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.

 

It's official, Obama to make AWB permanent

page: 10
14
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 27 2008 @ 11:51 AM
link   
Just do what the criminals do... buy the weapon illegally on the black market, if the said weapon just sits in your closet or attic... who's going to know about it? The only problem is where do you go to buy black market weapons in the US? I for one would like to know.




posted on Sep, 27 2008 @ 11:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by Battleline
I have a thought for all of you that think the shootings at the colleges is a reason to ban guns.As horrable as these shootings are the fact that a gun iis used limits the collateral damage and if there were some (qualified) person at the schools with a weapon avaliable to them, it would limt shootings even more.

Here is my thought;what if a determined person had no gun so got themselves a TRUCK (big 4x4 1 ton)with a very large brush grille(you know the type on most SUV's),waited tell class let out and drove up and down the walkways, grassie areas hitting people tell he had enough our ran out of gas or the PD finelly showed up.How many people due you think this person would kill before it was over!!?? Sick?you bet but the point is there will always be humans like this so to take away a person's felling of security(Gun Ban)just because some think it will stop the Killing is a sad sences of your own security but you take the rest of us with you.

If you don't want to own a gun, fine,but leave the rest of us who are willing to stand and deliver in a time of need alone,it just might be your life we save,or your child..


simple... if the amount of deaths due to a gun matched that of some nut with a truck, then id agree to ban both. but fortunately thats not the case. I posted the stats up a little earlier in the thread. something like 10,000 out of 15,000 murders came from a gun.

[edit on 27-9-2008 by bknapple32]



posted on Sep, 27 2008 @ 12:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by thisguyrighthere

Originally posted by matttheratt
You need an assault rifle to defend your house?


For the fiftieth time, no. Only an imbecile would use a rifle, any rifle, (with the possible exception of a PCC) for home-d. That's not the point.


I wasn't responding to you but rather others in this thread who have used that as a justification for having assault rifles legal.



posted on Sep, 27 2008 @ 12:10 PM
link   
post removed because the user has no concept of manners

Click here for more information.



posted on Sep, 27 2008 @ 12:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by bknapple32
I posted the stats up a little earlier in the thread. something like 10,000 out of 15,000 murders came from a gun.

[edit on 27-9-2008 by bknapple32]


So out of the 10-15K murders how many were committed with rifles? If this is your concern then for consistency's sake you should be pushing for a handgun ban.

Here, not to step on surfinguru's toes since he posted this back on page two, but I'll help you out with the leg work:

www.fbi.gov...



[edit on 27-9-2008 by thisguyrighthere]

[edit on 27-9-2008 by thisguyrighthere]



posted on Sep, 27 2008 @ 12:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by TrueHusslin
Hey, nice sandals dude... I bet that picture was taken at some kind of Obama/save my sorry ass from my mangina rally huh?

People are going to kill one another with black market weapons anyways, no matter what kind of restrictions they put on legitimate gun owners... one of the reasons why there are restrictions on gun owners is because the politicians need a visible wiping boy, is to appease *SNIP*


Actually the picture was taken at the Kennedy Space Center. Yet another person without a picture attacking someone elses. I can see how you have so many negative points. Look forward you your post being removed.

Mod Edit: Snipped offensive comment carried over in quote

[edit on 27/9/2008 by Badge01]



posted on Sep, 27 2008 @ 12:35 PM
link   
post removed for serious violation of ATS Terms & Conditions



posted on Sep, 27 2008 @ 12:45 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Sep, 27 2008 @ 01:16 PM
link   
**This thread has gotten WAY off topic.**

This IS the Decision 2008 forum where we talk about Issues to the 2008 campaign.

Further OT posts will be warned and the thread may be closed.

You can comment on the ISSUES raised in the debate from here on in, please.

Thanks for your cooperation and attention and happy posting
-Badge01
Forum Moderator



posted on Sep, 27 2008 @ 02:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheHunted
The "Protect Ourselves From The Government" card is obsolete now. The Second Amendment was written during a time where there was pretty much a level playing field. The people and the government possessed the same type of weaponry. In this day of age the playing field is uneven, the government has the upper hand with their weapon technology not to mention the eyes they have in the sky. No matter what firearm you own, it is no match for the hell they could leash on us if they liked. So claiming that you want to own these Assault Rifles for for self defense against the government is irrelevant. If you want to feel safe you should invest your money wisely in Tanks, Bombers, and WMD's....


