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.

 

Mass Shooting Reported in Bell, Florida

page: 7
24
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 19 2014 @ 02:46 AM
link   

originally posted by: lovebeck
a reply to: Thurisaz

Yes, it is. They ranged in age from 3 months old to 11 years old. Jesus, I will never understand what happens in someones mind to make them just totally snap and kill not only their own child, but their SIX young grand children as well. I work with kids and I have to admit, I have a real hard time hearing about kids being killed, especially a three month old infant.

I hope those who want to scream gun control this and that just stop and REALLY think about where they are posting their opinions at. It is inappropriate after a tragedy such as this to muck up the thread with THOSE arguments.

Maybe the mods could start removing them to prevent "thread drift?"


How many pages of whaling and gnashing of teeth over the death of these people do you need? Some kids were killed and it was sad, we get it. The thread has evolved into yet another gun control debate.




posted on Sep, 19 2014 @ 03:14 AM
link   

originally posted by: Answer
Here's a piece of information that will hopefully settle your incorrect opinion on this issue:

On May 8, 1792, Congress passed "[a]n act more effectually to provide for the National Defence, by establishing an Uniform Militia throughout the United States" requiring:
[E]ach and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective States, resident therein, who is or shall be of age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years (except as is herein after excepted) shall severally and respectively be enrolled in the militia...[and] every citizen so enrolled and notified, shall, within six months thereafter, provide himself with a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack, a pouch with a box therein to contain not less than twenty-four cartridges, suited to the bore of his musket or firelock, each cartridge to contain a proper quantity of powder and ball: or with a good rifle, knapsack, shot-pouch and powder-horn, twenty balls suited to the bore of his rifle, and a quarter of a pound of powder; and shall appear, so armed, accoutred and provided, when called out to exercise, or into service, except, that when called out on company days to exercise only, he may appear without a knapsack.

Every able-bodied citizen is a member of the militia and should thereby be armed in case he is needed. Only an idiot who doesn't understand the nature of a militia could interpret the 2nd Amendment any other way. When the populace is armed, the security of a free state is ensured. If that's not good enough for you, I can keep presenting the same evidence that was used by the Supreme Court.


Today, the term militia is used to describe a number of groups within the United States. Primarily, these are:
• The organized militia defined by the Militia Act of 1903, which repealed section two hundred thirty-two and sections 1625 - 1660 of title sixteen of the Revised Statutes, consists of State militia forces, notably the National Guard and the Naval Militia.[2] The National Guard, however, is not to be confused with the National Guard of the United States, which is a federally recognized reserve military force, although the two are linked.
• The reserve militia[3] are part of the unorganized militia defined by the Militia Act of 1903 as consisting of every able-bodied man of at least 17 and under 45 years of age who is not a member of the National Guard or Naval Militia.
• Former members of the armed forces are also considered part of the "unorganized militia" per Sec 313 Title 32 of the US Code.[2

A “well regulated militia” today means the State National Guard, not an “unorganized” militia. If the state needs you to be in the militia they’ll draft you into it and provide you the necessary equipment. If you want to live by that law, then feel free to go buy a Kentucky Long Rifle, but it does not give you the right to buy an Abrahams tank and park it in your garage.

If you know anything about history, then you should know that the state militias became the state national guards, and those weapons are there for the state as a whole to protect itself from an out of control federal government (such as what happened in the Civil War), not for individuals to decide they want to personally protect themselves from the government.



posted on Sep, 19 2014 @ 03:17 AM
link   
a reply to: Answer

I got nothing to do with the gun control debate so back the hell up.

have I got to apologise for posting that this issue is sad ???????????????????????

oh I do apologise for posting my reply insomuch that it was not about guns [/sarcasm]



posted on Sep, 19 2014 @ 03:33 AM
link   

originally posted by: bhliberal
This is just another reason for strong gun control. Let's watch and see that the perpetrator had a legally obtained firearm. I'm almost willing to bet.



Nope. He was a convicted felon. It was illegal for him to have a firearm.

I guess if he didn't have a gun, he would have used a hammer, an axe, a garden sprayer made into a flamethrower (like Siefert), a tractor, a car, a bat, a tire iron, or an anvil.

