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: 7
10
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 6 2019 @ 10:06 AM
link   
a reply to: InTheLight

At exactly the same rate, did you think the flashlight made the gun shoot faster?




posted on Sep, 6 2019 @ 10:07 AM
link   
a reply to: Gothmog

And of course rifles and shotguns, long guns, are the least likely to be used in a gun homicide. More people are killed by unarmed people than by people killed with rifles and shotguns combined!



posted on Sep, 6 2019 @ 10:08 AM
link   
a reply to: shooterbrody

That's not true, in the 1600s and 1700s British subjects did have a bill of rights. It was in fact the model for our own. They even had the right to bear arms but it was limited to Protestants. A good question for anyone who questions the founders intent with the second amendment is to ask them if they think our founders wanted to have fewer rights as Americans than they did as British subjects.
edit on 6-9-2019 by funbobby because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 6 2019 @ 10:08 AM
link   
a reply to: InTheLight

Ii noticed that you use a lot of vague terms as part of your argument. That's the issue for me. You say that a high capacity magazine is one that hold more than ten rounds. You leave out the opinions that some people say anything over one round is to many (ie Joe Biden). You also like to point out that some people have mental issues without saying what kind. Maybe you felt off at one point in your life, you just came from a funeral, or you broke up/divorced someone, is that enough to remove your Constitutional rights from you?

The issue I see is that while you seem to be a reasonable person, the people that are pushing for gun control don't really care about the gun part. It's all about control to them. I know, I know, "that's just stupid fear talk". Let's take a minute to look at Hawaii. Recently a new smoking ban was put in place, while you might have been able to sue for your right to smoke this law makes it harder to do so. It goes like this; this year we raise the age limit to buy nicotine products by ten years of age, next year we do the same, and we keep doing this until you must be at least 100 years old before you can buy a nicotine product. The state never took away your rights to use these products, they just set a new standard up the limits legal usage to a very small few.

This group of people that push gun control have also expressed their opinions on speech, legal property ownership, and individual rights. So as you might be looking at it from a singular issue, they see it as just part of an issue that needs to be put down. Our rights. I don't fault you in the way your thinking, you seem to have an idea of good intentions on your mind, but if you stand back from your thoughts for a moment and see how what you're proposing can be abused, then you might see what's really at state with these plans. You brought up Australia a lot, but neglect to mention that the New Zealand shooter had not only come from there, but also had bought most (if not all) of his guns there. It seems you have forgotten the most basic of principles; "laws don't affect Criminals, they only affect law abiding Citizens".



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


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

Oh, I am not confused. I know exactly what you want. You want all guns to be confiscated except from you, just like any gun-grabber. After all, there is only one person you are certain can handle a gun safely: you. Everyone esle is potentially violent.

I am also not scared. I have a gun in case people like you try to take any of my freedoms away. And I'm keeping it.

TheRedneck



posted on Sep, 6 2019 @ 10:11 AM
link   
a reply to: InTheLight

... because every single one of these people were violent before they got guns.

... because every single one of these people got their guns legally.

... because *none* of these people should have been flagged by law enforcement prior to getting guns.

Of course, none of these statements are true. Not every mass shooter had any prior signs of trouble. Not every mass shooter obtained his firearms legally (most don't getting through straw purchase or stealing them). And some of them were known to law enforcement and should actually have been in the system (possibly in jail) prior to them popping off -- Parkland shooter being the most egregious example of this one.



posted on Sep, 6 2019 @ 10:11 AM
link   
a reply to: InTheLight

30 rounds is not "high capacity" it is "standard capacity", but what difference do you think it makes, would it make a big difference in the amount of lead you can put down range if you had 10 or 5 round magazines instead of 30 round magazines?



posted on Sep, 6 2019 @ 10:12 AM
link   

originally posted by: funbobby
a reply to: InTheLight

At exactly the same rate, did you think the flashlight made the gun shoot faster?


No, I thought there might have been a Slide Fire add on.

edit on 19CDT10America/Chicago012101030 by InTheLight because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 6 2019 @ 10:12 AM
link   
a reply to: InTheLight

Nope, the right to bear arms is a right and it doesn't say anything about "need" in it.



posted on Sep, 6 2019 @ 10:12 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

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?


