen and found its way into the hands of a crimnal.



posted on Feb, 14 2005 @ 06:53 PM
link   
I'm 120% behind background checks and proficiency testing!
As a matter of fact I think that the handgun permit course I took was too short and lenient.
I'm a member of the NRA and our first and foremost concern is safety. I don't contribute my membership dues for hunting, I don't hunt. I don't contribute for national competionions, I can't afford to enter.
I contribute for three things.
1. That firearm safety will remain a priority with other gun owners.
2. That an American heritage of marksmanship will continue.
3. (The unfortunate three) That America will always remain free from oppression.

In a perfect world no one would require weapons at all. We don't live there.
Think about it.



posted on Feb, 14 2005 @ 07:50 PM
link   
Fry2 ok my bad for a while there I thought you were
against background checks.



posted on Feb, 14 2005 @ 09:03 PM
link   
Right to bear arms.

I worry about a second upcoming wave (first was in 94) of American "assault weapons" bans that could easily snowball into "You have 30 days to surrender each and all firearms to your local police department."
You already know how the national security push is becoming stronger and stronger. Ill leave it at that..



posted on Feb, 14 2005 @ 09:45 PM
link   


You have voted cryptorsa1001 for the Way Above Top Secret award. You have one more vote left for this month.



Great post there with your seatbelt example.


Icould not explain it better myself.



new topics




 
0
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join