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.

 

Ban handguns? Supreme Court taking a new look

page: 4
14
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 1 2009 @ 01:25 PM
link   
the only way thier getting my hand guns is from my dead hand and thats after I empty my clips into the person trying to take it from me, I got a few stashed out of my house if I need them I just have to dig I buried them in a small safe and wraped the safe with a tarp and is close to my house I have 3 hand guns and lots of ammo, but wish I had more ammo I am sure I will need it unless I die while they take my weapons.




posted on Oct, 1 2009 @ 01:38 PM
link   
Handguns don't need to be banned.

Assault rifles? Now that's another story.



posted on Oct, 1 2009 @ 01:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by zombiegerm
to me it would would make more sense to take the ammo...


They're already working on that here in the USA. Presently, there's a program to custom-code every single bullet being manufactured for sale. Right there on the butt of each bullet is a complex code repeated several times — the bullets are coded in sequence, and the code range is printed on the box, so when you buy a box of 50 rounds, for example, your name is recorded in association with that code range.

Bullet Coding Technology Already Exists, Is In Legislation Right Now

So, when you cap somebody in the ass, they extract the bullet, read the code, and your name pops up on the computer.

Anybody with half a brain can see how dangerous this bullet-coding program is. What happens when your gun and a magazine full of your bullets are stolen? You report the gun and the ammo code range as stolen, right? Then you sit back to wait and see if one of your coded bullets turns up in somebody's brain on the other side of town.

Doesn't matter if you're innocent or not, your name comes up on the computer screen, and YOU are still considered a suspect until they apprehend the real killer, hopefully with some of your coded bullets still in his possession.

If they don't find the rest of your stolen ammo, and they don't apprehend the real killer, then they're going to suspect you of faking your own ammo theft so that you could go murder somebody.

Quite a sticky situation, don't you think? Too sticky to be safe or just.

Better that individual citizens start learning how to manufacture and reload their own bullets, and buy as much reloading equipment and supplies as you can RIGHT NOW.

Word to the wise.

— Doc Velocity



posted on Oct, 1 2009 @ 01:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by VAPatriot
What the hell does that have to do with the subject of this tread.


I was replying to another post in this thread. Apparently, some people consider illegal drug users as "harmless"... I was offering a contrary opinion.

— Doc Velocity



posted on Oct, 1 2009 @ 02:15 PM
link   
reply to post by Miraj
 


not really. to be part of the union they must accept the bill of rights. states can't make laws or state bill of rights that contradict the original bill of rights, as that violates their commitment to a united republic. state's rights are those not delegated by the consitution. at least that's my understanding of how it works.



posted on Oct, 1 2009 @ 03:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by GorehoundLarry
Handguns don't need to be banned.

Assault rifles? Now that's another story.


How many people are killed with rifles as opposed to handguns? Of those, how many were because of so called assault rifles?


An "assault rifle" is a term used to scare you. Apparently it worked in your case. An "assault rifle", like the kind they are trying to ban, is nothing more than a semi auto rifle. It is no more lethal than any other semi auto rifle out there, like many hunting rifles. (Of which, many are of a larger, more powerful caliber than most assault rifles)

It is NOT a fully automatic MACHINE GUN like the media likes to portray them.

I get REALLY mad when they talk about it on the news, or some other show, and show people shooting full automatic weapons while they discuss the dangers of "assault rifles". Machine guns are, and have been, heavily regulated and have nothing to do with the various assault weapon regulations.

Besides, isn't any weapon an assault weapon. If I attack you with a rock filled rubber chicken, was it not an assault because it was a rubber chicken?



posted on Oct, 1 2009 @ 03:22 PM
link   
I must admit I both smile and cringe at this, because there is always the chance that the SCOTUS will side with the stupidity of the states on this one, however it would be positively lovely if they would actually back the damn paperwork they are supposed to instead. It was a step in the right direction when DC got semi-sorted out, now perhaps in a single deft stroke all this backwards and unconstitutional legislation can be reversed.



posted on Oct, 1 2009 @ 04:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by GorehoundLarry
Handguns don't need to be banned.

Assault rifles? Now that's another story.


