The Truth about "Assault Weapons"

page: 2
10
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join

posted on Aug, 12 2012 @ 08:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by RealSpoke
What's the point of even banning semi-auto? You can still kill things just as easily if you had a pistol.....right? I don't really know much about guns myself.

Do they hold more bullets or something?

Fully automatic guns like machine guns shouldn't be legal, what does one need a machine gun for? The only purpose is mass murder/destruction


edit on 11-8-2012 by RealSpoke because: (no reason given)


Hysterical anchor men/ladies use the term machine gun for anything that fires a round, gets the viewing figures up,
Even shotguns get called 'machine guns' Joe public is not bothered what any firearm is called, just so long there is plenty of bloody bodies strewn about to gawp at.




posted on Aug, 12 2012 @ 04:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by Blackmarketeer
1. To the founding fathers, a firearm was a single shot flintlock musket. One person, armed with a musket, could never wipe out a crowd of people in an enclosed space.


But a person with a cannon could take out dozens in a crowded church. Yet somehow, cannon ownership at the time was legal. It isn't an issue of the weapon or how much damage it can do.

Perhaps the aspect that our founders never anticipated was how depraved, immoral, sociopathic and psychopathic society and humanity would have become. If they would have anticipated the level of lies and propaganda the media would sink too, they would not have given total freedom of the press. If they had anticipated cults popping up brainwashing and torturing people, they would not have given total freedom of religion. If they had anticipated the mob violence associated with most of today's protesting, they would not have given total freedom of assembly.

Or maybe they did. Just maybe they realized that the freedom for individuals and society to rise by its merit or fall under the weight of its own stupidity was an inalienable human right.


That said, to me the type of modern firearm most in keeping to the founding father's interpretation of a firearm is a single-shot rifle. But things have changed drastically since the revolutionary war, and the writing of the constitution.


As such a weapon cannot be used to reasonably counter an attack by modern infantry, then that should not be considered in keeping with the founders interpretation.


What level of firepower would our own militias need to take on the US government? Even cannons would be a joke. We would literally need RPGs, Tanks, Apache attack helicopters, SAMs, and a whole lot more. A militia armed with AR15s going up an US Army unit in full-fledged combat? No contest.

That just illustrates the constitution is out of date. They couldn't possibly have known that a single individual armed with a high-powered "firearm" could slaughter dozens in a single instant, any more than they could imagine a time when a "well-armed militia" would be so hopelessly outmatched by our standing army (or that we would even have a standing army).


That is because the founders warned against a standing army. They didn't see it as a good thing for the country to have. There should be no standing army large enough or capable enough to counter the armed population. I proposed what I think is in keeping with the spirit of the founders while maintaining a strong military capability to defend against foreign attack.


Originally posted by Wolf321
Since we are a union of 50 sovereign States, each should have its own “militia”, as initially intended. A federal requirement for the states to maintain a certain level of full time (National Guard) and part time/stand-by (militia) would be included.

The Federal Government would be responsible for financial appropriations of the defense budget as needed to ensure as a whole we have the resources to defend our nation. The primary role for a national level of military would be to centralize and standardize training for the branches of military of all the states, as well as R&D and acquisitions. The federal level would also have control of overseas bases and forces, the Navy as a whole (not the Marine Corps as a whole though,) ICBMs, nuclear weapons, space assets and one continental based Division, Group or whatnot for use in emergencies internally or in accordance with the newer War Powers Resolution. For territorial defense or a declaration of war, all states could be activated up to 75% of a states force, more with governor approval, and coordinated from a central, federal command.



posted on Aug, 12 2012 @ 09:07 PM
link   
reply to post by Wolf321
 


So you think every citizen should be able to posses nuclear weapons?



posted on Aug, 12 2012 @ 09:11 PM
link   
reply to post by RealSpoke
 


I don't know if you read the post you are replying to or just think I was too vague with my answer. So to clear things up, no.



posted on Aug, 12 2012 @ 09:21 PM
link   
reply to post by Wolf321
 


Then I muse not be understanding something correctly


Any weapon that the US can and would use against its own people, should be legal for the people to posses. Guns, tanks, jets, non-lethal sound rays, drones, anything.


