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.
I trust Trump defending 2nd amendment rights
originally posted by: XXXN3O
originally posted by: Lysergic
Will not happen in the USA.
It will. The internet is the problem and solution with social engineering by controlling the context, although we do not like to think like that, cause its bad to think we cannot think for ourselves anymore.
Think about it, quite easy to see if you step back from the noise.
All in context, all shaped by context and controlled by context, even when we know its all bullsh*t whatever is said, we still complain against or agree with the context given. So simple really and effective.
originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: infolurker
From what I understand, SCOTUS has decided that the 2nd does not apply to weapons of war.
Proponents of gun infringement argue that a semi-automatic weapon is a weapon of war.
I've yet to see semi-automatic weapons used for war. If one were to bring handguns into that argument, that could be debatable however I'd like to see statistics on mass shootings using semi-automatic handguns.
I've yet to see semi-automatic weapons used for war.
Edit: The Barrett M82, standardized by the U.S. military as the M107, is a recoil-operated, semi-automatic anti-materiel sniper system developed by the American Barrett Firearms Manufacturing company. Despite its designation as an anti-materiel rifle, it is used by some armed forces as an anti-personnel system. The M107 variant is also called the Light Fifty for its .50 BMG (12.7×99mm NATO) chambering and significantly lighter weight compared to previous applications and the 15% heavier base M82 model [1] [2]. The weapon is found in two variants, the original M82A1 (and A3) and the bullpup M82A2. The M82A2 is no longer manufactured, though the XM500 can be seen as its successor. edit on 16-3-2019 by CharlesT because: (no reason given)
originally posted by: CharlesT
a reply to: JinMI
No semantics here. You stated what you stated and I pointed out the error. If you take offence to this little tidbit, tough tits. Go argue with your better half because I could care less.
originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: infolurker
From what I understand, SCOTUS has decided that the 2nd does not apply to weapons of war.
Proponents of gun infringement argue that a semi-automatic weapon is a weapon of war.
I've yet to see semi-automatic weapons used for war. If one were to bring handguns into that argument, that could be debatable however I'd like to see statistics on mass shootings using semi-automatic handguns.
originally posted by: JinMI
originally posted by: CharlesT
a reply to: JinMI
No semantics here. You stated what you stated and I pointed out the error. If you take offence to this little tidbit, tough tits. Go argue with your better half because I could care less.
Offense? Heh, that's cute. You'd have to try just a little harder to get my precious feels up in a tizzy.
So your position is that a WWII era weapon was semi automatic and a specialized rifle that is currently used is semi auto, that reinforces the stance that semi auto is a weapon of war?
originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: infolurker
In other news, to combat the rise in obesity, a call has been put out to ban forks.