It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Hypothetically speaking, if assault weapons are banned what liberties will you be losing?

page: 13
<< 10  11  12    14 >>

log in


posted on Jan, 17 2013 @ 07:33 PM

edit on 17-1-2013 by NickK3 because: (no reason given)

A link on what an "assault" weapon is:
edit on 17-1-2013 by NickK3 because: (no reason given)

posted on Jan, 17 2013 @ 07:45 PM
Once something is lost or taken away.. You'll never get it back.. We gave up too much with the patriot act, now this.. People kill.. No amount of gun control or ammo limiting magazines with change that.. They'll use bombs, cars, gas, poisons..

This is a pointless agenda that tightens the grip on big governments stranglehold..

posted on Jan, 17 2013 @ 07:47 PM
reply to post by POPtheKlEEN89

re: original post

the liberties that we will lose if they ban assault weapons will be that of opposing government should they become malevolent

posted on Jan, 17 2013 @ 07:58 PM
If you take the mass killings out of the equation, staged or otherwise, then you have a serious amount of deaths caused by handguns still. So in all reality, banning them only really benefits the government, because they know that average joe has far less firepower than they did, and we all know why they don't want average joe having lots of fire power..

However, if America had bottle, then something would have been done already because the USA citizens have been mugged off for years, and everyone has just sat back and done nothing. So taking the big guns away means nothing, because no one was prepared to use them in the first place, i.e. the USA government has nothing to fear if they are not banned..

People will make a lot of noise on the internet, but in reality they will just keep bending over and keep being slaves to the system, guns or no guns.

Sorry if I have offended anyone with that comment, but I just see a massive lack of bottle, a lot of talk but no action. If you want more freedom, then it wont come by rolling over and voting for people that do not care about you.

posted on Jan, 17 2013 @ 08:29 PM
reply to post by DeeKlassified

We've all seen what happens when we ask questions.
If someone goes to a speaking event and asks about disarming Americans, are we going to get manhandled and tazed?
We've all seen this video, but everyone should watch it again.

He asks about a lot of stuff we're still talking about on ATS now (voter fraud, rigged voting booths, book banning, and creepy fraternities) that we still want answers to, but as we all know, his questions lead to him being manhandled and shocked with electricity.
I could imagine that questions about gun banning would lead to the same treatment.
Our free speech is already being chipped away and if we allow further erosion of our rights, we'll have nothing left.

posted on Jan, 17 2013 @ 11:02 PM
reply to post by luciddream

I'm willing to take my chances. Well statistically speaking more people are killed in handgun massacres.

posted on Jan, 18 2013 @ 04:35 AM
The most effective loss of civil liberties could involve limiting gun ownership to those with mental health issues. Although I realize that this is a good idea, "mental health issues" could soon be used like the term "terrorist" and be labeled on anyone with certain political viewpoints.

To me, having a heavily armed populace is a VERY STRONG comfort. Not to mention that pretty much every shooting spree has happened in a state with heavy gun control laws.

In the prohibition era, when alcohol wasn't allowed, people started making and drinking moonshine, which has more alcohol. So we could be seeing heavier weaponry being smuggled into the states as a result of gun control.

In the end, if the government oversteps natural law too much, they won't have been able to confiscate enough guns to make a difference, and the whole system will decay anyway over the course of a decade or two.
edit on 18-1-2013 by darkbake because: (no reason given)

posted on Jan, 18 2013 @ 04:50 AM
My God. Losing my assault weapon? What next? Will they be after my grenade launcher and by anti aircraft missile?

posted on Jan, 18 2013 @ 06:14 AM
If the government turns on the population and all the population has to fight with is shotguns and handguns the government wins as hitler did with most of europe

that is what all this is about

posted on Jan, 18 2013 @ 06:23 AM
reply to post by TruthSeekerMike

Everyone should view this slide show and share it with your legislators: Senators, Congressmen and State Legislators. Deny Ignorance and spread the truth.

edit on 18-1-2013 by CosmicCitizen because: (no reason given)

posted on Jan, 18 2013 @ 06:51 AM

Originally posted by CaptainBeno
Most of the "dudes" on this site want to pump massive amounts of bullets into you should you enter their property at night. Serious amounts of firepower! Multipul rounds per second, smashing and pulverising bone and sinew. They gotta make sure the job is done and make sure it's massive overkill with lots of manly noise!

Seems a simple single bullet is not required anymore.
edit on 16-1-2013 by CaptainBeno because: Stuff.............bad.

You are simply an uneducated, close minded, teet sucking, fool for even thinking your above statement is true. Nobody! Let me repeat NOBODY!!!! Wants to shoot anyone. So get that through your sick demented skull you overzealous tart of a human being. Yes! I am foaming at the mouth and will clean up shortly....