So nukes and other bombs should be legal for individual protection


If a weapon cannot be used against its own people, there would be no need for the people to have a weapon to counter or retaliate with the same.


WMDS could very much be used against the US populace, just like they were used against the "insurgents" in Iraq/Afghanistan



posted on Aug, 12 2012 @ 09:58 PM
link   
reply to post by RealSpoke
 



Originally posted by Wolf321
For the government to utilize WMDs on itself is not in its self interest of growing or maintaining power. Therefore, it can be assumed that an attack on a revolting US would not utilize WMDs in any form. This is because the use of such a weapon cannot be contained in the area of attack alone. The nature of WMDs as a weapon used by governments is towards or to prevent the use of the same by foreign forces. As such, WMDs are not a weapon that could be used against its own people.


Emphasis added. The US can use WMDs against another nation because it is in its interest of survival. However, that point can be contested, and I would agree, to use a WMD in an international war on the scale that can be expected now is NOT in the interest of US survival. However, posession of WMDs by the government DO server as a deterant for other nations in possession of such weapons so in that aspect perhaps it does.

The government would not use WMDs on its own soil or it people. Radiation and fallout from a nuclear attack does not only contaminate the target, but everyone down wind, down stream, etc. Not to mention other nations that could be impacted by the fallout from any attack on US soil, resulting in not only a domestic war, but an international one. So such an attack can reasonably considered impossible. The same for chemical and moreso for biological WMDS. The effects of using these weapons are not isolated to the attack site. They will almost certainly not only kill at the attack site, but spread and kill the attackers (government and the families of government members, and internationally) so would serve no purpose unless the purpose would be to commit a slow and painful suicide. This concept is not realistic from the leadership in the US government as it is formed.

As for bombs [missiles, ray guns, drones, tanks, etc.) Yes, any weapon that the US military could deploy against its people should be fair game for the people to posses.


Originally posted by RealSpoke
WMDS could very much be used against the US populace, just like they were used against the "insurgents" in Iraq/Afghanistan


Can you explain this? I am not aware of the US employing WMDs against anyone since WWII.
edit on 12-8-2012 by Wolf321 because: spelling and miswording



posted on Aug, 12 2012 @ 10:55 PM
link   
reply to post by Wolf321
 


The US tested nukes on its own soil, so they clearly don't care about polluting the environment.

Within U.S. civil defense organizations, the category is now Chemical, Biological, Radiological, Nuclear, and Explosive (CBRNE), which defines WMD as:

(1) Any explosive, incendiary, poison gas, bomb, grenade, or rocket having a propellant charge of more than four ounces [113 g], missile having an explosive or incendiary charge of more than one-quarter ounce [7 g], or mine or device similar to the above. (2) Poison gas. (3) Any weapon involving a disease organism. (4) Any weapon that is designed to release radiation at a level dangerous to human life

Operation Iraqi Freedom (2003) invasion of Iraq.


Precision laser and GPS guided bombs were used extensively, not only to damage and destroy Saddam Hussein's army but also to damage infrastructure such as communications, utilities, and various government buildings. The campaign moved into asymmetric warfare once strategic targets no longer existed or were not viable targets.


en.wikipedia.org...


The US and NATO militaries used DU penetrator rounds in the 1991 Gulf War, the Bosnia war,[15] bombing of Serbia, and the 2003 invasion of Iraq


en.wikipedia.org...
edit on 12-8-2012 by RealSpoke because: (no reason given)
edit on 12-8-2012 by RealSpoke because: (no reason given)
edit on 12-8-2012 by RealSpoke because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 13 2012 @ 12:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by RealSpoke
The US tested nukes on its own soil, so they clearly don't care about polluting the environment.


Things to take into account about US testing of nuclear weapons. Most occurred in isolated or desert areas far from any major populations. Not all test were above ground. Much of the testing was done before the full understanding of fallout, the long term effects of radiation etc. The last US nuclear test was in 1992.

