Jail plan for owning crossbows, flamethrowers, page 3
Pages: <<  1    2    3    4    5  >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 7 times


reply posted on 5-7-2009 @ 08:42 AM by randyvs
reply to post by tezzajw
i think they probly fear the silence of my Quant 400. i mean a crossbow!


[edit on 5-7-2009 by randyvs]


reply posted on 5-7-2009 @ 08:46 AM by thisguyrighthere
Wow, they didnt even stage some nut shooting up a preschool with a crossbow or flamethrower before pushing this? I guess it would be hard to explain why a room full of people just sat there and took it while some guy loaded a bolt and cranked down just to get off one shot.

You dont even need a fear catalyst anymore to ban things? It's not worth taking the time to play up paranoia and market to the imbeciles this idiotic notion that a thing on a shelf is threatening their very lives? Has t gotten to this point because the vast majority of people have been successfully born as imbeciles or because the government doesnt care to ask the people anymore when they consolidate more power and control? Whichever the case may be this is frightening and sad. Inciting a sort of tear-filled fit of vomiting.

How many others have this same outlook at "Last Man" there? Frankly, just knowing there is one person with that perspective makes me pretty darn sick. People are welcome to their opinions I suppose but when they are based on either ignorance or an absolute denial of reality someone should step in and at least ask "are you sure?" before casting them aside as hopeless.

Really, when an individual is being attacked/assaulted (illegal) a ban on a thing will prevent the attacker/assaulter (remember, illegal) from using a banned (illegal) thing? I really dont understand this. Lets just say I's assaulting/attacking type. I'm watching folks pass, maybe stalking a few, working on building some good hate, I'm dead set on an attack. I would just love to use a crossbow for some reason but darn it they're illegal. Shucks. Being such a stickler for the law lord knows I'd never seek to acquire something that is illegal for my assaulting. Is this getting ridiculous yet? Do I need to keep going?

The only people any laws ever effect are the law abiding. That's an inescapable fact. To pass a law or ban in effort to stem or erase illegal activity is the epitome of legislative ignorance. But then, it's not like you even have some "crossbow" crime issue in the first place. That's what really gets me. It's a non-solution to a non-existent problem. And you support it? You must have graduated Newspeak U or Ingsoc Tech or something like that?


reply posted on 5-7-2009 @ 09:13 AM by John Matrix
Originally posted by stinkweed23
reply to post by The Last Man on Earth


Catapults fired rocks, and were made from sticks. Seems sticks and rocks can in fact be verry devastating weapons on the battlefield.


Unfortunately, in this day and age, Apaches and Tomahawks have nothing to do with the cowboy and indian battles of the wild west. Your troops with their catapults would be devastated before you could say "fire at will".


reply posted on 5-7-2009 @ 09:39 AM by atlasastro
Originally posted by tezzajw



I worry every time when new laws want to strip the population of weapons. To me, the only defense against complete government dictatorship and control is an armed civillian population.

As if Australia doesn't already have tight gun laws in place, now crossbows are equally as bad?



Ownership is about 15 out of 100 people in OZ, in the states it is about 90 out of 100.
We arn't stopping anyone Terrajw.www.abc.net.au...


We have tight gun controls, and surprisingly we have alot less deaths to civilians, and cops, from guns. Funny how that works out isn't it.

BTW-when do you think the Govt. Dictatorship will kick in?

If you need a hand proof reading a draft opposing this legislation, just let me know.
Members of the public are invited to comment on the draft Weapons Prohibition Amendment Regulation 2009 before it is introduced to parliament.

"It won't be enacted until after September," Mr Kelly said.

Of the 459 people who have a legitimate use for military-style weapons, most are collectors.
Many of the weapons are kept at RSL clubs.
From the OP's article.

I am not to worried about this legislation. Kelly is trying to crack down on the NSW Bikie War, they found assault weapons in raids and the current legislation does not have provisions to deal with these weapons.

Who revolts against a Dictatorship with crossbows anyway. IED are all the rage I hear.

