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.

 

Obama to Seek New Assault Weapons Ban

page: 16
41
<< 13  14  15    17  18  19 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 27 2009 @ 12:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by AnonymousMoose
reply to post by RE2505
 


"assault weapons" can be used in hunting, an AR-15 can be used for varmint hunting, or in another caliber [7.62x39, 6.8 SPC, 6.5 Grendel, .50 beowulf, etc.] can be used for any large game hunting...banning them will not lower crime...when was the last time you saw a gangster using an expensive rifle? Most likely they stole some cheap gun off the streets. The previous AW ban did little to nothing to stop crime



You are absolutely correct, as most firearms used in crimes are what we call "Saturday Night Specials". These are often Second hand Firearms, and typically Semi-Automatics of Smaller Calibers (With Some Exceptions).

Having been Born and Raised, in and around one of the Murder Capitals of America (Washington, D.C.), I can attest to the fact that Murders and Shootings committed by Assault Weapons are few and far in occurrence. Most often the Homicides which take place result from Handguns and Shotguns. Whenever an Assault Weapon IS used in a Drive-by, or Murder, it makes Headline/Front Page News in the Local Press. For anyone that knows how "Regular" in occurrence Violence is typically treated within Major City News Groups, this is a testament to the Shocking Rarity of Assault Weapons crimes.

As for the Hunting Value of Assault Weapons, I know of PLENTY of Inuit in Alaska who use AR-15s and M-16s as their Primary Choice for Such Purposes (As Well as Self-Defense Against Wildlife).

On another note, I feel that people all too often believe in the misnomer that an Assault Weapon construes a Fully Automatic Machine Gun. This could NOT be further from the truth, as they are in No Shape or Form the same thing. As a matter of fact, what makes a Legally Obtained Assault Weapon ANY different from a Semi-Automatic Bush Carbine or Hunting Rifle? NOTHING. The only difference is Round Capacity, and in some regards Weight. So with that in mind, if you wish to Ban Assault Rifles, then your Logic would dictate that you also ban Semi-Automatic Hunting Rifles as well.

Also, you Assault Weapons Ban Proponents forget one VERY Crucial Aspect of our 2nd Amendment. This Right was granted to us so as to allow for the American Citizenry to keep its own Government in Check. This is the basic Fundamental idea behind this Amendment, as it is the ONE Amendment which Guarantees and Secures ALL OTHER RIGHTS. If Assault Weapons are banned however, while LEO's and other Organizations are still allowed to Not only Own such items, but also Progress towards Fully-Automatic Firearms, then where in such a situation does the Balance and Check in Control then lie?




posted on Feb, 27 2009 @ 12:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by RE2505

Hey, I didn't choose to ban firearms over here. I had no choice but I am thankful for it. I'm just asking why you feel you need these weapons? Just trying to understand.

[edit on 26-2-2009 by RE2505]


We have a powerful government that is not known for its kindness to those that it has the ability to suppress. They torture suspects, they wiretap civilians, they overthrow elected governments to install puppet regimes, and they block free speech at every turn. Imagine, if only they could, how widespread they would make these infractions?

Several hundred years ago, one of the smartest men who ever lived in this country put it far more eloquently than I:

"Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect every one who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined.... O sir, we should have fine times, indeed, if to punish tyrants, it were only sufficient to assemble the people!"

- Patrick Henry



posted on Feb, 27 2009 @ 01:00 AM
link   
So I guess they want to ban semi-autos so we can't fight back against tanks, rockets and nukes when we are fighting against the new NAZI regime? I fail to see how semi-autos could stand a chance against modern militaries ,so why the ban? How many people have been killed by semi-autos in the last 5 years?

Pretty stupid government we have here folks, they don't trust the voters, they don't trust the people. Which of course means they will eventually attack those they do not trust, hence the reason why the 2nd amendment was made, so as to prevent an endless cycle of violence and revolution, iF REVOLUTION MIGHT BE NEEDED THEN you would think that means that the guns would be needed, what are they planning to do that semi-autos will be needed to resist what they have planned, why would they want to sow distrust with the people.

Wouldn't banning these guns mean that Americans are in danger of being rounded up and imprisioned for not being devout government cult members? Government supremecy attacks again, pretty soon the government supremecists will attack speech that contradicts their opinions, the guns of course actually prevent such attempts.



posted on Feb, 27 2009 @ 01:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by Toolbox
My god some people truly scare me...

I've been skimming through these past 13 some pages and all I read is: you can't take my guns!, if I want an assault rifle I'll buy one, you can take my guns from my cold dead body... sheesh

It kind of makes me wonder. Has the United States become a criminal-infested hole? Do you need to sit on your porch every night with a loaded shotgun, to keep the villains out? Do people try to kill you family on a day to day basis or something?

'Oh but what if Afghanistan or Iraq decides to invade us?' Isn't that kind of what an army is for? When somebody actually succeeds at invading the US, don't you think you should let the army handle things. You know, they're trained for it and all...

