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

page: 6
9
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 16 2013 @ 10:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by chopperswolf
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.

Well our European bopares seem to be not that "militant". But sure all depending on the species. but satill no excuse for an AK-47.




posted on Jan, 16 2013 @ 10:54 PM
link   
Hypothetically speaking, if assault weapons are banned what liberties will you be losing?

The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.


This is a very good question and one that many are unable to answer rationally no matter which side of the gun issue they stand.

The US Constitution is the contract between the people of the US and their elected representation in the democratically elected republic. By allowing these people the power to vote, consider and contemplate what is to be the laws of this land, we ask for certain limits to such great power so that responsible decisions and actions can be made for the benefit of all. Each elected official takes an oath that they will uphold the Constitution and that any means of changing its weight will only be by the specifically prescribed manner of the Amendment process. It should be carefully noted that the Constitution is only legal because all the original thirteen member colonies agreed to abandon The Articles of Confederation on the condition set forth by four states: New York, Virginia (neither would not ratify until the Bill of Rights was promised) as well as Rhode Island and North Carolina (neither of which would ratify until the Bill of Rights was included). What is important to realize here is that under the Articles, such a decision had to unanimous.

In addition to infringement of the Second, the Fifth and Ninth are being squelched by such a ban. Life, Liberty nor Property cannot be taken by the Federal Government without due process. And people retain unenumerated rights whereas the Federal Government is limited to exactly what is spelled out and specifically enumerated. Any law or executive order that is unconstitutional, impinges on personal Liberty. It removes the freedom of choice in a manner no different than a common mugger restricts your movement and liberates your cash. For those that own any of these soon to be criminalized weapons have had their property status changed from legal to illegal, and may or may not be subjected to confiscation by a bit of ex post facto action. Or at the very least, be unable to transfer their property to another without being subjected to legal scrutiny.

A section of the questionably legal Obamacare has been altered now by executive order, placing the tenants of Doctor-Patient confidentiality at risk. Those in need of mental health treatment may opt to avoid it because they could lose their firearms over a bout of depression over the lose of a family member or divorce. This situation potentially places random and unrelated people's lives in jeopardy as those in need of mental health care go without and remain armed.

Most importantly, the weapons being sought to be banned are civilian designed models. Every last single one of them are simply semi-automatic rifles (of the "assault weapons") one shot per pull of the trigger. Every one is already limited to prevent three round bursts and fully automatic fire. Which I find to be an odd distinction, quite honestly as firing in three round bursts and fully automatic mode is harder to hit a target with accuracy versus semi-auto mode, especially when switching between multiple targets at varying ranges.

To sum it up, I lose the freedom of choice in how choice to defend my life and the lives of those around me. I lose the freedom of choice of what I wish to own as property and my enjoyment of it. And most importantly, I lose the freedom to be free from those that feel they must choose to what is acceptable to them must become acceptable to me, which is the very basic definition of oppression...something else that is supposed to be unconstitutional because with oppression you are either a slave or live under tyranny.


As an ATS Staff Member, I will not moderate in threads such as this where I have participated as a member.



posted on Jan, 16 2013 @ 11:27 PM
link   
 


edit on 16-1-2013 by chopperswolf because: just because



posted on Jan, 16 2013 @ 11:33 PM
link   
reply to post by POPtheKlEEN89
 

Right, especially if they do it in the "closet" (I expected that response and we wont go into aids, etc).but what danger is my gun in my gun closet (safe) as long as I am not a threat to anyone in particular or society at large?



posted on Jan, 16 2013 @ 11:37 PM
link   
reply to post by Guenter
 

Google ,"jager pro thermal hog hunting", this seems cruel, but millions of dollars a year are lost to crop predation in my area, and our largest industry in my community is agriculture, these so called assault weapons are only tools , if used as such, and very effective for the job at hand.
www.youtube.com...
edit on 16-1-2013 by chopperswolf because: more info added
edit on 16-1-2013 by chopperswolf because: (no reason given)
extra DIV



posted on Jan, 16 2013 @ 11:37 PM
link   
reply to post by POPtheKlEEN89
 


Us? Maybe only the right to own self loading rifles. Or then maybe we lose our republic. Maybe it will be our great grandkids that really see the effect. Taking "assault" weapons means a lot. It means they gauge public reaction, it means the set a precedent for similar future actions. It puts us one step closer to losing handguns. If there is a handgun massacre in 10 years do you think they wouldn't float the idea of banning those to a public that is used to not having "assault" weapons.


