It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com 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: 8
9
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 17 2013 @ 09:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by VoidHawk

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.


Killed a hell of a lot less than in the US.

It's not common that a civilian minding his own business gets shot and killed by a criminal in the UK, and even if it was, the issue is criminals getting hold of guns, not peacful citizens lacking them.

The gun issue is a far bigger problem in the US than it is here, so guns for civilians is not the answer, otherwise everything would be fine and dandy in the US, mass shootings would not happen, and we wouldn't be having this conversation.
edit on 17-1-2013 by humphreysjim because: (no reason given)




posted on Jan, 17 2013 @ 09:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by humphreysjim

The gun issue is a far bigger problem in the US than it is here, so guns for civilians is not the answer, otherwise everything would be fine and dandy in the US, mass shootings would not happen, and we wouldn't be having this conversation.
edit on 17-1-2013 by humphreysjim because: (no reason given)


Using your own logic given the number of guns in civilian hands these "mass shootings" should be far more common, no?



posted on Jan, 17 2013 @ 09:13 AM
link   
reply to post by thisguyrighthere
 


So, you feel your 2nd amendment rights entitle you to own RPG's and surface to air missiles, or anything you deem fit to combat the threat of the day?



posted on Jan, 17 2013 @ 09:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by thisguyrighthere

Using your own logic given the number of guns in civilian hands these "mass shootings" should be far more common, no?


No, nothing about my logic suggests they should be any more common than they are.



posted on Jan, 17 2013 @ 09:16 AM
link   
reply to post by IvanAstikov
 


Im against all prohibition.

These items are all cost prohibitive.

People who use the "nukes, RPGs" argument seem to think that they will be stacked on Walmart shelves for $19.99.

If and when RPG's or other such nonsense are $10 a pop we can revisit the issue. As of this moment it's a nonstarter.



posted on Jan, 17 2013 @ 09:17 AM
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)


To protect themselves from military style tyranny.

The 2A is not about hunting or protecting your home, it was written to protect the liberty of the individual from tyranical government, to allow a citizenry to be able to rise up and defend itself when the government created to protect your freedom begins to take that freedom away. The reason military style weapons must be aloud to be held by citizens is because the threat to their freedom comes from an aray of sources up to and including the US military.

The US has the most advanced weaponry on earth, the citizenry must be aloud to protect their freedoms from all tyranny, foreign or domestic, or we can loose it all for the sake of preceived "safety".

I don't bare arms, or own a gun. But the right to do so is vitally important, especially at a time of freedom restriction the US is going through at this moment.

God Bless,



posted on Jan, 17 2013 @ 09:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by VoidHawk

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.


Actually, I think the assault rifle ban is a compromise of sorts. They recognize there is a problem, and they need to be seen doing something.

This may well be step one in a longer process of disarmament, but right now, it is just the government responding to a problem in a manner they hope will not be seen as excessive by the pro-gun crowd, and will not be seen as inadequate to the anti-gun crowd. Unfortunately, they may well end up angering everyone.

If what you said was true, they would just ban all weapons and be done with it.



posted on Jan, 17 2013 @ 09:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by thisguyrighthere

If and when RPG's or other such nonsense are $10 a pop we can revisit the issue. As of this moment it's a nonstarter.


If a very rich man seeks out nukes, we should let him have at it?

With enough money and complete freedom, a single man could become extremely dangerous to a lot of people.



posted on Jan, 17 2013 @ 09:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by thisguyrighthere

Originally posted by humphreysjim

The gun issue is a far bigger problem in the US than it is here, so guns for civilians is not the answer, otherwise everything would be fine and dandy in the US, mass shootings would not happen, and we wouldn't be having this conversation.
edit on 17-1-2013 by humphreysjim because: (no reason given)


Using your own logic given the number of guns in civilian hands these "mass shootings" should be far more common, no?
There are an average of 80 people per square mile in the USA. Your most populated state, California, has 200+. England has 1,050. How many homicides or violent crimes would there be in California if it had 5 times the population it has now?



posted on Jan, 17 2013 @ 09:25 AM
link   
reply to post by thisguyrighthere
 

So, if you ever won a lottery jackpot, you should be able to buy whatever you are willing to spend your money on?



posted on Jan, 17 2013 @ 09:30 AM
link   
reply to post by IvanAstikov
 


As long it doesnt harm any person or other persons property.