And the whole martial law thing. Let's say it happens, do you really think you can hold back a team of trained police/army/whatever dudes?

Oh and don't give me that 'it's my constitutional right' crap. When was the constitution written? Last time I checked we kind of made a little progress since then. Things change, deal with it.

However, the whole 'it's for the sake of Mexico' thing is a pretty stupid excuse. Obama should just say it as it is. Why oh why do you need assault rifles? To take out military personnel, SWAT teams, roaming bands of superpower comic book heroes?

Some of you sound like you're mankinds last hope when the apocalyps hits


Your totally right the constitution was wrote along time ago, but history repeats itself democracy was established 1000s of years ago yet it vanished for a long long time why? I will say it again the 2nd amendment was made to keep government at bay not other citizens, and yes if sh@# gets crazy armed citizens could hold back are own government, you think if they dropped bombs on their own people that would fly come on.



posted on Feb, 27 2009 @ 01:24 AM
link   
HEHE Americans are silly and crazy. Well why dont you all just have another cival war shoot each other and get it over and done with!!!



posted on Feb, 27 2009 @ 01:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by Toolbox
And the whole martial law thing. Let's say it happens, do you really think you can hold back a team of trained police/army/whatever dudes?

Oh and don't give me that 'it's my constitutional right' crap. When was the constitution written? Last time I checked we kind of made a little progress since then. Things change, deal with it.



Nothing from that post, except for the quoted parts I've left in, was even a remotely intelligent or rational thing to say. So I'll only address those two points.

1. There are an estimated 80 million gun owners in America. Yes, I think 80 million civilians armed with semi-automatic weapons can hold off a team of 2 million trained "police/army/whatever dudes." Yes, with those kinds of numbers, I think that we could do the same with revolvers and break-action shotguns eventually... but our casualties would be astronomically higher and our odds significantly worse.

2. You're right. The Constitution was written a long time ago, and things have changed. Now be quiet, because while living up to half of your name, you've just successfully argued that you no longer have Freedom of Speech.



posted on Feb, 27 2009 @ 01:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by Clairaudience
Be the first one to put your gun in the trash can, and maybe others will do the same, deliver a message of peace and not of fear.


In this world, the moment you do that... somebody steals that gun out of the trash can and robs you with it.

In fact, it almost literally works that way. Most people only commit crimes with guns they've obtained illegally, except in "crimes of passion" (where a baseball bat is just as good, if that's what's at hand) and in cases where the person just doesn't care if they get caught (In which case, a gun ban will only delay them a short time until they find a black market gun.)

If the good and peaceful people are the first to put down their guns, it won't invite the bad guys to join 'round and sing Kumbaya. It will empower them to go on murdering sprees and take over the country. The police can only be in so many places at once, and half the time they're too busy shooting black kids in the back to help us anyways.



posted on Feb, 27 2009 @ 02:17 AM
link   
reply to post by TV_Nation
 


America, when are you going to get it? These guns are designed with one purpose- to maim and kill as many people as possible in the shortest time. Your country has one of the highest rates of gun violence yet you still hang on to this out-dated notion that you have a right to own any weapon you wish. Do you realise that this law was made when you were fighting for independence and your country was mostly lawless and in many areas hostile?



posted on Feb, 27 2009 @ 02:27 AM
link   
As for worrying about the so-called criminals still having access to these weapons, did u know most violence occurs within the home by someone we know



posted on Feb, 27 2009 @ 02:40 AM
link   
most of the violence is done by people we know, not so-called gangsters.



posted on Feb, 27 2009 @ 03:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by GenRadek
Lets see how great it is in England with their gun ban:

400 victims of knife crime per week

You have a better chance of getting stabbed or robbed at knife point then getting hit by a car in London. How lovely! Wouldn't it be great if you could pull a 5.7 or a .45 right in their face and say, no no no?

yeesh! When will the Obamacons and Dumb-ocrats learn that these "gun bans" don't do diddly squat nowadays to crime. England's ban is a huge failure.


Stop waving that crap in my face. You are missing the blatant fact that if your country outlawed all guns you would take the title of highest knife/violent crime in a heartbeat! I said it before and I'll say it again I would rather take my chances against some gang member who thinks he is the best thing since tupac with a knife or baseball bat than some guy with a gun.



posted on Feb, 27 2009 @ 03:54 AM
link   
reply to post by mattifikation
 


Yes, by saying I am against the distribution of assault rifles, I am completely against Freedom of Speech. Who is not making any sense now?

I do believe in Freedom of Speech, I'm a journalist. I do feel you need to stand up and defend your rights. But I think we've gotten past the point of 'my gun is bigger than yours, so now you should listen to me'

All I know is this, I don't have any friends or relatives that own guns. Not because I chose them that way mind you
I live near three very large cities that have been dealing with integration problems and minorities for a long time. There's plenty of problems, but I doubt you van solve them using guns. What am I going to do, every time I feel threathened, just pull out a gun?