In populated areas you have water sources that flow to other towns etc. East of the Mississippi, towns are typically close enough together that a nuclear attack on one would most certainly effect others. In an attack on a populated area, there would be survivors effected by the fallout and radiation. Those people would be bringing contamination from the area as they evacuated and spread out looking or aid. This would contaminate other areas and people that the government would not be able to control and would be counter to their existence.

I don't doubt that the government is only marginally concerned about the environment from a pollution standpoint. However, with regards to NBC weapons, they would be gravely concerned.


Within U.S. civil defense organizations, the category is now Chemical, Biological, Radiological, Nuclear, and Explosive (CBRNE), which defines WMD as:

(1) Any explosive, incendiary, poison gas, bomb, grenade, or rocket having a propellant charge of more than four ounces [113 g], missile having an explosive or incendiary charge of more than one-quarter ounce [7 g], or mine or device similar to the above. (2) Poison gas. (3) Any weapon involving a disease organism. (4) Any weapon that is designed to release radiation at a level dangerous to human life


Actually that is a little wrong.


Since the start of the new millennium, a new term – CBRNe – was introduced as a replacement term for CBRN. The e in this term represents the enhanced (improvised) explosives threat.

CBRN defense (CBRND) is used in reference to CBRN passive protection, contamination avoidance, and CBRN mitigation.

CBRN weapons/agents are often referred to as weapons of mass destruction (WMD). However, this is not entirely correct. Although CBRNe agents often cause mass destruction, this is not necessarily the case. Terrorist use of CBRNe agents may cause a limited number of casualties, but a large terrorizing and disruption of society. Terrorist use of CBRNe agents, intended to cause terror instead of mass casualties, is therefore often referred to as weapons of mass disruption.


Source

Explosives in general do not constitute a WMD. If they did, every military on the face of the earth would be guilty of possession and use of WMDs. As such, explosives in general, in the form of missiles, bombs, grenades etc, should be viable options for the people to possess.

So we have to have a common understanding to proceed. I will be classifying WMD's as follows:
Nuclear Bombs, Radiological Bombs, Chemical Weapons designed to kill (not something like pepper spray), Biological Weapons.

Based upon that criteria, those four classes of weapons would most certainly not be used by the US government on its people. With respect to Chem and Bio weapons, I don't think these should be allowed by any government, including our own. Considering the US has abandoned such weapons, or radiological bombs, that leaves only nukes. I have stated my case on the US government not using such a weapon against its people on its soil, and as such would not be a weapon of consideration for the people.

The US does not consider Depleted Uranium ammunition a WMD. I too agree that such a device is not in the truest sense a WMD. However, I do think that is a biological hazard whose use is so significantly dangerous the life that is should not be used. I believe that the US government should commit to the elimination of the use of such devices, as they have with chem and bio weapons. Having said that, if the government considers its use something that would be feasible a tool against insurrection, then it should be as available to the people.
edit on 13-8-2012 by Wolf321 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 13 2012 @ 05:16 PM
link   
The real issue is what they are designed for - a machine gun is known as a force multiplier - 1 or a few people able to withstand greater numbers.

Anyone who has actually shot a machine gun knows they are most commonly used for "supressive" fire. Machine gunners commonly occupy "defensive" positions.

It's very difficult with recoil and muzzle rise to effectively engage and kill multiple targets rapidly with a hand held rifle and even with a turret mounted one. You can but it's the reason for selective fire weapons.

Therefore a machine gun is primarily a deffesive not offensive or assault weapon.

Even the genesis of assault or ground attack precludes many so called assault rifles from being actually capable of true assaults - simply put 0-200 yards or assault range the m16 is not a good match for the ak47 which isnt as accurate but its realibility and it's higher power generate a stalemate.

For an assault you would attack with something in the 308 range to outrange your target - these are typically medium game hunting calibers like what the m1a used when men did actaully assault a beach or piece of land by firing and moving forward.

Also the rifle is a force multiplier but requires training to utilize - 1 person facing 2 or more hostile people can easily empty an entire magazine either defending themselves or increasing ground between themselves and a threat.

