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.

 

Lead fragment propelled by gas

page: 2
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 14 2004 @ 09:07 PM
link   
exactly. I think the guy got off, so he got lucky. Sht, I gotta get to a surplus store and buy a combat clip before those are all of the face of the earth.




posted on Feb, 14 2004 @ 09:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by KrazyIvan
the national guard is todays militia. its run by the states.

i think that defies the actual menaing of militia, which is the actual people, nonmilitary folk like (most of) us. still, were guaranteed the weapons, militia or no


Originally posted by Amuk
I am as well armed as any foot soldier without the heavey weapons and They are people out there with them.

If it come down to civil war enough of the army would balk at killing there own people to make it interesting

[Edited on 14-2-2004 by Amuk]


yeah, but ud get enough sick bastards to make a good 'Rambo Does America' movie



posted on Feb, 14 2004 @ 09:22 PM
link   
As far as that goes you can buy the components for crude hand grenades claymores and even crude small guided rockets at most wal-marts, hardware stores and radio shacks

[Edited on 14-2-2004 by Amuk]

[Edited on 14-2-2004 by Amuk]



posted on Feb, 14 2004 @ 09:23 PM
link   
I'm always having gun rights debates with my brother. He thinks I am a right wing freak because I carry a pistol for self defense. He thinks US citizens should not be allowed to OWN much less carry firearms no matter what and just rely on the police to protect them.

Riiiiight. Not only do I disagree, I cant even get my mind wrapped around his reasoning. I think people are obligated to protect themselves and firearms are tools well suited for that IF you are trained in their use, especially for slobs like me who can't run and can't fight. Like they say on the TV show Law and Order, the police who investigate crimes... law enforcement is not able to protect everyone all the time and arent even a big deterrent to crime. Individuals MUST be able to respond to violent crime themselves.

People who commit crimes with guns or illegally possess them should have the full weight of the judicial system come crashing onto them.

Definitely a "States Rights" issue, too. I dont trust federal regulation of firearms ownership. Maybe my big brother is right and I am a right wing nutcase.



posted on Feb, 14 2004 @ 10:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by Spectre
I'm always having gun rights debates with my brother. He thinks I am a right wing freak because I carry a pistol for self defense. He thinks US citizens should not be allowed to OWN much less carry firearms no matter what and just rely on the police to protect them.

i totally agree. u shud be able to carry guns, there shud be concealed guns laws in place, because that is how they work. i fu have to carry it out in the open, u get charged with assault or distrubing the peace, or some other bogus charge. being able to conceal it allows u to get the criminal, and keep him there. if he sees the gun, hell just jump someone else.


Definitely a "States Rights" issue, too.

can u clarify? states right as in each state shud determine its own laws concerning guns, relative to the police force and crime rate in the area?



posted on Feb, 14 2004 @ 11:09 PM
link   

Definitely a "States Rights" issue, too.

can u clarify? states right as in each state shud determine its own laws concerning guns, relative to the police force and crime rate in the area?
Yes, I think the states' legislatures based on the will of their constituents, , should determine their own policies on firearms ownership. I feel that federal statute paints with too broad a brush for my tastes. Let the people decide and I can move to the state that allows me the most freedom. So far Tennessee is looking good.



posted on Feb, 14 2004 @ 11:45 PM
link   
The only gun control we need is a law that says if you commit a crime with a gun in your possesion that you get the death penalty. There is no need to penalize the LEGAL gun owners for the crimes that are committed by the ILLEGAL gun owners. People commit crimes with guns because the punishment is not currently severe enough to deter them from it.



posted on Feb, 15 2004 @ 07:55 AM
link   
No, spectre, you're not a right wing gun-nut. Your brother is just a disillusioned left wing freak. (Too harsh?
)

I have the right to, "Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness". Don't I have the right to defend my life?

Let's see... Cops = 15 minutes
.45 S&W = 1.2 seconds

Which should I rely on?

[Edited on 2-15-2004 by mouko_ryuu]



posted on Feb, 15 2004 @ 08:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by groingrinder
The only gun control we need is a law that says if you commit a crime with a gun in your possesion that you get the death penalty. There is no need to penalize the LEGAL gun owners for the crimes that are committed by the ILLEGAL gun owners. People commit crimes with guns because the punishment is not currently severe enough to deter them from it.


They don't necessarily need the death penalty unless they did something like murder, armed robbery where someone was killed, or rape with a gun. All other crimes, they get deportation.


And, yeah, instead of making the laws against crime with a gun more harsh, they are just making it harder for responsible citizens to get guns to defend themselves.

[Edited on 2-15-2004 by mouko_ryuu]



posted on Feb, 15 2004 @ 08:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by groingrinder
The only gun control we need is a law that says if you commit a crime with a gun in your possesion that you get the death penalty. There is no need to penalize the LEGAL gun owners for the crimes that are committed by the ILLEGAL gun owners. People commit crimes with guns because the punishment is not currently severe enough to deter them from it.


hmm, well, imho, the dude before me was just a little to passive.
DUDE! u commit a crime while possesing a gun? hmm, ok, illegal u-turn, what, theres a gun in the car? the chair it is! thats an extreme situation, and i doubt the one u meant, but, honestly, thats jsut not realistic. the problem occurs when the gun is part of the crime, like armed robbery, and even then the death penalty shudnt be mandatory. u hold up a liquor store, u shudnt be killed if take a few hundred bux, nobodys hurt/killed.



posted on Feb, 18 2004 @ 08:30 PM
link   
I strongly belive in the right to own guns but I also feel it is neccesary to try and keep guns out of the hands of criminals. Registering guns isn't some conspiracy filled way of tracking people who own guns so they can take them away. I'd like some numbers on how many criminals actually have been turned away when they went to buy a handgun. I am sure it has made some difference. As for defending ourselves from our country with them you've got to be kidding as someone above said. A civilian weapon against Abrams tanks, artilery, helicopters I don't think so. And as for converting an ar15 to an m16 it's kinda dumb. The military version of the m16 only has 3 round burst and that is rarely used because of accuracy issues. Those of you who think you can just hold in the trigger of a fully automatic weapon and hit anything at all are very wrong. Also when firing one full blast you repeatedly have to change barrels. So the public really have no defense against our government. But weapons are extremely inportant in making them wary to do anything because the loss of life on both sides would be enourmous.



posted on Feb, 18 2004 @ 08:38 PM
link   


The military version of the m16 only has 3 round burst and that is rarely used because of accuracy issues


I agree (but I used to be a sniper) really the only use for automatics is to lay down a supressing fire, I was never a fan of full autos but just was letting those that did know it was fairly easy to convert. Back in the day though they had three settings, single shot, three burst, and rock and roll. They got rid of the last one for the reasons you mentioned.



posted on Feb, 18 2004 @ 11:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by Hoppinmad1
I strongly belive in the right to own guns but I also feel it is neccesary to try and keep guns out of the hands of criminals. Registering guns isn't some conspiracy filled way of tracking people who own guns so they can take them away. I'd like some numbers on how many criminals actually have been turned away when they went to buy a handgun. I am sure it has made some difference.

i agree, we shud require registration, but the problem is that there are a lot of gun dealerships, and theres no real feasible way to get everysingle one to update and have the ability to check the entire nation's criminal records. i think we shud require it, but its gonna be an uphill battle until we can speed things up. until then, well, people will buy what they damn well feel like, record or no



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join