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.

 

NY Times wilfully ignorant

page: 14
33
<< 11  12  13    15 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 27 2018 @ 11:53 PM
link   
a reply to: DogStarIn1066

You would have been happy to violate the law to take out a fellow american whose rights are being violated? I'm glad you're no longer serving.


More nonsense.

Ever notice how police standoffs always end?

Imagine the 82nd airborne outside your house.

You cannot fight the federal government with violence.

You will lose.

So use the tools that civilisation has endowed you with.


I have so many questions about this. Why is the 82nd airborne engaged on american soil against a single american citizen, for starters? This hypothetical is ridiculous and so unrealistic it's hilarious.

"Imagine all of you farmers going up against the armed forces of the british crown! You can't fight the government with violence. You will lose!"

Where have I seen this before?

ETA: IIRC, the mormons held off the american military for over a year, just before the the 20th century in the Utah war.

Also, notice how there's a police standoff in your hypothetical. With no arms, there's no standoff. The arms give bargaining power. See Oregon 2016.
edit on 28-3-2018 by Dfairlite because: (no reason given)




posted on Mar, 28 2018 @ 05:49 AM
link   

originally posted by: Agit8dChop


Here's what I see as the difference..

The top gun, once I've fired it at an innocent child... i cant keep firing it at other innocent kids

however, the bottom gun, i can kill atleast 10 kids, then only need 10 seconds to reload another clip and kill another 10
Yeah you, not the gun. The heart of the matter is people. And quit with the appealing. Even Hitler was not above using children to strip rights.


You can be all technical about your definitions of ''assault rifle'' or ''semi automatic / fully automatic ''


That's the only way you can talk about weapons, otherwise we're left talking about how scary a gun looks.


the point is, these weapons are being built to kill multiple people in seconds... these kind of weapons should NOT be in the hands of anyone in the public scene, let alone mentally challenged people or general citizens without a background and mental check.

You want protection? get shot gun or a hunting rifle for your home....


Those can kill multiple people in seconds too. And no one here has ever condoned the mentally ill having weapons. Though you'll get a fight about because some would wish to classify anyone that voted for Trump mentally ill.


You cant tell me the 2nd amendment was written with AR15's and other similar weapons in mind..


I can.

Wars were fought with Swords and halberds etc. Then came bows and crossbows, then muskets ( a few other things here and there but you get the gist). They understood that weaponry had evolved, and would continue to do so. Otherwise it would read "the right to keep and bear muskets, and other various tools lying around the farm".


Logic needs to prevail somewhere in this debate.


Then why did you enter into this one with an appeal to emotion?



posted on Mar, 28 2018 @ 06:25 AM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Well there is far more to it than that, you are dead right.

But my point is that if a weapon is semi-auto, it cannot fit the definition of an assault rifle, the same way as a semi-automatic pistol is not an SMG.



posted on Mar, 28 2018 @ 07:03 AM
link   
a reply to: Chadwickus


Amen bro

These guys are their own worst enemy if they trully want to keep their weapons.
Stop threatening the government.



posted on Mar, 28 2018 @ 08:45 AM
link   

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
a reply to: network dude


Where's Danny Vermin and his .88 magnum?


My mother slapped me once........ once....



posted on Mar, 28 2018 @ 09:35 AM
link   
Why do you buy into the premise laid out by the left?

Instead of arguing whether something is an "assault weapon" or whatever other term the left invents to frame the discussion, reject their language altogether.

It doesn't matter whether a gun is an "assault rifle" or not. It doesn't matter if it's full auto or bolt action. A gun is a gun and the second amendment protects the ownership of weapons. There is no restriction. If you want a machine gun you have the right to own as many as you want. We keep losing our rights because the milque toast Boomer Republicans are too scared to actually oppose the left in any meaningful way. They argue about what the NY times decides they can argue about or god forbid they get called racist or w/e.



posted on Mar, 28 2018 @ 10:06 AM
link   

originally posted by: cynicalheathen
a reply to: Krazysh0t

The length argument is pretty weak. I own a 16" barrel M4-gery that shoots accurately enough to hit 12" steel plates at 500 yards with iron sights. 5.56x45 isn't especially lethal past 150yards anyway. The round is intended to wound, not kill.

I also have several 8" plates set up at 25 yards and can reliably hit all targets with basic semi-auto pistols, rapid-fire, and swapping between targets. With several 15rd or less magazines, it's easy to keep up a good rate of fire. Reloading takes about a second. 10 round mags wouldn't make a huge difference. I used to own an old Lee-Enfield bolt-action, and I could keep up a pretty good rate of fire with only a 5 round magazine and charger clips.

It's not the gun, but the shooter that makes a shooting lethal.



posted on Mar, 28 2018 @ 10:14 AM
link   
a reply to: Flyting


So you're saying we need better guns to make less skilled shooters such as old folks who are not good at handling recoil or can't afford much ammo to practice, more lethal right?

