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: 18
10
<< 15  16  17    19  20  21 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 6 2019 @ 02:17 PM
link   
I cannot believe this is still going on. OK, here's a few facts, since I have better things to do that argue with a brick wall.

  • Every mass shooting that has occurred in the United States in the last 40 years has occurred in a gun-free zone.
  • Every mas shooting in the United States in the last 40 years has been stopped when a gun was used to kill/arrest the shooter.
  • The size of the magazine does little to thwart someone bent on firing as much as fast as they can. A little training is all it takes to replace a clip or even a cylinder so fast it makes no appreciable difference.
  • The size of the magazine has no correlation to the power of the weapon. A .22 clip can hold 20 shells and be smaller than a .444 clip with 5 shells. The .444 can cut a grown man in half or blow a hole through an engine block; a .22 will only kill a healthy adult if it hits a vital organ or major artery and will not penetrate far at all.
  • There is no classification such as "assault gun." All guns can be used for assault, from a fully auto M-60 to a black powder rifle.
  • "Military-Style" guns are no different than non-military-style guns except for the paint job. They fire the exact same rounds exactly as fast with the exact same accuracy. The only advantage to a "military-style" firearm is shock value, which is of no use if one is determined to use the weapon anyway. Shock value is a way to convince people to not make one use the weapon.
  • Military grade weapons, aka "weapons of war," are fully automatic firearms, and have been illegal before most of you were born.
  • Semi-automatic weapons are not fully automatic. They simply fire and replace the spent shell each time the trigger is pulled. A revolver is not quite as fast, but does the same thing.
  • The vast majority of US gun owners are law-abiding, peaceful people.
  • The actual number of mass shooters is a tiny, tiny fraction of a percent of gun owners.
  • More people die of preventable auto accidents than in a mass shooting.
  • More people have died in the US in mass killings in the last 40 years where a gun was not used than in mass killings where a gun was used.
  • The last assault weapons ban had absolutely no effect on crime.
  • The last high-capacity magazine ban had absolutely no effect on crime.
  • Guns are easily available illegally.
  • Buyback programs, when voluntary, only get guns that people do not want anyway, or that people have stolen. They do serve to increase the rate of gun theft and finance criminals.
  • A few years back, a small town in Georgia passed an ordinance that all residences must have a gun in the city limits. Crime dropped to almost nothing after its passage.
  • Chicago, with the strictest gun control laws and bans in the nation, also has the highest rate of gun-related crime.
  • Criminals do not obey laws. That's why they are criminals. Non-criminals obey the laws, because they do not want to be criminals.
  • The right to keep and bear arms is enshrined in the US Constitution and has been upheld as referring to individuals by the US Supreme Court. The only way to change that is to amend the US Constitution.
  • An amendment to the US Constitution would require a 2/3 majority of the states.
I believe that pretty much negates every talking point I have seen on here. So with that, I go back to doing something more productive than arguing with a brick wall and bid you all adieu until later.

TheRedneck




posted on Sep, 6 2019 @ 02:25 PM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck

Adieu and here is the list from gun control advocates.

www.cbc.ca...



posted on Sep, 6 2019 @ 02:29 PM
link   
a reply to: InTheLight
do you even read the stuff you post?
from your link:



"People are not going to support restrictions on that because then where does it stop? We all live in the same world and so we're nervous in public, like everybody else," he said. "But we're also nervous about our rights."




"I don't think there will ever be support for a ban for registration — certainly not for any kind of confiscation or buyback," he said.

you were saying??????



posted on Sep, 6 2019 @ 02:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: shooterbrody

originally posted by: o0oTOPCATo0o
a reply to: shooterbrody

I'm saying that when someone going out and shooting somebody, or multiple people is FAR different than someone dying from lung disease or diabetes.
To use one of in a gun debate argument is at least counterproductive, and at worst, a despicable way to prove a point.