The turth really comes down to is this - democrats want to take away guns because much like everything else they want you to depend solely on the government - them. And they will erode your rights wherever possibly to achieve this. This is the same party that was pro slavery in new york btw.

edit on 13-8-2012 by circuitsports because: (no reason given)
edit on 13-8-2012 by circuitsports because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 14 2012 @ 04:19 PM
link   
To all of those saying the constitution needs a rewrite because semiautomatic rifles are too 'powerful" all I have to say is the constitution is just fine it's your EDUCATION that is lacking.

The constitution and specifically the second amendment is specifically geared to provides civilians access to MILITARILY USEFUL ARMAMENTS... These are not my words by the way but instead the words of the Supreme court in the landmark case that ushered in the era of gun control. Specifically the landmark case US vs miller which is basically the bedrock upon which all further gun control legislation stands.

So the next time you start wanting to rewrite the constitution maybe do yourselves a favor and actually find out what the supreme court and past case law has to say on the matter.

Oh and by the way assault weapons or weapons of comparable power were available in the 30's so it's not that gun technology has moved on so far as to drastically change the landscape of what was possible in a hand carried armament between then and now.

The reality is every time I talk to someone who's in favor of banning "assault weapons" I come away realizing it's because not only are they not educated about guns but neither are they educated about their rights and RESPONSIBILITIES as a US citizen.

The constitution is only as strong as we are. If we let those in power run roughshod over it then it can no longer protect us and our society.

reading material for those willing to learn
edit on 14-8-2012 by roguetechie because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 14 2012 @ 04:35 PM
link   
reply to post by roguetechie
 


Explanation: St*rred!

I concur 100%

Personal Disclosure: @ everybody else ...

Anybody who doesn't agree can immediately refer to my signature which I quote here for non-members reading this thread ...


Become totally disillusioned and finally see everything for real. Think Globally Act Locally Feel Internally.DENY IGNORANCE 1st.

Choices: Its easier to make a DIY pipe bomb with off the shelf stuff than to buy and own a gun!!!


I can MAKE wmd's in my KITCHEN with off the shelf stuff and that doesn't require any legal oversight!

Ingredients are as follows ...

Standard warfare = Pipes + bleach + Petrol ... HINT: Got to keep them seperated or they go BOOM ok!

Chem warfare = Bleach + Ammonia

Dirty nuke warfare = Smoke detectors containing americum + standard warfare stuff

Biological warfare = Cough Cough Cough!

The GUNS are not the problem!

When police are not there to protect the population ... Citizens NEED to be able to defend themselves effectively and guns do that very well ... ONLY CRIMINALS don't want you to have guns!




posted on Aug, 14 2012 @ 04:56 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Aug, 14 2012 @ 07:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by RealSpoke
What's the point of even banning semi-auto? You can still kill things just as easily if you had a pistol.....right? I don't really know much about guns myself.

Do they hold more bullets or something?

Fully automatic guns like machine guns shouldn't be legal, what does one need a machine gun for? The only purpose is mass murder/destruction


edit on 11-8-2012 by RealSpoke because: (no reason given)


They are trying to play us dumb. Those who want banning are going to get their butts wooped. The ban goes like this..
#1 Assault Rifles(no far Range)
#2 Pistols(no Meduim range)
#3 Knives(no more self defense)
#4 Maybe even the practice of Martial Arts(as we are already occupied with Jobs).



posted on Aug, 15 2012 @ 04:47 AM
link   
reply to post by ANNED
 


Don't even need a scope. Open sights, I use them (without any Eagle-Eye magnification) for target shooting from 300 to 1200 meters. Easier to regain target than a high power scope.

Although your point is very valid, just adding that.



posted on Aug, 15 2012 @ 10:03 AM
link   
reply to post by Wolf321
 


When our fore fathers wrote the 2nd amendment, we were using flintlock muskets. However an important point to this is that the government/police/governing authority were also using flintlock muskets. Thus, they were evenly matched and able to effectively end a tyrannical government which is what the amendment was designed for.

