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.

 

TRENDING: Feinstein to introduce assault weapons ban bill

page: 2
6
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 16 2012 @ 08:10 PM
link   
Did anyone catch Obamas speech live from CT? He didnt mention anything about a ban or regulation for that matter. He even said something along the lines of "no law in the world will stop violence." Im not sure what to think about that, maybe a quick way out for him until he can get his regulation/ban agenda in place....or should I say continue where he left off?




posted on Dec, 16 2012 @ 08:12 PM
link   
reply to post by Melbourne_Militia
 


Well everyone is entitled to their opinion, and you said it best that you live in Australia, so you can have all the firearms restrictions you would like IN AUSTRALIA!
This however is the United States of America that was founded on a Bill of Rights that specifically states the following:

"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

Does not say the right to keep and bear arms with the exception of.......

The need isn't more laws, the need is the enforcement of the existing laws. Perhaps something that would be helpful is if anyone who has a mental disability had some designation on their ID so that anyone selling a firearm would immediately know that person was not allowed to possess a firearm. Same thing goes for anyone who has a felony.

It would take minimal effort at the state level to implement something like this.



posted on Dec, 16 2012 @ 08:15 PM
link   
reply to post by CB328
 


but thats not the actual definition of assault rifle....when people say people who own battlefield weapons should not be able to most often they do not have actual battlefield weapons(there are exceptions)as originally the m-16 was a fully automatic or burst fire weapon same for original ak-47 etc.

how the assault weapons ban of old worked it was more a ban of "features" of the weapon such as ability to accept high capacity magazines ability to accept a bayonet(kind of pointless)or types of grip or stock or certain combinations there of. in most cases high capacity mags are a down side in the sense that you are more likely to experience a firearms malfunction(failure to feed and or the drum malfunctions) where as with a smaller mag you have to reload more often but are less likely to experience a problem with feeding, Furthermore a person who is skilled with a bolt action rifle is often able to fire a smiler number of rounds as some one with a semi automatic and with a lesser chance of a malfunction the same goes for revolvers there are some people who can accurately shoot revolvers faster then people with semi hand guns with high caps just due to their skill level .Even with muskets people trained in their use can get off alot more shots then those that have no idea what they are doing so skill and familiarity with your weapon as well as reliability of said weapon all come into play as well



posted on Dec, 16 2012 @ 08:21 PM
link   
reply to post by Melbourne_Militia
 


so take some time away from your militia duties in melbourne and come on over to the states for a while. im in south georgia, after we meet up and have a beer you can go down in the woods with us and help us clear out some of these hogs that make life a living hell. weve got a 5 shot bolt action rifle, just for you, for when a 600 pound hog charges you with the force of a semi truck. good luck. if you survive, we might give you some leftover ribs.



posted on Dec, 16 2012 @ 08:23 PM
link   
reply to post by SpaDe_
 


The fact is that if the US put a small percentage of its military expenditure into mental health programs designed to HELP people in need you could and would make a huge difference.

That is truly the crux of the matter. It is not about restricting or segregating or identifying those with mental health issues, it needs to be about HELPING them. That will not happen.

When you look at other countries, I think Sweden is the classic example, people have military grade weapons in their homes. Why don't they have a problem? Look at their Mental Health Programs and have an Epiphany.

P



posted on Dec, 16 2012 @ 08:36 PM
link   
reply to post by pheonix358
 


Perhaps there is a middle ground where both could be achieved. Bottom line is that you are not allowed under law to possess a firearm if you have ever been declared mentally incompetent/defective. The problem is that dealers have no way to distinguish who these people are if they are not obviously crazy. I do agree that the health care approach with mental patients usually ends up in a myriad of different drugs instead of actual treatment.
edit on 12/16/2012 by SpaDe_ because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 16 2012 @ 09:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by CB328



Semi automatic rifles are not assault rifles


They massacre large numbers of people, so I'd say they definitely are.


So can a 5 gallon jug of gas, does that make it an assault jug?