Consider the government later through manipulation of dozens of corrupt politicians begins to turn to tyranny, or at the very least an insanely corrupt entity with a sociopath at the top and the ability to completely take away the power from the people.

They intend to make it where assault weapons can't be passed on. I wonder if that means they are illegal if you die and pass them on to a child? That would mean they just need to wait rather than confiscate. Couple generations and the assault weapons are dwindling. Really though, the point is, if they can ban assault weapons they can ban handguns. Look to the UK for the proof.



posted on Jan, 16 2013 @ 11:41 PM
link   
reply to post by CosmicCitizen
 

The bottom line (lifestyle choices in general and second amendment in particular apart) is that the individual is a microcosm of the collective society and has the same right to defense as does the state at large. Defense of self and family and beyond (more aptly counter-offense) is provided materially and practically thru firearms (and ammunition) and training and legally and morally thru the Constitution (and the Creator).



posted on Jan, 17 2013 @ 12:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by Human_Alien

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)


Who says. Who says people don't need them to protect themselves? Our SERVANTS, EMPLOYEES? CHINA?

They're under our infniite inalienable rights and that means also a majority of dummies can't take away a single person's rights. We don't stand under the bad opinions of another. They may rightfully expect us not to murder, rape, steal or plunder. But to try and disempower a lawful, citizen who is not harming? To make stand under! To say, I don't think you will need to defend yourself or neighbor against a military taking you in the night so you don't get them, when I think we do have to. Well we don't under someones else opinion.

I'm furious at our government for making it so that only criminals have guns. Now I myself don't want to have one, but I understand some heros' needing them. Here in Canada its the criminals who have them.

Nor do they own us. They are but servants, and we are the masters. We are our own masters. That is what freedom means, that is what not being a slave means.
edit on 17-1-2013 by Unity_99 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 17 2013 @ 12:31 AM
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.


So I have to ask. If the government targets you are as a terrorist and you obviously aren't. And they show up at your door.

Is that simple single bullet gonna work as they infringe on your liberty?



posted on Jan, 17 2013 @ 01:13 AM
link   
reply to post by CaptainBeno
 


What a surprise another non American that is clueless about American gun culture and thinks all 100,000 million American gun owners are psychopaths.

No doubt in this thread he will talk about he never needed a gun and no one from his country ever wanted them. No doubt he will be from a country where they once had the freedom to own guns but lost their right because they folded like a lawn chair when the government exploited something one person did. Of course his government banning guns was only a formality because the spree killer was the only person in his country that ever owned or wanted one. I really love the pretentious sour grapes attitude they get.

I'll take a gun nut over someone that has been brainwashed into a self righteous twit because pretending like losing their right to bear arms is something they want is the only thing they can actually do about their government taking them away like little children with matches.
edit on 17-1-2013 by GogoVicMorrow because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 17 2013 @ 01:17 AM
link   
My assault weapon is for when/if SHTF.
Do i need a assault weapon right now NO and maybe never, BUT! you never know.
Would i turn it in! no.
Would i bury it YES.
I have other weapons. but my most dangerous weapon is my mind.

Oh the State of Calif and US government already owes me a lot of money for putting me out of at least two legal businesses i had with there BS laws and regulations.

Why in the H**l would i give them something else i worked hard for.
edit on 17-1-2013 by ANNED because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 17 2013 @ 01:42 AM
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.



