Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Top republican voices support for Assault Weapons ban

page: 1
4

log in

join

posted on Jan, 18 2011 @ 09:32 AM
link   
When you have republicans like that... you don't need democrats!
That would be true...if there was any difference between the two ``parties``...

Richard Lugar Voices Support For Assault Weapons Ban (VIDEO)

Sen. Richard Lugar (R-Ind.), a veteran GOP lawmaker who has served in the Senate for more than 30 years, voiced support for a ban on assault weapons last Friday.

In an interview with Bloomberg's Al Hunt, the Indiana senator was asked whether the ban, which expired in 2004, should be reinstated. "I believe it should be," Lugar replied. "But I recognize the fact that the politics domestically in our country with regard to this are on a different track altogether."

Lugar continued, "As a matter of fact, it appears that ammunition has been purchased from stores all over the country, subsequent to [the shooting in Arizona], by many Americans feeling that somehow Congress might take action that would somehow limit the amount of ammunition or the types of ammunition people can have."

At least he acknowledge the fact that most people don't want it...since it violates the second amendment.

What part of SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED do they not understand?




posted on Jan, 18 2011 @ 09:40 AM
link   
good.
Guns are not toys they are for killing...
the sooner the usa gets over its gun fetish the better...

kx
edit on 18-1-2011 by purplemer because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 18 2011 @ 09:45 AM
link   
reply to post by purplemer
 


It amuses me when people from outside the US comment on gun laws as if they actually prevent people from getting guns.

If you live on an island, it might be slightly more difficult to acquire a firearm if you are a criminal and guns are banned.

However, the US is not an island and there are already enough guns in existence here to arm every man, woman, and child in the US.

A gun ban would not prevent any criminal from obtaining a firearm.

However, it certainly would prevent a law abiding citizen from defending himself from an armed attacker.



posted on Jan, 18 2011 @ 09:51 AM
link   
I'd would like to see where the statistics that ammo sales have gone up because of the Tucson tragedy, (the ammo situations seems to have stayed the same for some while now) this seems a little quick to jump on the ban weapons bandwagon

seeing as this just happened weeks ago, how does this guy already have sales figures for ammo in 2 weeks I'm calling BS on and all over this one



posted on Jan, 18 2011 @ 09:55 AM
link   
I'd like to add one more tid bit.

Violent criminals are overwhelmingly young males.

Young males tend to be stronger and quicker than the victims they prey on.

If we suppose that a gun ban actually worked at preventing people from obtaining a firearm, and 100% of people could not acquire a firearm no matter what, haven't we done the majority of violent criminals a service?

Haven't we made it easier for young males to attack old ladies?

When guns are banned, most violent criminals feel EMPOWERED because they no longer have to worry about a potential victim using a force balancing tool against them.

They will know that since they are stronger, the odds are good that they will be successful.



posted on Jan, 18 2011 @ 09:55 AM
link   
The ONLY thing keeping the US state from total control is the amount of fire arms. I am saddened by senseless violence, but giving up your freedom for safety is a nail in the coffin. There are countless threads that blast the idea of gun control so I will not reiterate the obvious. The day they try and seize assault rifles will be the day the revolutoin explodes into everyday life.



posted on Jan, 18 2011 @ 10:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by all answers exist
I'd would like to see where the statistics that ammo sales have gone up because of the Tucson tragedy, (the ammo situations seems to have stayed the same for some while now) this seems a little quick to jump on the ban weapons bandwagon

seeing as this just happened weeks ago, how does this guy already have sales figures for ammo in 2 weeks I'm calling BS on and all over this one




Its all over the net. Just look under... Handgun/ammo Sales Increase After Arizona Shooting.



posted on Jan, 18 2011 @ 10:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by purplemer
good.
Guns are not toys they are for killing...
the sooner the usa gets over its gun fetish the better...

kx
edit on 18-1-2011 by purplemer because: (no reason given)



Its not a fetish its a right. I suppose as soon as americans get over their fetish for speaking out in public the better off we will all be.



posted on Jan, 18 2011 @ 10:28 AM
link   
Did he vote to renew it in 2004? Did he vote to instate it in 1994? Does he realize that "assault weapons" are involved in like 2% of crimes and that if he wanted to pretend to be going after gun crimes going after shotguns and handguns would make him appear more believable?

