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.

 

The Gun Debate

page: 7
7
<< 4  5  6    8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 5 2014 @ 04:54 AM
link   
My take on this...an exploration. Either everyone should have a gun or no one should have a gun. Either every country should have nukes or no one should have nukes. Because certain things in life are simply the great levelers, and because while there is imbalance there will also be issues and debates and wars and blackmail and abuse and the threat of abuse and agendas and the feeling or a need for protection that will continue because someone has power and others don't.

Someone's always going to want or invent a bigger weapon to help them keep or redefine their power and someone's always going to keep trying to take that away or protect themselves against it. It's the nature of the human struggle. Guns aren't really the issue. They're just one symbol of the struggle, and we're probably never going to get to the ideal place.

Anyway, all that being said, I'm exercising my right to defend myself as best I can and keeping my gun until nobody has one. And I'm not letting anyone take it away, because, to me, that is the bigger threat in the struggle. But as with many things, I believe that it's not wise to always go ballistic and vocal and waggle your gun around either because that makes you a bigger target in the power struggle.

By now, I think everyone knows that no one is ever going to take away America's guns and all the good and all the bad that goes along with them. Even when bad things happen and there is noise for a minute, and there should be, I think most people realize that the solution isn't to take rights away from everyone, even though some are always going to try. If that were true, we'd all be sitting in padded rooms, restrained, with helmets on.




posted on Apr, 5 2014 @ 05:20 AM
link   

CB328
Most of our freedoms were not earned with guns, but by activism, education and political involvement. That's what productive people do.


really? i guess the history books are all wrong, and our independence from the crown was won with sit-ins, picket lines, demonstrations, asking the crown to "pretty please" go away, and harsh language...

i guess all that stuff about a war was bunk then, right?



Gun worshippers are mainly delinquents who do nothing of value to anyone but spend a lot of time attacking everyone else.


lol, how very ignorant, and closed minded of you....

generalizations, insults, baseless assertions...but then that's all you ever have for an argument....i don't know why i ever expect it to be anything different....
edit on 5-4-2014 by Daedalus because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 5 2014 @ 05:23 AM
link   

CB328
People like you are proof that our country is doomed. Our country will be like the middle east within a few decades, we should all start buying turbans.


that's funny, because there are parts of the middle east that are nothing like afghanistan....way to make ignorant generalizations about an entire region of the world....again, i don't know why i ever expect any better of you...

by the way, the only reason so many places in the middle east are the way they are, is because of backward, ignorant, small minded folks, who think rights are optional, or only valid for a select segment of the population....sound familiar?



posted on Apr, 5 2014 @ 09:54 AM
link   
Here's my take on the gun control debate:

When tragedy strikes in the form of a mass shooting, the issue of gun control rises up in the collective consciousness and becomes part of the national discussion, and unfortunately, this discussion tends to be driven by emotion rather than logic. When this happens, both sides stop listening, and it turns into situations like this one:

www.businessinsider.com...

Does Alex Jones come off as an absolute raving lunatic? Yes. Does Piers Morgan come off as someone who cannot form a cohesive argument? Yes. (Note: I personally enjoy both of these gentlemen outside of the context of this so-called debate, so this isn't an attempt to discredit either of them).

In light of their discussion, let us consider the following: Has either proponent of either side developed any new arguments in the last twenty years?

No.

The reasons, the rhetoric, the ideology, and the "talking points" behind both arguments is fundamentally the same today as it has been for as long as the argument has been in existence. Because of this stalemate, an important point of the discussion isn't being raised and considered, and it is as follows:

Both sides are correct in their assertions, and the cognitive dissonance that comes from such an understanding should not prevent us from exploring and considering such a notion.

