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: 11
10
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 6 2019 @ 10:52 AM
link   

originally posted by: Gothmog

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.




Anyone subject to a restraining or protective order;
Anyone convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence;
Minors under the age of 18 for the purchase of a shotgun or rifle;





"Anyone subject to a restraining or protective order;
Anyone convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence;
Minors under the age of 18 for the purchase of a shotgun or rifle;"


I did, and you are wrong, domestic violence will get your rights denied. You need to do some reading I see.

www.wklaw.com...
edit on 19CDT10America/Chicago054101030 by InTheLight because: (no reason given)

edit on 19CDT10America/Chicago055101030 by InTheLight because: (no reason given)




posted on Sep, 6 2019 @ 10:56 AM
link   
a reply to: InTheLight



I just read that providing justification for the need of owning a firearm was recently struck down.

Do you think there was a reason for that ?
How about Constitution ?
Perhaps you have never heard of and/or read that document ?
It is not "optional" for either a US citizen nor one going through the immigration process.




posted on Sep, 6 2019 @ 10:58 AM
link   

originally posted by: InTheLight

originally posted by: funbobby
a reply to: network dude

I don't know about "assault rifles" but I'll take the Ruger Ranch Rifle any day. In fact in Mass the second gun is totally banned and the Ruger Ranch rifle one of about 2 models of removable magazine semi auto centerfire rifles that are currently legally available to MA residents, either a Ruger or a M1. So a large caliber military rifle, the M1, is totally legal but your little .223 ARs are totally banned.


The criminal psychologists touched on that point...point being that copycat shooters will choose the AR-15 ...copycat.


And I have a solution for just that, and it might just cause LESS shootings.

Have the MSM not release any details of a shooting. Not the killers name, it's irrelevant. And not the weapon used, it's also irrelevant. Just report that X number of people were killed by a coward. leave it at that, and most of those glory hound copy cats would have no reason to do their thing. Waste all that time to die an anonymous asshole.

Now, doesn't that make more sense than limiting magazine capacity? And for the record, I don't see a real issue with limiting capacity, other than you won't stop there, you will try for more once you get that. Because you aren't really interested in saving lives, just removing guns. If you did care about lives, the above would be a much better avenue to explore.



posted on Sep, 6 2019 @ 10:58 AM
link   

originally posted by: funbobby
a reply to: Gothmog

One is for fighting one is for fun?

There ya go.
You only make that mistake ONE TIME in the military.
Near everyone does.
One time.



posted on Sep, 6 2019 @ 10:59 AM
link   

originally posted by: funbobby
a reply to: InTheLight

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


Yes theirs was mandatory, my country's was voluntary. There is a choice.



posted on Sep, 6 2019 @ 11:00 AM
link   

originally posted by: InTheLight

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.


Ah, so reading the title is all you need. The rest if just superfluous?



posted on Sep, 6 2019 @ 11:00 AM
link   

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: InTheLight

originally posted by: funbobby
a reply to: network dude

I don't know about "assault rifles" but I'll take the Ruger Ranch Rifle any day. In fact in Mass the second gun is totally banned and the Ruger Ranch rifle one of about 2 models of removable magazine semi auto centerfire rifles that are currently legally available to MA residents, either a Ruger or a M1. So a large caliber military rifle, the M1, is totally legal but your little .223 ARs are totally banned.


The criminal psychologists touched on that point...point being that copycat shooters will choose the AR-15 ...copycat.


And I have a solution for just that, and it might just cause LESS shootings.

Have the MSM not release any details of a shooting. Not the killers name, it's irrelevant. And not the weapon used, it's also irrelevant. Just report that X number of people were killed by a coward. leave it at that, and most of those glory hound copy cats would have no reason to do their thing. Waste all that time to die an anonymous asshole.

Now, doesn't that make more sense than limiting magazine capacity? And for the record, I don't see a real issue with limiting capacity, other than you won't stop there, you will try for more once you get that. Because you aren't really interested in saving lives, just removing guns. If you did care about lives, the above would be a much better avenue to explore.


