Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Independent Study Proves Guns Don’t Kill People *Shocking Evidence

page: 40
189
<< 37  38  39    41  42 >>

log in

join

posted on Feb, 21 2013 @ 05:57 PM
link   
reply to post by Darkphoenix77
 


Ok. read the bill and feel like a sucker. See for yourself HERE. Out of 122 pages, a dozen or so are definitions of terms and general guidelines. about 15 or so pages are the weapons that are proposed for banning. The other 90 or so pages are all the guns that are exempted.

Really didnt see anything offensive. But I'm not a lawyer. Read my share of legal docs and based on that I need help in identifying the grand conspiracy. From what I read of wht you posted from Feinsteins web page the bill looks pretty much they way they describe it. But again, I'm not a lawyer. That pro gun site seems to be nit picking and distoring portions of the bill BTW...




posted on Feb, 21 2013 @ 05:59 PM
link   
reply to post by butcherguy
 


Ok read it. See my comments above.



posted on Feb, 21 2013 @ 06:00 PM
link   
reply to post by Daedalus
 


See my above post. Whats the big deal?



posted on Feb, 21 2013 @ 06:05 PM
link   
Give the gun to a chimp



posted on Feb, 21 2013 @ 06:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mike.Ockizard
reply to post by Darkphoenix77
 


Ok. read the bill and feel like a sucker. See for yourself HERE. Out of 122 pages, a dozen or so are definitions of terms and general guidelines. about 15 or so pages are the weapons that are proposed for banning. The other 90 or so pages are all the guns that are exempted.

Really didnt see anything offensive. But I'm not a lawyer. Read my share of legal docs and based on that I need help in identifying the grand conspiracy. From what I read of wht you posted from Feinsteins web page the bill looks pretty much they way they describe it. But again, I'm not a lawyer. That pro gun site seems to be nit picking and distoring portions of the bill BTW...



Well, you are allowed to feel the way you feel, and that is fine. Where you see no big deal, I see a deal to really make something about. The part I quoted is the summary that is direct from Feinstein's own page. The lists of banned vs. exempt is fluff to deter and distract from what the bill is really about. What she lists in the summary is what is the bill will really accomplish. Any semi-automatic that has 1 of those characteristics is banned. The magic trick she is trying to pass is the 150ish banned weapons is in reality well over 2000 firearms. It could also be argued that pistol grip could mean just about anything (all rifles have some sort of grip). The wording is intentionally vague to the point that they can make it mean whatever they want it to mean.

It doesn't ban anything on the basis of lethality only bans stuff based off of cosmetic reasons. I am sorry you feel like I intentionally somehow misled you because I don't feel I did. I guess I can't make you see my point of view anymore than you can make me see this as no big deal. So it is what it is, everyone can make up thier own minds and decide for themselves.

Also I find that law enforcement, and government employees are exempt while us peons are not is just downright unjust. So someone that works as a clerk at the DMV or SSA can own any firearm they want, but Joe the construction worker gets to own only weapons they deem as being suitable? How is that right?

edit on 21-2-2013 by Darkphoenix77 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 21 2013 @ 10:12 PM
link   
reply to post by Daedalus
 


Oh i definitely will read it again, im not doubting what your saying.
Im in need of good read anyway.


Oops, i ment to post to simonpeter.
edit on 07/16/2009 by Lichter daraus because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 22 2013 @ 06:46 AM
link   
reply to post by Darkphoenix77
 


The part about being suckered was directed towards Deadalus and butcherguy due to them baiting me to read the bill. After reading it I really didnt learn much that I didnt already know.

Your fear that pistol grip could somehow be interpreted to mean all rifles because rifles have some sort of grip. Would not stand up because they list a large number of rifles as exempt. Lawyers would have a field day with that.


It doesn't ban anything on the basis of lethality only bans stuff based off of cosmetic reasons.


Did you read the bill? It clearly states what constitutes an assault weapon. Which part of the definition do you find vague? What you call cosmetic reasons are actually functional enhancements that lend themselves weapons that fire fast, hot and need a firmer grip (extra pistol grip) in order to be effective rapid fire killing devices. (IMO)


I am sorry you feel like I intentionally somehow misled you because I don't feel I did.


Like I said earlier, I dont think you did and I really shouldnt blame anyone. I made my own decision to read it so if I should blame anyone I should blame myself.


