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: 11
14
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 27 2008 @ 08:24 PM
link   
Yes, First guns, then kitchen knives, screwdrivers and finally.... wait for it ... .THE DEADLY SPORK from KFC!

New opposition slogan: “When steak knives are outlawed only outlaws will eat steak.”

Presumably, workmen will eventually be consulted about the usefulness of screwdrivers, hammers, and other tools, students about the necessity of pencils, woodsmen about the usefulness of axes and chainsaws, etc. Any trade’s dangerous tools will be fair game as the violent abuse pointed objects.

The old saying “you can’t legislate morality” comes to mind.

lonestartimes.com...

24 August 2008
Ban call on chef knives

Ex-Labour welfare minister Frank Field said: "It is absurd we have introduced so many measures to reduce knife crime but we have not closed the easiest way of ordering lethal weapons.

www.people.co.uk...=ban-call-on-chef-knives&method=full&objectid=20709264&siteid=93463-name_page.html

July 08, 2008
Knife control in Britain
Richard Baehr
A friend visiting London tells us about the obvious and inevitable lesson being learned about gun control efforts. Once again. It isn't the weapon, it is the person who is the problem. He writes:

Stabbings dominate the news here. If you replaced stabbings with shootings, I would have thought I was in Chicago.


Actually, London now has a much higher crime rate than most major American cities. Take out murder, and it is higher in all virtually every other category.

So the Brits are now actually pushing knife control as a solution to the problem of violent impulses among their populace.




posted on Sep, 27 2008 @ 09:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by PrepareForTheWorst
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...


I can see how closed minded you are. Hand to hand, people have the possibility of disarming a person who has a over sized knife. Try defending yourself at 300 meters away from M-16 fire. Think



posted on Sep, 27 2008 @ 09:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheHunted
Try defending yourself at 300 meters away from M-16 fire. Think


Try defending yourself at 1000 yards from a 7mm bolt action.

We went over the falsehood that you keep trying to beat into truth that the popular "assault weapon" cartridges the laymen fear being 5.56 and 7.62x39mm dont even compare to what the rifles you have no compulsion to ban fire.

Think.



posted on Sep, 27 2008 @ 10:15 PM
link   
dude just because assault weapons are banned doesn't mean you have to give them up, you just can't be an idiot and flash them around the cities.

I've known plenty of people here in Ca where assault weapons that go full cyclical or don't need a hex nut to remove the clip are illegal and they are just responsible with them, and they get to go out to the desert and shoot them and they never get into any trouble, and they are never going to complain about it.

Do you really need the gun to go full auto while at the gun range? not secure enough with your self to shoot one bullet at a target at a time like a professional or do you really have to be that annoying guy letting 12 rounds loose at a time. you know the guy in the stall next to you trying to impress his board frustrated girlfriend by unloading a full clip from his nine in rapid succession missing the target with every round. you know the guy I'm talking about. don't be that guy.

Besides if the civilian population needs to fight back against a mob of police or army they're going to find that single shots placed well are going to kill the enemy faster than a bunch of shots that all miss. just like in the real world.



posted on Sep, 27 2008 @ 10:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheHunted
I can see how closed minded you are. Hand to hand, people have the possibility of disarming a person who has a over sized knife. Try defending yourself at 300 meters away from M-16 fire. Think


You really don't see what we are saying do you? Perhaps you should take a break from posting until the PTSD wears off. As a fellow OIF Vet, I can't believe the amount of ignorance you are portraying.

Your last point is exactly why we NEED to keep the weapons you so aptly call "assault weapons". The second amendment was created in order to prevent a tryanical government. Personally, I plan on defending myself from M-16 fire with the same amount, if not more firepower.



posted on Sep, 28 2008 @ 09:23 AM
link   
reply to post by PrepareForTheWorst
 


Remember that when 10 % of a population control all of the guns, the remaining 90% survive only by their consent. Until the human race no longer feels the need to kill it's members, guns or any other weapon will be required.



posted on Sep, 28 2008 @ 01:37 PM
link   
reply to post by PrepareForTheWorst
 


Blah blah blah... Thats all I hear as you all speak. Its also disappointing to hear you question a fellow vets mental state. Not to mention a belief that if our Armed Forces were ordered to attack the American people they would. Too much NWO message boards for you. Time for you to see the shrink...



posted on Sep, 28 2008 @ 05:42 PM
link   
reply to post by TheHunted
 


very true.

im not going to preach that guns are bad to people who are from a different continent, and that have been raised knowing guns are ok and everyone has the right to have them.


I will say that after all this, i still really dont get why you all need guns so bad, most of the arguments are pretty weak, the protect yourselfs against the government??? dont you all think its a bit late for that , if any of you were actualy going to uprise i would eat my hat.