These days our LE/Government is using semi-automatic and in some cases rifles with burst and full-auto. The very LEAST we should be allowed to own is a semi-automatic variant of the same weapon.



posted on Aug, 15 2012 @ 10:13 AM
link   
reply to post by roguetechie
 

Yes they were available until the Gangsters abused them. The Thompson submachine gun (.45) was a favorite as well as sawed off 12 ga shotguns (as used to finish off the victims on the St. Valentine;s Day Massacre) and the BAR (30-06) was used by Clyde Barrow ("Bonnie & Clyde").



posted on Aug, 15 2012 @ 11:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by pikestaff

Originally posted by RealSpoke
What's the point of even banning semi-auto? You can still kill things just as easily if you had a pistol.....right? I don't really know much about guns myself.

Do they hold more bullets or something?

Fully automatic guns like machine guns shouldn't be legal, what does one need a machine gun for? The only purpose is mass murder/destruction


edit on 11-8-2012 by RealSpoke because: (no reason given)


Hysterical anchor men/ladies use the term machine gun for anything that fires a round, gets the viewing figures up,
Even shotguns get called 'machine guns' Joe public is not bothered what any firearm is called, just so long there is plenty of bloody bodies strewn about to gawp at.


Well some shotguns are fully automatic...USAS-12 in full auto or select fire designation. Altho most USASs are semi-auto just like your bird gun except they use a stick or drum magazine. Even the semi auto ones tho were classified as "Destructive Devices" by the Clinton-Reno regime during the time of the Assault Weapons Ban. The AWB was sunset after 10 years by virtue of how it was passed thru the legislature but the DD on shotguns was done by executive branch fiat and is still in effect (it should be challenged constitutionally but never has).

Re your comment on (machine) guns and "mass...destruction". Dont worry the State Dept and United Nations have plans to disarm the world and that includes all guns except those for local law enforcement and the United Nations "Peacekeeping" Force.
edit on 15-8-2012 by CosmicCitizen because: (no reason given)
edit on 15-8-2012 by CosmicCitizen because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 17 2012 @ 06:32 AM
link   
reply to post by Blackmarketeer
 





1. To the founding fathers, a firearm was a single shot flintlock musket. One person, armed with a musket, could never wipe out a crowd of people in an enclosed space.


I always hate this argument. First it makes the founders sound like a bunch of naive idiots. These were men building a country on the power of the printing press. A technology that a couple of centuries before had sparked some of the biggest wars in Europe's history. Several were also inventors. They knew the pursuit of knowledge lead to new technology. All things change as knowledge is amassed. Many were amateur historians. They knew that the history of war was a a history of increasing killing power.

They were not stupid enough to believe the means of war would forever remain one shot muskets. If none of the above reasons point it out, consider this. In 1777 Joseph Belton offered a gun design to the Continental Congress that was capable of firing twenty shots in five seconds and used a cartridge. In other words, the genesis of the modern machine gun was available in 1777. It was only turned down because it was cost prohibitive.



posted on Aug, 17 2012 @ 07:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by RealSpoke
reply to post by Wolf321
 


Then I muse not be understanding something correctly


Any weapon that the US can and would use against its own people, should be legal for the people to posses. Guns, tanks, jets, non-lethal sound rays, drones, anything.


So nukes and other bombs should be legal for individual protection


If a weapon cannot be used against its own people, there would be no need for the people to have a weapon to counter or retaliate with the same.


WMDS could very much be used against the US populace, just like they were used against the "insurgents" in Iraq/Afghanistan


Where did you find that WMD were used against insurgents in Iraq and Afghanistan??? I am pretty sure there hasn't been any nuclear or chemical weapons used on "insurgents". I would think if there was a Hiroshima or Nagasaki in the Middle East, we would all be aware...



posted on Aug, 17 2012 @ 07:22 AM
link   
reply to post by Wolf321
 

So could throwing a homemade Molotov cocktail into the congregation and then locking the exits.





new topics

top topics



 
10
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join