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: 6
10
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 6 2019 @ 09:54 AM
link   

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: InTheLight



your mass shooting problems

in 2018 387 people died in "mass shootings"
I would say these problems are much larger and merit more attention

Heart disease 647,457
Cancer 599,108
Unintentional injuries 169,936
Chronic lower respiratory disease 160,201
Stroke and cerebrovascular diseases 146,383
Alzheimer's disease 121,404
Diabetes 83,586
Influenza and pneumonia 55,672

All just as preventable
why arent you protesting these?



Mass shootings aren't treatable.




posted on Sep, 6 2019 @ 09:54 AM
link   

originally posted by: InTheLight

originally posted by: ketsuko

originally posted by: InTheLight

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.


You can ban all you want, but it won't solve the problem of angry young men looking to snap and hurt as many as they can. Guns are only one available route to harm others. We've seen it over and over in other places - remove the guns and they use bombs, cars, knives, trucks ... all manner of other things that do as much damage as guns ... *AND* they access guns illegally because nothing stops those who are determined. Anders Brevik, the Bataclan shootings, several instances of shootings in Australia carried out by terrorists, etc.

You want a solution? Figure out why so many young men are growing up disaffected and angry at life, the universe, and everything.

Guns have always been in the US. Mass shootings? Not so much.


I am for banning high capacity round magazines. I think it is a good compromise.


there's that word again.

Compromise.

What if slave owners made slaves "justify" their desire for freedom.

And instead, decided to "compromise" with the slaves.



posted on Sep, 6 2019 @ 09:55 AM
link   
a reply to: InTheLight



I am for banning high capacity round magazines. I think it is a good compromise.

Compromise has caused many of nations to fall.



posted on Sep, 6 2019 @ 09:55 AM
link   
a reply to: InTheLight


I am for banning high capacity round magazines. I think it is a good compromise.

I don't.

TheRedneck



posted on Sep, 6 2019 @ 09:55 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

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?


Strawman argument and a backtracking from you.

Not even worthy of a response, to be honest.


You mean you have no response, to be honest. Same exact scenario in reverse.


No.

Now you're making things up because you have stated that people need to "justify" exercising their rights.

Which is the antithesis of "rights".


So it's okay with you that a potentially violent person can exercise their rights to obtain a semiautomatic weapon just because they want it?


Yes.

because everyone is "potentially violent".

Is this your justification for gun confiscation?

Because everyone can be "potentially violent" at any given time.


Throughout this thread I never used the word confiscation, that is your word. My words are banning high capacity round magazines.



posted on Sep, 6 2019 @ 09:56 AM
link   

originally posted by: Gothmog
a reply to: InTheLight



I am for banning high capacity round magazines. I think it is a good compromise.

Compromise has caused many of nations to fall.


And non-compromise (USA and China) has caused the stock market to fall.



posted on Sep, 6 2019 @ 09:56 AM
link   

originally posted by: InTheLight

originally posted by: Gothmog

originally posted by: InTheLight

originally posted by: Gothmog

originally posted by: InTheLight

originally posted by: Gothmog

originally posted by: InTheLight

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: InTheLight
define such

seems we have been here before

also we have a right, so your "need" is irrelevant



I have defined it quite clearly, you can't accept it.

Your right is actually a want and not a need.





I have defined it quite clearly, you can't accept it.

Where ?
I dont see it.


Ah, those who will not see...what was that quote again?

Are you ok ?


I am ok are you ok? Did you read that book?

I have read a lot of books.


No, I mean adult nonfiction books.

So , what is the title ?
I did not ask for tripe.



posted on Sep, 6 2019 @ 09:58 AM
link   
a reply to: InTheLight


Throughout this thread I never used the word confiscation

"A rose by any other name would smell as sweet."
-William Shakespeare.

You also said banning high-capacity magazines was just a good start.

My damn cake!

TheRedneck



posted on Sep, 6 2019 @ 09:59 AM
link   

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: InTheLight


Throughout this thread I never used the word confiscation

"A rose by any other name would smell as sweet."
-William Shakespeare.

You also said banning high-capacity magazines was just a good start.

My damn cake!

TheRedneck


You guys are the ones who are 'confused and scared'. lulz



posted on Sep, 6 2019 @ 09:59 AM
link   
a reply to: InTheLight

Compromise for what?

You want a solution. At least that's what you said. Compromise is not a solution.

The solution is to address the root of the problem which is the issue of angry young men willing to die and take as many as they can with them. That's the problem. You want a solution, you look there and start seeking answers to that problem. Why so many angry young men? What makes them angry?

You won't find any of that with your "compromise".



posted on Sep, 6 2019 @ 10:00 AM
link   

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: InTheLight

Compromise for what?

You want a solution. At least that's what you said. Compromise is not a solution.

The solution is to address the root of the problem which is the issue of angry young men willing to die and take as many as they can with them. That's the problem. You want a solution, you look there and start seeking answers to that problem. Why so many angry young men? What makes them angry?

You won't find any of that with your "compromise".


