DHS wants 7,000 AR-15s

page: 7
53
<< 4  5  6   >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 28 2013 @ 02:29 PM
link   
reply to post by xEphon
 


yea... Indigo has a way with words alright. A little lighht on facts but an emotionally compelling argument. According to firearms statistics provided by the U.N., Somalia has a gun ownership rate of 9.1 per 100 people. Compared to the U.S. rate of 88.8 per 100 people. So the Somalia reference Indigo threw out there has some serious holes in it.




posted on Jan, 28 2013 @ 02:43 PM
link   
reply to post by Indigo5
 


Well . . . seeing as an AR-15 or any other non-class III firearm is not military grade, I don't think you have a point that is based in reality. You are simply promoting or regurgitating a campaign line based on disinfo (lies) and fear.

Miltary arms and demo devices have been illegal (without a class III) for almost 50+ years . . . why do they need to restrict further? Why is local agencies (who are statistically responsible for a much greater number of firearm deaths and accidents than civs) moving away from civilian arms and arming themselves with real military grade weapons? I mean, they are "peace" keepers, not fighting war right? That's what the national guard is for right, not the civi police? Danger is danger and guns are dangerous, so why are several of my neighbors (LEOs) able to carry such evil killing devices and keep them in homes my child plays in, even though I'm better trained (as civilian) than these fat, out of shape LEO's on my block?



posted on Jan, 28 2013 @ 02:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by projectvxn
reply to post by Frogs
 


Ok...So they want FN P90s.. Which are very illegal for the population to own without NFA licensing and huge taxes.


Actually, it would be illegal for a citizen to own one as they were manufactured after the registry was closed in '86 (dealer samples excluded).



posted on Jan, 28 2013 @ 05:50 PM
link   
What is wrong with out country?



posted on Jan, 28 2013 @ 06:01 PM
link   
Does any one think that if it actually came down to a cival war inside the USA where the pro gun's are battleing the Government with firearms. That the Government is gonna "play fair". No. They sure as hell aint gonna go and say " They only have semi auto weapons so we will only use semi auto weapons. That's absurd to think. Wehave the right to the same arms they the Gov arms themselves with, it's right there in the 2nd amendment.



posted on Jan, 28 2013 @ 06:58 PM
link   
reply to post by openyourmind1262
 


It's also in most state constitutions . . . although there are some (CA, NY) that don't.

Here is the language (regarding national military) in AZ's, Article 1; Section 20, under declaration of rights.


20. Military power subordinate to civil power


Only in the militia section, when talking about the National Guard, does it state that this issue most conform to fed regulation in accordance with army policy. However, it states the "organized", NG, milita is secondary to the "general" milita that includes all able bodied citizens.



posted on Jan, 28 2013 @ 08:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by FistOfFreedom
What is wrong with out country?


Nothing.
Go back to sleep.



posted on Jan, 28 2013 @ 10:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by solomons path
reply to post by Indigo5
 


Well . . . seeing as an AR-15 or any other non-class III firearm is not military grade, I don't think you have a point that is based in reality. You are simply promoting or regurgitating a campaign line based on disinfo (lies) and fear.

Miltary arms and demo devices have been illegal (without a class III) for almost 50+ years . . . why do they need to restrict further? Why is local agencies (who are statistically responsible for a much greater number of firearm deaths and accidents than civs) moving away from civilian arms and arming themselves with real military grade weapons? I mean, they are "peace" keepers, not fighting war right? That's what the national guard is for right, not the civi police? Danger is danger and guns are dangerous, so why are several of my neighbors (LEOs) able to carry such evil killing devices and keep them in homes my child plays in, even though I'm better trained (as civilian) than these fat, out of shape LEO's on my block?


Well, title II firearms are not exactly illegal. The only ones available are those manufactured and NFA registered prior to 1986. Any American citizen can own a machine gun and you would just need to find one you could afford and pay a $200.00 Tax Stamp. You are also required to file a Form4 and wait about 8 weeks for a thorough background check.

Up until 1986 it was still legal for a citizen to manufacture a machine gun so long as they first paid the tax stamp and was approved via ATF procedure etc.. A person would just follow the same process used today to register Short Barrel Rifles and Silencers.

Your best option for Title II firearms today is to buy full auto conversion bolts or registered sears or trigger packs. In this way you can use any applicable host weapon. For example if you owned a registered AR-15 drop in auto sear you could use to convert any AR-15 to Full Auto etc.. or a registered UZI Conversion bolt could be used to convert any host UZI to full auto.

Transferable UZI Conversion Bolt 100% Legal
www.gunbroker.com...

Tranferable TEC 9 Conversion Bolt 100% Legal
www.gunbroker.com...

Transferable 57MM Anti Tank Gun
www.gunbroker.com...