this thread is very long so forgive me if someone responded to this post before i did.

no match for the hell they could unleash on us? really? well then....apparently al queda doesn't exist. as far as i know they don't have all the fancy gadgets and devestating missles we do, but somehow with some semi-auto and fully auto rifles they've managed to play pretty evenly against us for ...what is it 8 years now? it's amazing to me that i went through about 8 pages of this thread and no one has brought up that point. you dont need nukes, satellites, tanks etc to fight against a repressive government. the reasons for the 2nd amendment are as valid today as they were when it was written and will continue to be valid into the forseeable future, to believe otherwise is laughable. by all means, require firearms training,registration...but banning is rediculous and unconstitutional.



posted on Sep, 27 2008 @ 03:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by boaby_phet
Your going to run to somwhere else because you cant own a gun? that seems a bit silly, and i never really understood why americans make such a big deal about gun ownership..

noone needs guns!, guns are nasty little machines, simply developed to kill and hurt people or animals ( no, im not a veggie or against hunting!)

really, what do YOU need a gun for? and why does it upset you that you cant own a gun.. something that can only be used to harm someone.

on guns, america needs to stop living in the old times, this is 2008 ! not 1908.

guns are bad!, and the politicians are spot on with what they say , why they HELL does ANYONE need an ak 47 lying about their house unless their actualy at war and in genuine danger of someone shooting at the, ?
[edit on 25-9-2008 by boaby_phet]


You do need guns, to protect yourself, your family, property, and rights. If we in the US lost our right to gun ownership, how long until we lose other rights as well? Police have already shown here they have no problem breaking up peaceful protests in public streets. What if all of the sudden the politicians decide the police should be able to search homes or persons without warrant?

From the context of your typing, I assume you aren't American? If I'm wrong correct me. That is quite an elitist view you have on gun ownership. Stop living in 1908?

If guns are bad, then so are knives, baseball bats, screwdrivers, and hammers are as well? These can all be used as weapons just as a gun is, but they are tools, just the same as a gun. A gun is a tool in self defense, hunting, and for sport shooting. It can only be as 'evil' as the person using it.

What does it matter to you if a law abiding gun owner or collector owns an AK-47? Criminals are probably not going to buy guns that can be traced, and banning something simply creates a larger black market for it, ala drugs and alcohol(prohibition) anyone? History of such laws shows this all over the world, not just in America. The law abiding should be able to protect themselves from those who aren't law abiding as well as their government if necessary.



posted on Sep, 27 2008 @ 04:10 PM
link   
reply to post by bknapple32
 
You missed the point bk,the point being if guns were ban and someone needed another weapon to do there deed then can you imagine the damage some one could do with a vehical as apposed to a gun.

Did you bother to look up the people who are still alive because they had a gun to defend themselves??



posted on Sep, 27 2008 @ 04:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by bknapple32
simple... if the amount of deaths due to a gun matched that of some nut with a truck, then id agree to ban both. but fortunately thats not the case. I posted the stats up a little earlier in the thread. something like 10,000 out of 15,000 murders came from a gun.


Here is what you and the rest of your anti-second amendment buddies don't understand:

Sure, most of the homicides in this country involve firearms. If you banned every single firearm in the country, most of the homicides in this country would then be caused by knife/bat/club. So what then? We ban those too? Just because you take away the instruments of murder does not mean murders stop altogether.

What you FAIL to realize is that firearms make people equal. You take them away and the strong once again go to the top of the food chain. What will YOU do when ten guys with bats enter your home looking for money or your girlfriend? Are you going to call the cops? By the time they arrive, you will have been beaten to death and your girlfriend will have been gang-raped by all ten men. While being beaten to death with wooden bats, I can guarantee that the weapons you are so very much against would be sounding like a pretty good idea!

I personally don't care if you own firearms or not. I choose to and will protect myself and my family if/when the time comes. Do what you want, but leave us responsible firearm owners alone.



posted on Sep, 27 2008 @ 05:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by bknapple32

Originally posted by TrueHusslin
Actually the picture was taken at the Kennedy Space Center. Yet another person without a picture attacking someone elses. I can see how you have so many negative points. Look forward you your post being removed.

Mod Edit: Snipped offensive comment carried over in quote

[edit on 27/9/2008 by Badge01]


Ha, good call! Great mods here at ATS....

I agree totally on everything you say. It's called logical thinking! Thanks for keeping it real.