Are you gun control freaks going to dance on the graves of these children too? Could you at least wait for them to have a proper burial first just this one time?
edit on 19-9-2014 by GeisterFahrer because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 19 2014 @ 03:41 AM
link   

originally posted by: defcon5

originally posted by: projectvxn
People misusing their rights is no reason to take mine.

The biases of all law is that your rights end when they start interfering with the rights of others, especially when it’s a “frivolous right” vs a “fundamental right”. So the publics “frivolous right” to own certain types of weapons ends when those weapons become a danger to the “fundamental rights” of others to be safe in their person. If you guys want to keep your “Frivolous rights” then you better start lobbying so keep irresponsible people from having access to this type of equipment. In other words, if you are a gun advocate, you should be lobbying for stricter controls on who can own guns, not more lenient ones. Something that the NRA is going to eventually learn the hard way.


The NRA did advocate for mental health background checks but guess what? Progressive Liberals stopped them. It is a violation of HIPPA.

Hmm ... go figure.

But .. keep spreading those falsified talking points. If you repeat them, over, and over, stupid people are sure to believe them.

And .... this message is for those who "got it" .... Yep, that's right, these progressive liberals in all of their infinite wisdom, have created gun free zones so mentally deranged gunmen can take as many lives as possible without any intervention or resistance as no one who obeys the law will be carrying a firearm in these little invisible safety air bubbles where unicorns and leprechauns live. Not only are they enabling the mentally deranged gunman, they are also protecting their privacy rights via HIPPA, which allows these violent crazy people to have access to guns.
edit on 19-9-2014 by GeisterFahrer because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 19 2014 @ 03:58 AM
link   
a reply to: GeisterFahrer

Was his status if a felon confirmed?
And have they figured out how he obtained it?
Cause a quick google searched showed me that florida is a state where guns can be purchased at gun shows with no background check.
May have been out dated info so correct me if I'm wrong there



posted on Sep, 19 2014 @ 04:07 AM
link   

originally posted by: defcon5
not for individuals to decide they want to personally protect themselves from the government.


And what about groups of individuals who have decided that both the state and the fed have become totalitarian to a serious extent? You think they should just take it? You think the people should not have the means to defend themselves from true tyranny? The Germans surrendered their guns once. Is that a power you want the government to have? If so, your sight is short.



posted on Sep, 19 2014 @ 04:46 AM
link   
I regret posting this story.


I'm done with ATS.


The conversations on here are just ridiculous. And people clearly have no ability to control their self-centered rhetoric.

This was not posted to start a gun rights debate. I dont even know how it applies, seeing as a 3 MONTH OLD CHILD and likely the other 5 kids, most likely cannot fire a weapon in self defense.

Yes, cops can't always protect, but neither can guns. The solutions require deeper contemplation than the barrel of a gun. I'm all for being able to protect yourself...but let's not get lazy.

Again, I'm done here. Don't bother replying.



posted on Sep, 19 2014 @ 05:06 AM
link   

originally posted by: Sparkymedic

This was not posted to start a gun rights debate.


Your OP only included a short summary of the news report. You didn't include any information in the OP that would steer the conversation in one way or another. And now, you're mad at ATS members for discussing the news report you barely summarized in their own way? If you wanted this thread to take a different direction of discussion, perhaps you should have made a better thread. But, I guess that's just a learning process you won't experience, if you're just going to quit on us.
edit on 19-9-2014 by smithjustinb because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 19 2014 @ 06:09 AM
link   

originally posted by: smithjustinb

originally posted by: Sparkymedic

This was not posted to start a gun rights debate.


Your OP only included a short summary of the news report. You didn't include any information in the OP that would steer the conversation in one way or another. And now, you're mad at ATS members for discussing the news report you barely summarized in their own way? If you wanted this thread to take a different direction of discussion, perhaps you should have made a better thread. But, I guess that's just a learning process you won't experience, if you're just going to quit on us.

Sparkymedic's original post didn't have to include a summary of the news report to steer discussion in one way or another - the news report itself ought to have done that for everyone. The news report was about an on going shooting with unconfirmed and developing dialogue, it was not about guns in general, gun control, or 2nd Amendment at all. The discussion should have continued on developing that story and naturally evolve into issues that said developing news brought into the limelight. Instead, within minutes of the original post, it became a debate thread on the 2nd Amendment and gun control/rights - something that belongs in other forums on their own right.

