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: 7
28
<< 4  5  6    8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 15 2020 @ 02:15 PM
link   
a reply to: chr0naut

it's really sad that on a forum where you and I are conversing, you cannot offer your own opinion, but resort to others thoughts, and when they are wrong, you side step responsibility.

try this, what does they guy behind your keyboard think about the definition of "assault weapon"? When you, the guy in New Zealand wants to discuss "assault weapons" in an intelligent manner, what does that constitute? Remember, I don't want to know what Wikipedia thinks, I want to know what YOU think. If that's not clear enough, you be sure to let me know.




posted on Sep, 15 2020 @ 02:55 PM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck
In this case, it was you going off half-cocked because it had already been established by the other poster and I that those two guns were the same rifle with a few cosmetic changes.

Also, it is no secret that this can also be accomplished by "customization" with aftermarket parts, which is the term I would use for that, while also being quite comfortable with saying that the Ruger 10/22 Tactical in that post is a modified 10/22 since the point was that "it is the same rifle". Funny how that works, isn't it?
edit on 15-9-2020 by daskakik because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 15 2020 @ 03:33 PM
link   
a reply to: daskakik

The only "customization" done there was the change of the stocks and the mounting rail. Nothing was done to the firing mechanism. I have one of each. I shoot the one with the wood stock at the sportsmen's club I belong to so that the Liberal members don't get their panties in a bunch.



posted on Sep, 15 2020 @ 03:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: JIMC5499
a reply to: daskakik

The only "customization" done there was the change of the stocks and the mounting rail. Nothing was done to the firing mechanism. I have one of each. I shoot the one with the wood stock at the sportsmen's club I belong to so that the Liberal members don't get their panties in a bunch.


I have a CMMG bolt carrier in .22lr I can put in any of my AR's chambered in .223/.556. It looks just like the frightening killing machine known to scared wussies, but is actually, just a .22 that looks bad ass. It allows me to shoot the weapon, tweak the sights a bit, and enjoy the trigger upgrades, without spending a buck for a couple shots. You should try it. then you could impress your liberal friends at the range.



posted on Sep, 15 2020 @ 03:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: network dude
I have a CMMG bolt carrier in .22lr I can put in any of my AR's chambered in .223/.556. It looks just like the frightening killing machine known to scared wussies, but is actually, just a .22 that looks bad ass. It allows me to shoot the weapon, tweak the sights a bit, and enjoy the trigger upgrades, without spending a buck for a couple shots. You should try it. then you could impress your liberal friends at the range.


Let me know when you man up and get the .88 magnum version.



posted on Sep, 15 2020 @ 03:47 PM
link   
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

I built a 6.5 Grendell. But I'm a wuss.

You go ahead and use an .88magnum, or a .89magnum.....whatever it takes.



posted on Sep, 15 2020 @ 04:01 PM
link   
a reply to: JIMC5499
Wait, you did the mods yourself? Because, Ruger does sell them like that from the factory, as TheRedneck pointed out. I even posted a link here.

Either way, the point is that those differences are what make it fit the definition placed in certain state laws.

Maybe I can expand on my point. Since laws often have a section where definitions are placed to detail what certain words/terms used in the document mean, you have to reference each law to understand what these terms mean within the scope of said law.

What that means is that the same rifle with those features falls under the scope of that law. You can try to argue that both rifles do the exact same thing or even argue that a more powerful/deadlier rifle isn't included or even that you can kill someone with your hands (that one always shows up somewhere), and while this is true, according to how laws work, they are pointless arguments.



posted on Sep, 15 2020 @ 05:41 PM
link   
a reply to: chr0naut


So does everyone else but you don't need an ambulance for that. Unless you want to run them over a few times, to be sure.

It was your idea to drop the ambulance and do an autopsy dead or alive, ironically because your idea involved a fence, boxes, snipers, and two ambulances. I find it telling that when it got too complicated the first thing you got rid of was both ambulances.

TheRedneck



posted on Sep, 15 2020 @ 05:54 PM
link   
a reply to: daskakik


Also, it is no secret that this can also be accomplished by "customization" with aftermarket parts, which is the term I would use for that, while also being quite comfortable with saying that the Ruger 10/22 Tactical in that post is a modified 10/22 since the point was that "it is the same rifle".

There you go with the word weaponization again. "Modified" is what we used to use to describe a hot-rod with a souped up drive train. "Customized" is what we would use to describe a stock car with racing stripes. One will travel much faster, accelerate faster, and has much more power; the other just looks different.

It would make more sense to say the 10/22 Tactical is "factory customized" and the one using aftermarket parts is "modifed." It would still be inaccurate, but the connotations would match reality better.

I see your connotations, and I will point them out.

The two guns are not the same. They are the same caliber with the same action. One has a more classic looking chassis while the other has a more militant looking chassis. I prefer the former; others prefer the latter. It's no different than the style one's house might be; does the exact same thing, but looks different. The two different firearms are identical ballistically.

The laws might as well be specifying which colors are prohibited when house painting.

TheRedneck



posted on Sep, 15 2020 @ 06:03 PM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck
Seeing word weaponization is on you. Sorry, can't help you with that.

Your opinion about what would make more sense is neither here nor there since it isn't important to the points being made by JIMC5499 or me. One would think the context of the posts would be enough but I guess it isn't.


The two guns are not the same. They are the same caliber with the same action. One has a more classic looking chassis while the other has a more militant looking chassis. I prefer the former; others prefer the latter. It's no different than the style one's house might be; does the exact same thing, but looks different. The two different firearms are identical ballistically.