After all why shouldn't people who are less skilled be able to defend themselves? Home Invaders won't give them a chance.



posted on Mar, 28 2018 @ 10:45 AM
link   
a reply to: face23785

Here's what I found on wiki:


History of terminology

In the past, the names of certain military weapons used the phrase, such as the Rifleman's Assault Weapon, a grenade launcher developed in 1977 for use with the M16 assault rifle,[18] or the Shoulder-launched Multipurpose Assault Weapon, a rocket launcher introduced in 1984.[19]

In April 1985, Art Agnos introduced in the California State Assembly a bill to ban semi-automatic "assault firearms" capable of using detachable magazines of 20 rounds or more.[20][21] Speaking to the Assembly Public Safety Committee, Agnos said, "The only use for assault weapons is to shoot people."[20] The measure did not pass when it came up for a vote.[21]

In 2013, The Washington Post wrote of the term: "Many attribute its popularization to a 1988 paper written by gun-control activist and Violence Policy Center founder Josh Sugarmann and the later reaction to the Cleveland School massacre in Stockton, California, in January 1989."[5] Sugarmann had written:

Assault weapons—just like armor-piercing bullets, machine guns, and plastic firearms—are a new topic. The weapons' menacing looks, coupled with the public's confusion over fully automatic machine guns versus semi-automatic assault weapons—anything that looks like a machine gun is assumed to be a machine gun—can only increase the chance of public support for restrictions on these weapons. In addition, few people can envision a practical use for these weapons.[22]

The firearms industry itself introduced the term "assault weapon" to build interest in new product lines.[8] Phillip Peterson, the author of Gun Digest Buyer’s Guide to Assault Weapons (2008) wrote:

The popularly held idea that the term 'assault weapon' originated with anti-gun activists is wrong. The term was first adopted by manufacturers, wholesalers, importers and dealers in the American firearms industry to stimulate sales of certain firearms that did not have an appearance that was familiar to many firearms owners. The manufacturers and gun writers of the day needed a catchy name to identify this new type of gun.[23]

Conservative writer Rich Lowry said that assault weapon is a "manufactured term."[24] Joseph P. Tartaro of the Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) wrote in 1994: "One of the key elements of the anti-gun strategy to gull the public into supporting bans on the so-called 'assault weapons' is to foster confusion. As stated previously, the public does not know the difference between a full automatic and a semi-automatic firearm."[4] Robert Crook, executive director of the Coalition of Connecticut Sportsmen, said "the term 'assault weapon,' as used by the media, is a media invention."[6]



posted on Mar, 28 2018 @ 11:02 AM
link   
a reply to: Flyting

sorry second ever post in years and accidentally hit reply before I'd written anything.

In reply to cyncalheathan above: "It's not the gun, but the shooter that makes a shooting lethal."

While I agree to a certain extent that obviously whomever has a hold of the firearm dictates the target and the most likely outcome of their action, but with the greatest respect this argument is exceptionally weak; you only have to look at the number of gun related deaths caused by and/or involving children and even toddlersto see this is utter nonsense (sorry can't figure out how to post a link but toddler + gun death + USA into any search engine of your choice). I'm sure you are all aware of the figures and with all the emotional debate from both sides, this would appear to be conveniently overlooked, by both sides. I doubt very much a toddler could lift let alone point an assault rifle or whatever the pedantry being argued above is (ALL are designed and made to kill something!) and I'm not for a second saying a toddler is a better shot than any of you of course, or that the vast bulk of gun owners aren't responsible law abiding citizens, but a toddler or child shouldn't be anywhere near a firearm. Missing from all this discussion is what to do with the idiots who cannot be bothered to store their firearms appropriately so their kids (or thieves and others) can't get to them. It doesn't matter what the firearm is -protected by the constitution or otherwise. I've no idea how to enforce this, whether this adds to the problem, something firearms owners would welcome if it preserved their rights and convinced those wanting tougher legislation that they are sensible gun owners, or how mandatory checks on storage would be received (e.g. an invasion of privacy vs the right to go to school / go to concerts/go shopping etc and not get shot because of negligence?) - I don't have the answer but again to the quote from the above post, guns are made to kill no matter who is holding them or whatever definition (above)- a toddler or child playing with a loaded gun can be just as lethal with a gun by accident, as an Army Ranger on purpose. Ok, second ever post. An emotive issue. All the best to everyone in these testing times.



posted on Mar, 28 2018 @ 11:03 AM
link   
a reply to: Bearmonger

sorry, I hit reply too soon. I'd meant to reply to the above post so I didn't actually post anything (now replied properly). Sorry for the confusion!



posted on Mar, 28 2018 @ 11:05 AM
link   
a reply to: network dude

The NY Times has been and always will be willfully ignorant, not a big surprise. I do like your show and tell star and flag for you.
edit on 10-04-08 by Beach Bum because: Edited for editing



posted on Mar, 28 2018 @ 11:39 AM
link   

originally posted by: Agit8dChop

What do you believe he'd say if he held an AR15 and fired at some targets?

