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.

 

"70% of Americans support a ban on semi-automatic weapons"

page: 2
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 14 2008 @ 06:59 AM
link   
reply to post by justamomma
 


Hey, momma. I see we have a topic upon which we agree. [smile]

The Bill of Rights tells us in no uncertain terms that the right to bear arms, ANY arms, shall not be infringed - and that means having to register weapons, having to wait after purchase to collect out goods, having limitations on what weapons we can own, are all unconstitutional. These are infringements.

And with these infringements, we are less capable of ensuring the security of a free state, both from criminals and rogue governments. (Same thing, really, eh?)




posted on Sep, 14 2008 @ 08:38 AM
link   
Charlie Gibson is the quentsential liberal. They don't use facts, nor does the right. Both sides pull these stats out of the ether with the same regularity.

I have read statistics that claim the opposite. 65% of Americans want to own rocket launchers.

See, I just made that up. Little, yellow, different.



posted on Sep, 14 2008 @ 09:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by Amaterasu
I was reading somewhere where the "news" was deemed not to have any responsibility (beyond personal liability) to report the actual news... Trying to find where that was.

Anyway, a court case was won by the "news" organization which was reporting falsities, with the ruling coming down that they were under no obligation to actually report news - basically just protect advertisers... I guess this is the next step. Fabricate figures. Since they are under no requirement to report truth.


If I'm not mistaken you might find a relevant starting point at the Fox News case in Florida when a pair of reporters tried to publicly present their finding that Monsanto was using dangerous hormones in their dairy producing cows. The courts upheld that Fox is not obliged to tell the truth.



posted on Sep, 14 2008 @ 05:25 PM
link   
Where I live in colorado springs you're looking at anti gunners being a distinct and QUIET minority since the events at the New Life Church. For those that missed that one, a rampage shooter was taken down with extreme prejudice by a member of the congregation who was carrying. In the aftermath she was labeled a volunteer security guard and I think it made some people think.

We live in a country who's founding document lays out not only our RIGHT but our DUTY to be a nation of volunteer security guards. The support for the anti gun movement has never been very strong among anyone who is more logically than emotionally oriented... Sorry ladies but this is why the FARCE called the Million Mom March was targeted at mothers.

Because sadly the same instinct that allows us all to survive childhood without being eaten by our mothers like lizards do is also rife with potential for political motivation by FEAR. One picture of a gunshot killed 6 year old and the question "what if this was your child?" is more than enough catalyst to start a movement that can move mountains. And our leaders and their backers are truly adept at inciting the mob through such questions and then getting in front of it to lead the mob in the direction THEY want it to go.

On the other side of the coin pseudo intellectual and impressionable college age students of both genders are targeted by groups with an ideology and their agenda draped over it. This is your core constituent anti gun crowd as well as urbanites who just can't take anymore and are desperate for ANY solution.

The truth is though Virginia tech, Columbine, and the countless other incidents have nearly all happened in "gun free zones" enforced by a sign at the entrance to the area! This sign has two effects
1. the rational person sees the sign and fearing the legal ramifications of a gun charge. (said ramifications being GUARANTEED prison loss of gun rights and other rights and the virtual sentence to nothing but drudge work for the rest of your life that being a felon does to your employment prospects) disarms themselves to comply with the sign.

2. Joe Rampage Shooter sees the sign and after a few days, weeks, months or years realizes that this is the place to "make himself famous", "make the world pay", or whatever their schtick is.

as to the ban of new full auto's to the civilian market in the 80's.... I submit to you that someone should do a quick survey of how many halliburton execs, congressmen, and other uber rich own full auto's (Class 3 firearms). I say this because in the last twenty years if you've wanted a fool proof investment you needed look no further than a class 3 firearm. They have appreciated more in value than any CD or T bill or IRA out there CONSISTENTLY. On top of that what better way to ensure that the wealthy have the DISTINCT firepower advantage over the lower classes in the event they ever figure out how duped they have been?

As an added not to above your average class3 full auto firearm owner is not Joe Bob in the trailer park it's doctors lawyers and etc. A standard m16 that costs the government less than 900 dollars to procure when legally sold to a civilian is worth in the neighborhood of $15,000 to $20,000 dollars.
As an added note to That... the conversion of firearms to full automatic from semi is a job that can be done with hand tools in a pinch... and if you have a well equipped shop you can build a whole freaking gun in an afternoon of any type you like. And beyond that if one does a google search for full automatic enfield... you will find pictures and commentary on how in the early days of world war 2 the british and Aussies began a program to convert BOLT ACTION RIFLES to light machine guns because of the disaster at dunkirk. And working prototypes/ production models were built as a side note.

