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: 23
26
<< 20  21  22    24 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 5 2017 @ 03:17 PM
link   
a reply to: soberbacchus




Reality clearly demonstrate that a child with a gun usually ends up killing themselves, their parents or friends.


Really? You have no clue, do you? Care to estimate, or even guestimate, how many kids hunt, and/or target practice without ever hurting themselves, their parents, or friends?

Usually?




posted on Oct, 5 2017 @ 04:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: soberbacchus




Of course not, but it is guns that make it possible for people to shoot others.

Often children who don't even know what a gun is end up killing people.


Fire makes it possible to burn others. Knives make it possible to stab others. We could go down the list, banning each, until we are each in a padded cell and hooked up to a happiness machine, free from all fears and finally at peace.


When did I mention a ban? Fire is a natural element. Flame throwers are not.

The standard is not binary. French fries kill if eaten in sufficient quantities to the exclusion of all else.

An AR-15 rifle modified to be fully automatic is not a knife.

I do have sympathy for those unable to muster enough cognition to distinguish between the two.

How to tell the difference between sheep and wolves and people?

Your thinking represents sheep, Ape the talking points.
The NRA (who you ape) are wolves, and have just now called for the ATF to revisit banning bump stocks that make weapons fully automatic. They disagree with your inane logic
Which, to be fair to you, wasn't even your own logic, but you mewing like a sheep.

People? They recognize you are sheep and the NRA are wolves and rational gun regulation is warranted.

Maybe check in with your rhetorical masters for an update?


edit on 5-10-2017 by soberbacchus because: (no reason given)

edit on 5-10-2017 by soberbacchus because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 5 2017 @ 04:24 PM
link   
a reply to: seagull

Girl who accidentally shot her instructor with an Uzi said the gun was too much for her
www.washingtonpost.com... ?utm_term=.1b40fe027cd1

Toddler reaches into purse and gun goes off, killing mom
www.usatoday.com...

And BTW - Don't be an idiot. 1300 give or take a year. Kids die every year via guns. Kids and guns is a bad idea and no I am not talking about teens or tweens, the age I learned to shoot, under highly supervised conditions.

What nonsense logic you guys engage in.

We need stricter gun laws and regulation.

I own 6 different firearms.

Glock 17 – 9mm
Beretta – 9mm
Sig Sauer P320 – .45
.45 Colt
Glock G17
Winchester 12 Gauge

I also abhor the NRA.

I also have a concealed carry permit.

I also think their should be an assault weapons ban.

I believe in defending myself and family.

I also think asshats shouldn't own guns and people who buy guns should be scrutinized and "assault" weapons..aka..weapons that have no rational purpose in home defense or hunting should be restricted.

Kinda gross you made nonsense out of 1300 kids dying each year.



posted on Oct, 5 2017 @ 04:38 PM
link   

originally posted by: soberbacchus

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: soberbacchus




Of course not, but it is guns that make it possible for people to shoot others.

Often children who don't even know what a gun is end up killing people.


Fire makes it possible to burn others. Knives make it possible to stab others. We could go down the list, banning each, until we are each in a padded cell and hooked up to a happiness machine, free from all fears and finally at peace.


When did I mention a ban? Fire is a natural element. Flame throwers are not.

The standard is not binary. French fries kill if eaten in sufficient quantities to the exclusion of all else.

An AR-15 rifle modified to be fully automatic is not a knife.

I do have sympathy for those unable to muster enough cognition to distinguish between the two.

How to tell the difference between sheep and wolves and people?

Your thinking represents sheep, Ape the talking points.
The NRA (who you ape) are wolves, and have just now called for the ATF to revisit banning bump stocks that make weapons fully automatic. They disagree with you inane logic


People? They recognize you are sheep and the NRA are wolves and rational gun regulation is warranted.

Maybe check in with your rhetorical masters for an update?



I never said you did mention a ban, so I'm not sure where you got that idea.

You clearly said "it is guns that make it possible for people to shoot others". It's like saying rocks make it possible to bash someone over the head with, or cars make it possible to run over people with. It's just a stupid argument that focuses on the object in use, but says nothing of the behavior of he who wields it.



posted on Oct, 5 2017 @ 04:38 PM
link   

originally posted by: TerryMcGuire
a reply to: JoshuaCox

But, but,,,but we need them when we go squirrel hunting.