Just another tyrant authoritarian.


 
Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com
 



posted on Jan, 18 2011 @ 10:41 AM
link   
All he is doing is fishing for political points.

Here is what the AWB actually did,

The ban also didn’t prohibit the manufacture of any guns entirely, it prohibited making certain ones with their standard complement of external attachments. Thus, for example, during the ban AR-15s were made with a pistol-like grip, but without a flash suppressor, bayonet mount and, in the case of carbine models, adjustable-length stock. In practical terms the most significant thing about the ban was that it prohibited the manufacture of magazines holding more than 10 rounds, the majority of which are standard-equipment for handguns not defined as “assault weapons."


It was a ban on military looking semi-auto rifles with attachments on them. Those are the types of weapons used least often in crimes. You could sell the weapon, and you could own the weapon. You just couldn't add more than one or two accessories.

Congress didn't extend the AWB because a study mandated by congress found that the firearms were used in only a tiny percentage of attacks before the ban. Plus, during the AWB the private ownership of the firearms went up about 15%. Yet the murder rate and violent crime rate went down. The study also showed that magazines with a capacity of more than ten rounds where not a factor in most multi victim or multiple shot encounters.

Basically the AWB did nothing. However, certain people like to drag it up from time to time in the hopes of scoring political points.



posted on Jan, 18 2011 @ 10:44 AM
link   
reply to post by thisguyrighthere
 


Actually the percentage is much, much lower. So low it's almost not worth the mention.

Government just wants to be able to roll over people.



posted on Jan, 18 2011 @ 11:00 AM
link   
I just wanted to add that assault rifles are actually,

"short, compact, selective-fire weapons that fire a cartridge intermediate in power between submachinegun and rifle cartridges".


Before the AWB there was really no set definition of what an assault weapon was. In military and LEO circles an assault weapon was something you used to attack a fortified position. It was basically the modern day equivelant of saying "siege weapon" in the days of castles and walled citys. In other words when the term was used it was used to refer to grenade launchers, missles, and other such things. It was never used to refer to semi automatic low caliber rifles. The very fire arms that gun control activist labeled with the term.

Well why did they use the wrong term? I think there could only be one of two reasons. They may be incredibly stupid as a whole, and unable to figure out their mistake. The second option is that they intentionally did it to inspire fear in the minds of people.

edit on 18-1-2011 by MikeNice81 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 18 2011 @ 11:11 AM
link   
reply to post by MikeNice81
 


Most people don't realize that the technology in the AR15 you see in my avatar is the same as that of a semi-auto hunting rifle and that the cosmetics of the rifle does not predispose the owner of the weapon to more or less criminal activity as a result of function, neither does the standard 30 round magazine.

That said, while the AR15 can fire the 5.56mm NATO military round, it's slightly less powerful twin the .223 Remington is an extremely popular hunting round(which can also be fired from the AR ).

And to those that say that people have no legitimate self defense purpose for an AR15, the day they start rioting because the free stuff ran out you'll wish you had one to protect your home and family.
edit on 18-1-2011 by projectvxn because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 18 2011 @ 01:18 PM
link   
reply to post by Vitchilo
 


Republicans better be careful on how they approach their comments to "Assault" weapon bands (WTF ever an Assault weapon even is....... but that's a whole other discussion)

They will be targeted by the grassroots campaigns and have their careers destroyed come next election if they even think about supporting it. Not only will the largest Conservative forces weigh against them, the NRA it's self will support the overthrow of these traitors.





new topics

top topics



 
4

log in

join