I can buy an RPG right now if I wanted to. It's insanely expensive, plus it comes with an added tax and at least a six month wait and I'd be able to use it once. Same with grenades or any other HE.

I'm not going to tell anyone they cant have a thing simply because I dont like it or it scares me.

The point of CA: CA is a warzone. 90% of the crimes committed there are gang on gang. Gangs I might add that are fueled and funded by drug prohibition.
edit on 17-1-2013 by thisguyrighthere because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 17 2013 @ 09:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by humphreysjim

Originally posted by thisguyrighthere

If and when RPG's or other such nonsense are $10 a pop we can revisit the issue. As of this moment it's a nonstarter.


If a very rich man seeks out nukes, we should let him have at it?

With enough money and complete freedom, a single man could become extremely dangerous to a lot of people.


Are you alluding to super-villains? If so we can stop right here.

A very rich man can today right now buy a nuke. There is nothing enough money cant buy regardless of prohibitions.



posted on Jan, 17 2013 @ 09:37 AM
link   
reply to post by thisguyrighthere
 


So you are absolutely against the US preventing other countries from getting WMDs?

The problem is, the technology exists right now to destroy entire cities. If the wrong guy gets access to the right arms, you might not get the chance to arrest him once he's done killing you and everyone else.

What if a terrorist groups openly creates hundreds of bombs ready for use, and even discusses where and how they plan to use them to kill hundreds of people. Should we wait around until the bombs have gone off before we take any action? According to you, these guys would not have done anything wrong at all until the first person was blown up.

Should I be able to take a bomb on a plane with me as long as I promise not to use it?
edit on 17-1-2013 by humphreysjim because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 17 2013 @ 09:40 AM
link   
reply to post by thisguyrighthere
 


But we should try to stop him if he does, no?

If you think we should leave him be until he uses it, that's a very scary proposition.



posted on Jan, 17 2013 @ 09:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by humphreysjim
reply to post by thisguyrighthere
 


So you are absolutely against the US preventing other countries from getting WMDs?


I am. I dont buy into some irrational fear that some inherently evil person wants to nuke the earth simply for the sake of nuking the earth. It's absurd.



What if a terrorist groups openly creates hundreds of bombs ready for use, and even discusses where and how they plan to use them to kill hundreds of people. Should we wait around until the bombs have killed before we take action?


Making specific threats is worth investigating but I am of the belief that there is no crime unless persons or property has been damaged.



posted on Jan, 17 2013 @ 09:46 AM
link   
Technically, Free Speech can be moderated as well. Dangerous or harmful speech is not protected, so we are left to define what is acceptable, and what is not. It is dependent on who is divining what terms or words can be banned, if any, as it is dependent on the nature of use, or atleast we would like to think so. This is exactly how the 2nd ammendment should be treated, but certain individuals would like to disregard the nature of use and go after a checklist of terms. Ultimately, the High Court should be the only one defining the Amendments, as case law should be the only circumvention to the rules put in place so long ago. This is not about a liberty, this is about the rule of law, and if the American people are willing to set aside the freedoms their Fore Fathers carved out for them so long ago. Trust me, the 1st and 4th ammendments have already been infiltrated via health care, the 2nd is merely the last peice of the puzzle.



posted on Jan, 17 2013 @ 09:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by thisguyrighthere

Making specific threats is worth investigating but I am of the belief that there is no crime unless persons or property has been damaged.


Well we have a fundamental difference of opinion here then that says it all, really.

I believe in intent, and in spotting intent and doing something about it before it's too late. If you're walking towards my kid's school with a bomb strapped to your body screaming "death to children", I hope the nearest policeman shoots to kill before you get to detonate it.