Thehaunted has a real good point - do you really think the us military would turn on the citizens? i know their might be a few bad apples, but noone would be that bad where they want to kill their people in their own countries!

every reply in this post can raise another 2 questions, and its a never ending battle.



posted on Sep, 28 2008 @ 07:58 PM
link   
reply to post by TheHunted
 


Hunted, some people are just far too narrow minded to see beyond their own enjoyment of shooting a gun. Ramifications exist, and some people just dont want t o acknowledge they exist. Its ok, you being a vet should know than most. Including me. And Im sure lots of vets would disagree with you. but I just love how level headed you are, and how you can see the differences here. Keep it up.



posted on Sep, 28 2008 @ 08:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheHunted
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...


I'm more worried about our own government oppressing us than those 'crazy Muslims.' Why shouldn't law abiding citizens, who register the firearms they own be able to own them. Clearly those that follow the laws to obtain them don't intend on using them to commit crimes. The words Shall not be infringed obviously mean nothing to you. Look at the historical context of what the founding fathers wrote and you can clearly see that they meant for the people to be just as well armed as the government in the event they became too oppressive or moved against the inalienable rights of the people.

Those reserves and active forces are to protect us from outside threats. Ever hear of the Posse Comitatus Act?



posted on Sep, 28 2008 @ 08:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by bknapple32
Hunted, some people are just far too narrow minded to see beyond their own enjoyment of shooting a gun. Ramifications exist, and some people just dont want t o acknowledge they exist. Its ok, you being a vet should know than most. Including me. And Im sure lots of vets would disagree with you. but I just love how level headed you are, and how you can see the differences here. Keep it up.


Because someone enjoys shooting a gun and wants to maintain the right to ownership they are narrow minded? Sounds more like you yourself can't understand that people have the right to live their lives as they see fit regardless of how you feel things should be. Doesn't matter if you disagree with it or I disagree with it. So long as it affects no one else, their rights should be left alone. I don't understand the idea of demonizing guns when they are inanimate objects, incapable of acting on their own. How about simply blaming the people who misuse them instead of punishing law abiding gun owners for others behavior.



posted on Sep, 28 2008 @ 08:22 PM
link   
reply to post by ludaChris
 


If you enjoy just shooting it. I have nothing wrong with a system of where your assault rifle is held by a NRA certified shooting range. And you can use it there.



posted on Sep, 28 2008 @ 08:48 PM
link   
I have been a "pacifist" of sorts for a long time, and believed that most people should not own guns. I held the premise that people who needed guns lived in fear and that there was a better way to live and participate in creating a society that works for everyone using peaceful means rather than because someone has a gun.

However, having been born in Yugoslavia (I am now an American citizen), and seeing what happened there during the Bosnian war, changed my mind.

For those of you that don't know, here's the short version:

As the tensions between ethnic muslims and Serbs grew out of the resurgence of the Serbian nationalism, the government eventually required everyone to bring there arms in to prevent a violent escalation. In good faith Bosnians turned over their guns, and the Serb nationalists kept them. Furthermore, the Serb paramilitary were provided with all the arms they needed and began actively rounding up Bosnian muslim men, separating families, and so began the "ethnic cleansing".

I finally got the point that was being made by those who strongly defend the 2nd amendment, and now I am 100% in agreement.

I still struggle with the idea of getting a gun myself, as I believe that preparing for the need will create the mindset that will bring it about it's required use, and I don't want to shoot *anyone*.

I still would like to hold the intention that the forces of Peace and Liberty and Justice can prevail in a peaceful way, but with all respect to Ghandi, I doubt that we would be living in the United States of America if the early Americans balked at taking up arms against the British, and we should not give up our liberty so readily to those who would violate their oaths to protect and defend this country against all enemies foreign and domestic.

Peace!



posted on Sep, 28 2008 @ 08:55 PM
link   
reply to post by bknapple32
 


After reading each reply from the AW owners I have come to this conclusion. This is not just about the Second Amendment, protection, or even collections. It's pure selfishness, they are not willing to sacrifice nothing to save a human life.

Its insane all the nonsense that has been posted by them. Somebody comparing Assault Rifles to screwdrivers and SPORKS. That was such an ignorant reply I wasn't even gonna waste my time on it. I appreciate your your dedication to denying ignorance. Its nice working with you...



posted on Sep, 28 2008 @ 09:00 PM
link   
reply to post by ludaChris
 


Once again nothing but a bunch of nonsense. The way you guys speak about the government I wonder if you are afraid of your own shadow! BOO!!!