Proponents of gun control can make a completely valid case that is substantiated in factual reality. Yes, in countries where guns have been taken away (or voluntarily turned in), there is less gun crime, less shootings, and not nearly the number of devastating instances that seem to be happening at a much greater frequency. They are absolutely correct in their assertion that it should be much more difficult to obtain a firearm or ammunition of any sort, and that there is a segment of the population (convicted felons, criminals, mentally unstable people) who should never be able to obtain them at all. They are absolutely correct that the "waiting period" to purchase a firearm should be long enough to ascertain whether or not the individual is in compliance with the requirements found in the Federal legislation known as the Brady Bill, and that law enforcement do their due diligence is each and every potential firearm purchase. They are absolutely correct in maintaining that the world would be a better, safer place if gun possession and ownership were eradicated. The position that favors gun control is founded on sound, cogent arguments, most of which (if we read them from a logical point of view) cannot be argued.

However, the other side of the argument is also correct in their assertions, which too are based in reason and logic. They point to the Second Amendment of the Constitution of the United States, especially the sentence that declares the right of the people to keep and bear arms "shall not be infringed". The logic behind this is that the Framers, fresh from a war to obtain freedom from tyranny, knew the potential governments of any sort had to become corrupt, and placed this clause in the Constitution to ensure that the people would always have the option of rising up and overtaking leaders who abused their power. They point out that this very amendment is proof positive that the men who founded this country knew what was necessary to obtain liberty, and would secure the rights of future generations to live free from the fear of being overcome by tyranny because they possessed the weaponry to rise up, if need be. They point to the Declaration of Independence and its lines that clearly state, "Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security", and the ability to do this requires the use of weaponry. The position that favors less or no gun control is founded on sound, cogent arguments, most of which (if we read them from a logical point of view) cannot be argued.

Therein lies the conundrum, and it is at this point in which cognitive dissonance becomes the thing that keeps us from coming to any sort of resolution to this debate. Cognitive dissonance is something people seek to avoid; rather than holding two or more conflicting ideas in their mind, people will seek to marginalize or dismiss outright one of the two ideas in conflict, thereby achieving a balanced state of mind and removing the problem of having to contend with the two ideologies as equal.

The problem with this is that there are instances, more than we would like to admit, in which both sides of a debate are equal and have merit, even though they seem to contradict one another. When this happens, we need to address the reality that the answer may exist in accepting both sides of the argument as correct, and therein lies the solution. In the discussion of gun control, such a compromise might read something like this:

It is true that guns, regardless of size, are extremely dangerous when they are in the hands of people who use them maliciously or with bad intent towards another human being. Gun ownership should not be a right, but a privilege. In order to obtain weaponry, one should have to pass the strictest of background checks, which would include examination of all criminal records to ensure that those who have spent time in prison (for any reason whatsoever) will not be granted the privilege of gun ownership. In addition, each applicant attempting to purchase a firearm must pass a psychological test (which would be administered by a trained professional from the psychiatric medical field) and must continue to pass such a test on a yearly basis in order to continue to possess their firearms. While the world would indeed be a better place without weaponry, it must be understood that, as long as the military, police, and government officials are issued firearms, the right of the people to possess guns "shall not be infringed", as that privilege exists to provide the populace with the ability to defend and protect themselves from tyrannical leaders. As such, persons who pass all of the necessary requirements should be allowed to own any sort of gun, any size magazine/clip, and own as many as they see fit. Until we reach a point in time in which there is a collective agreement to completely disarm the entire populace, the people should be afforded the same rights in regards to weaponry as those who have chosen to "serve and protect".

I am all for a world in which we come to a place where we lay aside our differences, realize that force and might are not the answer to any problem that may arise, and begin to instead seek out peaceable resolutions to our disagreements. However, until the day arrives in which the military, the police, the Secret Service, Federal Marshalls, the BATF, The Department of Homeland Security, all SWAT teams, and any other entity that requires its members to be armed makes the decision to disarm, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

We cannot have our cake and eat it, too.



posted on Apr, 5 2014 @ 11:36 AM
link   

Daedalus

Xtrozero
reply to post by Idiosonic
 


Thank god! I been waiting for this type of debate for a long time.....


um...it happens fairly regularly...


This was a sarcastic remark...

