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.

 

Assault weapons are the devil!

page: 10
10
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 6 2019 @ 10:38 AM
link   
a reply to: InTheLight

No it didn't. They were not having a lot of mass shootings before. In fact after their confiscation buybacks our homicide rate fell more than theirs.




posted on Sep, 6 2019 @ 10:39 AM
link   
a reply to: InTheLight

Those also don't make the gun shoot faster, no attachment is needed to achieve bump fire.

You guys said that banning bump stocks would stop mass shootings, why hasn't that worked at all?
edit on 6-9-2019 by funbobby because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 6 2019 @ 10:39 AM
link   

originally posted by: funbobby
a reply to: InTheLight

No it didn't. They were not having a lot of mass shootings before. In fact after their confiscation buybacks our homicide rate fell more than theirs.


Buy back is not confiscation, it is a voluntary process.



posted on Sep, 6 2019 @ 10:40 AM
link   
a reply to: InTheLight


Nope, you left out one important word...can you figure out what it was?

I copied and pasted your comment. Nothing was left out.

TheRedneck



posted on Sep, 6 2019 @ 10:40 AM
link   

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: InTheLight


Nope, you left out one important word...can you figure out what it was?

I copied and pasted your comment. Nothing was left out.

TheRedneck


Twist and shout.



posted on Sep, 6 2019 @ 10:41 AM
link   
a reply to: InTheLight

Nope, neither "need" nor "want" are part of the second amendment.

Do you "need" to vote?

Do you "need" free speech?



posted on Sep, 6 2019 @ 10:42 AM
link   

originally posted by: InTheLight

originally posted by: funbobby
a reply to: InTheLight

No it didn't. They were not having a lot of mass shootings before. In fact after their confiscation buybacks our homicide rate fell more than theirs.


Buy back is not confiscation, it is a voluntary process.


Buyback implies that the original seller was the government. The government does not give rights.

This is confiscation with cash as a reward.



posted on Sep, 6 2019 @ 10:43 AM
link   
a reply to: InTheLight


Buy back is not confiscation, it is a voluntary process.

Not according to our politicians.

Mandatory buyback... the government confiscates your weapon and pays you a few cents on the dollar for it.

The last time I heard of a voluntary buyback, there was a sudden increase in stolen guns... because criminals were breaking into houses to steal them so they could sell them at the buyback.

TheRedneck



posted on Sep, 6 2019 @ 10:43 AM
link   

originally posted by: InTheLight

originally posted by: funbobby
a reply to: InTheLight

No it didn't. They were not having a lot of mass shootings before. In fact after their confiscation buybacks our homicide rate fell more than theirs.


Buy back is not confiscation, it is a voluntary process.


So if I refused to comply with a government mandatory buyback, I can still keep and bear any weapon that I still want?



posted on Sep, 6 2019 @ 10:43 AM
link   
Any hoot, summing up my opinion here - if you all want to curb mass shootings then you have a tried and true approach that Australia and New Zealand can offer and solutions that your experts offer. If you are all okay with mass shootings...have you all gone numb?...then don't do anything as is being done now.



posted on Sep, 6 2019 @ 10:46 AM
link   

originally posted by: InTheLight

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: InTheLight

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: InTheLight

If the solution is a loss of freedom then nope


That freedom does not mean today what it meant when it was written. Now every civilian will be armed against each other, is that how you want to live?



Yes. You endorse removing rights and freedoms.

Admit it.


I endorse removing high capacity magazines (over 10 rounds) that would be a very good start...and only a start.


bingo. You want all of them, you just want to start here. and you ignored the entire OP. well done.

if you are all full of your diet of weak sauce, let me know, discussing the OP is what I had in mind.



posted on Sep, 6 2019 @ 10:46 AM
link   
a reply to: InTheLight


Twist and shout.

There is one sure way to catch a liar... and that is to catch them not knowing what they said.

Those who tell the truth don't have to remember what they said.

TheRedneck



posted on Sep, 6 2019 @ 10:46 AM
link   

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: InTheLight

originally posted by: funbobby
a reply to: InTheLight

No it didn't. They were not having a lot of mass shootings before. In fact after their confiscation buybacks our homicide rate fell more than theirs.


Buy back is not confiscation, it is a voluntary process.


So if I refused to comply with a government mandatory buyback, I can still keep and bear any weapon that I still want?


Why does it have to be mandatory. My country had one several years back and it was voluntary. Not sure why you think only on the negative.



posted on Sep, 6 2019 @ 10:47 AM
link   

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: InTheLight


Twist and shout.

There is one sure way to catch a liar... and that is to catch them not knowing what they said.

Those who tell the truth don't have to remember what they said.

