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.
originally posted by: InTheLight
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.
originally posted by: Gothmog
originally posted by: InTheLight
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.
So , you are here debating about the right for US citizens to bear arms ?
Granted under the US Constitution ?
"Your country" is not the US
Neither would we have it as such.
We fought a war a long time ago to free ourselves from the tyranny of the rulers of another country.(in reality 2)
And , the Founding Fathers placed a provision in the Constitution to enable the citizens to defend it from future tyrannical rule.
I hope that helped your "outlook".
Sure , there are evil folks everywhere that do not abide by laws.
That is another reason for the right.
To sum it up.
A Deputy Sheriff drove up one night at my home.
They were going door to door warning folks that a violent criminal had escaped custody and had been seen in my neighborhood .
I asked "what do I do if I see him ?"
Basically the answer was :
1) If you see him in the neighborhood , call us.
2) If you see him in your home , shoot him then call us.
They were not taking any chances.
Of course , I would have rather have not shot anyone.
But , I did not want to take a chance either.
And a true fact that will rattle your world.
There is one county in my State that has a law on record that it is "theoretically" against the lot NOT to own a firearm .
Since that law , that county has went from worst to near first in the lowest crime rate.
Goth.
originally posted by: missed_gear
a reply to: InTheLight
Your BBC source:
"A few US states have banned assault-style weapons, which were totally restricted for a decade until 2004.
However most murders caused by guns involve handguns, according to FBI data."
mg
originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: InTheLight
that is because it is not a problem
it is a cost
one we pay to enjoy a free society
is it perfect? nope
but taking rights away is not a solution
you without the rights will never understand that
originally posted by: missed_gear
a reply to: InTheLight
Wrong.
AR-15 is used by media. Media called out now used "AR-15 styled" for negative connect.
I doubt you know what an AR-15 is without looking it up..
mg
Doctrine #2: Never load your magazine to the full 30-round capacity. This one is still true.
originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: InTheLight
frankly
we do not care what the rest of the world thinks
what you think has no bearing on our rights
also your solution is ridiculous
3 10 round clips are most likely more effective than 1 30 round clip
preparedgunowners.com...
Doctrine #2: Never load your magazine to the full 30-round capacity. This one is still true.
you know very little of what you post about
guns or our rights
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
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.
So you desire a loss of freedoms at least be honest about it
How is reducing your round number a loss of freedom. In what instances do you need mega rounds?
Let me put this in a way you might understand.
You and the rest of the anti-gun crowd are demanding a justification for firearms.
This is just like you standing at a voting booth and demanding a justification before you vote for why you want to vote for a candidate.
It is a police-state, Orwellian action.
It is wrong.
As in Australia, it is right, and they haven't had another mass shooting in 22 years. So obviously your priorities are clear.
originally posted by: RoScoLaz5
any weapon is an assault weapon by definition.
They have defined “assault weapon” to include all semi-automatic weapons except antique handguns or weapons that have been made inoperable. They also exempted guns designed for shooting at Olympic events.
originally posted by: IrateCanadian
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
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.
So you desire a loss of freedoms at least be honest about it
How is reducing your round number a loss of freedom. In what instances do you need mega rounds?
Let me put this in a way you might understand.
You and the rest of the anti-gun crowd are demanding a justification for firearms.
This is just like you standing at a voting booth and demanding a justification before you vote for why you want to vote for a candidate.
It is a police-state, Orwellian action.
It is wrong.
As in Australia, it is right, and they haven't had another mass shooting in 22 years. So obviously your priorities are clear.
Move to Australia then and shut the hell up about magazine caps in USA/NA - Good god.
Anyone who says they want to ban assault rifles is: 1. Too ignorant to waste time on. 2. Lying to your face. 3. A combination of 1 and 2. Assault rifles are already banned. Deerfield showed that government is more than willing to lie and use the buzzword "assault rifle" to ban anything they can get away with. DONT FALL FOR THIS BULLSH1T. CALL IT WHAT IT IS. STAND UP FOR YOUR RIGHTS OR YOU WILL KNEEL WITHOUT THEM.
No, wrong, I am here asking what solutions can be put in place to deal with this issue or at lease minimize the carnage mass shooters can do
originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: InTheLight
you have sunk to gobbledygook
good luck with that
you have provided no "experts"
and you have provided nothing with respect to what most americans think
you self delusion is epic
as is your ego
we will not give up our rights, especially on the opinion of a foreigner
no different really than the dreaded "russians" who attempted to influence us
originally posted by: Gothmog
a reply to: InTheLight
No, wrong, I am here asking what solutions can be put in place to deal with this issue or at lease minimize the carnage mass shooters can do
What do you recommend ?
Leave ourselves open to those same criminals ?
Take away our only chance at stopping them ?
Did you not read my entire post with comprehension , yet again ?
Criminals care less if something is against the law.
That is why they are criminals.
Is there some test that will determine if a person is evil or not ?
If so , I have never heard of it.
Again , weapons do not kill people . People kill people.
A No.2 pencil can be a deadly weapon .
A magazine .
Everything around you right now is a potential deadly weapon.
I have owned multiple firearms (including bows) and none have ever harmed anyone in the 50+ years I have owned them.
The subject should be , how to we determine intent in time to prevent ?
I leave you with these thoughts.
But remember , the US is unlike any other country .
We value our freedom as much as anything else.
US citizens fought and died for that ideology.
Not only fort us , but most of the time for others as well.
originally posted by: InTheLight
originally posted by: IrateCanadian
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
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.
So you desire a loss of freedoms at least be honest about it
How is reducing your round number a loss of freedom. In what instances do you need mega rounds?
Let me put this in a way you might understand.
You and the rest of the anti-gun crowd are demanding a justification for firearms.
This is just like you standing at a voting booth and demanding a justification before you vote for why you want to vote for a candidate.
It is a police-state, Orwellian action.
It is wrong.
As in Australia, it is right, and they haven't had another mass shooting in 22 years. So obviously your priorities are clear.
Move to Australia then and shut the hell up about magazine caps in USA/NA - Good god.
Just trying to save you from yourselves.