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: 6
14
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 26 2008 @ 06:51 AM
link   
reply to post by Jim Scott
 


im sorry, but im in shock at that..

its the most gun toting piece of drivel ive seen anywhere , any country with mass views like that is a country with problems.




posted on Sep, 26 2008 @ 07:41 AM
link   
reply to post by Blaine91555
 


Who said anything about waving guns around? Thats a threatening act and I expect anyone who starts waving a gun around would be promptly put down.

As far as kids taking rifles to school. Up until just a couple of decades ago every kid in my home state took one to school. Schools across the nation had rifle teams and shooting sports abounds. Guns were kept in lockers, sometimes carried from class to class.

Before the NRA betrayed the nation and pushed to pass the Firearms Act of 1934 anyone could order a military surplus machinegun C.O.D. for $25.

The rifles and pistols manufactured in the past 20 years arent more powerful or special in any way. Certain techniques and materials may make them more accurate (at least the rifles out of the average Joe's pricerange) but they are no more deadly or amazing than they've ever been. What fools commonly refer to as "assault rifles" thanks to a sweeping anti-gun campaign were developed during WWII. How many school shootings then? How much gang activity?

I'm sorry. But I'm not about to change everything because some punks choose to act like animals.

Because some rednecks cant stop driving drunk should we ban cars? If no then why? Clearly laws against driving drunk don't work. We have laws against murder that apparently do not work so then we must ban the guns? Foolishly of course we'll ban the type of gun that isn't even used in the crimes we're trying to prevent. Because that makes sense.

And who cares if an "assault rifle" isn't used for hunting or home defense? The fact of the matter is they are damn fun to shoot and wonderful to collect. That should be more than enough reason to own one to want to own one in a free country.

You "they wont take my hunting rifle so it's okay" types bother more than the outright gun-grabbers.

I guess you haven't seen this:



They will try to take my AR's, my AK's and my SL8 before they come for yours but they'll come for it. There is no "good gun" to the gun-grabbers and you should know by know that if you give an inch they take 100 miles and getting a right back takes decades while giving one up takes an hour or so.



posted on Sep, 26 2008 @ 07:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by thisguyrighthere
reply to post by Blaine91555
 


Who said anything about waving guns around? Thats a threatening act and I expect anyone who starts waving a gun around would be promptly put down.

As far as kids taking rifles to school. Up until just a couple of decades ago every kid in my home state took one to school. Schools across the nation had rifle teams and shooting sports abounds. Guns were kept in lockers, sometimes carried from class to class.

Before the NRA betrayed the nation and pushed to pass the Firearms Act of 1934 anyone could order a military surplus machinegun C.O.D. for $25.

The rifles and pistols manufactured in the past 20 years arent more powerful or special in any way. Certain techniques and materials may make them more accurate (at least the rifles out of the average Joe's pricerange) but they are no more deadly or amazing than they've ever been. What fools commonly refer to as "assault rifles" thanks to a sweeping anti-gun campaign were developed during WWII. How many school shootings then? How much gang activity?

I'm sorry. But I'm not about to change everything because some punks choose to act like animals.

Because some rednecks cant stop driving drunk should we ban cars? If no then why? Clearly laws against driving drunk don't work. We have laws against murder that apparently do not work so then we must ban the guns? Foolishly of course we'll ban the type of gun that isn't even used in the crimes we're trying to prevent. Because that makes sense.

And who cares if an "assault rifle" isn't used for hunting or home defense? The fact of the matter is they are damn fun to shoot and wonderful to collect. That should be more than enough reason to own one to want to own one in a free country.

You "they wont take my hunting rifle so it's okay" types bother more than the outright gun-grabbers.

I guess you haven't seen this:



They will try to take my AR's, my AK's and my SL8 before they come for yours but they'll come for it. There is no "good gun" to the gun-grabbers and you should know by know that if you give an inch they take 100 miles and getting a right back takes decades while giving one up takes an hour or so.


I would love to know what state you came from then because believe you me. I have lived all my life here in the USA and it has never been allowed in Maine or in North Carolina to allow Children to take any guns to school hand guns or riffles for any reason. And its been that way for many years.

Hilda



posted on Sep, 26 2008 @ 07:53 AM
link   
reply to post by hildar
 


I grew up in CT. My father has the trophies on his shelf and high school yearbooks with the teams photos spanning all four years he was there.

Currently it is my understanding that some schools in the South have begun to re-introduce shooting classes and rifle teams after years of paranoid prohibition though I only have word of mouth evidence for that.



posted on Sep, 26 2008 @ 07:57 AM
link   
Ok, as a Canadian, I don't know much about American gun laws. As a result, I don't understand the OP's coments concidering the artical. Could someone help me understand here?



posted on Sep, 26 2008 @ 07:57 AM
link   
Must be in them redneck schools that couldnt care less. Because I hate to say it but state schools have laws in place that DO NOT allow any guns.

