ATS Street View 05: Gun Control and Jared Loughner

reply to post by Howtosurvive2012


If you're not an amateur then explain this:

ar15-5.56 w/2x32 round clips.

Those are your words.

reply to post by projectvxn


I've had more than a few weapons, for more than a few years, unlike you.
That 30/32 rd clip mistake was nothing short of a typo/hasty response.
Let's see you keep track after you've put down you're guns for years.
When I was like you, I could name every part, of every gun properly.
Get yourself a small stockpile and see if you can still remember.
I don't just own an AR and a Glock? as seen in your pic.
If I had two guns I'd remember better. I did PM you,
I gave you a reasonable list of guns to choose from.
You say pictures will mean nothing. (way to backpedal)
I asked you to choose a number to write on a piece of paper,
(validating the picture was taken for you, verifying my stance and ownership)
as a matter of fact pick any combination of 3 guns on the list and I'll put them in one image w/ chosen number. Your attack is an unsubstantiated personal barrage that exemplifies your willingness to engage without cause. Name calling, really? If I'm a BSer prove it, call my alleged bluff. If not apologize publicly like you said you would, before I offered you the pics. A real man, a responsible person, would have no problem admitting fault. Cowards can't admit that they support a faulty cause. (with personal accusations, not your political stance)
Which are you? PEACE TO ALL, INCLUDING YOURSELF

reply to post by Howtosurvive2012

I've had more than a few weapons, for more than a few years, unlike you.

And you know what I own by seeing what I have in one pic? Neat, I wanna know how to do that!

That 30/32 rd clip mistake was nothing short of a typo/hasty response.

There's more wrong with that statement than you realize. Which further illustrates my point.
But I will accept that as an excuse. I've hit the wrong number on my keys before.

Let's see you keep track after you've put down you're guns for years.

I've been exposed to and own several weapons. I know every part in them.

When I was like you, I could name every part, of every gun properly.
Get yourself a small stockpile and see if you can still remember.

Would more than just a small stockpile count? I'm quite the enthusiast really.

I don't just own an AR and a Glock? as seen in your pic.
If I had two guns I'd remember better. I did PM you,
I gave you a reasonable list of guns to choose from.
You say pictures will mean nothing. (way to backpedal)
I asked you to choose a number to write on a piece of paper,
(validating the picture was taken for you, verifying my stance and ownership)
as a matter of fact pick any combination of 3 guns on the list and I'll put them in one image w/ chosen number.

Pics don't mean anything because whether you own a gun or not means nothing to me. I actually believe you own a gun, I just don't believe you know as much as you say you do based on the examples shown and the fact that you couch your stances on admitted hypocrisy...How is that not BS?

That's an M4 in that pic and what is in my hand is not even a pistol. I don't own a Glock.

Your attack is an unsubstantiated personal barrage that exemplifies your willingness to engage without cause. Name calling, really? If I'm a BSer prove it, call my alleged bluff. If not apologize publicly like you said you would, before I offered you the pics. A real man, a responsible person, would have no problem admitting fault.

Send whatever you'd like, I'm telling you that's not necessary, but I'm not going to turn down some good gun porn.


I will concede that this...
Link to full post

I have several hidden handguns spread throughout areas I frequent.

...may be a misunderstanding. For which I do apologize as you certainly did clear that up in U2Us.

Cowards can't admit that they support a faulty cause. (with personal accusations, not your political stance)
Which are you?

I have no problem making any apologies for things I've gotten wrong. I do NOT consider apologizing publicly or otherwise an embarrassment, I consider it a courtesy I would owe anyone I've painted the wrong color, provided that is the case here. I just don't think you've been entirely honest at worst, or simply not clear enough at best.

If you take a step back and read some of your statements to me and others you will understand why.

Some of the things you said can and will most likely be understood to mean one thing or another.

Saying that an AR has a 32 rnd "clip" and then telling me you're not an amateur isn't convincing.

