It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Help ATS via PayPal:
learn more

Disgusted over idiotic Gun control comments.

page: 8
<< 5  6  7    9 >>

log in


posted on Sep, 25 2014 @ 01:27 PM

originally posted by: CranialSponge

I think what's changed over the decades is the mindset and attitude towards firearms.

There was a time when just about everyone owned a shotgun or two or twelve, but it was taught from a very young age by our elders that those weapons were something to be respectfully feared, and therefore were to be handled in the same manner.

But now with the onset of a gun culture (for lack of a better terminology), it has become almost like a religion. This gun worship thing has invoked a mindset of 'bragging rights' per se... flash your firearms collection to your pals and gain a position of power and prestige. Guns have become a toy.

That 'toy' mentality means that these weapons are no longer being handled with the care and respect that they need to be.

It's a recipe for disaster.

I disagree only insomuchas the "gun culture" isn't causing the gap in responsibility of gun owners. Fear is the main cause of that--if a person gets attacked or robbed, or a house broken into, it's the same fear that causes those without firearm experience to go get a weapon as it is to go get a home alarm system. They do what makes them feel safe in an emotional reaction--that's okay with a home alarm system that can't kill someone, but it's not okay with firearms. Instead of anti-gun folks trying to brand the tool as the bad thing, maybe they should be logical and brand the ignorant gun owner as the bad thing. And I mean "ignorant" in its truest sense, not as a derogatory term like they use it now.

originally posted by: CranialSponge

Gun manufacturers in the US are literally pumping out 5 million firearms per year and marketing them in gun shows, magazines, etc. When you market something to the masses, you cause that item to become a must-have, a thing of lust, a thing of wanting.

As an example of what I'm talking about: Cigarettes are a health hazard to the people smoking them as well as the people around that secondhand smoke. For this reason, cigarettes are no longer allowed to be advertised or marketed to the masses. It's a changing of the psychological association with that item. People will still smoke, but the prestige that's no longer associated with it helps to reduce the 'turn-on' factor.

Actually, lobbyists are why cigarettes aren't featured in advertising anymore, not the health risks--that was just the catalyst for the lobbyists. It's the same reason why the gov't taxes the cigarettes--not to make someone quite, but because they want money. Same for the anti-smoking know, all those drug companies that sell quit-smoking medications...

As for firearm advertising, you pretend like you're going to see a gun ad in the Highlights magazine at your child's dentist office. Firearm advertising threads a needle--you only see them associate with firearm-related materials, not on Cartoon Network during Adventure Time (although I see a LOT of Nerf guns advertised).

originally posted by: CranialSponge

Guns are NOT tools, they are weapons. Period.

A tool is something that is designed for non-harmful purposes. A tool can be used as a weapon, but it was not designed specifically for that sole purpose... You can take an icepick and jam it into someone's skull, but it was not designed for that purpose.

A weapon, on the otherhand, is something that's designed specifically for the purpose of causing harm and death and it cannot be utilized as any other purpose than that.... You cannot eat your soup with a gun, you cannot cut a piece of lumber with a gun, and you cannot sit on your gun and ride it to the grocery store.

We need to readjust the attitude and mindset about firearms back to the way it used to be... something to be respectfully feared. Not something to be worshipped, not something to be played with, not something to be bragged about.

And a good first step is to stop calling a gun a goddamned 'tool'.

Hmmm...let's try this:

Definition of TOOL

1a : a handheld device that aids in accomplishing a task
b (1) : the cutting or shaping part in a machine or machine tool
(2) : a machine for shaping metal : machine tool
2a : something (as an instrument or apparatus) used in performing an operation or necessary in the practice of a vocation or profession

posted on Sep, 25 2014 @ 01:30 PM
Blaming spoons for making people fat lol thats funny and so true.Nice post

posted on Sep, 25 2014 @ 01:33 PM

originally posted by: FyreByrd
But it would most certainly - CUT DOWN ON THE CARNAGE!.

I wonder about gun-loving conservaties and how powerless and impotent they must feel to need a gun to feel safe.

Nailed it!!

I was the victim of a home invasion more than 20 years ago. Tells you everything you need to know.

Except for the fact that when the cops arrived, 52 MINUTES after being called---(heck, they didn't want to risk their lives for seven bucks an hour!)---- they said I must be hiding drugs for someone to want to break into my home so bad. They trashed everything the perp left. Like, smashed a stereo and speakers "to see if there's drugs inside." (nope) I had no criminal record then and still don't have one now. I was just poor and living in a dangerous neighborhood.

I had one pistol then, and its the reason the invader fled, when I produced it and pointed it at him (a 32. cal). I had only one gun back then ....

