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.

 

Mitt Romney: 'Many' Of Aurora Shooting Suspect's Weapons Were Illegal

page: 2
11
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 25 2012 @ 09:55 PM
link   
Im trying to figure out what legislation is going to stop folks from buying a small arsenal in under a month. Im a big customer at a local gun shop and get a discount (cause i bought a small arsenal there). I can get 223 hollowpoint steel cased ammo (ar15 ammo) for 5 bucks for 20 rounds at walmart. or i think i paid 80 for 480 rounds (dealer didnt have a full case of 500 for me but still gave me the full case discount). i could get it even cheaper if i bought it by the pallet. Or truckload.

Also, i make my own ammo. But it takes time....

Whose gonna stop me from making my own ammo?

How many bullets should i be able to buy at a time?20?




posted on Jul, 25 2012 @ 09:57 PM
link   
i can see it now ... Walmart greeters --> secretly TSA agents inspecting outgoing purchases
Publix greeter --> undercover TSA agent recording tag #'s of suspicious purchases (careful not to buy too much vinegar in one visit)

Lowes ? HomeDepot ? --> maybe these in the parking lots ... www.abovetopsecret.com...
since 2010, they've certainly been constructing various reasons for legitimate deployment.



posted on Jul, 25 2012 @ 09:58 PM
link   
reply to post by benrl
 


I stole plutonium from some libyan terrorists back in the 80s to power my time machine.

Seriously though... I can buy an ak47 machine gun right now....for cheaper than i can get a semi auto ak47 legally...

I can legally buy and own any m16 parts i want. One very precisely placed hole in an ar....and you know...

Molotov cocktails? Most people own every component required....


edit on 25-7-2012 by phroziac because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 25 2012 @ 09:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher
reply to post by benrl
 



Next, yes the Stun grenades, explosives, and body armor used.

All illegal.


Stun grenades??? You mean the tear gas...the tear gas that is LEGAL to buy in Colorado???

And the "explosives"...the ones made with LEGAL components that killed and harmed ZERO people???

And the body armor...which isn't a weapon.



Seems like you are trying really hard to defend Mitt.


Probably more like trying to defend the right to own guns, any guns, regardless of common sense.

The police have already stated that all the weapons he had were legally purchased. I don't understand what the debate is here.

Personally I think we have pro-gun lobby trying to make out that he was using illegal weapons, to distance themselves from guilt.

It's very hard to defend the right to buy weapons capable of this in the face of such an event, and the pro-gun lobby would have to concede something by facing the fact that all of his weapons were legally available to him.



posted on Jul, 25 2012 @ 09:58 PM
link   
reply to post by Honor93
 





i can see it now ... Walmart greeters --> secretly TSA agents inspecting outgoing purchases Publix greeter --> undercover TSA agent recording tag #'s of suspicious purchases (careful not to buy too much vinegar in one visit)


Oh please lets hope no one decides to mess with house hold chemicals to take anyone out...

Have uncle sam searching under your kitchen sink...



posted on Jul, 25 2012 @ 10:00 PM
link   
I guess we will have to wait for Mitts aids to tell us what he really meant.

I do think body armor is illegal in most if not all states. Unless your a felon or mental, anyone can own a pistol, shotgun and assault rifle. Bombs are illegal, I'm assuming gas grenades are illegal.

Mitt clearly states that he should not have been legal for this guy to own weapons.


edit on 25-7-2012 by LDragonFire because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 25 2012 @ 10:00 PM
link   
reply to post by benrl
 



Next, yes the Stun grenades, explosives, and body armor used.

All illegal.


Wrong. He bought everything legally. Body Armor is legal to buy, unless you have a felony conviction (exeptions might be made only for a handful of states like CA and NY). He did not buy any grenades but made his own. You can legally buy black powder, in fact even with a felony conviction black powder is legal to buy. I don't see the news accounts of what his grenades were made of, they're only described as fireworks shells with "explosive powder" - my guess is black powder.


In the middle of his living room are dozens of black softball shaped firework shells that he bought filled with explosive power. They are all over the place. In the middle there are two jars full of liquid wires as I said all over the place there was a black box with a red blinking light. A mechanical camera then pans over on top of a glass table -- you see this water cooler jug half full of bullet. Then you pan down, then you see this black box with another red blinking light. The camera goes over, there are two chairs one has a jar apparently with fluid. The other has another black box and then there are green soda pop bottles filled with fluid all the way around.


So everything he had he bought legally. Obviously turning them into grenades or IEDs would be illegal, but that is clearly not what Mitt Romney was referring to. He indicated that the suspect illegally bought weapons/firearms, and that is not the case at all.



posted on Jul, 25 2012 @ 10:00 PM
link   
reply to post by benrl
 



Gun control does not work.