Telling people that you hide guns at places you frequent sounds like you have a Glock hidden in the bushes next to Starbucks. Might cause a bit of confusion....

Owning unregistered firearms as you assert and then saying that anyone else who has unregistered firearms should be in prison for ten years is hypocritical BS any way you slice it, and you admitted as such.

Such things make ME inclined to believe that you are irresponsible and dangerous with your weapons and worse yet, have little idea what you're doing with them.

I am willing to accept that my view of this may be wrong..but you're gonna have to do a better job than "oops I forgot" and lashing out. If you would pause for thought before reacting you might cause less confusion.

If you were consistent in behavior as well as conviction one might take you seriously.

Last and not least I believe your whole premise is intellectually dishonest let alone materially considering the blatant, and again ADMITTED couching in hypocritical thought. You tell me dude, what am I suppose to gather from this?

reply to post by projectvxn


The Hypocrisy I admit to is being against guns and owning an arsenal. I'm stuck with the decision to either sell them (and chance they'll end up in the hands of the less responsible) or keep them, and be a hypocrite. I choose the latter. The way you break down every sentence, admit to being wrong, and then continue on with your personal attack illustrates my point to a tee. Funny, I noticed you skipped right over the "back peddling" though. Can't argue that point, so ignore it right? You were explained what "places I frequent" means. Guaranteed, every one of those places is as safe as any other.
"In the bushes" come on! That describes the mentality I'm talking about. You know it's not the case. How about when your unsure about what words mean you ask, instead of insinuating false claims, and calling names like a child?

Really, I could care less what you think in regards to my personal experience. But if your going to question me, I'll question you. Besides writing an abbreviation, and committing a typo, explain to me the flaw in what I wrote "Ar-15 5.56" or what ever it was. Maybe it's your lack of experience that prevents you from understanding shorthand. Would you like the freaking serial number? Oh yeah, that's right, you already said you believe I own, but continue to attack anyway.

Here's a constructive project, and this goes out to all and everyone reading this...

Answer honestly, if only to yourself. If you can,
break it down into individual questions and answer:
What is the best case scenario when owning a fire arm?
Besides resiting constitutional rights, why do you need AW's?
Do you think when they wrote the constitution it applied to black powder;
or do you think the author was able to see into the future of the AR world of today.
In the distant future, when Lazar technology/weaponry reaches it's pinnacle, will the constitution protect that as well? Traditional thinking in a modern world is as ridiculous as Slavery.
If you disagree, PROVE YOUR POINT!You've proven mine.

reply to post by Howtosurvive2012


I'm not surprised that despite all that I have written that you STILL haven't gotten the point I was making, and what was considered wrong with the sentence I pointed out.

MY point has been more than proven, sir.

I remain unconvinced. Since every time I challenge any assertion you make, you immediately get defensive and accuse me of "name-calling" and denigrate my experience...It's a cute trick, but it don't work 'round here.


Enjoy!

reply to post by projectvxn


Dear sir, this symbol: (?) signifies a question.
If you want to prove your point try answering one of them instead of picking apart every word I say. The reason you won't is because you know you can't answer without implicating yourself. That ploy won't work with me. As far as I'm concerned, until anyone can answer my last group of questions, I maintain my point of view. I'd love to discuss this intellectually with the understanding that we support different viewpoints. (other subscribers submitted some good input) However if you only pick apart my words, instead of lending credibility to your cause with a well written rebuttal, whats the point? I've yet to hear anything other than "the constitution says". BIG SURPRISE THERE. You've managed to avoid every single question I've asked, and condescendingly replied to typos and your own misunderstandings. You've proven quite a bit, but none of it supports your cause.

reply to post by Howtosurvive2012

What is the best case scenario when owning a fire arm?

Never using them.

Besides resiting constitutional rights, why do you need AW's?

I believe in Natural Law(something the Constitution is based on read up on it).
I believe in meeting threats with overwhelming force. I like having options on the table.