We have gun posts it seems every day.



posted on Apr, 5 2014 @ 11:52 AM
link   

Thejaybird
Here's my take on the gun control debate:

When tragedy strikes in the form of a mass shooting, the issue of gun control rises up in the collective consciousness and becomes part of the national discussion, and unfortunately, this discussion tends to be driven by emotion rather than logic. When this happens, both sides stop listening, and it turns into situations like this one:

www.businessinsider.com...

Does Alex Jones come off as an absolute raving lunatic? Yes. Does Piers Morgan come off as someone who cannot form a cohesive argument? Yes. (Note: I personally enjoy both of these gentlemen outside of the context of this so-called debate, so this isn't an attempt to discredit either of them).


the problem with this is that Piers Morgan is a tool, a propagandist, a moron with lousy opinions, who was given a soapbox to spew his stupidity...much like the rest of the idiot propagandists on the cable channels (O'Reilly, O'Donnell, Matthews, etc )

as i stated either here, or in another thread, the only reason Jones was allowed on the Morgan show, was because they KNEW how excited and overwhelmed he gets, especially when in a venue such as this, they KNEW how much he disliked Morgan, and they KNEW that, when prodded properly, he would blow up....i'm disappointed in Jones for giving them what they wanted. so he blows up, and then they take that, and say "here's the face of the pro-gun crowd"....a ranting lunatic, who says insane things...

so really, it was a huge public relations, and public perception blow to pro-2nd amendment advocacy, as a whole..

it was nothing more than a calculated, and deliberate move to generate propaganda to damage the credibility of the "pro" people



In light of their discussion, let us consider the following: Has either proponent of either side developed any new arguments in the last twenty years?

No.


I dunno about all that...the fact that crime stats change, means the argument would need to change to accommodate them, don't you think?



The reasons, the rhetoric, the ideology, and the "talking points" behind both arguments is fundamentally the same today as it has been for as long as the argument has been in existence. Because of this stalemate, an important point of the discussion isn't being raised and considered, and it is as follows:

Both sides are correct in their assertions, and the cognitive dissonance that comes from such an understanding should not prevent us from exploring and considering such a notion.


i don't think it's a matter of cognitive dissonance, so much as a perpetual ignorance on both sides....the anti-gun people often haven't a clue what they're talking about, so they're horribly misinformed, and are more interested in "winning" the argument, than they are with getting their facts straight...if they did that, they might realize their argument was invalid, which would mean they were wrong..and they'll never admit to that.

meanwhile, the pro-gun side, while generally decent and level headed people, always has a few that are nuts, or appear to be nuts, or act irresponsibly, and unfortunately, those are the people we always see in the media....i use Jones as an example...had he remained calm, and just talked facts and figures, he would have obliterated Morgan, and made him look VERY foolish. Jones does the research, he has the numbers and the information, he's just incapable of presenting it in a calm, measured, and rational fashion, under pressure. unfortunately, as i said, the ones who act like he did are the ones we see...if there were less of this, there would be no issue, i think...



Proponents of gun control can make a completely valid case that is substantiated in factual reality.


Not really...they use nonsense terms like "gun crime", "assault weapons", "thirty magazine clip", rattle off figures that have nothing to do with reality, and generally advocate that the 2nd amendment is an outdated thing, that it should be done away with, citizens shouldn't have guns, and only police, military, and government should have guns, completely ignoring the fact that criminals will still have them, the police cannot(and are actually not under any obligation to) protect us, and that what they propose would actually INCREASE crime and violence...

their entire argument is based on the wrong-minded idea that once we take away the citizen's guns, that crime will magically disappear, nobody will hafta die a violent death again, and the world will be so much better....it's the EPITOME of the term "unrealistic"



Yes, in countries where guns have been taken away (or voluntarily turned in), there is less gun crime, less shootings, and not nearly the number of devastating instances that seem to be happening at a much greater frequency.


this is disingenuous....there's that silly "gun crime" crap again....as if knife crime, or baseball bat crime, or crowbar crime is somehow better than gun crime....crime is crime, violence is violence...it doesn't matter what tool is being used to carry it out. maybe you see less instances of mass casualty events, maybe you don't...people on psychiatric "medicine" are still gonna flip their s**t, and kill people...so maybe instead of walking into a mall, or a theater, or a school with a gun, they walk in with a sword, or a homemade bomb, or some other equally awful thing, or maybe they just go to a fairground, and start taking people out with their car....what then?

less guns does not mean less crime..this is fact, backed by real information...this is something the anti-gun people NEVER want to admit, because it invalidates their argument...