[edit on 27-2-2009 by Toolbox]



posted on Feb, 27 2009 @ 03:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by RE2505

Originally posted by GenRadek
Lets see how great it is in England with their gun ban:

400 victims of knife crime per week

You have a better chance of getting stabbed or robbed at knife point then getting hit by a car in London. How lovely! Wouldn't it be great if you could pull a 5.7 or a .45 right in their face and say, no no no?

yeesh! When will the Obamacons and Dumb-ocrats learn that these "gun bans" don't do diddly squat nowadays to crime. England's ban is a huge failure.


Stop waving that crap in my face. You are missing the blatant fact that if your country outlawed all guns you would take the title of highest knife/violent crime in a heartbeat! I said it before and I'll say it again I would rather take my chances against some gang member who thinks he is the best thing since tupac with a knife or baseball bat than some guy with a gun.


All the more reason you should carry too.

Just saying.



posted on Feb, 27 2009 @ 04:35 AM
link   
reply to post by Toolbox
 


You quite clearly referred to Constitutional rights as "crap," pointed out that it was old (apparently too old to be relevant,) and then stated that "Things change."

If those arguments nullify the Second Amendment, they nullify them all. Quit backpedaling. It's annoying. I'm sure next you'll say I took your words out of context, which is just more backpedaling because your words were pretty darn clear. "Don't give me that Constitutional rights crap" - That line, right there, shows that you don't believe that the Constitution is a valid method of determining our rights. So just skip the backpedaling.

With you being a journalist, I find it odd that you'd speak with such disgust about the document to which you owe not only your freedom, but also your own freaking job.



posted on Feb, 27 2009 @ 05:12 AM
link   
reply to post by mattifikation
 


With 'Quit giving me that constitutional rights crap' I was simply referring to the argument a lot of people tend to use/abuse.

Whenever you bring up a gun discussion, the first thing you'll hear is 'it's our constitutional right to have weapons'.

I'm only referring to the argument, not to the document itself. If this sounds like backpaddling to you, than feel free to call it that.

But why indeed would a journalist be against freedom of speech, as stated in the constitution? I just don't get what freedom of speech has to do with guns?

*edit* And the being old thing. It's not because the document is old that it has become irrelevant. My country's constitution was based on a document Napoleon wrote. While large portions of it have remained unchanged, SOME things do become irrelevant over time and may need to be adapted to modern times. There's a big difference between rewriting and adapting.

[edit on 27-2-2009 by Toolbox]



posted on Feb, 27 2009 @ 05:21 AM
link   
reply to post by Toolbox
 


In modern times there are more threats to American sovereignty and individual rights than ever before. You're either for the whole bill of rights or none of it. Because if you're against it in part you set precedent for argument of what an inalienable right means, when it is self-evident.

And inalienable right cannot be so if it is subject to abolition on political whim. The constitution doesn't take sides.



posted on Feb, 27 2009 @ 05:28 AM
link   
reply to post by projectvxn
 


That's a valid point. But don't you think even documents as sacred as the constitution/bill of rights, should be open for discussion? That doesn't mean you need to rewrite it.

I believe that in a democracy the people you elected to speak for you, should be able to at least talk about topics like these. Sometimes progress needs drastic measures. Just look at what happened when the Renaissance changed history forever.

But we're getting a bit sidetracked. I still don't understand the connection between freedom of speech and the right to buy assault weapons.



posted on Feb, 27 2009 @ 05:41 AM
link   
reply to post by TV_Nation
 


I hate all guns, especially in the hands of somebody like my
neighbour accross the road.

But....

What possible reason could you have for the average joe to own a
Assault Rifle. They were designed for one thing only, the word "Assault"
should be clue.



posted on Feb, 27 2009 @ 06:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by ACEMANN
Here we go again - and this time, it is for the greater good of MEXICO !!! I'm so proud of my country for restricting my rights for the sake of foreign nations...



And Holder is full of crap. Guns are not flowing into Mexico from the US. Drugs on the other hand are flowing the other way and they haven't been able to stop that for decades. If fact they cant stop anything anyway.

But yes for Mexico sake a constitutional amendment is going to be attacked.

There is NO pressing reason to consider a new weapons ban.



posted on Feb, 27 2009 @ 06:09 AM
link   
reply to post by Toolbox
 


No I don't believe it should be subject to political whims of any kind. No one has the right to infringe on another's rights. The only time the Bill of Rights should be amended is to grant freedom not remove it. I would never want the means by which one should defend themselves from tyranny or invasion to be relegated to restrictive legislation. You have the right to protect yourself by any means you deem fit. And that is an inalienable right. The second amendment is the means by which we retain the tools needed to do so. And shall not be infringed.

[edit on 27-2-2009 by projectvxn]



new topics

top topics



 
41
<< 13  14  15    17  18  19 >>

log in

join