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.

 

Weapon Ban Author chosen as Obama VP

page: 4
13
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 24 2008 @ 06:15 PM
link   
reply to post by Simon_Boudreaux
 


That stats on both the UK and the Aussies are unbelievable with increases of gun crime up to 44% after they went house to house and rounded them all up. Seems the criminals hid theirs....and are now using them against the defenseless persons that turned theirs in.




posted on Aug, 24 2008 @ 07:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by harrytuttle
NEWSFLASH: That war you are waiting for where your guns will protect you will never come. You can't shoot debt or the Patriot Act.


The war is to protect our rights from being infringed. I am ready to die protecting your rights as well as the rest of America. Try and take them from us.........they will soon see what a militia really is.

You can disagree with me, but I will die protecting your rights, if need be, so you can still have the choice to disagree. Change or remove the second amendment, and there won't be any stopping the removal of the rest.

People portray the illusion of patriots, but that is all it is.....an illusion. Fear consumes them. I would rather die a true patriot, like so many have before in conflicts that have saved this country in the past, than to be treated as a child who must be hidden behind the "illusion" of safety.





[edit on 24-8-2008 by BRAWNDO]



posted on Aug, 24 2008 @ 09:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by UFOTECH
reply to post by GorehoundLarry
 


If you do not understand why you would need one read the history about the Jews in the Warsaw ghetto. With only a hand full of weapons of military grade they held off over 2000 heavily armed Nazi soldiers for weeks until they were ultimately burned out. Had they retained their arms and were well trained with them if might have been a far different outcome. The German gun control laws look a lot like the US gun control laws if you hold them up next to each other and can end with the same situation.

Corporatist and Socialist like to have their citizens disarmed. It makes it a lot easier to get them in those cattle cars to send them to the death camps. Read the book Unintended Consequences I linked in my last post. It has a very through history of these issues as well as some fictional responses.



If you really truly believe the Government is going to round us up in cattle cars and eliminate us, then you have been on this site for way too long..


[edit on 24-8-2008 by GorehoundLarry]



posted on Aug, 24 2008 @ 09:58 PM
link   
Its not whether our government of today would do such things, its maintaining the rights to keep our government from tomorrow from doing them.



posted on Aug, 24 2008 @ 11:00 PM
link   
I am ashamed to admit this. I have never handled a firearm or shot one. Being on fragile mental ground I figured I'd blow some brain cells some day. I have however practiced regularly with a long bow and a compound. It requires a higher level premeditation.



posted on Aug, 24 2008 @ 11:13 PM
link   
Lets see economy, health care, and domestic/foreign affairs are what's really important to me. Are people really more worried about buying firearms then others putting food on the table or a sick child getting the care they need.

Lets worry about gun control after we get this cluster f#@! called a country back on its feet. Because all the ammo and guns in the world won't make this a better place for our children and our childrens children...



posted on Aug, 24 2008 @ 11:26 PM
link   
I bow to you hunted. Great thoughts by great people. I have heard a multitude of response, to a multitude of threads. But 'the hunted' rings in my ears like the liberty bell.

[edit on 8/24/2008 by jpm1602]



posted on Aug, 24 2008 @ 11:49 PM
link   
Our northern canucks can provide health care to all. We are stuck on stupid.



posted on Aug, 24 2008 @ 11:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by Rockpuck


To die retaining what freedoms you have is to gain and express absolute freedom .. to die like an animal in a cage doing as your told, giving way to ultimate submission is the scourge of the Human race, and is a pathetic and lowly way to die.

In other words, I will take being run over by an M1A tank before I give the government my guns.


I would prefer to earn back my freedom by fighting for it from within the government...

But If you prefer that America enter a civil war as opposed to fixing the problem through pro-active thinking; be my guest...

Every single one of you have no right to complain, unless you're willing to march onto capitol hill (unarmed) and say something about it. Or you could really "man up" and run for political office.

Much better to fix the machine from the inside than to let the machine run over you in an act of patriotic martyrdom.

Violence begets violence. Discourse, and political action are what are needed if you are so worried.

Also, I support an assault rifle ban. There is no need to fire a bullet in three shot or constant fire bursts. If you can empty your clip in a second by holding down the trigger, you are NOT using your gun for hunting purposes... Self defense doesn't mean cut the offender in half with your gun.

ponder that instead of getting all uppity thinking that you should die for your guns...