1)so one death is worse than the other?
2)were lung disease or cancer to get this much attention a cure could be easily found.
3)400 deaths vs 600k comparison is not counterproductive, it provides perspective

4)to say one is more "tragic" is bs
to also say one is more "preventable" is bs

5)using EITHER to promote an agenda is despicable

1) It's all terrible. They just don't belong in the same conversation.
2) Maybe, who knows? but just to play devils advocate, we have MONTH long campaigns to raise awareness for breast and prostate cancer, and many charities that are infull view everyday for some of the other causes of death that you mentioned, so they do get plenty of attention. Just not as sensational attention as gun violence. Particularly mass shootings
3) It is counterproductive. If it is comparative, it's a terrible comparison.
Imagine going up to a mother of a mass shooting victim. She's distraught, practically hysterical. Rightfully so.. Now imagine saying to that grieving mother, "yeah, I feel your pain lady.. my son died of a heart attack."
Or imagine anyone involved in one of these tragedies turning on the news and having to listen to some pundit carry on about, "Well, it doesn't kill as many people as cars."
4) They are both tragic. One happens to be shocking, down to the very core of all of us, though.
While the are both tragic.. maybe equally so, one is far more traumatic for everyone involved.
Some of the things you listed are actually quite preventable with diet, lifestyle, ect. Gun violence can be too. Just not by bringing up COMPLETELY seperate ways people can die.
5) Agree completely.

Listen man, I don't want any more freedoms taken away from me, or any other American. I'm a proud supporter of the 2nd and I agreed with almost everything you had to say in this thread, until this post.
Arguments like that are pointless and counterproductive. It is our right as Americans to own firearms. Ones that can save defend us from enemies foreign and domestic. Ones that keep would be tyrants at bay.

It's just not fair to the victims (families and friends included) of this tragic violence to cheapen it, by bringing up friggin diabetes in the same breath.



posted on Sep, 6 2019 @ 02:38 PM
link   

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: InTheLight
do you even read the stuff you post?
from your link:



"People are not going to support restrictions on that because then where does it stop? We all live in the same world and so we're nervous in public, like everybody else," he said. "But we're also nervous about our rights."




"I don't think there will ever be support for a ban for registration — certainly not for any kind of confiscation or buyback," he said.

you were saying??????



Do you?



Trump calls for bipartisan efforts to strengthen gun laws after mass shootings


Oops...nevermind.



posted on Sep, 6 2019 @ 02:39 PM
link   
a reply to: InTheLight


Well over 99 percent of gun owners in the US are law abiding, non murdering, safe responsible people.

If your ban on over 10 round mags were to be implemented, and they all turned them in or destroyed them to avoid risking jail time, no lives would be saved, no shootings would be negated, due to the premise of my first paragraph.

Now lets examine that less than 1 percent of gun owners who are evil psychotic murdering scumbags.

They likely wont care about your ban, and since they are looking to break and even bigger law, murder, additional laws will likely not impress them much.

With a 3D printer, it is suuuuuper easy peasy to make 30 round mags, 40, 50, or even, gasp! 100 round mags.
Only the addition of a spring is needed.

If the murdering scumbags want a high capacity mag, they will get one. If they have to black market it, print it, or form one out of sheet metal.

Its not that hard to do.

You ban will ONLY affect the 99 percent of honest people.

My question to you, is why do you feel the need to punish the 99% for the actions of 1%, even in the face of that punishment have little to no effect on the 1% in the long run?



posted on Sep, 6 2019 @ 02:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: caterpillage
a reply to: InTheLight


Well over 99 percent of gun owners in the US are law abiding, non murdering, safe responsible people.

If your ban on over 10 round mags were to be implemented, and they all turned them in or destroyed them to avoid risking jail time, no lives would be saved, no shootings would be negated, due to the premise of my first paragraph.

Now lets examine that less than 1 percent of gun owners who are evil psychotic murdering scumbags.

They likely wont care about your ban, and since they are looking to break and even bigger law, murder, additional laws will likely not impress them much.

With a 3D printer, it is suuuuuper easy peasy to make 30 round mags, 40, 50, or even, gasp! 100 round mags.
Only the addition of a spring is needed.

If the murdering scumbags want a high capacity mag, they will get one. If they have to black market it, print it, or form one out of sheet metal.

Its not that hard to do.

You ban will ONLY affect the 99 percent of honest people.

My question to you, is why do you feel the need to punish the 99% for the actions of 1%, even in the face of that punishment have little to no effect on the 1% in the long run?


Why is reducing your round number from 30 to 10 considered punishment, as well as mental health background history and references (red flags)?



posted on Sep, 6 2019 @ 02:42 PM
link   
a reply to: InTheLight

I was being quite sarcastic. The Second Amendment allows for such a thing and trumps all local ordinances that could be hung on you such as discharging a firearm within city limits, brandishing, assault with a deadly weapon, carrying where disallowed.

If you pulled and shot a mass shooter dead in their tracks, you probably will not be charged. Most likely never go to trial if you were charged, but most definitely acquitted by a jury if it did go to trial. Something about performing heroic actions and saving lives negates petty laws. Even if you felt you was just doing the right thing.

