It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable 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: 20
<< 17  18  19    21  22 >>

log in


posted on Sep, 6 2019 @ 05:04 PM
a reply to: InTheLight

I starting to think you have never handled and shot firearms.

posted on Sep, 6 2019 @ 05:04 PM
a reply to: InTheLight

that would be a violation of HIPAA medical records are private in this country ,and mental illness does not bar some one from owning a gun, being adjudicated mentally defective does and that is something a court does when you have been institutionalized against your will and only then does some one loose their gun rights least those with mental illness.(other categories are being a known drug user/addict ,domestic violence conviction and having a restraining order against you etc )

posted on Sep, 6 2019 @ 05:05 PM
The 2nd Amendment didnt have hunters in mind...

edit on 6-9-2019 by StratosFear because: (no reason given)

posted on Sep, 6 2019 @ 05:13 PM
a reply to: InTheLight

so you want to ban a protected class and minority population group from gun ownership for biological reasons? they tried that with blacks back in the day and it was ruled unconstitutional and i would assume it would apply to this what with the mentally ill being a protected class of individuals in the usa where laws discriminating against them tend to be frowned upon.

replace mentally ill with gay,would it be legal to say LGBTQ individuals do not have a right to own a gun?

how about Hispanics? what about baring certain people of certain religions from owning guns?

the elderly? etc all your thought process does is stigmatize mental illness and that usually leads to people not seeking treatment for mental health issues for fear of loosing a constitutional right

posted on Sep, 6 2019 @ 05:31 PM
a reply to: InTheLight

well for starters ca magizine restrictions were just struck down by a federal court so your argument may not survive a scotus ruling and is exactly why california hasnt challenged it yet as if they do and the scotus rules against them it would apply to the entirety of the usa,meaning most of the anti gun states would then be forced to allow standard capacity magazines in Chicago/NYC/California/new Jersey etc

In an opinion being trumpeted by the National Rifle Association as a “huge win for gun owners,” a federal judge has ruled that California’s ban on high-capacity gun magazines is unconstitutional. District judge Roger Benitez struck down the California ban on magazines holding more than 10 bullets, ruling that the second amendment guarantees access to such magazines for “self-defense at home.” In an at-times lurid 86-page decision — which begins with three bloody, true-crime vignettes of home invasions and hails of bullets — Benitez writes less like a judge than a gun-lobby pamphleteer. In 2017 alone, California’s “population of 39 million people endured 56,609 robberies, 105,391 aggravated assaults and 95,942 residential burglaries. There were also 423 homicides in victims’ residences,” the judge writes. “As evidenced by California’s own crime statistics, the need to protect one’s self and family from criminals in one’s home has not abated…. Law enforcement cannot protect everyone… Fortunately,” Benitez continues, “the Second Amendment protects a person’s right to keep and bear firearms.”
so currently your entire argument is unconstitutional

Benitez described three home invasions, two of which ended with the female victims running out of bullets. In the third case, the pajama-clad woman with a high-capacity magazine took on three armed intruders, firing at them while simultaneously calling for help on her phone. "She had no place to carry an extra magazine and no way to reload because her left hand held the phone with which she was still trying to call 911," the judge wrote, saying she killed one attacker while two escaped. He ruled that magazines holding more than 10 rounds are "arms" under the U.S. Constitution, and that the California law "burdens the core of the Second Amendment by criminalizing the acquisition and possession of these magazines that are commonly held by law-abiding citizens for defense of self, home, and state."
so there is your answer to your who needs more then ten rounds statement. i mean unless you thought those pajama clad women Would be better of being raped and or murdered when attacked by multiple home invaders?

and as a side note if 10 is the magic number why do most cops carry handguns and rifles that carry on average between 15-33 for handguns and 20-30 for rifles? i mean cops are supposed to only use guns in defense of them selves and others yet they all seem to think that more then 10 is advised and in fact having less then 10 has often led to officers being killed in the line of duty or injured see the Miami shoot out with feds,and the la county bank-robbery in the latters case police had to raid a gun store due to the inadequacy of weapons on hand

posted on Sep, 6 2019 @ 07:23 PM

originally posted by: InTheLight

originally posted by: caterpillage

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.

I am extremely good at deep conversations with people that are objective.

Then please tell me why you think the 2nd Amendment has absolutely anything to do with hunting, for starters.

posted on Sep, 6 2019 @ 08:17 PM
If the limit is 10 rounds per, would a shooter be more conservative and aim their shots versus spray and pray with a 30 rounder? Is that pause in shooting mean they are empty and reloading or pausing to aim?

posted on Sep, 6 2019 @ 08:51 PM

originally posted by: InTheLight

originally posted by: caterpillage
a reply to: InTheLight

Not seeing where i was being unobjective, but ok.
It was just a question thats been on my mind for a while.

Heres another, maybe this one you can answer,

You think more than 10 rounds in a semi auto should be banned, does that mean you're cool with a 30 round mag in a bolt action single fire gun? Totally not an assault weapon by any stretch of imagination. Its even got a wood stock.

It has to do with interrupting the shooting or forcing the shooter to reload, thereby in all aliklihood saving lives.

One way to do that would be to pass a federal restriction on high-capacity magazines. This would limit the number of rounds a mass shooter could fire uninterrupted, meaning they’d have to reload more often, and not be able to shoot as many people in between. More reloading would result in a higher probability of a malfunction or mistake, giving law enforcement more time to respond and bystanders more opportunity to flee or fight back.

“Even though it’s fairly easy to interchange magazines, any time you do is a point at which firing stops,” said Robert Spitzer, a professor at SUNY Cortland who’s written five books on gun policy. “People drop the magazines. They jam. In a real live fire situation, people are often nervous, even including those who are committing these crimes.”

