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: 8
26
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 2 2017 @ 01:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: vor78
a reply to: Flyingclaydisk

Oh, I agree. I support some restrictions in theory but real-world proposals from the political classes? Not so much. The universal background check proposals that I've seen, for instance, have been garbage. No way in hell would I have supported them. The same is true of that whole issue over the no-fly list. I support the idea, but not the proposed laws. The GOP proposal was almost OK. The Dems? Nope, not happening.


It's interesting that the Dems voted no on the GOP bill, which would have improved the background check system by anyone's standards, because the GOP voted down their bill. So much for their "if it saves one life" line.




posted on Oct, 2 2017 @ 01:20 PM
link   
a reply to: face23785

Of course it's sarcasm. There's no way blacks constitute 3/5. It's more like 5/10.



posted on Oct, 2 2017 @ 01:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: OtherSideOfTheCoin

originally posted by: Wide-Eyes
a reply to: JoshuaCox

More confirmation that you're a fool.



Yeah cos he deserves that right??



Joshua is blaming the tools of a madman. Should we ban drills, hammers, screwdrivers etc. Blame Hollywood for that one.



posted on Oct, 2 2017 @ 01:23 PM
link   
a reply to: face23785

We need to use a little Occam's razor here. Where is more likely, Dems choosing not to support gun regulations or the Republicans tack on some measure the Dems could not accept if it passed.



posted on Oct, 2 2017 @ 01:23 PM
link   
a reply to: shooterbrody

Well, that's not to say that the possession of them by this particular individual wasn't illegal, which I would think to be the case here.

Regardless, he was a mass murderer, so it's not really a pertinent point anymore, sadly enough.



posted on Oct, 2 2017 @ 01:23 PM
link   
a reply to: Wide-Eyes

I agree. Guns don't kill people. Bullets do!



posted on Oct, 2 2017 @ 01:24 PM
link   
Funny how its only US and other underdeveloped countries that allow assault rifles in your local supermarket ..

Its time to leave the stone age behind Americans and join 2017



posted on Oct, 2 2017 @ 01:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: Flyingclaydisk
a reply to: JoshuaCox

Once again...there is no such thing as an "assault rifle"!

Define for me what you believe an "assault rifle" to be (???)


Is this a trick question?

Assault rifle



posted on Oct, 2 2017 @ 01:25 PM
link   
a reply to: dfnj2015

Pretty much everything in the bill was a step in the "right direction", by Dems standards. They voted it down because it "didn't go far enough".

As I said, they abandoned their "if it saves one life" mantra.



posted on Oct, 2 2017 @ 01:26 PM
link   
a reply to: Spacespider

Are you sure about that?



posted on Oct, 2 2017 @ 01:26 PM
link   
a reply to: GuidedKill

Kinda sounds like an old WW2 BAR to me. 30.06 and rising bolt. Or something similar in design. Something in a 7.62 might be possible but it is not the sound of a 5.56 for sure.



posted on Oct, 2 2017 @ 01:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: dfnj2015
a reply to: JoshuaCox

I'm a strict Constitutional constructionist who believes the 2nd Amendment rights only apply to these guns:

Brown Bess
Charleville Musket
American-made Muskets
Long Rifles
Pattern 1776 Infantry Rifle
Ferguson Rifle
Brown Bess Musket




I'm also a strict Constitutionalist. Personally, I think the 2nd Amendment cannot accomplish its intended purpose...ensuring the security of a free state...if you limit the people's militia to badly outdated arms to fulfill that purpose.

The one thing that seems certain is that the founders did not wish 2A to become obsolete. With your list, it would have been obsolete within 50-60 years of ratification.



posted on Oct, 2 2017 @ 01:26 PM
link   
a reply to: Spacespider

You already surrendered.
We can't.
THE answer remains NO ,get over it ya dumb PLANET.



posted on Oct, 2 2017 @ 01:27 PM
link   

originally posted by: Spacespider
Funny how its only US and other underdeveloped countries that allow assault rifles in your local supermarket ..

Its time to leave the stone age behind Americans and join 2017


Nice misleading statement.



posted on Oct, 2 2017 @ 01:28 PM
link   
a reply to: Spacespider

Stop reading tabloids for your news. I've lived in the American South my whole life and have never seen an "assault rifle" in a grocery store. As a matter of fact, it's been quite some time since I've seen a gun "out in public" that wasn't strapped to the hip of a police officer.


Now whether or not *they* should have them...completely different story.



posted on Oct, 2 2017 @ 01:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: JoshuaCox
A car doesn't kill 50 people and wounding 500..



The Muslim in Paris last summer killed 85+ and injured 500 plowing a truck through the crowd celebrating Bastille Day... your argument fails.



posted on Oct, 2 2017 @ 01:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: SlapMonkey
a reply to: shooterbrody

Well, that's not to say that the possession of them by this particular individual wasn't illegal, which I would think to be the case here.

Regardless, he was a mass murderer, so it's not really a pertinent point anymore, sadly enough.


This entire incident will be ground zero for an unprecedented gun control debate. What guns the murderer used will be important.



posted on Oct, 2 2017 @ 01:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: face23785
a reply to: dfnj2015

Pretty much everything in the bill was a step in the "right direction", by Dems standards. They voted it down because it "didn't go far enough".

As I said, they abandoned their "if it saves one life" mantra.


This bill or another bill:

This Bill



posted on Oct, 2 2017 @ 01:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: face23785
a reply to: dfnj2015

Pretty much everything in the bill was a step in the "right direction", by Dems standards. They voted it down because it "didn't go far enough".

As I said, they abandoned their "if it saves one life" mantra.


The Dems didn't like the fact that it forced the government to actually prove its case in front of a judge within 3 business days of a transaction denial. The Dems just wanted to put you on a list and if it was wrong, well, too bad. You can spend the next five years trying to find a court that will listen.

You know, because the Constitutional right of due process sucks. Or something.
edit on 2-10-2017 by vor78 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 2 2017 @ 01:33 PM
link   
a reply to: JoshuaCox



First Good Example for an Assault Rifle Ban???


Why the F# would anybody have the want, or need, to own a high-powered assault rifle?!

In any developed nation with a relatively civilized safe society — the desire and debate shouldn't even exist. In fact, it doesn't.



Usually with mass shootings and just plain old murders, It is a hand gun, hunting rifle or shotgun...and most murders period are with the more common variety firearms.





new topics

top topics



 
26
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join