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.

 

Disgusted over idiotic Gun control comments.

page: 3
31
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 23 2014 @ 05:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: network dude

yes times have changed. have you ever heard of a "car jacking"? I hear tell they sometimes target the weak looking ones. Like soccer moms.
Give me a break indeed.


yeah, ive heard of them. every day citizens popping shots off with their heart pounding and scared to death is not me idea of being safe or protected.


if people worry about bullets leaving their house and going into the neighbors then why dont they worry about missing their target when they are out and about with their concealed carry and the bullet going into some strange, innocent person...

can you answer that please?




posted on Sep, 23 2014 @ 05:07 PM
link   
Last week maybe two ago, during the Ferguson incident, there was another smaller incident where a dranged white man was wondering around with a gun - a rifle I think. The police talked this man down for forty minutes, he gave up the gun and was taken into custody.

Now, I woozelled this around in my head for a long while, still am honestly. Why did unarmed black youth ended up dead in minutes while a dranged old white man didn't.

I found the two incidences good examples for:

1) being armed, the police treat you with more respect.
2) police are terribly racist.
3) being a young man gets you killed.
4) being an old white man gets you respect.
5) and many others....

Now, where I a gun lover I'd use the example as proof that gun ownership was smart.

I'm not, but think it's a plausible argument.

Personally, I lean to the racist police angle but that's not relevant to the discussion.

The Black Panther's were of a mind with moden day 'gun advocates' ....'

TANGENT/ SQUIRREL -(I'd like to know what constitutes a gun and where the line in weaponry is between personal defence and national defence - can I buy a rocket propelled grenade launcher and rounds for personal defence - what's the stand off distance of 'personal' defence (is it based upon my own insecurities - the more insecure the larger the circumference of my personal defence zone))... and then there is the whole 'civil' defence angle on this too....

when they marched on the Statehouse in CA in the seventies and Uncle Ronnie Reagun passed legislation against carrying rifles in the open.

So you agree with the Black Panthers in that carrying weapons will get you respect????


edit on 23-9-2014 by FyreByrd because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 23 2014 @ 05:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: CardiffGiant
and now that i think about it the 2nd amendment says

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

^^arms for a militia for free state security^^

says nothing about deer hunting and can shooting


It also does not say what the Militia, which is composed of the body of the People, can do with their firearms when they are not securing the Free State.



posted on Sep, 23 2014 @ 05:56 PM
link   
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

It also does not get into specifics about what "well regulated" should be.

Should well-regulated be a level of licensing and testing along the same lines of driver's licenses? Does it make sense to only license those who show proficiency in handling firearms, with the ability to own firearms?


Of course, the point is moot. The genie is well and firmly out of the bottle.



posted on Sep, 23 2014 @ 06:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

It also does not say what the Militia, which is composed of the body of the People, can do with their firearms when they are not securing the Free State.


yeah, ok.

guns are tools right?

well when i am not using my tools they are locked in my tool box.
what i dont do is carry my small tools around in my pocket and throw my ratchets at cans and throw hammers at small animals.

i dont doubt that back in the day they were used as a tool like they were designed for. little by little along the way more and more people bought more and more of these 'tools' and then suddenly its a status thing and its cool.



posted on Sep, 23 2014 @ 06:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: SkepticOverlord
It also does not get into specifics about what "well regulated" should be.

Should well-regulated be a level of licensing and testing along the same lines of driver's licenses? Does it make sense to only license those who show proficiency in handling firearms, with the ability to own firearms?


In the contemporaneous view of the Framers, 'well regulated' meant 'disciplined' or 'trained'. In the Federalist Papers it also meant 'armed' and 'organized'.

Would I be adverse to firearms ownership being contingent or training? Only if it did not impinge upon the rights of the people to exercise this right. The only way I see that as possible is if there were State or Federal training at no cost to the purchaser.



posted on Sep, 23 2014 @ 06:12 PM
link   

originally posted by: CardiffGiant
yeah, ok.

guns are tools right?

well when i am not using my tools they are locked in my tool box.
what i dont do is carry my small tools around in my pocket and throw my ratchets at cans and throw hammers at small animals.