[edit on 5-7-2009 by atlasastro]


reply posted on 5-7-2009 @ 10:44 AM by Grayelf2009
reply to post by tezzajw


The way things are going over here in the US , it won't be long before they try that here. Seems the PTB are getting worried and want us disarmed.
You in Austrilla have that Pine Gap base to worry about. That is a bad place....may need more that crossbows....fire works real good.


reply posted on 5-7-2009 @ 11:03 AM by skeetontheconspiracy
Reply to post by tezzajw


"I worry every time when new laws want to strip the population of weapons. To me, the only defense against complete government dictatorship and control is an armed civillian population."

Yes I agree, which is why I got my RPG, and my guns, and my teflon coated hollow points. Only way they can take my guns away and stick me in a pen b/c of them is with me in a body bag


Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com



reply posted on 5-7-2009 @ 12:18 PM by orangetom1999
reply to post by The Last Man on Earth



I have a university education and no television. Make of that what you will.


Surely you jest here The Last Man on Earth??!!

While this is largely true, it would be a bit more sensible to at least disarm the people who wish to do the killing,


You have some serious problems here in your thinking and education levels. The above quote defines government ...not most peoples.
Governments are the major institution in most nations doing the killing. What on earth are you possibly thinking?? Also here in the states among those of us who can think...we know that a public education is a television education majoring in fears and insecurities... not in history.

Of course. I imagine in the Middle Ages more people were killed by horses than crossbows.


Check your grasp of history again..closely. Most people in the middle ages could not afford horses. Most horses were owned by Royalty and the Feudal classes...ie the warring classes.....ie..government. IF the ordinary citizen had an animal it was some kind of cow or oxen...for doing work...if they could even afford that. Most ordinary peoples going to war...went to war afoot.
Most people died of old age..very young ...in or about their thirties or forties...and of diseases and childbirth...even injuries in labors et al.

I suspect I have a slightly better grasp of history than you do, judging from this segment of your post. Spears, bows, axes and knives are all prehistoric, and swords have been around since the Bronze Age.


Better think this through again in lieu of the concept that most of these tools were used for hunting and not war. Also the average human did not use them daily. The struggle for daily life was such that they were used in building homes, gathering firewood..et al...not for war or killing. It was governments which engaged in war and killing... even so today's. And they want to disarm us..the people. Very insecure of them.

Originally posted by orangetom 1999 You do understand that the obvious logical and reasonable solution to this dilemma is to get rid of people...yes??

I don't believe the eradication of people is logical or reasonable.


Think through your university education once again. Obviously someone thinks it a good idea and that it is logical and reasonable.
Try the French Revolution...where about 1 in 5 Frenchmen was killed at the behest of government. The French Revolution is the template for the Internationale..which became the Communist Revolution.

Notice how logical and reasonable all the killing was after the October Revolution in Russia..the Civil war ..the Reds against the Whites and Greens. The later executions of millions. This same pattern repeated in China after WW2. Millions killed by government behest.
How about the killing fields of Cambodia??? Remember that history??
Government at work against its own citizens. How about in Central and South America and the killings of hundreds of thousands over the years..by government backed operations.

As a matter of fact...The Last Man on Earth...in more recent times...since the French Revolution..times of enlightenment...the war against ordinary people has harvested huge numbers of people killed maimed and wounded. Many many more than in previous centuries. And this in times of Enlightenment...times of..logic and reason.

I was also not advocating for the legalisation of crossbows, just arguing that they are still very dangerous weapons.


I am advocating to you and the others who might read this board that governments are dangerous weapons if not kept in check and their powers extremely limited. History bears this out ...clearly. Especially since enlightened times. Be very careful what passes for Enlightenment and Education.

I consider myself alot more moral and enliightened than much of what passes for Government reasoning...their track record and histories. Especially under the guise of a phoney two party system.

Remember who writes and or authorizes the writing of history books. Governments who win the wars.

Thanks
Orangetom








[edit on 5-7-2009 by orangetom1999]


reply posted on 5-7-2009 @ 03:13 PM by The Last Man on Earth
Wow, just wow. Some people will read anything out of context, and even change what I'd written in their quotes to make a redundant point. Let's begin.