Probably something like this:
    Wow, this thing is awesome! This would make a great defensive weapon because now you could take on more attackers at once without having to worry too much about getting shot during the reload process. This is a pretty amazing advancement in firearm power--I wish that we had these to defend ourselves against the tyrannical British empire!

But furthermore, the Second Amendment, which was ratified into the constitution, was written by James Madison, who did say this:
    “[The Constitution preserves] the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation (where) the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.” ― James Madison

Keep in mind, "arms" doesn't only reference firearms--guns are just a small part of that term.

So, yes, I think that most at that time would have embraced semi-automatic firearms, including the AR-15. It's like Thomas Jefferson stated in a letter to James Madison:
    “I prefer dangerous freedom over peaceful slavery.” ― Thomas Jefferson

Or a quote by Ben Franklin:
    “Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote!” ― Benjamin Franklin

Or a quote by Patrick Henry:
    “Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined…. The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able might have a gun.” ― Patrick Henry

Maybe by now, you'll realize that they didn't put additional descriptors on what types of arms or guns should be available to all people. Just because you want to pretend that they would have is irrelevant to what is actually noted by many of our Founding Fathers, and most notably, by the author of the Second Amendment.



posted on Mar, 28 2018 @ 12:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: DogStarIn1066

originally posted by: Quetzalcoatl14
That's a straw man, obviously. Again, the whole point is to have some capacity to fight back or defend yourself in the case of tyranny. It's not "bombing buildings and shooting up schools.

At the point tyranny comes, your vote and voice may be gone. Or set you up to be attacked, at which point if you don't have a weapon then you are done.


More nonsense.

Ever notice how police standoffs always end?

Imagine the 82nd airborne outside your house.

You cannot fight the federal government with violence.

You will lose.

So use the tools that civilisation has endowed you with.





Yeah,the 82nd airborne did really well in Vietnam,they defeated everybody.Except for those peasants in the black pajamas.



posted on Mar, 28 2018 @ 02:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: jadedANDcynical
a reply to: face23785

Here's what I found on wiki:


History of terminology

In the past, the names of certain military weapons used the phrase, such as the Rifleman's Assault Weapon, a grenade launcher developed in 1977 for use with the M16 assault rifle,[18] or the Shoulder-launched Multipurpose Assault Weapon, a rocket launcher introduced in 1984.[19]

In April 1985, Art Agnos introduced in the California State Assembly a bill to ban semi-automatic "assault firearms" capable of using detachable magazines of 20 rounds or more.[20][21] Speaking to the Assembly Public Safety Committee, Agnos said, "The only use for assault weapons is to shoot people."[20] The measure did not pass when it came up for a vote.[21]

In 2013, The Washington Post wrote of the term: "Many attribute its popularization to a 1988 paper written by gun-control activist and Violence Policy Center founder Josh Sugarmann and the later reaction to the Cleveland School massacre in Stockton, California, in January 1989."[5] Sugarmann had written:

Assault weapons—just like armor-piercing bullets, machine guns, and plastic firearms—are a new topic. The weapons' menacing looks, coupled with the public's confusion over fully automatic machine guns versus semi-automatic assault weapons—anything that looks like a machine gun is assumed to be a machine gun—can only increase the chance of public support for restrictions on these weapons. In addition, few people can envision a practical use for these weapons.[22]

The firearms industry itself introduced the term "assault weapon" to build interest in new product lines.[8] Phillip Peterson, the author of Gun Digest Buyer’s Guide to Assault Weapons (2008) wrote:

The popularly held idea that the term 'assault weapon' originated with anti-gun activists is wrong. The term was first adopted by manufacturers, wholesalers, importers and dealers in the American firearms industry to stimulate sales of certain firearms that did not have an appearance that was familiar to many firearms owners. The manufacturers and gun writers of the day needed a catchy name to identify this new type of gun.[23]

Conservative writer Rich Lowry said that assault weapon is a "manufactured term."[24] Joseph P. Tartaro of the Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) wrote in 1994: "One of the key elements of the anti-gun strategy to gull the public into supporting bans on the so-called 'assault weapons' is to foster confusion. As stated previously, the public does not know the difference between a full automatic and a semi-automatic firearm."[4] Robert Crook, executive director of the Coalition of Connecticut Sportsmen, said "the term 'assault weapon,' as used by the media, is a media invention."[6]


You're doing "assault weapon" I was doing "assault rifle".


