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.

 

Beto wants to take away GUNS and open up the BORDER!

page: 4
21
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 17 2018 @ 02:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: roadgravel

Well I'd say that your assumption isn't evidence of your claim. The poster was right that Beto doesn't have a rating yet. Even if that rating will eventually be an F, you are still misrepresenting your source.


Did you get that backwards.

I said n/a like the ref article, but it could be bad because he is obviously some what anti gun. I would not call it a claim on my part.

OP said F when it isn't given.




posted on Sep, 17 2018 @ 02:48 PM
link   
a reply to: roadgravel


originally posted by: roadgravel
a reply to: CraftyArrow

Beto recieved the “F” rating by the NRA.

Doesn't look like n/a to me or did you quote improperly?
edit on 17-9-2018 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 17 2018 @ 02:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: Vroomfondel

originally posted by: Admitted
The article says Beto didn't receive a rating, not an F.

Anyway, I can't imagine those 90% of Texan hunters with AR-15's are especially worried about Beto coming around and taking their guns.

No one is taking anyone's guns, not in Texas or anywhere in America.


Its already happening in Illinois.


What an absurd thing to say. No one is getting firearms taken from them in Hellinois! Why would you think that?



posted on Sep, 17 2018 @ 03:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: roadgravel


originally posted by: roadgravel
a reply to: CraftyArrow

Beto recieved the “F” rating by the NRA.

Doesn't look like n/a to me or did you quote improperly?


Ended up unquoted. fixed.

Anyway, both are turkeys - do I want a wing or drum.



posted on Sep, 17 2018 @ 03:01 PM
link   
a reply to: roadgravel

Ok. Sorry about that. Glad we got that cleared up. I noticed the quote problem shortly after my last post and figured that was the mistake.



posted on Sep, 17 2018 @ 03:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: JasonBillung
a reply to: SlapMonkey

I was a 31M as an enlisted man - Multichannel Equipment operator. After that, I went to college and ROTC. Went to airborne and Ranger school during the summers as an MS-3. Became a 25A - In the signal Corps, attached to an artillery and later an infantry command.

Mostly did support for the 75th Ranger Battalion.

Then there is ZERO reason for you to compare an AR to an M-Anything and come out with the conclusion that the AR is a weapon designed for war like the M-Anything is.


The AR-15 (i have one) performs the same function that the M-16, and later M-4 did for me during my 15 years of service. I never used full auto on the A2's except to burn up some ammo on the range. The burst was better, but I never used that either.

Just because you didn't use the M-16 or M-4 to their full potential doesn't mean that the weapons that you had were AR15s. I didn't use burst or full-auto ever, either, but I understand the major differences between the two, making one a military weapon and one not.



Thanks for your service. I was in from 1985 - 2000. Maybe we shared some dirt.

Maybe, but my stint was mostly stationed in Germany in the pre-9/11 days with the 121st Sig Bn, 1st ID. Sounds like you had a better time than I did. When I came up as being red/green color deficient at MEPS, all of my hopes about all types of things, including Ranger school and other "high-speed" things and jobs went right out the window. So, I spent my years as a 27D, but still did unit movements and training and all of that fun stuff, but my "9-to-5" was understanding military law, rules of engagement, and that sort of thing. Not that glamorous, but I became very proficient at it and still am, all of these years later (helps that my wife was also a 27D and now is a paralegal for a civilian military defense attorney).


I have 2 Nagants, The M1 Carbine and Garand, and the rest are hunting rifles. However, the Nagants shoot as well as my Ruger 77, so they go hunting with me and my sons also.

Gotcha...the old-school bolt-actions and semi-autos. Probably still fun to shoot, even though they don't really fit the bill of a modern military rifle, which is what I assumed that you were saying. Good ol' assuming...

Sorry if I'm coming across as super pissy--I'm just done with people claiming that ARs are military weapons when they're not. Hopefully you can understand the why behind that. If not, I guess there's no point in bickering about it anymore.



posted on Sep, 17 2018 @ 03:16 PM
link   
a reply to: KawRider9

They're sure as sh*t trying:

In April 2018, Deerfield substantially changed its 2013 ordinance. The new law changed the definition of "assault weapon," and prohibited possession, transportation, bearing, and sale. Residents who had been in lawful possession of such arms had until June 13 to surrender them to the Chief of Police or otherwise remove them from the village. The penalty for non-compliance was a fine of $1,000 per day. In addition, the Deerfield ordinance, as interpretted by the Deerfield government, similarly prohibited the possession of any "Large Capacity Magazine." This was defined as magazines over 10 rounds, such as the 13 or 17 round magazines that are the manufacturer-supplied standard magazines for many of the most common handguns.

Reason

So, if there weren't good people there to challenge that ordinance, and a competent judge to put a temporary restraining order on the ordinance pending the result of legal challenges against the city, residents in possession of the rifles and magazines would be incurring a $1,000/day fine.

How, exactly, is that not a place in Illinois passing an ordinance to take firearms away from its citizens? They may not be GETTING then taken away in the present tense, but there is a law only stopped by a temporary order at the moment.

