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

page: 5
9
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 16 2013 @ 09:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by T4NG0

Originally posted by solomons path
reply to post by T4NG0
 


Average gun exchange happens within 10ft of each other and last five seconds. In those five seconds, five shots are fired on average with 1 bullets striking. That's 20%. With a ten round mag, that's 2 hits over 10 seconds.

Here's hoping you hit the CNS!


You are right, and I agree with you. Which is why I said one does not always do the job. I would think you can get a higher hit percentage than that though at ten feet, if you are aiming at center mass..
edit on 16-1-2013 by T4NG0 because: (no reason given)


Then you have to factor in fear, panic, and a possible moving target. Or 2 moving targets. So 1 bullet is not sufficient IMO.

It's so easy for us to sit here and say what would happen in a home invasion scenario where he/she would do this or that when in reality we haven't got a clue. To become a victim is a whole different ball game than hitting a bulls-eye target at the shooting range. Just saying....




posted on Jan, 16 2013 @ 09:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by superman2012

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


Good point! In my country of origin, many hunters use twin barrel combinarion guns. 1 is for a 12 gauge shell and the orhte ris a 303 or simlar cal rifle. Some even use Tripples with an additional 22 cal for small game. Bolt action 5 rounds max hunting rifles and twin barrel shot guns are the most common weapons. The combo-twins and Tripples are msotly used for game warden duty to eliminate any sick and desease carrying game. But REAL hunters will even laugh at the guy with the 5 rounds bolt action rifle. They pride themselves to be so good that the 2nd barrel on a rifle is for "just in case". And the just in case scenario is mostly limited to the wild boars, because these guys can get nasty if just a bit "wounded".



posted on Jan, 16 2013 @ 09:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by POPtheKlEEN89
Well Obama has fully revealed his position, now if congress acts in favor of his laws i would like to know what liberties you will be losing and why you feel that way.

I am generally interested in hearing your personal views on how these laws will affect your individual liberty, so far i haven't been able to stomach this debate no matter where i see or hear it, so indulge me with an intelligent response giving me your reasons for or against the looming assault weapons ban.

Keep it civil, if you foam at the mouth please clean up after yourself.


Ok, I'll answer you question directly from just my perspective.

As individual rights (mine) are extinguised, government 'right's are extended to make up the difference.

It's simply a transfer of power from the sovereign individual, to those 0.00001% that pull the strings.

Who really is better at protecting me and my familiy, myself or the government and what is the cost in both liberty and privacy to me (not to mention direct costs)

It appears to me as the citizens of country after country are disarmed, (by these VERY conveniently timed shooting events) the governments in those countries only grow ever more powerful, more domineering, more abusive, more invasive.

I see this slippery slope as ending up *eventually* (if it's allowed to continue) with a camera on every street corner and a microchip in every wrist,literally, even now those things (and MANY more) are being pushed as a way to keep American's 'safe', as Obama and Biden and all of their CFR friends, seek to make every American 100% helpless and dependent on The State for their very survival.

This to me seems the real tradeoff.

Our Founding Father's and Mother's warned us so very clearly about never allowing this to happen.

I think they were very intelligent and perhaps more so intuitive, we should really listen and pay heed.



edit on 16-1-2013 by Tecumte because: txt ad.



posted on Jan, 16 2013 @ 09:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by OpsSpecialist
I am a former corrections officer who spent most of my time dealing with prominent gangs. It's a job that comes with understood risk, but what most people don't realize is that risk follows you home. If any of the threats I received from gang members ever come to fruition, I will be outgunned. Perhaps most of you can't understand what it's like to live knowing there are people who want you dead at any cost. ...threats that made enough noise to warrant attention from the U.S. Marshall's service. Welcome to my life. A life where carrying a gun is not an option. I refuse to let anyone give any criminal an advantage over me. The Constitution grants me the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. I can't think of anything that infringes on my rights more than putting my life even more at risk.


Wow, i cant imagine that kind of stress, but i can fully understand why your weapon gives you not only the physical protection but the comfort of knowing you can fight back in the most Dire of situations, at least thats how it would be for me if i were in that situation! Thank you very much for the input!!



posted on Jan, 16 2013 @ 09:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by snarky412

Originally posted by T4NG0

Originally posted by solomons path
reply to post by T4NG0
 


Average gun exchange happens within 10ft of each other and last five seconds. In those five seconds, five shots are fired on average with 1 bullets striking. That's 20%. With a ten round mag, that's 2 hits over 10 seconds.

Here's hoping you hit the CNS!