In closing readers,

Gun control is using both hands, and possibly a scope. Anyone who tells you different is stupid or has an agenda.



posted on Sep, 14 2008 @ 05:37 PM
link   
reply to post by roguetechie
 


A good friend of mine who I worked at Colt with in the 70's had an original M-16. It was one of the first 100 off the asembly line. When he passed 3 years ago, his estate sold it at auction for almost 60,000. His original 1921 Thompson sold for 110,000. Full auto's are going completely out of site and will for any forseeable future. That and the fact that class 3 dealers are starting to become extinct at the governments behest!
Zindo



posted on Sep, 14 2008 @ 11:33 PM
link   
No they don't the government makes up those numbers. Most people doubt the government will take our guns away, so the people that have them don't care to vote in the poll. Polls are a completely illegitimate way to get public opinions.

If they ever try I will never surrender my gun. (Assuming I have one, I am only 18...)



posted on Sep, 15 2008 @ 09:49 AM
link   
reply to post by NeverSurrender
 


Good Lord lad,
You live in Kennedyville. Your rights are out the window already. That dynasty needs to be retired. The kids are now jumping from state to state to get elected to continue they're agenda. They also seem to love to play with the socialist tyrants of the world. I feel for you. I sometimes have to drive through Mass. to get to my home in Maine. When I'm transporting my firearms, I'm always real worried about getting stopped. I know no matter what the reason, I'm going to need a lawyer to stay out of jail and get my guns back. It has happened to people before. Do yourself a favor. As soon as you turn 21 go get your owners/buyers permit for firearms and don't put it off.

Zindo



posted on Sep, 16 2008 @ 12:31 PM
link   
If you were to ever talk to people that think that semi auto firearms should be banned, you would find that they are ignorant of the the difference between full and semi auto firearms. When arrest involving illegally owned firearms are televised the para military appearing semi autos are always referred to as assault rifles, which has those that are not familiar with weaponry concluding that they are capable of full auto function. This lack of knowledge transcends liberal, conservative politics as there are a great number on both sides that are in the dark about the difference between an assault rifle, and a semi automatic.



posted on Sep, 16 2008 @ 01:11 PM
link   
reply to post by Amaterasu
 


The constitution is a living document - it was supposed to be re-tooled every generation. The US is no longer living in fear of Britain re-invading and messing everyone over.

If the government is corrupt, either the armed forces will support it or they won't. Either way, it is the armed forces that will decide whether the government is toppled, not a few ill-trained accountants with no logistical support or close air support.

It's a romantic image - the American citizens armed, ready to stand up to their government, but it is an anachronism. The second the government got weapons the population can't have, the game is over.

Now all the US is left with is a staggering level of firearm-related death, and no way to remove a corrupt government. Yay treating a 200+-year old document as dogma! Progress!



posted on Sep, 16 2008 @ 01:26 PM
link   
reply to post by dave420
 


I would ask that you give us some proof anywhere that says our Constitution is a "LIVING" document. Laws can be changed, but our rights cannot. The first ten amendments are never to be changed. They and they alone are the foundations of our rights and the limitations of our government. The living document misinformation is used by those that would usurp our rights. Not improve them!!

Zindo



posted on Sep, 16 2008 @ 10:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by Maxmars
If I'm not mistaken you might find a relevant starting point at the Fox News case in Florida when a pair of reporters tried to publicly present their finding that Monsanto was using dangerous hormones in their dairy producing cows. The courts upheld that Fox is not obliged to tell the truth.


That was one, though I could have sworn there was another - heh, likely many, given the creppola that passes as "news" these days.



posted on Sep, 16 2008 @ 10:46 PM
link   
reply to post by thisguyrighthere
 


If only 100% of people supported a ban on guns, then that would be a great start....and not just guns, but bombs and tanks and weapons of war.

But it ain't gonna happen, so I'll crawl back into my hole of idealism.



posted on Sep, 16 2008 @ 10:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by dave420
reply to post by Amaterasu
 


The constitution is a living document - it was supposed to be re-tooled every generation. The US is no longer living in fear of Britain re-invading and messing everyone over.


