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

page: 2
9
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 16 2013 @ 08:32 PM
link   
This war of words regarding the term Assault Weapon is goingto get out of hand. I know you all really know what that means and you are playing dumb. I fear this is going to turn into a war of ignorance.
edit on 16-1-2013 by CaptainBeno because: (no reason given)




posted on Jan, 16 2013 @ 08:34 PM
link   
reply to post by winofiend
 


He asked about assault weapons.

He didn't specify assault weapons in his Op.
As far as I've heard, my revolver could be banned because it doesn't have a safety and is double action.

I won't even go through your nit pick list.
I have my concealed carry. If I can't conceal carry, my choices will be limited. I will most likely not go to many public places such as public parks. I also have the right to defend myself from being physically restrained, which happens during a physical and sexual assaults. Get a clue.
edit on 16-1-2013 by Afterthought because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 16 2013 @ 08:35 PM
link   

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.


Those would be included in the ban that people like you seem to be so adamant about our government passing so that we can't as you say "beat our chests" with our firepower. Funny thing is you don't even have a dog in this fight yet you show up to every single thread on this topic to spread your ignorance.



posted on Jan, 16 2013 @ 08:36 PM
link   
To those telling me Assault weapons is an aesthetic term, i counter anything even merely semi-automatic was meant for military purposes, Why do the citizens of this country need Military grade firepower?

(asking honest questions here not trying to be a D word)
edit on 16-1-2013 by POPtheKlEEN89 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 16 2013 @ 08:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by CaptainBeno
This war of words regarding the term Assault Weapon is goingto get out of hand. I know you all really know what that means and you are playing dumb. I fear this is going to turn into a war of ignorance.
edit on 16-1-2013 by CaptainBeno because: (no reason given)

Yeah, we know what it means. But the government doesn't, and as usual, they misinform the public.
This needs to be addressed.



posted on Jan, 16 2013 @ 08:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by winofiend

Originally posted by zayonara
"The right to bear arms" does not read "The right to bear arms that your government says you can bear." Simple as that. No more, no less, no foaming.
edit on 16-1-2013 by zayonara because: (no reason given)


So you include nuclear arms.

It's part of that parcel. Or do you draw the line?

It has to be drawn. But who does it, and where?

That's what I've been trying to find out all along, but I keep getting "404 - just you try!" errors when the page tries to load.

Hrumph.


Yes, I include nukes. Why not? Do you think any of these silly laws apply to the class of people who can afford nukes anyway? Newsflash, laws are for peasants. Those who can afford and really wish to buy a nuke should be able to if it preserves my freedom of choice in my price range.



posted on Jan, 16 2013 @ 08:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by POPtheKlEEN89
To those telling me Assault weapons is an aesthetic term, i counter anything even merely semi-automatic was meant for military purposes, Why do the citizens of this country need Military grade firepower?



Why do you need free speech? I mean that's what you have representatives in Washington DC for right? They represent you so you have no reason to speak freely they will do the speaking for you. Same thing different freedom.



posted on Jan, 16 2013 @ 08:39 PM
link   
To say they want to take away only the rifles kinda proves why they want to take them away!!
Be it an assault rifle or a hand gun, they BOTH kill.
The only reason they want to take away the assault rifle is because a nation armed with such weapons is a nation thats hard to contol, because if they need to they can defend themselves.

In the uk we're NOT ALLOWED to have them, and look where its gotten us!!! The criminals have guns, the police have guns, and even though the man in the street cant have one, it IS the man in the street thats killed by them.



posted on Jan, 16 2013 @ 08:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by POPtheKlEEN89
To those telling me Assault weapons is an aesthetic term, i counter anything even merely semi-automatic was meant for military purposes, Why do the citizens of this country need Military grade firepower?

(asking honest questions here not trying to be a D word)
edit on 16-1-2013 by POPtheKlEEN89 because: (no reason given)


Military grade weapons are already illegal for Americans. You can't just define a legal term however you feel like it buddy. There is a very specific definition for them and it's all aesthetic stuff.



posted on Jan, 16 2013 @ 08:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by POPtheKlEEN89
To those telling me Assault weapons is an aesthetic term, i counter anything even merely semi-automatic was meant for military purposes, Why do the citizens of this country need Military grade firepower?

