Hypothetically speaking, if assault weapons are banned what liberties will you be losing?

Originally posted by POPtheKlEEN89
Well Obama has fully revealed his position, now if congress acts in favor of his laws i would like to know what liberties you will be losing and why you feel that way.

I am generally interested in hearing your personal views on how these laws will affect your individual liberty, so far i haven't been able to stomach this debate no matter where i see or hear it, so indulge me with an intelligent response giving me your reasons for or against the looming assault weapons ban.

Keep it civil, if you foam at the mouth please clean up after yourself.

Our right to own weapons that can take out more than one person at once.

Statistically, assault weapons are rarely used in crimes, but because of this one shooting, everyone's flipping their (crap) about it. Makes you wonder, don't it?

They simply don't want us to have certain practical weapons that would be useful opposing a tyrannical government. That's why they bring children onto the stage as they talk about the laws, and Obama fronting like he actually has feelings, and that's why they exploit tragedies like this (weather it was orchestrated or not), for just that little bit more control. Just that little inch closer to a dictatorship.

When you find yourself compelled and touched emotionally by someone like Obama--like the last conference he held, with the children on stage--That's how you know you're being lied to.

Originally posted by smashdem
I don't think anyone hunts with automatics, but lots of people hunt with "assault weapons".
The term is a proficient tool of deceit. How does having a pistol grip turn your gun into an assault weapon? Or a thumbhole stock? In your country of origin, people are probably allowed to have those two traits together on a weapon and not have it considered by the idiotic masses some type of military grade murder machine, aka, "assault weapon". Where from, btw?

edit on 17-1-2013 by smashdem because: (no reason given)

I come from Austria. Live now in Canada however. And no our personal guns are not permitted assault weapon style as pistolgrip or so. Old military weapons as the K-98 have to be sight blocked to 300 meter. However as like Switzerland - I am notot too well inf\ormed on the latest Army rules, - some units do bring their AR homes after service. I am not sure if they aslo have the loaded clips with them or just the gun. Swiss people bring their AR home with full loaded clips. However those clips are "Sealed". Swiss army requires x-amount of range practices/year from each member, active or in reserve. The seal is broken at the range and used as a proof that the mandatory practice rounds have been fired.
Revolvers and pistols are limited to the PROFESSION one has. This includes for example Mailcarriers, who at least back then when when I still lived there 1970's would actually carry pension funds in CASH to bring to people. Conceiled weapon carry is limited to such professions. (I am not talking about cops and other security personel but average civilian employees). Certtain shop owners - jewelers, or other high cash value shops can carry conceiled. - IN the shop or on transport. Secvurtity guards , depending on the object they protect.
Farmers in general have a nasty method of "selfdefense". They usually take a few 12 gauge shells and empty them of their shots and refill the same shots with fine ground PIG-BRISTLES. Any boy that ever crossed the fence to get some cherries can tell you how much FUN these things can be! Usually in a home invasion use of firesams, this is the sharp end that an intruder encounters. Average healing time is some 4-5 weeks with plenty of pain, puss blood and so forth till these things work themselves again out of the body.
Hopwever 22cal is not in need of a liscence in Austria. I had my 22cal semi-automatic Winchester with tube mag. I used to start with a common BB-gun at around 8 and then my father got a Olymic grade match Air rifle, wich I used pretty effectively against vermins. At 18 I bought my 22cal.
What is pretty dominant in our country's culture however is a pride in being a damn good marksman. The focus on markmanship is mainly due to the fact that Austria is a densly populated country. Not so much in terms of population numbers as in the fact that about 80% of the population lives in 1/3 of the aera of the country. the rest is pretty much just mountains. So there is always "something behind" that deer or fox or so. The weapon training is very strongly focused on the WHAT IF you Miss scenario. Also in terms of defense. The army is a mandatory draft army. So EVERY man is military trained, and now women as well. There is a strong emphasis on blending civilian and military duties together. Even our cars are registered with the army as possible transport. So in our mentality, the private weapon is private and for hunting/game warden duty and sports. If TSHTF we know where the rest is. Also we see our gvt. as WE are the Government. It is not some strange entity somewhere in the sky.

reply to post by POPtheKlEEN89


The liberty to own weapons that have been redefined as assault weapons… is this a trick question?
Currently we have the liberty to own certain weapons if obama gets his way we lose that liberty…

That is the liberty lost… if you are a foreigner you won't get it. If you have to ask the question you do not get it.


You really do not care for an answer you are just attempting to troll.


If you believe gun control works for your country that is great! Stop trying to impose your way on us or think your countries way is the best way

I don't understand how surrendering liberty to be safe makes sense but I think it has to do with your nations history and development.

Chances are our government is more war like than your country and has shown that using deadly force on anything that threatens the state. Including US citizens. This leads me to have some fear towards my nation. It uses. It plays on words to make certain weapon descriptions illegal and it has also made vague descriptions of who can be considered a terrorist.


Couple that with the deadlywreckless force used on terrorist and anyone who disagrees with the state is a potential target.