You know little, and understand even less.



posted on Oct, 5 2017 @ 04:54 PM
link   
LesMisanthrope:

Not being able to fight back and protect myself and my loved ones, but mainly I fear having my freedoms stolen for a false sense of security...that is because it is not guns that lead people to shoot others.


Well, Les...from many of the postings you have made on various topics on this website over the years, I have always read you to be a fair-minded and reasonable person of logic, but I have also observed that you sometimes fail your reason and logic, particularly when you seek to defend the indefensible. There is no reasonable or logical argument for gun ownership. There really isn't!

What I have quoted from you is utter bull-# as a retort or as a defence for gun ownership. Just what kind of psychotic world are you and other gun owners living in that you are so fearful for your safety and that of your family that you need a gun? You are not being prescient or practical in having one, you are simply being afraid of the world outside (and oft' times inside) of your home. You are living in fear, but of course, self denial will not have you admit it to anyone, let alone to yourself.

The gun is a tool for one purpose... to kill, sometimes maim, but more often than not it kills. It is a weapon of war that replaced other less efficient projectile weapons such as the bow and arrow. You seem to be so distrusting of your fellow Americans that the only way you can feel comfortable with any of them nearby is to have a weapon close at hand...just in case a 'what if' scenario should occur. In truth, the gun is nothing more than a 'comfort blanket' to you. It emphasises the low depth of esteem you hold for American society. Land of the free and home of the brave? What utter contemptible rubbish!

However, even I get conflicted sometimes on the practicality towards gun ownership, but I am very fortunate, because I live in Britain, and thankfully, our gun laws are some of the most strict laws in the world, and in terms of gun crime, Britain isn't even a blip on the screen compared to the level of gun crime in America. Britain shows, right in your face, that strict gun control works...IT WORKS!!! Just in 2017 alone, over 11,000 Americans have been killed by gun. Contrast that with the eight firearm incidents here in the UK, with just five people killed, and they were terrorist events.

I have seen American posters argue that Britain is more violent than America based on ratio statistics, yet gun crime - the subject under discussion, here in Britain, doesn't even get into double figures; but away from the deflecting obfuscation of the spreadsheet, and in real terms, Britain simply cannot match America for violence, especially gun violence, and it doesn't want to.

By the way, to address your second absurd reason for owning a gun, our government is taking over us thinking that it can do so because we don't have guns. Both our governments (including other western governments) have turned more tyrannical, and all our peoples have accepted it. Not a single peep from any gun owner in America has been heard in defence of the rights and freedoms that have been diluted here in the West over the last thirty years. What do Americans pledge daily...'to defend the Constitution against enemies foreign and domestic'. So where is/was the defence against whole scale surveillance against the individual. Only tyrannical governments do that!

No. Not a single gun owner in America will rise up for their common fellow American against any government the American people will elect, because it is a fight they know they will lose, and few are willing to sacrifice their lives for nation principles, but they might be willing to put up a slight resistance to keep their guns.

Tell me, if America had the same strict gun laws as we do here in Britain, how could Stephen Paddock have amassed his small arsenal, and how could he have killed 59 people and injured 400 plus more? I'll save you the time and effort of thinking, the answer you're looking for is that he couldn't! Remember, he sourced and gained his weapons legally.

The reason why America has more mass shootings, and why 350 people have been killed in the 40 gun rampages since the 1980's is because they are freely available to buy, and too easy to obtain (don't tell me they are not), which of course, is the NRA's wet dream. Whenever a mass shooting occurs like the one in Vegas, it acts like an advertisement for them as fearful and scared Americans rush out to buy a gun, with the deceitful promise that you'll never have to cower and watch your loved one's die...you can shoot back. Such behaviour is utterly contemptuous towards the memories of the victims. The NRA and gun manufacturers do not give a damn who dies in a gun rampage, as it is good business for them and always raises their shares.

On the issue of guns, Americans need to be saved from themselves, because they are unwilling to make the right decisions to lower gun crime in their country, or are too scared to make the right decisions. More guns are not the answer, no guns is the answer, and until Americans can face up to that truth, more people will die in mass shootings.



posted on Oct, 5 2017 @ 05:39 PM
link   
a reply to: soberbacchus




And BTW - Don't be an idiot. 1300 give or take a year. Kids die every year via guns. Kids and guns is a bad idea and no I am not talking about teens or tweens, the age I learned to shoot, under highly supervised conditions.