Why do 'assault rifles' need to be banned before handguns? Statistically, handguns are the weapon of choice in violent crime and are used in nearly 80% of all firearm related homicides every year. In fact, handguns are used at a rate of almost 20 to 1 during homicides when compared to a rifle of any type, and that's *before* you break down the rifle category into subcomponents such as 'assault' rifles, lever guns, bolt actions, etc.

I'm not a fan of any gun ban, but this is the reason why I find the political movement to ban 'assault rifles' to be so disingenuous. If there's a problem, by an overwhelming margin, its the use of handguns in violent crime.

[edit on 1-10-2009 by vor78]



posted on Oct, 1 2009 @ 06:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by vor78
I'm not a fan of any gun ban, but this is the reason why I find the political movement to ban 'assault rifles' to be so disingenuous. If there's a problem, by an overwhelming margin, its the use of handguns in violent crime.


The political movement to ban "assault rifles" is so disingenuous because they're not banning rifles with any specific functional characteristics. I mean, when you hear about "assault rifles," you immediately think of automatic weapons, right?

Wrong. The legislation to ban "assault rifles" typically targets cosmetic add-ons to perfectly legal rifles. For instance, if you purchase a flash suppressor and add it to your perfectly legal semi-auto rifle, then your rifle just became an "assault rife" under the law. Nothing functional has changed, but your semi-auto has just been banned.

This is about appearances, it's about making any sort of rifle illegal if it bears any cosmetic resemblance to an "assault rifle" as described in the bogus legislation. THAT is disingenuous.

The problem with banning handgun is that they only target the law-abiding gun owner, NOT the criminals. The criminals don't give a rat's ass what laws you pass — they're criminals, they're going to break the law anyway.

— Doc Velocity



posted on Oct, 1 2009 @ 06:10 PM
link   
reply to post by Primordial
 


I agree it's clear. I think the federal govt. has had too many restrictions already.

I won't be happy until I can have a glock 18.



posted on Oct, 1 2009 @ 06:20 PM
link   
reply to post by Doc Velocity
 


I actually wrote an entire paper on this.. And being that all except one person who read it was liberal.. They were very shocked at the stupidity of the matter.

I got back a review sheet, and at the bottom of one of them.. The person had wrote "Did they really ban something just because it LOOKED scary?!"

Education is always the key.

But it's time that they drop the: Foreign Assault Weapons ban (This still exists)

and that they allow machine guns again.



posted on Oct, 1 2009 @ 07:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by Averysmallfoxx
oh yeah and zorgon, why did the poor dude get a photo shopped head?? its painfully obvious now that I am paying a lil more attention...


Yeah just spotted that myself...
I guess that was the only way he could get one..

Its an old Russian tank gun... I have the details somewhere... The original head was on a blog and wouldn't post in the thread... didn't notice the hwad till later


reply to post by Lazyninja
 


Stopping Power



posted on Oct, 1 2009 @ 07:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by Miraj

If they took those, I'd just get a hatchet, and sharpen it really nicely and then that would be my weapon.


Car Leaf spring... piece of Oak 2x4... some cat gut... couple odd bits of hardware

Gives you one mighty find crossbow... with the right tip on the bolt is can pierce kevlar


No muzzle flash, no smoke, and also doesn't need a silencer






[edit on 1-10-2009 by zorgon]



posted on Oct, 1 2009 @ 07:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by Primordial
It is NOT a fully automatic MACHINE GUN like the media likes to portray them.


It is in Nevada


But your right, its hard to conceal an assault rifle in your droopy pants



posted on Oct, 1 2009 @ 11:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by Miraj
I think the federal govt. has had too many restrictions already.


Not just the federal government — each state also applies its own gun restrictions, as does local government. Such that there are over 20,000 federal, state and local gun restrictions currently on the books in the USA. More like 23,000, I think.

Now, I can tolerate some local gun laws, inasmuch as the community knows what's best for the community, and a community is more likely to fairly enforce laws specific to that community. Everyone in the community has a vested interest in protecting the community; plus the community knows how much law they can AFFORD to enforce, which has a distinct bearing on whether the laws are ratified in the first place.