I can find anything right now, literally anything, and get it smuggled and delivered anywhere in the world.


To say it does not work in regards to this tragedy is just flat out silly.

He bought all the guns legally...and just because YOU know how to get guns from anywhere in the world ( which I truly doubt
), that doesn't mean everyone does.

Our current gun laws made it very very easy for Holmes to get the weapons he needed to kill in mass.


Funny, I bet if it was in Vermount or Texas the man would of been down before the 2nd or third shot..


What's funny is hearing all the internet Rambos that think life is like a movie and they would have been the hero if they had only been there with their gun




Not to mention that you never even addressed that you are just defending Romney dodging the question because you are pro-gun...it doesn't matter that he was dishonest and dodged the main point...because on this particular issue, you agree with him...so you will turn a blind eye to it.



posted on Jul, 25 2012 @ 10:01 PM
link   
reply to post by Blackmarketeer
 





CA and NY.


Right sorry my bad, Im in ca...

And guess what, the most restrictive state still has gun violence.

Waiting periods, back ground checks, 30 day Cooling off for purchase.

No clips over 10...

No body armor.

No Assault type weapons or severely limited...
edit on 25-7-2012 by benrl because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 25 2012 @ 10:05 PM
link   
reply to post by detachedindividual
 


Personally I think we have pro-gun lobby trying to make out that he was using illegal weapons, to distance themselves from guilt.

It's very hard to defend the right to buy weapons capable of this in the face of such an event, and the pro-gun lobby would have to concede something by facing the fact that all of his weapons were legally available to him.
this is the most backwards logic i've encountered in awhile.
why would a pro-gun lobby WANT the guns to be illegally obtained?
why would any pro-gun enthusiast WANT to distance themselves from any guilt.

exercising a right is hardly guilt by association.
maybe for you but for those who value that right, it's common practice.
just cause we buy 'em doesn't mean we desire to use them in the same manner.

do tell, what would the pro-gun lobby have to concede, exactly ?



posted on Jul, 25 2012 @ 10:06 PM
link   
reply to post by OutKast Searcher
 





Not to mention that you never even addressed that you are just defending Romney dodging the question because you are pro-gun...it doesn't matter that he was dishonest and dodged the main point...because on this particular issue, you agree with him...so you will turn a blind eye to it.


YEA and I agree with obama on others, and Ron paul on more.

HELL I thought Herman cain had some valid points on some issues.

I don't toe any party line... like some people tend to come to the defense of their "Team" their all scum who have sold us out to special interest.

We have the system we have, and No imaginary law will come and take away all the violence.

Ask finland.

Or how about the SWISS where its mandatory you have a gun?

OH but those cases don't match the party line do they?

Maybe better education all around would help everything, if anything thats probably a sure fire way to solve most "issues" in america...



posted on Jul, 25 2012 @ 10:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by phroziac
Im trying to figure out what legislation is going to stop folks from buying a small arsenal in under a month. Im a big customer at a local gun shop and get a discount (cause i bought a small arsenal there). I can get 223 hollowpoint steel cased ammo (ar15 ammo) for 5 bucks for 20 rounds at walmart. or i think i paid 80 for 480 rounds (dealer didnt have a full case of 500 for me but still gave me the full case discount). i could get it even cheaper if i bought it by the pallet. Or truckload.

Also, i make my own ammo. But it takes time....

Whose gonna stop me from making my own ammo?

How many bullets should i be able to buy at a time?20?
...
Seriously though... I can buy an ak47 machine gun right now....for cheaper than i can get a semi auto ak47 legally...

I can legally buy and own any m16 parts i want. One very precisely placed hole in an ar....and you know


Are you trying to argue for gun control??? Because you are a perfect example as to how our gun laws are to lax.


No one is saying you can't have all your little toys...we are just saying that it is currently WAY to easy for unstable people to get things things very quickly and with little oversight.


There is a bit of a catch 22 in gun control laws though...everyone agrees that people with mental disorders shouldn't be allowed to own guns...and yet severe paranoia is a mental disorder...and what causes someone to have the need to own so many guns????
edit on 25-7-2012 by OutKast Searcher because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 25 2012 @ 10:13 PM
link   
Wow, Mitt really seems like he doesn't care if he wins or not. If you want to be president you need to keep up with current events, especially a tragedy.