You are right, and I agree with you. Which is why I said one does not always do the job. I would think you can get a higher hit percentage than that though at ten feet, if you are aiming at center mass..
edit on 16-1-2013 by T4NG0 because: (no reason given)


Then you have to factor in fear, panic, and a possible moving target. Or 2 moving targets. So 1 bullet is not sufficient IMO.

It's so easy for us to sit here and say what would happen in a home invasion scenario where he/she would do this or that when in reality we haven't got a clue. To become a victim is a whole different ball game than hitting a bulls-eye target at the shooting range. Just saying....
Well the adrenaline factor is a factor for sure, and we can speculate how we would react hypothetically all day, and I will because at ten feet you can draw and shoot from the hip without missing. I see what you are saying though with the whole moving, and multiple target point too. Hopefully you don't get caught up in some shootout lol, but if you do I agree it would be difficult. Which is why my .45 had 13 rd. magazines. I tend to carry around 50 rds. with me when I carry(concealed).



posted on Jan, 16 2013 @ 09:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by Tecumte

Originally posted by POPtheKlEEN89
Well Obama has fully revealed his position, now if congress acts in favor of his laws i would like to know what liberties you will be losing and why you feel that way.

I am generally interested in hearing your personal views on how these laws will affect your individual liberty, so far i haven't been able to stomach this debate no matter where i see or hear it, so indulge me with an intelligent response giving me your reasons for or against the looming assault weapons ban.

Keep it civil, if you foam at the mouth please clean up after yourself.


Ok, I'll answer you question directly from just my perspective.

As individual rights (mine) are extinguised, government 'right's are extended to make up the difference.

It's simply a transfer of power from the sovereign individual, to those 0.00001% that pull the strings.

Who really is better at protecting me and my familiy, myself or the government and what is the cost in both liberty and privacy to me (not to mention direct costs)

It appears to me as the citizens of country after country are disarmed, (by these VERY conveniently timed shooting events) the governments in those countries only grow ever more powerful, more domineering, more abusive, more invasive.

I see this slippery slope as ending up *eventually* (if it's allowed to continue) with a camera on every street corner and a microchip in every wrist,literally, even now those things (and MANY more) are being pushed as a way to keep American's 'safe', as Obama and Biden and all of their CFR friends, seek to make every American 100% helpless and dependent on The State for their very survival.

This to me seems the real tradeoff.

Our Founding Father's and Mother's warned us so very clearly about never allowing this to happen.

I think they were very intelligent and perhaps more so intuitive, we should really listen and pay heed.



edit on 16-1-2013 by Tecumte because: txt ad.


Excellent point!!! The vacuum of power is never empty!

Thanks for the input, i can agree that you are the best protection for your loved ones, not the government.



posted on Jan, 16 2013 @ 09:56 PM
link   
reply to post by POPtheKlEEN89
 


I kind of answered that in two ways post in two ways already, you just don't like the answer and that's fair. Not to be infringed - regardless of one crazy persons actions. And the post of above about gun battles. Add that to the intent behind the 2nd, what militia meant, and what regulated meant (disciplined, not run by) in the time of the drafting.

I don't know how you see blurring lines. In fact, I used the sling-shot analogy for a reason. All weapons are designed to kill. So you are trying to imply that a bolt action or revolver is any less dangerous? It's okay to if the wacko kills 15, just not 20+?

If you are so knowledgeable about weapons how is semi-auto military grade? Please define military grade. Is the Ruger 10\22 military grade? How about a Colt SA 1911 not military grade? Not trying to be condescending, so sorry you take it that way. However, you comments don't line up with someone who knows about arms.

Bottom line to me is there are those, whether they own guns or not, who see this through the lens that this government and media want - with emotion. The whole argument from the anti crowd is a plea to emotion. Safety, never again, children, utility (need). Again, the actions of one man should take away the rights of a nation.



posted on Jan, 16 2013 @ 10:00 PM
link   
reply to post by POPtheKlEEN89
 


Just look at other countries this past year at the turmoil and chaos that has errupted.

For some reason, people think that could never happen in the United States.
But as history has shown us, all great empires succumb to a fatal end.
It could quite possibly happen to us.

Our country today is the most screwed up and divided as I've ever seen it.
Our economy is in the tank.
High unemployment.
Foreign policies are a mess.
The list is endless.
Basically, no leadership.....

Now then. If the dollar were to fail and the welfare checks, unemployment checks, etc. were to stop, what do you think would happen?
Simple.....Total Civil Unrest.
The worst SHTF scenario one could imagine.

Now, remember what happened during Katrina? Total chaos....
And that was just ONE city.

Now, picture the whole country in turmoil.
There would be no laws then, only crime, rape and deaths.
That's where Martial Law would have to be activated. But in the mean time, how are you going to defend yourself from the gangs, for they will be rampant.

