99.9999999% of Assault Weapons are not on the "street". They are on private property!

page: 3
9
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on Dec, 20 2012 @ 05:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by Agit8dChop
reply to post by seabag
 


The guns used in the school massacre were also in the home and not on the streets.

didnt make a diffeence.

ban every gun accept handguns!


Well hay man in case you were not watching.....first reports said the assault weapon was not used, it was out in the car.....the guy used pistols. But then they changed that story.

CNN kept flashing a photo of an assault weapon on the tube even after saying that it was found in the car.




posted on Dec, 20 2012 @ 05:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by Pilgrum
The Australian experience:
'Home Defense' is not a valid reason and any mention of such intended use is likely to see you struck off the list of eligible owners permanently. All weapons you can now legally own and associated ammo need to be stored in approved secure lockers within the home and those storage provisions are subject to random inspections (if any of your legal weapons are found unsecured you lose your permit and all weapons are confiscated) .


What a joke. And home inspections? You subjugated boot lickers. And you have to watch what you say?



posted on Dec, 20 2012 @ 06:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by bekod
we will see what they plan some time to day, the Obama group is to release their gun ban/ grab policy plan today. think it might be like the UK or ours friends down under type of ban /law. here is the link news.yahoo.com... and here is the link to the horse's mouth www.whitehouse.gov...
edit on 19-12-2012 by bekod because: line edditing added link


Well sure they do. They are trying to move fast while emotions are still hot...just like the others. We are having a big press push....media talking head superstars now prophets of social reform...just like the others...ect ect.



posted on Dec, 20 2012 @ 10:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by Logarock
This line keeps getting one liner super status on the TV and radio......that assault weapons have no place out on the "street". Street being one of those vague rhetorical catch alls that the mind benders use. A phrase taken from the slang of our culture and used to undermine the more serious philosophies that are the foundations for the 2nd amendment.

You will notice the news mechine likes to drag out voices with some qualifications like....former NRA member in good standing, war vets, former this and that, ect ect.....they use them for sound bites to support, by using these terms like "street", to mean "home" and suggest that not only do assult weapon owners not need these guns but that they are irresponsible for having them......ahhh out on the "street" (which means home in news speak) as well.

I say again.....99.9999999% of all assault weapons are in homes.

Yours.



Yeah. So was Lanza's...right up until he murdered 20 kindergarteners.

As a gun owner myself...it's this type of highly-selective "logic" that makes me SUPPORT gun control efforts. I simply am not comfortable that someone with such demonstrably inadequate critical thinking skills is permitted to own firearms. If that means none of us can...so be it.



posted on Dec, 20 2012 @ 10:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by Julie Washington

Originally posted by Logarock

Originally posted by Julie Washington


On the street... in the home... didn't matter to the 20 little angels murdered did it?



Are you telling me you cant tell the diffrence? All you have is to come in here and put 20 dead children im my face as if myself and other, defending rights, are culpable. Thats like college freshman stuff.


Yes, I can tell the difference.

I support the 2nd amendment to bear arms.

I do not support bearing any kind of assualt weapon as that is not what the foundation and "spirit" of the right was written.

To bear arms for defense. Assault weapons are not defensive weapons they are offensive weapons.



Semi-automatic rifles like the Ar-15 are exactly the type of rifle intended by the second amendment. There is no such thing as an "offensive" vs "defensive" weapon. The purpose is determined by the user.



posted on Dec, 20 2012 @ 10:37 AM
link   
reply to post by Logarock
 


I appreciate this post. To add some "ammo" to your conversations, lest not we all forget that we are typically arguing with a human that believes they are "better off" and "safer" for having an all-powerful government. Remember Romney's "47%" comment? I deal with people from all over the country and I am here to tell you, he was right. These nut jobs wait for food, clothing and everything in their lives to "fall from the sky" and be wrapped and signed by their "god, Obama"...Not even taking the time to give thanks to the tens of thousands of actual workers and lobbyists that spend their lives making sure the "hand out machine" is well oiled.

The only argument I'd accept in contrast to the "47%" truth, is a higher number to support the fact that King of the Leftards was re-elected.