An exception to that would be if you in possession of a firearm under a disability such as felony. Then you might still be charged but you will still privately get a pat on the back for doing the right thing. And might not have to go to prison. Maybe.

The Second exists to protect the people, be it from invasion or a mistaken government. Just as no soldiers are required to follow illegal orders. No person can be subjected to a government unjustly with no final recourse.

If instead of banning all gun the narrative was kill all gun owners, would they not have the right to defend themselves and others? Or if a populist party just up and declared the US was now a monarchy, would there be no right to fight against that? How about the death penalty for are gingers since their freckles are the souls they steal? Or that blacks must sit at the back of the bus?

The Second is that right of the people for all those reasons and more if no other means of petition, protest or lawsuit can achieve true and just dialogue or results. Which is why I and others object any further attempts at “common sense gun control” under the guise of removing those rights held and guaranteed to always exist in America.

Magazine capacity sounds so minor of a thing but it isn’t. The change can mean that a particular firearm no longer properly functions as designed. That the particular firearm is no longer produced or restricted to purchase or own. You can buy all the fully automatic Tommy guns you want provided you can afford it and pass the check for the stamp on each one. That is a fully automatic gun that fires .45 ACP from drums of 50-100 rounds. You can own them by the thousands (except there is not that many out there). But you can not for any reason at all own a FN P90 that uses a 5.7mm round (.224 caliber) in a 20-50 round magazine because that full automatic was made after 1986. Unless you are a recognized law enforcement agency.

That is the level of gun control laws in the US. Old more lethal round in a larger capacity, legal under conditions. Exact opposite in every detail, absolutely not. Why, because the older gun will break down beyond repair before the newer one will. And that is one less gun out of the public’s hands.

Walther PPK made after 1968 cannot be imported, you can own one that was here or somehow happened to be made here. Walther USA in Ft Smith, Arkansas can start making them today. Walther PPK/S perfectly legal no matter where it was made because it holds one additional round and is slightly less concealable. Even though conceal carry is legal in a majority of states and is now encouraged versus open carry. Can be made domestically but not imported, because the ATF wanted higher capacity magazines.



posted on Sep, 6 2019 @ 02:49 PM
link   
a reply to: InTheLight

That's not a list; it's an opinion piece.

TheRedneck



posted on Sep, 6 2019 @ 02:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: InTheLight

That's not a list; it's an opinion piece.

TheRedneck


Yes, an opinion piece with a list of controls they want put in place.



posted on Sep, 6 2019 @ 02:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: InTheLight

originally posted by: caterpillage
a reply to: InTheLight


Well over 99 percent of gun owners in the US are law abiding, non murdering, safe responsible people.

If your ban on over 10 round mags were to be implemented, and they all turned them in or destroyed them to avoid risking jail time, no lives would be saved, no shootings would be negated, due to the premise of my first paragraph.

Now lets examine that less than 1 percent of gun owners who are evil psychotic murdering scumbags.

They likely wont care about your ban, and since they are looking to break and even bigger law, murder, additional laws will likely not impress them much.

With a 3D printer, it is suuuuuper easy peasy to make 30 round mags, 40, 50, or even, gasp! 100 round mags.
Only the addition of a spring is needed.

If the murdering scumbags want a high capacity mag, they will get one. If they have to black market it, print it, or form one out of sheet metal.

Its not that hard to do.

You ban will ONLY affect the 99 percent of honest people.

My question to you, is why do you feel the need to punish the 99% for the actions of 1%, even in the face of that punishment have little to no effect on the 1% in the long run?


Why is reducing your round number from 30 to 10 considered punishment, as well as mental health background history and references (red flags)?



Please dont dance around the question. Its a pretty cut and dry one.
And im not interested in background mental health checks here, as those cant be printed in 60 seconds with a 3d printer like 60 round assault magazines can.



posted on Sep, 6 2019 @ 02:54 PM
link   
a reply to: InTheLight

Diane Feinstein, big time supporter of banning all guns and would produce a bill if she thought it would pass, regularly carried concealed when it was illegal to do so. She knew it was illegal and did not care.

What other proof is needed that gun control laws do not work as intended?



posted on Sep, 6 2019 @ 02:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: caterpillage

originally posted by: InTheLight

originally posted by: caterpillage
a reply to: InTheLight


Well over 99 percent of gun owners in the US are law abiding, non murdering, safe responsible people.