From the same source:

A common claim of some anti-gun activists is that "Nobody wants to take your guns." To the contrary, the Deerfield ordinance was supported by the Brady Center, which since the 1970s has been one of America's most eminent anti-gun organizations. In the Deerfield case, the Brady Center joined the Village of Deerfield's legal team, and helped write the Deerfield brief. This is consistent with decades' of statements from gun control organizations, politicians, and others expressing their objective take some or all firearms. Today, there are many people who advocate Australia as a gun control model that the U.S. should follow; the Australia model, as I detailed in Chronicles magazine, is forcible confiscation, with some compensation for the guns and no compensation for now-worthless accessories.

edit on 17-9-2018 by SlapMonkey because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 17 2018 @ 03:23 PM
link   
a reply to: SlapMonkey

OK, but I could still qualify on the range with my AR-15. I could still engage targets out to 450m with my AR-15. I sure as hell would want my current AR over many of the old junk 16's I had to carry.

121 was in Kitzengen? They also had a posting in the US?

I was with 32nd ADCOM, in Graf from 85-88. 3rd Army.

Hawk ADA unit.



the old-school bolt-actions and semi-autos


That won WWII.

I had an AK-47 years ago. They go bang but are really limited on effective range. I use my firearms to get meat and have fun at this point in my life. Don't even shoot my AR-15 much. Actually it was a waste of money, and I will probably sell it off. I have more fun with my .22. Cheaper too.

For defense a shotgun is always the best, unless you are engaging targets at a range. And at that point, it ain't really defense. It is sniping. Just talk to the dozens of deer I have met over the past 40 years.

Cheers.



posted on Sep, 17 2018 @ 03:54 PM
link   
a reply to: SlapMonkey

I'm fully aware of the deal in Deerfield and how it went down. A lowly City Council tried to enact a law that goes against the Constitution. I knew it wouldn't be upheld and know the authorities in charge wouldn't attempt to confiscate lawfully owned firearms. A city ordinance is moot when we are talking Constitutionally protected rights.

The poster I quoted said that us citizens in Hellinois are having our firearms taken from us. That's not true. After Sandy Hook, some town(can't remember) banned Military "style" firearms with harsh penalties for not turning them in. Only one person complied because the vast majority knew it was unconstitutional and wouldn't be upheld.

Running around like chicken little, attempting to convince others that us Firearm owners in this #hole state of Hellinois are having our firearms taken away is a lie and I had to respond.



posted on Sep, 17 2018 @ 03:56 PM
link   
a reply to: CraftyArrow

" Beto wants to take away GUNS and open up the BORDER!"


Hmm.., Well then , Bebo Should be Shot for that Offense then ? Fitting Circumstance , No ? ....................)



posted on Sep, 17 2018 @ 06:42 PM
link   
a reply to: Zanti Misfit

Maybe treason.

How is Beto even a Texan, or an American?

He comes out of left field, with the far left throwing money at him.

Beto could be a Soros plant, that there is worthy of a firing squad.




posted on Sep, 17 2018 @ 07:57 PM
link   
Lol, gotta love rwnj histrionics. a reply to: CraftyArrow



posted on Sep, 17 2018 @ 08:04 PM
link   
a reply to: CraftyArrow




How is Beto even a Texan


He was born in El Paso Texas.



posted on Sep, 17 2018 @ 08:08 PM
link   
a reply to: CraftyArrow

Citizens dont need AR 15s its ridiculous to think otherwise.



posted on Sep, 17 2018 @ 08:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: Joecanada11
a reply to: CraftyArrow

Citizens dont need AR 15s its ridiculous to think otherwise.


So you get to tell people what they need or want?

How utterly authoritarian.




posted on Sep, 17 2018 @ 08:21 PM
link   
a reply to: DBCowboy

No i dont get to the government does. Its ridiculous to think owning an AR 15 is a right. And they are not taking away your guns just the ones that can be used to cause mass casualties.



posted on Sep, 17 2018 @ 08:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: Joecanada11
a reply to: DBCowboy

No i dont get to the government does. Its ridiculous to think owning an AR 15 is a right. And they are not taking away your guns just the ones that can be used to cause mass casualties.


So you support authoritarian rule.


At least you're honest.



posted on Sep, 17 2018 @ 08:33 PM
link   
a reply to: DBCowboy

Its not authoritarian to make sure people are safer by banning assault rifles. Do you think you should be able to own tanks or rocket launchers. How about rpgs?



posted on Sep, 17 2018 @ 08:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: Joecanada11
a reply to: DBCowboy

No i dont get to the government does. Its ridiculous to think owning an AR 15 is a right. And they are not taking away your guns just the ones that can be used to cause mass casualties.


So you support authoritarian rule.


At least you're honest.


He/she does not understand any weapon can cause mass casualties but CNN (the mouth piece of the DNC) says an AR is bad so that must be the case.
edit on 727thk18 by 727Sky because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 17 2018 @ 08:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: Joecanada11
a reply to: DBCowboy

Its not authoritarian to make sure people are safer by banning assault rifles. Do you think you should be able to own tanks or rocket launchers. How about rpgs?


What part of freedom. Don't you get? I suppose I could get a primer that uses small words but I get the feeling it would be wasted on those with limited intellect.




top topics



 
21
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join