(asking honest questions here not trying to be a D word)
edit on 16-1-2013 by POPtheKlEEN89 because: (no reason given)


I see now that your Op was a bait and switch tactic.
You are really just looking for a way to argue your stance on guns. Good luck.



posted on Jan, 16 2013 @ 08:44 PM
link   
Excellent idea, perhaps one of our braver politicians will add an amendment asking the Obama administration to get rid of all it's nuclear weapons. I mean who needs them.



posted on Jan, 16 2013 @ 08:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by Afterthought
reply to post by winofiend
 


He asked about assault weapons.

He didn't specify assault weapons in his Op.


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


He asked that question, you chose to ignore it and go on with the usual response about having no gun at all.



I won't even go through your nit pick list.


It was YOUR list. What the hell?! You said you would lose a, b, c and d and I just pointed out you dont actually have them now.

Sorry if you don't like that, and are sitting there waving your gun at the monitor mouthing the words "If only I could find you..."

lol


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


"What, Take my entire gun collection? Why then I wont be able to take my carry and conceal firearm to a childrens park."

awwww....



posted on Jan, 16 2013 @ 08:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by CaptainBeno
This war of words regarding the term Assault Weapon is goingto get out of hand. I know you all really know what that means and you are playing dumb. I fear this is going to turn into a war of ignorance.
edit on 16-1-2013 by CaptainBeno because: (no reason given)


If you're writing a law, the terms MUST be defined. Arguing over this arbitrary term is perfectly acceptable because it is the term that will define an entire class of arms. Currently it is defined in law and it seems that those who don't support gun rights don't want to read it for some reason.



posted on Jan, 16 2013 @ 08:47 PM
link   
reply to post by TruthSeekerMike
 


I refuse to accept your reality as anything more than fantasy.

Have fun with your legally obtainable nuclear fission weapons.



edit on 16-1-2013 by winofiend because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 16 2013 @ 08:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by POPtheKlEEN89
To those telling me Assault weapons is an aesthetic term, i counter anything even merely semi-automatic was meant for military purposes, Why do the citizens of this country need Military grade firepower?

(asking honest questions here not trying to be a D word)
edit on 16-1-2013 by POPtheKlEEN89 because: (no reason given)


You probably weren't born yet when people were saying, so why on earth do we need all these heavy awkward gold coins to lug around, this new paper stuff is so much more asthetic and convenient ~ and it will always be backed by gold anyway, they promised.

So FDR confiscated the gold and the people gave it up without a fight. Now we're 222 trillion dollars in the hole because they LIED.
edit on 16-1-2013 by frazzle because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 16 2013 @ 08:48 PM
link   
reply to post by winofiend
 


Sorry about forgetting the title specified assault weapons. The paragraph in the Op didn't reiterate this detail.0
It's late. I'm tired.
You'll have to find someone else to nit pick with.



posted on Jan, 16 2013 @ 08:51 PM
link   
reply to post by winofiend
 


Sorry if you don't like that, and are sitting there waving your gun at the monitor mouthing the words "If only I could find you..."


DON'T EVER PUT THESE TYPES OF ACTIONS ON SOMEONE WHEN YOU DON'T EVEN KNOW THEM!!!
YOU'RE PART OF THE PROBLEM IF YOU'RE GOING TO ASSUME THINGS LIKE THIS.



posted on Jan, 16 2013 @ 08:51 PM
link   
in an answer just to the title of this thread!

i would say your giving up your right to kill! is that such a bad thing?



posted on Jan, 16 2013 @ 08:51 PM
link   
reply to post by SpaDe_
 


Mate, I could even give two monkeys what you think of me.

I am allowed to voice my opinion. and I will, no matter how much you wish to suppress me.

Ok?
edit on 16-1-2013 by CaptainBeno because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 16 2013 @ 08:52 PM
link   

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.


And how would a single bullet stop 2 or more intruders?
Not every one is a sharp shooter despite what Hollywood likes to show in movies.

And why do anti-gun people instantly try to create the bloodiest image possible???
No one I know who owns a gun thinks like that.

-----------------

NOTE: If criminals would stop home invasions [stealing], there would not be any need for the home owner to fire the gun.
But since we do not live in the Brady Bunch/Partridge Family era, crime is real. Hence the need to protect one's home/family.
Instead of criticizing the gun owners, how about getting on the thugs who cause people to feel the need to protect their families. They are the only ones in the wrong.....





new topics
 
9
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join