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: 9
9
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 17 2013 @ 10:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by thisguyrighthere

Just running down the street screaming "I have a bomb" isnt an indication of anything.


Nonsense. It's an indication that he's a hell of a lot more likely to be a threat than the average guy walking down the street, and if he gets unfairly taken out, that's his fault for acting like an idiot.

Should we allow passengers to take bombs on planes if they want them?

I'd just like any kind of indication that you realize things are not as clear cut as you are making out.
edit on 17-1-2013 by humphreysjim because: (no reason given)




posted on Jan, 17 2013 @ 10:15 AM
link   
reply to post by POPtheKlEEN89
 


I am generally interested in hearing your personal views on how these laws will affect your individual liberty
then please understand that ANY attempt to limit my personal defenses automatically diminishes my individual liberty to protect that life, hence, nullifying my 'right' to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
how many more 'liberties' need to be affected before you'll begin to understand ?



posted on Jan, 17 2013 @ 10:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by humphreysjim

Should we allow passengers to take bombs on planes if they want them?


Why not?

Here the market will provide the illusion of safety for you.

Any airline advertising "bombs allowed" will go out of business in 15 minutes so you wont have anything to worry about.



posted on Jan, 17 2013 @ 10:25 AM
link   
American's don't have a right to Privacy or even a Right to their Life anymore.


Nobody said squat when Congress gave the President authority to kill Americans without a Trial.
Detain Americans in military prisons indefinitely without a trial.

The United States of America no longer exists.

Hope everyone enjoys their mandatory ObamaCare Tax in 2014......that new law of 10,000+ pages is taking away many liberties.



posted on Jan, 17 2013 @ 10:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by NavyDoc

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.



do you know what is really hilarious about the above argument ??
back then, everyone used "megaphones", street salesmen, mayors, farmers, parents calling their children, cheerleaders, marketers, advertisers, you name it, everyone had or used a megaphone ... how many 'cities' today have restricted/prohibited them ???

so, has the act of 'speaking out' been curtailed - absolutely.
sure, today we have an international stage that megaphones couldn't touch, however, the prohibition of them hasn't stopped ppl from using them anyway



posted on Jan, 17 2013 @ 10:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by thisguyrighthere

Why not?


Because bomb related plane deaths would sky-rocket?

Then, we'd have to try to prevent these incidents by controlling the weapons allowed on planes, which would make perfect sense. Problem, solution. Just as will be done with guns in the US.


Originally posted by thisguyrighthereAny airline advertising "bombs allowed" will go out of business in 15 minutes so you wont have anything to worry about.


If there is nothing dangerous about bombs on planes, as you imply, there should be good reason for all planes to allow them. If you have your way, it would be your "right" to take a bomb on a plane, as long as you promise not to detonate it


Utter madness.
edit on 17-1-2013 by humphreysjim because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 17 2013 @ 10:52 AM
link   
reply to post by humphreysjim
 


Because bomb related plane deaths would sky-rocket?
why?
didn't you just suggest that an acceptable caveat would be that you'd promise "not to use it" ?


Problem, solution
actually, the solution to that problem is, don't fly.

ppl do it every day, they just don't announce it ... odd that you don't realize it.



posted on Jan, 17 2013 @ 10:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by Honor93

didn't you just suggest that an acceptable caveat would be that you'd promise "not to use it" ?


In what Universe does a person promising not to use a bomb mean they will not?

That makes as much sense as the "Are you a terrorist?" question on customs forms.

I hope you're kidding because you're displaying amazing naivety if not.


Originally posted by Honor93

actually, the solution to that problem is, don't fly.

ppl do it every day, they just don't announce it ... odd that you don't realize it.


Horrible, horrible solution.

I guess there's no big deal if planes are blowing up every single day, we'll just not fly. And 9/11 was not really a problem either, the solution is just to stop building sky scrapers and going to work, right?