Back to my point about the "assault weapon" argument and "high capacity magazine" witch hunt...

If we can speak to the Godless monkeys in such a way that we understand that we're dealing with a soul-less, permanently dead and broken ideology, we can then MAYBE start getting through to them.

They look at guns and free-willed, able Americans like a dog looks at a fire in the fireplace. ZERO comprehension...Just dumbfounded fear.
edit on 20-12-2012 by Eldensword because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 20 2012 @ 10:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by Logarock

Originally posted by Pilgrum
The Australian experience:
'Home Defense' is not a valid reason and any mention of such intended use is likely to see you struck off the list of eligible owners permanently. All weapons you can now legally own and associated ammo need to be stored in approved secure lockers within the home and those storage provisions are subject to random inspections (if any of your legal weapons are found unsecured you lose your permit and all weapons are confiscated) .


What a joke. And home inspections? You subjugated boot lickers. And you have to watch what you say?


Home inspections are absolutely essential for those who own such weaponry. Lanza's mother was living with a kid she KNEW was mentally ill...HOW THE HELL DID HE HAVE ACCESS to the guns?

By the way....I hate to break it to you....but you are also a subjugated boot licker. You have guns now...right? THEN WHY ARE YOU STILL A SLAVE???



posted on Dec, 20 2012 @ 10:40 AM
link   


Semi-automatic rifles like the Ar-15 are exactly the type of rifle intended by the second amendment.

LOL. You realize that in order for this statement to be true, you would have to argue that the First Congress of the United States could quite literally perform magic and see into the future, given that it would not be invented for almost another 200 years....right?


There is no such thing as an "offensive" vs "defensive" weapon. The purpose is determined by the user.

Great. Then you are totally cool with every man, woman, and child being issued their very own suitcase nuke, right? What could possibly go wrong?
edit on 20-12-2012 by milominderbinder because: formatting



posted on Dec, 20 2012 @ 10:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by milominderbinder

Originally posted by Logarock

Originally posted by Pilgrum
The Australian experience:
'Home Defense' is not a valid reason and any mention of such intended use is likely to see you struck off the list of eligible owners permanently. All weapons you can now legally own and associated ammo need to be stored in approved secure lockers within the home and those storage provisions are subject to random inspections (if any of your legal weapons are found unsecured you lose your permit and all weapons are confiscated) .


What a joke. And home inspections? You subjugated boot lickers. And you have to watch what you say?


Home inspections are absolutely essential for those who own such weaponry. Lanza's mother was living with a kid she KNEW was mentally ill...HOW THE HELL DID HE HAVE ACCESS to the guns?

By the way....I hate to break it to you....but you are also a subjugated boot licker. You have guns now...right? THEN WHY ARE YOU STILL A SLAVE???


Nope - Home inspections are NOT essential for hardware, they're essential for "Retard Inspection" only. May guns rain from the skies for eternity on this piece of garbage, rock until it is completely free of humans - Weapons have been and always will be an absolute, unresolvable fact in your meaningless, scared, Libtard life. As far as your "slave" comment...Amazing, still, you think that 250 million guns owners are a "problem". We're more a SOLUTION than your weak little mind can obviously comprehend.

*Addendum to my "Completely free of humans" remark - I'm not advocating for killings and death, whatsoever. I'm saying, fire burns, rocks are solid, skulls are soft and people will always, always, always be filled with hate, murder and revenge. So, disarming the good, law-abiding citizens and criminalizing them is the single, stupidest ambition since the Holocaust - Lambs to the slaughter and ALL of that. So, again - May guns be "behind every blade of grass" for as many reasons as we have psychos and enemies that resent us.

Try to focus your ill-thought-out "daddy issues" on another subject, like psychotropic drug use and psychiatric malpractice. Stop demonizing gun owners, period.


edit on 20-12-2012 by Eldensword because: Addendum to my message, added



posted on Dec, 20 2012 @ 11:25 AM
link   
Just thinking aloud here...

I wholeheartedly support the second amendment as well as every one of the Bill of Rights. Personally, I don't believe that government should have any right to interfere with what products are produced, sold and owned, weapons or otherwise. But my ideals are tempered with practicality and the very existence of government itself seems to be somewhat of a "necessary evil" at this point in human history.

