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: 3
10
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 6 2019 @ 09:18 AM
link   
a reply to: InTheLight

"High Capacity" doesn't mean what you think it means; high capacity used to mean more than 10 rounds....... Back in the early 1900's. For the couple decade or so, standard capacity mags (handguns, and most rifles) hold between 15-20 rounds, depending on being a handgun or rifle.

This is part of the problem with the gun debate - the ones that don't like them, know zero about them....... and want to ban them because they're confused and scared




posted on Sep, 6 2019 @ 09:18 AM
link   
a reply to: Ahabstar

Yeah, I know.

I'm not that fast, but I think I'm fast enough. Takes longer to recoil from a single .357 Magnum hit than it does me to reload.

TheRedneck



posted on Sep, 6 2019 @ 09:19 AM
link   
a reply to: InTheLight

If the solution is a loss of freedom then nope



posted on Sep, 6 2019 @ 09:20 AM
link   

originally posted by: dothedew
a reply to: InTheLight

"High Capacity" doesn't mean what you think it means; high capacity used to mean more than 10 rounds....... Back in the early 1900's. For the couple decade or so, standard capacity mags (handguns, and most rifles) hold between 15-20 rounds, depending on being a handgun or rifle.

This is part of the problem with the gun debate - the ones that don't like them, know zero about them....... and want to ban them because they're confused and scared


You can't put that 'scared and confused' label on the gun experts, try again.

High capacity is over 10 rounds in referencing semiautomatic weapons specifically used for mass shootings, let's start from there.



posted on Sep, 6 2019 @ 09:21 AM
link   

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?



posted on Sep, 6 2019 @ 09:21 AM
link   
a reply to: InTheLight


No, target shooting. But if I were to hunt an animal I would be sure to make it a kill shot within a few rounds. Why do hunters need over 10 rounds to make a kill?

Because in the woods, it is not that unusual to find oneself surrounded by 12 coyotes. Or 12 razorbacks.

You obviously have no idea what someone 'needs.'

TheRedneck



posted on Sep, 6 2019 @ 09:22 AM
link   
a reply to: InTheLight


That freedom does not mean today what it meant when it was written.

Excuse me, but yes it does.

TheRedneck



posted on Sep, 6 2019 @ 09:22 AM
link   

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.



posted on Sep, 6 2019 @ 09:24 AM
link   
a reply to: InTheLight



Now every civilian will be armed against each other, is that how you want to live?

it is how we have lived for over 200 years
it is how we will continue to live

murder has been illegal for that same amount of time
hasn't stopped people from killing each other



posted on Sep, 6 2019 @ 09:24 AM
link   

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.



posted on Sep, 6 2019 @ 09:25 AM
link   

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.

they dont have the same rights
so the rights have no value to them



posted on Sep, 6 2019 @ 09:25 AM
link   

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: InTheLight



Now every civilian will be armed against each other, is that how you want to live?

it is how we have lived for over 200 years
it is how we will continue to live

murder has been illegal for that same amount of time
hasn't stopped people from killing each other





And then the mass killings will only increase.



posted on Sep, 6 2019 @ 09:26 AM
link   
a reply to: InTheLight
nope
you are simply wrong



posted on Sep, 6 2019 @ 09:27 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.


So you desire a loss of freedoms at least be honest about it



posted on Sep, 6 2019 @ 09:27 AM
link   

originally posted by: shooterbrody

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.

they dont have the same rights
so the rights have no value to them


I certainly do have the same rights and freedoms in regards to gun ownership, although we must also provide mental health history from a doctor and take gun safety and handling courses - do you? I took mine at college.



posted on Sep, 6 2019 @ 09:27 AM
link   
a reply to: InTheLight


And then the mass killings will only increase.

That sounds like a threat...

TheRedneck



posted on Sep, 6 2019 @ 09:28 AM
link   

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?



posted on Sep, 6 2019 @ 09:29 AM
link   

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: InTheLight


And then the mass killings will only increase.

That sounds like a threat...

TheRedneck


It is what is predicted by your experts...hard to swallow?



posted on Sep, 6 2019 @ 09:30 AM
link   
a reply to: InTheLight

You are not my expert.

TheRedneck



posted on Sep, 6 2019 @ 09:30 AM
link   
The actual facts do not back up your statements
you are attempting to use fear to drive an agenda
shame on you
www.nationalreview.com...



In fact, the high point for mass killings in the U.S. was 1929




Incidents of mass murder in the U.S. declined from 42 in the 1990s to 26 in the first decade of this century.







 
10
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join