You won't get it. Kinda like I never understood the distrust of banks from people who went through the great depression and I don't expect you to understand either.

If it works in your country have a coke and a smile and stfu

Those that need assault rifles to hunt should probably learn a thing or two about hunting. Needing an assault rifle outside of warfare makes it a glorified penis extension.

reply to post by thisguyrighthere


Serious question here. You think potential threats should be ignored, because a person has done nothing wrong until another person has been harmed, and intent doesn't enter into it? You're also a gun fan.

Well, what the hell use is your gun, may I ask? Do you wait till you've been shot in the head to shoot back? If a guy pulls a gun on you or your kid, he is innocent until he fires it, right? Your gun is utterly useless mate.

Let me make a proposal. You're talking nonsense and do not even believe what you're actually writing.

Originally posted by humphreysjim
reply to post by thisguyrighthere

 

Serious question here. You think potential threats should be ignored, because a person has done nothing wrong until another person has been harmed, and intent doesn't enter into it?

Ignored? No. Definitely not. You're posing examples of shooting a guy for shouting words. Or was that Ivan? That's insane. I said you should investigate further before taking such drastic action.

Well, what the hell use is your gun, may I ask? Do you wait till you've been shot in the head to shoot back? If a guy pulls a gun on you or your kid, he is innocent until he fires it, right? Your gun is utterly useless mate.

My guns are for competitions not primarily for defensive purposes.

If someone were to pull a gun on me I would comply. It's foolish to think I could raise my firearm and fire in defense before somebody who already had a gun trained on me would fire in offense. Maybe I would try some "here's my wallet OMG ITS A GUN!!!!" kind of trickery but that's neither here nor there.

Also, the act of pointing the gun at me is a crime and a direct threat to my person so no need to wait until the trigger is pulled.

I find a lot of gun-ban proponents dont understand this. They have it backwards. They tend to think that a gun in a holster on a hip is a threat. Well, it's not. A gun aimed at you is a threat.

I assure you I'm sincere. I wouldnt joke about my liberty or yours.

Originally posted by thisguyrighthere

Ignored? No. Definitely not. You're posing examples of shooting a guy for shouting words. Or was that Ivan? That's insane. I said you should investigate further before taking such drastic action.

Shooting a guy running towards a school shouting "I have a bomb!" and "Death to kids!" is absurd?

Again, you are displaying no survival instinct.

Originally posted by thisguyrighthere

If someone were to pull a gun on me I would comply. It's foolish to think I could raise my firearm and fire in defense before somebody who already had a gun trained on me would fire in offense. Maybe I would try some "here's my wallet OMG ITS A GUN!!!!" kind of trickery but that's neither here nor there.

Also, the act of pointing the gun at me is a crime and a direct threat to my person so no need to wait until the trigger is pulled.

It's a threat because it shows intent, which is exactly what I have been saying.

Pulling a gun on someone shows intent. Yelling "I have a bomb" shows intent. Taking a bomb on a plane shows MAJOR intent. You have to act on intent or you're going to be a sitting duck.

Your "I'll kill the guy once he's done killing me" approach to live is not likely to do you any favours.

Originally posted by thisguyrighthere

They tend to think that a gun in a holster on a hip is a threat. Well, it's not. A gun aimed at you is a threat.

I agree entirely.

Why you think this is a threat but not the examples I cited is what I don't get.

reply to post by humphreysjim

don't deflect.
the underwear and shoe bombers were the catalyst for TSA ... and they certainly haven't 'caught' any since, so, why are we still subjected to their perpetual abuses ???

how many ppl have had to be demoralized to have -0- effect as marketed ??

yes, you seem very confused, however, with fear leading your way, it comes as no surprise.

ppl carry 'bombs' on planes every day.
ever see the items TSA has been reported 'stealing' ??

if you cannot connect the dots, go back to school.
science is a very interesting subject.

i'm not speaking 'statistics' cause they aren't threatening either.

planes have NEVER blown up every day .. what has security done to change that ?

terrorism, as a word, didn't even exist 30yrs ago.

with this statement, you couldn't be any more confused.

You also contradict yourself at every turn because the world you picture does not even need guns, and yet you call for citizens to have them, fervently.

my world, here in USA, was built with a specific goal in mind and one which was spoken by many ... need a refresher ?

law-abiding, self-governing citizens, need less government, -0- TSA and a whole plethora of de-regulation. especially of those activities not within the purvue of government authority, like arms.

any inconvenience is just that and i have every right to refuse.
i care because i can.

it is not analogous to banning bombs and guns

right, so why bother bringing it up ?

who said planes were safe ??
i've seen their saftey records, long before any bomb was of great concern to the uneducated.

i never said the TSA was the devil but i absolutely believe they are un-necessary, a complete drain on the system, criminals at large and a disservice to every law-abiding traveler.

how does that make me 'paranoid' ??

reply to post by Guenter


Thanks for the quick and thorough answer. I am all for more intense regulations of training and ownership, but I dont think things need to be taken away all together. If someone wants a fully automatic weapon, they should have the proper training and possibly license. Such programs should be made more readily available to people who plan on owning larger caliber or fully automatic weapons too. I know when I was 18 I bought a 12 gauge and 10 days later picked it up without ever having to prove I could even carry the weapon, let alone fire it effectively.
I would also not object if we had mandatory service like many countries. It can do really good things for young people.