Are you an anarchist or something?

edit on 17-1-2013 by humphreysjim because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 17 2013 @ 11:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by Pervius
American's don't have a right to Privacy or even a Right to their Life anymore.

Nobody said squat when Congress gave the President authority to kill Americans without a Trial.


If you meant that crazy Islamist nut who left his home state of Colorado to join the militant bunch of muslim jerks in the Middle East and ran a propaganda operation for them - good riddance. I would buy our president a beer for that if I had a chance.



posted on Jan, 17 2013 @ 11:14 AM
link   
reply to post by humphreysjim
 

lawful citizens are usually pretty straight-forward with such issues, isn't that the group being 'targeted' here ??

your fear is your own, not mine or any others unless they choose to embrace it.

yes, you are exhibiting extreme ignorance if you think your fear is represented anywhere within the law-abiding public.

that solution has been working for me since 2005 when i had to remove my shoes
... too much then, way too much now.

planes haven't been 'blowing up' every single day, ever.
why would they now ?

true, maintenence has a shoddy record and all but that's the biggest 'threat' on a plane any flyer has these days. (unless the CIA is involved)

hyperbole, fear-porn, nonsense


as for guns on planes, why bother when box-cutters have already proven sufficient ?
there isn't really any logical reason for them to be restricted from checked baggage anyway.
[except of course for the rate of theft that the exhoribitant fees consistently provide]



posted on Jan, 17 2013 @ 11:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by buddhasystem

Originally posted by Pervius
American's don't have a right to Privacy or even a Right to their Life anymore.

Nobody said squat when Congress gave the President authority to kill Americans without a Trial.


If you meant that crazy Islamist nut who left his home state of Colorado to join the militant bunch of muslim jerks in the Middle East and ran a propaganda operation for them - good riddance. I would buy our president a beer for that if I had a chance.


I see, the "rights" you are defending are only for the people that have the same religion / political leanings etc.. as you. People only have "rights" if the "rights" they choose to express fall in line with your own "rights" as an individual.



posted on Jan, 17 2013 @ 11:29 AM
link   
reply to post by humphreysjim
 

and while we're discussing this bastion of criminality that you seem to think congregate or focus on planes
... after a decade of TSA, why haven't they been exposed ?

do you realize, this bastion of criminality can be directly reflected in the sea of TSA ?
did it ever occur to you that in the short life of TSA, it has the greatest turn-over of employees actively involved in criminal activity than any other profession in existence ??

so, why do we fear the law-abiding citizens again ??
edit on 17-1-2013 by Honor93 because: typo



posted on Jan, 17 2013 @ 11:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by Guenter

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".

I don't think anyone hunts with automatics, but lots of people hunt with "assault weapons".
The term is a proficient tool of deceit. How does having a pistol grip turn your gun into an assault weapon? Or a thumbhole stock? In your country of origin, people are probably allowed to have those two traits together on a weapon and not have it considered by the idiotic masses some type of military grade murder machine, aka, "assault weapon". Where from, btw?
edit on 17-1-2013 by smashdem because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 17 2013 @ 11:46 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.




to answer your question.. i take any loss of my rights seriously.

i don't care if you would sleep better with a gun ban in effect, it's more important to me to have my rights



maybe you should move to another country that has gun bans and solve your problem for yourself,
then you can sleep well and the rest of us won't have to argue with you anymore.


i sleep just fine, i have never been shot and i don't expect to be..

i don't even know anyone that has been shot and i've been here for 30 years.



if you truly want to save lives, go to your local pubs around closing time every night and give people that are too drunk to drive a ride home. you could save countless lives. you could be a hero..

but i don't think you really want to save lives..
you just want to beat a dead horse on an internet forum.... and it helps no one

are there more DUI or gun deaths in your state? what are you going to do about it?






posted on Jan, 17 2013 @ 11:56 AM
link   
Having read the Op's piece and what all the POTUS has pointed out on wanting the following can be stated:

What you will lose, in exchange for having a firearm, is the right of privacy. In short, everything about you will be known by the government, as they will decide if you are or are not a danger, and deem if you have the right to have a firearm, based off of a new set of criteria that they will come up with.