The military is not out to get you. We are defense for the American people domestic or foreign. Grab some Xanax and chill out...



posted on Sep, 28 2008 @ 09:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by infolurker
Yes, First guns, then kitchen knives, screwdrivers and finally.... wait for it ... .THE DEADLY SPORK from KFC!


Wasn't going to waste my time on this, but what the heck.

Probably one of the most pathetic responses EVER in the history of ATS is right above. Everyone please read the above quote. Comparing an Assault Rifle to a spork. Why? What point are you trying to make? They are banning Automatic Weapons because of the extreme damage they cause when they strike a human being. Use your head!!!!



posted on Sep, 29 2008 @ 06:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by bknapple32
reply to post by ludaChris
 


If you enjoy just shooting it. I have nothing wrong with a system of where your assault rifle is held by a NRA certified shooting range. And you can use it there.


I'm an NRA certified pistol and rifle instructor as well as a range safety officer and you still wont let me keep my gun? Besides, do you know whats involved i=in becoming an NRA anything? Your check must clear. Yup, just as strict and stringent as getting a class III permit. Money. Does having money to spend mean you are somehow less likely to go on a murdering rampage? It's okay if rich people have their guns as long as the poor do not?

When can I expect you to give up your handgun? It's all about saving lives after all. If I am supposed to give up my rifles to save "just one life" then I guess you're on your way to the police station right now to hand over your handgun to statistically save many many more lives, no?

Same for you Hunted. Better get going on banning hunting rifles if killing at a distance is your concern. The shotgun you own is more likely to be used in a crime than my rifles. Maybe you and bknapple can carpool.

But all of that would require some logic and consistency. Two components conspicuously absent in all firarms legislation.



posted on Sep, 29 2008 @ 09:43 AM
link   
I personally feel that it is our right as citizens to own guns and any other such weaponry and knowledge of explosive compounds and such so as to protect ourselves from intruders and any form of tyrannical Government assault at home and/or abroad. We must all be privy to the same knowledge that our Governments try to keep secret from us. View any education system these days and you can plainly see how the Government has designed the curriculum to teach people to be subserviant and nothing more. (Project) the Dumming Down of America, do a search on it and you will find how they plan on keeping only submissive people working in the ranks of any Government.
(a420truthseeker)
Founder Silent Knights of Freedom



posted on Sep, 29 2008 @ 10:02 AM
link   
Yet another discussion about the banning of "assault weapons". First off lets rename this bill to represent what it actually does. Lets call it the "Scary Looking Weapons Ban". It doesnt ban semi-auto guns (as far as I know). It only bans guns that some people have decided look scary.

The founding fathers would have said that MODERN firearms are needed by the civilians since these are MODERN times. So who's assuming the founding fathers would say "In MODERN time the civilians should only use out-dated firearms"? Thats an asinine assumption.

Quit trying to ban assualt weapons because they look scary. I mean seriously why even try? If you ban weapons based on cosmetic features, then our good friends in the gun companies will find loopholes and design them differently, heck maybe they'll find a way to make the features better for the gun user.

On another note, someone mentioned editing the Bill of Rights... thats treason.



posted on Sep, 29 2008 @ 10:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by XTexan
Yet another discussion about the banning of "assault weapons". First off lets rename this bill to represent what it actually does. Lets call it the "Scary Looking Weapons Ban". It doesnt ban semi-auto guns (as far as I know). It only bans guns that some people have decided look scary.

The founding fathers would have said that MODERN firearms are needed by the civilians since these are MODERN times. So who's assuming the founding fathers would say "In MODERN time the civilians should only use out-dated firearms"? Thats an asinine assumption.

Quit trying to ban assualt weapons because they look scary. I mean seriously why even try? If you ban weapons based on cosmetic features, then our good friends in the gun companies will find loopholes and design them differently, heck maybe they'll find a way to make the features better for the gun user.

On another note, someone mentioned editing the Bill of Rights... thats treason.


Treason? How? Why? Too much DC smog for you? Treason is a serious act of disloyalty to ones nation. Are you implying that it is disloyal to believe that a bill written 200 years ago may need some updating. Mankind is moving along with technology so should the Bill of Rights. That is not treason but logical thinking.

Picture this: The year is 4008 and folks are still living by a bill that was signed in 1776. Times change, people change, and technology changes we must adapt to the times. So this is not treason but a bit of logical thinking.

You believe the AW ban would be based on cosmetics? High five because that's brilliant! "You have too pretty of a gun there, you know its illegal to have that pink bow tied to it". I really wish I perceived life as you do, it would be so much interesting.

From my understanding the only weapons they want to be banned are Assault Weapons with with multiple Assault Weapon features...







 
14
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join