While NFA weapons as a whole are perceived by the American public as dangerous, their use in crime is exceedingly rare. Legally-owned (ie, NFA-registered) machine guns have been used in only two murders since 1934, one of which was committed by a police officer.

There are around 250,000 machine guns in the NFA registry. With 100 million Americans wanting one prices can be in the tens or even hundreds of thousands.
edit on 28-1-2013 by Donkey_Dean because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 28 2013 @ 11:51 PM
link   
reply to post by Pervius
 


Again. Could you please provide links to back up this nonsense you posted?

I've owned and have been issued multiple AR-15/M-16 style rifles and they are very reliable and effective weapons. Every American should learn how to use one since it is the primary rifle our nation's military.



posted on Jan, 29 2013 @ 02:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by Nicks87
reply to post by Pervius
 


Again. Could you please provide links to back up this nonsense you posted?

I've owned and have been issued multiple AR-15/M-16 style rifles and they are very reliable and effective weapons. Every American should learn how to use one since it is the primary rifle our nation's military.




Our military has been complaining about the M-16 for decades. atwar.blogs.nytimes.com...



posted on Jan, 29 2013 @ 02:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by Indigo5

Originally posted by nenothtu

Can you expand upon your thoughts for why you believe someone else should be better armed than you, and able to be your Lord and Master by virtue of their greater armament?


How many guns someone owns or the size of thier arsenal does not determine thier status in society. Otherwise...just cuz someone has gun, does not make them a "Lord and Master".


It does when they point it at you and tell you to get on your knees... and they've effectively taken YOURS away.



If you would like to live in a Country better suited to that fantasy, move to Somalia.


Uh, no. You don't get to tell ME where to go - especially since you aren't armed to enforce your will on me.



For well over a century the US Military has had arms technology that grossly exceeeded civilian arms, from fighter jets to nuclear weapons...and yet Tyranny has never taken hold and we remain the greatest democracy on the planet.


Yeah, but we're talking about DHS here, not the Military, right? While we're on the subject, though, I've got a real problem with your assessment that the US is a "democracy" - when did we vote that in? Be that as it may, you'll find out just how fast a "democracy" can dissolve when you give up your gun, and cheer on mere bureaucrats into getting their own while you have none. DHS isn't looking for nukes or fighter jets - they won't need them at all to subdue little old disarmed you. Just pointing an AR-15 at your youngest child ought to whip you into line quickly enough.

Before you say "Aw, they wouldn't do THAT!" tell me how many kids they killed at Waco again, all so they could "save" them from David Koresh?

Who was talking about nukes, fighter jets, or tanks and stuff anyhow?

In all actuality, tyranny HAS taken hold, and the Military wasn't involved in it. Obamacare is nothing short of tyranny, where a government tells me that I have to purchase some product I neither need nor want simply because I exist. It doesn't get much more draconian that the forced purchase of a private "product". That's just the tip of the iceberg - it gets worse from there, and no tanks or planes were involved in the takeover. Small arms, however, were. They are used and displayed on a daily basis to try and keep us plebians in line with the program.

Now, whether or not I actually toe the line they've set remains to be seen, doesn't it?




Again...there is a strong case to made by gun-rights advocates. A case centered on research, statistics...reality...but the argument that somehow civlians should be privy to all arms that the US gov. owns fails rational thought...and I would add that the "Alex Jones" of the world are doing a dis-service to gun rights advocates, because crazy is easy to dismiss.


You know, I was actually told by an instructor at college many years ago that there are lies, DAMNED lies, and then lowest of all, statistics. If you don't mind telling me, which set of statistics negates the US Constitution? Which statistic voids the Amendment process?

Alex Jones is a sensationalistic nutcase. Crazy IS easy to dismiss, as you observe. Rational and logical, not so much so. As long as you're still concentrating on Jones, the rest of us will be fine.



edit on 2013/1/29 by nenothtu because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 29 2013 @ 03:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by xEphon
I'd be curious to know how many people who support the right to bear arms unconditionally are also against the right for sovereign nations to arm themselves, such as Iran and North Korea with nukes.


Not me.

If you check my post history, you'll find that I've always supported the right of Iran and North Korea to have their very own pet nukes. I could care less what they do within their own borders, and if they launch 'em outside their borders, it's an instant erasure for them, so why worry about it? Let 'em waste their money as they see fit!



posted on Jan, 29 2013 @ 06:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by Snsoc

Originally posted by Nicks87
reply to post by Pervius
 


Again. Could you please provide links to back up this nonsense you posted?

I've owned and have been issued multiple AR-15/M-16 style rifles and they are very reliable and effective weapons. Every American should learn how to use one since it is the primary rifle our nation's military.




Our military has been complaining about the M-16 for decades. atwar.blogs.nytimes.com...


