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.
Maybe figure out why they keep increasing and address the actual cause, rather than just take rights away from innocent people?
What does this even mean? Literally any caliber can be "warfare caliber."
Your suggestion to arm grade schoolers is certainly unworkable, yes. I think you're the only one that's suggested that in this thread, but I may have missed something.
Not "any yahoo" can get one so....
originally posted by: Asktheanimals
Gun-free zones are the problem.
98% of all mass shootings in the US happen in them.
Every mass shooting that was stopped was done so by a good guy with a gun.
The solution to bad people with guns is good people with guns.
originally posted by: Asktheanimals
Gun-free zones are the problem.
98% of all mass shootings in the US happen in them.
Every mass shooting that was stopped was done so by a good guy with a gun.
The solution to bad people with guns is good people with guns.
originally posted by: 3NL1GHT3N3D1
I don't disagree with the bill in theory, I believe guns are great for self defense and defending others, but what happens when these guns are then used for even more shootings? If there is an uptick in school shootings will anyone agree that it was a bad idea? It just seems like it's going to give these psychos even easier access to their weapons of choice. Not saying that's true, just a thought I'm having.
Like I said, the bill sounds good on paper but there's always downsides to almost everything.
originally posted by: 3NL1GHT3N3D1
a reply to: Shamrock6
You may be right. Like I said, it sounds great on paper but I'm willing to bet that someone who decides to shoot up a school isn't very concerned with their own life to begin with so guns wouldn't deter them. I may be wrong and it's always good to have an extra line of defense though.
This person in Florida (choosing not to use his name) brought a firearm onto school grounds and murdered people. Laws don't stop the criminally insane from doing that which is their goal.
No, because honestly, free speech is not grounds to deny someone their second-amendment rights. If what he wrote was so criminal, why did the FBI not arrest him by then?
Facebook and other social media platforms are easily hacked and easily used by people other than the actual person, as well as users don't always post as who they actually are. So, no, social media should not be used as a metric to deny someone a constitutionally protected right.
The First Amendment guarantees every person the right of free speech, but that right is not absolute. Some words “by their very utterance” cause injury or incite an immediate breach of peace, and they do not receive constitutional protection.[2] Among the category of unprotected speech are “true threats,” statements in which a speaker expresses a “serious” intent “to commit an act of unlawful violence to a particular individual or group of individuals.”
Do you not understand that medical records are protected by law, even from other government agencies without a warrant? What you are advocating is absolute overreach, plain and simple. Most of us are not willing to give up our rights to privacy for a false sense of security, which is all that would come from what you are citing.
The HIPAA rules provide a wide variety of circumstances under which medical information can be disclosed for law enforcement-related purposes without explicitly requiring a warrant.[iii] These circumstances include (1) law enforcement requests for information to identify or locate a suspect, fugitive, witness, or missing person (2) instances where there has been a crime committed on the premises of the covered entity, and (3) in a medical emergency in connection with a crime.[iv] In other words, law enforcement is entitled to your records simply by asserting that you are a suspect or the victim of a crime.
Don't openly display your ignorance for all to see. AR15s are absolutely great hunting rifles, and in my state of Kentucky (well, commonwealth), the .223/.556 round is approved for dear hunting, although the AR10 platform, shooting .308 would be a better choice, as it's more likely to put the target down better. I know more than a few people who hunt with both the AR platform and what you would consider standard hunting rifles. Most like the AR better, but generally the weather dictates which one they will use. So, some hunters surely do use these guns when they hunt--let's not generalize groups of people out of ignorance.
"Most people don't see semi-automatic as something you need for big game," said William Broderick, a worker at Dunkleburger's Sports Outfitters.
Many of the hunters we spoke to are in agreement with the Game Commission's decision to remove large game from the list. Some other hunters we spoke to don't think semi-automatic rifles and hunting mix at all.
Robert Wetmore from Stroudsburg doesn't think the state should mess with tradition at all. He believes the use of semi-automatic rifles on any animal takes away from the experience.
"Where is the fun in just being able to shoot and you're going to get it. You're losing the whole thing. It's supposed to be a seek and destroy mission here. Where are you going? You're just going to destroy here. You're going to just destroy. It just doesn't make any sense, especially small animals. What are you going to eat after you shoot it?" said Wetmore.
Laws most certainly do stop and make it difficult for the criminally insane to purchase a fire arm.
Lol, free speech doesn't give anyone the right to threaten the lives of people. More BS from gun enthusiasts like you...
You clearly are ignorant to the fact that law enforcement can have access to medical records if someone is a suspect in a crime or is a terrorist threat.
I admit I'm not a gun owner, but I would surely come to the same conclusion as these hunters.
originally posted by: TonyS
a reply to: SlapMonkey
JMHO, but they seriously need to turn the schools from soft targets to hard targets. Imagine for a moment........some kid walks into and through the halls of the school with an AR-15 without anyone ever challenging him. How does that happen? The blame doesn't lie with the scrary "guns", it lies squarely on the school administrators and staff and to some extent on the designers of these school buildings. This needs to be changed and now.
originally posted by: WeRpeons
Laws most certainly do stop and make it difficult for the criminally insane to purchase a fire arm.
Lol, free speech doesn't give anyone the right to threaten the lives of people. More BS from gun enthusiasts like you...
I'm sure you don't watch the "fake news", but if you did, you would have known the FBI admitted they dropped the ball and didn't investigate the shooter after a tip was called in. If they would have investigated the shooter and did a search of his residence and found the stash of guns he had, you can bet your last dollar he would have been arrested.
You clearly are ignorant to the fact that law enforcement can have access to medical records if someone is a suspect in a crime or is a terrorist threat.
I stand corrected on the AR15 being used for hunting.
Sure does sound like using an AR-15 for hunting is ridiculous. I admit I'm not a gun owner, but I would surely come to the same conclusion as these hunters. It's like taking all the fun and experience out of fishing with a rod and reel and instead troll for fish. You sure can't claim you're great at fishing if all you do is get on a boat drop a net into the water, start trolling and scooping up fish, lol.
So really, I doubt the AR-15 is really a necessity for hunting rather than just the enjoyment of using it and engaging in overkill.
I guess you also think "bump stocks" should also be legal too? If the AR-15 doesn't give someone enough enjoyment of shredding up your kill, I guess "bump stocks" are the next best thing, huh? We don't live in a perfect world, so we can't expect everyone in society to be responsible. Anything can be used as a weapon. However, the AR-15 has had a track record of being the weapon of choice. Do you really think this guy could have killed 17 and injured more if he had to stop and reload a handgun?
What purpose does a magazine clip that holds multiple bullets have a reason to be accessible to the general public?
originally posted by: WeRpeons
a reply to: Shamrock6
I and many other Americans should put lives ahead of materialistic things. This gun argument is not denying your right to own a hand gun or hunting rifle.