Let me give you an example: The state of Montana has one of the most heavily-armed civilian populations in the country. I think the average is, like, 9 firearms per household — please feel free to correct me on that, it may be more.

Now, when the Clinton Administration tried to implement even more federal gun control legislation back in the 1990s, the law enforcement community of Montana pretty much told the federal government to go to hell. See, Montana doesn't have much crime — gee, I wonder why? — and, accordingly, the Montana law enforcement community is rather small compared to other states.

I mean, it's a big state with a relatively diminutive law enforcement community. Frankly, they don't need a lot of law enforcement, for obvious reasons.

Montana's problem was that the federal government's gun control regulations called for extraordinary law enforcement procedures. Montana didn't have enough money or manpower to implement these extraordinary procedures, which included door-to-door searches for firearms violations. Beyond that, if you go door-to-door looking for firearms violations in Montana, there's a good chance you won't come back.

Montana law enforcement told the federal government to stuff it in their ass.

See, the community knew what was best for the community in Montana. The citizenry were heavily armed, the crime rate was low, and the small law enforcement community was perfectly happy with that situation. Who wouldn't be?

That's why federal gun control restrictions — written and passed by a bunch of fat liberal imbeciles in Washington, DC, who are chauffeured everywhere by armed bodyguards at taxpayer expense — are an imposition on law-abiding communities all across the country.

The federal government is so out-of-touch with America, and so out-of-touch with the U.S. Constitution, these idiots "inside the loop" think they can push any ridiculous demand on the States and the citizenry, and we'll just meekly comply.

That's why I was never prouder than when Montana stood up to the central government and told them to butt out and stop trying to fix what ain't broken.

— Doc Velocity



posted on Oct, 2 2009 @ 11:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by GorehoundLarry
Handguns don't need to be banned.

Assault rifles? Now that's another story.


Do you do any shooting?

I didn't think so.

I belong to a hunting and fishing club, even though I don't hunt, because that gives me access to a nice pistol and rifle range. A few years ago, one of our State Congresscritters came out to the range wanting to talk about hunter's rights. We heard him out and liked what he said. As he was getting ready to leave, he said that he would like a picture of him holding a rifle that he could put on a poster. Somebody went to their car and came back with a camera and said that he would e-mail the picture to him. A hunting jacket was found for him to wear and one of the guys went to hand him a rifle. He pulled back and said that he didn't want to be in a picture with an "assault rifle", how about handing him the rifle lying on the table over there. At this time the President of our club stood up and said that there wasn't going to be a picture as long as he was president of this club. The Congresscritter asked why. He said let me show you something. The first rifle handed to the Congresscritter had a black fiberglass stock with a pistol grip and foregrip. It also had a flash supressor and a large scope. The rifle that the Congresscriter wanted to use had a traditional wood stock and foregrip as well as a smaller scope.

Our club President was the owner of both rifles and a master gunsmith. He told his son to go and get his toolbox and then proceeded to swap the stock, foregrip and scope from one rifle to the other in about 15 minutes. They were exactly the same type of rifle. He then told the Congresscritter to come back when he learned what he was talking about when it came to rifles and maybe then he could have his picture taken.

Here's one that will blow your mind. I was listening to a guy at a bar that I go to and he made a case that military style weapons are the only ones protected by the Second Amendment. There is nothing in the Second Amendment concerning hunting firearms. He states that the "well regulated militia" phrase refers to military type weapons, because they are supposed to be availible for the defense of the Nation if necessary. Makes sense to me. It also makes sense to the Swiss. A large percentage of their male population is in their military reserve and they keep their weapons at home. These are select fire military grade weapons. Anybody know the statistics on home invasion robberies in Switzerland? I bet it is pretty low.



posted on Oct, 3 2009 @ 09:54 PM
link   
Some of you need to read the article. Regardless of the decision, it will come out good for us. IF they side with Chicago, it will further boost state's rights, and if they side against chicago it will mean incorporation of the 2nd. Either way, we (law abiding gun owners) will benefit from this case. If Chicago wins that means that the states will be able to decide individually, not the federal government (although Constitutionally the states are not free to restrict the 2nd amendment without a constitutional amendment that makes this possible).



new topics

top topics



 
14
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join