My parents, who are mostly conservative in a rather mainstream way, have never had much to say about guns. They don't own any and have no desire to do so. But since last Friday, I've heard arguments from them along the lines of the following:

"I can understand owning a handgun for self defense, maybe a rifle or shotgun for hunting...but why would any law abiding citizen need to own one, let alone many, military grade assault weapons? Who needs an automatic/semi-automatic weapon to shoot deer or defend against criminals?

I mention my parents because they get all their news and most of their "opinions" from what they see on TV or read in the paper. They seem to me to be a pretty good representation of the average American, unlike their nutcase son who spends too much time on sites like this


But I do wonder why most gun owners would want or need to own these so-called "assault" weapons.

On the other hand, I agree with those who state that the intent of the 2nd amendment is to protect us from the government. In fact, I think that is more important than hunting, self defense or any other BS. At least in my world, government is by definition the enemy of the individual.

That being said, no gun will protect you from the government. If it were necessary to defend against tyrants - and I suspect that's a fight we lost many many years ago - we would need nuclear weapons, biological weapons, electronic warfare, propaganda machines, drones, aircraft, armored vehicles...you get the point. It's a bit cliche to point this out anymore, but the government war machine is so sophisticated, no individual stands much chance if they are REALLY "out to get you."

Anyway, I am very interested in hearing arguments from rational, intelligent gun proponents as to why "assault weapons" should be part of a personal arsenal...aside from the fantasy that you're going to stand up to a heavily armored military attack with your handful of automatic weapons.



posted on Dec, 20 2012 @ 12:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by milominderbinder

Originally posted by Logarock

Originally posted by Pilgrum
The Australian experience:
'Home Defense' is not a valid reason and any mention of such intended use is likely to see you struck off the list of eligible owners permanently. All weapons you can now legally own and associated ammo need to be stored in approved secure lockers within the home and those storage provisions are subject to random inspections (if any of your legal weapons are found unsecured you lose your permit and all weapons are confiscated) .


What a joke. And home inspections? You subjugated boot lickers. And you have to watch what you say?


Home inspections are absolutely essential for those who own such weaponry. Lanza's mother was living with a kid she KNEW was mentally ill...HOW THE HELL DID HE HAVE ACCESS to the guns?

By the way....I hate to break it to you....but you are also a subjugated boot licker. You have guns now...right? THEN WHY ARE YOU STILL A SLAVE???


So in addition to hating the second amendment, you dislike the 4th as well?



posted on Dec, 20 2012 @ 12:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by milominderbinder


Semi-automatic rifles like the Ar-15 are exactly the type of rifle intended by the second amendment.

LOL. You realize that in order for this statement to be true, you would have to argue that the First Congress of the United States could quite literally perform magic and see into the future, given that it would not be invented for almost another 200 years....right?


There is no such thing as an "offensive" vs "defensive" weapon. The purpose is determined by the user.

Great. Then you are totally cool with every man, woman, and child being issued their very own suitcase nuke, right? What could possibly go wrong?
edit on 20-12-2012 by milominderbinder because: formatting


The brown bess was the assault rifle at the time. It was used only for military as it was more rapid firing than the rifled muskets used for hunting. The FF saw the evolution of firearms from rocks to bows to matchlocks to flint and steel muskets and repeaters were being developed so yes, it is obvious that they knew something more advanced would come along. What you are saying is just as silly as "the FF could not imagine TV or radio or computers or electric typewriters so the first amendment applies only to quill and ink."

You reducto ad absurdum aside, the second amendment, as codified in the militia act of 1791 and title 10, endorses citizens arming themselves with the weapons and kit of a typical infantry soldier. Please point out "suitcase nuke" of the T&E of an infantry soldier.



posted on Dec, 20 2012 @ 12:23 PM
link   
reply to post by shipovfools
 


Ship - Stepping out of my "aggressive hat" and putting on my "cap of good faith and reason" to address your question, the best that I can. Your comment is not only rare and reasonable, it is also contains the most important question that goes unfounded, by most of the left as they "spew fire and hate" towards collectors and hobbyist on the subject.