Those incidents are few and far between. The Wanat incident also involved poor training and soldiers that pushed their weapons beyond what they were ment to do. Stories written by journalists that want to stir up controversy.



posted on Jan, 29 2013 @ 10:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by nenothtu

Originally posted by Indigo5

Originally posted by nenothtu

Can you expand upon your thoughts for why you believe someone else should be better armed than you, and able to be your Lord and Master by virtue of their greater armament?


How many guns someone owns or the size of thier arsenal does not determine thier status in society. Otherwise...just cuz someone has gun, does not make them a "Lord and Master".


It does when they point it at you and tell you to get on your knees... and they've effectively taken YOURS away.



If you would like to live in a Country better suited to that fantasy, move to Somalia.


Uh, no. You don't get to tell ME where to go - especially since you aren't armed to enforce your will on me.


(A) No...Owning a gun does not make you a "Lord and Master" in the USA....
(B) I wasn't demanding you move to Somalia...only pointing out that there are regions in the world better suited to that fantasy of lawlessness and warlords.
(C) What makes you think I don't own guns? I both own guns and believe in the 2nd Amendment.

I do not believe the 2nd Amendment means we can not discuss ways to keep guns out of the hands of crazy folks and criminals...and frankly the NRA exploits folks with paranoid, tyrannical fantasies to shut down those conversations.



posted on Jan, 29 2013 @ 01:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by Indigo5

(A) No...Owning a gun does not make you a "Lord and Master" in the USA....


Ah, but we are not discussing people who merely "own" guns - we are discussing non-military folks who are issued them by the government. DHS "troopers" will not "own" these guns. That will not prevent them from abusing them, as they have already demonstrated a propensity towards abuses.



(B) I wasn't demanding you move to Somalia...only pointing out that there are regions in the world better suited to that fantasy of lawlessness and warlords.


For the moment, perhaps, but DHS has demonstrated a proclivity to simply take power they have not been delegated, and against the wishes of their victims. Warlords? no... they are far worse than that. They are Warlords with governmental blessings. As has been pointed out, gun ownership in Somalia is around 1 in 10 of the population. The "warlord" ethos might be a bit harder to maintain and enforce if their victims were more able to respond appropriately.



(C) What makes you think I don't own guns? I both own guns and believe in the 2nd Amendment.


"Believing in" something is apparently not the same thing as supporting it, or even understanding it. A review of the Heller vs. DC Supreme Court decision might be in order there, so that you understand the purpose of the Second Amendment, and in particular the concept of "operative clause". The "introductory clause", the part that says "A well-regulated militia...", does seem to indicate that military grade weapons are part of what are being discussed there (although only part), and what is being protected in the hands of the people by the "operative clause" - the part that says "...shall not be infringed".

Question - What is a "militia" without military weapons?

Answer - a pile of bodies, AKA "victims".



I do not believe the 2nd Amendment means we can not discuss ways to keep guns out of the hands of crazy folks and criminals...and frankly the NRA exploits folks with paranoid, tyrannical fantasies to shut down those conversations.


You will NEVER be able to keep guns out of the hands of "crazy folks and criminals" - you will only be able to take them from the people who are willing to give them up, generally referred to as "law abiding citizens". That's ALL this current spate of legislative proposals address. What, exactly, do you think would make "crazy folks and criminals" suddenly decide to obey laws they have consistently ignored up to this point? Wouldn't that change of heart suddenly convert a "criminal" into a "law abiding citizen"?

The most you can hope for is to minimize possession by crazy folks and criminals, and that starts with enforcing existing restrictions, not trying to create new ones in the absence of enforcement.

The NRA supports the "gun control" agenda. I've had nothing to do with them for years, and cannot foresee a circumstance that would put me into their camp. I've not forgotten their support of the "Assault Weapon Ban" in a bid to preserve their precious turkey guns. Their entire gig is to collect money, and THAT is what they do with fueling fantasy. They do not care if you can be effectively armed, as long as they can go hunting.

I personally am not concerned with who owns firearms - I'm more concerned with the right to own them, the potential to possess them unmolested by governmental entities. A careful reading of the Constitution will show that it is not there to limit the people, but rather to limit the government. The Bill of Rights, for example, does not "grant" us any rights at all - it only prohibits the government from interfering in rights which are pre-existent, enumerates what some of those are, and specifically prohibits the government from interfering in their exercise.



edit on 2013/1/29 by nenothtu because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 30 2013 @ 04:53 PM
link   
Combined with the millions of rounds of hollow points this does not bode well. Are the hollow points .223s?

No wait, when they have them they are personal defense weapons, when we have them they are assault rifles?
edit on 30-1-2013 by Munkle because: addendum



posted on Jan, 30 2013 @ 04:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by Munkle

No wait, when they have them they are personal defense weapons, when we have them they are assault rifles?


One cant help but ask who the government is planning on defending themselves from and who we are supposedly preparing to assault?





top topics
 
53
<< 4  5  6   >>

log in

join