So your solution is to remove the freedom of the press.



posted on Sep, 6 2019 @ 11:01 AM
link   

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: InTheLight

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.


Ah, so reading the title is all you need. The rest if just superfluous?


Evidently so to certain ATS members. What or who is superfluous?



posted on Sep, 6 2019 @ 11:03 AM
link   
a reply to: InTheLight


So your solution is to remove the freedom of the press.

Have they earned that freedom?

TheRedneck



posted on Sep, 6 2019 @ 11:05 AM
link   

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: InTheLight


So your solution is to remove the freedom of the press.

Have they earned that freedom?

TheRedneck


Apples and oranges...freedom to bear arms in the wrong hands is the question.



posted on Sep, 6 2019 @ 11:05 AM
link   

originally posted by: funbobby
a reply to: shooterbrody

In fact on NPR this morning I heard them gleefully suggesting that we were on a slippery slope to confiscation and that Beto's "buybacks" are really confiscation schemes.

beto is not shy about it
the dems platform is for confiscation this election cycle
they are as looney as some canucks



posted on Sep, 6 2019 @ 11:06 AM
link   

originally posted by: InTheLight

originally posted by: Gothmog

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.




Anyone subject to a restraining or protective order;
Anyone convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence;
Minors under the age of 18 for the purchase of a shotgun or rifle;





"Anyone subject to a restraining or protective order;
Anyone convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence;
Minors under the age of 18 for the purchase of a shotgun or rifle;"


I did, and you are wrong, domestic violence will get your rights denied. You need to do some reading I see.

www.wklaw.com...

You didnt read my post through , did you ?
Ones rights (and that covers a lot) are only removed for felonies or greater.
The ownership of firearms can be suspended for a multitude of reasons.
However , in a percentage of cases , the firearms are returned .
Only a few are actually destroyed
I absolutely despise having to repeat myself because one refuses to read , with comprehension , the entirety of my posts

To shed light , do a search for red flag laws and their effectiveness . In some of the States you will find the answers you seek.
Enlightening .

Denying ignorance
Why ?
Some folks think they know what they do not know.


edit on 9/6/19 by Gothmog because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 6 2019 @ 11:06 AM
link   
a reply to: InTheLight

So your brilliant idea is voluntary gun buybacks? That's hilarious, we already have those, all time, there is one this weekend. In fact voluntary gun buybacks may be the most ineffective public policy ever implemented!!
A gun buyback is a great way to get rid of an old broken gun to get money to buy a new gun.
That's how smart your ideas are! Here is what economists think:

"DUBNER: Okay, so what are the kinds of things that are typically done with the guns that are out there? I’m thinking gun buybacks? What’s your view on the efficacy or lack thereof of a gun buyback?

LEVITT: Gun buybacks are one of the most ineffectual public policies that have ever been invented in the history of mankind. So the typical gun buyback will offer, you know, $25 or $50 for a gun, or maybe they’ll offer some, you know…There was one where they offered some therapy, you could get therapy.

DUBNER: Right that was California.

LEVITT: California, therapy if you turned in a gun. But the fact is maybe a thousand guns will be turned in in an incredibly successful gun buyback program. And it’s successful in the sense there’s a really big pile of guns, and the mayor or the g
overnor gets to set that pile of guns on fire. And it’s a great media opportunity. But there’s two fundamental problems. The first one is that the only people who bring back these guns in gun buybacks are people who don’t want the guns in the first place. Most of the guns are inoperable, they’re guns people inherited, they’ve just been not sure what to do with them, these are not the guns that are being used to kill people. Anyone who has a gun and wants to put it to a real purpose doesn’t bring their gun back for the buyback. So you get exactly the wrong kinds of guns. But more fundamentally, I think people are confused with respect to how dangerous a particular gun is. If I’ve done my calculations right, any particular handgun in the United States will kill a person about once every 10,000 years. Okay, so in order to prevent one homicide in a year, you would need to get 10,000 guns brought back in a gun buyback. Okay, but the thing is you don’t get 10,000 guns, and they’re not the guns that are used to kill people. So the typical gun buyback program I would guess saves approximately maybe 0.0001 lives. And I think that’s being optimistic about the size of the effect."

freakonomics.com...

