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: 5
33
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 27 2018 @ 10:03 AM
link   

originally posted by: face23785

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: Edumakated

easier to sway the public with the "scary looking" guns tho isnt it?
interesting how they dont care about those killed with handguns....

soon it will be "the ruskies want you to keep your assault rifles".....


They tried that angle already and it failed. They're just looking for an in any way they can. Once you get one type of semi-auto banned, you can make the case that they all should be banned. The current version of the "assault weapons ban" in Congress actually does ban virtually all semi-auto rifles and handguns.


Who needs semi auto?

I can't hunt with one in my state. Most folks cannot shoot well with a bolt action. Your are most likely just shooting poorly at a faster rate.




posted on Mar, 27 2018 @ 10:04 AM
link   
a reply to: DogStarIn1066

I'm with you man.
Pretty funny how people react. Just look a couple posts up.
These kids don't understand rights and blah blah.

They're using their right to speak and assemble and are getting dismissed by all the Charlton Heston types.

I've not heard any of those kids say ban all guns or don't sell anymore guns or take away people's guns.

They're not saying that but that's all these right wing freak shows are hearing.

Jesus Christ man.
Times change and things should change a Long with it.
Good on these kids I hope they keep at it and I hope the changes happen.



posted on Mar, 27 2018 @ 10:04 AM
link   

originally posted by: TrueBrit
a reply to: Krazysh0t

It does not matter which is better Krazysh0t.

The point is that unless the rifle can fire more than one round, to one pull of the trigger, its a semi automatic firearm, no different than any other. Calling a civilian available AR-15 an assault rifle, is like calling a VW Camper Van a sports car. Its nonsensical, and makes no allowance for the clear differences between the two things.

How many times do I have to say that semi-auto isn't the defining feature of an assault rifle??!?! Sheesh...

Do you call sem-auto pistols, assault pistols? No. There is more to it than that.



posted on Mar, 27 2018 @ 10:05 AM
link   
For those on here that dont understand what the OP is about
The Liberals are saying the ARs are designed for the military.
Not just no , but HADES no.They are designed for whoever wants to and can purchase one. My 10 year old granddaughter has her own pink 5.56 AR-15
And a bunch of boxes of rocks out there actually believe the AR stands for Assault Rifle. The most ignorant belief I have ever heard.
The M-249 and something like the M-16A1 with the M-203 attached and the M-202 Flash most definitely are assault weapons designed for the military .
Any questions ?
I sure hope not...




posted on Mar, 27 2018 @ 10:05 AM
link   
a reply to: DogStarIn1066

But their gunz make them feel all safe and warm.



posted on Mar, 27 2018 @ 10:06 AM
link   
a reply to: rickymouse
Well spoken. You sound like a level headed person when it comes to firearms.



posted on Mar, 27 2018 @ 10:08 AM
link   

originally posted by: Perfectenemy
a reply to: DogStarIn1066

Alright then the kids should start fighting against obesity and deaths caused by don't text and driving as well. That kills way more people in the US daily then any mass shooting event and the numbers are on the rise. Repeal the Second Amendment is trending so i guess they are after all your guns. I'm not an american but i support the right to bear arms. Repealing the Second Amendment creates a precedence and who really believes it just stops there.


Yep, but they just want a few "common sense" restrictions.

edit on 27 3 18 by face23785 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 27 2018 @ 10:09 AM
link   

originally posted by: DogStarIn1066

originally posted by: face23785

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: Edumakated

easier to sway the public with the "scary looking" guns tho isnt it?
interesting how they dont care about those killed with handguns....

soon it will be "the ruskies want you to keep your assault rifles".....


They tried that angle already and it failed. They're just looking for an in any way they can. Once you get one type of semi-auto banned, you can make the case that they all should be banned. The current version of the "assault weapons ban" in Congress actually does ban virtually all semi-auto rifles and handguns.


Who needs semi auto?

I can't hunt with one in my state. Most folks cannot shoot well with a bolt action. Your are most likely just shooting poorly at a faster rate.


So ban all semi-autos, that's what you're calling for? Just want to make this clear.

I need semi-auto because I can more effectively defend myself with it.



posted on Mar, 27 2018 @ 10:09 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.

No it isn't weak. It's simple physics. A shorter barrel == less range. Naturally the range is still amazing on the M4, but that doesn't mean it is the same as the M16.


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.

Good for you. I really don't care, but congrats I guess.


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

Um... You can be killed by an errant bullet. Sure, practice makes you more consistently lethal, but any amateur can pick up a gun, point it at a target and as long as they don't flat out drop the gun when they fire there is a chance they'll hit their target. Hell there are cases where people have been killed by someone shooting a gun straight up in to the air. Here's one .
edit on 27-3-2018 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 27 2018 @ 10:12 AM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t


Honest question mate (if you covered it apologies haven't finished the entire thread still working my morning caffeine), what do you consider the defining feature of an assault weapon?



posted on Mar, 27 2018 @ 10:13 AM
link   

originally posted by: Edumakated

originally posted by: DogStarIn1066
a reply to: Edumakated
I was an Army officer. An AR-15 pretty much does the same thing in semi as an M-16. Oh, and we never used a 16 on full auto. So, pretty much the same thing.

Try and keep up.


Appealing to authority does not make a factual argument. Doing practically the same thing IS NOT the same thing.

Just come out and say you guys want to ban all semi-auto firearms which is the implication.


Ok, sure.

Ban them.

No need for them from my point of view.

I shot two deer this fall with a bolt action.

No second shot with either. Why do I need semi? I know how to shoot.

Also, I am an authority, as I served in the forces that defended you and our way of life. A "thank you for your service " might be nice.