They are absolutely correct in their assertion that it should be much more difficult to obtain a firearm or ammunition of any sort, and that there is a segment of the population (convicted felons, criminals, mentally unstable people) who should never be able to obtain them at all.


how does imposing a restriction on regular citizens do anyone any good? there are already background checks, so convicted felons can't buy them legally, and they already know that, which is why when a criminal wants a gun, they go to the black market for it. waiting periods, federal background checks, and all other manner of red tape does absolutely NOTHING to stop criminals from obtaining firearms...what's more, as i've said before, the kinds of people who you don't want getting guns (the rapists, the murderers, the violent offenders) should never be returned to society in the first place.



They are absolutely correct that the "waiting period" to purchase a firearm should be long enough to ascertain whether or not the individual is in compliance with the requirements found in the Federal legislation known as the Brady Bill, and that law enforcement do their due diligence is each and every potential firearm purchase.


it still does nothing to stop criminals from obtaining firearms..so no, they're not correct. furthermore, the brady bill is unconstitutional, as are ALL local, state, and federal restrictions on firearm/firearm magazine ownership, and carry, as they infringe upon the right of the people.



They are absolutely correct in maintaining that the world would be a better, safer place if gun possession and ownership were eradicated.


not necessarily...as i've pointed out, the violence done today with guns, would be done with the next handiest tool tomorrow...

guns aren't the problem, the users are....and that's another fact that the anti-gun folks refuse to acknowledge...



The position that favors gun control is founded on sound, cogent arguments, most of which (if we read them from a logical point of view) cannot be argued.


i'm sorry, but that's incorrect. it is a poorly formed argument, based on irrational fear, ignorance, and a complete disconnect from reality.....the ramifications are not thought out, and no care or thought is put to the consequences....they can be argued, and proven faulty, and incorrect, quite readily...if one has the mind-tools to do so...



However, the other side of the argument is also correct in their assertions, which too are based in reason and logic. They point to the Second Amendment of the Constitution of the United States, especially the sentence that declares the right of the people to keep and bear arms "shall not be infringed". The logic behind this is that the Framers, fresh from a war to obtain freedom from tyranny, knew the potential governments of any sort had to become corrupt, and placed this clause in the Constitution to ensure that the people would always have the option of rising up and overtaking leaders who abused their power. They point out that this very amendment is proof positive that the men who founded this country knew what was necessary to obtain liberty, and would secure the rights of future generations to live free from the fear of being overcome by tyranny because they possessed the weaponry to rise up, if need be. They point to the Declaration of Independence and its lines that clearly state, "Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security", and the ability to do this requires the use of weaponry. The position that favors less or no gun control is founded on sound, cogent arguments, most of which (if we read them from a logical point of view) cannot be argued.


ok, i suppose i can agree with that...it's not quite how i would have put it, but i'll take it just the same..



Therein lies the conundrum, and it is at this point in which cognitive dissonance becomes the thing that keeps us from coming to any sort of resolution to this debate. Cognitive dissonance is something people seek to avoid; rather than holding two or more conflicting ideas in their mind, people will seek to marginalize or dismiss outright one of the two ideas in conflict, thereby achieving a balanced state of mind and removing the problem of having to contend with the two ideologies as equal.


at least for me, it's not a matter of avoiding cognitive dissonance, it's matter of disputing factually inaccurate statements, and arguments based on fear, ignorance, and logical fallacies...