You reached the same conclusión as the member who made the original post and I agreed with him. I guess you just enjoy the scenic route.



posted on Sep, 15 2020 @ 06:08 PM
link   
a reply to: daskakik

I was at that conclusion before I joined ATS. I knew how to shoot when I was knee-high to a grasshopper.

The only gripe I had was that you tried to say one was a modified version of the other, and that is simply untrue. I'm not real sure why you insist on pressing a false point that plays into the hands of an unjust law.

TheRedneck



posted on Sep, 15 2020 @ 06:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: TheRedneck
I was at that conclusion before I joined ATS. I knew how to shoot when I was knee-high to a grasshopper.

And you still felt the need to go round and round in this thread even though it had already been agreed upon.


The only gripe I had was that you tried to say one was a modified version of the other, and that is simply untrue. I'm not real sure why you insist on pressing a false point that plays into the hands of an unjust law.

We know, you have been arguing semantics.

You seeing me pressing a false point is just your POV. I really don't know what to say.

Laws work as I have said. Your opinion that they are unjust or unconstitutional doesn't change the fact that the answer to the question made by JIMC5499 was that the rifle on the bottom of his post is the one considered an assault rifle, in accordance to some state laws.


edit on 15-9-2020 by daskakik because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 15 2020 @ 07:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: DBCowboy
I wore underwear when I was in the military.

So are my boxers now "undergarments of war"?


You didn't really lose that assault sock in the dryer, did you?
Did you sell it to the Russians? Or terrorists perhaps?



posted on Sep, 15 2020 @ 10:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: chr0naut


So does everyone else but you don't need an ambulance for that. Unless you want to run them over a few times, to be sure.

It was your idea to drop the ambulance and do an autopsy dead or alive, ironically because your idea involved a fence, boxes, snipers, and two ambulances. I find it telling that when it got too complicated the first thing you got rid of was both ambulances.

TheRedneck


You accuse me of requiring two ambulances and at the same time getting rid of both ambulances? How does that work?

Similarly, I made no mention of an autopsy or autopsies. Did you think this through?

The multiple ambulances and autopsies must have been someone else's ideas.

LOL


edit on 15/9/2020 by chr0naut because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 15 2020 @ 11:50 PM
link   
a reply to: chr0naut
What an whiner, do you realize You’ll never get rid of guns. You can ban them all you want but bad guys will always have guns. Period. “ imagine if they can’t get guns” in what utopia does that exist. Please skip off your island and move to China to “experience “ your utopia!
I’ve never seen such a whiner.


edit on 15-9-2020 by Paul911GT3 because: (no reason given)

edit on 15-9-2020 by Paul911GT3 because: (no reason given)

edit on 16-9-2020 by Paul911GT3 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 15 2020 @ 11:53 PM
link   
a reply to: chr0naut
I feel sorry for your countrymen that have to protect such small mindedness
You don’t even live here but you’re free because of the US. But you don’t live here so stop showing youre lack of knowledge by commenting on our rights of which you know nothing nor have any historical experience with? You want no gun rights stay there or move to China


edit on 15-9-2020 by Paul911GT3 because: (no reason given)

edit on 16-9-2020 by Paul911GT3 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 16 2020 @ 12:22 AM
link   

originally posted by: Paul911GT3
a reply to: chr0naut
What an imbecile, do you realize You’ll never get rid of guns. You can ban them all you want but bad guys will always have guns. Period. “ imagine if they can’t get guns” in what utopia does that exist. Please skip off your island and move to China to “experience “ your utopia!
I’ve never seen such a mental midget. I’ve worked with NZ war fighters I know your whole country isn’t as Impotent as you are .


I wasn't for disarming absolutely everyone. That is an entirely false assumption.

The police and defence forces (and even a well ordered militia) can have guns and require them to be effective against the few criminals and opponents to civil order who arm themselves illegally. This shifts the numerical advantage in gun use, towards the good guys.

Nor is New Zealand completely disarmed. The general public can own firearms but they have to fulfil conditions of responsible use, including being an active member of a gun club, and they can only have weapons not optimized to make them excessively deadly. The following link outlines the relevant details:

Gun law in New Zealand
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


The fact that you cannot concieve of anything other than 'everyone has guns', or 'no one has guns', might indicate something about mental capacity.



posted on Sep, 16 2020 @ 12:45 AM
link   

originally posted by: Paul911GT3
a reply to: chr0naut
I feel sorry for your countrymen that have to protect such small mindedness
You don’t even live here but you’re free because of the US. But you don’t live here so stop showing youre lack of knowledge by commenting on our rights of which you know nothing nor have any historical experience with? You want no gun rights stay there or move to China


I am not free solely because of the US. They played less of a part than they advertise.

Anzacs had been fighting both in Europe and the Pacific arenas for two years prior to the US even taking part in the war.

And, in the end, the US didn't defeat the Nazi's, either. The Russians got there first, as they also did in the annexation of Manchuria which led to Japan's defeat in the Pacific.

Battle of Berlin
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Soviet invasion of Manchuria
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


edit on 16/9/2020 by chr0naut because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 16 2020 @ 07:06 AM
link   
a reply to: daskakik


Laws work as I have said.

Except that laws are subject to Constitutional limitations.

TheRedneck



posted on Sep, 16 2020 @ 07:11 AM
link   
a reply to: chr0naut


You accuse me of requiring two ambulances and at the same time getting rid of both ambulances? How does that work?

How should I know? It's your fantasy.


Similarly, I made no mention of an autopsy or autopsies. Did you think this through?

I just read what you wrote:

originally posted by: chr0naut

Put 'em straight into boxes. They don't need autopsies when it's clear they died of stupid.

Page 5. Please try to keep up with your own posts.

TheRedneck




top topics



 
28
<< 4  5  6    8  9 >>

log in

join