“If the federal government enacted a high-capacity magazine ban, it would be constitutionally permissible,” said Adam Winkler, a professor of constitutional law at the UCLA School of Law who has written extensively on gun policy.

“I don’t think anyone would argue with a straight face that if we limit people to magazines of 10 or 15 rounds we’d solve the entire gun violence problem, but what we can do is expect to have a real effect on how many people are injured and killed in mass shooting incidents,” said Skaggs.

Go to 9:34 and it will show you how dumb mag restrictions are.

posted on Sep, 6 2019 @ 11:01 PM

originally posted by: funbobby
a reply to: rickymouse


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.

The guns they get in those buybacks are mostly junk. Getting a gun off the street that can explode when fired is a good thing, the person shooting someone breaking into their home could get hurt. That fifty extra bucks can help the person buy a new gun.

edit on 6-9-2019 by rickymouse because: (no reason given)

posted on Sep, 6 2019 @ 11:28 PM

originally posted by: InTheLight

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: InTheLight

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: network dude

Any tool that propels an object through a barrel could and probably will be classified as an assault weapon because ANY weapon (by it's very nature) is designed to assault.

So when the left says they want to ban only assault weapons, what they mean is you'll be left with a pointy stick until they take that away also.

Wrong, they will be left with a magazine that holds only 10 rounds.

So you are actually okay with assault weapons.

I am okay with a compromise and 10 rounds seems adequate for any hunter's needs.

Do you really think a 10 rnd vs a 30 rnd mag is going to make a difference? I'm not as fast as these guys but I can make a reload happen fairly quickly for a rookie.

After you take our Hi-cap mags what are you going to be wanting next?

edit on 6-9-2019 by mtnshredder because: (no reason given)

posted on Sep, 7 2019 @ 01:27 AM

originally posted by: InTheLight
a reply to: network dude

And how fast can both possibly shoot off those 30 rounds?

Valid question that still needs an answer, italics mine

So just surrender high capacity semiautomatic weapons. What do you really need them for?

The ability to fight against high capacity automatic rifles if necessary. We need to be able to defend ourselves, and the second amendment is to ensure the general populace has the right to not depend on the government for protection via the military. Not even "to fight the government" although that is a direct result of being able to protect ourselves independently from any government. If you believe the right to self defense exists the ability to should ad well.


posted on Sep, 7 2019 @ 01:30 AM
a reply to: network dude

If it weren't for president Trump this country would have collapsed
into socialism. The whole world is being hard pressed into becoming
a one world socialist gov. This is no longer a " Conspiracy theory".
We still have socialists trying to ram the gates of our republic
and what happens if the current POTUS falls some how? Just look
at what's going on in Briton and France, Hong Kong and Venezuela?
How are we supposed to think it can't happen here?

How can this not be seen only as one of the biggest most important
goals, on the socialist agenda? The disarming of law abiding citizens
must not be tolerated by any measure. And further more any weapon
the military can put in my hands to go into battle and die for my country
with. Is the same weapon I can choose to protect my family with against
all enemies period.

A real man would settle for nothing less. Does that help explain the war
on masculinity lately? I think it does but I digress any way the point is that
to not see where all this is going is just really ignorant. Well, why be nice it's
really fuuk'n stupid.

I won't even waste my time replying to ITL!

edit on 7-9-2019 by carsforkids because: (no reason given)

posted on Sep, 7 2019 @ 10:04 AM
The second picture is a TOY gun. Note the orange tip on the barrel...

posted on Sep, 7 2019 @ 10:26 AM
If I assault someone with a weapon.


posted on Sep, 7 2019 @ 12:11 PM
a reply to: network dude

I heard them a few times, they say "assault style" weapons. What does that mean? Does that mean guns that look like assault weapons so as to have the same "style"?

If that is the case then we should ban plastic toy guns that look like assault weapons, right? Because they are the same "style" as an assault weapon.

Or what about drawings of assault weapons? Ban those because they are done in the same "style" as the assault weapon itself?

Furthermore, look up how many people die from handguns as compared to rifles. You will see that handgun killings vastly outnumber rifle killings. So, knowing this, ask yourselves this question....Why are they going after rifles instead of handguns?

Seriously, answer that question for me, all of you.

posted on Sep, 7 2019 @ 01:59 PM
Assault Weapon. This phrase cracks me up.

make a physical attack on.

a thing designed or used for inflicting bodily harm or physical damage.

By the very definition of the words, ALL weapons are assault weapons. Be it a gun, knife, club or anything else specifically designed to inflict harm.

It's nothing more than a phrase intended to illicit an emotional response.

posted on Sep, 7 2019 @ 03:48 PM
If the shootings in America are indeed by the citizenry, then America doesn't have a gun problem, America has a mental health problem and a huge issue within its society.

Plenty of other nations with guns not killing people.

However I suspect a large part of the shootings are indeed not legitimate and used for political gain
edit on 7-9-2019 by canuckster because: Autocorrect....

posted on Sep, 7 2019 @ 04:05 PM
a reply to: network dude

Answer = Neither. They are both identical. Well, maybe not exactly...the Ruger Mini-14 shoots a Remington .223, and the AR shoots a 5.56x45mm NATO OR a Rem. .223 cartridge. The Ruger is more accurate than the pictured AR, but at a cost of weight. Also, the pictured AR is an SBR, requiring a federal permit/tax stamp.

posted on Sep, 7 2019 @ 04:38 PM
a reply to: Flyingclaydisk

You realize you just confused every gun control advocate in this thread, right?


posted on Sep, 8 2019 @ 12:39 AM
The only response I have left is this. Mad men.

new topics

top topics

<< 17  18  19    21  22 >>

log in