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

reply to post by humphreysjim

invasion of my privacy is still an invasion.
and, i have every right to refuse such an invasion.
this is America, not NKorea.

how successful ??
-0-, zilch, nada and none is the proven effect after extensive application.
please, show us otherwise.

the security was preventative previously, then the CIA went all Swordfish to push the agenda of the day.

you can dismiss logic all you want, perhaps if you employed some rather dismiss the obvious, you might learn to embrace Liberty rather fear.

no where on the planet, that has ever banned guns, saw such results, EVER.
and no, i'm not willing to 'test' the theory in the USA.

if such a success were known or achieved, i would be part of it ... shows what you know , however, that isn't the world we live in ... please, let me know when it is

oh, and answer the question.
how does my opinion of the TSA warrant your false accusation of paranoia ??

reply to post by humphreysjim

since when isn't this a threat ?

Neither does a man holding a gun to your head

and why would it be less of a threat depending on WHO is holding it ?

ppl defending with guns, aren't holding them to your/my head, unless we are the 'target'

any gun owner who practices safe ownership ALWAYS recognizes a gun as loaded.
there is no other 'safe' way to handle them.

a man shouting such a thing, isn't even likely to have one.
he's more likely to be delusional or experiencing a side-effect of whatever medication he's taking.

how many ppl have you encountered that have done what you suggest ?

reply to post by humphreysjim

hardly, they are the same citizens, working for the same people who ARE the same employers you choose to restrict.

apples and oranges my arse unless we're talking fruit in general, as such, they are the same.

I did not read through all of the replies, so I am sorry if someone pointed this out. "shall not be infringed"- is there something difficult about these four words? It really gets no simpler than this, does it? Why is there even any argument, any change to this amendment would be considered an infringement, that is all that matters. This is a Constitutional right that is and should be protected, it does not matter what type of arms, any arms "shall not be infringed". Maybe this is hard for those of you that cannot read in English, but for those that can, is this so hard to understand? One more time, can we all say it together "shall not be infringed"!

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.

That you would ask this question shows you may not understand our rights as a whole or why they are there to begin with and what they have to do with the relationship between the people, we the people and the government....history wise or otherwise.

If the weapons police use (which come from the military) have evolved enough to be able to shoot multiple rounds in any given situation...why can't civilians (purchase) the same or equiv. weapon? We (taxpayers) pay for their weapons to protect us from 'dangers' and themselves, why is the public not allowed the same?

Since weapons are ever-evolving (again, at taxpayers expense) because of engineering and scientists, it only makes sense that the citizenry has a smidge lesser capability (because of cost and availability) than the authority that they pay for.

and as far as 'background checks' and psych evals go...look around at the police officers that supposedly 'passed' these sactioned tests to reveal how effective those are at weeding out the psychopaths.

smirk

Originally posted by greenfox83
reply to post by CaptainBeno

 

What do you think he's using? An AK-47 automatic haha, that'll bring home the meat!

Firstly, AUTOMATIC weapons are already illegal. Get it through your head and stop repeating the TV pukes.

Secondly, the difference between a SEMI-automatic AK-47 and a semi-automatic hunting rifle is COSMETIC only. Functionally they are the same. In fact, a hunting rifle may even be more powerful depending on the caliber.

Originally posted by dianashay
If the weapons police use (which come from the military) have evolved enough to be able to shoot multiple rounds in any given situation...why can't civilians (purchase) the same or equiv. weapon? We (taxpayers) pay for their weapons to protect us from 'dangers' and themselves, why is the public not allowed the same?

Since weapons are ever-evolving (again, at taxpayers expense) because of engineering and scientists, it only makes sense that the citizenry has a smidge lesser capability (because of cost and availability) than the authority that they pay for.



smirk

Dont get to upity there tax slave!

Until the term "assault weapon" is redefined with some logic, we stand to lose a lot.

reply to post by Logarock


eerr sorry, didn't mean to be all rational an stuff,

*glugs down some fluorine an plops on the couch

Originally posted by zayonara
"The right to bear arms" does not read "The right to bear arms that your government says you can bear." Simple as that. No more, no less, no foaming.

You just DON'T GET IT do you? This shouldn't be about what the government says, this is about COMMON SENSE.

It's comments like that, that come from a person who drives a rediculous car they don't need. Because you COULD doesn't mean you SHOULD.

Pity you. Pity your overwhelming, blinding FEAR.

Originally posted by humphreysjim


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

You're right. Somebody holding a gun to my head may not mean anything by it and it may be perfectly harmless. However it is a hostile action that one can reasonably interpret as a threat.

If somebody held up a block of C4 and said "this is a block of C4" that is not a threat. It's just an inanimate block.

A block of C4 being brought onto a plane is very different from somebody shouting "I'm going to kill kids!" while holding that block of C4.

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

You're right.

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.

Now we're mixing scenarios here. The transportation came into play while discussing bombs on planes.

I've already told you many pages ago how to deal with the guy shouting "I have a bomb!"

You seem to be mashing two independent situations into one sphere.

Let's look at the guy shouting "I've got a bomb!" and charging toward the school. I've already said how to deal with that. The shouting itself isnt very meaningful. The continued approach after being asked to stop however is and the actions become threatening at that point.

On a plane a block of C4 is not threatening in anyway. Holding it up and threatening to use it is.