You did not say that, you said a child with a gun...not a three year old, or toddler. That is idiot parents/guardians, stricter gun control will do nothing to remedy that.

Ease off on the name calling as well, if you please.


What nonsense logic you guys engage in.


Nonsense. OK.


We need stricter gun laws and regulation.


Speaking of nonsense. What new laws would you suggest...that haven't already been put on the books? Which of the many hundreds, if not thousands, of laws already on the books isn't enough?? But the next law will be the magical one, right?


I own 6 different firearms.

Glock 17 – 9mm
Beretta – 9mm
Sig Sauer P320 – .45
.45 Colt
Glock G17
Winchester 12 Gauge


Good for you! That doesn't make you right.


I also abhor the NRA.


That's OK, I'll cancel you out.


I also have a concealed carry permit.


As do I.


I also think their should be an assault weapons ban.


What's an assault weapon?


I believe in defending myself and family.


Good for you. In all seriousness.


I also think asshats shouldn't own guns and people who buy guns should be scrutinized and "assault" weapons..aka..weapons that have no rational purpose in home defense or hunting should be restricted.


Define "asshat". Who knows, I might agree. Define scrutinized.


Kinda gross you made nonsense out of 1300 kids dying each year.


Kinda gross that you want to get personal. You are the one who got general in you commentary, not I.



posted on Oct, 5 2017 @ 06:23 PM
link   
a reply to: elysiumfire

I’ve always thought your posts to be reasonable, but I find your points here to be obsequious and cowardly, not to mention statist. There is something very suspicious about a man who won’t defend another man’s rights, but worse, see them relinquished to the state.

I don’t own a gun, actually. Never have. If I was American I would. Either way it is not about fear, but freedom and choice.

A gun has many uses besides killing. There is hunting and sport. It is also a deterrent. Peacekeepers carry weapons; police carry weapons (well, in rational countries the do); and it isn’t to kill others but for self-defence. Their aim is to keep the peace. Gun owners in the United States can also keep the peace, to defend others and themselves from evil. You and I, on the other hand, have to depend on the state, or failing that, run away and hide depending on which comes first.

That’s a problem in a place like Venezuela where Chavez banned private gun ownership. It’s one of the most violent places on earth, and Human Rights watch says 1 out of every 5 crimes is committed by the police, the state, the very people with the monopoly on violence. What do you recommend for them? Your statism, what you advocate for Americans, has rendered Venezuelan’s neutered, unable to defend themselves in the face of corruption and tyranny and evil.

It is no strange wonder that your propaganda sounds suspiciously like North Korean propaganda. There they can also be proud, like you, that they have given up their rights in order to be “free from uneasiness and horror”, all while lamenting the freedom of the others under the rubric of caring and compassion, the better to enslave people with.

Frankly I would much rather live in the United States, and take the chance among fellow citizens, than to be a docile fish in a fish bowl.



posted on Oct, 5 2017 @ 08:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: vor78
a reply to: DrumJunkie

I'm well aware of that, but fingers and belt loops don't exist solely as a means to allow people to bump fire their rifle and therefore circumvent the existing restrictions on fully automatic weapons, either.


Just saying you can not remove a tech that was begun with a hooked finger and a belt-loop. Many that have the ban the bump banner have no idea what it actually entails. Really it's not all that common to even see one of those things. Many gun people see them as a joke or an easy way to turn money into noise. But to say it needs gone just wont happen. There are many ways to bump fire a weapon.



posted on Oct, 5 2017 @ 08:12 PM
link   
a reply to: elysiumfire

It's easy for a caste minded culture of subjects to surrender as they knew before on an Island chain of but a mere 66 million compared to 300 million where OUR COMBAT veterans outnumber more than ALL of the UK alone.
So I woul;d take MY guns over your islands and ISLAMIC JIHADISTS any day MY DAUGHTER wants to leave you as well..TRAVELLERS in Notting ham.
STOP attempting to address anyone authoritatively on American gun ownership based on your emotional choices,WE have a world to lead,not colonize.
edit on 5-10-2017 by cavtrooper7 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 5 2017 @ 08:36 PM
link   
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Les. you are correct onit being about freedom to choose. Sorry you live ina country where your parliament treat you all liek 3rd class citizens.



posted on Oct, 5 2017 @ 08:40 PM
link   
a reply to: JoshuaCox

Your points valid to some fair degree.....but just remember that millions of these guns are owned by americans and one ********** goes off and all the rest are indicted.



posted on Oct, 5 2017 @ 08:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: elysiumfire

I’ve always thought your posts to be reasonable, but I find your points here to be obsequious and cowardly, not to mention statist. There is something very suspicious about a man who won’t defend another man’s rights, but worse, see them relinquished to the state.