Hilda



posted on Sep, 26 2008 @ 08:32 AM
link   
reply to post by Graber
 


Basically, there is the desire on the part of some to prohibit the ownership of a certain set of firearms, based on the cosmetics of those arms. The arms targeted look scary, as they are modeled on the looks of military style weapons.

The crime statistics do not support this desire... the targeted arms are not used much in crime (with full acknowledgement that once is too often), but look scary.

The prohibition is essentially a feel-good measure that will not have a significant impact on crime in the US, and in fact will create another black market ala drugs.

The debate is between those who believe ownership of such weapons is a crime-producing act, and those who believe that criminal acts are the acts of criminals, and that prohibiting ownership of these arms will do more harm than good.

In the interest of full disclosure, I am of the position that the standard citizen has the right to own the same class of weaponry as the civilian police forces of a country, for a variety of reasons, so I am firmly in the camp of opposition to this attempted prohibition.

Where I believe the debate misses the point is the cultural influence. Too often, the debate focuses on magazine capacity, or pistol grips or some such, when the problem is the mis-use of these arms by a minority of the population. When the real problem (IMO) is the tendancy towards violence that is prevalent in the US culture.

This may be demonstrated by the fact that some countries - Scandanavian countries are my usual example - require all or most citizens to own military-grade weapons, yet do not have the rate of problems we have here in the US.

In other words, too often (again, imo) the debate is based on ownership rather than misuse of these kind of arms.

Probably a poor explanation, but it is early here...



posted on Sep, 26 2008 @ 08:45 AM
link   
reply to post by boaby_phet
 


I really do not understand the point of view that law abiding people must give up their firearms due to some law. All this does is remove any chance of the public defending its self if the government wants to go after a police state. If martial law is enforced and a total gun ban has been put into place 12 months before very few of the public will have anything to stand up and say no. Even if this were not the case and the public is stripped of their right to own a firearm. Then the only ones left with them are the police, military and criminals. I do not know about anyone else but if I change my mind set to that of a criminal in the type of environment where I did not have to worry about the public having a firearm then I would have no issue breaking into someone's home if I had a firearm because I know that they have no way to defend it. This type of situation is something that I would never want to happen.

There has been a saying and I forget the exact words but it is along the lines of a armed populous is a polite populous. Meaning if everyone knew everyone else had a firearm then people would not run their mouths like they are billy bad ass thinking the other person wouldn't do anything about it.



posted on Sep, 26 2008 @ 08:49 AM
link   
Ina democracy, or in a representative form of government those who are elected to office face a serious challenge: balancing freedom and order.

In this case you have the freedom of 'owning guns'

balanced against the order imposed by the States in the form of 'protection'

While I fully subscribe to personal freedoms I do not go so far as to assume my right to any given freedom should impose upon another's right to !order int he form of protection from violence, or (2) the other's 'freedom' to live a life unhampered by violence.

So gun owners tell me why you feel there should be NO restrictions on the ability to procure and own firearms? While I do respect your rights ALL rights have limits.

How do those who are so opposed to gun laws think that gun crime should be dealt with in the nation?

How does the system balance your right to bear arms with the need to maintain order?

How does the system protect your right to bear arms with another's right to live a life free from gun violence?



posted on Sep, 26 2008 @ 08:56 AM
link   



posted on Sep, 26 2008 @ 09:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by hildar
Because I hate to say it but state schools have laws in place that DO NOT allow any guns.

Hilda


These are government schools I am talking about. Just google "High School Rifle Team" and you'll come up with a host of results for both public and private schools. Not too long ago these groups were in virtually every school as just another school sport. Before kids ran home to play video games or stole away to get high they would go hunting before and after school.

You say you've lived all over. Do you carry the bubble you live in with you to each area or buy a new one when you get there?



posted on Sep, 26 2008 @ 09:04 AM
link   
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....



posted on Sep, 26 2008 @ 09:14 AM
link   
Hi There,

Retseh:

Then we needed them again in 1812 to repel the British and their second attempt at domination.


I'm sorry my dear fellow, but such a statement cannot be left unchallenged, it warrants not so much argumentation, but clarification.

First and foremost, the British in 1812 were not out on a dominating conquest, certainly not with America. The British were consumed with the Napoleonic war in France and Spain, where most of her forces were concentrated, including her naval forces. The three year war with American forces on land and sea (with American frigates executing quite a successful campaign), was due to American conquest of Canadian territory to annexe and use as a 'bargaining chip' against the British to halt her blockade of American exports to other countries...particularly with France (also, the impressment of American sailors into the British Navy did not go down too well, as one might well imagine). All American expeditions into Canada were repulsed by British forces, Canadian Militia (giving good accounts of themselves), and the Indians. Once the war with France ended, all blockades of American exports were lifted, including an end to the impressment of American sailors. This effectively removed objective causes for war to continue between Britain and the US.
Therefore, the reasonable conclusion to be drawn, is not that Britain was out for conquest of America once again, but was using tactics (aimed more towards the French) that America felt compelled to fight over. America's mistake regarding Canada, can only be considered as being an tactic of inexperience, costing over 2000 American lives to the 1500 lives of the British.

Back on topic...