Say WHAT? What does "inalienable rights" mean to you? Are you suggesting there is some alienation of our rights that is justified??? If so, what kind of an unAmerican freak are you? If so, I'm sayin'.

And, no, we're not living in fear of that, just a rogue government.


If the government is corrupt, either the armed forces will support it or they won't. Either way, it is the armed forces that will decide whether the government is toppled, not a few ill-trained accountants with no logistical support or close air support.


Hmmmm.... I recall a French revolution... Seems it wasn't the armed forces then... So, no. It's NOT in the hands of the military. It's in the hands of the People - where it absolutely should be.

And if the government is capable of MKULTRAish mind control on their recruits, rather scary proposition, eh? So it damned well better be the People who stand up.


It's a romantic image - the American citizens armed, ready to stand up to their government, but it is an anachronism.


Not if we arm ourselves with tanks, missiles, whatever is out there to be armed with - which is what it should be. We shouldn't be stripped of our ability to set a rogue government straight.


The second the government got weapons the population can't have, the game is over.


No. The game became more difficult. Your words sound like a whipped cur, tail between your legs, trying to convince those of us to give up instead of demanding liberty or death. How pathetic I take this to be.


Now all the US is left with is a staggering level of firearm-related death, and no way to remove a corrupt government. Yay treating a 200+-year old document as dogma! Progress!


Oh pish. The "staggering level of firearm-related death" is mostly to do with the War on (some people who use some) Drugs. Remove THAt li'l crime generator, and the gun deaths would drop incredibly.

And, yes, I will treat INALIENABLE rights as INALIENABLE, thank you very much.

Yay, blindness.



posted on Sep, 16 2008 @ 11:34 PM
link   
reply to post by dave420
 


No it is not a living document, it is an outline of our natural born rights that guarantee they are never altered. living documents being made of laws of man are contradictory and give dangerous powers to a majority plus it allows ANY law to be made "in your best interest" even if it is illogical. The whole "living document" garbage is a leftist-fascist lie which contradicts the intent of the rule of law, equality and reason.



posted on Sep, 18 2008 @ 08:47 PM
link   
70 percent my ass. The way guns are selling right now, 70 percent of Americans own them! I am in that biz, and biz is the best I have seen in 15 years. When folks are doing bad in the market and gas is high, plus a election year............Guns sell.



posted on Sep, 18 2008 @ 08:49 PM
link   
reply to post by dave420
 


I am willing to die and kill to protect those rights. Are you?



posted on Sep, 18 2008 @ 09:52 PM
link   
reply to post by TXMACHINEGUNDLR
 

Partner, you would be useless in an armed revolution if you "die and kill". You only get to die once and then you don't get to do any killing after that. Without the ability to direct air support and artillery I don't think that there is any hope unless the military decides to slip out of the psychological bonds imposed on them in training and join the cause. All except the Marines, might do that except they would have more sense than to take on the Marines.



posted on Sep, 19 2008 @ 12:49 AM
link   
The poll he is referring to was worded ""Should the public be banned from owning military style automatic weapons"" this means only one thing to people that are familiar with guns. that is "full auto weapons".
it does not ask if "semi-auto" weapons should be banned.

Whoever did the poll was ether totally ignorant about guns OR more likely this was a deceptive poll to get the a results they could manipulate to back there anti gun, anti semi auto weapons stand.

i am willing to bet it was a deceptive poll.

you will notice that when a reporter quotes the results of a poll he NEVER quotes the wording of the poll question.

this is called disinformation and deception.



posted on Sep, 19 2008 @ 12:52 AM
link   
reply to post by thisguyrighthere
 


I caught Charlie's stupid poll statement on the guns as well. I was also wondering at the time, "Where the heck did he pull that out of??"

He'll get our assault rifle only by removing it from our cold dead hands.




posted on Sep, 19 2008 @ 02:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by Ron Paul Girl
reply to post by thisguyrighthere
 


I caught Charlie's stupid poll statement on the guns as well. I was also wondering at the time, "Where the heck did he pull that out of??"

He'll get our assault rifle only by removing it from our cold dead hands.



Welcome to ATS...This thread reminds me that I am not alone. I love to hear the American revolutionary spirit still alive. Even if it is small.




top topics



 
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join