So yeah, I likes me some guns. I trust them more than I trust cops. And I trust cops more when they realize I'm armed. Much better manners all around.

So Yes, Firebyrd, my pro-gun stance is a product of fear.

you got it right.

posted on Sep, 25 2014 @ 01:35 PM

originally posted by: redeyeblue
People saying guns don't kill people,people kill people are running away from the facts. OBVIOUSLY someone has to pull the trigger, OBVIOUSLY someone needs to load the gun, but glaringly OBVIOUS is the fact that if there was no gun then most likely a crime is less likely to be commited.

You can't make that statement as fact, because research doesn't back it up. Even if you claim it does, different countries report different crimes in different ways, and it's nearly impossibly (per the FBI's comment) to compare apples to apples as far as violent or non-violent crimes go.

Your comment is based on hope, but not fact. There in fact may be less crime, but we don't know that for sure, and to make the statment and claim it's an 'obvious fact' is misleading and incorrect. These are the types of statement that prompt the OP.

posted on Sep, 25 2014 @ 01:40 PM
a reply to: tovenar

My desire to own firearms is out of fear, but it's the fear of needing one and not having it on the very slight chance that someone tries to attack me or my family. I don't expect it to happen, but if it does and I'm not prepared, what kind of husband and father does that make me?

In the interim, my gun on my hip will not go off on its own and I will NOT shoot someone because they cut me off while driving. I never, ever want to send a bullet through the air at another human being that results in their death--not sure I could honestly be the same if I had to--but it sure beats the possible alternative if I don't have that capability.

But as far as FyreByrd's comment--I don't feel impotent without one, nor am I a conservative, so he/she didn't nail anything concerning me.
edit on 25-9-2014 by SlapMonkey because: (no reason given)

posted on Sep, 25 2014 @ 01:53 PM
a reply to: SlapMonkey

Oh, fair enough.

Truth be told, I'm not a particularly fearful person; I've had a full enough life that I will face my end with a sense of determination rather than paralyzing horror. But the fact is, I own gun partly out of a concern (fear?) that there are bad people in the world who want to hurt my wife and kids, and won't respect my earnest pleas for peace and goodwill. That is what I was saying.

The assailant rang my doorbell for probably a minute before he came in. (This is why you ALWAYS answer your door, because they may be checking to see if you are home.) It was in the middle of the day, and there was no car parked out front. The invader had a crowbar, and he put it into the HINGE side of my front door and just took the door right off its hinges, so that it fell inward, into my living room. He was headed down the hall about the time I came down the hall (gun in hand.) He swung at with me with the crow bar, in what I believe was attempted murder.

I did not shoot, but backed up some more and pointed the gun at his face. He fled immediately. I believe he would have killed me if I were holding a knife or baseball bat. He was taller and wider than I am (which is saying something).

posted on Sep, 25 2014 @ 02:54 PM
a reply to: tovenar

Sounds like a relatively terrifying event. I wouldn't consider "concern" equivalent to "fear," though. I am concerned that someone may run a red light and hit me, so I wait an extra second or two, give a few more left-right looks, then go. I'm not afraid someone will hit me at every--or even any--intersection, I'm just doing my due diligence because I know it could happen.

Sounds the same in both of our cases, only you've had a terrible experience to even give you greater motivation to be prepared. I'm lucky enough to be prepared just in case, not because it's already happened to me (although my neighbor across the street just had her house broken into in broad daylight while no one was home--my wife homeschools and is home all day, so now I have an even bigger concern and need to be prepared). Luckily, we are both veterans and know how to handle weapons, so we are confident while owning them.

Anyway, best regards, and I hope you never have to go through that again--nice show of restraint by not immediately firing, too.

posted on Sep, 25 2014 @ 04:14 PM
a reply to: SlapMonkey

Instead of anti-gun folks trying to brand the tool as the bad thing

It's quite hilarious how you instantly peg me as one of these "anti-gun folks".

This postulation of yours is a perfect example of what I was talking about in my post.

And like I said earlier - It's this very exact mentality and attitude that's ruining it for the rest of us. This type of mindset where you are defending every single aspect of the current extremist gun culture thing, whether it's logical or not, is the key basis of why the rest of us are at risk of losing our firearms.

Put that in your pipe and smoke it.

Extreme mentality in any group of people causes everyone else to dislike them eventually leading to a fear factor, a fear of what these extremists are going to do next. Everybody stops listening to what they have to say and instead, instantly hand waves everything coming out of their mouth. Fundamentalist christians are a perfect example of what I'm talking about, it muddies the water for every other christian.