Bill



posted on Dec, 16 2012 @ 09:16 PM
link   
You guys want gun laws, try living in Mass some of the strictest gun laws in the US. The assault weapon ban that clinton put in place never went away here, we still have it. We just had a shooting with a unregistered 30round Ak47S by an unlicensed criminal. He shot a cop and his girlfriend. Word on the street is you can pick up a AK for about $750, guess theyre coming up from Mexico....Hows that working out?

Glad that ban is working out along with our border security. But once they are banned they will dissapear...poof, well from the law bidders that were confiscated from anyway.


Bill



posted on Dec, 16 2012 @ 09:36 PM
link   
You know assault weapons are already all but banned right?

Assault Weapon = Fully Automatic....

In all seriousness though.. No amount of law changing and weapon banning is going to change a thing. In fact it will only cause a catastrophe.

Sure many lawful gun owners will likely conform to a ban on certain aspects..

Criminals however could not give a flying fart in space what laws are in place and what is and is not banned. They are criminals, they break the law.. It is truly fickle to believe that a law would do any good.

Not to mention there are an unbelievable amount of firearms circulating throughout the US. So many guns in fact that a pure gun grab would no doubt cause more harm than good..

The volume of bloodshed would be enough to make all rivers run red. It is impossible without this result and in the meantime drum magazines and semi-automatic rifles (not assault rifles) would be plentiful!
edit on 16-12-2012 by DaMod because: (no reason given)

edit on 16-12-2012 by DaMod because: (no reason given)

edit on 16-12-2012 by DaMod because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 16 2012 @ 09:38 PM
link   
reply to post by Quantum_Squirrel
 

I feel INFRINGED already.



posted on Dec, 16 2012 @ 10:18 PM
link   
Feinstein needs to give it a rest having lost an aunt and uncle both to suicide by guns wasn't the gun that did it, wasn't the type of gun that did it, wasn't how many rounds came out of the chamber that did it.

They did meaning the person.



posted on Dec, 16 2012 @ 10:41 PM
link   
reply to post by Quantum_Squirrel
 


Cant even balance a budget, or get us past a financial cliff.....

The only ban I see is one that Bans Congress from enacting any more stupid bills, or legislation.



posted on Dec, 16 2012 @ 11:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by pheonix358
reply to post by SpaDe_
 


The fact is that if the US put a small percentage of its military expenditure into mental health programs designed to HELP people in need you could and would make a huge difference.

That is truly the crux of the matter. It is not about restricting or segregating or identifying those with mental health issues, it needs to be about HELPING them. That will not happen.


This is exactly what is largely missing in the whole violence debate. The U.S. mental health care system is practically non-existent. I assume the man who shot up the school in CN was too far gone the day of the shooting and a few days before but i wonder what the public thinks would happen if he tried to get help a few months prior. In the u.s. most psychiatrists haven't taken new patients in years since the time they have to spend per current patient is already overwhelming. Even if he could walk into an office and get immediate help, there is no way the average joe could ever afford to pay for medication since psychiatric meds are among the most expensive.

Most likely he would have been turned away from most psychiatrist's offices and told to go to the hospital. If you walked into a hospital and said you were having violent thoughts at worst it would result in the cops being called and you getting tasered. At best you would be temporarily admited to the psy ward, given perscriptions you could never afford, and then get dumped out a few days later due to budget cuts.

It disgusts me that my country finds the money to build a drone fleet to bomb whole villages in Pakistan, but can't find the money to help the sick.



posted on Dec, 16 2012 @ 11:11 PM
link   
reply to post by Quantum_Squirrel
 


When Bloomberg in New York banned large sodas, it was because people are too fat.

Feinstein (et al) wants to ban weapons, because someone went nuts.

Banning something won't stop anyone from committing an act. Drugs are banned. Ergo, no-one must be doing drugs. Speeding is illegal, ergo, no-one must be speeding.

Cities like New York have laws already existing that deny ownership of firearms. Ergo, no gun crimes are happening?

