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: 4
10
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 6 2019 @ 09:31 AM
link   

originally posted by: InTheLight

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.

so you dont understand what the word same means?




posted on Sep, 6 2019 @ 09:31 AM
link   

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: InTheLight

You are not my expert.

TheRedneck


You are not your expert either.



posted on Sep, 6 2019 @ 09:32 AM
link   

originally posted by: shooterbrody

originally posted by: InTheLight

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.

so you dont understand what the word same means?


All I know is our background checks are far superior to yours and it is sad to see that you want things to remain the 'same'.



posted on Sep, 6 2019 @ 09:34 AM
link   
a reply to: InTheLight


You are not your expert either.

Excuse me, but yes I am.

TheRedneck



posted on Sep, 6 2019 @ 09:34 AM
link   

originally posted by: InTheLight

originally posted by: shooterbrody

originally posted by: InTheLight

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.

so you dont understand what the word same means?


All I know is our background checks are far superior to yours and it is sad to see that you want things to remain the 'same'.

so then not the same.....
nothing in your nation is "far superior"
not even hockey



posted on Sep, 6 2019 @ 09:35 AM
link   

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.



posted on Sep, 6 2019 @ 09:36 AM
link   
a reply to: DBCowboy
that is a very good analogy
thanks!



posted on Sep, 6 2019 @ 09:36 AM
link   
a reply to: DBCowboy

I can give a justification for owning my firearms.

I want them.

TheRedneck



posted on Sep, 6 2019 @ 09:37 AM
link   

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.



posted on Sep, 6 2019 @ 09:38 AM
link   

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.


And so are yours.




posted on Sep, 6 2019 @ 09:38 AM
link   

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: DBCowboy

I can give a justification for owning my firearms.

I want them.

TheRedneck


So do nut cases that might go off the deep end and decide to go on a mass shooting spree.



posted on Sep, 6 2019 @ 09:39 AM
link   

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
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.


And so are yours.



Yes, have mandatory mental health reports, references from family and friends, a good reason to own a gun, gun training, and 10 round maximum.



posted on Sep, 6 2019 @ 09:40 AM
link   

originally posted by: InTheLight

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: DBCowboy

I can give a justification for owning my firearms.

I want them.

TheRedneck


So do nut cases that might go off the deep end and decide to go on a mass shooting spree.

and monkeys might fly out of your butt
better stay seated



posted on Sep, 6 2019 @ 09:40 AM
link   
Once a rifle or pistol will access a box magazine then the number cartridges it is so called "able to hold" is based on the honor system.



posted on Sep, 6 2019 @ 09:40 AM
link   
a reply to: InTheLight

How 'bout this: If Australia is the no gun promised land for you, move there.



posted on Sep, 6 2019 @ 09:41 AM
link   
a reply to: 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.

too bad your founders didn't value your freedom as much as ours did



posted on Sep, 6 2019 @ 09:41 AM
link   

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.



posted on Sep, 6 2019 @ 09:42 AM
link   

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?



posted on Sep, 6 2019 @ 09:43 AM
link   

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: InTheLight

How 'bout this: If Australia is the no gun promised land for you, move there.


It's not about me, it's about finding solutions to your mass shooting problems.



posted on Sep, 6 2019 @ 09:43 AM
link   
a reply to: InTheLight

No. As written the Second would allow for any citizen to own an Apache Gunship if they could afford it.

I have a rifle that takes the exact same magazine as a pistol, 15 rounds. The original model was released in 1976 and was one of the original “Wonder Nines” police department switched to from their 8 round single stack magazines and six shot .38 specials.

By some definitions it is a high capacity magazine because it hold more than 10 rounds (6 for some locations). But was designed that way. The original “California Compliant” 10 round magazines had a block below the follower (which the plate that the ammo sits on) to keep you from adding more than 10. You could open the magazine and remove that block just as easily as it was put in. Behold a 15 rounder that didn’t fail to feed because the spring tangled up on a block that wasn’t supposed to be there. Which is why modifying guns is dangerous.

The 1968 gun control act removed the Walter PPK (James Bond’s gun) from import because it was a six round magazine for the .380 (7 for the .32 and .25) Walther made a seven round magazine and dubbed (added a letter) it the PPK/S. Read that again, the 1968 ban wanted a higher capacity magazine to pass the points test for import.

Higher capacity means more bulk, harder to conceal. High capacity in a pistol means a double stack magazine versus a single stack. Now pistol vs revolver is a whole different discussion but I have seen 12 shot .22 revolvers and 8 shot .357 magnums. The Ruger SP 101 is 8 for .22 and 5 for .357 and you can buy a snub nose for concealing or a longer barrel for ranged shooting.

The Second is not about hunting, collecting, target shooting, joining a militia or any of that.



new topics

top topics



 
10
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join