The way I'm reading it you are stating that shouting "I have a bomb!" in one case is enough to constitute a threat and then in a completely unrelated case the presence of an explosive device is enough to constitute a threat.

I'll grant you that those elements together in either situation, school or plane or anywhere else, are indeed threatening I do not see any evidence that either single element is.

reply to post by nerbot

Common Sense dictates EQUAL force, so how is any American wrong, paranoid or fearful to demand EQUAL force ??

you're right, it is Common Sense ... however, not quite the way you view it.

What a naive thread.
Everyone knows that's exactly how it starts.

First they came for assault weapons,
but I didn't say anything because I didn't own assault weapons.

When I hunt, I like to use an RPG just to be sure. When I fish I use nothing but the best, military-grade RDX!

To protect my home I like to set up small tactical nukes as landmines, popup nozzles peppering my lawn that spray purified Ebola Virus, an Alien I picked up last time I was on LV-426 roaming my yard and, in case all else fails, an asteroid I placed in geosynchronous orbit above my house ready to deliver Armageddon to anyone who dares enter my property.

I mean, there is no such thing as overkill right?

There is not much common sense in this thread.

People basing their entire lives on a constitution when the 'west' was wild, new, exploitable and dangerous. But...

If you feel the need to protect yourself, you get a handgun, rifle or shotgun. You can still do that. A gun will still kill people.

When you absolutely, positively have to kill every m****** in the room, well.... you need an assault rifle (even a semi-automatic).

I don't see the need.

I don't see reason.

I see people basing a DESIRE over a NEED.

I see selfishness, not liberty, freedom or the instinct to protect your loved ones. I see excuses.

Take your handgun, rifle or shotgun and feel safe in the knowledge you can protect yourself, loved ones and property. You still can and there is nothing wrong with that.

And for the pessimists, there will be no revolution and there will be no invasion from an outside force. To base your entire way of thinking of 'what if' is as good as being dead inside. And if, in the unlikely event, that it happens, you'll be dead on the outside anyway, because 'they' won't bring guns to the fight.

Originally posted by zayonara
"The right to bear arms" does not read "The right to bear arms that your government says you can bear." Simple as that. No more, no less, no foaming.

edit on 16-1-2013 by zayonara because: (no reason given)

Well said. I might add it also doesn't say what we need , like I hear some people saying.

If perceived need comes into play, then that opens the door to things like "you don't need that Corvette. You don't need that large of a house.

And then you do need to not drink a 32 oz coke. You do need to have your pain med limited to three days worth. Glad I don't live in New York.

We don't want the nannie-state government telling us what we need. We'll leave that for dictators.

Originally posted by snarky412
For some reason, people think that could never happen in the United States.
But as history has shown us, all great empires succumb to a fatal end.
It could quite possibly happen to us.

Oh you mean like the last great empire to crumble less than 100 years ago which also happened to be the largest empire this planet has ever seen...

ie the British Empire... yes it succumbed to a fatal end... oh wait, dont you mean a slow mostly peaceful aging retirement where its various parts where given their freedom to run themselves as they seemed fit and even given the choice to remain in a symbolic mutual version of the empire called the 'Commonwealth'?..

America isnt even a real empire, its simply a damn economic and industrial empire and most of thats been given over to the Chinese in the last decade.

yes not really on topic, but snarkys empire comment was so overblown but very 'American' it need a response

And someone made mention of why us foreigners are sticking our ores in this. Well America despite its steady decline as the top of the world is still the biggest mover and shaker, and as such its attitude and culture have an impact on the world beyond its borders weather it thinks so or doesn't, as such its actions and decisions have an impact on the rest of us... so yes we have a vested interest in this outcome. Im sure if you where in our positions you'd have the same feelings. At least thats how I see it.

Id love to see the relation between paranoia towards government and level of gun ownership in people, i have a feeling there would be an interesting correlation. And i guess if your frightened of the guy with the big stick you gotta have a stick as big or bigger than they do.

Oh and what timb3r said a few posts up

There really isn't anything we can or should do, except beef up the mental health system.

Everyone feels like we have to do something, we really don't. We already have laws (which criminals don't follow).

Crazy people are always going to be crazy. Violent people are always going to be violent.

Yes, all those dead children is horrible -- but placing bans and limitations on guns won't work. Everyone just wants to pat themselves on the back because "we did something, yay!" to help them not feel guilty about not caring as much as they should. A lot of people deep down don't care as much as they portray, and want "something done" to wash their guilt away.

Originally posted by Honor93
Common Sense dictates EQUAL force, so how is any American wrong, paranoid or fearful to demand EQUAL force ??

Because a life demanding force IS NOT FREEDOM.

If you think your government is out to get you and you arm yourself then you have already lost any fight because you wear a target. The greatest weapon is your mind, use it.

Well I've used an "assault type" weapon for practical use.. Coyote and wolf culling mostly.. It's nice to have a semi-auto with 30 rounds once they start running. This is mostly for the protection of livestock..

The thing is.

Sure this ban will go through.. and when it does people will feel safer for a minute....

However, psychopaths will still shoot up schools.. Gang bangers will still do their drive by shootings and people will still use these exact guns and there is nothing any law can do about it.

Pro or Anti gun a ban is not the answer.. we are already too far gone for that whether you want to admit it or not.

I think both sides would support an Actual solution rather than an intrusive illusion. It would be nice to have a real solution before we have another sandy hook..