Legislation like this is not to provide a measure of safety. It is done to create more control over law abiding citizens.

People who want to commit horrible acts will do so regardless of the laws in place.

These new "laws" will only affect those who already obey the laws. Those who do not commit crimes.

In fact, what this will do is create a whole new subculture of underground gun ownership and black market weapons.



posted on Dec, 16 2012 @ 11:16 PM
link   
I don't need more than nine shells in the gun for hunting or protecting my home from an intruder. That is what I own a gun for and I don't own any guns that hold more shells than nine. I can't see owning a military style gun, I don't even need a scope on my guns. I guess I don't understand why someone needs impressive looking guns.



posted on Dec, 16 2012 @ 11:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by rickymouse
I don't need more than nine shells in the gun for hunting or protecting my home from an intruder. That is what I own a gun for and I don't own any guns that hold more shells than nine. I can't see owning a military style gun, I don't even need a scope on my guns. I guess I don't understand why someone needs impressive looking guns.


That's akin to arguing why do vehicles need more than a couple of cylinders or need to be high performance at all since the speed limit is 55 mph in most places.


This whole debate reminds me of a joke.

A man and a woman are at a party. The man asks the woman if she would sleep with him for 1 million dollars.
She says, yes.
Then the man asks the woman if she would sleep with him for 10 dollars.
She says, no. "What kind of woman do you think I am?"

He says, "I already know what kind of woman you are, now we're just negotiating price."

Once we agree on any type of "ban" or limit on weapons, then it's all just negotiating after that.



posted on Dec, 16 2012 @ 11:33 PM
link   
With the division of congress its unlikely a bill could pass, and a full on repeal is tantamount to executing random people on the white house lawn for the heck of it, the real danger is the Supreme Court. While they have recently ruled in favor of concealed weapons if the swing vote were to go the wrong way they could do nearly irreparable damage to the 2nd Amendment in the US.



posted on Dec, 16 2012 @ 11:41 PM
link   
As most regulars know I am a Canadian. We have much more draconian laws than Australia. We still suffer gun violence daily. I do not own a gun, though as a youth I used to shoot competition for Team CIL,Canadian Industries Limited (Ammo and Paint maker among other stuff) and have a hunting licence....though it`s been a while since I’ve hunted. I have owned a .22 Anschutz, Winchester 308 and a 12 gauge. I am glad we have the strict gun laws. We (Canada) like the U.K. and Australia have different societies and points of view than the U.S.A.. Fortunately the USA is the yardstick of freedom that the rest of the world measures itself against. It is important that if a dysfunctional government, tyrant or new world order seize power the citizen masses need to fight back. These masses cannot fight back with sling shots and PVC bows and arrows. They need to have access to the same artillery their military uses or could use against them.
I believe (personally) Canada has a way better society and I would never, ever choose to live there (except for the warmer climate) haha! The reason is because of the USA is the yardstick and basic foundation of our freedoms....thank you for your sacrifices for Canada and the rest of the freer world.
brice
edit on 16-12-2012 by brice because: odd post placement



posted on Dec, 16 2012 @ 11:51 PM
link   

'I Am Adam Lanza's Mother': A Mom's Perspective On The Mental Illness Conversation In America






I am sharing this story because I am Adam Lanza’s mother. I am Dylan Klebold’s and Eric Harris’s mother. I am James Holmes’s mother. I am Jared Loughner’s mother. I am Seung-Hui Cho’s mother. And these boys—and their mothers—need help. In the wake of another horrific national tragedy, it’s easy to talk about guns. But it’s time to talk about mental illness.


Story link here

Time to start talking mental illness and heathcare not gun control!
edit on 16-12-2012 by brice because: Forgot link



posted on Dec, 17 2012 @ 03:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by Asktheanimals
Assault weapon is a completely arbitrary designation given by lawmakers with no real meaning other than "it looks military".


That's where you have to be careful here. When politicians use words with no clear definition. They want to get the law passed and then create the definition.

It's like "mental illness" or "un-Australian"...




top topics



 
6
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join