Reducing the amount of carnage a shooter can do would be the logical first step.



posted on Sep, 6 2019 @ 10:00 AM
link   
a reply to: network dude

I don't know about "assault rifles" but I'll take the Ruger Ranch Rifle any day. In fact in Mass the second gun is totally banned and the Ruger Ranch rifle one of about 2 models of removable magazine semi auto centerfire rifles that are currently legally available to MA residents, either a Ruger or a M1. So a large caliber military rifle, the M1, is totally legal but your little .223 ARs are totally banned.



posted on Sep, 6 2019 @ 10:01 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

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?


Strawman argument and a backtracking from you.

Not even worthy of a response, to be honest.


You mean you have no response, to be honest. Same exact scenario in reverse.


No.

Now you're making things up because you have stated that people need to "justify" exercising their rights.

Which is the antithesis of "rights".


So it's okay with you that a potentially violent person can exercise their rights to obtain a semiautomatic weapon just because they want it?


Yes.

because everyone is "potentially violent".

Is this your justification for gun confiscation?

Because everyone can be "potentially violent" at any given time.


Throughout this thread I never used the word confiscation, that is your word. My words are banning high capacity round magazines.


I know you haven't "stated" it, but that's because you still pretend to be for freedoms, but are looking for "justifications" and dressing things up as "compromise".



posted on Sep, 6 2019 @ 10:02 AM
link   

originally posted by: funbobby
a reply to: network dude

I don't know about "assault rifles" but I'll take the Ruger Ranch Rifle any day. In fact in Mass the second gun is totally banned and the Ruger Ranch rifle one of about 2 models of removable magazine semi auto centerfire rifles that are currently legally available to MA residents, either a Ruger or a M1. So a large caliber military rifle, the M1, is totally legal but your little .223 ARs are totally banned.


The criminal psychologists touched on that point...point being that copycat shooters will choose the AR-15 ...copycat.



posted on Sep, 6 2019 @ 10:02 AM
link   
a reply to: shooterbrody

In fact on NPR this morning I heard them gleefully suggesting that we were on a slippery slope to confiscation and that Beto's "buybacks" are really confiscation schemes.



posted on Sep, 6 2019 @ 10:02 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

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?


Strawman argument and a backtracking from you.

Not even worthy of a response, to be honest.


You mean you have no response, to be honest. Same exact scenario in reverse.


No.

Now you're making things up because you have stated that people need to "justify" exercising their rights.

Which is the antithesis of "rights".


So it's okay with you that a potentially violent person can exercise their rights to obtain a semiautomatic weapon just because they want it?


Yes.

because everyone is "potentially violent".

Is this your justification for gun confiscation?

Because everyone can be "potentially violent" at any given time.


Throughout this thread I never used the word confiscation, that is your word. My words are banning high capacity round magazines.


I know you haven't "stated" it, but that's because you still pretend to be for freedoms, but are looking for "justifications" and dressing things up as "compromise".


Who needs over 10 rounds for anything, answer me that?



posted on Sep, 6 2019 @ 10:02 AM
link   

originally posted by: InTheLight

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: InTheLight

Compromise for what?

You want a solution. At least that's what you said. Compromise is not a solution.

The solution is to address the root of the problem which is the issue of angry young men willing to die and take as many as they can with them. That's the problem. You want a solution, you look there and start seeking answers to that problem. Why so many angry young men? What makes them angry?

You won't find any of that with your "compromise".


Reducing the amount of carnage a shooter can do would be the logical first step.


Not really.

The "compromise" you list won't even do that as has been explained to you.

And it doesn't even take you into addressing the problem itself. You have yet to even address the problem with anything you mention. All you want is to take away the rights of firearms owners.

I don't even own one, and *I* can see that much.



posted on Sep, 6 2019 @ 10:03 AM
link   

originally posted by: funbobby
a reply to: shooterbrody

In fact on NPR this morning I heard them gleefully suggesting that we were on a slippery slope to confiscation and that Beto's "buybacks" are really confiscation schemes.


That's what Australia did...buybacks. Worked for them.



posted on Sep, 6 2019 @ 10:04 AM
link   

originally posted by: ketsuko

originally posted by: InTheLight

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: InTheLight

Compromise for what?

You want a solution. At least that's what you said. Compromise is not a solution.

The solution is to address the root of the problem which is the issue of angry young men willing to die and take as many as they can with them. That's the problem. You want a solution, you look there and start seeking answers to that problem. Why so many angry young men? What makes them angry?

You won't find any of that with your "compromise".


Reducing the amount of carnage a shooter can do would be the logical first step.


Not really.

The "compromise" you list won't even do that as has been explained to you.

And it doesn't even take you into addressing the problem itself. You have yet to even address the problem with anything you mention. All you want is to take away the rights of firearms owners.

I don't even own one, and *I* can see that much.


Of course it will help reduce the carnage and mental health background checks and references will take care of the violent angry young man or older man getting a gun in the first place.



posted on Sep, 6 2019 @ 10:05 AM
link   
a reply to: contextual

"Less guns = Less shootings"

That simplistic claim is utterly false in Reality, here in Reality there was a 20 year period in the US where both the number of guns and the places they could be legally carried increased steadily and at the same time the number of gun homicides went way down. So in fact there is a negative correlation between the number of guns and the number of gun homicides in the US, the opposite of your claim!




top topics



 
10
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join