The term assault rifle is generally attributed to Adolf Hitler, who for propaganda purposes used the German word "Sturmgewehr" (which translates to "storm rifle" or "assault rifle"), as the new name for the MP43, subsequently known as the Sturmgewehr 44 or StG 44.[6][8][9][10][11][12][13][14] However, other sources dispute that Hitler had much to do with coining the new name besides signing the production order.


Wiki

Both are misused by the gun control lobby though. Both have origins in actual military weapons, but these days are just a political term invented by politicians as a catch-all for guns they find scary and don't want you to own. In every assault weapon ban law, at the beginning there will be a paragraph that says "assault weapons are defined as:" and then goes into all the characteristics they want to define that cause a gun to fall under their definition of "assault weapon". The characteristics they choose to define what an "assault weapon" or "assault rifle" is for their laws are usually totally arbitrary and not based on any kind of scientific rationale, crime data, ballistics, or anything else logical.

For example, the 10-round magazine proposal. Why 10? Why not 9, or 11? Well, because 10 is a nice, round number. It's not based on any actual data. If you were to base it on actual data, you might try to quantify what the average number of rounds are fired in a self defense shooting and base the limit around that. For the record I'm against magazine limits because they're pointless. My point is the people making these laws have no clue, nor do they have any wish to learn.
edit on 28 3 18 by face23785 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 29 2018 @ 03:10 AM
link   
a reply to: Flyting

Wall of text. Try and break it up next time, makes it easier to read.

In reference to my statement of "It's not the gun, but the shooter that makes a shooting lethal.", I'm talking about intentional acts.

Accidents happen, and any involving a child finding or playing with a firearm are extremely tragic. I absolutely agree that gun owners need to secure their firearms responsibly and that children and guns don't mix.

However, I absolutely bristle at the idea of having to have my home inspected under the auspice of "gun safety", especially without a warrant. Prosecute the owners of lost, unsecured, and stolen guns for any injuries caused by them. Make a big stink about it where the general public sees that it's a big deal.

As far as legislating away stupidity, that will never happen, for any inanimate object.



posted on Mar, 29 2018 @ 06:36 AM
link   



But, if firearms are so horrific, then only issue muskets to police. They kill more citizens than criminals with assault rifles.


That makes sense. Isn't the liberals all pissed off that the police kill people and then they dont trust Trump by calling him a dictator? Liberal talking points can be broken with common sense and examples.



posted on Mar, 29 2018 @ 08:26 AM
link   

originally posted by: cynicalheathen
a reply to: Flyting

Wall of text. Try and break it up next time, makes it easier to read.

In reference to my statement of "It's not the gun, but the shooter that makes a shooting lethal.", I'm talking about intentional acts.

Accidents happen, and any involving a child finding or playing with a firearm are extremely tragic. I absolutely agree that gun owners need to secure their firearms responsibly and that children and guns don't mix.

However, I absolutely bristle at the idea of having to have my home inspected under the auspice of "gun safety", especially without a warrant. Prosecute the owners of lost, unsecured, and stolen guns for any injuries caused by them. Make a big stink about it where the general public sees that it's a big deal.

As far as legislating away stupidity, that will never happen, for any inanimate object.




I agree with most of what you said here, except for holding owners responsible for stolen guns. I had a gun stolen. I was at work when 2 thugs broke into my house. They stole a lot of stuff, including my shotgun. Holding me responsible for the criminal acts of other people is absurd.

I did wind up getting it back, but that's not the point. I very easily may not have. Either way, it's not my fault some scum broke into my house.



posted on Mar, 29 2018 @ 09:17 AM
link   

originally posted by: staticfl



But, if firearms are so horrific, then only issue muskets to police. They kill more citizens than criminals with assault rifles.


That makes sense. Isn't the liberals all pissed off that the police kill people and then they dont trust Trump by calling him a dictator? Liberal talking points can be broken with common sense and examples.

How is trump responsible for police killings again?



posted on Mar, 29 2018 @ 01:03 PM
link   
a reply to: face23785

I didn't elaborate. Make it mandatory to report stolen firearms within a reasonable time. A timely report absolves the owner of any responsibility provided that the firearm was reasonably secured. Reasonably secured can mean that the gun was inside a locked house or concealed inside a locked vehicle.

There has been a rash of thefts of firearms from unlocked vehicles in my area. Those owners didn't take proper precautions to secure their guns. If those stolen guns are used to hurt someone, in my mind, the owners bear some reponsibility.

Problems come in when individuals assume that others share their morals. Just because I would never break into an unlocked car, steal a firearm, then use the firearm on someone else doesn't mean a criminal won't. Therefore, as a responsible gun owner, I don't leave guns in my cars, much less an unlocked car.




top topics



 
33
<< 11  12  13    15 >>

log in

join