Let me ask you, What do you consider an "Assault" Weapon?

Do you think when they wrote the constitution it applied to black powder;
or do you think the author was able to see into the future of the AR world of today.

When the Constitution was written they took into account the natural inclination for SOME in our society to control and subjugate others. Nature gives us the right to self defense, guns are just the means to do so. Whether they are black powder or not is irrelevant.

How many crimes are AR rifles used in? How much safer compared to founding era weapons are modern weapons?

Answer those.

In the distant future, when Lazar technology/weaponry reaches it's pinnacle, will the constitution protect that as well? Traditional thinking in a modern world is as ridiculous as Slavery.

I hope so. MY HOPE, however, is that by the time these weapons are available that we will have stopped shooting at each other.

If this were the 1500s I'd be fighting for my right to keep and bear cross bows, swords, and bows and arrows. Why? Because:

"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote."

reply to post by Howtosurvive2012


Typos?

It wasn't until I called you on it that your claims became "typos".

Just sayin'.

Originally posted by Howtosurvive2012
Besides writing an abbreviation, and committing a typo, explain to me the flaw in what I wrote "Ar-15 5.56" or what ever it was.

You mentioned having "2x32 rds clips" for an AR-15. I can buy that the "2" was a typo for "0" - they're pretty close on the keypad. The bone of contention is "clip" instead of the proper "magazine". Clips are openwork metal holders for ammunition that are entirely contained within the action of a weapon until the last round is fired and the clip is ejected. They are called that because they "clip" several rounds (typically 5 rounds) together, and the whole shebang is loaded into the action, usually from the top, against a spring at the floorplate which keeps pressure on the bottom round, feeding the rounds upward in sequence as they are fired until the last round is fired.

Clips are used in such weapons as the M1 Rifle, and I had an old 6.5 Carcano that was clip fed.

The AR-15 family of weapons uses magazines - boxy affairs that enclose the ammunition and have their own internal springs to feed the individual rounds upward as they are fired.

Edit to add: There ARE things called "stripper clips" that relate to several different assault weapon families. They "clip" together several rounds (typically 10 or 15), but are used to rapidly load a magazine, not in the weapon itself. "Stripper clips" are really why the distinction between clips and magazines are important. In a magazine fed weapon, trying to use a stripper clip directly in the weapon could prov disastrous.

Here's a constructive project, and this goes out to all and everyone reading this...

Answer honestly, if only to yourself. If you can,
break it down into individual questions and answer:
What is the best case scenario when owning a fire arm?

I'm not sure what you're asking here. "Best case" how?

Besides resiting constitutional rights, why do you need AW's?

"I need my AK74 to keep people from taking my AK-74 away".

Seriously, though, it's a nostalgia thing with my AK-74, and besides that it's really fun to shoot. I've never been attacked by a horde of angry rabbits in a wave, if that's what your asking, but I did have to face down 11 unpleasant human individuals, who were NOT governmentally or Constitutionally related, at Health Serve once. You know where that is, right? All I had was my trusty issue six-shooter. I sure would have loved having that AK right about then, but the revolver did the trick. I'll tell you the whole story some time if you want to hear it, but the full version really isn't relevant here.

Do you think when they wrote the constitution it applied to black powder;
or do you think the author was able to see into the future of the AR world of today.

Neither. It applied to "arms" of any sort, the general idea being that if the populace was as well armed as the government, they would present a more credible deterrent to misdeeds. That means that it applied to any sorts of arms that could be found in a government arsenal, which only incidentally involved black powder in those days, and now covers such things as assault rifles, LAWs, grenades, etc., etc.. In that day, it applied to cannons as well as shoulder arms and pistols. The residents of Boonesboro, KY built their own cannon out of a hollowed out tree once, because no iron cannon was within reach at that instant. No one said "boo" about it. Incidentally, that "tree trunk cannon", although reinforced with iron bands, burst after the 4th shot. The point is, no one got prosecuted by BATFE over it, even though they were every man-jack of them a civilian.

