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.

 

Fox Host Tells Supermodel To Shut Up About Gun Control – ‘You Have A Nice Bottom…Stick To That

page: 7
18
<< 4  5  6    8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 27 2014 @ 01:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: Onslaught2996

Yep guns take ..what is it, thirty a day in America...but the one time it stopped anything..let's harp on the one time a gun owner actually did something good..


A single gun owner stopped a single crime that day...whoopee


WOW. So, you are shown that the statement "Good guys with guns don't stop crime" is a HUGE fallacy, with a major incident within your home country, only to callusly state


A single gun owner stopped a single crime that day...whoopee


Yes...I would say WHOOPEE that a good guy with a gun and guts was able to stop a muslim based terrorist from killing others.

And....there are tons of instances throughout the day in the US where good guys with guns stop crimes.

I guess you can bury your head in the sand, under the PM's desk while you both hide.




posted on Oct, 27 2014 @ 01:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: Onslaught2996
a reply to: NavyDoc

Yet we aren't going crazy up here with gun violence...why is that?



Smaller, rural, more homogenized population that is not part of one of the most major drug trade routes in the world.



posted on Oct, 27 2014 @ 01:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: Onslaught2996

originally posted by: macman


Hmmm, guess the laws in Canada can't stop criminals from committing crime either.



Just like gun owners stop crime in America...wait a minute..there's a shooting, another one..holy crap more....where are these good guys with guns you keep talking about..


Your current laws don't do crap...so why not try to change them.


Visit guns.com

They keep a daily record of those "good guys" putting the bad ones down.

As I said DAILY...

I'm leaving that horse alone but I've used mine. (never made the news...hmmm)



posted on Oct, 27 2014 @ 01:27 PM
link   
a reply to: TiedDestructor

Actually had an incident last week coming out of my business.
Caught a tweaker jumping fences, asked what he was doing and got a moronic reply. Got into my car, and he charged at the driver side window. Un-holstered my 1911, kept it below the window but he saw I had a firearm. He backed off quickly, and stated he would find a new route next time.


So, yes. Good guys with guns do stop crime.



posted on Oct, 27 2014 @ 01:29 PM
link   
a reply to: macman

Actually unarmed elderly people and children are just as effective in stopping crime.



HERO: Elderly Woman Fights Off Thief With Back Scratcher

4 Walmart employees fired after disarming gunman caught shoplifting



Teacher credited with disarming gunman, 12, at New Mexico school; 1 in critical condition



Seems to me guns are just about as effective in stopping crime as unarmed people are.



posted on Oct, 27 2014 @ 01:35 PM
link   
a reply to: Onslaught2996

Now your just pulling that # right out of your...

If I were an ARMED criminal and you fought me I'd shoot you dead where you stood.

Glad your ok macman. Even most idiots recognize the 1911

And your spot on Neo

edit on 10/27/2014 by TiedDestructor because: Added response to neo



posted on Oct, 27 2014 @ 01:38 PM
link   
a reply to: TiedDestructor

Criminals don't care about laws.

And they don't care about background checks.

The irony is the people who make those laws, hide behind guys with guns.

For some odd reason the gun control crowd thinks those laws about 'protecting the public'.

When in fact the only reason we have gun control is to protect those shills on capitol hill.



posted on Oct, 27 2014 @ 02:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: Onslaught2996
a reply to: macman

Actually unarmed elderly people and children are just as effective in stopping crime.



HERO: Elderly Woman Fights Off Thief With Back Scratcher

4 Walmart employees fired after disarming gunman caught shoplifting



Teacher credited with disarming gunman, 12, at New Mexico school; 1 in critical condition



Seems to me guns are just about as effective in stopping crime as unarmed people are.


And your risk of ending up dead or disabled stopping a crime while unarmed is much, much, higher, although not as high as not resisting at all. Like Mac said with his personal example. Most times a gun stops a crime by causing the felon to retreat, without a single shot being fired. No injury to anyone in that case.
edit on 27-10-2014 by NavyDoc because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 27 2014 @ 03:03 PM
link   
a reply to: Onslaught2996

I guess that it takes all kinds huh...not just an all in one solution, like you offer.