With that said - Most redneck, trailer trash, hill-billy doofuses that SHOULD be retaliating with well-planned and well thought-out rebuttals, do not...And they mostly don't even come close. Instead, "Becausa freedumb got-dammit"! "They Turk Are Jerbs"!!! ...Aggravating to no end.

Allow me to articulate:

What "Because we WANT them" is good enough for the "already convinced, right-wing translation" which incorporates years and years of Daddy having guns, Grandpa having guns and camp trips and hunt trips and all of this lifelong history of these weapons, which, when not experienced by another person in the same capacity becomes lost.

We started out with BB guns at 10. We moved into a .22, single shot pump and then into a 12 gauge...Stuff became more and more fun and therefore more and more interesting. Boys WILL be boys. After all, the majority of us know where all of those nicely packaged products on your market shelves come from. Be thankful you live in a nation where folsk can still hunt and fish and use every tool possible to make your world more comfortable.

Enter the world of the "Synergy word minded, metro-sexual and evolved (or devolved as it were) left-wing mentality. Not being raised around or introduced to things that make loud noises and go BANG, you can see where maybe some confusion may arise. "Why do THEY NEED THAT"? They ask.

You see, "need" is a very important word. It's really more "want" no matter how they try to skew it.

Like a gay man "wants" a pimpled, hairy arise, ripe with poop in his face for pleasure, we want the biggest, loudest, most interesting thing we can get. Take away the gun, we'll evolve pipe-bombs and so on and so forth.

Not to harm, not to kill - Simply a free person's right, to do so. Our industries have the right to build what sells and our people have the right to play safely with any type of toy they wish.

What we're dealing with here is an agenda against an already established right, which is rife with hypocrisy since the left fights so hard for new rights to be legislated on THIER interests and "wants".

"Yeah, but they are not asking for rights that involve machinery that can kill". And so, WE are not asking for this machinery or high capacity magazines so that we can kill.

The majority of gun owners, like the majority of Americans already own TONS of stuff that they can kill with. Chemicals, poisons, vehicles, axes, knives...on and on, you get it.

So, like most lefties, they want their cars electric, quiet and tiny. They want small, meager, quiet little coffee shops and acoustic Jack Johnson concerts. Fine! They have them and we don't protest!

We want LOUD, obnoxious, AC/DC concerts, guns that we don't have to re-load constantly so we can get more bangs and watch more interesting reactions to targets, for fun and as part of OUR CULTURE.

One cannot win the battle when one is filled to the brim with hypocrisy. "Embrace diversity and multi-culturalism"! Thuper duper!...But, stop those nasty rednecks from having their rights, icky"!

They demand that we accept their culture; they demand that we change ours. I'd say the argument against semi-automatic guns and high capacity magazines would go much more smoothly, if there weren't already a half a billion of them, right-handy, to your neighbors, friends and family members.

Not to mention, its go much better if history book after history book didn't PROOVE that an unarmed, standing militia was the difference between social slavery and freedom.

*Ok, the gay stuff is over the top - Trying to make a point that from one EXTREME to the other, if you expect rights on any subject in a free nation, expect to compromise. We've already compromised by agreeing to limit our interests to semi-auto. We lost our rights to full-auto already. Folks forget about that all the time.

God Bless the Free Person, The Free Will and The Right to Pursue and Sharpen Every Human Skill Possibly That He Might Obtain Knowledge and Not Be LIMITED by His or Her Fellow Man / Woman In Our Journey to Learn Accountability and Responsibility



posted on Dec, 20 2012 @ 12:25 PM
link   
How many assault weapons did Obama & Holder put on the streets and into the hands of criminals due to Fast & Furious?
They have a lot of nerve demanding new gun laws.



posted on Dec, 20 2012 @ 12:35 PM
link   
reply to post by Eldensword
 


Star for a great sense of humor.



posted on Dec, 20 2012 @ 12:40 PM
link   
How do they count the street guns?

How do they count any of the guns?

