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.

 

Kid shoots cops with handgun, Biden wants to ban Assault Weapons

page: 3
28
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 14 2020 @ 03:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: JIMC5499
It just shows how ignorant they are.

True but it is also the answer to all those asking for a definition of the term or arguing that one doesn't exist.




posted on Sep, 14 2020 @ 03:38 PM
link   
a reply to: chr0naut


So why not rocket propelled grenades, man-traps and anti-personnel mines? They are arms, and could build up a strongly defensive perimeter. Soldiers use them, too.

If the Constitution were followed as written, they would all be available. And I'm good with that.


Perhaps the law that arms the 'defenders' has no real limitations and also arms the 'attackers' too? For it to favor the law abiding, there needs to be some limitation that prevents misuse, and there isn't.



18 USC § 1111

TheRedneck



posted on Sep, 14 2020 @ 03:41 PM
link   
Australians were disarmed, and now they fear their police.



posted on Sep, 14 2020 @ 03:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: chr0naut
So why not rocket propelled grenades...


If you have the tax stamp:




posted on Sep, 14 2020 @ 03:46 PM
link   
a reply to: chr0naut


Even though they are thugs, you can't kill people.

Yes I can.


They couldn't shoot you, though, if they had no access to guns. Do you see how that works?

No, I don't. Not even taking into account that there are plenty of ways to kill someone other than shooting them, if they shoot me without justification they have already broken a law (specified above). Therefore a law against them having guns will likely not result in criminals complying either.

Do you see how that works?

TheRedneck



posted on Sep, 14 2020 @ 03:46 PM
link   
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

If I'm paying for a Tax Stamp, I want something reloadable, not a LAWs.



posted on Sep, 14 2020 @ 03:59 PM
link   
a reply to: daskakik


I know, but the mods on the one on the bottom...

There are no "mods" made to the one on the bottom. It is a factory designed firearm, unmodded. Both fire the exact same round at the exact same rate with about the exact same accuracy (the "assault" model is probably a little less accurate).

The point is that there is no logical reasoning behind the idea of an "assault weapon." It's all about feelings and not about a firearm being any more or less dangerous.

TheRedneck



posted on Sep, 14 2020 @ 04:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Irishhaf

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: chr0naut
a reply to: network dude

... and Granola is a type of breakfast cereal.



These things are not as related to each other as the spin would attempt to portray.

Imagine what would happen, though, if the "attempted assassination" was done with a weapon with more killing power.


Um, a gun was used. AFAIK, guns are what produces "killing power". But the type of gun was used to conceal itself until the shooter was ready. If the shooter had a big scary black rifle, he would have been seen approaching and likely not able to do the damage he did.

I just don't get why attacking assault weapons over this event is even a thing. The problem here is a thug who doesn't value human life. We should remove that.


Even though they are thugs, you can't kill people. That is not putting value on human life.

They couldn't shoot you, though, if they had no access to guns. Do you see how that works?


might want to rethink the bolded part of your post almost reads like you put the shooters life over the cops...

But hey if you would prefer anarchay... well whatever floats your boat.


Human life is human life.

And wouldn't anarchy be where everyone is armed and taking the law into their own hands? An entirely unarmed society would be way less anarchic than that.


Just got to depend 100% on the benvolence of the goverment...

I have read enough history to realize the odds are against you there..



posted on Sep, 14 2020 @ 04:07 PM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck
It is a modified version of the one at the top, even if done at the factory, and those differences means it fits the definition laid out in some laws.

I know and agree with the point but the fact is that legislators can and do make up definitions, even if they defy logic.


edit on 14-9-2020 by daskakik because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 14 2020 @ 04:23 PM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck

Let's try these two for comparison: Rifle A

Rifle B

Now, which rifle is more deadly?


















Give up?

Rifle A is a .460 Weatherby Magnum, or what we around here call an elephant gun. Here's the bullet:

It's about a half inch in diameter and several inches long. A .460 Weaterby Magnum will drop a charging bull elephant in its tracks. It can handle a 500 grain load, and comes with a caution that bracing one's shoulder against an object while firing will crush one's shoulder, standard double recoil pad notwithstanding. Hit a man in the foot with a .460 Weatherby Magnum and he'll be damn lucky if he only loses the entire leg... it could actually destroy the pelvis and be fatal.

Rifle B is, again, a .22 caliber Ruger 10/22. Here's the bullet it uses:

The bullet is less than an inch long and is actually intended for small varmits... snakes, squirrels, etc. I have killed a possum using a .22, but it took about 5 shots (it actually started moving toward me after the third shot). While it can kill an adult human, such damage typically requires a well-placed shot (heart, major artery, possibly a head shot where the skull isn't too thick). One has a much greater chance of dying from blood loss after being shot with a .22 than from tissue damage. Military does not use .22 rounds. Neither do police. It's too weak a round to be effective.