Ill taught....the idea, the political philosophy, Man vs the State.......freedom of speech, to redress and to own and use arms......thats to much political meat for so many.

And let me say if the question were black men defending self against white radicals with the same weapons the virtues would be extolled.



posted on Oct, 5 2017 @ 09:45 PM
link   
LesMisanthrope:

I find your points here to be obsequious and cowardly, not to mention statist.


To be honest, I think your choice of words are antithetical to my character and principles, as I am very very individualistic, and I am about as statist as you are, maybe even less so. Having read your post I am unsure as to whether or not you are simply being disingenuous in order to reply, and I am confident that you, too, can only be disappointed with some of the things you have written.

I perceive you as being too logical to believe some of the points you have raised, and probably know only too well what my rebuttals will be. You know for a fact that owning a gun has nothing whatsoever to do with choice or with freedom. No one buys a weapon because they feel free, but because they feel anxious about their safety. I find it interesting that you state that you are not American (apologies, I thought you were by both your stance and rationale on this subject), but that if you were you would buy a gun. This implies to me that you view American society in such poor light that only a weapon would aid in illuminating it sufficiently safe enough for you to traverse.


There is something very suspicious about a man who won’t defend another man’s rights, but worse, see them relinquished to the state.


Now you really are being disingenuous with me. My stance on gun ownership is allied to the prevention of further loss of life by that particular weapon, because I believe a person's right to go about their daily life without being caught up in gun crime is far more important than gun rights. Other certain rights I will defend, doggedly so without a physical weapon, but with the best one at my disposal...my mind. If I were to choose a character from history to describe my heart of principles, I would choose Thomas Paine, the Englishman who rallied the colonists to their independence from Britain. I don't see any gun owner displaying such a principle, they are defending no one, One other thing, to live in a society, to contribute to its stability and longevity, one has to be a little 'statist', and abide by societal rules set by the state. Even you do that.


A gun has many uses besides killing. There is hunting and sport.


I'm sure you meant to say...'A gun has many uses besides killing, such as sport.' Hunting, however, is killing. I have no problem with the sporting side, shooting paper targets or the so-called clay pigeons in a competition to win a trophy, no problem at all with that.


It is also a deterrent.


Is it? Try telling that to the 11,700 Americans who have died so far this year. I am sure the 59 who were killed in Vegas would agree with you...if they could. Don't believe the hype of your own rhetoric, read it through before you publish, because it doesn't convince anyone.


Peacekeepers carry weapons; police carry weapons (well, in rational countries the do); and it isn’t to kill others but for self-defence. Their aim is to keep the peace.


Is it really based on a good rationale or one of need? If it is the latter, there's only the rationale of 'need'. If the reason they carry guns is not to kill people, why have them, why not simply carry a pencil and a note pad? If they are brought to the point to defend themselves, of course they are going to use their gun and shoot. Peacekeepers don't keep the peace, the people do. UN forces in Rwanda didn't do a particularly good job of keeping the peace did they? Come to that matter, nor did the British in former Serbia.


Gun owners in the United States can also keep the peace, to defend others and themselves from evil.


You must be tired, because you are not thinking things through. Remember our conversation on 'evil'? Well here, you have wrote about it as if it is an independent existential force, something you agreed it wasn't. Let's be honest, the last thing you want is private citizens getting involved in a shoot out where bystanders can get caught in the crossfire. The law enforcement agencies were created to both serve and protect the people, they are licensed and trained and authorised to use lethal force, private citizens are not except on their own property.


You and I, on the other hand, have to depend on the state, or failing that, run away and hide depending on which comes first.


Ensuring our safety is what the state is mandated to do by the people. Running away from a person brandishing and firing a gun indiscriminately is probably the most prudent thing to do...if you want to avoid getting shot that is.