Calling it a tool is a problem because it shows an illogical extremist mentality. The rest of the sane world out there understands a firearm to be a weapon designed specifically to cause harm and death. To call it anything else is an attempt at smoke and mirrors... a game that anyone with more than 2 brain cells to rub together can see through.... making you look like a fool.
edit on 25-9-2014 by CranialSponge because: (no reason given)

posted on Sep, 25 2014 @ 04:41 PM
a reply to: SlapMonkey

Actually, lobbyists are why cigarettes aren't featured in advertising anymore, not the health risks--that was just the catalyst for the lobbyists.

Uh huh.

What part of catalyst and lobbyist aren't you understanding ?

What catalyst do you think lobbyists are going to use to drive their lobby against firearms ?

[insert roll eyes here]

posted on Sep, 25 2014 @ 05:00 PM
Not because of this thread, but some here may be interested in the main topic of the latest NLBS video.
Next Level BS #7: Open Carry Nuts, Revenge Porn, Stupid Millennials, and more…

I'll go run for cover now.

posted on Sep, 25 2014 @ 05:11 PM
a reply to: SkepticOverlord

Heh, I think we all need to run for cover...

Call me an old fart, but I've been a firearm owner since long before this newage "tool" terminology came into use. We've always known firearms to be a weapon. Period. There was nothing to be feared about that word... because it was what it was.

This newage politically correct jargon of trying to call it a "tool" isn't doing any of us any favours.

It's just making the rest of us look like a bunch of Yosemite Sam gun-toting nutjobs.

posted on Sep, 26 2014 @ 04:25 AM
Much as I'm enjoying this exercise in logical fallacy vs logical fallacy, let's look at the facts.

- Low rates of gun ownership correlates with low rates of gun crime.

- High rates of gun ownership do NOT correlate with high rates of gun crime. The US has a high rate of gun ownership. So does Switzerland. And Israel. Research and compare.

- High rates of gun ownership do NOT protect against tyrrany. Step away from the Hollywood presentation of dictatorships and look at the reality. True, the Soviets banned private firearms, as did the Chinese. On the other hand, Saddam Hussein required every adult male to keep a firearm at home. Hitler made it easier for the average German to own a gun.

- The US has a gun crime problem of third world proportions. No other developed nation has the same scale of gun crime or the ingrained fear that goes with it. It is therefore hard for, say, the British, to understand how Americans feel about guns.

- The concept of "an acceptable level of violence" has been around for forty years. As long as it happens somewhere else to someone else, policy makers are going to do nothing beyond looking concerned before asking for another cocktail at the taxpayer's expense.

Until there is honesty in the gun debate, nothing will change in the US.

posted on Sep, 26 2014 @ 05:33 AM
I have a question for people who are pro guns:

If you lived in a society where there was no crime, would you still want to own a gun?

If yes, why?

posted on Sep, 26 2014 @ 06:03 AM
a reply to: Power_Semi

Yes, because I enjoy target shooting.

posted on Sep, 26 2014 @ 08:22 AM

originally posted by: Power_Semi
I have a question for people who are pro guns:

If you lived in a society where there was no crime, would you still want to own a gun?

If yes, why?

Yes. Hunting.

posted on Sep, 26 2014 @ 08:55 AM
I've always considered gun control stupid. There are people and administrations (Looking at you Obama) that would love to see our guns go away. The argument is that we are safer without guns. Well...lets reverse that a tag. Following that mentality, if we take guns (and other weapons) away from the government and military...there won't be any more wars. Right???? Sure...we will be wiped out in a heartbeat, but the same applies to us as individual citizens. Take ours and we are easy prey.

posted on Sep, 26 2014 @ 11:02 AM
Besides all the other arguments I'm going to focus on the one that holds the most weight at least legally speaking since it was the motive behind the second amendment being written as the supreme law of the land, second only to speech.

It was put there for the people to shed off an oppressive government should the need ever arise. to be able to fight back with the same weaponry available to said government. so for the musket sayers, i say to you, nobody uses that # anymore.

Whatever you believe about the government loving or hating the people or otherwise its regardless. Its for IF and when it happens. An insurance policy if you will.

Guess what? we even have a modern day example that doesn't involve a bloody civil revolution where guns were used to fight an oppressive governmet. This year, RIGHT HERE in the USA!

Remember the Bundy Ranch incident? They had their day in court and WON. But a department of govt., in this case, the BLM (bereau of land managment) didn't care and commandeered local police forces including swat and choppers in order to forcibly take the cattle away from the bundy family and lay siege to them in their own home. The story had a MSM blackout but the indy internet news outlets were all over it, including the "free speech zone" they erected miles away from the site. (which is a whole other gripe for lack of better word for it at the moment)

To keep this short and easy reading, what ultimately happened is that militias and motorcycle clubs around the country caught wind of this, armed themselves, and rode from across the country to defend the family. They drew a line in the sand and said they would die if need be.

