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: 8
10
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

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

originally posted by: InTheLight

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.


A person earns privileges.

Rights are not the property of the state to give out at their discretion. You are desiring a police-state and a total lack of freedoms and rights.




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

originally posted by: funbobby
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!

That was not my point.
If you had ever been in the military , or watched "Full Metal Jacket" , you would have understood what the meaning of "gun" was.




posted on Sep, 6 2019 @ 10:20 AM
link   
a reply to: InTheLight


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

Yes, there is. One precedes the other.

TheRedneck



posted on Sep, 6 2019 @ 10:21 AM
link   

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: InTheLight


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

Yes, there is. One precedes the other.

TheRedneck


Not at all.



posted on Sep, 6 2019 @ 10:21 AM
link   
a reply to: InTheLight

I do.

I see that we already have tons of laws, including laws controlling the purchase of firearms, that are designed to prevent the wrong people getting them, and those laws in many cases are broken outright by shooters or not followed by officials.

So you want to add more laws that can similarly be broken or ignored instead of directly addressing the problem.

Because I tell you now, thanks to the lack of border control, you will never, ever get rid of guns of any capacity. The cartels who freely traffic in drugs and people will simply add firearms and munitions to their inventories and smuggle them along with everything else, and the politicians will let them and get that much richer.


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



posted on Sep, 6 2019 @ 10:21 AM
link   

originally posted by: InTheLight

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.


Sure, a police-state is literally just one election away at any time.



posted on Sep, 6 2019 @ 10:21 AM
link   
Australia also uses different metrics than the US for the mass shooting label. There must be five deaths in Australia, the US only needs four wounded or killed. So that makes a difference in numbers. Also the US media does not use clear definitions which can escalate the number, especially when reporting with a bias such as using a domestic situation mass murder-suicide as a mass shooting.

And while Port Arthur remains the worst, it was not the last by far. In fact lacking guns, seems people turned more towards arson of all things. But plenty of mass shootings under US metrics, especial US media after the ban. About the same rate as before the ban. Just more armed home invasions after the ban to be honest.
edit on 6-9-2019 by Ahabstar because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 6 2019 @ 10:22 AM
link   
a reply to: InTheLight


I think you have to earn those rights

A right does not have to be earned. It exists.

TheRedneck



posted on Sep, 6 2019 @ 10:24 AM
link   

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: InTheLight

I do.

I see that we already have tons of laws, including laws controlling the purchase of firearms, that are designed to prevent the wrong people getting them, and those laws in many cases are broken outright by shooters or not followed by officials.

So you want to add more laws that can similarly be broken or ignored instead of directly addressing the problem.

Because I tell you know, thanks to the lack of border control, you will never, ever get rid of guns of any capacity. The cartels who freely traffic in drugs and people will simply add firearms and munitions to their inventories and smuggle them along with everything else, and the politicians will let them and get that much richer.



It astonishes me that your country refuses to learn from other countries that have successfully dealt with major societal problems such as mass shootings. Leaders from other countries are also dumbfounded as to why your government does not do anything to fix this problem. And nothing at all has been done.



posted on Sep, 6 2019 @ 10:24 AM
link   

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: InTheLight


I think you have to earn those rights

A right does not have to be earned. It exists.

TheRedneck


Not only that it is intrinsic to the person meaning it cannot be removed by any agency of mankind. It can only be oppressed.

So when we talk about removing the right to keep and bear arms, we're talking about outright oppression.



posted on Sep, 6 2019 @ 10:24 AM
link   

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: InTheLight


I think you have to earn those rights

A right does not have to be earned. It exists.

TheRedneck


It should not exist for every citizen because every citizen is not capable or worthy of that right.



posted on Sep, 6 2019 @ 10:24 AM
link   
a reply to: InTheLight

Bull potatoes.

We tried a magazine ban once... I know because my 30-round clip for my Mini-14 was grandfathered and I couldn't (legally) replace it. It didn't stop any mass shootings, but it did lead to calls for gun confiscation.

It's not raining. You're pissing on my leg. I see you.

TheRedneck



posted on Sep, 6 2019 @ 10:24 AM
link   
a reply to: InTheLight

We are not other countries.

But if you like them so much, the solution for you is clear - move there.



posted on Sep, 6 2019 @ 10:25 AM
link   

originally posted by: ketsuko

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: InTheLight


I think you have to earn those rights

A right does not have to be earned. It exists.

TheRedneck


Not only that it is intrinsic to the person meaning it cannot be removed by any agency of mankind. It can only be oppressed.

So when we talk about removing the right to keep and bear arms, we're talking about outright oppression.


Yes, certain people with violent or criminal tendencies should be oppressed.



posted on Sep, 6 2019 @ 10:25 AM
link   
a reply to: InTheLight


It should not exist for every citizen because every citizen is not capable or worthy of that right.

Then it is not a right.

That's the definition.

TheRedneck



posted on Sep, 6 2019 @ 10:26 AM
link   

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: InTheLight

We are not other countries.

But if you like them so much, the solution for you is clear - move there.



My point was that you don't learn from the successes of other countries.



posted on Sep, 6 2019 @ 10:26 AM
link   

originally posted by: InTheLight

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: InTheLight


I think you have to earn those rights

A right does not have to be earned. It exists.

TheRedneck


It should not exist for every citizen because every citizen is not capable or worthy of that right.


I see ... so not every citizen is capable or worthy of the right to marry? How about the right to vote? What about the right to speak or redress the government for grievance? What about the right to be free of unreasonable search and seizure?

Cool ...



posted on Sep, 6 2019 @ 10:26 AM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck

You mean to say that all men are equal and certain inalienable rights are endowed by their creator?

Man I wish those mystic founding fathers would have written that down somewhere. It could really help establishing independence from an overreaching scheme concocted by rulers.



posted on Sep, 6 2019 @ 10:26 AM
link   

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: InTheLight

Bull potatoes.

We tried a magazine ban once... I know because my 30-round clip for my Mini-14 was grandfathered and I couldn't (legally) replace it. It didn't stop any mass shootings, but it did lead to calls for gun confiscation.

It's not raining. You're pissing on my leg. I see you.

TheRedneck


Look to Australia for proof...no guns were confiscated.



posted on Sep, 6 2019 @ 10:27 AM
link   
a reply to: InTheLight

Well, see, other countries don't have the right to keep and bear arms like we do.

Check that. Other countries refuse to recognize the right to self-defense in the same way.

However, I see Switzerland over there ... how are they managing?



new topics




 
10
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join