The problem with this is that there are instances, more than we would like to admit, in which both sides of a debate are equal and have merit, even though they seem to contradict one another. When this happens, we need to address the reality that the answer may exist in accepting both sides of the argument as correct, and therein lies the solution.


can you point out any example where that's happened?

all i've ever see in these debates is

pro: facts, logic, reason, rights, constitution, reasoning

countered by

anti: opinion, appeal to emotion, inaccuracies, unrealistic suggestions, "if you don't agree, you must be in favor of dead children"



In the discussion of gun control, such a compromise might read something like this:


-reads-



It is true that guns, regardless of size, are extremely dangerous when they are in the hands of people who use them maliciously or with bad intent towards another human being.


Sounds about right, so far..



Gun ownership should not be a right, but a privilege.


wrong. a privilege can be arbitrarily denied, a right cannot.



In order to obtain weaponry, one should have to pass the strictest of background checks,


but we already HAVE background checks...



which would include examination of all criminal records to ensure that those who have spent time in prison (for any reason whatsoever) will not be granted the privilege of gun ownership.


so then if you get caught with a little herb on you, or a cop plants some on you, now you can never own a gun? you'd deny non-violent people who shouldn't have been in jail in the first place, the ability to own a weapon? that's awfully short-sighted, and dare i say, dumb....



In addition, each applicant attempting to purchase a firearm must pass a psychological test (which would be administered by a trained professional from the psychiatric medical field) and must continue to pass such a test on a yearly basis in order to continue to possess their firearms.


no thanks, there are WAY too many ways this could be abused..



While the world would indeed be a better place without weaponry


perhaps....i mean, even without weapons, we still have fists and feet...and really, ANYTHING can be used as a weapon, so then you need to look at the definition of "weapon"..when you live in a world where a motorcycle helmet can be classified as a deadly weapon, you know you've got a hell of a job on your hands with that whole definition thing..



it must be understood that, as long as the military, police, and government officials are issued firearms, the right of the people to possess guns "shall not be infringed", as that privilege exists to provide the populace with the ability to defend and protect themselves from tyrannical leaders. As such, persons who pass all of the necessary requirements should be allowed to own any sort of gun, any size magazine/clip, and own as many as they see fit. Until we reach a point in time in which there is a collective agreement to completely disarm the entire populace, the people should be afforded the same rights in regards to weaponry as those who have chosen to "serve and protect".


or how about we just keep it the way it is now, enforce the laws we already have, get rid of the ones that violate the constitution(restrictions on carry, magazines, etc), do something about the pharmaceuticals that cause these mass casualty events we ALL hate so much, and require mandatory safety and handling instruction/certification



I am all for a world in which we come to a place where we lay aside our differences, realize that force and might are not the answer to any problem that may arise, and begin to instead seek out peaceable resolutions to our disagreements. However, until the day arrives in which the military, the police, the Secret Service, Federal Marshalls, the BATF, The Department of Homeland Security, all SWAT teams, and any other entity that requires its members to be armed makes the decision to disarm, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.


it would be nice to live in Gene Roddenbery's version of the future..i really mean that, it would be AWESOME....

but i don't think the human race is anywhere near ready for that level of maturity yet...



We cannot have our cake and eat it, too.


perhaps not....but we can keep our guns, and have a better world, if we allow common sense, and decency to prevail...



posted on Apr, 5 2014 @ 11:53 AM
link   

Xtrozero

Daedalus

Xtrozero
reply to post by Idiosonic
 


Thank god! I been waiting for this type of debate for a long time.....


um...it happens fairly regularly...


This was a sarcastic remark...

We have gun posts it seems every day.

oh, hahaha, sorry...

it's so hard to nail down sarcasm on a message board, my bad.



posted on Apr, 5 2014 @ 12:00 PM
link   

Xtrozero
I always wondered what the debate was over....

Are we debating as to how to limit an evil, carnivore, eat other species into extinction, top of the food chain species from killing or is it just over guns?




Daedalus

i have no clue wtf you just said....any chance you could rewrite your statement in english?