You are free to throw your tools at cans and small animals within the confines of the law. I am free to use my firearms as I see fit within the confines of the law.


i dont doubt that back in the day they were used as a tool like they were designed for. little by little along the way more and more people bought more and more of these 'tools' and then suddenly its a status thing and its cool.


If you say so. None of my firearms were purchased because they were 'cool', they all serve a purpose.



edit on 23-9-2014 by AugustusMasonicus because: Networkdude had no beer



posted on Sep, 23 2014 @ 06:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: SkepticOverlord


Of course, the point is moot. The genie is well and firmly out of the bottle.


this is another fact.
these days with the internet, swap meets, 3 d printing, and the home cnc machining im thinking it is going to get further away from the bottle.

for the record i dont think that all guns should be taken away from the law abiding citizens. i dont have the solution to the problem, i just know there is a problem.
it does not make me comfortable to know that there are a lot of creeps and criminals out there carrying guns. it also does not make me comfortable to know there are law abiding citizens out there carrying guns.

its just a personal thing for me.

i honestly feel like a lot of the arguments for gun rights are intentionally dense. i dont understand how one person can say that shotguns are for the home and that way it keeps the bullets from going into the neighbors house.

then you get the whole soccer moms carry pea shooters cause car jackers. are they not worried about the bullet going stray and hitting an innocent person?

i also honestly feel that a large portion(of course not all) of the people that do the conceal carry thing are just cowboys that would love a chance to pull their piece out.
dont bother trying to change my mind on that... its a personal opinion. it might be wrong but we have no way to know for sure. its just how i feel.

i think a large portion of the people that carry their 9mm under their coat cant wait to shoot some 'hood' and get away with it under the guise of protecting people.
i also think that the majority of those same people pose a threat to everyone else around them. i know they go to the range and shoot paper targets and qualified for the concealed carry cause they put the bullets in the 10 ring from 8 feet away...

toss them in a situation where chaos starts popping off without warning and more innocent people are bound to get shot.

i personally dont want people carrying pistols under their jacket when they are walking around the park or the mall or whatever.

i know i know. criminals have them. criminals will carry them no matter if they are allowed to. i also believe this is true but i dont think the answer to anything is more guns in public



posted on Sep, 23 2014 @ 06:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus


If you say so. No of my firearms were purchased because they were 'cool', they all serve a purpose.



ok, thats you.

what about the millions of people that buy them and have them and flash them cause they are cool?

all the people that put their pics up on facebook and instagram flashing their guns along with their cash?
thats just one example but it is a fair one. people like that have them cause they think its cool. they think it makes them tough.

we have gotten away from 'its a tool we use to eat with and make sure we still have a free state'

its getting to where people are carrying guns cause they think it makes them a badass. then we have the law abiding people that want a conceal carry to protect themselves and other people. i like to call them cowboys. both are dangerous


again, i am not for taking away peoples guns. i just know that the entire gun situation sucks and i dont know what can be done. at this point it is probably too late for anything to be done



posted on Sep, 23 2014 @ 06:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: CardiffGiant
ok, thats you.

what about the millions of people that buy them and have them and flash them cause they are cool?

all the people that put their pics up on facebook and instagram flashing their guns along with their cash?
thats just one example but it is a fair one. people like that have them cause they think its cool. they think it makes them tough.


Frankly I think they are idiots but being an idiot is not against the law.



posted on Sep, 23 2014 @ 06:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus


Frankly I think they are idiots but being an idiot is not against the law.



no. its not against the law to be an idiot. i just dont like the fact that these idiots flaunt their 'tools' like its nothing.

in 1855 i think they could have been considered tools.

in 2014 i think they should be considered deadly weapons



posted on Sep, 23 2014 @ 06:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: CardiffGiant
in 1855 i think they could have been considered tools.

in 2014 i think they should be considered deadly weapons


They were, and still are, both.



posted on Sep, 23 2014 @ 06:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: SkepticOverlord
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

It also does not get into specifics about what "well regulated" should be.