Only when the issue of gun control/rights and the 2nd Amendment were brought into discussion within the news itself should discussion on those issues have started, if at all - and in this specific case, it would have focused on felon access to firearms, not ones personal views on the 2nd Amendment and gun control.



posted on Sep, 19 2014 @ 07:46 AM
link   
Wow. Just, wow. I honestly thought my comment about some people being non-feeling and selfish was a little too harsh. It's clear to me know it might not have been strong enough.
I know children die every day. I do "cry a river" when I hear about the loss.
I'm not really sure what this whole Macho thing you have going is trying to prove. I need to tell you, it doesn't make you look like a big strong man (or woman), it makes you look like a heartless bully.
I made my original comment because this thread was getting OFF TOPIC and turning into a gun debate. This WAS about the children who died. reply to: Answer



posted on Sep, 19 2014 @ 07:48 AM
link   
Read the story on MSN. Shooting a 3 month old baby, this must be Hell where the crazies are turned loose.



posted on Sep, 19 2014 @ 07:52 AM
link   
Wow
Most of you should be ashamed of yourselfs. Mod's included.
6 pages in a thread about a shooting, where young children are involved, and you only want to fight about gun control?





My heart goes out for those poor children.



posted on Sep, 19 2014 @ 07:52 AM
link   

originally posted by: Raxoxane
I know I'm gonna be unpopular for saying this-but please for the love of God,can folks just leave off the "they're coming for our guns" mentality even once? People are dead.Children are dead.This is a hideous tragedy.Must your first concern be that this is about your precious guns? Spare a thought for the loved ones of the deceased first,at least.a reply to: bhliberal




But who is it, and just give it time, who makes it a gun issue? They hardly let the blood dry and they are on about guns and new gun legislation.



posted on Sep, 19 2014 @ 07:56 AM
link   

originally posted by: GeisterFahrer

originally posted by: bhliberal
This is just another reason for strong gun control. Let's watch and see that the perpetrator had a legally obtained firearm. I'm almost willing to bet.



Nope. He was a convicted felon. It was illegal for him to have a firearm.




So much for gun laws.



posted on Sep, 19 2014 @ 08:47 AM
link   

originally posted by: defcon5
A “well regulated militia” today means the State National Guard, not an “unorganized” militia. If the state needs you to be in the militia they’ll draft you into it and provide you the necessary equipment. If you want to live by that law, then feel free to go buy a Kentucky Long Rifle, but it does not give you the right to buy an Abrahams tank and park it in your garage.

If you know anything about history, then you should know that the state militias became the state national guards, and those weapons are there for the state as a whole to protect itself from an out of control federal government (such as what happened in the Civil War), not for individuals to decide they want to personally protect themselves from the government.


OK, so if the 2nd Amendment is about the National Guard, and it only protects a right to own a Kentucky long rifle or a musket (and BTW, the USSC disagrees on both points), does this mean that the 2nd Amendment only allows the National Guard to be armed with Kentucky long rifles and muskets?

You can't have it both ways.
edit on 19-9-2014 by vor78 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 19 2014 @ 09:23 AM
link   
a reply to: vor78

Even if they had the means of limiting everyone to a muzzleloading musket, they would have legislation drafted to ban them as soon as someone was shot with one.



posted on Sep, 19 2014 @ 09:38 AM
link   
a reply to: butcherguy

Agreed. The antis aren't honest brokers with this 'sensible, responsible' stuff they keep spouting. They'll never be satisfied. Today, its your assault rifle. A few years later, it'll be all of your semi-auto rifles, handguns and shotguns. Not long after that, it'll be the revolvers, pump actions and revolvers. They're not fooling anyone anymore.



posted on Sep, 19 2014 @ 12:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: vor78
Not long after that, it'll be the revolvers, pump actions and revolvers.


I knew something didn't look right about that, and, of course, I missed the time window for editing. One of the 'revolvers' should be 'lever actions.'



posted on Sep, 19 2014 @ 12:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: mysterioustranger
a reply to: bhliberal

What an uneducated thing to say. Get rid of the knives in your houses, the cars on the street and get rid of the alcohol....youre ridiculous. (respectfully speaking)





These type of crimes are also often committed by burning the Family while asleep.




top topics



 
24
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join