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: 4
11
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 7 2017 @ 12:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: MOMof3

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


Demos understand it too because that's what you do to elections.




posted on Oct, 7 2017 @ 01:03 PM
link   
a reply to: Bone75

That's for sure. They need to be better liars.



posted on Oct, 7 2017 @ 01:10 PM
link   
a reply to: hounddoghowlie

But the only difference between the 2 is the ability to go full auto, which is a very easily modified thing?? Right?
edit on 7-10-2017 by JoshuaCox because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 7 2017 @ 01:15 PM
link   
a reply to: UKTruth

That’s the usual spiel...


“Yes the government should step in when “X” happens, but no the government should not be able to track them to know when “X” happens..”


Because even when there is no law enforcement body willing to enforce a ban nor confiscation. It is still a valid fear that if they had a list they would come and take all the guns...


(Sarcasm)

I just wish people were basing their world view on reality rather than fantasy..


Almost none of them are bad people, just duped by garbage propaganda...



posted on Oct, 7 2017 @ 01:32 PM
link   
a reply to: JoshuaCox

Look inwardly. Seriously.
The biggest fantasy of all is the idea that politicians would be truthful to you.



posted on Oct, 7 2017 @ 01:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: face23785
Anyone who thinks an AR-15, one of the so-called "assault weapons" they want to ban, is useless except for mass murder, I encourage you to give this video a watch:



Disclaimer: Yes, I know it's virtually useless to post this because some people are religiously dedicated to remaining uneducated on this topic, but I figured it was worth a try. If just one person has their eyes opened, mission accomplished.


That AR15 looks like the perfect weapon for defence.
I can see why people buy them.



posted on Oct, 7 2017 @ 01:56 PM
link   
a reply to: UKTruth

30 rounds? Just imagine each bottle is a head. Seems more offensive to me.

What is he 'defending from' an entire police station?

To me, clip size seems to be the most appropriate weapons warranted for defense. Most people that own guns are good at aiming them.

Using a real-life example, my friend who commonly is in the Mountains, shoots most things that are dangerous with a Revolver, bears for example, but he also specifically has a higher capacity handgun for Mt Lions, that can be whole families together.

That aside, criminals run when they hear gun fire, and I just cannot imagine pumping 5 bullets into 5 difference criminals coming at you, and then a 6th coming after that. 30 is too many bullets. The shotgun is arguably too few for 3 intruders, but most of the time the sound alone is what is making them run and the AR seems like overkill to the highest degree.

Sure you 'could' use that for defense, but you 'could' also kill 25+ people before you even needed to reload in the correct setting.



posted on Oct, 7 2017 @ 02:27 PM
link   
I was going to leave this alone, mainly because the title is pure click bait begging for flags and stars (here’s your trophy!).

As an independent who is nowhere near far right, perhaps I can share a few facts with you and you might “get it”.

1. I own several handguns.

Fact - for each and every purchase I had to complete paperwork at the dealer, the dealer called the FBI’s NIC system, and my background was checked...E.V.E.R.Y. S.I.N.G.L.E. T.I.M.E. Amazing huh? A law already in place was followed.

Fact - one of these handguns I bought on the internet. To receive my purchase, it had to be sent to a Federally Licensed gun dealer who then had me fill out paperwork, ran my background through FBI NICS and O.N.L.Y. after cleared by FBI was I allowed to take possession. Law in action...neat, huh?

Fact - I purchase an annual membership at an indoor gun range and visit once or twice monthly, rotating through my handguns, running 50 rounds or so through the ones with me that day, and ensure I can hit exactly what I’m shooting at, where I intend to shoot it (within an inch ot two, give or take).

Fact - I am licensed to carry. To receive that license, I had to attend a six hour class and then fire 50 rounds within the 8 ring of a silhouette target at various distances while timed. 3 yards, 7 yards, and 15 yards. There were some who sat through the class with me but did not pass the qualifying step. No license for them...what? The law was followed? Say it isn’t so...

Fact - Gun control does not reduce crime - it increases the amount of criminals buying guns out of trunks (or stealing them). See Chicago, Baltimore, NYC, et al.

Fact - Actually enforcing A.N.D. prosecuting the gun laws aleady on the books W.O.U.L.D. make a dent in violent crime. You know, like getting the guns from the thugs in Chicago, Baltimore, NYC, et. al., throwing said thugs on super max prisons, and throwing away the keys.

Fact - if people with gun purchasing disqualifiers do not lie on their apllications, they do not L.E.G.A.L.L.Y. buy guns. Those with arrests for domestic abuse do not L.E.G.A.L.L.Y. buy guns. Those with felony convictions...well, I think you get the point.

Fact - unless you’ve actually read all the documents that must be completed to L.E.G.A.L.L.Y. buy a gun or be awarded a license to carry, please refrain from making suggestions on how gun laws should be changed—mainly because that indicates you don’t even know the ones already in place.

Fact - Liberal melt down in 3, 2, 1...



posted on Oct, 7 2017 @ 02:32 PM
link   
a reply to: JoshuaCox

I domt think a full bam would happen in my lifetime.


I do think it ridiculous to measure gun violence as a seperate category of violence. Its prejudicial and creates an arguement over fallacy.

Violence is violence. Dead is dead.



posted on Oct, 7 2017 @ 02:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: JoshuaCox

I domt think a full bam would happen in my lifetime.


I do think it ridiculous to measure gun violence as a seperate category of violence. Its prejudicial and creates an arguement over fallacy.

Violence is violence. Dead is dead.


Exactly.

Regardless of means, it is the mentality of the person committing the crime.

It's so strange to see people fighting over the object, versus the person(s). Until the actual reason behind killing is dealt with, the weapon used doesn't matter.