If your ban on over 10 round mags were to be implemented, and they all turned them in or destroyed them to avoid risking jail time, no lives would be saved, no shootings would be negated, due to the premise of my first paragraph.

Now lets examine that less than 1 percent of gun owners who are evil psychotic murdering scumbags.

They likely wont care about your ban, and since they are looking to break and even bigger law, murder, additional laws will likely not impress them much.

With a 3D printer, it is suuuuuper easy peasy to make 30 round mags, 40, 50, or even, gasp! 100 round mags.
Only the addition of a spring is needed.

If the murdering scumbags want a high capacity mag, they will get one. If they have to black market it, print it, or form one out of sheet metal.

Its not that hard to do.

You ban will ONLY affect the 99 percent of honest people.

My question to you, is why do you feel the need to punish the 99% for the actions of 1%, even in the face of that punishment have little to no effect on the 1% in the long run?


Why is reducing your round number from 30 to 10 considered punishment, as well as mental health background history and references (red flags)?



Please dont dance around the question. Its a pretty cut and dry one.
And im not interested in background mental health checks here, as those cant be printed in 60 seconds with a 3d printer like 60 round assault magazines can.


Dancing around the question seems to be your forte.



posted on Sep, 6 2019 @ 02:55 PM
link   

originally posted by: Ahabstar
a reply to: InTheLight

Diane Feinstein, big time supporter of banning all guns and would produce a bill if she thought it would pass, regularly carried concealed when it was illegal to do so. She knew it was illegal and did not care.

What other proof is needed that gun control laws do not work as intended?


Banning all guns and implementing stricter restrictions are two different things.



posted on Sep, 6 2019 @ 02:57 PM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck

that kind of ends this thread.

well said, since nobody wanted to discuss the number 47.



posted on Sep, 6 2019 @ 02:58 PM
link   
a reply to: InTheLight

Just a small question, have you owned or fired a gun?



posted on Sep, 6 2019 @ 02:59 PM
link   
a reply to: InTheLight



Trump calls for bipartisan efforts to strengthen gun laws after mass shootings

that is not from your link
it is a link to an entirely different story

you really dont read the crap you post

wow



posted on Sep, 6 2019 @ 03:00 PM
link   
Gun control advocates:

Shooter guns down people: guns are bad take them away, we don't need civilians to have them! Let the gov and law enforcement handle it!

Cop shoots black man: That cop is responsible for his actions!!!! Our police and gov are corrupt and want to murder people in the streets!!!?!

Is it me or are gun control advocates always in a hurry to demonstrate how stupid they are?



posted on Sep, 6 2019 @ 03:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: InTheLight

originally posted by: caterpillage

originally posted by: InTheLight

originally posted by: caterpillage
a reply to: InTheLight


Well over 99 percent of gun owners in the US are law abiding, non murdering, safe responsible people.

If your ban on over 10 round mags were to be implemented, and they all turned them in or destroyed them to avoid risking jail time, no lives would be saved, no shootings would be negated, due to the premise of my first paragraph.

Now lets examine that less than 1 percent of gun owners who are evil psychotic murdering scumbags.

They likely wont care about your ban, and since they are looking to break and even bigger law, murder, additional laws will likely not impress them much.

With a 3D printer, it is suuuuuper easy peasy to make 30 round mags, 40, 50, or even, gasp! 100 round mags.
Only the addition of a spring is needed.

If the murdering scumbags want a high capacity mag, they will get one. If they have to black market it, print it, or form one out of sheet metal.

Its not that hard to do.

You ban will ONLY affect the 99 percent of honest people.

My question to you, is why do you feel the need to punish the 99% for the actions of 1%, even in the face of that punishment have little to no effect on the 1% in the long run?


Why is reducing your round number from 30 to 10 considered punishment, as well as mental health background history and references (red flags)?



Please dont dance around the question. Its a pretty cut and dry one.
And im not interested in background mental health checks here, as those cant be printed in 60 seconds with a 3d printer like 60 round assault magazines can.


Dancing around the question seems to be your forte.


Yes, you caught me red handed. By asking a direct question, and explaining my reasoning behind asking, i in fact danced a circle around my own question and by default never really asked anything.

Your pretty good at deep conversations.



posted on Sep, 6 2019 @ 03:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: Ahabstar
a reply to: InTheLight

Just a small question, have you owned or fired a gun?


Yes, indeed I have.



new topics

top topics



 
10
<< 15  16  17    19  20  21 >>

log in

join