Best wishes

[edit on 26/9/08 by elysiumfire]



posted on Sep, 26 2008 @ 09:23 AM
link   
reply to post by ZindoDoone
 



You are incorrect. Military weapons are purpose built weapons designed to fire under many different environmental conditions, but that doesn't mean in anyway that they are superior in accuracy or lethality. WW2 exploded the myth of the need for accurate infantry fire. Volume of fire proved to be far more effective as mobile warfare did away with the trenches placed combatants at ranges of 300m or less. That being said, assault weapons would give neither the homeowner or the hunter any advantage over commercially available weapons on the market. A 12Gauge shotgun will make an intruder crap just as much as a M4, if not more, and will reduce the chance of injury to a non-combatant. Any 30/06 hunting rifle on the market will drop a deer just as easily as the famed AK47. In addition it will do it at longer range. However, if you need a 30 round clip to defend your home or take game, then you are either involved in no good or you are a horrible shot.



posted on Sep, 26 2008 @ 09:29 AM
link   
Hell yeah . Yet ANOTHER reason to vote for OBAMA. Damn right wing terrorists don't need anymore automatic weapons.



posted on Sep, 26 2008 @ 09:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by ORIPEIAif you need a 30 round clip to defend your home or take game, then you are either involved in no good or you are a horrible shot.



It's been covered that only a complete imbecile would use a high-cap mag for home-d.

But why do I have to be "up to no good" if I have them? I can't participate in three-gun combat events? I can't participate in center-fire tactical sports? I can't just let loose on the range on on my own property because it's fun? I can't just plink at 30 cans on the fence without having to stop and load another 5 rounder 6 damn times?

I think anyone assuming because anyone else has a "thing" is "up to no good" is a paranoid delusional.



posted on Sep, 26 2008 @ 09:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by thisguyrighthere
reply to post by maybereal11
 


Clintons little experiment made owning what they have always owned illegal overnight. It was a conscious decision on their parts to refuse to submit to new registration and restriction just to keep a thing in their cabinet that had always been there. Bringing them out at ranges and being loudmouths led to their eventual arrest and conviction.


CONFUSED. According to Wikipedia the Assualt Weapons Ban had a grandfather clause that allowed people that already owned these weapons to keep them. Were these weapons purchased legally and registered?

en.wikipedia.org...
During the Federal Assault Weapons Ban, certain firearms made prior to the ban's enactment were legal to own. Automatic weapons that were manufactured before the Firearm Owners Protection Act may legally be sold to civilians.



posted on Sep, 26 2008 @ 09:57 AM
link   
Some times its best to check facts. Just a paragraph from Obama website doesnt matter. The NRA has circulated rumors around. You still get your every day guns.

Here is the truth.

The truth about guns and Obama




A National Rifle Association advertising campaign distorts Obama's position on gun control beyond recognition. The NRA is circulating printed material and running TV ads making unsubstantiated claims that Obama plans to ban use of firearms for home defense, ban possession and manufacture of handguns, close 90 percent of gun shops and ban hunting ammunition. Much of what the NRA passes off as Obama's "10 Point Plan to 'Change' the Second Amendment" is actually contrary to what he has said throughout his campaign: that he "respects the constitutional rights of Americans to bear arms" and "will protect the rights of hunters and other law-abiding Americans to purchase, own, transport, and use guns." The NRA, however, simply dismisses Obama's stated position as "rhetoric" and substitutes its own interpretation of his record as a secret "plan." Said an NRA spokesman: "We believe our facts." Perhaps so, but believing something doesn't make it so. And we find the NRA has cherry-picked, twisted and misrepresented Obama's record to come up with a bogus "plan."


[edit on 26-9-2008 by bknapple32]



posted on Sep, 26 2008 @ 10:00 AM
link   
reply to post by maybereal11
 


They were all purchased legally. Some not registered because they were private sales. In CT it is still not law to register long-guns purchased through private sales. There was a period of "amnesty" in the state where you were told to register or re-register all "assault rifles" under the new federal law or surrender them to law enforcement. They did neither and were pretty vocal about it. A form of protest I suppose.

Each state may have handled the magic transition from lawful to illegal differently. I'm not sure about that.



posted on Sep, 26 2008 @ 10:08 AM
link   
reply to post by bknapple32
 


A paragraph stating that Obama and Biden will reinstate and major permanent the AWB doesn't matter because the NRA may be circulating lies? How do you come to that conclusion? Even if the NRA are lying there really isn't any more proof needed than a statement in the party platform saying Obama and Biden will seek to reinstate and make permanent the AWB. Besides, the NRA are part of the reason we're all in this mess to begin with. Their passive stance over the years and willing compliance with every idiotic regulation and ban is an afront to liberty.

Woo-hoo, I get to keep my "everyday guns." What is my "everyday gun?" Is it the AR I shoot on the weekends? Is it the AK for fun and games? Is it the HK 94 for tac matches? I supopse we should all be perfectly happy to give all that up for some more reality TV and beer or something?



new topics

top topics



 
14
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join