My point is we are really debating if humans in general should be controlled due to their deep rooted nature. One needs to ask the big question as to why should we take guns away from the general population, and the friendly answer is to make people safer, but the true answer is if we make guns illegal it is because we cant be trusted as a speices, it is the same reason you do not give a 2 year old a sharp object....We are all 2 year olds in the eyes of those who want to do this. It has been a long time since I was a kid or teenager so I really feel I do not need parental control, how about you?

The discussion here should be more on what makes humans human. We are not a nice species, there is a reason we are top of the food chain and it is not because we are grass grazers. That evil superior race that finds a planet teeming with life and eats anything that moves while raping and pillaging the planet's natural resources is really US in the future....hehe

We can limit guns and people will use knives, or bats or whatever... We cant stop those who want to kill, it is in our true nature to do it, so we can either blame guns or try to understand and live with who we are.




edit on 5-4-2014 by Xtrozero because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 5 2014 @ 12:06 PM
link   

Daedalus

Xtrozero

Daedalus

Xtrozero
reply to post by Idiosonic
 


Thank god! I been waiting for this type of debate for a long time.....


um...it happens fairly regularly...


This was a sarcastic remark...

We have gun posts it seems every day.

oh, hahaha, sorry...

it's so hard to nail down sarcasm on a message board, my bad.


I should have added a emote or two,



posted on Apr, 5 2014 @ 12:07 PM
link   
reply to post by Xtrozero
 


i actually read it a few times, just to make sure i wasn't getting dyslexia....but the way in which it's worded is quite confusing...i can follow it to a point, but only that far...

i thank you for elaborating, and clearing it up for me though, it's quite well thought out..



posted on Apr, 5 2014 @ 12:09 PM
link   

Xtrozero

Daedalus

Xtrozero

Daedalus

Xtrozero
reply to post by Idiosonic
 


Thank god! I been waiting for this type of debate for a long time.....


um...it happens fairly regularly...


This was a sarcastic remark...

We have gun posts it seems every day.

oh, hahaha, sorry...

it's so hard to nail down sarcasm on a message board, my bad.


I should have added a emote or two,


that usually helps...not so much with the crappy new emotes here though.....but i suppose it's the effort that counts, lol



posted on Apr, 5 2014 @ 12:09 PM
link   

CB328


Most of our freedoms were not earned with guns, but by activism, education and political involvement. That's what productive people do.

Gun worshippers are mainly delinquents who do nothing of value to anyone but spend a lot of time attacking everyone else.


Thats just a sad troll attempt.

1/10 at best, way too obvious.

No rational, mature adult could ever have such a stupid and uninformed opinion.

Unless of course you are a high school student.....then who knows whats wrong with you.



posted on Apr, 5 2014 @ 12:20 PM
link   

Daedalus
reply to post by Xtrozero
 


i actually read it a few times, just to make sure i wasn't getting dyslexia....but the way in which it's worded is quite confusing...i can follow it to a point, but only that far...

i thank you for elaborating, and clearing it up for me though, it's quite well thought out..


I edited out the first line...it was rude.



posted on Apr, 5 2014 @ 12:35 PM
link   

Daedalus

i don't think it's a matter of cognitive dissonance, so much as a perpetual ignorance on both sides....the anti-gun people often haven't a clue what they're talking about, so they're horribly misinformed, and are more interested in "winning" the argument, than they are with getting their facts straight...if they did that, they might realize their argument was invalid, which would mean they were wrong..and they'll never admit to that.


I agree, this takes little effort and all they need to do is cling to some nugget of information, true or not and are then set n their ways



meanwhile, the pro-gun side, while generally decent and level headed people, always has a few that are nuts, or appear to be nuts, or act irresponsibly, and unfortunately, those are the people we always see in the media....i use Jones as an example...had he remained calm, and just talked facts and figures, he would have obliterated Morgan, and made him look VERY foolish. Jones does the research, he has the numbers and the information, he's just incapable of presenting it in a calm, measured, and rational fashion, under pressure. unfortunately, as i said, the ones who act like he did are the ones we see...if there were less of this, there would be no issue, i think...