In the distant future, when Lazar technology/weaponry reaches it's pinnacle, will the constitution protect that as well?

Legally, yes, but practically it remains to be seen. It depends entirely on how many rights people are willing to abrogate for themselves right NOW as to where their backbone will be then.

Traditional thinking in a modern world is as ridiculous as Slavery.

This is not "traditional thinking", as some things are absolutely timeless. The rights possessed by the individual are in that category. We have exactly the same "rights" now that we have always had, and always will have. The difference is in our willingness to enforce the recognition of those rights.

If you disagree, PROVE YOUR POINT!

Does logic work for you as "proof"?

reply to post by nenothtu


Besides the history lesson on mags vs. clips, that was an excellent response. Nice job supporting your viewpoint. You made some very lucid, very good arguments. If you want to debate my exp. send me a PM; but I assure you, if you're going to hinge an implication on one hurried sentence, that exemplifies a stretch to prove a point. I submit to all, I made an error, it doesn't take away my logic or experience. Honestly, I see your points; and you seem like a level headed individual.

If everyone was as levelheaded as you, it might not be such a problem right now.
But seriously, as a full fledged advocate, where do we draw the line?
I'm capable of building a nuke, But does it mean I'm entitled to?
As you stated: Arms are arms (nuclear or not) As a level
headed person, you must see my point; don't you?
When do entitlements become restrictive?
When everyone supports an RPG?
It's gotta end somewhere.
When if not now?

Let's be clear, I never said take away our rights to bare arms.
I think we need restrictions on the type, and amount of people permitted.
The constitution allows the criminally insane, mentally disabled, and otherwise unstable
to support nuclear weapons by the word of the law. Is that really a good idea?

reply to post by Howtosurvive2012

Let's be clear, I never said take away our rights to bare arms.
I think we need restrictions on the type, and amount of people permitted.
The constitution allows the criminally insane, mentally disabled, and otherwise unstable
to support nuclear weapons by the word of the law. Is that really a good idea?

This is absolutely not true.

You should probably read the Constitution and the Federalist(Papers) which explains the Constitution. It does make provisions for people who have violated the law.

No one...Not even governments, should have nukes...But I believe in gun control for the government.

reply to post by projectvxn


I'd prefer to end our exchange; however,
unless I'm remembering the wrong member...
You said it shouldn't matter about criminal history.
You said you don't register any of your weapons.
"The government has no business in my business"
You said you believe in following the constitution.
Which is it? You can't pick and choose when it suits.
Or should I go back and highlight every discrepancy?

reply to post by Howtosurvive2012


I don't register my weapons because it is not required of me, and I will not. I have NEVER said that criminals should own guns, but good luck stopping them from getting their hands on them. I believe in following the Constitution. But there is more to it than the first two amendments. Maybe you should read the rest of it to see where i'm coming from.

Edit:

If you do wanna peruse every word I've ever said in this thread here is my in-thread post history

Originally posted by Howtosurvive2012
reply to post by nenothtu

 

But seriously, as a full fledged advocate, where do we draw the line?
I'm capable of building a nuke, But does it mean I'm entitled to?
As you stated: Arms are arms (nuclear or not) As a level
headed person, you must see my point; don't you?
When do entitlements become restrictive?
When everyone supports an RPG?
It's gotta end somewhere.
When if not now?

If you are truly able to build a nuke, I know of several world governments that would like to speak with you. They'd probably offer a good bit of coin, as they have not yet been able to master that enterprise themselves, and would pay dearly for your assistance.

As far as your "entitlement" goes, yes, you have a right to build a nuke if you have the capability, but in all honesty, what would you want with one? There's really nothing you can do with it, and I'm pretty sure that any attempted use would result in your immediate erasure, so why bother to begin with? Seems sort of counter-productive to me.

Most anyone capable of building a nuke would most certainly not think they have a need to ask anyone's permission to do so.