Scary and very possible. We as a country are not immune to failure.

So yeah, I'm for the right to bear arms.
I may end up getting one before they change the laws.



posted on Jan, 16 2013 @ 10:04 PM
link   
On the surface is the right to own said weapon but underneath it all is the right to a lifestyle choice, the right to liberty and happiness. IF it is politically correct for a homosexual to fantasize and fondle another man then why cant an individual fantasize about feeling secure by fondling his assault rifle? Gun ownership is a lifestyle choice that should be protected under the Constitution along with other "lifestyle" choices. In fact gun ownership has a specific "double barrel" protection with the Second Amendment that extends the general rights of "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." (this is not entirely tongue in cheek)



posted on Jan, 16 2013 @ 10:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by solomons path
reply to post by POPtheKlEEN89
 


I kind of answered that in two ways post in two ways already, you just don't like the answer and that's fair. Not to be infringed - regardless of one crazy persons actions. And the post of above about gun battles. Add that to the intent behind the 2nd, what militia meant, and what regulated meant (disciplined, not run by) in the time of the drafting.

I don't know how you see blurring lines. In fact, I used the sling-shot analogy for a reason. All weapons are designed to kill. So you are trying to imply that a bolt action or revolver is any less dangerous? It's okay to if the wacko kills 15, just not 20+?

If you are so knowledgeable about weapons how is semi-auto military grade? Please define military grade. Is the Ruger 10\22 military grade? How about a Colt SA 1911 not military grade? Not trying to be condescending, so sorry you take it that way. However, you comments don't line up with someone who knows about arms.

Bottom line to me is there are those, whether they own guns or not, who see this through the lens that this government and media want - with emotion. The whole argument from the anti crowd is a plea to emotion. Safety, never again, children, utility (need). Again, the actions of one man should take away the rights of a nation.



I know little about guns, and i said why is a handgun not sufficient? why do you need a semi-auto or fully auto weapon? When they were originally devised it was for military use, you are so worried about firearm semantics you missed the whole point.

en.m.wikipedia.org...



posted on Jan, 16 2013 @ 10:07 PM
link   
reply to post by T4NG0
 


Yeah . . . The statistics aren't mine, they were given to us during our DPS testing for CCW. I'd find it hard to miss cm from 10ft too, however all factors considered it makes sense. I know people who haven't gone to a range since they bought their weapon, yet it sits in the night stand ready for action. I'm glad none of them live next to me!



posted on Jan, 16 2013 @ 10:09 PM
link   
The ability to make it a lot harder and messier if the armies come to our properties to round up our families. And that is the purpose for haivng them. And the government is so intrinsically evil and those they serve that in Canada, where we cannot have such weapons, one spends a lot of time wondering what they will do in various situations.

Don't give up your guns!
edit on 16-1-2013 by Unity_99 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 16 2013 @ 10:12 PM
link   
reply to post by POPtheKlEEN89
 





So what can be done to limit mass murders without giving the criminal element an advantage?


There needs to be a stricter Mental Health Evaluation.

And any one who takes meds, should not be allowed a gun.

Also and very important.........

PARENTS need to be more responsible.
Lock the gun up.
Keep a trigger guard on it. Safety on...
Don't show the kid where you hide it.
Be careful around mentally challenged kids.
Basically, use common sense.
And be aware.....

As for the thugs, that's a lost cause in itself. They abide by no laws, only their own.



posted on Jan, 16 2013 @ 10:16 PM
link   
reply to post by POPtheKlEEN89

So I appreciate your reply above, but if you don't mind I'd enjoy your thoughts on the slippery slope, how this has played out worldwide, and if you don't see it being played out here in the U.S.

Do you really think that limiting/banning so called 'assault weapons' would be the end? I think like we've seen in other countries and even here in the states in places like Illinois etc. that really it's just the start. Do you think ALL guns should be banned from the citizens? Where would you draw the line, and once an inch is given how would the citizenry know it would be the last line?

edit on 16-1-2013 by Tecumte because: chg quotes
edit on 16-1-2013 by Tecumte because: (no reason given)
edit on 16-1-2013 by Tecumte because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 16 2013 @ 10:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by CosmicCitizen
On the surface is the right to own said weapon but underneath it all is the right to a lifestyle choice, the right to liberty and happiness. IF it is politically correct for a homosexual to fantasize and fondle another man then why cant an individual fantasize about feeling secure by fondling his assault rifle? Gun ownership is a lifestyle choice that should be protected under the Constitution along with other "lifestyle" choices. In fact gun ownership has a specific "double barrel" protection with the Second Amendment that extends the general rights of "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." (this is not entirely tongue in cheek)


Excellent point! But where i counter that is Gay men fondling each other has little chance of affecting anybody else in a violent manner (for all i know), gun ownership is a lifestyle choice that can POSSIBLY affect many. But to counter myself i am a gun owner as well (.38 special) and i couldn't fathom misusing it in anyway at all.