Seems like an odd statistic to get actual true info on.



posted on Dec, 20 2012 @ 12:41 PM
link   
Why do you americans love your guns so much? why do you have them and what do you use them for? Being from the UK it makes me wonder what the issue is, if they have more gun control.



posted on Dec, 20 2012 @ 12:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by MrInquisitive

Originally posted by camaro68ss

Originally posted by Logarock
This line keeps getting one liner super status on the TV and radio......that assault weapons have no place out on the "street". Street being one of those vague rhetorical catch alls that the mind benders use. A phrase taken from the slang of our culture and used to undermine the more serious philosophies that are the foundations for the 2nd amendment.

You will notice the news mechine likes to drag out voices with some qualifications like....former NRA member in good standing, war vets, former this and that, ect ect.....they use them for sound bites to support, by using these terms like "street", to mean "home" and suggest that not only do assult weapon owners not need these guns but that they are irresponsible for having them......ahhh out on the "street" (which means home in news speak) as well.

I say again.....99.9999999% of all assault weapons are in homes.

Yours.



your playing into there game calling them "assault weapons." assault weapons are already banned
edit on 18-12-2012 by camaro68ss because: (no reason given)


Last time I checked, semi-automatic assault rifles are legal again; this happened in 2004. Or are you claiming semi-automatic assault rifles aren't assault rifles because they aren't automatics?

As for the OP, the phrase "in the streets" means readily available to the public. Most street drugs are not on the street either, but in people's houses. So what's your point really? But hey, play semanticist all you want.


By definition, an assault rifle is capable of full automatic fire by use of a selective lever. Calling a wrench a hammer because people can pound nails with it too does not make it a hammer. "Assault weapon" was a term made up for the 1994 AWB debates and has no real technical meaning.

You do realize that the 1994 AWB banned nothing, right? You could still buy the exact same rifles as long as they did not have a flash hider and bayonet lug. Exact same rifle, exact same ammunition, and exact same function, just cosmetically different. This is how one can tell that someone does not know the subject matter very well, when they talk nonsense about being able to buy "assault weapons" again after the 2004 sunset of the AWB. This also shows how stupid the politicians who voted for it were as well because they just banned scary looking stuff. Most of them do not have a clue what they are talking about and want to ban things they do not understand--pretty ignorant, IMHO.




posted on Dec, 20 2012 @ 12:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by tekken55
Why do you americans love your guns so much? why do you have them and what do you use them for? Being from the UK it makes me wonder what the issue is, if they have more gun control.


With all due respect, could not one say the opposite? Why do you Brits fear them so much? What is it about an inanimate object that gets you all frightened?

I've been shooting with several mates in the UK. The average Brit would be shocked at what is still allowed in private hands over there.



posted on Dec, 20 2012 @ 12:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by Pilgrum
The Australian experience: the 'assault' term in general was extended to imply all self-loading rapid fire weapons including pump action shotguns. Hand guns (pistols) have always been subject to much more stringent laws. Single shot and bolt action weapons were excluded provided the applicant for a permit to possess such a weapon could show a need for it such as being a member of a recognized shooting club, farmers etc. (shooting clubs had a rush on membership applications of course)

'Home Defense' is not a valid reason and any mention of such intended use is likely to see you struck off the list of eligible owners permanently. All weapons you can now legally own and associated ammo need to be stored in approved secure lockers within the home and those storage provisions are subject to random inspections (if any of your legal weapons are found unsecured you lose your permit and all weapons are confiscated) . If you shoot competitively eg skeet, trap, target etc you can have your weapons stored in the club's secure storage facility.

Being found in possession of a banned weapon past the declared amnesty period for surrendering them will get you 10 years in the lockup at least.

This country is better off for the harder line on such weapons - the American experience may differ at least for a generation or more after any legislation changes but, to us outsiders, it's blatantly obvious that something there has to change and the sooner, the better. Americans will need to work out how they'll deal with it in their own way once enough citizens acknowledge the need for change.

And yes I've heard all the pro-gun arguments (from my own fellow citizens a decade ago)


It isn't any better. Your murder rate before the ban was 1.0 per 100K and now it is 1.5 per 100K. Banning all of those scary guns did not make you any safer than you already were.





new topics
top topics
 
9
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join