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.

 

Over One Million Gun Owners Refuse To Obey Ban, No One Turning In Magazines

page: 9
75
<< 6  7  8   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 26 2018 @ 08:54 AM
link   
a reply to: Xcathdra

The fee for the license for auto make it akin to a poll tax. That's ins't right. Yeah, misuse of fire arms has gotten us here.

The point I am trying to make is that limits have been placed when there should be none based on the general argument. Like so often, let a crack appear and the whole thing get weakened.

Once limits started to be placed, there was going to be no stopping them. There isn't enough people to stand up and say no.

People think being afraid and creating a magazine law will protect them. What it really is politicians trying to tiptoe around laws to keep people happy, except it only does it for a few.




posted on Dec, 26 2018 @ 08:57 AM
link   
a reply to: Xcathdra




Well the guideline established under the Heller decision for firearms revolves around a common use doctrine. Semi automatic weapons are commonly available and used by the public at large.


The 2nd doesn't mention commonly available. That's part of the weakening that leads to 10 round mag limits.



posted on Dec, 26 2018 @ 11:49 AM
link   

originally posted by: BrianFlanders

originally posted by: rickymouse

originally posted by: RealityIsAbsurd
a reply to: rickymouse

I have a buddy who buys and repairs vintage firearms. He owns a different types of gatling guns, automatic rifles, and an assortment of other automatic weapons. They are all fully functional and operate like the day they were made. Does he need them for survival or protection? No. Does he shoot them? Why, yes he does. People can even go to his gun range and pay a ridiculous amount of money to shoot them.

He is probably one of the most humble persons I know. He's over the hill and still says yessir/no sir to people half his age. Banning things because of "loose cannons" is a logical fallacy. Hell, let's start with banning cars because all the loose cannons who go on vehicular rampages. All the belligerent drunks who decide to drive drunk every day shouldn't be driving. Let's go ahead and ban knives. Scratch that. Let's ban everything that's been used to kill another person.



Hey, like I said, it is only a small percentage of people who would misuse these kind of weapons. I would have it that they just ban bumpstocks and high volume clips than to start banning all semi-automatic guns. We need to find a way to stop loose cannons from buying guns. I can deal with careless people playing bigshots with their fancy weapons, but I can not justify having fully automatic weapons out there that crazy people can access. It is not about how lethel they are, it is about crazy people getting more self confidence with these weapons then going out and shooting the town up.


I would argue that crazy people would probably not be sane enough to think about committing mass murder. It's easy to call a mass shooter a lunatic but in all reality, they do actually know exactly what they're doing and that it is wrong (which is why they often kill themselves before they can be captured). So they're not legally insane IMO.

We are (IMO) way too eager to play into the hands of the people who want to baby step their way to a ban. First, they will say you can buy a gun as long as you're not crazy. Then they will start changing the meaning of the word "crazy". Probably slowly. Eventually, it will be almost impossible because they'll invent so many mental illnesses that everyone will have one. I mean, honestly, it's kind of already at the point to where if they really wanted to, they could technically diagnose the vast majority of people with some kind of mental disorder.

I don't think you can go down that road and not ultimately lose the whole shebang.


If your beliefs do not match the beliefs of the majority of people in your society, then technically you are skitzo. Now presently the norm in gun ownership is over fifty percent in favor of our right to bear arms, that is the basis for our voting on things. So not crazy right now is supporting the second amendment, maybe if we cannot give a little and ban bumpstocks and high capacity magazines, the percentage will go over fifty percent and a vote to ban guns will be sought by the people who want us to give up our guns.

What I am saying is the way the system in the US works, by letting gun owners have unlimited access to automatics it can set the stage for serious gun control. People fighting the suppression of bumpstocks and large capacity clips over say fifteen shells will turn more people away from allowing citizens to have guns. That tactic of promoting chaos and using the chaos to alter laws has also been used by Society and government world wide. I ran into some articleson methods of how people alter societal acceptance to get the desired response they are looking for. These were college created social class literature and video from a class I got to sit into at Harvard University when my daughter took an online class there. They train their students to be able to alter consensus and deceive people into helping them by using things to change the majority by social manipulation. They have think tanks that do this in governments world wide.

People do not realize they are being played when they assume what they are doing is protecting their rights, the government wants to limit our gun ownership, they fire up people to say we should be able to own fully automatics so the majority people will vote on it or just from large polls to put more restrictions on, then the government uses the voted action to further restrict our rights using precidence of the earlier vote or even just information from specialized poles to justify their actions. We know how polls can be really misleading, they try to lead people to say they are in line with something they are not half the time, polls are a way of deceiving the masses.

Be careful what you are doing, it is not good to become one of the people that sways a reverse action. I want to be able to own guns, I will say that we do not need fully automatic weapons, many people do not like those and if those people swing towards banning semi-autos because of a few people wanting bumpstocks, I will be depressed.



posted on Dec, 26 2018 @ 12:57 PM
link   

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: roadgravel



What you fail to realize is that the government already won. The price of weapons in the MIC and current limit prevent the people from defeating the government unless the government quits.

The only workable play is if the members of the military decide that going AWOL and protecting their families is more important then following the leadership.
edit on 12/26/2018 by roadgravel because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 26 2018 @ 05:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: rickymouse

originally posted by: BrianFlanders

originally posted by: rickymouse

originally posted by: RealityIsAbsurd
a reply to: rickymouse

I have a buddy who buys and repairs vintage firearms. He owns a different types of gatling guns, automatic rifles, and an assortment of other automatic weapons. They are all fully functional and operate like the day they were made. Does he need them for survival or protection? No. Does he shoot them? Why, yes he does. People can even go to his gun range and pay a ridiculous amount of money to shoot them.