Also I find that law enforcement, and government employees are exempt while us peons are not is just downright unjust.


Good point. But thats what the legislative process is for, to weed out ambiguoty and mistakes. Hopefully idf this even makes it out of committee they would address it. Not every bill gets past, and those that do are far from perfect. But we digress, my point was more about the fact that they are not proposing a complete ban on guns in general and the average person still has a wide range of choices for guns to be used for self defense and sport.


edit on 22-2-2013 by Mike.Ockizard because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 22 2013 @ 08:24 AM
link   
reply to post by SimonPeter
 




Oh i definitely will read it again, im not doubting what your saying.
Im in need of good read anyway.


edit on 07/16/2009 by Lichter daraus because: (no reason given)
edit on 07/16/2009 by Lichter daraus because: (no reason given)
edit on 07/16/2009 by Lichter daraus because: (no reason given)
edit on 07/16/2009 by Lichter daraus because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 22 2013 @ 08:38 AM
link   
reply to post by Mike.Ockizard
 


I see what your trying to say, but if they are able to take certain guns away for now without much resistance, then they will know that they can try to take more away. They will do it little by little.
if they can infringe on these rights then eventually they will go for the rest. We need to keep them from getting a foothold.



posted on Feb, 22 2013 @ 04:06 PM
link   
reply to post by Lichter daraus
 


I hear that argument alot like it's a given. It's not. Just look into it and you'll see that partial bans CAN remain partial bans. Not saying someone wont try to expand this, just that it's not necessarily a given.

Read the bill. Sounds pretty reasonable in scope to me. They include things like grenade launchers. I didnt even know those were legal. Were they??



posted on Feb, 22 2013 @ 06:22 PM
link   
reply to post by Mike.Ockizard
 


The bill is reasonable for sheep.

Grenade launchers mounted on a rifle are legal. The grenades that they launch are not available for to purchase by 'common serfs' like us. See how stupid the bill is?

Want to know what is more stupid? Flame throwers are not regulated at all.



posted on Feb, 22 2013 @ 11:52 PM
link   
reply to post by butcherguy
 


Read the bill my friend. She wants to ban them too. (Grenade launchers) A flame thrower doesnt meet the definition of an assault weapon... yet. I'm sure if people start using them instead of gunst to commit crimes and kill other people that someone will ban them as well.

Crazy world. People think that laws are the answer to everything. There are so many laws now that nobody knows them all. Ever wonder what it would be like with no laws? No Govt? Would there still be sheep? Or mass paranoia? Dunno. giving up on this thread. Weapons are only good for one thing. If they take them away then folks will find something else to kill each other with. Maybe we should just let anyone buy whatever weapon they want. Put us out of our misery. HA (sarcasm)



posted on Feb, 23 2013 @ 12:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by Mike.Ockizard
reply to post by butcherguy
 


Read the bill my friend. She wants to ban them too. (Grenade launchers) A flame thrower doesnt meet the definition of an assault weapon... yet. I'm sure if people start using them instead of gunst to commit crimes and kill other people that someone will ban them as well.

Crazy world. People think that laws are the answer to everything. There are so many laws now that nobody knows them all. Ever wonder what it would be like with no laws? No Govt? Would there still be sheep? Or mass paranoia? Dunno. giving up on this thread. Weapons are only good for one thing. If they take them away then folks will find something else to kill each other with. Maybe we should just let anyone buy whatever weapon they want. Put us out of our misery. HA (sarcasm)


The really scary thing is a super soaker filled with flammable liquid with a lighter is just as deadly as any weapon they want to ban and just as gruesome, actually more so, but is completely legal. A sick mind cannot be legislated. I feel your frustration, and agree it indeed is a very crazy world. As long as thier are people with the mind to commit mass murders they will happen regardless of the means employed. It is in our nature to destroy, crazy world indeed. Someone posted a video of drone killings the other day and in the end of the video there was a child that was filmed during the aftermath of one of them. It looked like his lower jaw was blown half off, that is a disturbing image that will haunt me for a while.



posted on Feb, 23 2013 @ 06:07 AM
link   
reply to post by Mike.Ockizard
 


You asked if grenade launchers were legal. They are legal because any ammo available are practice rounds or flares. My point is that she wants to ban something that is absolutely no threat whatsoever. She put it in the bill to make it look like she is protecting the public from attacks by grenade launchers, and it is all BS.