It's easy to see how the media and politicians play off e achother. If the weapon changed to axes and the media was reporting on dozens of axe murders we would be looking at laws limiting use for axes.



posted on Oct, 7 2017 @ 02:44 PM
link   
a reply to: namehere

I don’t think those stats are accurately being portrayed..

Sure the violent crime rate has continually trended down. Our death by gun rate has not...

Really the problem in America is the war on drugs.. it created a black market worth billons and all the stuff that comes with it.. the police and citizenry ratchet up, which requires the black market to as well.


That and the media scaring the hell out of people.. in the case of a break in 99.9999% chance the burglars would be scared to death of you.. but we all expect a rape seriel killer..



posted on Oct, 7 2017 @ 02:46 PM
link   
a reply to: DisinfoEqualsTerrorism

First...its not a "clip". Its a magazine. Clips are used by guns like a Mosin Nagant or M1 Garand. Not modern rifles typically. Seeing that term used is a tell that the person using it isnt well versed with firearms.

Second, and more importantly, when my life is in the balance i go by the adage of "its better to have and not want than need and not have". I stress about my daily carry only having 6 round mags (a pocket sized 40 cal).

Someone else doesnt get to second guess. Or postulate what they think an irrational criminal would/should do before deciding which rights i get to keep. Think about that....if an attacker doesnt do what you seem to believe they will do (run) innocent victims die. Would you bet your families life on you hypothetical always being correct? I wont.

Magazine capacity means nothing. Id miss maybe 1 or 2 shots while popping another mag in. If someone wants to kill people...that wont slow them down enoughto matter. But it could kill someone defending themselves.
edit on 10/7/2017 by bigfatfurrytexan because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 7 2017 @ 03:57 PM
link   
a reply to: JoshuaCox


yes you are correct always has been and always will be. no matter what you or any other gun crapper try to say.
and modifying them is illegal has been that way since the NFA. adding external accessories are not modifying the internal works which are still incapable of switching.

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



posted on Oct, 7 2017 @ 04:05 PM
link   
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

I don't really think you addressed my point.

Sure you want as much defense as you can have.

The issue is a culture that allows that to puts high capacity(capacity applies in any case correct?) guns in the arms of people less interested in defense.

I guess my case and point is you want one of these to defend yourself as 'culture' congratulations, the enemy is now more equip because of overzealous availability defense. That should be obvious right? The standard is being raised IMO as well, before less lethality firepower overall was required to fight the 'boogieman' of home intruders. Your philosophy is cyclical, you will inevitability need RPG's and Landmines at this rate.



posted on Oct, 7 2017 @ 04:10 PM
link   
a reply to: DisinfoEqualsTerrorism

Who says im defending against humans? Hogs run in packs of a hundred or more.

My poimt is, why should someone not imvolved with the act of fighting for their lives get to presuppose for someone who is?

Eta: there is no arms race. Guns today are not more effective at killing than in 1910 unless you bring in the stuff thats off limits to 99% of us. Im having a very hard time following you here.
edit on 10/7/2017 by bigfatfurrytexan because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 7 2017 @ 04:12 PM
link   
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

Presuppose?

The tool for the job, we're clearly not talking about the same thing. Did you read my story about fighting wildlife with the Revolver? If more than that is necessary(like in the story) you take more.

My issue is this man(You asked who) in the video declares this AR-15 is a viable weapon for home defense, and I agree.

My grievance is this leading to the home intruders having AR-15s.



posted on Oct, 7 2017 @ 04:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: DisinfoEqualsTerrorism
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

Presuppose?

The tool for the job, we're clearly not talking about the same thing. Did you read my story about fighting wildlife with the Revolver? If more than that is necessary(like in the story) you take more.
i read your story. The guys not very bright. And i wont use that story as a risk barometer when its my pulse on the line.




My issue is this man(You asked who) in the video declares this AR-15 is a viable weapon for home defense, and I agree.

My grievance is this leading to the home intruders having AR-15s.


Well...a 12 ga is the best home defense. Shortest barrel possible. An AR us is pretty low on the list honestly. Too much swing radius for my liking. Nometheless,its slippery slope logic. Intruders may or may not arm up more. I think if they expect to be shot at to begin with they wont enter. And will always stick to the easily concealed handgun.



posted on Oct, 7 2017 @ 04:23 PM
link   
a reply to: DisinfoEqualsTerrorism

I should add...an ar 15 is simply a rifle. Its not a magic weapon. It looks tougher but is still a rifle like any other rifle

I have 2 rifles chambered the same. One an ar, the other not. They perform the same on the range. Just that one looks cooler than the other.

Im not real impressed to be honest. Maybe i need to fill up the rails with more gadgets so it seems cooler?



posted on Oct, 7 2017 @ 04:24 PM
link   
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

And I basically said all that, even that they run from gunfire.


My point is this man is the one that PRESUPPOSES he will need that much firepower to deal with intruders.

A cultural that thinks they need a AR-15 for home defense will inevitability be fighting much more armed gunman.

You casually remark the tool for the job matters, would criminals not embrace such a thought and arm up more to intrude against an armed culture?

Do you see my point here? If they know you're armed, they're more interested in arming themselves.

Not to even mention how many gun owners are shot with their own weapons by intruders.



posted on Oct, 7 2017 @ 04:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: JoshuaCox

We have got to stop debating slippery slope arguments that no one is proposing as if they are real....

No one is talking about banning all guns , nor starting a confiscation program..

The only thing that has EVER been proposed by an actual elected official has been a ban on the NEW SALE of assault rifles.






Well I can see you are not a lawyer because a good one will tell you not only is this unconstitutional, it also amounts to the same thing you claim it does not simply by leaning toward the precedent.



new topics

top topics



 
11
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join