Coven

P.s. I own three different guns... And I know I have nothing to worry about as all three are for hunting purposes(Except for the museum quality ruger, but it isn't even functional
)



posted on Aug, 25 2008 @ 12:05 AM
link   
Understood. You can not say we have some serious problems here that need rectifing. I could go on amarta. But I won't. Where is Salvadore Dali and buddha when you need them.

[edit on 8/25/2008 by jpm1602]



posted on Aug, 25 2008 @ 01:36 AM
link   
banning all guns, is what Nazi germany would do, or any communist country. Back when our constitution was made, it was kinda a law, soldiers went door to door, making sure famlies HAD their guns, and if they didnt they were fined. Now, its reverse, if we have guns, we are fined and /or prison. Its unbelivable, and unthinkable, that thier allowing only themselves in goverment ot have guns, as well as the criminals.. an for th rest of us, nothing
goes to show whos side the governemnts on. the thugs n criminals.



posted on Aug, 25 2008 @ 01:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by jpm1602
Our northern canucks can provide health care to all. We are stuck on stupid.


Nearly every doctor I have spoken with agrees that Canadian health care is terrible. Socialist medicine does not work. How did we get from gun control to this, anyway?

Biden's anti-assault weapon stance is ridiculous. Yes, we MUST get rid of all adjustable stocks, pistol grips, grenade launchers (oh wait, can't get those anyway), bi-pods, and muzzle flash suppressors. Yes, that made the weapon much safer.

This whole idea of banning weapons is ridiculous to begin with. The same argument is made by conservatives time and time again and it's has never once been answered by the liberals. Why on Earth would the criminals give up their weapons? The only people who would surrender their weapons are the law abiding citizens. That only leaves criminals with weapons. Yes, excellent idea.


There's nothing wrong with having weapons. Law abiding people only use them for defense. And before someone makes a stupid comment about how a gun shouldn't be used in any situation, if I'm with my fiancee and we're held up and someone rapes her, I fully intend on killing that person.


Not to mention absolutely no nation on the planet would even dream of invading the US. There's a reason they wouldn't even think about it..

If you don't like guns, don't own one. And for whatever duface was talking about being good with a bow, a 5 year old could peg you with a paintball gun 20 times before you got one arrow off. A bow is not a practical defense. If someone invaded your home with a gun, you stand no chance regardless of how good you are with a bow.



edit: grammar

[edit on 25-8-2008 by alkali]



posted on Aug, 25 2008 @ 01:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by jpm1602
Understood. You can not say we have some serious problems here that need rectifing. I could go on amarta. But I won't. Where is Salvadore Dali and buddha when you need them.


Wasn't Dali a communist? I don't know anything about him, really.

Anyway, in a perfect world where everyone followed the teachings of Buddha, Jesus, Gandhi, or any other positive role-model, we wouldn't need guns. But the majority of the world doesn't follow these teachings.



posted on Aug, 25 2008 @ 02:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by coven

Also, I support an assault rifle ban. There is no need to fire a bullet in three shot or constant fire bursts. If you can empty your clip in a second by holding down the trigger, you are NOT using your gun for hunting purposes... Self defense doesn't mean cut the offender in half with your gun.



Problem is the so called "Assault Weapons Ban" doesnt ban the weapons you are speaking of that was already done back in 1934 under the machingun ban.

The Assault Weapons Ban, restricts weapons that fire one round per pull of the trigger (SEMI-AUTOMATIC) , because

1) They are black and look scary
2) They have either a folding stock, a bayonet lug, or a short barrel
3) They have a magazine that can hold more than 10 rounds

The Assault Weapons Ban also bans standard capacity magazines for SEMI-AUTOMATIC pistols which means a Glock 17 that holds 17 rounds in the magazine normally must be sold with 10 round magazines.

The government needs to worry about stuff other than whats in a law abiding citizens gun safe and fix things that need to be fixed. Roads, Infrastructure, Energy, Immigration,Unemployment and the like. Taking away lawfully owned SEMI AUTOMATIC weapons from the citizenry is not going to stop one gun crime and if history is correct will actually lead to more gun crime by illegally owned guns (Washington D.C. being a prime example)



posted on Aug, 25 2008 @ 03:48 AM
link   
"The riots, beginning in the evening after the verdict, peaked in intensity over the next two days, but ultimately continued for several days. Television coverage of the riots was near-continious, including much footage from helicopter news crews. A curfew, and deployment of the National Guard began to control the situation; eventually federal troops from the 7th Infantry Division, based in Fort Ord and United States Marines from the 1st Marine Division, based in Camp Pendleton were ordered to the city to quell disorder as well.

