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.

 

First Good Example for an Assault Rifle Ban???

page: 21
26
<< 18  19  20    22  23  24 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 4 2017 @ 12:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: sapien82
after reading these replies Im shocked to find that guns , things that are generally sold by the millions every year are so hard wearing compared to other items on the market , in a world where products are built with a shelf life I find it really interesting that guns arent manufactured to break after x amount of years .
They can be restored or fixed with new parts, I find that really strange , odd that manufacturers dont just make guns that cant be tampered with that break after a certain length of time , like every other product on the shelf.


Firearms tend to be extremely durable. You can walk into any pawn shop in my area and half of the firearms in the building will be close to 50 years old, poorly maintained, and yet, aside from a few superficial scratches and a fleck or two of surface rust, in perfect working order once you spend a few minutes cleaning them up.
edit on 4-10-2017 by vor78 because: (no reason given)




posted on Oct, 4 2017 @ 12:44 PM
link   
The ONLY answer is his DIAZEPAM prescription here...blabber.buzz...

GUESS he ran out.
edit on 4-10-2017 by cavtrooper7 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 4 2017 @ 12:47 PM
link   
Bombs can kill 50 and injure 500. We should ban those... oh wait...



posted on Oct, 4 2017 @ 12:49 PM
link   
a reply to: UKTruth

AND SHOOTING people AT ALL with whatever....aw shoot.



posted on Oct, 4 2017 @ 12:55 PM
link   

originally posted by: cavtrooper7
a reply to: UKTruth

AND SHOOTING people AT ALL with whatever....aw shoot.


Damn it - are you saying that shooting people is illegal?????

Maybe there should be a law for guns specifically, instead of the person who uses them... the guns themselves get life in prison if they kill people.
I am sure they would understand and purposely jam if they knew they'd go to jail.
edit on 4/10/2017 by UKTruth because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 4 2017 @ 01:03 PM
link   
a reply to: cavtrooper7

Looking at that list of side effects, its hard for me to avoid the conclusion that it played a major role.



posted on Oct, 4 2017 @ 01:22 PM
link   
a reply to: UKTruth

The CLEVER bastards HID it in BOOKS, who THE HELL would look THERE?



posted on Oct, 4 2017 @ 01:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: JoshuaCox


So is this the first legit example where an assault rifle did more damage than more conventional guns could do???



So...Let's say you are fighting a zombie apocalypse and defending yourself against hordes of zombies.

You have a choice of weapons:

Pencil
Knife
Sword
9mm Luger semi-automatic
Hunting rifle
AR-15 with a bump or slide fire modification to be fully automatic and high-capacity magazine that can hold between 60 and 100 rounds
AK-47 modified to be fully automatic

I guess what always surprises me is when NRA mouthpieces make the argument that anything can be used to kill.

Some wacko in China stabs four people on a train..yada yada.

Sure. But some things are built to kill large numbers of people quickly and efficiently. That shouldn't be a debate rational people engage in.



posted on Oct, 4 2017 @ 01:24 PM
link   
a reply to: vor78

NOW you know why I smoke instead of pills for PTSD and why I am ANGRY that they GIVE this GARBAGE to combat vets.



posted on Oct, 4 2017 @ 01:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: UKTruth
Bombs can kill 50 and injure 500. We should ban those... oh wait...


Nuclear Bombs can kill millions?

But it is the law against murder that keeps people safe.

So why not legalize private possession of nuclear weapons?



posted on Oct, 4 2017 @ 01:26 PM
link   
a reply to: soberbacchus

More a debate about WHO needs to give up things as opposed to ways to address mental health, is THE only rational debate here at all..



posted on Oct, 4 2017 @ 01:29 PM
link   
a reply to: cavtrooper7

The common denominator in virtually all of these cases that the perp was on some kind of meds to control some kind of mental issue he was having. Seems to me that its well past time for Congress to investigate whether or not these meds are causing these people to flip out.



posted on Oct, 4 2017 @ 01:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: soberbacchus

originally posted by: UKTruth
Bombs can kill 50 and injure 500. We should ban those... oh wait...


Nuclear Bombs can kill millions?

But it is the law against murder that keeps people safe.

So why not legalize private possession of nuclear weapons?


Yeah! Trucks and buses can kill and injure hundreds too... ban those!
I'm glad your argument seems to have reached the point it has, though... if nuclear bombs are not allowed for personal possession, why should guns be... brilliant


If you had stopped to think about it you might have realised that nuclear bombs in personal possession cannot be contained and made safe by your average citizen and they have almost no utility beyond mass murder.



posted on Oct, 4 2017 @ 01:33 PM
link   
I'll just say what I told the gf Monday morning when she asked me how I felt on gun control in wake if this incident, and leave it at that-

If the state of Nevada and its citizens decide to vote in stricter laws for their state, then so be it. It's not my state of residence and I have no say what they decide.