Originally posted by Honor93

don't deflect.
the underwear and shoe bombers were the catalyst for TSA ... and they certainly haven't 'caught' any since, so, why are we still subjected to their perpetual abuses ???

how many ppl have had to be demoralized to have -0- effect as marketed ??

How am I deflecting? Shoe checks are as much preventative as they are meant to catch shoe bombers in the act. In that regard, they may be very successful. How successful is pretty impossible to know.

Again, taking a shoe bomb on a plane where shoe checks are well known would take a special kind of idiot. The security is preventative.

Your logic does not make sense. Let's say you banned guns and gun crime went down to 0%. By your logic we'd call it a failure because it's completely unnecessary to ban guns if gun crime is 0%?!

Originally posted by Honor93

ever see the items TSA has been reported 'stealing' ??

Save your TSA rants and paranoia for another thread, please. It's barely even relevant.

reply to post by LesMisanthrope


The larger bolt action rifle he was using was to much power for the caribou he was hunting. It litterally blew the chest off the poor thing.

People use .223 rounds to hunt medium sized game.

An AR-15 is not an "assault rifle". It is simply a semi automatic rifle that uses a .223 round.

You obviously have never killed and eaten an animal.

Originally posted by humphreysjim

Why you think this is a threat but not the examples I cited is what I don't get.

edit on 17-1-2013 by humphreysjim because: (no reason given)

The guy shouting "I have a bomb" doesnt really mean anything. I can shout "I have a bomb" all day long and it doesnt mean anything.

Maybe it's because I've been around explosives before but I just dont see the presence of a bomb as a threat.

Is it armed?

I'm working under the assumption that the device is simply being transported and as such not armed.

If it is armed then it become like that gun being pointed at me.

Having a gun on the street is a threat because, its a human who is holding it, and what are the chances he would be stable under certain conditions?

you know about road rage? what if it was answered with a bullet instead of words?


Everyone claims to be a law abiding citizen "one of us", but when once starts shooting, all of a sudden he is unstable and crazy.

I have no problem with home protection(when gun stays in home), using a handgun... but Assault rifle is something else...

I mean just to know that the guy i'm having an argument has a gun on him and will use it in the heat of the moment is just insane.

Were talking about humans here, not people with perfect mental clarity.

reply to post by humphreysjim

ok, i gotta ask ... you say ...

Taking a bomb on a plane shows MAJOR intent. You have to act on intent or you're going to be a sitting duck

then why do our active service people transport bombs across the country daily without interference ??

obviously, they have 'intent', correct ?

so, according to you, it's ok if agents of the government do it, but not ok if their employers do it ?? how does that work in your mind ?

the rest is an active imagination, nothing more.

If "assault weapons" were banned what would I be gaining?

reply to post by zonetripper2065


I guess it would mean less "once law abiding citizen" going ape sh*t on defenseless people, and killing 30 in 3 sec?

I think hi skill rate would be less if it was not a assault weapon huh?

Originally posted by thisguyrighthere

The guy shouting "I have a bomb" doesnt really mean anything. I can shout "I have a bomb" all day long and it doesnt mean anything.

Neither does a man holding a gun to your head. I can do that all day to multiple people and mean nothing by it.

Why is your instance a threat but mine isn't?

Originally posted by thisguyrighthere

Is it armed?

One can say the same about a gun. Is it loaded?

Originally posted by thisguyrighthere

I'm working under the assumption that the device is simply being transported and as such not armed.

If it is armed then it become like that gun being pointed at me.

You don't get perfect knowledge. We are talking about potential life and death here. A man shouting "I have a bomb!" and "Death to kids!" is unlikely to be harmlessly transporting it.

I am generally interested in hearing your personal views on how these laws will affect your individual liberty

reply to post by POPtheKlEEN89


Personally, I have never owned a gun, nor do I plan on purchasing one. As a passive observer on this one, it will be interesting to see how it all plays out.

If people want to own guns they should be able to do so. It doesn't matter if every gun instantly "vanished" off the face of the earth, "we" would find a new way to kill each other (possibly more) efficiently. The majority of people these days are manipulated, and distracted easily.



IMO this is about "divide and conquer" techniques (not gun control) to keep us fighting amongst ourself.

On an individual level it keeps "us" in a weak and powerless state of being. It is easier to manipulate the masses, and a "future" outcome this way.

Originally posted by Honor93

then why do our active service people transport bombs across the country daily without interference ??

Apples and oranges my friend.

Originally posted by smashdem
reply to post by Guenter

 

I would also not object if we had mandatory service like many countries. It can do really good things for young people.

I often say that a professional army is a tool for tyrrants. A professional army is defenitely more lethal and efficient... BUT a draft army is after all WE the PEOPLE....