Firearms are not just for self defense, they are not just for target shooting or, hunting they are for protection from a tyrannical government. A tyrannical government that would first seek to disarm it's people, just like Nazi Germany and dozens of other historical events I can site for you. With the people disarmed they can impose their will without the worry of a well armed and well equipped militia to thwart its attempt. Most will say the American people can not stand up to a force as mighty as it's own government but, listen to me clear. Majority of our active, reserve force, and retired military personnel will not stand for it either, our gov't does not have a massive military machine to support it when it comes to destroying their own people. Our military personnel are people, just like you and me, who have volunteered their lives to serve and defend our constitution and great Nation. We built this Nation on the backs of hardworking Patriot's that escaped a tyrannical Gov't and faught off any attempts to overthrow our country. I have not forgotten this, my fellow Americans have not forgotten this and we will stand together and make our voices heard because, we know violence is not the answer.

Our current regime in office are blood thirsty thugs with no morals and will stop at nothing to see their plan come to fruition. This plan is not new and has nothing to do with the recent shootings. It is very sad to see that some just don't understand.
edit on 1/18/2013 by TheRealTruth84 because: (no reason given)

posted on Jan, 18 2013 @ 11:21 AM
reply to post by pacifier2012

that's not even a viable argument."my grenade launcher and anti aircraft blah blah" if the military has these rifles with whatever capacity magazine be it 30, 50, 200 whatever, then why can't people have them?
i'm really going to let some jackass tell me what i can and can own when shootings like this happen in gun free zones. my lai no civillians had guns either

posted on Jan, 18 2013 @ 05:48 PM

Originally posted by CaptainBeno
Guy and Gals, seriously can you tell me why you need the firepower you beat your chests about so much?

What's wrong with a nice Gloc 9mm semi auto pistol? I would personaly s* myself if you brought that to a fight.

Nuff said.

A handgun is not effective beyond a few yards--maybe a hundred yards or so if you're a good shot. But, "one shot, one kill" doesn't usually work out that way. Even with high-powered deer rifles, the deer often take a fatal hit but are able to run off and bleed out elsewhere. In terms of self-defense, a fatally hit perp still has time to inflict lethal damage before dying, especially if he's drugs. So I, personally, would like as nice long magazine on that Glock.
While a semi-auto rifle with a 30 round magazine isn't bad for personal self-defense (they're also great against coyotes, if you have a predator problem) I think they are even more necessary for collective self-defense against foreign invaders or oppressors. Plus, they're a LOT of fun to shoot

posted on Jan, 18 2013 @ 08:40 PM
Assault weapons have been banned for years. Try again. The problem isn't with banning military grade weapons. It's with lumping weapons that don't qualify as assault rifles into the same category as assault rifles, and taking advantage of stupid people who don't know the difference in order to get perfectly legal means of protecting one's self from a tyrannical or corrupt government out of their hands. How this debate continues to go on bewilders me. The vast amount of resources available to people before they make conclusions about anything, and everyone is too lazy or too "smart" to do a little facking research.

posted on Jan, 18 2013 @ 10:16 PM
So i take it Americans need guns in case of government tyranny?
what sort of situations does this cover, like what sort of scenario?

do you think because you are an armed nation the government is prevented from being tyrannical?

do you think if you were not an armed nation the government would be tyrannical now? or soon?

and suppose TPTB ended corrupt, even armed what could you do?
would other countries military government watch a governement take away americas freedoms/side with US gov, or US people,
So essentially in a SHTF scenario it would be civil war?

these are a few questions id like to know please dont flame me im really interested

posted on Jan, 18 2013 @ 10:19 PM
reply to post by rockoperawriter

Why cant we have RPG's and anti tank mines then?

Or maybe some mortars incase your neighbors down the street dont like you protesting funerals and picking with signs that say GOD HATES FAGS..... THANK GOD FOR IED'S!!!!!

You dont think Fred Phelps would love to kill a hundred unbelievers with some rockets?

posted on Jan, 18 2013 @ 10:23 PM
reply to post by CaptainBeno

I don't think you need all that fire power to defend yourself. I just took a CPL class, the retired cop that taught the class said "one well placed shot " is all you will need. You don't need 30 rounds pouring out of a Howitser to stop a guy breaking into your home. Let them take the AR's and AK's off the market. What the heck do you need all that for. When the bad guy is in your house and you come down the stairs and open fire, he is not going to take the time to see what caliber your gun is.

posted on Jan, 18 2013 @ 10:52 PM

Originally posted by CaptainBeno
reply to post by JohnnyCanuck

Hahahaha we used to just catch them and break their necks?

Next it will be handgrenades?

Maybe you don't understand. Many of us do in fact have hand grenades and full auto machine guns. They are perfectly legal in America. You must acquire them on a Form 4 and pay the relevant tax stamp etc.. Please note that since 1934 only 1 person has been murdered with an NFA registered title II firearm, and this was done by a law enforcement officer.

Dont confuse yourself we have f-16's, Migs, Tanks you name it we got it!

There are hundreds of millions of semi auto assault rifles in America and ten times that amount exist as demilled parts kits which are in fact full auto machine guns etc.. Your last assault rifle ban just saw the manufactures who were affected cutting their guns to meet ATF requirements, and sending in ften times as many to maintain the same profit margins. Most 80%+ came in country with full auto fire control components. Where there is a market you will have a supply be it black or regulated.