But, I DO NOT want the Feds touching a single thing. There has yet to be a federal governing body in my lifetime that I would trust with our 2nd Amendment.



posted on Oct, 4 2017 @ 01:35 PM
link   
a reply to: JoshuaCox

My mongering is mostly directed at China and North Korea, anybody scanning the buffet of my threads would see it quite clearly. I can't recall me ever making one about the threat of Islam. Actually, I am usually in threads defending Islam from the homicidal fantasies of hypocritical bigot Christians if the thread is truly absurd. That's just me though.
Do you find the idea that the mind control theory is preposterous? I think it actually clicks together quite well, and the media is doing their damndest to ignore. But I am going to make a twitter account and post that connection to POTUS, as well as to HRC and see what kind of reaction it may get. The media is always watching, so if I just blame Clinton the theory may be too hot to ignore for those vultures at least to try and spin it as an example of cookoo CT. As long as millinos of people hear or read the theory though, my job is done. That's my goal for this week, get the mind control theory from the scientific breakthrough at UBNY on the radar for America.
a reply to: sapien82
There was a time before guns existed. They were some of the darkest ages of human existence, and innocent people pretty much had zero choice when it came to being robbed, raped and murdered by a small group of bandits, which was quie common, and still is today. The only miracle in hell anybody stodd was if they were some kind of expert swordsman or archer, and even then your odds were down to nothing if there was three or more.


Today, in the age of firearms, a 110 pound little petit beauty can lay down cold six burly drunken individuals who would seek to rob her of her dignity, liberty and pursuit of happiness.


So too can our elders defend themselves from the drug addicted maniacs who are rampant on the streets of Urban Earth without having to have been trained in mixed martials arts for a decade.


Can you imagine trying to live in a world where there are no guns, and then a mass murder by a group of savages with swords axes and daggers triggers a call to eliminate all bladed weapons from existence?? Probably it would not make much sense. Mass murder was pretty common, a lot more common actually in the days before firearms. What does one believe happens when people pillage and loot?? Lots of people die and many women's dignity is stolen from them.

a reply to: soberbacchus


If you try and take on a hoard of zombies with full auto, you will get yourself killed quicker than with semi auto. Especially someone not trained properly and cannot get a grip on their emotions. All you would be doing is burning up your lead turning them to swiss cheese, but they will continue to approach. Shots to the head are much more efficient and effective in a semi-auto capacity. it may not seem like it because of video games like Call of Duty make it look like you can just line them all up and score easy headshots, but the truth is much less favorable to an outcome in that scenario.



posted on Oct, 4 2017 @ 01:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: JoshuaCox
a reply to: face23785

BWAHAHAHA

the only other 67+ old rich white terrorist was right wing..

67+ Rich old white men with hunting licenses are not normally liberals..

I think the most likely is that he is trying to make the history books and is not political.


Uh, most 67+ Rich old white men with hunting licenses are liberal CEOs and Wall Street moguls or lobbyists that use hunting trips as ways to "seal the deal". Or go big game hunting.
(^speculation, just like who I was replying to)
edit on 4-10-2017 by essentialtremors because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 4 2017 @ 01:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: soberbacchus

originally posted by: UKTruth
Bombs can kill 50 and injure 500. We should ban those... oh wait...


Nuclear Bombs can kill millions?

But it is the law against murder that keeps people safe.

So why not legalize private possession of nuclear weapons?


Yeah! Trucks and buses can kill and injure hundreds too... ban those!


You need to pass a test to be licensed to drive a vehicle. Then there are a ton of safety regulations to obey or face legal consequences and we certainly regulate what vehicles can be driven and where they can be driven.


if nuclear bombs are not allowed for personal possession, why should guns be... brilliant


Who said anything about banning "guns"?

How about we acknowledge some guns are more deadly than others? And that some people have no business owning guns?

You seem to be engaging in obtuse thinking. Binary fallacies..

But of course your argument resides there because any rational discussion between BAN and the current lax state of gun regulation is an argument that fails.

edit on 4-10-2017 by soberbacchus because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 4 2017 @ 01:41 PM
link   
a reply to: UKTruthnot to mention you would need at least a decade of study in one of the most complicated subjects science has ever discovered, let alone access to an institution with the capacity to even enrich the material required and put it all together without poisoning yourself to death before even delivering the damn thing!
a reply to: soberbacchusGo figure, the industry and product that requires stringent licensing for the use of a product kills more people than guns do under less strict regulation. I guess firearms really aren't more dangerous than automobiles actually, and I think you just proved it with your statement. The statistics back it up as well.



posted on Oct, 4 2017 @ 01:51 PM
link   
a reply to: soberbacchus

Wow, did you just accuse me of obtuse thinking after comparing nuclear bomb ownership to gun ownership? Good one.



posted on Oct, 4 2017 @ 02:18 PM
link   




top topics



 
26
<< 18  19  20    22  23  24 >>

log in

join