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.

 

Think that CCW permit holder is a safe individual? Maybe not:

page: 25
11
<< 22  23  24    26  27  28 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 31 2014 @ 10:28 AM
link   
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Because.......children have died and you are just a hateful gun nut.




posted on Jul, 31 2014 @ 10:28 AM
link   

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: HauntWok
You all are saying that they aren't enforcing the laws on the books, and when legislation comes up to do just that, you argue against it.


How does lobbying against additional legislation prevent law enforcement from pursuing current legislation?


Well, you're just a big fat mean poop head and guns are bad.

We need more laws dammit.



posted on Jul, 31 2014 @ 10:29 AM
link   
a reply to: macman

Hauntwok,

The magnificently mellifluous macman made moral mincemeat of your moribundly misguided and mendacious motives to manipulate members measurements of munitions.



posted on Jul, 31 2014 @ 10:32 AM
link   
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Not that I'm keeping score, but my measurements of munitions is bigger than your measurements of munitions!



posted on Jul, 31 2014 @ 10:32 AM
link   
a reply to: HauntWok

2 direct questions. Would be nice for you to actually address them....but not one person here expects it.

1. What new law would have stopped any of the recent shootings.

2. What state has the "realistic gun laws".


These are pretty simple questions to answer, even if between "managing" people.



posted on Jul, 31 2014 @ 10:51 AM
link   

originally posted by: MrCynic
a reply to: Another_Nut

Perhaps 'people like me' get 'this stuff' from the fact it's presented as fact after running in a real newspaper that is published for a real audience. I don't receive the Arkansas Gazette and I sure didn't in the mid-90's, so I took what was being presented by other sources in not just a television show but several other places as being accurate. My mistake and an embarrassing one.

Another member helpfully directed me to where I could confirm the urban legend status. Wikipedia is it's own source of urban legends, but thanks anyway.


The fact is

Like wok and others

You cant be bothered to even look at wiki to find out if t h e nonsense u are spouting is true

U have helped in the spreading of ignorance

The motto here is deny ignorance

This should be a lesson to you

I hope it is
edit on am720143110America/ChicagoThu, 31 Jul 2014 10:54:05 -0500_7000000 by Another_Nut because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 31 2014 @ 10:54 AM
link   

originally posted by: HauntWok
I can't believe this, I mean, I really can't believe this.

You all are saying that they aren't enforcing the laws on the books, and when legislation comes up to do just that, you argue against it.

Really? All the deaths, all the failure to perform background checks, and you argue against your own god damned point.

How messed up is that?


What is messed up is using circular logic to try to prove your point. Another Logical Fallacy.
So, what you said here is that we need more laws to enforce the current laws?

Yo dawg I heard you like laws so we made a law to enforce your laws so when you're doing law you're doing your law.



posted on Jul, 31 2014 @ 11:00 AM
link   
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus


How does lobbying against additional legislation prevent law enforcement from pursuing current legislation?


As you have pointed out, repeatedly, the current laws are not being enforced, this new law adds nothing to existing laws, just makes it so that existing laws are enforced.

And you are against it.

Why be against something that is exactly what you all are repeatedly saying needs to be done?

The mechanism as Daedalus has wonderfully pointed out is broken, it needs to be fixed, and this bill would fix it.

Now, let me answer one of Macman's plebeian questions:

Ok, did you see how Daedalus had compiled a very thorough list of the problems with the people in the OP? Ok, one of the things that he repeatedly pointed out was that these people had issues in their background that would have prevented them from legally obtaining a firearm. However, obviously a background check was either not preformed, or was preformed in a way to miss these glaring problems. This bill, would make it so those background checks be actually preformed, which would have denied these people a gun legally, which would have saved a lot of lives.

No one law will eliminate all gun violence, no one has argued that, and to try and make that point is in itself quite moronic. What we can do is enact policies, and laws and enforce these laws that would reduce the severity and frequency of these incidents from happening.

