It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


ABC blatantly covers up Michelle Obama's gun ignorance.

page: 3
<< 1  2   >>

log in


posted on Mar, 1 2013 @ 06:16 PM
Some people do not care to know much about guns and that is fine.

But the people who are going to make laws, such as those for guns, should know enough about them to make proper decisions. That is part of the problem with government, people making laws on subjects on which they haven't any background. Just as bad as voting on legislation without reading what they are voting for or against.

Really sad. Politicians seem to be special breed of loser.

posted on Mar, 1 2013 @ 07:09 PM

Originally posted by Kali74
reply to post by Helious

I don't like guns, why would I know anything about them?

First off, Kali, I'm not trying to lump you in to a gun debate side because I don't know if you take part or care about it. It's rather the statement made.

This is a trend of the anti-gun peoples. They will generally let it be known that they do not like guns and do not know anything about them. Is it fair to say that these same people are anti-gun because they fear something that they know nothing about? And it's not just the day to day people I have talked to about the issue, but the people who are faces of the movement. I have read many articles with gun misconceptions and mistakes.

I'm not saying you cannot like guns, however, if you are part of the debate on whether guns/certain guns should be banned, then you should probably know the subject matter you're debating. Isn't that how a debate is won?

When I hear someone ask something like, "do we really need automatic hand guns?" I tend to cringe and wonder why people would even take the person's anti-gun talking points as credible.

TEARMAN!!! This next part is for you.

Tearman asked if non-revolver hand guns are called automatic. Short answer: no. They are semi-automatic. Leading to my next point. "Semi-automatic? It says automatic! Therefore it's automatic!!" Wrong. Semi-automatic weapons are not automatic weapons because they do not shoot more than one (1) round per trigger squeeze. The reason for the name "semi-automatic" is to define a weapon that does not require to be "cocked" before the next round can be fired. A pump-action shotgun, lever-action revolver, and bolt-action rifle are examples of non-automatic weapons. However, I have seen men who can shoot 6 shots from a revolver faster than an average shooter can shoot 6 rounds from a semi-automatic pistol.

Another good piece of terminology to understand is the very loosely used term, "assault weapon/rifle." No American is able to legally own an actual assault rifle. An actual assault rifle will commonly have a "selector switch" which is used to select the mode of fire the shooter wishes to use the rifle for which includes a firing mode that shoots more than one round. As an example I am very familiar with, the M16A2 or M16A4 service rifles will have a selector switch that will allow the shooter to switch the weapon from "safe" to "fire" or to "burst." The last part there is what defines an assault rifle. While an AR-15 will have a selector switch, it only has two firing modes it can select. Safe and fire.

So, what was the whole point of all this rambling I did? It was to educate anyone who wants to know a little bit more. I think that people on each side should have a good understanding of the weapons they speak of because making a mistake, such as Mrs. Obama, can throw a wrench in your debate.

posted on Mar, 1 2013 @ 08:49 PM
reply to post by Echo3Foxtrot

I think it's too late to ban what the media labels military style guns. I think any attempt to do such would be the same as randomly declaring one day that people can only walk on one side of a sidewalk and not taking into consideration that people will crash into each other.

I know it's not popular but my only stance in this ridiculous debate is universal background checks, I understand the arguments about 'shall not be infringed' and I'm typically anti-authoritarian, but in this I go for control measures... that said I think we should be very cautious about what the government decides are control measures.

My only point in posting in this thread really, is that FOX really could be a champion for gun rights here but instead they opt for rhetoric, hate and their normal histrionics. It really is a shame.

posted on Mar, 1 2013 @ 09:02 PM

Originally posted by jibeho
reply to post by Helious

ABC is just covering for its next Mid Morning Talk Show Host. Gotta keep her looking smart...

Michelle has something up her sleeve for the remainder of this term. She's gotten bored with her now defunct pet projects of days gone by... She like's the limelight hence her attempt to steal the show at the Oscars during the Best Picture award presentation... She's so desperate it's kind of sad... in a funny way

she`s smooozing celebrities and such in an attempt to lay the ground work for a job after she leaves the white house in 4 years. It`s just a shameful public exploitation of her position as first lady.

top topics
<< 1  2   >>

log in