Gone will be the the right to leave say an heirloom or an antique to a realitive, as now if it is deemed too dangerous, the government will be able to go in and take it, and give no compensation, all on the basis that the person to receieve it could be a danger to him or herself, and those around them.

Gone will be the days when say a hunter who wants to go out hunting.

Gone will be the right to choose to or not to own a firearm.

This will go badly, make no mistake as it opens doors that have been shut.

The right of privacy, will take a blow, as now that what we could consider to be private, the conversation between a doctor and patient could become now a matter of public record.

So all of your medical problems, from physical to the mental would come up for consideration on the part of the government in deciding if a person can handle the responsiblity of owning a fire arm. All of the medication that a person takes would now have to be considered if such could impair judgement, and ultimately gone is the one thing that has been slipping away, personal responsiblity for the actions that one does.



posted on Jan, 17 2013 @ 11:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by greenfox83
reply to post by CaptainBeno
 

What do you think he's using? An AK-47 automatic haha, that'll bring home the meat!



My friend hunts caribou (it's a wild reindeer) with an AR-15 (a Bushmaster, actually). It's lightweight and has enough power to take one down.

When you're hunting in remote areas and have to physically carry the carcass and meat tens of miles to civilization, a lightweight weapon is ideal.

He makes sausages, burger patties, steaks and other awesome stuff to fill his freezer for the winter. In the summer, he catches red salmon and hallibut. Throw in the random grouse/spruce hen and there you go.The man eats better, cleaner, healthier meat than probably 90% of ATS -- and he uses a scary-looking gun to do it.



posted on Jan, 17 2013 @ 12:00 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??


they are called sharp shooters, and there "are" semi auto and select fire weapons that they use.

and you can shoot as many "deer" as you want in one space if you have the game tags.

for example farmers get extra deer tags because they damage their crops.



posted on Jan, 17 2013 @ 12:02 PM
link   
reply to post by Honor93
 


Why haven't they been exposed? Hmm, perhaps because only an idiot tries to get a bomb on a plane these days due to the security in place and the penalties for breaking laws.

You seem confused. A person wanting to take a bomb on board a plane should not be considered an innocent law abiding citizen. To me, that person should be considered a real potential threat, statistically speaking.

Planes do not blow up every day because there is security in place against it. Sure, "every day" was a deliberate exaggeration but if you think plane security does nothing to improve plane safety you're just deluded.

I like your world where we are all law abiding citizens and all we have to fear are the TSA, and terrorism is not a "thing"', but it's a fantasy. You also contradict yourself at every turn because the world you picture does not even need guns, and yet you call for citizens to have them, fervently.

Oh, and removing your shoes is a very minor inconvenience, why would you even care? Whether you agree with it or not, it is not analogous to banning bombs and guns, anyway. Why on earth would you want either a gun or a bomb on a plane except to do harm? If planes are safe, what are you protecting yourself from?

You think the TSA is the devil, yet I'm the paranoid fear monger?
edit on 17-1-2013 by humphreysjim because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 17 2013 @ 12:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by humphreysjim
reply to post by Honor93
 


To me, that person should be considered a real potential threat, statistically speaking.


However frightened you may be potential is not a crime. Every object and animal on this planet is a potential threat.



posted on Jan, 17 2013 @ 12:10 PM
link   
reply to post by thisguyrighthere
 


Showing distinct intent to harm is, and should be. Every person is a potential threat, but some threats are tiny in comparison to others. When it becomes significant, action should be taken.

Where is your survival instinct? Evolutionarily speaking, mankind would not be around today if our ancestors made a habit of waiting for a real potential enemy to strike before taking action.
edit on 17-1-2013 by humphreysjim because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
9
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join