Or are you now in favor of disrespecting military officers?



posted on Mar, 27 2018 @ 10:15 AM
link   

originally posted by: Quetzalcoatl14
I think this is an issue, that a lot of people really don't know much about different guns,
relevant research, etc.

My roommate not only does want to take all your guns, he didn't realize that "assault weapons" is an ill defined, political messaging tactic, not a real class of guns or type of gun.
a reply to: Gothmog



Yeah , AR does not stand for Assault Rifle .
IT STANDS FOR THE ARMALITE COMPANY
A company that does manufacturer firearms for the public as well as the military for a long , long time.

And by the way , it is called a firearm
Guns are a totally different thread
Folks saying "long guns" are the most hilarious folks that I can think of . Why ? They know absolutely nothing about firearms
I hope they never enter the military and make that mistake....
This is a rifle
And this is a gun
This is for shooting
And this is for fun...
"Nuff Said"

Let the ones that know (old ex-military) and remember their first (and only time) they ever made that mistake

edit on 3/27/18 by Gothmog because: I just had to clean that up a bit for the kiddies



posted on Mar, 27 2018 @ 10:15 AM
link   

originally posted by: TinySickTears
a reply to: DogStarIn1066

But their gunz make them feel all safe and warm.


Aww, do you have to pretend the gun owners are all pussies to make yourself feel better?

That's pathetic.



posted on Mar, 27 2018 @ 10:17 AM
link   

originally posted by: DogStarIn1066

originally posted by: Edumakated

originally posted by: DogStarIn1066
a reply to: Edumakated
I was an Army officer. An AR-15 pretty much does the same thing in semi as an M-16. Oh, and we never used a 16 on full auto. So, pretty much the same thing.

Try and keep up.


Appealing to authority does not make a factual argument. Doing practically the same thing IS NOT the same thing.

Just come out and say you guys want to ban all semi-auto firearms which is the implication.


Ok, sure.

Ban them.

No need for them from my point of view.

I shot two deer this fall with a bolt action.

No second shot with either. Why do I need semi? I know how to shoot.

Also, I am an authority, as I served in the forces that defended you and our way of life. A "thank you for your service " might be nice.

Or are you now in favor of disrespecting military officers?


So the right to self-defense should be limited to those who are an expert shot?

ETA: As a fellow vet, I don't think it's right you are trying to use your veteran status that way. Pointing out you're a vet with a lot of firearms experience is fine. Experience should be valued. But no one is disrespecting you, don't try to play that card. I'll thank you for your service.
edit on 27 3 18 by face23785 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 27 2018 @ 10:17 AM
link   

originally posted by: TinySickTears
a reply to: DogStarIn1066

But their gunz make them feel all safe and warm.


Yes, my guns do make me feel safe and warm. I know if someone tries to break into my house, I can protect my family. I know if a bear is going after people here I can stop it. If our government gets too far out of control, we will move to a different country, let those who want to stay in this deceptive society argue it out.



posted on Mar, 27 2018 @ 10:19 AM
link   

originally posted by: DogStarIn1066

originally posted by: Quetzalcoatl14
The whole point is to prevent tyranny and be able to fight back. So, to answer your question, government.

I'm not taking a side in this debate. But liberals or gun control advocates have to engage that argument if they are serious. It's laid out by the framers of the Constitution.

a reply to: Agit8dChop



The government has atomic bombs. Tanks. Planes. What are you going to buy to stop that?

It is a weird way dream for some folks.

How are you going to fight your own government?

Not with a gun.

But with your voice, your vote, and your mind.

I have driven in an M-1 tank. You loose if you get in front of it.
Of course, which is what complicates this issue.

However, a logical fallacy is to say "well then no guns are necessary because you can't fight back anyways."



posted on Mar, 27 2018 @ 10:21 AM
link   
a reply to: Quetzalcoatl14




"well then no guns are necessary because you can't fight back anyways."


edit on 3/27/18 by Gothmog because: it was funnier in my other post



posted on Mar, 27 2018 @ 10:22 AM
link   
a reply to: face23785

Perhaps we should send all the marching kids to the gang hideouts like MS-13 and wait for them to give up their guns. IT's pretty telling that the march for our lives didn't mention once any shooting of gangs. Who cares about the innocent bystanders who end up dead because they got cuaght in the middle of a turf war. The internet is full of clips were a good samaritan saved the day because the person was a responsible gun owner and thus prevented more loss of lives. The pos ressource officer could have done the same but no the coward waited outside. Why is that not the focus of the MSM? What happened to we can't blame all people for the vile actions of an individual? Isnt that the go-to defense when some religious nutjob blows himself up in the name of god? Now all of a sudden every gun owner is evil and itches to murder someone. The hypocrisy is mindblowing.



posted on Mar, 27 2018 @ 10:22 AM
link   

originally posted by: Perfectenemy
a reply to: DogStarIn1066

Alright then the kids should start fighting against obesity and deaths caused by don't text and driving as well. That kills way more people in the US daily then any mass shooting event and the numbers are on the rise. Repeal the Second Amendment is trending so i guess they are after all your guns. I'm not an american but i support the right to bear arms. Repealing the Second Amendment creates a precedence and who really believes it just stops there.


Good points.

Kids are doing things about the questions you posed. One thing at a time.

I put a ballistic pad in my 15 year old sons back pack, and told him if the shooting starts to run.

This is horrible. My son goes to shcool with more armor on Then I wore into battle during the first gulf war. Are you not seeing that this is maddness?



posted on Mar, 27 2018 @ 10:23 AM
link   
a reply to: face23785

they dont even understand why the founders wrote the 2nd

perhaps because those in england had already been disarmed?



new topics

top topics



 
33
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join