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.

 

Lethal weapon: This is the gun that is killing America

page: 10
26
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 6 2013 @ 09:06 AM
link   
Maybe the sickos are using the AR-15 because the media keeps pushing it as a great weapon to kill masses...

Sick people are dumb, and the dumb will listen to the media.

If you are a dumb POS and want your 15 minutes of fame....




posted on Nov, 6 2013 @ 09:52 AM
link   
Please don't be naive enough to believe that this weapon was used in any of the recent killing sprees as you only have the word of those who want guns out of people's hands to go by. It cannot be just coincidence that perps are supposedly using the one weapon the government wants to vilify to do their wetwork even though a handgun would be way more efficient. There is always a news blackout and the perp is usually dead so no one can speak contrary to what the authorities say. Needless to say this weapon isn't even remotely an assault weapon and the fact that media keeps saying it is shows they are on an agenda to get non thinkers to join their illegal push to remove our right to bear arms.



posted on Nov, 6 2013 @ 09:52 AM
link   

ChuckNasty
Maybe the sickos are using the AR-15 because the media keeps pushing it as a great weapon to kill masses...

Sick people are dumb, and the dumb will listen to the media.

If you are a dumb POS and want your 15 minutes of fame....


Nah the real issue with AR-15 is that it has too many military features and is rather easily upgradeable to an assault rifle if you know what you are doing. The same can be said about the ak-47 semi-autos.

Rather than addressing the conversion kits, the government prefers to simply do away with problem. In a way I dont blame them. On the other hand bolt action rifles cant be converted and that is why they are ok for now at least.



posted on Nov, 6 2013 @ 10:10 AM
link   
reply to post by EarthCitizen07
 


The right to keep and bear arms shall NOT be infringed. Period.



posted on Nov, 6 2013 @ 10:16 AM
link   
reply to post by EarthCitizen07
 


Some of the earliest semi-auto rifles were converted bolt action rifles. The Snabb conversion comes to mind, as well as the Charlton Automatic and Howell Automatic conversions of Lee-Enfields.

The number of gun crimes committed with illegal fully automatic firearms that are converted civilian legal semi-auto rifles is staggeringly low. So low as to almost be statistically insignificant. Since the Gun Control Act of 1968, there have been exactly 2 murders with legally owned fully automatic firearms, both by former police officers, one in the late 80s, and the other in the early 90s (can't remember dates off hand). The problem isn't the convertibility of some semi-auto rifles to fully automatic assault rifles, it isn't the fact that those rifles exist. There are more murders by fully automatic rifle in Mexico than the US, despite considerably more firearm ownership restrictions and lack of availability to the citizenry. The criminals still get a hold of them to project as much power as possible. So... the question is, what metric of society generates this gun crime? The evidence is that there is a stronger correlation between firearm crime and societal stability than firearm crime and firearm availability. Ethnic diversity, as much as I hate to say it, has shown to be one of the stronger drivers of that metric.
edit on 6-11-2013 by Galvatron because: (no reason given)


Edit: The bottom line is that many of these so-called rampage shooters (if the word many could be used appropriately), show the classic signs of wanting death by cop. Many suicidal people literally don't have the guts to kill themselves, and would much rather be killed. There are fewer sure ways to be killed quickly and famously than by presenting enough of a threat for a police officer to kill you.
edit on 6-11-2013 by Galvatron because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 6 2013 @ 10:19 AM
link   

soaringhawk
reply to post by EarthCitizen07
 


The right to keep and bear arms shall NOT be infringed. Period.



A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.


en.wikipedia.org...

If you are going to quote the second amendment, then please quote it in its entirety, to prevent misleading people and sounding like a fanatic.



posted on Nov, 6 2013 @ 10:22 AM
link   

Galvatron
reply to post by EarthCitizen07
 


Some of the earliest semi-auto rifles were converted bolt action rifles. The Snabb conversion comes to mind, as well as the Charlton Automatic and Howell Automatic conversions of Lee-Enfields.