He is probably one of the most humble persons I know. He's over the hill and still says yessir/no sir to people half his age. Banning things because of "loose cannons" is a logical fallacy. Hell, let's start with banning cars because all the loose cannons who go on vehicular rampages. All the belligerent drunks who decide to drive drunk every day shouldn't be driving. Let's go ahead and ban knives. Scratch that. Let's ban everything that's been used to kill another person.



Hey, like I said, it is only a small percentage of people who would misuse these kind of weapons. I would have it that they just ban bumpstocks and high volume clips than to start banning all semi-automatic guns. We need to find a way to stop loose cannons from buying guns. I can deal with careless people playing bigshots with their fancy weapons, but I can not justify having fully automatic weapons out there that crazy people can access. It is not about how lethel they are, it is about crazy people getting more self confidence with these weapons then going out and shooting the town up.


I would argue that crazy people would probably not be sane enough to think about committing mass murder. It's easy to call a mass shooter a lunatic but in all reality, they do actually know exactly what they're doing and that it is wrong (which is why they often kill themselves before they can be captured). So they're not legally insane IMO.

We are (IMO) way too eager to play into the hands of the people who want to baby step their way to a ban. First, they will say you can buy a gun as long as you're not crazy. Then they will start changing the meaning of the word "crazy". Probably slowly. Eventually, it will be almost impossible because they'll invent so many mental illnesses that everyone will have one. I mean, honestly, it's kind of already at the point to where if they really wanted to, they could technically diagnose the vast majority of people with some kind of mental disorder.

I don't think you can go down that road and not ultimately lose the whole shebang.


If your beliefs do not match the beliefs of the majority of people in your society, then technically you are skitzo. Now presently the norm in gun ownership is over fifty percent in favor of our right to bear arms, that is the basis for our voting on things. So not crazy right now is supporting the second amendment, maybe if we cannot give a little and ban bumpstocks and high capacity magazines, the percentage will go over fifty percent and a vote to ban guns will be sought by the people who want us to give up our guns.

What I am saying is the way the system in the US works, by letting gun owners have unlimited access to automatics it can set the stage for serious gun control. People fighting the suppression of bumpstocks and large capacity clips over say fifteen shells will turn more people away from allowing citizens to have guns. That tactic of promoting chaos and using the chaos to alter laws has also been used by Society and government world wide. I ran into some articleson methods of how people alter societal acceptance to get the desired response they are looking for. These were college created social class literature and video from a class I got to sit into at Harvard University when my daughter took an online class there. They train their students to be able to alter consensus and deceive people into helping them by using things to change the majority by social manipulation. They have think tanks that do this in governments world wide.

People do not realize they are being played when they assume what they are doing is protecting their rights, the government wants to limit our gun ownership, they fire up people to say we should be able to own fully automatics so the majority people will vote on it or just from large polls to put more restrictions on, then the government uses the voted action to further restrict our rights using precidence of the earlier vote or even just information from specialized poles to justify their actions. We know how polls can be really misleading, they try to lead people to say they are in line with something they are not half the time, polls are a way of deceiving the masses.

Be careful what you are doing, it is not good to become one of the people that sways a reverse action. I want to be able to own guns, I will say that we do not need fully automatic weapons, many people do not like those and if those people swing towards banning semi-autos because of a few people wanting bumpstocks, I will be depressed.


I think you have to realize that the people who are trying to ban these things set out with the goal of banning guns. Period. That's always been their goal. They'll take advantage of anything that gets them closer to their goal. If you give an inch, you actually gave a mile.

How it looks is irrelevant. They're not going to get on TV and tell the world that gun owners are good people because they let them have their way. They will take their victory and start looking for the next step. It is a matter of time. It's always been only a matter of time anyway. That's why the NRA even exists. They knew all along that it was only ever going to be a matter of time before they turn the public against the Bill of Rights (in general) and the 2nd Amendment (in particular).

What might not be so obvious is that any form of gun control will also violate at least one other key right. The 4th Amendment. In order to stop this person or that person from owning a firearm, they will have to violate the 4th Amendment.



posted on Dec, 27 2018 @ 12:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: roadgravel
a reply to: Xcathdra




Well the guideline established under the Heller decision for firearms revolves around a common use doctrine. Semi automatic weapons are commonly available and used by the public at large.


The 2nd doesn't mention commonly available. That's part of the weakening that leads to 10 round mag limits.


The 2nd amendment doesn't mention a lot of things. Namely it doesnt even define what "arms" are. The ruling in Heller established that criteria and we know the decision was right because the left lose their damn minds over it on a weekly basis.

It takes a single bullet to kill someone. The following 9 bullets are just follow thru to guarantee the first was in fact effective..

I am pro 2nd amendment and I am anti 10 round magazines. Constantly restricting what law abiding citizens can own in this realm only empowers the criminals to break the magazine size law.

As I said earlier I would not enforce this law.



posted on Dec, 27 2018 @ 12:37 PM
link   
a reply to: roadgravel

That is one way of looking at it.

A serious question -
Why do people think the military would actually act on orders when it comes to restricting weapons and confiscating them? Why do people think law enforcement (across all levels) would comply?

It is a Constitutional right and last I checked the military is sworn to protect and defend it against all enemies, foreign and domestic. Based on my contact with members of the military I dont see them obeying unlawful commands. However I do see them, should something occur that goes down the wrong lane, protecting the people from an illegal government.







 
75
<< 6  7  8   >>

log in

join