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.

 

Anyone opposed to the hard right propaganda, please stop debating BS..

page: 3
11
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 6 2017 @ 03:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: ketsuko
The first problem is that there is no such thing as an assault rifle.


Any rifle that can swith from semi auto to full auto is an assault rifle. For not existing as you claim gun manufacturers make them and call them assault rifles.

www.heckler-koch.com...




posted on Oct, 6 2017 @ 03:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: ketsuko
The first problem is that there is no such thing as an assault rifle.


Any rifle that can swith from semi auto to full auto is an assault rifle. For not existing as you claim gun manufacturers make them and call them assault rifles.

www.heckler-koch.com...



posted on Oct, 6 2017 @ 03:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66


2. Stop trying to create a false sense of security by claiming that "tougher" laws are going to make a difference in situations like Las Vegas.



The reality is Las Vegas will happen no matter what. Next time might be loaded dump truck that does 3 times the damage...who knows, but one thing we do know is if a person wants to kill you can't stop them. We have tough laws already..they just are not enforced at the level they should be.



posted on Oct, 6 2017 @ 03:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: dragonridr

originally posted by: ketsuko
The first problem is that there is no such thing as an assault rifle.


Any rifle that can swith from semi auto to full auto is an assault rifle. For not existing as you claim gun manufacturers make them and call them assault rifles.

www.heckler-koch.com...


While you're right, I think the bigger point here is that the vast majority of the time you hear the term "assault rifle" in the media or from politicians, it is being used incorrectly. Actual assault rifles are not generally for sale to the public, except for old models (pre-86 as I recall) that are already in circulation, and only after you go through a year-long process to qualify for it and shell out the 5 or 6 figures it costs.

The guns being sold to the general public are not assault rifles, but media and politicians call them assault rifles because they LOOK like them, which is done partly for shooter comfort but mostly for marketing purposes. They don't feature select-fire and they don't feature fully automatic fire. They're no more deadly than Uncle Chet's wooden-stocked hunting rifle. In fact normally those not-as-scary hunting rifles fire a more lethal round than the gun most people think is an assault rifle. And yes, some of those not-as-scary hunting rifles are semi-auto, and the ones that are you can find high capacity magazines for them. Functionally, they're pretty much the same thing, but because they're not black and they don't LOOK militaristic, nobody bitches about them.

This is literally like trying to regulate a car that LOOKS like 200+mph Ferrari, but has the power and drivetrain of a Honda Civic. Legislate based on how something looks is unreasonable, and most of the folks in Congress pushing for this are well aware of it. They're just assuming you're stupid and won't realize you're being misled.
edit on 6 10 17 by face23785 because: (no reason given)

edit on 6 10 17 by face23785 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 6 2017 @ 03:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: dragonridr


Any rifle that can swith from semi auto to full auto is an assault rifle. For not existing as you claim gun manufacturers make them and call them assault rifles.


I think that is called a machine gun...

But you know Assault rifles sounds kind of scary and must then be so bad we need to ban them. I think I would go with something with a nicer sounding name like "Precision Rifle"




posted on Oct, 6 2017 @ 03:46 PM
link   
why do people insist on us copying other western nations that banned guns? the facts show clearly that after such bans violent crimes either increase or stay nearly the same across the board, the lowering of violent crime in many western nations has had nothing to do with gun bans and such assertions ignore how low crime rates were before such bans in many such nations, not only that but it also ignores the fact that violent crimes have been going down for decades in the US and has only gone up slightly since 2015.

our laws have been perfectly adequate and effective and we have no reason to go to extremes over fear and panic, there's no real reason to change everything suddenly just because one or even a few incidents.

we in the americas live in the most violent part the world yet our crime rates compare most closely with countries who have the lowest crime rates in the world so we must be doing something right.
edit on 6-10-2017 by namehere because: (no reason given)

edit on 6-10-2017 by namehere because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 6 2017 @ 03:50 PM
link   
a reply to: namehere

Some people need votes and campaign money, so we have to pretend these facts aren't available.

The US tried an "assault weapon" ban already, it had zero impact on violent crime rates.



posted on Oct, 6 2017 @ 03:56 PM
link   
a reply to: dragonridr

Full auto rifles are very, very difficult for the general public to buy. I cannot go into my local gun store and buy a rifle that freely switches to full auto. That requires highly specialized licensing.

Just because a thing is made does not mean it is freely available.



posted on Oct, 6 2017 @ 05:55 PM
link   

originally posted by: intrepid
Instead of arguing any of those things why not look at:


originally posted by: JoshuaCox
Why are we humoring that at all???

They are being allowed to use a fantasy as a SUPER EFFECTIVE scare tactic,


Stop looking at this as a game of Risk, which must be won, and actually talk to each other. I would have said chess but the conduct of these "combatants" is so childish I wouldn't put that noble game in the same category.


I see what you're saying, and agree for the most part. It's not about winning, but about futility. How I take the OP is that sometimes, and with some people, it's futile (I've encountered it myself).

One can try to engage a discussion about the *issue,* but, depending on with whom one tries to engage, instead of objectively discussing the issue, it devolves in partisan talking points. Some people are able to talk about the issue without partisanship (regardless of political leaning), but others can't. And when you realize who you actually can have an honest conversation and those you can't, you stop debating with the latter.

That's the problem.

That just how I take the OP, and I agree to an extent.

ETA:

And then there are the obvious troll posts/threads, means to trigger like throwing red meat into a tank of piranhas, also which shouldn't be fed.
edit on 6-10-2017 by Liquesence because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 6 2017 @ 08:18 PM
link   
a reply to: StunPrix

You mean you don’t debate with gun grabbing democrats, because much like the unicorn you have never actually met one.