Should well-regulated be a level of licensing and testing along the same lines of driver's licenses? Does it make sense to only license those who show proficiency in handling firearms, with the ability to own firearms?


Of course, the point is moot. The genie is well and firmly out of the bottle.


Of course, then you get into what is and is not an acceptable level of knowledge and who should and should not be allowed to test for those licenses and when ... that opens a can of worms, too.

Do you trust the politicians to decide who is and isn't an acceptable gun owner? I sure don't.



posted on Sep, 23 2014 @ 06:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: CardiffGiant

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus


Frankly I think they are idiots but being an idiot is not against the law.



no. its not against the law to be an idiot. i just dont like the fact that these idiots flaunt their 'tools' like its nothing.

in 1855 i think they could have been considered tools.

in 2014 i think they should be considered deadly weapons


You obviously do not know anyone who lives in a rural area. Guns are still tools and very necessary to anyone who lives in a rural area the same way a pickup truck is.

Sometimes, I think people who live in urban areas like to forget that anyone at all lives outside the city limits and that their way of life is, necessarily, different.



posted on Sep, 23 2014 @ 06:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: CardiffGiant

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: CardiffGiant

Annnd explain to me how you are going to remove all the guns ... This should be good.



im not going to explain how at all. that wasnt the point i was trying to make. i also never said if i agree that guns would be taken away.

i just said there would be no more gun deaths if there were no more guns. thats still a fact


Oh, well, if there were no more cancer, there would be no more cancer deaths, too.

Do we want to make anymore silly statements today?



posted on Sep, 23 2014 @ 06:57 PM
link   

originally posted by: ketsuko
[
You obviously do not know anyone who lives in a rural area. Guns are still tools and very necessary to anyone who lives in a rural area the same way a pickup truck is.

Sometimes, I think people who live in urban areas like to forget that anyone at all lives outside the city limits and that their way of life is, necessarily, different.


i dont know anyone... youre right.
also, i never really thought about it like that.... dumb ass me i guess.

i really just thought about the city and the burbs.

most of the gun death is in the city. on the news.

i kind of just balled that into one.

can you help me out though? if youre rural why would you need more than a rifle/and or a shotgun.
plus a handgun maybe?

i dont know.

i really am interested an would like to know.



posted on Sep, 23 2014 @ 08:12 PM
link   

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: SkepticOverlord
It also does not get into specifics about what "well regulated" should be.

Should well-regulated be a level of licensing and testing along the same lines of driver's licenses? Does it make sense to only license those who show proficiency in handling firearms, with the ability to own firearms?


In the contemporaneous view of the Framers, 'well regulated' meant 'disciplined' or 'trained'. In the Federalist Papers it also meant 'armed' and 'organized'.

Would I be adverse to firearms ownership being contingent or training? Only if it did not impinge upon the rights of the people to exercise this right. The only way I see that as possible is if there were State or Federal training at no cost to the purchaser.



So training has to be provided free of cost to the purchaser? Who pays for training - gun manufacturers? I can dig that. Maybe other forms of training for 'self-reliance' should be financed by business as a service to the community. I actually like that.



posted on Sep, 23 2014 @ 08:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: FyreByrd
So training has to be provided free of cost to the purchaser? Who pays for training - gun manufacturers? I can dig that. Maybe other forms of training for 'self-reliance' should be financed by business as a service to the community. I actually like that.


Many of the Framers expressed the sentiment that the Federal Government would arm and train the People.



posted on Sep, 23 2014 @ 11:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: CardiffGiant
and now that i think about it the 2nd amendment says



A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.



^^arms for a militia for free state security^^



says nothing about deer hunting and can shooting







I'm sorry but I believe Penn and Teller have it right.

Watch the whole series it might be enlightening.
And to explain it more succinctly.



posted on Sep, 24 2014 @ 02:41 AM
link   
Disgusted over idiotic Gun control comments.

How ironic, I feel exactly the same way about idiotic pro gun comments such as the "its an inanimate object" one.

Different strokes for different folks I guess



new topics

top topics



 
31
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join