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.
Piers Morgan's Gun Control Position Gets Pwned
page: 6share:
Last I checked, shotguns are far more deadly than machine guns. I can fire 36 projectiles in about 2 seconds with a 5 shot pump action shotgun. So im
not seeing why machine guns should be banned. Besides that, whens the last time a legally registered machine gun has been used in a crime? Why should
they be banned? Infact, an idiot with a machine gun is less likely to hit anything. Perhaps we just want them because theyre cool? Isnt it already
illegal to kill people? Should it be illegal for cars to exist that can break the speed limit? Why not? Oh, you can use them legally on a race
track?
Semi auto assault rifles are used in 3 gun competitions. Are you trying to shut down a sport now? Oh yeah? Why don't we just ban baseball bats too?
Semi auto assault rifles are used in 3 gun competitions. Are you trying to shut down a sport now? Oh yeah? Why don't we just ban baseball bats too?
edit on 8-12-2012 by phroziac because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by bl4ke360
Originally posted by AwakeinNM
Originally posted by GrOuNd_ZeRo
I think the 2A was sure to future proof it since they said Bear Arms and not Muskets or we would have had the same "rights" our Canadian neighbors have...
I just wish they added that no firearm type should be regulated like those stupid "Assault" Weapons bans.
The second amendment is implicit in its language to that end. It says "the right to keep and bear ARMS shall not be infringed". By virtue of that all-inclusive word, it is not restrictive in any way. ANY gun law which makes ANY type of weapon illegal is an infringement of the second amendment.
What if a few thousand years from now a new weapon is developed that has the power to destroy entire solar systems? Would you feel comfortable allowing everyone to possess one of these? You have to keep in mind the original intent of the 2nd amendment, which is to allow for citizens to protect themselves, not to give them the ability to commit mass genocide.
But it's okay for the government to exclusively possess that ability?
reply to post by GreenGlassDoor
Taken to the extreme this would mean any person should be able to get their hands on a rocket launcher. I see Piers' point, I disagree with the implications some would put on this statement but there is nothing ridiculous about this statement, I think he made the tweeter replier look like a big twat.
There's hardly any reason for civilians to be able to get their hands on fully automatic rifles with armor piercing rounds.
Taken to the extreme this would mean any person should be able to get their hands on a rocket launcher. I see Piers' point, I disagree with the implications some would put on this statement but there is nothing ridiculous about this statement, I think he made the tweeter replier look like a big twat.
There's hardly any reason for civilians to be able to get their hands on fully automatic rifles with armor piercing rounds.
Originally posted by On7a7higher7plane
reply to post by GreenGlassDoor
Taken to the extreme this would mean any person should be able to get their hands on a rocket launcher. I see Piers' point, I disagree with the implications some would put on this statement but there is nothing ridiculous about this statement, I think he made the tweeter replier look like a big twat.
There's hardly any reason for civilians to be able to get their hands on fully automatic rifles with armor piercing rounds.
I used to own a LAW. Lost it when I was homeless. Of course, a Light Antitank Weapon (LAW) is a one shot deal. You shoot it once and throw it away. I don't remember if it costs $20,000 to get one reloaded or 200,000. But either way, who could afford it?
You know those rockets Hamas shoots at Israel? You know those are home made right? I bet they don't cost more than a couple hundred.
Originally posted by On7a7higher7plane
reply to post by GreenGlassDoor
Taken to the extreme this would mean any person should be able to get their hands on a rocket launcher. I see Piers' point, I disagree with the implications some would put on this statement but there is nothing ridiculous about this statement, I think he made the tweeter replier look like a big twat.
There's hardly any reason for civilians to be able to get their hands on fully automatic rifles with armor piercing rounds.
You realize most of the ammo banned as armor piercing isn't armor piercing, right? It's just a ploy to keep us from getting cheap ammo.
And why should fully auto be illegal? When's the last time someone used a registered machine gun in a crime?
Originally posted by phroziac
Last I checked, shotguns are far more deadly than machine guns.
Tell that to the lads who went over the top in the First World War.
I'm ex British Army, trust me when I say a machine gun is far more deadlier than a shotgun.
A shotgun you have to get close in with, a GPMG is effective hundreds of metres out.
edit on 8/12/12 by Gazmeister because: (no reason
given)
edit on 8/12/12 by Gazmeister because: (no reason given)
reply to post by bl4ke360
Can I live on your planet? It would be nice to see prices go down for a change.
Can I live on your planet? It would be nice to see prices go down for a change.
Originally posted by Gazmeister
Originally posted by phroziac
Last I checked, shotguns are far more deadly than machine guns.
Tell that to the lads who went over the top in the First World War.
I'm ex British Army, trust me when I say a machine gun is far more deadlier than a shotgun.
A shotgun you have to get close in with, a GPMG is effective hundreds of metres out.
edit on 8/12/12 by Gazmeister because: (no reason
given)
edit on 8/12/12 by Gazmeister because: (no reason given)
Funny that you mention the First World War, where the americans used Winchester model 1897 12 gauge shotguns. They were so effective that the germans tried to make them stop using them. Of course, that was in the trenches, not on top.
But how many rounds does a machine gun hold? How much do these rounds cost? Hmm? It's not like you're just going to sneak in somewhere with a heavy belt fed crew operated machine gun. Assault rifles hold 30 rounds. Fires 500 per minute. So much for spray and pray. And at hundreds of meters? You might not hit *anything*. Remember recoil, etc....
The us military shoots 7 TONS of ammo per person shot.
and just when was the last time a registered machine gun was used in a crime?
Originally posted by phroziac
Originally posted by Gazmeister
Originally posted by phroziac
Last I checked, shotguns are far more deadly than machine guns.
Tell that to the lads who went over the top in the First World War.
I'm ex British Army, trust me when I say a machine gun is far more deadlier than a shotgun.
A shotgun you have to get close in with, a GPMG is effective hundreds of metres out.
edit on 8/12/12 by Gazmeister because: (no reason
given)
edit on 8/12/12 by Gazmeister because: (no reason given)
Funny that you mention the First World War, where the americans used Winchester model 1897 12 gauge shotguns. They were so effective that the germans tried to make them stop using them. Of course, that was in the trenches, not on top.
But how many rounds does a machine gun hold? How much do these rounds cost? Hmm? It's not like you're just going to sneak in somewhere with a heavy belt fed crew operated machine gun. Assault rifles hold 30 rounds. Fires 500 per minute. So much for spray and pray. And at hundreds of meters? You might not hit *anything*. Remember recoil, etc....
The us military shoots 7 TONS of ammo per person shot.
and just when was the last time a registered machine gun was used in a crime?
Up to 75 yards a shoutgun is the superior weapon,use 4 shot or double ought buck not to mention Fleccet rounds which can extend the range another 50 yards.
edit on 8-12-2012 by rockymcgilicutty because: (no reason given)