But you and all your shill friends sure like playing pretend... huh?



posted on Oct, 6 2017 @ 08:41 PM
link   
a reply to: face23785


Is it really a ban if it only the any new sales and the 100 million already in circulation are still perfectly legal???




That’s not even remotely a ban , ban... you know the kind of ban I’m sure you pretend like is comming ..



posted on Oct, 6 2017 @ 08:43 PM
link   
a reply to: face23785

Please quote where one has EVER said the want to ban all guns OR start ANY kind of confiscation program???

You won’t be able to because it doesn’t exist...



posted on Oct, 6 2017 @ 09:06 PM
link   
a reply to: namehere

American history has shown no such thing...


if it is a legit threat the new what law enforcement agencies would be willing to go house to house confiscating guns??

None of them....


What elected officials have proposed a bill saying that???

None of them..




BWAHAHAHA

YOU ARE AFRAID TO LET FEAR AND IRRATIONALLY TAKE CONTROL , WHEN YOUR CONSTANTLY PREACHING ABOUT BEING AFRAID OF SOMETHING TOTALLY IRRATIONAL!!

Oh man.. I actually lol for real..



posted on Oct, 7 2017 @ 08:53 AM
link   

originally posted by: visitedbythem
The problem is the people.

There is a certain group of people who are rising up and bringing violence to America, because they haven't gotten their way. If that mindset, and those people were removed from the continental US today, you would see amazing immediate results.

If only we could find a large Island to put them on, where they could start their own country. The first law of that country would be no fire arms whatsoever, and money credits for families that choose to abort the fetus creatures.
All earnings for all the society would go into a pot and be divided according top the needs. People would only be allowed one bedroom per person max, and only electric cars and bicycles would be allowed. There would be some electricity during the day, but dusk is lights out and martial law to keep everyone safe.

There will be cameras on every street corner, and also in the home ( the rest room wont have a camera so as to provide privacy, unless the person has ever misbehaved in any way shape or form.

I think this is all doable, and the trade off of worthless freedom is well worth the safety and security of the citizens



Would each house have a transgendered bathroom too?





posted on Oct, 7 2017 @ 08:58 AM
link   

originally posted by: seeker1963
a reply to: JoshuaCox


This OP reminds me of all those ANTIFA videos I have watched! When they see someone debating or having a conversation with a "NAZI" someone walks up and tells them to "Not Engage"!

So much for having a "Conversation"? lol





Or you get conversations like this....




They always go nowhere because they don't know what they are talking about.







posted on Oct, 7 2017 @ 10:52 AM
link   
a reply to: JoshuaCox

Diane Feinstein has said it publicly many times. And she has said that she won't fully push for t because she knows that she will lose. Never mind the fact that her own upstanding self illegally conceal carried long before California issued permits. She also was awarded her permit very early when it was MAY issue not SHALL issue. Is she keeping her mouth shut and head down now? Yep, want to know why? Because she won't talk publicly about it if she thinks there is a chance.



posted on Oct, 7 2017 @ 11:15 AM
link   
a reply to: JoshuaCox

You cannot reason with religious zealots and cults.

Gun control is an attack against the 2nd amendment. In their minds.

Repubs understand sabotage because that is what they do to women's reproductive Rights and the ACA.






edit on 7-10-2017 by MOMof3 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 7 2017 @ 11:23 AM
link   
a reply to: Ahabstar

No she has not...


I just started a thread asking for the quotes of elected politicians saying they wanted a ban or confiscation on all guns.

It’s only been 12 hours, but not one quote has been posted, except one from Diane fienstien that is edited.

youtu.be...

I researched the Diane fienstien quote you are referring to.

She is asked about the grandfather part of the 1990’s assault rifle ban and says is , if she had had the 51 votes. The assault rifle ban would not have had a grandfather clause. Those already sold would have been required to be turned in..

But even with a democrat majority. No one was willing to do even that..

That video that goes around has edited out the question fienstien is asked.

She is asked about the grandfather clause and replies she wouldn’t have included it..



That’s as far as the “most fun grabbing democrat” was willing to go..


AKA super weak sauce..


EXACTLY AS I SAID!!!


The only actual proposal that has ever even remotely realistic , is a ban on NEW assault rifles.”



posted on Oct, 7 2017 @ 11:25 AM
link   
a reply to: dragonridr

actually that page you linked is for military and law enforcement and yes they would be called assault rifles for them.

if you click products and civil,which means civilians, they don't call them that. they call them rifles. which i think is the point that ketsuko was trying to make.

HK Civil Page

and your linked page,
HK Military and Law Enforcement

edit on 7-10-2017 by hounddoghowlie because: (no reason given)

edit on 7-10-2017 by hounddoghowlie because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 7 2017 @ 11:27 AM
link   
a reply to: burgerbuddy

Yep - it was a reasonable question. To be fair to the gun control advocate he made sense to me on one point. He was saying that the govt should be aware if multiple guns are purchased, especially an arsenal being amassed over a short space of time, by one person. I assumed he meant tying together each purchase back to one individual.

However, he had no solutions. He was totally stumped when asked what would be done with that information and how Paddock could have been stopped. I stay 'stumped' but in reality, I think he knew exactly what he wanted to do... surveillance of a citizen, spying, tracking movements. Possibly even visits from law enforcement. He didn;t want to say it, though, because he knew it would not be politically expedient to do so.




top topics



 
11
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join