The number of gun crimes committed with illegal fully automatic firearms that are converted civilian legal semi-auto rifles is staggeringly low. So low as to almost be statistically insignificant. Since the Gun Control Act of 1968, there have been exactly 2 murders with legally owned fully automatic firearms, both by former police officers, one in the late 80s, and the other in the early 90s (can't remember dates off hand). The problem isn't the convertibility of some semi-auto rifles to fully automatic assault rifles, it isn't the fact that those rifles exist. There are more murders by fully automatic rifle in Mexico than the US, despite considerably more firearm ownership restrictions and lack of availability to the citizenry. The criminals still get a hold of them to project as much power as possible. So... the question is, what metric of society generates this gun crime? The evidence is that there is a stronger correlation between firearm crime and societal stability than firearm crime and firearm availability. Ethnic diversity, as much as I hate to say it, has shown to be one of the stronger drivers of that metric.
edit on 6-11-2013 by Galvatron because: (no reason given)


All true. In addition I'd like to add that the myth that an AR15 is easily converted to an M16 is just that...a myth. The receiver is cut differently and M16 FA parts won't fit in an AR15 receiver. If one has the knowledge and the equipment to cut the receiver to fit the parts and then (most likely) have to manufacture the parts, he's got the gear and know-how to make his own FA from scratch and a law banning them is moot.

I know someone who has made several working sten guns in his garage with basic tools.



posted on Nov, 6 2013 @ 10:24 AM
link   

EarthCitizen07

soaringhawk
reply to post by EarthCitizen07
 


The right to keep and bear arms shall NOT be infringed. Period.



A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.


en.wikipedia.org...

If you are going to quote the second amendment, then please quote it in its entirety, to prevent misleading people and sounding like a fanatic.


The first, subordinate clause, does not change the meaning of the second amendment as an individual right for an individual citizen one iota, so I don't see your point. Those who think that clause means the national guard gets weapons and everybody does not either do not know the meaning of he amendment and the intent behind it, or are being intentionally deceptive.



posted on Nov, 6 2013 @ 10:25 AM
link   
reply to post by EarthCitizen07
 


Do you understand what well-regulated means? When the bill of rights was authored, the term "well-regulated" was a very common phrase and has no bearing on what we call today "regulation". That is to say, well regulated explicitly does not mean government sanction, oversight, or mandate. Well regulated, and you can look at literature from between 1750 through 1910ish (when the phrase was common and popular), means, in good working order. A well regulated pocket watch would be a watch that keeps time well. A well regulated mind is someone who is rational and critically thinking. A well regulated militia is a group of citizens-at-arms who are well drilled with good discipline and marksmanship.

Here is a good breakdown:
www.constitution.org...

I hate it when people assume that well-regulated means that it's open to government sanction, oversight, mandate, or legislation.



posted on Nov, 6 2013 @ 10:25 AM
link   
reply to post by EarthCitizen07
 


Define military features? Most "upgrades" out there are all about making it more comfortable and convenient. Folding stocks don't make a gun more powerful or dangerous, neither do pistol grips, or barrel shrouds, or sound suppressors. Why is it that only military should be able to have comfortable tools? The only upgrade that would be validly turning a rifle into an assault rifle is a burst and auto conversion.



posted on Nov, 6 2013 @ 10:32 AM
link   
reply to post by NavyDoc
 


Really? Then why are there are soooo many bump-fire stocks available?

The other way of accomplishing this would be to remove the semi-auto sear and install an automatic sear instead, but the government holds them in their possession and you need a class 3 license to get approved.



posted on Nov, 6 2013 @ 10:33 AM
link   

EarthCitizen07

ChuckNasty
Maybe the sickos are using the AR-15 because the media keeps pushing it as a great weapon to kill masses...

Sick people are dumb, and the dumb will listen to the media.

If you are a dumb POS and want your 15 minutes of fame....