However, Rifle A is not defined as an "assault rifle"... Rifle B is.

TheRedneck



posted on Sep, 14 2020 @ 04:25 PM
link   
a reply to: daskakik


It is a modified version of the one at the top, even if done at the factory, and those differences means it fits the definition laid out in some laws.

Or is the one at the top a modified version of the one at the bottom made at the factory?

Factory design is not modification. Modification is a change in the factory design.

TheRedneck



posted on Sep, 14 2020 @ 04:27 PM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck
You really gave that dead horse a whoopin'.



posted on Sep, 14 2020 @ 04:30 PM
link   
I seems like those who support fascism are the ones who want to ban firearms, isn’t that a funny coincidence?

“Think how we think, or we’ll attack you, doxx you, burn your building down, set forest fires, invade your privacy. If you want to defend yourselves against our blatant fascism, you can’t, law abiding citizens are not allowed firearms”

Stopping law abiding citizens from legally owning guns does not make guns vanish from existence

Criminals will always have firearms

And the 2nd was not written for home defence, personal protection or hunting. It was written to ensure a nationwide defence against tyrannical government.

Coincidentally, ‘tyrannical’ is the very definition of the dEmocrat party and their disgusting support base



posted on Sep, 14 2020 @ 04:34 PM
link   
Assault weapons of war and death will be defined as anything that propels a projectile or projectiles at an individual.

Which now means my often "Taco Bell farts" are now considered an assault weapon.



posted on Sep, 14 2020 @ 04:36 PM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck
The one above was offered before the one at the bottom. The original design was modified to the one at the bottom.

If splitting hairs and beating dead horses is your thing, have fun.



posted on Sep, 14 2020 @ 04:46 PM
link   
a reply to: chr0naut



So why not rocket propelled grenades, man-traps and anti-personnel mines? They are arms, and could build up a strongly defensive perimeter. Soldiers use them, too.


I don't know you tell me since you had to go there? Why not
a Howitzer one for each direction. Personally as an american
I get whatever firearm I want and I'm content with that but
I'm willing to learn if you have better ideas.




Perhaps the law that arms the 'defenders' has no real limitations and also arms the 'attackers' too? For it to favor the law abiding, there needs to be some limitation that prevents misuse, and there isn't.


And there shouldn't be if it infringes my right I've done nothing
wrong everything that's already required of me. Not sure about
you but I've done nothing to be treated like a criminal and I am
not going to be. If you can't fight back that's your problem. I
would rather die than argue about a line of smoke in my own
country.



posted on Sep, 14 2020 @ 05:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: chr0naut


So why not rocket propelled grenades, man-traps and anti-personnel mines? They are arms, and could build up a strongly defensive perimeter. Soldiers use them, too.

If the Constitution were followed as written, they would all be available. And I'm good with that.


Perhaps the law that arms the 'defenders' has no real limitations and also arms the 'attackers' too? For it to favor the law abiding, there needs to be some limitation that prevents misuse, and there isn't.



18 USC § 1111

TheRedneck

How does any of that prevent a firearm from getting into the hands of someone who will use it in an unlawful manner?

It's like putting the ambulance at the bottom of a cliff...




posted on Sep, 14 2020 @ 05:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: ketsuko
Australians were disarmed, and now they fear their police.


Not all of them. Some of them even are police. But I'm sure that people who do crimes have a bit of fear. And there are always those police who break the law.

Wouldn't it be prudent to fear police who are likely to open fire if they even think that someone is armed as is happening in countries where it is normal and expected for the general public to bear arms?

How about in the UK, do you guys fear the police?



posted on Sep, 14 2020 @ 05:57 PM
link   

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: chr0naut


Even though they are thugs, you can't kill people.

Yes I can.


Kill people?

Ohhh kaaayyy...



They couldn't shoot you, though, if they had no access to guns. Do you see how that works?
No, I don't. Not even taking into account that there are plenty of ways to kill someone other than shooting them, if they shoot me without justification they have already broken a law (specified above). Therefore a law against them having guns will likely not result in criminals complying either.

Do you see how that works?

TheRedneck



edit on 14/9/2020 by chr0naut because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 14 2020 @ 06:00 PM
link   
a reply to: network dude

In reality, Joe Biden said after he is sworn in, he will appoint Beto O'Rourke has his gun Czar, to confiscate all weapons in America.




top topics



 
28
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join