You should read that whole article, it would make you sound less foolish.



posted on Sep, 6 2019 @ 11:06 AM
link   
Loose cannons choose impressive looking guns to do mass shootings more often. It is not the gun that causes it, it is the attitude of power by the owner that causes the problem. That person might not go into a school and shoot kids with a thirty thirty winchester lever action gun, it does not look as fearful.

Now classification as assault weapons...both of those guns can be classified as assault weapons if some of the Dems get their way, they want all semi-automatics classified as assault weapons, including three guns I own. My automatic rifle is a twenty two, but they still want that considered an assault weapon because it will accept a bigger clip, it is just a gopher plunker.



posted on Sep, 6 2019 @ 11:07 AM
link   

originally posted by: InTheLight
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.



new Zealand? a guy just traveled over there and killed a bunch of folks for the express purpose of making them outlaw guns. it worked. But they haven't had much luck with folks turning them in. it seems the people are smarter than you and that guy who killed those folks. They realize that it's wrong to let a criminal dictate your rules. You, however seem fine with that.

Now, about the OP. You want to ban high capacity magazines. Limit to 10 rounds. But you aren't wanting to remove any type of weapon, just the ability to shoot more than 10 rounds. What is the current law in California?



posted on Sep, 6 2019 @ 11:08 AM
link   

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: InTheLight


So your solution is to remove the freedom of the press.

Have they earned that freedom?

TheRedneck


Shouldn’t the press have to justify their freedom?




posted on Sep, 6 2019 @ 11:09 AM
link   
a reply to: InTheLight


Apples and oranges

Only in your mind. Two rights, enumerated in the same document, yet one has to be earned and the other doesn't.



Just


TheRedneck



posted on Sep, 6 2019 @ 11:09 AM
link   
a reply to: funbobby

Most of my guns are inherited and they all are in good condition. They would definitely not be something I would hand in, they have personal value to me. I want to hand them down to my grandkids and kids.



posted on Sep, 6 2019 @ 11:09 AM
link   

originally posted by: InTheLight

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: InTheLight

originally posted by: funbobby
a reply to: network dude

I don't know about "assault rifles" but I'll take the Ruger Ranch Rifle any day. In fact in Mass the second gun is totally banned and the Ruger Ranch rifle one of about 2 models of removable magazine semi auto centerfire rifles that are currently legally available to MA residents, either a Ruger or a M1. So a large caliber military rifle, the M1, is totally legal but your little .223 ARs are totally banned.


The criminal psychologists touched on that point...point being that copycat shooters will choose the AR-15 ...copycat.


And I have a solution for just that, and it might just cause LESS shootings.

Have the MSM not release any details of a shooting. Not the killers name, it's irrelevant. And not the weapon used, it's also irrelevant. Just report that X number of people were killed by a coward. leave it at that, and most of those glory hound copy cats would have no reason to do their thing. Waste all that time to die an anonymous asshole.

Now, doesn't that make more sense than limiting magazine capacity? And for the record, I don't see a real issue with limiting capacity, other than you won't stop there, you will try for more once you get that. Because you aren't really interested in saving lives, just removing guns. If you did care about lives, the above would be a much better avenue to explore.


So your solution is to remove the freedom of the press.

lol
no different than removing the 2nd

the 2nd was written to protect the others
that is what you who do not have such do not understand
we are not like you
we have rights and responsibilities you do not



posted on Sep, 6 2019 @ 11:09 AM
link   
a reply to: DBCowboy

No, apparently they have apples.

TheRedneck




top topics



 
10
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join