TheRedneck


And then there are those that twist other's words ... lame.



posted on Sep, 6 2019 @ 10:47 AM
link   
a reply to: InTheLight

Lucky for us we don't have to speculate, in fact it is quite easy to prove your claims and ideas are foolish by experimental demonstration.

In reality magazine capacity makes no difference in terms of casualties in mass shootings. In fact, did you know that the deadliest school shooter in US history used 10 round magazines and pistols?

If you educate yourself then you won't sound so foolish on this topic.




posted on Sep, 6 2019 @ 10:48 AM
link   
a reply to: Gothmog

One is for fighting one is for fun?



posted on Sep, 6 2019 @ 10:48 AM
link   

originally posted by: InTheLight

originally posted by: Gothmog

originally posted by: InTheLight

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: InTheLight

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: InTheLight

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: InTheLight

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: InTheLight

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: InTheLight

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: InTheLight

Yes, have mandatory mental health reports, references from family and friends, a good reason to own a gun, gun training, and 10 round maximum.


So you are no better than the person standing in from of a voting booth demanding a justification from someone before they can vote.





You mean like Trump was doing regarding the popular vote debacle?


Strawman argument and a backtracking from you.

Not even worthy of a response, to be honest.


You mean you have no response, to be honest. Same exact scenario in reverse.


No.

Now you're making things up because you have stated that people need to "justify" exercising their rights.

Which is the antithesis of "rights".


So it's okay with you that a potentially violent person can exercise their rights to obtain a semiautomatic weapon just because they want it?


Yes.

because everyone is "potentially violent".

Is this your justification for gun confiscation?

Because everyone can be "potentially violent" at any given time.


Throughout this thread I never used the word confiscation, that is your word. My words are banning high capacity round magazines.


I know you haven't "stated" it, but that's because you still pretend to be for freedoms, but are looking for "justifications" and dressing things up as "compromise".


Who needs over 10 rounds for anything, answer me that?


SEE!

Once again, you are demanding a justification for a right.

The great thing about rights is that it needs no justification. Justification is just asking permission. Because if I couldn't supply the appropriate justification, I'd be denied permission.




If you can't supply a good reason, then you should be denied permission.


Does one need permission to go into a store , in the US , and purchase soap ?
Does one need permission to go into a pizza parlor , in the US , and buy pizza ?
Wine ?
All 3 can kill someone under specific conditions.
Allergies
Cholesterol
DUI

Why would I need permission as the right to bear arms is provided by the Constitution of the United States of America in the beloved Bill of Rights ?
I understand not all countries are provided any rights.
Not my fault
But , the US does not have to change to abide by the conditions of foreign rule.
Ever.
We fought a war to break out from under tyranny like that
The right to bear arms is the way to prevent that in the future.
The Founding Fathers were brilliant and had great forethought.


Because now if you are a criminal or violent (domestic violence) your rights are denied, period. I think mental illness/violence and references need to be looked at because copycat mass shooters aren't going away.





Because now if you are a criminal or violent (domestic violence) your rights are denied, period

Only partially correct
Only folks convicted of a felony (or higher) crimes are prevented rights.
You do know something of law in the US , correct ?
Domestic violence , in a percentage of cases , the firearms are either held for a period ,or returned to the individual.
In a small percentage , even with the "red flag laws" , are the firearms actually destroyed.
Please learn about the following
1) The Constitution of the United States of America .(especially the Bill of Rights)
2) At least a working knowledge of what you are going to post , before you post it.




posted on Sep, 6 2019 @ 10:49 AM
link   

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: InTheLight

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: InTheLight

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: InTheLight

If the solution is a loss of freedom then nope


That freedom does not mean today what it meant when it was written. Now every civilian will be armed against each other, is that how you want to live?



Yes. You endorse removing rights and freedoms.

Admit it.


I endorse removing high capacity magazines (over 10 rounds) that would be a very good start...and only a start.


bingo. You want all of them, you just want to start here. and you ignored the entire OP. well done.

if you are all full of your diet of weak sauce, let me know, discussing the OP is what I had in mind.


The OP premise is 'are assault weapons the devil?' ...in the wrong hands, yes and the shooter.



posted on Sep, 6 2019 @ 10:49 AM
link   
a reply to: InTheLight

Nope, why are you so ill informed? Theirs was a "mandatory buyback" do you think the word "mandatory" means "voluntary"?



posted on Sep, 6 2019 @ 10:50 AM
link   
a reply to: InTheLight


Why does it have to be mandatory.

Because normal people do not sell a $1000 weapon for $50.

Neither do they sell that $100 weapon handed down from their great-grandfather for any amount.

TheRedneck




top topics



 
10
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join