I can, in fact, build an RPG if I wanted one. It wouldn't be legal, but I have that right (rights are not contingent upon legal permissions) and capability if I wanted one. In point of fact I DON'T want one. I can't think of any use I would have for it. I suspect that were they legalized today, we would discover that a fairly large swath of the population felt the same way about having their own personal RPG as I do. Don't need it, therefore don't want it. I doubt we'll see the day when everyone sports one, legal or not. If I ever DO need one, rest assured I'll have one, and won't ask anyone's leave about it.

Here's the thing, from my own viewpoint: none of these devices should be illegal of themselves. They are only inanimate objects. Misuse of them is another matter altogether, and should be met with immediate, and excessively painful, censure. I wouldn't think immediate death to be too excessive for misuse of one of these items, including firearms. After all, doing so puts other folks at risk, and what's good for the goose is good for the gander. Along with rights come responsibilities, not the least of which is to not endanger innocents.

Certain and sever punishment would go a long way in fostering that attitude of responsibility, and preventing misuse. What we have now is a lot of handwringing over those poor, unfortunate, misunderstood, and mistreated miscreants who feel no responsibility, coupled with an irrational desire to punish inanimate objects.

It's entirely upside down to be designed to get results.

As for "when will it end?", it will end when harmful, toxic people end. Until then, we will have precisely what we have now. The tools are a moot point in reality, as those types of people will always find something to do harm with. I personally know of a case several years ago where a grown man stabbed his 8 year old son to death with a screwdriver. No one suggested banning screwdrivers over it. A dangerous person, whether dangerous through instability or just junkyard dog mean, will always find something to use when he wants to do the deed.

So, to end it, the focus should be on dangerous, harmful, toxic people, rather than chasing our tails around and staying distracted by the implements they use for destruction. That misdirection of attention is doing exactly NOTHING to address, or even see, the real issues.

Let's be clear, I never said take away our rights to bare arms.
I think we need restrictions on the type, and amount of people permitted.

Some will say "assault weapons can kill hundreds, and a screwdriver only one". I hear that a lot, but it's bunk, another attempt at misdirection. The last assault rifle I bought, I paid 430 dollars US for. For considerably less than that, around 10 dollars US, I can build a device that will erase everyone in a theater, and just leave smears and odd body parts behind. Everything I need I could go out and get tomorrow morning, and have it assembled by 4 pm, and not a single soul would even think to question me.

Assault weapons are a distraction, as is the "gun issue" in general, to keep focus away from where it really ought to be - protecting society from harmful people. That can't be done with 100 percent certainty as long as there ARE harmful people, so folks want to attack SOMETHING to make themselves feel better, to feel like they're doing something. It's safest to attack inanimate objects, because they can't attack back. So, we then have endless debates about gun bans, and let the really dangerous issues just slide off of the map.

The constitution allows the criminally insane, mentally disabled, and otherwise unstable
to support nuclear weapons by the word of the law. Is that really a good idea?

Personally, I don't think it's a good idea to allow those types to be in general circulation in a dangerous way to begin with. Deal with THEM, and the rest becomes moot points.

reply to post by AboveTopSecret.com


It is annoying how people are so willing to give their rights away just for the illusion of safety. Many people just don't realize why we allow guns, but most people want a police state. I read some where that "people won't be forced in to a police state, they will demand it". It's a matter of facing guns, death, and life like an adult. I actually view firing guns, using them and understanding them as a part of growing up. You have to kill the animal to eat it, and to live. Things die... That kind of stuff.

Next thing you know people will lie to their kids about where meat comes from, or they will want to live in a padded cell with army guys protecting them on the outside. Hay if somebody wants to jump off a cliff that's their life choice but don't drag me into it. I plan on obeying the law and not shotting up a place. We could solve this by just saying "freedom to bear arms, not freedom to fire arms". You don't need guns to hunt, and you can practice by other means. It's funny how people expect the government to protect them. There are so many laws that could be made to solve everyone's arguments unless of course they weren't necessarily worried about safety after all. Notice we don't have those laws.