The rest of your post is pretty much hubristic without support. I wonder, do you think I am any more enslaved by my government than Americans by their's? How about Australians with their gun controls? Strict gun control works, and Britain is the best evidence of it. America needs to give it a try, for who knows, they might save American lives in the process.

cavtrooper7:

It's easy for a caste minded culture of subjects to surrender as they knew before on an Island chain of but a mere 66 million compared to 300 million where OUR COMBAT veterans outnumber more than ALL of the UK alone.
So I woul;d take MY guns over your islands and ISLAMIC JIHADISTS any day MY DAUGHTER wants to leave you as well..TRAVELLERS in Notting ham. STOP attempting to address anyone authoritatively on American gun ownership based on your emotional choices,WE have a world to lead,not colonize.


I'm sorry Cav, but you make absolutely no sense at all. Could you translate this from gibberish into articulate English, then I might be able to address any points you make.



posted on Oct, 5 2017 @ 09:52 PM
link   
a reply to: [post=22738960]

There is no reasonable or logical argument for gun ownership. There really isn't!

That is your opinion ànd you are welcome to it. I feel it to be illogical, but whatever. I think your being irrational as well.

edit on 10-5-2017 by worldstarcountry because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 5 2017 @ 10:08 PM
link   
a reply to: soberbacchus

So......

My home happens to be 40 acres in size, do you think handguns you have are sufficient?

I don't, if I'm to defend my homestead then so called "assault weapons" which are really military pattern semi - automatic rifles are weapons of choice.

That defense is my right and I'll choose what tool does the best.

Not you, not congress.



posted on Oct, 5 2017 @ 10:09 PM
link   
worldstarcountry:

That is your opinion ànd you are welcome to it. I feel it to be illogical, but whatever. I think your being irrational as well.


No worries, each to his own I suppose, but I am delighted that you understand 'irrational', becomes you are equally showing the same symptoms you accuse me of.



posted on Oct, 5 2017 @ 10:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phoenix
a reply to: soberbacchus

So......

My home happens to be 40 acres in size, do you think handguns you have are sufficient?

I don't, if I'm to defend my homestead then so called "assault weapons" which are really military pattern semi - automatic rifles are weapons of choice.

That defense is my right and I'll choose what tool does the best.

Not you, not congress.



^^^^^^^^^
Quoted for truth

My answer to the no use for an AR platform rifle is if it is such a non-unsful weapon then they would not be handed out to those in government that issued them as personal defense weapons. They could have given them a pistol but they didn't. i mean.Social Security Administration have had them as far back as 2013. The Department of Education have all kinds of what many would say have no use..The IRS has had them since 2013 I'm sure that an audit can be tough but...
People get these type rifles because they are effective as personal defense weapons. I have 100 acres out here and I'm known to be out wandering around any part of it on any given day. Sure I can use a hunting rifle but they are heavy and I'm old with a bad back. Fact of the matter is they do have use and until our Constitution tells me different I have the right to them.

I wonder how many of these people that see no reason for x,y,z firearms would believe that when some whacked out pill head busts the door in and puts their families at risk for whatever might be of value in the home? Paranoid? I live way out in the country and it happens out here. I imagine home invasion is more prevalent in cities. It's why when my daughter turned 21 I gave her a Sig Sauer 226 9mm and taught her to shoot it and well as many other types of firearms. I just pray the only thing she has to use it for is range time involved in paper genocide. They have it coming anyway..Damn paper


and stop calling them assault weapons. That is a media term used to scare people about evil black rifles. Bigots...
edit on 10/5/2017 by DrumJunkie because: added sometihng

edit on 10/5/2017 by DrumJunkie because: Fixed a mistake



posted on Oct, 6 2017 @ 11:04 AM
link   

originally posted by: Logarock

And let me say if the question were black men defending self against white radicals with the same weapons the virtues would be extolled.


History disagrees.

Look up the Mulford Act.

It's when then Governor and GOP Icon Ronald Reagan and the NRA teamed up to prohibit open carry in California in response to the Black Panthers carrying guns in public.

All it took was a black man carrying in public to turn the NRA and GOP into gun control zealots.
edit on 6-10-2017 by soberbacchus because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 6 2017 @ 01:40 PM
link   
a reply to: soberbacchus

the black panthers were/are a gang. that law was against gangs.




top topics



 
26
<< 20  21  22    24 >>

log in

join