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: 24
26
<< 21  22  23   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 6 2017 @ 05:30 PM
link   
I don't even want to get into the debate about rights....that being said, you belong to this CONSPIRACY site for a reason. I reall don't need to layout all the suspicions video and audio not to mention first hand experience with this attack do I? When it first happened (well the next morning) I wondered how long it would be before someone said it was a white flag....I was blown away how quickly that happened WITH TONES OF SUPPORTING EVIDENCE. People are being played here. You want gun control because THEY WANT YOU to want gun control.
I sometimes wonder what things would be like if these false flag hadn't happened...I mean take 9-11 out and we would literally have a different country. A little security for a little freedom......and so on.




posted on Oct, 6 2017 @ 05:30 PM
link   
Double post..
edit on 6-10-2017 by Hr2burn because: Dupe



posted on Oct, 7 2017 @ 12:12 AM
link   

originally posted by: face23785
a reply to: JBurns

I agree with that entire post. And most gun owners I know would agree with most if not all of it. Most of us are reasonable people. It's the unreasonable extremists on the other side who lead us to take such a rigid stance.


So true! It is unfortunate too, because some of these truly "common sense" procedures would make law abiding armed citizens safer. You and I (and other CHL/constitutional carry/open carry folks) have a vested interest in such actions. But like you so accurately pointed out, anti-2A extremists would capitalize on our perceived weakness to the point it would infringe on the second amendment.

I can't remember how many times I've been called a "gun fetishist" or even been accused of selectively defending constitutional amendments. Barring the fact that the second amendment protects the others, it is safe to say I fervently support (and would defend) ANY section of the Bill of Rights/Constitution. It is clear to me their goal isn't reform, it's confiscation. (Australian style, right?)

edit on 10/7/2017 by JBurns because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 7 2017 @ 12:42 AM
link   
I'm pretty sure, an "assault chair" will get me a, "assault rifle", when used right. Let them Commie libs, make their "law"...ain't going to change a thing. I'm just glad I have access to a lot of High capacity chairs...lol! Idiots!



posted on Oct, 7 2017 @ 12:58 AM
link   
The "Rights" are not given by A "government". They are there with, or without, a "Government". You can not "Legislate" away a "right". Only the liberals think so. 20 years from now, they'll blame the "men" they neutered, and accuse them, for not "standing up"! Libs are cowards...and a blight on civilization. Reasonable people, "real men/women", need to nip the stupidity, in the bud. Before it grows.



posted on Oct, 7 2017 @ 01:05 AM
link   
a reply to: JBurns

And why do you need a "permit" for a "right" that is already legally yours? You need a license for your "right"? You CHL people make me sick.
edit on 7-10-2017 by murphy22 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 7 2017 @ 07:08 AM
link   
a reply to: murphy22

The people have a common law right to travel - and yet they "need a license" given by the State. Do you have a license to drive? Do you have a "permit" to travel. Do you have a permit called a "land title" allowing you to "own" your land?



posted on Oct, 7 2017 @ 04:17 PM
link   
a reply to: murphy22

You clearly didn't take the time to read my entire post. I mentioned several categories of people: CHL/CCW holders (my State gives a discount at tax time), constitutional carriers and open carriers.

Please remind me where I exclusively mentioned CHL and then followed up with "everyone must have one or not carry."

I didn't. Point in fact, I agree with your general idea. In my opinion, the law should punish individuals when they actually commit a crime. Since carrying a firearm isn't/shouldn't be a crime (constitutional carry state, here), I clearly take no issue with those who do so without permission from the government.

Please try reading the entirety of a post before assuming I am trolling the firearm community.



posted on Oct, 7 2017 @ 04:20 PM
link   
a reply to: TheConstruKctionofLight


The RKBA is enshrined in the Bill of Rights, which is why being forced to obtain permission from the government is infringing. As far as the right to travel goes, you do not need a license. You need a license to operate a motor vehicle, yes. But you don't need one to use public transportation (bus, airline, sea, etc) nor are you prohibited from simply packing a bag and walking to your destination.



posted on Oct, 7 2017 @ 04:28 PM
link   
Arw there not semiauto rifles that arent classified "assault"? If not then ive got a few unicorns here



posted on Oct, 7 2017 @ 04:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: MisterSpock
Short answer, NO.

Longer answer, NO.

Recommendation, stop focusing on the tool and look at the source.


yea they outlaw and manage to confiscate there are still trucks and what not.



posted on Oct, 7 2017 @ 07:54 PM
link   
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan


I have never understood the anti's fixation on SA rifles. I remember when one holder of that brain trust described a bunch of physical features (including a "barrel shroud" - whatever that means) which supposedly made SA firearms more lethal. In reality, these firearms are used in such a small percentage of homicides, they're truly irrelevant to the current public discourse.

I know California's latest attempt is pitiful. Have you seen some of their new "featureless" weapons? They look pretty ridiculous, which of course was their goal. For some reason, they believe the weapon's appearance is directly related to its lethality.

In reality, their entire focus should be shifted to the weapon's owner - which is 100% the source of the chaos and death they claim to be fighting. It is pretty disturbing that deaths related to firearm use (they like to include suicide, accident and justified homicide in this list) are the only ones they care about. There are other things out there killing far more people: fast food, tobacco, auto accidents, etc. For some reason, they don't want to address these issues, focusing instead of the very minimal number of deaths related to firearms.

edit on 10/7/2017 by JBurns because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
26
<< 21  22  23   >>

log in

join