I don't think you realize just how well armed the American populous is. The American people constitute the largest armed force in the world! If I were on the gun control side of the issue I think I would tread pretty lightly!

By limiting the lawful gun owners rights you just ensure that only criminals will have access to these weapons! Bad idea in my book. Plus, try as you might there is no denying that 200 million+ died in the 20th century alone due to tyrannical government. Statistically less than 500 people per year die in the US from assault rifles.

In America our highest offices and our main stream media outlets are for sale to the highest bidder! Our goverment sponsors the death of hundreds if not thousands of children in Syria today. Kills children and other inocents with drones daily. Sponsored the killing of hundreds of thousands in Iraq and beyond (Some say one million+ in Iraq alone!). Kills Americans without trial or any type of due process.

White House wins fight to keep assassinations of Americans secret.

Nazi Germany, Stalinist Russia, Mao’s China, Pol Pot’s Cambodia, etc, all contained disarmed populations. The guns were gone, and as a result millions upon millions died!

The Patriot Acts, the FISA domestic spy bill, the bailouts of corrupt international banks, attempts at CISPA and SOPA, actions like the NDAA authorizing the treatment of U.S. citizens as “enemy combatants” without rights to due process; all paint a picture so clear only a one-celled amoeba (or your average suburban yuppie) would not see it. You and I, and everyone else for that matter, have been designated potential targets of the state.

Now is no time to surrender our arms! If there is even the slightest chance of history repeating itsself here!

Gun free zones are targeted because they are defenseless, just like and unarmed populous can be targeted!

What we surrender could well be our very existence or that of our descendants! Gun control should be a state ballot issue not a federal government issue! If you want to void the 2nd then let the people vote on a state by state basis! This is one issue that the representatives should butt out of!

You think it is all just too farfetched? So did all of 1930's Europe.

I keep seeing folks from the UK saying how we should be disarmed, but was it not just 50 or so years ago since we had to come and save you guys from the gas chambers? Did you step up when Stalin was sending 50 million+ to the gulags? I understand that laws exist that prevent the open discussion of Nazi stuff in the UK, but I hope you are aware that what helped to turn the tide in Poland were small bands of armed resistance. Wihtout those who stood their ground you would be speaking German today!

Does it trouble you to know that I can leagally own a .50 Browning Machine Gun? There is a good chance that someone has one pretty much right next door to you now.

Remember this famous saying and take it to heart!
When the people fear the government, there is tyranny. When the government fears the people, there is liberty.

edit on 19-1-2013 by Donkey_Dean because: (no reason given)

posted on Jan, 18 2013 @ 11:11 PM

Originally posted by oldkawguy
reply to post by CaptainBeno

I don't think you need all that fire power to defend yourself. I just took a CPL class, the retired cop that taught the class said "one well placed shot " is all you will need. You don't need 30 rounds pouring out of a Howitser to stop a guy breaking into your home. Let them take the AR's and AK's off the market. What the heck do you need all that for. When the bad guy is in your house and you come down the stairs and open fire, he is not going to take the time to see what caliber your gun is.

The common problem around here, is folks that think like you. Who are you to decide what a person needs? Are you a dictator? Seriously, stop and look at what you are saying. You are deciding that you know best, and have no real argument behind it. You are not the one that gets to decide what other people need. And basing laws and regulations on what people need is nonsense, just absolute rubbish. Let's look at this another way.
Drunk drivers kill many people, perhaps we could say more than people with guns. But no one ever brings up the ban cars argument. How about we say that a prominent, beloved celebrity gets killed by a drunk driver. And he is driving a Honda Civic, that has all kinds of bling on his car. Chrome wheels, big exhaust pipe, basically makes it a faux sports car. The media whips up into a frenzy, "Oh my God, he was driving a race car!" Race cars should be banned! You don't need a race car on public roads! What would you need that for? The speed limit is only 65MPH! And so on and so on. The functionality was no different than Mom and Dad's Honda. It just looked faster.
The AR-15 is just a rifle. It has plastic pieces that look similar to a military M-16, but it does not function like an M-16. It is completely different. One of the parts that are a driving force to ban are the scary looking "barrel shrouds". Do you know what a barrel shroud is? Do you know what it is for? It is a safety feature. It covers the barrel so that you cannot grab it and burn your hand. But Oh My God, it looks menacing. We have to ban it. Please, give me a break. Read up on facts, and stop over reacting with your emotions. The AR-15 is no more deadly than any other rifle. It is just a rifle. It will not shoot 100 rounds every 5 seconds. It shoots ONE bullet per pull of the trigger.
I think red meat is dangerous, and I don't think you should eat it. You don't need it to survive. You can eat salad instead. The whole premise of your argument is terrible.

posted on Jan, 18 2013 @ 11:13 PM

Originally posted by nixie_nox
Since gun nuts are all about the preservation of their second amendment rights, I think we should preserve historical context and integrity and they can only have muskets and cannons.

We should also preserve the original intent of the first amendment (according to your definition) and only allow free speech when speaking to someone face to face, in written writing or typed with printing presses. Guess you wouldn't have the right to post that on the internet.

<< 10  11  12    14 >>

log in