Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

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

page: 3
9
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 16 2013 @ 08:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by Afterthought

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.


**Intelligent responses please.




posted on Jan, 16 2013 @ 08:54 PM
link   
reply to post by Free4Ever2
 


Bingo! And it took a Scottsman to point it out.

Or is he too not allowed to join in?



posted on Jan, 16 2013 @ 08:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by CaptainBeno
reply to post by SpaDe_
 


Mate, I could even give to 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?


I also have an opinion and I will share it as often as I like. I also enjoy countering diatribe and hyperbole with facts. Just happens to be a hobby of mine.



posted on Jan, 16 2013 @ 08:56 PM
link   
reply to post by snarky412
 


Ever heard of the old manual way, it's called "reload".



posted on Jan, 16 2013 @ 08:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by SpaDe_

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.


Please i get it, i must be talked down to.

Back to the topic, So how do guns define free speech?



posted on Jan, 16 2013 @ 08:57 PM
link   
reply to post by SpaDe_
 


Well, enjoy the "facts" just dished out by your fantastic President.

Tough luck buddy.



posted on Jan, 16 2013 @ 09:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by greenfox83
Well for one, no more fresh duck or deer meat at my house. This will take away my husbands freedom to go in the woods and hunt for food for his family. It's not all about "thug life" and crazy people. What about the people who are hit with hard times and survive off hunting for their family. Ever see that show about people in Alaska who literally survive off this and growing their own food.


Who hunts with automatic weapons!? How is that hunting? Might as well throw a grenade in the middle of the herd or put landmines along a game trail.
edit on 16-1-2013 by superman2012 because: spelling



posted on Jan, 16 2013 @ 09:01 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.


Um...not so much. Pulling trigger repeatedly is a waste of money and ammo. One shot...one kill. But feel free to continue to believe what you will.

And before I pull the trigger, I damned make sure that the target is a threat.



posted on Jan, 16 2013 @ 09:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by CaptainBeno
reply to post by SpaDe_
 


Well, enjoy the "facts" just dished out by your fantastic President.

Tough luck buddy.


My President just did a whole lot of nothing today. The FACT is the President said sorry anti gun crowd there isn't a thing I can do. He left it up to Congress, which is funny because the Senate majority leader who happens to be a Democrat stated that he doesn't even have the votes to pass any anti gun legislation.

Looks like the rabid anti gun crowd loses on this one.



posted on Jan, 16 2013 @ 09:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by VoidHawk
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.





I hear this point often and thanks for the input. I am very interested in hearing more opinions from you foreign folks who aren't allowed to have guns, please speak up!

Do you wish you had guns?

if not then why?



posted on Jan, 16 2013 @ 09:02 PM
link   
post removed because the user has no concept of manners

Click here for more information.



posted on Jan, 16 2013 @ 09:03 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Jan, 16 2013 @ 09:04 PM
link   
reply to post by nixie_nox
 


And since abortion was once considered a sin, hence punishable. Or that Blacks were considered to be a second class citizen...if even that.

Yea, let's go back to the good old days. (end of sarcasm)



posted on Jan, 16 2013 @ 09:06 PM
link   
The fact is that the militia in the USA is defined as every able bodied person trained in arms and possessing such ready to defend life, liberty, and property within their local areas of influence. We the people will lose that historic and strategic right if there is a so called assault weapon ban. The ability to defend your local area by force of arms with your neighbor is a basic right that is defended in no uncertain terms by the second amendment. It allowed the United states to repel the invading British in the war of 1812 for instance.

The first of such bans in 1994 was in an anti militia climate as well by democrats which see armed peasants as a problem for their institutionalizing of globalist socialist/corporatist one world government expansion.



posted on Jan, 16 2013 @ 09:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by POPtheKlEEN89

Originally posted by SpaDe_

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.


Please i get it, i must be talked down to.

Back to the topic, So how do guns define free speech?


The first amendment is a right just as much as the second amendment is a right. Once you start to change one to pander to one crowd you open the door to change the rest for any crowd that complains enough to be heard even if they are the minority. Giving up a right because you don't like it or don't use it is the same as giving up the rest.



posted on Jan, 16 2013 @ 09:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by CaptainBeno
reply to post by superman2012
 


I know, it's the most stupid response I have ever heard of. But it really shows how much he cares and exactly how his mind works. Thank God this law limits people like this from owning those kind of weapons.


I would have to say that this is probably the most ignorant response I have ever seen.

Have you ever heard of sport shooting?



posted on Jan, 16 2013 @ 09:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by CaptainBeno
reply to post by SpaDe_
 


So what is it you are whinning about?


I'm sorry, I'm trying to have a constructive discussion here in this thread that the OP created. Maybe you could do the same instead of derailing his thread with your one line comments, and your hyperbole?



posted on Jan, 16 2013 @ 09:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by CaptainBeno
reply to post by snarky412
 


Ever heard of the old manual way, it's called "reload".


Yeah right....

"Hold on Mr. Bad Guy, I have to reload so please stop attacking me and tell your buddy to stand back until I'm done. Capt.Beno said you wouldn't mind. Thanks guys....okay I'm ready now so you may commence with the beating."


In a real life scenario, you don't always have second chances.
Some times it's a do or die situation.

You have the right to take a gamble by saying no to guns. And I pray that you are never put in a situation that you can't handle.
That being said, the other people also have a right to defend their property by any means possible, including guns that hold more than 6 bullets.

Basically, it's a personal choice.


edit on 16-1-2013 by snarky412 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 16 2013 @ 09:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by CaptainBeno
reply to post by greenfox83
 


Um, what ever happened to a single shot rifle? Do snipers in the Army use assult rifles? I'm guessing, one shot, one kill? How many dear in one space mate??


Google is your friend.

'Nuff said.

What are you? 15?



posted on Jan, 16 2013 @ 09:11 PM
link   
reply to post by POPtheKlEEN89
 





if not then why?


Because in Australia there is absolutely no need for one? At all?

I have never ever encountered a situation where I have needed to kill anyone?
I have never had a break-in that involved violence?
No one I know has a gun?
I have never heard of any shootings in my area / State?

Have you ever visited another country?

You can't take your gun!

What would you do? Is that the reason most American don't travel to other countries? because they feel scared without there weapons?

S* only happens in your country! You need to change that first, then the gun laws.





new topics




 
9
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join