posted on Feb, 23 2013 @ 06:41 AM
link   
SEABAG .... gotta' tell ya' .... this thread gets my vote for best ATS thread in a long time. I loved the opening post .. and all the discussions afterwards have been really good.
This thread should go in the ATS Hall of Thread Fame ... if we had one.



posted on Feb, 23 2013 @ 08:48 PM
link   
I met a fellow in Walmart and he was from Italy . We began talking about the UN gun ban that failed in congress . He exclaimed that he didn't believe the UN was banning guns . I asked him could he possess firearms in Italy . He said no ! Iasked him about BB guns . He said he had one and they came and took it away . I asked him are you sure you don't believe the UN is banning guns . No answer .



posted on Feb, 27 2013 @ 02:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by butcherguy

Originally posted by MisterFister103
If I were to decide tomorrow that I want to go out and kill as many people in a movie theater as I could. I take a baseball bat into the theater, I might be able to kill one, and everyone just thinks I'm some nut that snapped and we count our blessings that I didn't have a more powerful means of death. I am a minor footnote at the end of a newscast. If I take in a gun of some sort, I'd probably be able to pop 20+ people and I'm all over the news for the next week.

This debate is beyond stupid, and I'm tired of people like the OP making empty points.

SuperSoakers (a watergun brand) are legal.

Gasoline (petrol, for the UK members) is legal.

SuperSoaker + gasoline in a crowded theater= a whole lot of dead and injured moviegoers. (before anyone says the word sprinklers.... let me see the sprinklers go off in time to save those ignited)

Guns are not the only devices capable of killing people en mass.

The above combination is not only legal.... it is not regulated or restricted, as firearms are!

Oh, I forgot to add..... Try the old 'Stop, Drop and Roll' when you are seated in a crowded theater.

edit on 18-2-2013 by butcherguy because: (no reason given)


Any bets how much damage someone could do in a 1 ton pickup, a bag of fertilizer and some diesel fuel, or even a cheap Samurai sword? I don't see anyone pointing out that violent crime is 400% higher in the UK than the USA, or that crime has steadily increased in the UK and Australia since they passed their gun grabs.



posted on Feb, 27 2013 @ 02:21 PM
link   
Reply to post by seabag
 


Something to think for gov over and ponder, don't forget to update the bout spoon experiment.



 
Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com
 



posted on Feb, 27 2013 @ 02:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by vtr99

Originally posted by butcherguy

Originally posted by MisterFister103
If I were to decide tomorrow that I want to go out and kill as many people in a movie theater as I could. I take a baseball bat into the theater, I might be able to kill one, and everyone just thinks I'm some nut that snapped and we count our blessings that I didn't have a more powerful means of death. I am a minor footnote at the end of a newscast. If I take in a gun of some sort, I'd probably be able to pop 20+ people and I'm all over the news for the next week.

This debate is beyond stupid, and I'm tired of people like the OP making empty points.

SuperSoakers (a watergun brand) are legal.

Gasoline (petrol, for the UK members) is legal.

SuperSoaker + gasoline in a crowded theater= a whole lot of dead and injured moviegoers. (before anyone says the word sprinklers.... let me see the sprinklers go off in time to save those ignited)

Guns are not the only devices capable of killing people en mass.

The above combination is not only legal.... it is not regulated or restricted, as firearms are!

Oh, I forgot to add..... Try the old 'Stop, Drop and Roll' when you are seated in a crowded theater.

edit on 18-2-2013 by butcherguy because: (no reason given)


Any bets how much damage someone could do in a 1 ton pickup, a bag of fertilizer and some diesel fuel, or even a cheap Samurai sword? I don't see anyone pointing out that violent crime is 400% higher in the UK than the USA, or that crime has steadily increased in the UK and Australia since they passed their gun grabs.

You are correct, we don't see them touting the increased crime rates in those countries, especially home invasions.
That's because they don't care about the crime rates, they don't care about crime.

They just want to take our guns.



posted on Feb, 27 2013 @ 03:50 PM
link   
How many gun laws does the US have already? I've read something like 20,000 but Idk if it's true either way I just hope if the government does ban some weapons it doesn't end up like prohibition or the war on drugs. I was reading time magazine and Michael Bloomberg pretty much said the NRA supports children murdered with assault weapons, he's such a pos.





new topics

top topics



 
189
<< 37  38  39    41  42 >>

log in

join