The founding fathers meant to ensure our access to current weaponry to keep the government in check and to defend ourselves in all other cases. Removing arms from the populace is a big step towards tyranny. There are too many laws against guns as it is. The people in this video saying we have essentially evolved through time and no longer need guns are profoundly ignorant.

And of course prohibition is always a completely idiotic move that does nothing but props up a black market and labels honest people as criminals.

It's bad enough that they have made self-defense laws so strict that a person can't even defend themselves and their property without being prosecuted.

How come nobody ever considers just how many guns are out there in the USA compared to how often there are shootings. The overwhelming vast majority of gun owners are non-violent responsible people. Yet whenever somebody goes nuts and does something evil the media pimps it like crazy and gets everyone worried about being safe from an army of lunatics. Either that or suggest gun owners are all backwards hicks who are paranoid government conspiracy wackos with itchy trigger fingers.

But.. the government is coming for the guns in the USA and with all the people who are scared of them and buy into the anti-gun propaganda and all the people willing to toss your hard-won liberties down the crapseat, I guess they will get them.

reply to post by Terms777


Hello,

I am relatively new to ATS so I will try to abide by the reply gudielines. I am a life member of the NRA, I am Republican, I am NOT ultraconservative, I vote, I participate in small town America community events, I am a healthcare provider, AND I own MANY weapons (no machione guns-don't need them.....YET).

I have many friends and colleagues in Australia, Canada, Mexico, Panama, Colombia, Brazil, France, and Spain. They have consistently and constantly resounded the fact that even though MOST guns are banned, the criminals can and do still get them. They also realize which citizens don't have them in their respective communities and those persons tend to get extorted or "roughed up" for favors or money or a nice seat or table, ertc...

I know for a fact that when I moved to an affluent area of West Virginia from Dallas, Texas that the local community's first set of questions to me included "Are you a hunter? Do you support the right to bear arms? Do you agree with the KKK? (now that one I had trouble answering-not because I agree with ANY of their doctrine, but because I was worried how my wife & kids might be targeted if I denounced it outright)...I know 'chicken'...

But I can assure ALL the Americans reading this that the time for gun control was 30-40 years AFTER we won our independence OR immediately foolowing Lincoln's assasination. It is TOO LATE now!! Look at the statistics of how many hand guns and rifles and collectibles that have been sold since 1776 !!!! The only persons who would have guns if they were banned would be the criminals (who far far outnumber law enforcement) thus leading us into a policed state or a militarized control. Do you really want that?

I learned firearm safety from my grandfather and my graet uncle as well as how to fish, can food, cure hams, make jerky, plant a garden, make maple syrup, make homemade ice cream...see it wasn't ALL guns!! I enjoy those memories immensely and have tried to teach my children the highlights of what I was taught. So far, none of my 3 kids have fired a live round and will NOT until I see some more maturity. Right now it's all video games, etc...

I would support better background checks and longer delays purchasing a weapon. Wow! Did I just say that? However, the caveat to my saying that is I ONLY want my criminal background record to apply (I don't have one). Absolutely positively I do NOT want a committee or a group of people to be in authority to give a subjective YES or NO because then you have to be their friend or grease the wheels to get one and that leads to corruption. I've got nothing to hide and I already have many weapons so why is some more time to get another one such a big deal to diehard anti-gun control people? We will eventually have to modify the amendment to KEEP AND BEAR ARMS because as the gentleman in the video said.. "It is a different time & era that we live in now."

Just a few thoughts from an older man who learned the right way and just trying to pass it on... God bless!

Well though it's nice you took to the streets of NYC for your expose, their are actually 50 States out here who might have an opinion on this issue.

You didn't even consider the rest of your state?

So is the opinion of NYC resident's the official measure of America's views on issues, or just here on ATS?