*Even* if he was deflecting the answer, this isn't the type of question to ignore...


edit on 25-7-2012 by RealSpoke because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 25 2012 @ 10:17 PM
link   
reply to post by OutKast Searcher
 

Our current gun laws made it very very easy for Holmes to get the weapons he needed to kill in mass.
while this is true, what "laws" do you think would prevent such access to the most damaging weapons --> the shotgun and handgun ??

changing access to assault
rifles (they're all assault weapons
) doesn't change access to the most damaging weapons used in this tragedy.

you sir, are playing word games and debating a RIGHT.
That is totally and inexcusably tactless.



posted on Jul, 25 2012 @ 10:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by LDragonFire
I guess we will have to wait for Mitts aids to tell us what he really meant.

I do think body armor is illegal in most if not all states. Unless your a felon or mental, anyone can own a pistol, shotgun and assault rifle. Bombs are illegal, I'm assuming gas grenades are illegal.

Mitt clearly states that he should not have been legal for this guy to own weapons.


edit on 25-7-2012 by LDragonFire because: (no reason given)


Mitt speaks out of so many sides of his mouth...I doubt his aides even know what the correct position is.



posted on Jul, 25 2012 @ 10:24 PM
link   
reply to post by benrl
 


So why should we have laws for anything?

No laws 100% prevent the behavior...so let's just remove all laws...because they aren't 100% effective.




posted on Jul, 25 2012 @ 10:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by Honor93
reply to post by OutKast Searcher
 

Our current gun laws made it very very easy for Holmes to get the weapons he needed to kill in mass.
while this is true, what "laws" do you think would prevent such access to the most damaging weapons --> the shotgun and handgun ??

changing access to assault
rifles (they're all assault weapons
) doesn't change access to the most damaging weapons used in this tragedy.

you sir, are playing word games and debating a RIGHT.
That is totally and inexcusably tactless.


Where did I say anything about "assault" weapons??? As usual, you are having your own conversation inside your head and making things up that have never been said.

And where in the hell do you get that the handgun and shotgun caused the most damage in Aurora??? Honestly...what reality do you live in.

If it were up to me...owning a gun wouldn't be a right...I have no problems with that at all. The Founders were wrong about many things...and I believe this is one that they didn't have the foresight to understand the consequences in the future.

But, that isn't even what I'm advocating...just an honest discussion about honest gun regulation...yes...I think all gun and ammo purchases should be tracked and limited. I don't give a rats ass if someone thinks that takes away one of their "rights"...life will go on...people will live just fine without being able to buy 4 guns and 6,000 rounds of ammo in a month. Will it "stop" gun crime...no...but it will create more oversight and regulation...which is badly needed.



posted on Jul, 25 2012 @ 10:32 PM
link   
But the fact that it was against the law did not prevent it from happening," Romney said.


this coming from the out spoken anti marijuana candidate. dude makes my skin crawl



posted on Jul, 25 2012 @ 10:33 PM
link   
reply to post by Honor93
 



changing access to assault rifles (they're all assault weapons ) doesn't change access to the most damaging weapons used in this tragedy.


The only reason why more people are not dead is because his semi-automatic rifle jammed. If it wouldn't have there would have been a lot more deaths.


It appears, the police say, that James E. Holmes, the man accused in the Aurora shootings, used all three types of weapons inside the theater as well, first firing the shotgun, then using the semiautomatic rifle until its 100-round barrel magazine jammed, and finishing off with a pistol.



Mr. Holmes purchased all of his weapons legally, law enforcement officials said. In the four months before the shootings, he also bought 3,000 rounds of handgun ammunition, 3,000 rounds for a semiautomatic rifle and 350 shells for a 12-guage shotgun, all over the Internet.


www.nytimes.com...
edit on 25-7-2012 by RealSpoke because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 25 2012 @ 10:36 PM
link   
reply to post by OutKast Searcher
 





So why should we have laws for anything? No laws 100% prevent the behavior...so let's just remove all laws...because they aren't 100% effective.


I wouldn't say remove all laws, just maybe 50%

I don't need the gov telling me what I can and cant do, you seem to be okay with the nanny state taking care of everyone.

I am not.

But again the type of thinking that allows for banning guns, allows for the extremism, I believe in some gun control.

Lets see.

Full auto, probably has zero use.

Armor piercing bullets, sure why not.

Full military grade weaponry, talking 50 ca rifles, sure ill go that far.

When you start talking all or nothing, thats too extreme for the reality we face in America.

But again fanatics tend to always stick to the extreme views.

Republicans think you should be able to buy a Tank... Dems want cut your steak for you just incase you cut yourself.

Somewhere in the middle is the truth.


And Ill say the discussion needs to happen, but never will because both sides have become so polarized that compromise is dead.

Bipartisanship and lack of compromise is why America is trapped where it is...

DEMS "BAN EVERYTHING"

REPS " FROM MY COLD DEAD HANDS"

moderation in everything even politics

edit on 25-7-2012 by benrl because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
11
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join