If you were police chief, you'd be yelling "The bomb hasn't gone off yet, he is currently innocent! We can arrest him once the kids are dead!".
edit on 17-1-2013 by humphreysjim because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 17 2013 @ 09:53 AM
link   
1. Banning assault weapons and magazines IS AN INFRINGEMENT upon the 2nd amendment, if not its total absolute destruction. Any law or anyone calling for a ban on assault weapons is a traitor to the sacred Constitution.

In the 17th century, single shot muskets were the MOST POWERFUL weapon on Earth. It created empires by those who had them, and subjugated those whom are only armed with bows and arrows.

The Founding fathers knew FULL WELL what they were doing with the right to bear arms for citizens, for it was for the protection of future americans from EVER HAVING to bow, kneel or grovel to another human.

Mankind had progressed in science and tech, so too did those who sought to subjugate mankind. They too have access to superiour weapons. In the 17th century, it was the time of the musket. Today, look around the world - the AK 47 rules, in the hands of terrorists, criminals and the insane.

So dirty anti gun lobbyists want americans to own single shot musket-liked rifles today, akin to the bows and arrows of past centuries? What is the TRUE agenda of these anti gun lobbyists?


2. The defination of arms can be many, but the Founding fathers only meant something that can be easily carried or mounted. The 17th century cannon too was the most powerful weapon of its time. But did it equally meant citizens should have that right to cannons?

The answer is yes. But cannons were not easily avaliable nor in vast quantities then. However, our forefather farmers had them and was'nt a crime but a constitutional right to it observed by society.

Today, we have FAR MORE sophisticated armaments than the cannon- such as tanks, jets, missles, nukes, etc. Do citizens have a right to it? Yes!

But which citizen can maintain such armaments and keep it tip top condition rationally? None, not even the civilian militia. It's a no brainer, and thus due to maintenance, avaliability, quantity, it is best that the Federal govt does that job, under the watchful eyes of militia and under the terms of the Constitution, to defend and protect americans.

Thus, may the dirt-bag anti-gun lobbyists do not resort to such illogical arguments under the 2nd amendment, citizens have the right to nukes. The logic is that they DO have that right, but they do not have the means and capability to own one.

Most of those advance weapons have limitations such as being static most of the time. In times of war - foreign or domestic, the assault rifle will be enough to take down those weapons, with a well trained and intelligent militia.

And NO AMERICAN is seeking to own missiles or nukes. That's a fact. Only the insane and the criminals will desire for such.


3. As for the douche bag anti-gun lobbyists using the emotion card with the accusation that 900 cases of gun violence occured in USA since Sandy Hook incident, my questions are

- was the violence due to guns or due to human issues?
- if without guns, then would these 900 cases of violence not happened?
- or if happened using OTHER forms fo VIOLENCE, how much violence will be the threshold? -500 cases, 100 cases or 1 case, as each human life is precious and mean something special to another?

STOP BLAMING GUNS AND INSTEAD BE HONEST AND DEAL WITH VIOLENCE IN SOCIETY AS A WHOLE!!!!



posted on Jan, 17 2013 @ 09:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by humphreysjim

Originally posted by thisguyrighthere

Making specific threats is worth investigating but I am of the belief that there is no crime unless persons or property has been damaged.


Well we have a fundamental difference of opinion here then that says it all, really.


You're right. I believe people should be free to do as they wish as long it doesnt harm anyone else or anyone else's property.

You seem to be a proponent of pre-crime measures to prevent what is both rare and realistically unpreventable.



If you were police chief, you'd be yelling "The bomb hasn't gone off yet, he is currently innocent! We can arrest him once the kids are dead!".
edit on 17-1-2013 by humphreysjim because: (no reason given)


I wouldnt be so quick to believe this guy really has a bomb for one thing.

What should happen is a cop or guard on site gets in between him and the entrance and asks him to stop. If he continues running toward the cop or guard it becomes a threat against the cop/guards life at which point go ahead and shoot him in the head.

Just running down the street screaming "I have a bomb" isnt an indication of anything.
edit on 17-1-2013 by thisguyrighthere because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 17 2013 @ 09:58 AM
link   

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.


By the same logic, the First Amendment only covers quills and manual printing presses and the spoken voice--not the very instrument you typed the above comment on.




top topics



 
9
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join