Originally posted by Lazyninja
False. Bows and crossbows are hunting weapons. They haven't been weapons for war for a couple of centuries.


No, the crossbow was not designed as a hunting weapon, it was designed for warfare.

If you read this article, you'll notice the crossbow was a scaled-down version of a ballista. It was not designed for hunting, no matter what the modern usage is.

I did not say one could not use it for hunting, I just pointed out that it was originally designed to kill people. Try not to mix up what I've said, but you aren't the only one, so lets continue.

Originally posted by orangetom1999
Surely you jest here The Last Man on Earth??!!


I have no intention of insulting you, in the way you are trying to insult me. Since you literally know nothing about me other than I don't watch TV and I went to university, I'd stop trying to act the big man and just try reading what I write.

Originally posted by orangetom1999
You have some serious problems here in your thinking and education levels.


No, you need to try dropping your unwarranted superiority complex.

Originally posted by orangetom1999The above quote defines government ...not most peoples.


It does? Because I was replying to fixer1967 when he/she said:

Originally posted by fixer1967
SO is a rock and stick. They were the very first weapons man used. So are you for them banning rocks and sticks as well. ANYTHING and I do mean ANYTHING can be used as a weapon in some form or manner.


I don't think they were referring to governments using rocks and sticks to kill people. I think you'll find they were referring to lone nuts who go around shooting up schools and the like.

Originally posted by orangetom1999Governments are the major institution in most nations doing the killing. What on earth are you possibly thinking??


I was in no way contesting this as governments were not the subject of the conversation. You have taken the wrong end of the stick and run quite far in the wrong direction.

Originally posted by orangetom1999Also here in the states among those of us who can think...we know that a public education is a television education majoring in fears and insecurities... not in history.


Another petty attempt at belittling me, because you can't talk to other people like an adult, clearly. I am not a television watcher, as I have stated in this very thread.

Originally posted by orangetom1999
Of course. I imagine in the Middle Ages more people were killed by horses than crossbows.


Check your grasp of history again..closely. Most people in the middle ages could not afford horses. Most horses were owned by Royalty and the Feudal classes...ie the warring classes.....ie..government. IF the ordinary citizen had an animal it was some kind of cow or oxen...for doing work...if they could even afford that. Most ordinary peoples going to war...went to war afoot.
Most people died of old age..very young ...in or about their thirties or forties...and of diseases and childbirth...even injuries in labors et al.


Once again you leap and vault to a point I was not making nor contesting. I did not suggest that every other death was crossbow-related nor horse-related, I was merely saying that I find it probable that there were more horse-related deaths than crossbow-related deaths.

This does not mean that I think ever peasant had a full stable's worth of horses, nor do I think everyone had a crossbow. You have just made a wrong assumption and ran with it, again.

Originally posted by orangetom1999
I suspect I have a slightly better grasp of history than you do, judging from this segment of your post. Spears, bows, axes and knives are all prehistoric, and swords have been around since the Bronze Age.


Better think this through again in lieu of the concept that most of these tools were used for hunting and not war. Also the average human did not use them daily. The struggle for daily life was such that they were used in building homes, gathering firewood..et al...not for war or killing. It was governments which engaged in war and killing... even so today's. And they want to disarm us..the people. Very insecure of them.


And again, you make an incorrect assumption. I did not specify what I thought these weapons were used for, who had them or how many people died because of them, I simply said they had been around for more than "a few hundred years".

Stop reading implications that simply aren't there.

Originally posted by orangetom1999
You do understand that the obvious logical and reasonable solution to this dilemma is to get rid of people...yes??

I don't believe the eradication of people is logical or reasonable.


Think through your university education once again. Obviously someone thinks it a good idea and that it is logical and reasonable.
Try the French Revolution...where about 1 in 5 Frenchmen was killed at the behest of government. The French Revolution is the template for the Internationale..which became the Communist Revolution.

Notice how logical and reasonable all the killing was after the October Revolution in Russia..the Civil war ..the Reds against the Whites and Greens. The later executions of millions. This same pattern repeated in China after WW2. Millions killed by government behest.
How about the killing fields of Cambodia??? Remember that history??
Government at work against its own citizens. How about in Central and South America and the killings of hundreds of thousands over the years..by government backed operations.