I know this forum gang doesn't want to admit there is an actual problem in the united states with gun violence, they believe everything is fine despite the actual carnage that does go on in this nation every day. But this is an actual problem despite your willful ignorance. It's not going to simply go away because you live in a bubble. It's an actual issue, whether you want to bury it or not.

And your gun lobby thinks the same way you do.

Gun lobby's money and power still holds sway over Congress


In the days leading up to last month’s crucial votes on the most significant gun control legislation to come before the Senate in nearly two decades, polls showed that about 90 percent of Americans supported background checks for all gun purchases. But when the clerk called the roll, the centerpiece amendment — requiring background checks for firearm sales at gun shows, through classified ads and on the Internet — got just 54 “yea’s,” six votes short of the 60 vote super-majority required.

Just four months after Adam Lanza killed 26 people at the Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Conn., and President Obama promised tougher gun laws, the vote proved to be the latest in a long-running string of victories for gun rights activists, the firearms industry and particularly the National Rifle Association, the nation’s pre-eminent gun lobby.

The power of the gun lobby is rooted in multiple factors, among them the pure passion and single-mindedness of many gun owners, the NRA’s demonstrated ability to motivate its most fervent members to swarm their elected representatives, and the lobby’s ability to get out the vote on election day. But there’s little doubt that money, the political power it represents, and the fear of that power and money, which the NRA deftly exploits, have a lot to do with the group’s ability to repeatedly control the national debate about guns. Whether that fear is justified is an intriguing question —but it clearly exists. That has, perhaps, never been clearer than it was last month on Capitol Hill.


That's a problem people, deny it all you want, but big money talks, and it's arguing against your own damn point.

As for your second question I will refer you to my extended digitus tertius as an answer.



posted on Jul, 31 2014 @ 11:01 AM
link   

originally posted by: HauntWok
As you have pointed out, repeatedly, the current laws are not being enforced, this new law adds nothing to existing laws, just makes it so that existing laws are enforced.


How does an unpassed law prevent existing laws from being enforced?



posted on Jul, 31 2014 @ 11:23 AM
link   
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

I think this is one of those "you have to pass it to find out what's in it" deals?

Let me see if I have this straight, we need a law that enforces the existing laws get enforced?

I'm soooo confused. Anyone have a decoder ring?



posted on Jul, 31 2014 @ 11:25 AM
link   

originally posted by: KawRider9
Let me see if I have this straight, we need a law that enforces the existing laws get enforced?


Yes, as whatever land the Original Poster is residing has the pervading sentiment that law enforcement can only do their jobs if you repeatedly pass additionally laws reminding them to do so.



posted on Jul, 31 2014 @ 11:27 AM
link   

originally posted by: HauntWok


As you have pointed out, repeatedly, the current laws are not being enforced, this new law adds nothing to existing laws, just makes it so that existing laws are enforced.




So a New Law to enforce a Current Law.

That is about the most juvenile understanding of Law and society as it gets.



posted on Jul, 31 2014 @ 11:37 AM
link   

originally posted by: KawRider9
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

I think this is one of those "you have to pass it to find out what's in it" deals?

Let me see if I have this straight, we need a law that enforces the existing laws get enforced?

I'm soooo confused. Anyone have a decoder ring?


Only wok

And he is not sharing



posted on Jul, 31 2014 @ 11:39 AM
link   

originally posted by: HauntWok

Now, let me answer one of Macman's plebeian questions:

Oh look, an insult hidden by a social media pop culture term....taken from Roman times.
Oh Haunt....and here we all thought you were just a mindless machine re-typing talking points from Anti-2nd websites.