SEE!

Once again, you are demanding a justification for a right.

The great thing about rights is that it needs no justification. Justification is just asking permission. Because if I couldn't supply the appropriate justification, I'd be denied permission.



posted on Sep, 6 2019 @ 10:14 AM
link   

originally posted by: funbobby
a reply to: InTheLight

Nope, the right to bear arms is a right and it doesn't say anything about "need" in it.


I just read that providing justification for the need of owning a firearm was recently struck down. So it looks like it is a continuing saga about need vs. want.



posted on Sep, 6 2019 @ 10:14 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

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?


SEE!

Once again, you are demanding a justification for a right.

The great thing about rights is that it needs no justification. Justification is just asking permission. Because if I couldn't supply the appropriate justification, I'd be denied permission.


If you can't supply a good reason, then you should be denied permission.



posted on Sep, 6 2019 @ 10:15 AM
link   
a reply to: DBCowboy

And we know this is true because Walmart just banned two of the most popular calibers of ammunition from being sold in its stores, because they can be used in some SBRs. Of course they can be used in any type of gun that shoots that caliber and more importantly I am not aware of any mass shooting ever in which a legally federally tax stamped SBR was used, so WTF are they blubbering about? Their # doesn't even make sense.



posted on Sep, 6 2019 @ 10:15 AM
link   

originally posted by: funbobby
a reply to: InTheLight

30 rounds is not "high capacity" it is "standard capacity", but what difference do you think it makes, would it make a big difference in the amount of lead you can put down range if you had 10 or 5 round magazines instead of 30 round magazines?


What difference indeed does it make in a mass shooting.



posted on Sep, 6 2019 @ 10:16 AM
link   

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: InTheLight

... because every single one of these people were violent before they got guns.

... because every single one of these people got their guns legally.

... because *none* of these people should have been flagged by law enforcement prior to getting guns.

Of course, none of these statements are true. Not every mass shooter had any prior signs of trouble. Not every mass shooter obtained his firearms legally (most don't getting through straw purchase or stealing them). And some of them were known to law enforcement and should actually have been in the system (possibly in jail) prior to them popping off -- Parkland shooter being the most egregious example of this one.


And you don't see a problem here?



posted on Sep, 6 2019 @ 10:17 AM
link   
a reply to: InTheLight


I though there might have been a Slide Fire add on.

There's that word again... "might." Banning magazines "might" reduce shootings. That mean-looking gun "might" be more dangerous. People "might" go on a shooting spree.

I don't want to hear about your "mights" until you can acknowledge my "rights."

TheRedneck



posted on Sep, 6 2019 @ 10:18 AM
link   

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: InTheLight


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

Oh, I am not confused. I know exactly what you want. You want all guns to be confiscated except from you, just like any gun-grabber. After all, there is only one person you are certain can handle a gun safely: you. Everyone esle is potentially violent.

I am also not scared. I have a gun in case people like you try to take any of my freedoms away. And I'm keeping it.

TheRedneck


Confiscation vs. limiting high capacity round magazines...there is a difference.



posted on Sep, 6 2019 @ 10:18 AM
link   

originally posted by: InTheLight

If you can't supply a good reason, then you should be denied permission.


SEE!

beautiful!

one, YOU have NO right to expect a justification.

And two, a right is not a privilege granted by someone else, so you have NO RIGHT to deny me mine.



posted on Sep, 6 2019 @ 10:19 AM
link   

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: InTheLight


I though there might have been a Slide Fire add on.

There's that word again... "might." Banning magazines "might" reduce shootings. That mean-looking gun "might" be more dangerous. People "might" go on a shooting spree.

I don't want to hear about your "mights" until you can acknowledge my "rights."

TheRedneck


I think you have to earn those rights and that would be through a mental health background check and references as step two.



posted on Sep, 6 2019 @ 10:20 AM
link   

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: InTheLight

If you can't supply a good reason, then you should be denied permission.


SEE!

beautiful!

one, YOU have NO right to expect a justification.

And two, a right is not a privilege granted by someone else, so you have NO RIGHT to deny me mine.


So say your courts at this point in time, but that might change...might.




top topics



 
10
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join