Nah the real issue with AR-15 is that it has too many military features and is rather easily upgradeable to an assault rifle if you know what you are doing. The same can be said about the ak-47 semi-autos.

Rather than addressing the conversion kits, the government prefers to simply do away with problem. In a way I dont blame them. On the other hand bolt action rifles cant be converted and that is why they are ok for now at least.


Ever see kits for a Ruger 10/22? They make the AR kits look like poo.


It's not a kit issue IMO.



posted on Nov, 6 2013 @ 10:37 AM
link   
reply to post by EarthCitizen07
 


Most people who own fully automatic firearms are not class III. That refers to a dealer's license to sell fully automatic post '86 firearms for the sake of purchase by law enforcement or pre-'86 machine guns to civilians. Most people fill out a Form 4, pay a $200 fee/tax stamp, and wait 6 months + for the ATF/FBI background check in order to purchase an NFA Title II weapon. Not arguing here, just informing.

I'm a proponent of firearm ownership and accessability for two reasons. One, it's part of my job, and I enjoy shooting sports. Two, I hate being on the losing side of anything, and the argument against the availability of firearms for the law-abiding citizenry literally has case studies, statistics, ethics, anecdotes, history, and law stacked against it. I hate putting things in terms of right and wrong (as the world is mostly made of what's in-between), but from what I can tell, the argument against firearm ownership is so factually vacant as to be wrong.
edit on 6-11-2013 by Galvatron because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 6 2013 @ 10:43 AM
link   
reply to post by ChuckNasty
 


The issue is kits converting semi to auto guns. Who cares about any other features?




posted on Nov, 6 2013 @ 10:48 AM
link   
reply to post by EarthCitizen07
 


The issue isn't the convertibility. The issue is are they actually used to kill people and therefore present a statistically significant threat to society. Death by long guns, which includes both legal, and illegal weapons, is around 700 a year in the US. Most machine guns, legal, or illegal, are typically long guns and are therefore lumped into this category.

To expand on this, the Bureau of Justice Statistics says that 8% of felons convicted of violent crime with a firearm said they had access to machine guns. None had used one the committing the crime that incarcerated them.
edit on 6-11-2013 by Galvatron because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 6 2013 @ 11:00 AM
link   
reply to post by TKDRL
 




Instead of a loose sear the stock slides back and forth, thus accomplishing full-auto.



posted on Nov, 6 2013 @ 11:01 AM
link   
reply to post by Snarl
 
The why of the 30.06, the .30 caliber round for a rifle was introduced about 1900. The Marine Corps used the Springfield 1903 to great effect in World War I. The bolt action rifle had range. Facing a German trench, the Marines sighted in the 03 and began to pick off soldiers in the trenches. When the Germans fell back behind the trenches. The Marines began to pick the soldiers off, at 500 plus meters. That is a true battle rifle. The M-14 had the reach. There was a 7.62 mm version of the AR, being developed. Maybe because there was an Air Force general as Chairman, JCS, the lighter, less effective 5.56 mm was pushed through. My understanding from scuttlebutt of the time. The Air Force wanted a smaller, lighter weapon for the Air Police and airfield security people. The M-14 was too heavy and awkward for the Airmen to use.
What I liked about the M-60 in assault mode was the damage it produced on a target. It could shred a 55 gallon drum with a less than a hundred rounds.
To go hunting, I prefer the 30.caliber round. It has range and stopping power. I want the animal dead as quick as possible. It ain't the tracking that bothers me, it is the animal in pain for no good reason.



posted on Nov, 6 2013 @ 11:13 AM
link   

EarthCitizen07
reply to post by TKDRL
 




Instead of a loose sear the stock slides back and forth, thus accomplishing full-auto.


Not full auto at all. You do not have multiple rounds per trigger pull, but just a way to pull the trigger really fast.

It is like saying that this guy is shooting a "full auto" revolver.

