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: 9
26
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 2 2017 @ 01:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: Wide-Eyes

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.


My counter argument to that is always that a gun only exists to either kill or wound, its a tool for taking life, thats what its for and why I think the "ohhh should we ban cars now too" argument is a bit daft.

Any tool could be used as a weapon, guns are unique to some extent because that is their primary function.




posted on Oct, 2 2017 @ 01:37 PM
link   
Automatic weapons (which is what was used in Las Vegas) are already highly regulated.
Conveniently there is a bill in the house about gun silencers and suppressors coming up for vote.
New laws won't change anyone's ability to acquire guns illegally.

I've gone through every video I can't hear a single impact or ricochet despite the sounds of 2 weapons being discharging hundreds of round, nor do you see anyone being hit..
I don't believe this is a regular "assault rifle" (AK47 or AR15), judging by the sound it's something heavier caliber and a belt fed machine gun.
Constantly rising casualty figures going from 2 dead to 20 and now to 50 ?
Discerning reality in this day and age is getting harder and harder.
edit on 2-10-2017 by Asktheanimals because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 2 2017 @ 01:37 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.



Why is it not surprising your assessment of the why Democrats voted it down was incorrect (see the part I bolded):



It will fail this time too. Democrats don't think it does enough to expand background checks because, well, it doesn't expand background checks. It simply tries to improve the system we have now.



www.washingtonpost.com... m_term=.aa71ed3f9079

But I'm sure the Democrats are responsible for everything that is bad in this country as you were inferring.



posted on Oct, 2 2017 @ 01:37 PM
link   
a reply to: dfnj2015

So do hammers, knives, trucks, ropes and brussel sprouts.



posted on Oct, 2 2017 @ 01:39 PM
link   
a reply to: Asktheanimals

I am unaware of a suppressor ever having been used in a mass shooting.

I agree.



posted on Oct, 2 2017 @ 01:40 PM
link   
a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin

But it's all good for the police and the MOD to have them right? You do know what they are planning for us don't you?



posted on Oct, 2 2017 @ 01:41 PM
link   

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


I agree. The government has aircraft carriers, fighter jets, and tactical nuclear weapons. How is a citizen going to defend himself against such fire power. Add autonomous ground drones with bunker busting machines guns and that's about all she wrote!



posted on Oct, 2 2017 @ 01:41 PM
link   

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

But it's all good for the police and the MOD to have them right? You do know what they are planning for us don't you?


errrrm no what are they planning for us?

Is it a party, please let it be a party!



posted on Oct, 2 2017 @ 01:46 PM
link   

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

But it's all good for the police and the MOD to have them right? You do know what they are planning for us don't you?



Oh, he knows and fully embraces it.



posted on Oct, 2 2017 @ 01:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: Flyingclaydisk
a reply to: dfnj2015

So do hammers, knives, trucks, ropes and brussel sprouts.



You make a very good argument. The weapon doesn't make the killer. However, a vegematic capable of shredding 500 people in 10 seconds is not something you should be able to buy. Machine guns looking like rifles capable of firing thousands of rounds per minute are for the most part designed to kill the most amount of people in the shortest amount of time probably should be strictly regulated.

I'm not sure what the answer is to this problem. Killing someone is already against the law. So making all guns illegal would probably be no different than making murder illegal.

I think Democrats are trying to gain political capital with people who just want to do "something" because the crime is so heinous.


edit on 2-10-2017 by dfnj2015 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 2 2017 @ 01:48 PM
link   
a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin

Poverty retirement.



posted on Oct, 2 2017 @ 01:49 PM
link   
a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin

Chip you, track you, control you.



posted on Oct, 2 2017 @ 01:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: dfnj2015

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


Thanks for the link.


The Senate rejected first a Republican proposal to update the background check system for gun purchases, which would have required states to add more information on mental health records to a national database. It also included a provision to alert law enforcement agencies when an individual who was on a government terror watch list in the last five years buys a gun. The proposal, sponsored by Iowa GOP Sen. Chuck Grassley, failed to get the 60 votes for passage. The vote was 53-47, largely along party lines. Some Senate Democrats warned that the legislation's revised definition of who would be considered mentally ill could potentially still allow those with significant psychological issues to legally purchase guns.


That pretty much sums up what I was talking about. They voted it down because it didn't go far enough for them. Still, it was better than nothing wasn't it? What happened to "if it saves one life"?



posted on Oct, 2 2017 @ 01:52 PM
link   
a reply to: Wide-Eyes

I'm less of afraid of the government taking away my political liberties than I am of the corporations taking away my economic liberties.



posted on Oct, 2 2017 @ 01:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: Asktheanimals
Automatic weapons (which is what was used in Las Vegas) are already highly regulated.
Conveniently there is a bill in the house about gun silencers and suppressors coming up for vote.
New laws won't change anyone's ability to acquire guns illegally.
I find the timing on this event highly suspect.




Can't get it to embed but here is Nancy Pelosi saying "Oh God" when asked a question about gun control coming up.

www.youtube.com...



posted on Oct, 2 2017 @ 01:54 PM
link   
a reply to: face23785

See my previous post. Another link said they didn't vote for it because it really did not expand the checks. It just made existing checks "better" whatever that means.



posted on Oct, 2 2017 @ 01:55 PM
link   
a reply to: dfnj2015

Sadly, they walk hand in hand.



posted on Oct, 2 2017 @ 01:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: seeker1963

originally posted by: Asktheanimals
Automatic weapons (which is what was used in Las Vegas) are already highly regulated.
Conveniently there is a bill in the house about gun silencers and suppressors coming up for vote.
New laws won't change anyone's ability to acquire guns illegally.
I find the timing on this event highly suspect.




Can't get it to embed but here is Nancy Pelosi saying "Oh God" when asked a question about gun control coming up.

www.youtube.com...




Things that make you go hmmmm, I see where you are going, I wonder how long they are going to let Nancy run around slipping up??



posted on Oct, 2 2017 @ 02:02 PM
link   
a reply to: dfnj2015

What do you mean "whatever that means?" The article you linked me to explains how it would have made it better. The background check system often fails because information that would stop someone from purchasing a gun isn't fed into it. The bill was aimed at closing some of those loopholes, like mandating certain mental health info be reported. This is something Dems have called for for years. And they voted it down.

For the 5th time, what happened to "if it saves one life"?



posted on Oct, 2 2017 @ 02:08 PM
link   
So he did it Just to get a Assault Rifle Ban?



new topics

top topics



 
26
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join