What really bothers me about this thread is how people use statistics to justify lost lives. I don't care if the AWB saves just one life to me, thats worth the ban. I'm more interested in the lives saved by this ban then the stupid statistics people be tossing around.

Al Gore one the the 2000 election with the most votes and still lost. So statistics and numbers don't me jack to me. Ban all AW's! Ban all AW's! Ban all AW's! Ban all AW's! Ban all AW's!



posted on Sep, 27 2008 @ 05:28 PM
link   
reply to post by TheHunted
 


So you are saying that if we ban all "assault weapons", lives will be saved? I keep forgetting that murders first came about with the debut of the "assault weapon"...silly me.

I just find it odd you saying "ban assault weapons" with an avatar of what I am assuming is you holding an M-16.



posted on Sep, 27 2008 @ 05:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by PrepareForTheWorst
reply to post by TheHunted
 


So you are saying that if we ban all "assault weapons", lives will be saved? I keep forgetting that murders first came about with the debut of the "assault weapon"...silly me.

I just find it odd you saying "ban assault weapons" with an avatar of what I am assuming is you holding an M-16.


Yes good eye, that is an M-16A2 Rifle! So I have first hand experience at using such weapons that are up for banning. That means I know and have witnessed the extreme damage such a weapon can cause.

Now if you take the time and read and study my last post you may catch exactly what I was saying. Statistics do show that AW's do kill people. Given its not as high of a percentage then pistols. But if the ban saves just one life from being lost from a violent crime then its a success. See I have seen good men die by these type of weapons. So I have every right as an Iraqi War Vet to agree with a ban from civilian use. Now when they ban AW's from our military then lets raise or voices until then its a waste of energy...

[edit on 27-9-2008 by TheHunted]



posted on Sep, 27 2008 @ 05:58 PM
link   
reply to post by ludaChris
 


No this banning is not unconstitutional, please just use a bit of common sense. Unconstitutional would be the banning of all firearms. Please think before you post. Reacting on emotional does not work.

We have the Active Armed Forces combined with the National Guard and Reserves for a reason. There is reason why our military posts are strategically placed through out the U.S. Its to maximize our response time in case of such a threat.

Thanks for your time...



posted on Sep, 27 2008 @ 06:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by boaby_phet
reply to post by thisguyrighthere
 


noone needs guns!,


Wrong, but we'll get into that further along...


... guns are nasty little machines, simply developed to kill and hurt people or animals ( no, im not a veggie or against hunting!)


Hm. What about defending oneself? Suppose THAT is also a reason?


really, what do YOU need a gun for? and why does it upset you that you cant own a gun.. something that can only be used to harm someone.


So... The point of gun ownership is to secure a free state. Without an armed citizenry, freedom is lost to a government that would rob their freedoms.

Here, in case you were unaware of why we are born with this right:

"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

That is the Second Amendment to the US Constitution. Let's break it down...

A well regulated militia... What is considered to be a "militia?" Well, we can go to the US Code to find the answer:

The US Code defines militia as:

TITLE 10, Subtitle A, PART I, CHAPTER 13, § 311

§ 311. Militia: composition and classes

(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.

(b) The classes of the militia are—

(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and

(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.


So any male 17 to 45 is part of the unorganized militia, and if we remove sex and age discrimination...

Every citizen able to carry a weapon, 17 years of age and older, is a part of the unorganized militia.

And the amendment points out that an armed (unorganized) militia is necessary to the security of a free state.

Once infringement of any kind takes place, we can no longer secure a FREE state.

For we are no longer able to defend our freedom.


on guns, america needs to stop living in the old times, this is 2008 ! not 1908.


You're right! We need to UPGRADE our weapons to defend our freedom!


guns are bad!,


No, no they're not.


... and the politicians are spot on with what they say ,


Only if they're looking to assist the NWO take our freedoms away...


... why they HELL does ANYONE need an ak 47 lying about their house unless their actualy at war and in genuine danger of someone shooting at the, ?


AHHHH! See? The price of freedom is eternal vigilance, for at any time one might have to fight for it. We ARE prepared for the war, the more we arm ourselves.

[edit on 9/27/2008 by Amaterasu]



posted on Sep, 27 2008 @ 06:24 PM
link   



posted on Sep, 27 2008 @ 08:15 PM
link   
reply to post by TheHunted
 

As an OIF Vet you would have seen what a simple machete can do to a human body. Should we not then ban those as well? After all, if we can just save one life...




top topics



 
14
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join