But that's not a conversion, nor true full auto, not practical, wildly inaccurate, and can be done on any semi-auto rifle, pistol, or shotgun. Rather than being a conversion, "bump fire" is a parlor trick. The ATF once ruled that a shoestring was a FA part because someone figured out how to bump fire with a shoestring.
edit on 6-11-2013 by NavyDoc because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 6 2013 @ 11:17 AM
link   

Galvatron
reply to post by EarthCitizen07
 


Do you understand what well-regulated means? When the bill of rights was authored, the term "well-regulated" was a very common phrase and has no bearing on what we call today "regulation". That is to say, well regulated explicitly does not mean government sanction, oversight, or mandate. Well regulated, and you can look at literature from between 1750 through 1910ish (when the phrase was common and popular), means, in good working order. A well regulated pocket watch would be a watch that keeps time well. A well regulated mind is someone who is rational and critically thinking. A well regulated militia is a group of citizens-at-arms who are well drilled with good discipline and marksmanship.

Here is a good breakdown:
www.constitution.org...

I hate it when people assume that well-regulated means that it's open to government sanction, oversight, mandate, or legislation.


So people like you choose to interpret the meaning of *well regulated militia* in a way that prevents any form of government regulation, thus basically any handgun or any rifle is a-ok. No exceptions or anything.

Please allow me to disagree entirely with this line of thinking. I may and do disagree with some gun laws but I would never attempt to make it a black and white issue. If the constitution is to be respected, then every word and and every sentence should be read and interpretated literaly. Otherwise sections of the constitution should be looked into and ammended wherever necessary.

And national guard units fit only part of the militia requirement. One could say that armed citizens fits militia as well, therefore both regulated by the government at local, state and federal level. I bring this up because navydoc brought it up and I think its rellevant to our discussion.



posted on Nov, 6 2013 @ 11:35 AM
link   

EarthCitizen07

Galvatron
reply to post by EarthCitizen07
 


Do you understand what well-regulated means? When the bill of rights was authored, the term "well-regulated" was a very common phrase and has no bearing on what we call today "regulation". That is to say, well regulated explicitly does not mean government sanction, oversight, or mandate. Well regulated, and you can look at literature from between 1750 through 1910ish (when the phrase was common and popular), means, in good working order. A well regulated pocket watch would be a watch that keeps time well. A well regulated mind is someone who is rational and critically thinking. A well regulated militia is a group of citizens-at-arms who are well drilled with good discipline and marksmanship.

Here is a good breakdown:
www.constitution.org...

I hate it when people assume that well-regulated means that it's open to government sanction, oversight, mandate, or legislation.


So people like you choose to interpret the meaning of *well regulated militia* in a way that prevents any form of government regulation, thus basically any handgun or any rifle is a-ok. No exceptions or anything.

Please allow me to disagree entirely with this line of thinking. I may and do disagree with some gun laws but I would never attempt to make it a black and white issue. If the constitution is to be respected, then every word and and every sentence should be read and interpretated literaly. Otherwise sections of the constitution should be looked into and ammended wherever necessary.

And national guard units fit only part of the militia requirement. One could say that armed citizens fits militia as well, therefore both regulated by the government at local, state and federal level. I bring this up because navydoc brought it up and I think its rellevant to our discussion.


However, speaking of the militia, US code and the militia act of 1791 (never been altered) state that the militia is the "whole of the people" save a few public servants and that the people were to equip themselves with the arms of the average soldier. Thus, the intent of the second amendment as well as the laws that were originally written around it indicate that the intent was to have everyone armed just like the average soldier.

And yes, we should take the constitution literally, and it distinctly says that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Not the right of the people doing militia duty, not the right of the people doing police work, not the right of the people in the National Guard (formed over a 100 years after the 2nd amendment BTW), but the people...period.

The founding fathers were very precise in their language. The defined in the body of the constitution when and where the federal government may call out the militia. When they meant the government, they said the government. When the meant the people, they said the people.



new topics

top topics



 
26
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join