I did not say that there are not cruel men in positions of power who will commit such atrocities, I just said that I don't believe the eradication of people is logical or reasonable.

What you have done, once again, is leap to phenomenal conclusions about the wrong thing. Oh, and had another crack at belittling me. That's number three, now, in a single post.

Originally posted by orangetom1999

I was also not advocating for the legalisationof crossbows, just arguing that they are still very dangerous weapons.


Brilliant. You have actually quoted me and altered the above italicised word from what I actually wrote, which was:

Originally posted by The Last Man on EarthI was also not advocating for the illegalisation of crossbows, just arguing that they are still very dangerous weapons.


I find that you'd do this quite incredible, and I have no idea why you think it would strengthen your arguments to do so. The rest of your post is therefore waffle that is not really relevant to what I'd said, especially as I have now said twice that:

Originally posted by The Last Man on Earth
Either way, I don't necessarily agree with banning them, I was just pointing out that crossbows are indeed that dangerous.


As an avid history buff, I personally would like one day to own a crossbow. Hence banning them would be a terrible blow to that desire.

Originally posted by thisguyrighthere
How many others have this same outlook at "Last Man" there? Frankly, just knowing there is one person with that perspective makes me pretty darn sick.


Perhaps I should avoid using recursion in my sentences? Perhaps I should write as if trying to talk to preschoolers, because I did not once claim crossbows should be banned. Perhaps everyone here should try and get off their freaking high-horses and just READ THE #ING POST.


[edit on 5-7-2009 by The Last Man on Earth]



reply posted on 5-7-2009 @ 03:23 PM by The Last Man on Earth
reply to post by zorgon


Those things look like they could take down an elephant!

I was considering the cost of purchasing a full suit of gothic plate today, it runs in about £700 from one site. I think it's a very reasonable cost, and it is just so beautiful!


reply posted on 5-7-2009 @ 05:35 PM by tezzajw
Originally posted by atlasastro
Ownership is about 15 out of 100 people in OZ, in the states it is about 90 out of 100.
We arn't stopping anyone

Yes, atlasastro, you're stopping 15 out of 100 people from peacefully owning their crossbows. What gives you the right to want to infringe on those people owning them, peacefully?

Your 'moral majority' viewpoint is a pathetic attempt to take away rights from people who want to enjoy their life and leisure their way. Fifteeen percent of the population is not an insignificant number.

Originally posted by atlasastro
Terrajw

Spell my username properly, atlasastro. Your personal vendetta and crusade against me won't work in this thread. The Moderators are watching, indeed some Super Moderators and Administrators are watching. I know that. You know that. ATS has strict decorum rules in place to stop the personal attacks and name calling.

Originally posted by atlasastro
We have tight gun controls, and surprisingly we have alot less deaths to civilians, and cops, from guns. Funny how that works out isn't it.
BTW-when do you think the Govt. Dictatorship will kick in?

Government dictatorship has already kicked in. Pump action and Semi-Auto shot firearms were banned a long time ago. Now, a basic weapon like a crossbow is soon to be banned this September. The government is already taking control. I can't help it if you can't see it.

Originally posted by atlasastro
I am not to worried about this legislation. Kelly is trying to crack down on the NSW Bikie War, they found assault weapons in raids and the current legislation does not have provisions to deal with these weapons.

Ahuh. You're worried about bikies with crossbows, so you want to deny 15 out of 100 people the right to own one?

Hypocritical.

Originally posted by atlasastro
Who revolts against a Dictatorship with crossbows anyway.

Is this an admission from you that crossbows are not a threat? If they're not a threat, then why ban them?
Pages: <<  1    2    3    4    5  >>    ^^TOP^^



Russian scientists reach buried Antarctic Lake Vostok
  Posted 5 days ago with 83 member flags
Monsanto quits as GM results announced (EUROPE)
  Posted 7 days ago with 72 member flags
Strange noises reported around North Battleford
  Posted 18 days ago with 67 member flags
Ayatollah: Kill all Jews, annihilate Israel
  Posted 6 days ago with 49 member flags