You are in fact a person...........not a dancing monkey........but a car wash manager.....who can attempt to insult, but will avoid most direct questions.



originally posted by: HauntWok
Ok, did you see how Daedalus had compiled a very thorough list of the problems with the people in the OP? Ok, one of the things that he repeatedly pointed out was that these people had issues in their background that would have prevented them from legally obtaining a firearm. However, obviously a background check was either not preformed, or was preformed in a way to miss these glaring problems. This bill, would make it so those background checks be actually preformed, which would have denied these people a gun legally, which would have saved a lot of lives.

No one law will eliminate all gun violence, no one has argued that, and to try and make that point is in itself quite moronic. What we can do is enact policies, and laws and enforce these laws that would reduce the severity and frequency of these incidents from happening.

Your first sentence is a contradiction of the second.
And neither are able to address my question.
SO...here you go again.

What new law would have stopped and of these attacks??
Since the current law for background checks doesn't work, how will passing a new law work?
Again, your 1 to 1 correlation in thinking more laws to enforce current laws that aren't being enforced is at a juvenile level of understanding and comprehension.





originally posted by: HauntWok
As for your second question I will refer you to my extended digitus tertius as an answer.




Ahhh that is cute. The rabid Anti-2nd ATS'er can't provide a simple answer to a simple question......to their statements past.


Just wondering.....is the giving of the middle finger common when you are frustrated and can't/don't want to answer something??


That action is seen most by the High School age persons.

Shall we make that assumption??

Or will you maybe give me (2) birds flying across the internet?



posted on Jul, 31 2014 @ 12:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: HauntWok
Unfortunately, the gun lobby worked hard to make sure that this and previous administrations don't bother with background checks most of the time.


no.

Explain how this happens? What is the process?

How does "the gun lobby" affect any law enforcement agency in their daily duties of upholding current laws?

The answer is THEY DON'T. Either you aren't capable of understanding that, or you are just lying to make yourself seem less nuts.



posted on Jul, 31 2014 @ 12:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: network dude
How does "the gun lobby" affect any law enforcement agency in their daily duties of upholding current laws?


Typically what we do as soon as we identify a law enforcement agent about to arrest a firearms law violator we reach into our pockets, retrieve our keys and then begin to jingle them furiously while shouting, "Oh, look! A birdie!"

This, without fail, causes them to immediately ignore the perpetrator and run off into the underbrush in search of said avian.

No one is going to arrest my real life first person shooter friends.



posted on Jul, 31 2014 @ 12:12 PM
link   
When will they ever 'pass a law to enforce the law' that it is illegal to make a turn while driving without using turn signals.

There must be an anti turn signal lobby preventing enforcement, because I see that crap happening all the time.
edit on b000000312014-07-31T12:12:32-05:0012America/ChicagoThu, 31 Jul 2014 12:12:32 -05001200000014 by butcherguy because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 31 2014 @ 12:14 PM
link   
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

No no no no..........I just show them my "NRA" lifetime member card.

That makes it so I can just shoot anyone in the face, because I felt threatened.......and murder kids so I can ride their bodies down the street flowing with blood.....while I dodge all the other bodies...........not near any place with a "gun free zone" sign posted of course.



posted on Jul, 31 2014 @ 12:27 PM
link   
a reply to: macman

I hope they update the bag limits on gangs this week,17 doesn't cut it guys...


To Haunt:
IF in any way by any law one could stop criminals it would have been done, they don't protect you,THAT is your job.If you think they can ,you'll be about 5 minutes LATE when you reach life or death situations and only if you are REALLY close to the police dept. Do you have ANY idea what EXACTLY a man can do in 5 LONG MINUTES?
We do, we did't have the luxury of SECONDS. And now some guy shows up and wants to disarm America?

Do YOU trust the system?
edit on 31-7-2014 by cavtrooper7 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 31 2014 @ 12:56 PM
link   
a reply to: macman



and murder kids so I can ride their bodies down the street flowing with blood.

The fat ones are more comfy if you are riding long distances.... at least that is what it says in the NRA handbook.



new topics

top topics



 
11
<< 22  23  24    26  27  28 >>

log in

join