This is also true, but the problem here is it takes a lot effort to prove their point and most do not want to invest that much effort with out passion driving them.

Effort + Passion = Jones having a melt down...



posted on Apr, 5 2014 @ 12:36 PM
link   

Card0
reply to post by Idiosonic
 


Soldiers in the US military are friends, family and like-minded individuals. If the time comes, a good portion will be on our side.


I bet they thought that In NAZI Germany ect

What makes a American Solider any different from any other?

They are still only humans, the same sacks of meat and water that every other solider on earth is.



posted on Apr, 5 2014 @ 12:38 PM
link   

doubletap

CB328


Most of our freedoms were not earned with guns, but by activism, education and political involvement. That's what productive people do.

Gun worshippers are mainly delinquents who do nothing of value to anyone but spend a lot of time attacking everyone else.


Thats just a sad troll attempt.

1/10 at best, way too obvious.

No rational, mature adult could ever have such a stupid and uninformed opinion.

Unless of course you are a high school student.....then who knows whats wrong with you.


you're new....

check out his post history....he's not trolling, he ALWAYS posts stuff like this...



posted on Apr, 5 2014 @ 12:51 PM
link   

Xtrozero
This is also true, but the problem here is it takes a lot effort to prove their point and most do not want to invest that much effort with out passion driving them.

Effort + Passion = Jones having a melt down...


lol, too true....

problem is that some people just don't handle certain situations well..

i actually stopped watching the inforwars nightly news....not because it wasn't good reporting, or anything like that, it was because i couldn't deal with jones anymore....i'm sure he means all the best, but i couldn't deal with his ranting....i was always happy when rob, or aaron, or jakari would host, because they would calmly report the news, offer less opinion, do no ranting, and i could get the same information in a 45 minute show, that i would hafta watch a 90-120 minute show to get, if jones were hosting....

i mean, look at my posts..i write like this all the time, i know a lot, and what i don't, i'll research...i'm passionate about the truth, and historical accuracy, and all that....and i write it all out intelligently...you CAN have passion and effort, without flying off the handle, and raging.... some people just aren't good like that...
edit on 5-4-2014 by Daedalus because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 5 2014 @ 12:52 PM
link   

crazyewok

Card0
reply to post by Idiosonic
 


Soldiers in the US military are friends, family and like-minded individuals. If the time comes, a good portion will be on our side.


I bet they thought that In NAZI Germany ect

What makes a American Solider any different from any other?

They are still only humans, the same sacks of meat and water that every other solider on earth is.


i dunno, different mindset, maybe?



posted on Apr, 5 2014 @ 12:59 PM
link   
reply to post by crazyewok
 


hey the nazis if you ignore that anti jew stuff where actually a very decent administration.

look what america has done, a lot of similarity to be perfectly honest



posted on Apr, 5 2014 @ 01:00 PM
link   

crazyewok

Card0
reply to post by Idiosonic
 


Soldiers in the US military are friends, family and like-minded individuals. If the time comes, a good portion will be on our side.


I bet they thought that In NAZI Germany ect

What makes a American Solider any different from any other?

They are still only humans, the same sacks of meat and water that every other solider on earth is.


Well we are a little different in the sense that we have 50 United States in a Republic not a Democracy as Germany was. This means each State has basically it's own President (Governor) and a military under their control.

The thought of fighting Americans is an alien thought to our military and they are also restricted, so because of this think more in terms of a large police state of non-military forces, but military armed as a more likely scenario.

The funny part is it cost so damn much now that police forces are typically undermanned and our military is shrinking every year, which bolsters the notion that an armed civilian force is even more viable as a physical deterrent from foreign attacks and provides quicker response and deterrent in domestic crime situations that our undermanned police forces can no long accomplish.


As example: The greatest military on the planet got its butt kicked in Somalia by a armed civilian force.
edit on 5-4-2014 by Xtrozero because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
7
<< 4  5  6    8 >>

log in

join