But there are a ton of great points being made in this thread helping me see things a little differently, so thank you for contributing!



posted on Jan, 16 2013 @ 10:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by POPtheKlEEN89

Originally posted by solomons path
reply to post by POPtheKlEEN89
 


I kind of answered that in two ways post in two ways already, you just don't like the answer and that's fair. Not to be infringed - regardless of one crazy persons actions. And the post of above about gun battles. Add that to the intent behind the 2nd, what militia meant, and what regulated meant (disciplined, not run by) in the time of the drafting.

I don't know how you see blurring lines. In fact, I used the sling-shot analogy for a reason. All weapons are designed to kill. So you are trying to imply that a bolt action or revolver is any less dangerous? It's okay to if the wacko kills 15, just not 20+?

If you are so knowledgeable about weapons how is semi-auto military grade? Please define military grade. Is the Ruger 10\22 military grade? How about a Colt SA 1911 not military grade? Not trying to be condescending, so sorry you take it that way. However, you comments don't line up with someone who knows about arms.

Bottom line to me is there are those, whether they own guns or not, who see this through the lens that this government and media want - with emotion. The whole argument from the anti crowd is a plea to emotion. Safety, never again, children, utility (need). Again, the actions of one man should take away the rights of a nation.



I know little about guns, and i said why is a handgun not sufficient? why do you need a semi-auto or fully auto weapon? When they were originally devised it was for military use, you are so worried about firearm semantics you missed the whole point.

en.m.wikipedia.org...


You're right. I'm missing the point. In fact, I don't think you have one. What is in that wiki that was supposed to support anything you have said? I read the whole page and don't see anything that supports your military grade argument. Please be direct and I would like you to answer the question about what is military grade and why the examples I have given fall into that catagory (or don't).

I have a given you more than one answer to the OP and answered to your semi-auto utility question. As I said, before your plea to emotion and utility will fall on deaf ears with me. We can apply your reason to any issue facing this country today (cars/alcohol/cig/television/meds/etc) If safety and utility is all you have to fall back on, you have a poor argument to take away the rights of others.

I'll make a pact with you. I'll fully support a national gun ban and confiscation scheme, as long as it applies the same rules to all LEOs and Military. This includes all branches and agencies (secret service, I'm looking at you).



posted on Jan, 16 2013 @ 10:28 PM
link   

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)


They didn't even HAVE assault weapons when the 'government' wrote the Constitution.
So if Tesla technology ever comes to the market-place you mean you should have a choice of that too?

Greediness and simple-mindedness make for scary Americans.

You.Don't.Need.Assault.Weapons. ....and you can't always get what you want. So get over it.
edit on 16-1-2013 by Human_Alien because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 16 2013 @ 10:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by solomons path
reply to post by T4NG0
 


Yeah . . . The statistics aren't mine, they were given to us during our DPS testing for CCW. I'd find it hard to miss cm from 10ft too, however all factors considered it makes sense. I know people who haven't gone to a range since they bought their weapon, yet it sits in the night stand ready for action. I'm glad none of them live next to me!
Omg you're right, and it is kind of scary, you have to be proficient in your weapon skills, as to not get killed, or kill any innocent bystanders. Please practice people.
In CCW class the instructor also said to practice at the range, and at home too. You can do so by dry firing; using snap caps if you want; drawing from your holster concealed, and not; as well as mag release and reload. If we all practice these scenarios, you will be more prepared.



posted on Jan, 16 2013 @ 10:31 PM
link   
reply to post by POPtheKlEEN89
 
i will not be losing any liberties, because i quit listening to and obeying these false dick taters long ago, when the president of the United States cannot prove his eligibility to be in office, why should i have to prove anything to exercise my god given rights. i will not ask permission , i will take my liberties as i please, while respecting the liberties of others..............MOLON LABE.

edit on 16-1-2013 by chopperswolf because: cause i felt like it



posted on Jan, 16 2013 @ 10:45 PM
link   
reply to post by Guenter
 

Wild boars are encroaching on our livestock and croplands where i live. they are classified as outlaw quadrupeds, and can be hunted day or night with no limit. I wouldn't want to go stalking a herd of wild pigs with a single shot, a double, or even a drilling, they have been known to kill grown cows and eat them around here. you might need more than three bullets, and not because you are a lousy marksman.





top topics
 
9
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join