Fifty-three lives were lost, many of them murdered, with as many as 2,000 people injured. Estimates of the material damage done vary between about $800 million and $1 billion. Approximately 3,600 fires were set, destroying 1,100 buildings, with fire calls coming once every minute at some points. Over 10,000 people were arrested. Stores owned by Korean and other Asian immigrants were widely targeted, although stores owned by whites and African-Americans were targeted by rioters as well. Criminals used the chaos to their own benefit. Street gangs used the riot as an opportunity to settle scores with each other, and fought the police and military as well."

en.wikipedia.org...

Which businesses do you think did not burn to the ground? The ones defended by armed store owners? Or one's left to be protected by the outgunned police? Time to choose Mr. Freeman.



posted on Aug, 25 2008 @ 04:07 AM
link   
Ya. I'm a commie. Plug me where I stand. I only took care of dialysis pts for 23 yrs. Send me to my death.



posted on Aug, 25 2008 @ 05:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by Simon_Boudreaux

Originally posted by Pjotr

Banning weapons is the only sane thing to do IMHO.

[edit on 24-8-2008 by Pjotr]


Gun bans worked out great for the 24 teenagers in London that have been the victim of knife attacks just this year alone.


Even if guns are banned people still find a way to kill now don't they.


If the ban wasn't around there these kids would have been killed with guns instead of knives. It really does not help to own a gun, when somebody surprises you.
It is your logic that is faulty. If you had looked at the homicide stats I linked, you would have seen that the more guns, the more killings you will have. The US is up the charts.

And by the way, you can defend yourself against a knife-attack if you see it coming without a gun, at least I can. And you can learn it.



posted on Aug, 25 2008 @ 06:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by ChrisF231
reply to post by Pjotr
 

Who are you to tell us how to run our country?

The US Constitution says that "The right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed upon". How Euroland, Canada, Australia, etc does things has no bearing on us.


That's just it, we live in OUR (all the people) world. I visit your country a lot, but a lot of you still think in "we" and "them", that is no different then any other place.
Also without a NWO, we will grow into a global functioning world. Old laws won't help here, but maybe when you live in the 18th century they do, I don't know.

You can defeat a NWO without guns. You can learn to live with ET's without guns. Just grow up and evolve.

If you want weapons to protect you, you need rayguns and invisibilty-loaks and anti-gravity.



posted on Aug, 25 2008 @ 06:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by Illahee

Originally posted by Pjotr

Originally posted by Illahee
Obama has been very clear in his desire to ban all semiautomatic rifles, shotguns and handguns as well as ban all handguns.

If the CMP went it would be a sad day for Amerika and the first step to the Fourth Reich, Bush wanted so badly and is now almost in the hands of osama.



Who are you people going to shoot with all your weapons?
The US is filled to the brim with weapons and the number of killings is staggering for a "civilized" country.

stats on homicide globaly

Banning weapons is the only sane thing to do IMHO. Exept when you hate, fear and despice each other of course. Oh no, then it is even a better idea.


[edit on 24-8-2008 by Pjotr]


Your homicide data is faulty in the fact it does not address gun homicides but rather all homicides.

For this purpose it is not usable.


Maybe, but it still interesting to see that the US is a downright agressive nation. So maybe it serves as a reason to the question why they need guns so much. And as we know not only between civilians, but even more to the outside world.

And to serve you all, here are the weapon figures:
Homiicide in methods

And surprise:"Homicides are most often committed with guns,
especially handguns"
Who would have thought that.


[edit on 25-8-2008 by Pjotr]



posted on Aug, 25 2008 @ 07:29 AM
link   
I would like so see some sort of Gun Control here in the U.S. I don't mean ban all guns and that be it. There has to be a better system when it comes to approving the mentally ill for guns. Should individuals who are prescribed drugs to treat chemical imbalances have the right to purchase a weapon? Many anti-depressants if you read the warnings state that there may be suicidal thoughts or aggression. It's not just a coincidence that a majority of school shootings involve one that was on anti-depressants or just stopped taking them.

I just think when they are doing background checks they should be allowed to do a medical check and see if any meds are being used. Thats why I have no problem with Joe Biden's stance on guns...

I guess the only problem with this is that half of the U.S population is on some type of anti-depressant. Since we are a nations of drugs and guns...

[edit on 25-8-2008 by TheHunted]

[edit on 25-8-2008 by TheHunted]



new topics




 
13
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join