The BLM was outgunned and out manned, so they packed up and left. Not even a single shot fired that i'm aware of and no casualties other than the beating and arrest of a single Bundy family member who tried recording the scene before his American brethren showed up.

The decision of the federal court wasn't being upheld, and the governor was powerless in this situation (or at least didn't exercise his power if he had any) while speaking out about the actions being taken against the Bundy family by the BLM.

Im sure that story would have gone a lot differently if our fellow Americans didn't show up bearing arms. Even if they DID show up but came unarmed, i'm sure they would just end up being loaded up in paddy wagons, or gassed, chased down and arrested, possibly without bloodshed. BUT, BLM would have had their way unjustly in both principle and law.

THIS is the true reason and reigning precedent for the firearms.
edit on 26-9-2014 by Nanu13 because: (no reason given)

posted on Sep, 27 2014 @ 02:12 PM
a reply to: SlapMonkey

Well said! Some of us believe in self defense, and cannot take down a threat special forces style. Unfortunately there will always be a divide on this issue due to fear, misunderstanding and personal prejudice. For me, the bottom line is, people will continue to hurt other people regardless of whether they use a fist, knife, gun, or a brick. It is a people problem, not a gun problem...

posted on Sep, 27 2014 @ 11:57 PM
a reply to: CardiffGiant

Long time lurker rarely post. But I thought I'd address a couple of your questions.
you asked why people own sometimes many firearms.
I own ...well..several. for me; Many of them are old and I really enjoy the craftsmanship and the overall design of older military weapons. I own a couple Enfiled rifles made in the 1930's (one being the great SMLE), a Remington 03A3 made in the mid 1940's, a M1 Carbine from the Korean war era. I have several revolvers that range in age as old as 100 years to the 1980's. they are fantastic shooters and they just don't make them like that anymore. I own a few different types of 22 rifle. i use them to poke holes in paper and the occasional woodland creature that is terrorizing my garden(s).

I also own semi automatic versions of more modern weapons like the AR15. It works great for varmint hunting such as coyotes. I live in the country and I have little use for critters that want to mess with my chickens, cattle, and pets.
A couple SKS rifles, a couple AK47 type rifles (semi automatic) I don't have much use for an full auto so I have trouble justifying the cost but I do fully support ones right to own one or few.

Now here's the tricky part. Many talk about the Constitution and the 2A in cases like this. What we need to bare in mind is Our Constitution does not grant any rights to the people or government. What it does do is explain some rights that we where endowed with by our creator (pick what ever flavor of Dogma you like here..Or not. ..Ir's your right). It also explains the limits put on the federal government. so the 2A does not give one the right to own a gun. It just states the fact that among other rights we have a right to protect ourselves.

i hear so much about common sense laws. But really what sense does it make to place prohibitions one ones rights for something they have not done? I've never went on a rampage and have no plans to do so. So what sense does saying I shouldn't be allowed to protect myself and my family because of something I could do? Anyone could toss cinder blocks off overpasses. But that is no reason to stop ones ability to own a big old pile of them if they choose to.

Out here in the tall weeds the number of guns on the average home is much greater than it would be in any city. But we have nowhere near the gun crime. Logic tells me that it has more to do with people being all packed together than the guns themselves. There has not been a murder in my county in years. And I know of homes with dozens of firearms in them. Most everyone I know has at least two guns in their house. Many over a dozen. If none of these guns has been involved in any illegal activity then what does it really matter? We can't just say "well....if they had X they CAN do Y so we need to take it away." Who cares if X is 100% legal and the vast majority of people that own X never commit a crime.

Ones reason for wanting to own more than one or two can be any of a million reasons. For me? It's more about collecting and history. Though I do have some that have a specific task to complete. Some, I just like to shoot. But like any other inanimate object. People have all kinds of reasons to collect or compile a number of them. Maybe they just like them. If you ever really take a close look at the myriad of designs out there it really can be amazing. In some cases I'd go as far as to call it a form of art. Except Glocks..Those things are jut ugly. They do work pretty well though.

posted on Sep, 28 2014 @ 12:16 PM
If you feel you need a gun for protection just to go about your daily business then you live in a sick society. I lived in South Africa for a while and people owned guns, it would have been insane not to, society was sick there too.

Would you say your society is sick, America?

new topics

<< 5  6  7    9 >>

log in