Criminals (who don't follow laws) will still try to kick down your door with AK47's & standard capacity magazines and if you live in a state like New York, you will only be able to respond with a 7 shot pistol or shotgun.

Laws do not protect the lawful. They enable the lawless




posted on Jan, 17 2013 @ 03:52 AM
link   
I cant believe the crap i am reading in this thread.

Its very simple, the government wants to take away rights laid out clearly in the constitution.

How could anybody support this? I really dont get it.

Simple logic here

- Someone who assaults someone else, with or without a gun, is a criminal.
- Criminals by the very definition do not follow the law.
- Therefore passing laws restricting gun ownership does not effect the criminals who spawned this whole debate in the first place.

How does any of this make logical sense?

I understand the want for a safer world, and if it were possible to poof guns out of existance forever, i might even support it. This is not reality, and its never going to happen.

Passing laws only affects those that follow said laws.
Those that follow the laws are not the ones you should be worried about, its the criminals.

How about we focus on the criminals that are making horrible decisions, instead of the weapon they choose to use?

DC



posted on Jan, 17 2013 @ 04:21 AM
link   
reply to post by CaptainBeno
 


Thats funny because semi autos are one bullet per trigger pull, how many times can you pull a trigger in a second. And one bullet has never been enough,you been watching too many movies.

Here soldier this is your military issue musket, one bullet is enough
edit on 17-1-2013 by zonetripper2065 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 17 2013 @ 04:54 AM
link   
reply to post by TruthSeekerMike
 

Would you make an assault on any threat with a firearm that could only fire one shot before having to be manually reloaded? Two six-shot revolvers can be assault weapons in the right hands, so a long arm that can fire a cartridge of 30 bullets as fast as you can pull the trigger should definitely be classed as an assault weapon.



posted on Jan, 17 2013 @ 05:08 AM
link   
The only reason I need an Assualt rifle is to kill those that try to confiscate my weapon or to defend the cause during a revolution. Assault rifles are my weapon of choice if I am defending my constitutional rights against a Tyrannical government. That is the only reason we store Assualt rifles on my property.

Reiterated.

If you cannot rationalize that, God have mercy on your soul.
edit on 17-1-2013 by milkyway12 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 17 2013 @ 06:44 AM
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.


We lose even more leverage over a government that continues to grow, continues to become more intrusive and continues to chip away at our liberties.



posted on Jan, 17 2013 @ 07:06 AM
link   
It's a continuation loss of liberty that we have all already lost.

Time to stop supporting prohibition in all it's forms.

Dont take a step back just because it's a thing you dont like.

Supporting any prohibition is supporting all prohibition.
edit on 17-1-2013 by thisguyrighthere because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 17 2013 @ 07:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by thisguyrighthere
It's a continuation loss of liberty that we have all already lost.

Time to stop supporting prohibition in all it's forms.

Dont take a step back just because it's a thing you dont like.

Supporting any prohibition is supporting all prohibition.
edit on 17-1-2013 by thisguyrighthere because: (no reason given)


Recreational drugs are prohibited. Firearms are regulated. I don't see any of you liberty defenders waving your guns around in defiance to support the rights of people to get high in their leisure time.



posted on Jan, 17 2013 @ 07:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by IvanAstikov

Originally posted by thisguyrighthere
It's a continuation loss of liberty that we have all already lost.

Time to stop supporting prohibition in all it's forms.

Dont take a step back just because it's a thing you dont like.

Supporting any prohibition is supporting all prohibition.
edit on 17-1-2013 by thisguyrighthere because: (no reason given)


Recreational drugs are prohibited. Firearms are regulated. I don't see any of you liberty defenders waving your guns around in defiance to support the rights of people to get high in their leisure time.


I've been involved in the "legalize it" movement for over 25 years now.

I'm a single issue voter: liberty.
edit on 17-1-2013 by thisguyrighthere because: (no reason given)





new topics
top topics
 
9
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join