Never said that they ONLY way to stop crime was to be armed. Sure makes things a lot easier. I mean, I do love a good beat down. Grew up picking fights with bouncers on OSU campus. I have always loved to fight. But, in the given situation I had, it was better to avoid physical confrontation as the tweaker was probably armed with a blade of some sort.

SO.....I avoided the psychical confrontation, the examples you gave showed people going hands on. Which situation would most rather be in?

But, good on those few people that you gave as examples.


edit on 27-10-2014 by macman because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 27 2014 @ 03:12 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Oct, 27 2014 @ 03:15 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Oct, 27 2014 @ 03:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: macman
a reply to: ladyinwaiting

When did I state that??

I stated very clearly that her expertise seems to be within modeling and her abilities in the social realm, like when to make comments like she did, is lacking.

And yes, *eye rolling* it is soooo sexist to tell her to stick with what she knows........modeling.



Oh wow. You don't even see what you said wrong, and have even repeated it. Tenacious though, you are sticking with the sexism you know so well, or no, you don't seem to recognize it as such.

Alrighty then!

(what I say when I am speechless with someone's cluelessness, and realize further discourse would not be beneficial due to the gulf between our cognitive abilities.)

So you have a good day. Somehow, I know you will.



posted on Oct, 27 2014 @ 03:40 PM
link   
a reply to: ladyinwaiting

We all know models, and 'super' models are not known for their quick wit now right?

Considering a woman said something to the effect.

How can a woman be 'sexist'.

From my perspective he agreed with her.



posted on Oct, 27 2014 @ 03:40 PM
link   
a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

Yeah, thanks BH. I'm pretty grossed out. And otta here! See ya.



posted on Oct, 27 2014 @ 03:42 PM
link   
a reply to: ladyinwaiting

I will ask again, when did I say she shouldn't have an opinion.


Or are you just going to keep with the dramatic hyper retorts?


She can have an opinion as the day is long. It just happens to be a terribly timed opinion, that is about as uncouth as the progressives using the Sandy Hook shooting as a political tool 24hrs after it happened.



posted on Oct, 27 2014 @ 03:44 PM
link   
a reply to: ladyinwaiting

Yeah, much sexist...especially when the person in question uses her "sexuality" to sell crap.

Seems she exploits herself much more than men.



posted on Oct, 27 2014 @ 03:50 PM
link   
I find it interesting how many of these posts are attacking others for mentioning body parts, or how this woman should stick to her particular field of expertise (in this case, modeling).

If no one looked at her body, she wouldn't be making the money that she is, nor would her tweets be of any interest, as she would be no more well-known than anyone else.

In other words, it's kind of silly attacking members for doing precisely what this woman wants them to do, and that is: look at her body. Unless otherwise shown, she has no other credentials than that "nice bottom" to present.

Doe she have the right to point out the insensitivity of the average American with regard to events like the shooting in Canada? Absolutely, but being a famous model doesn't make her opinion any more valid than yours, or mine. There are plenty of people that would take issue with her remarks as being untrue.

I do get quite a chuckle that a hotly debated thread can emerge from the 150 character commentary of a fashion model, and some blathering spin doctors from an MSM network. Quite frankly, this really shouldn't have even been mentioned on the news to begin with. Why? Because it is NOT news, that's why.

In the end, there will be an apology, and everyone can go back to whatever distraction was holding their attention before this ridiculousness began.

In all seriousness, take a look at yourselves, and your reactions to this 'story'. It's amazing how easy it is for them to cause us to bicker, wouldn't you agree?

Forgive me if I come off as judgmental, as that wasn't my intention. I guess I'm feeling a bit cynical with regard to people today, and anything involving the public gibbering over celebrities generally annoys me anyhow.
edit on 10/27/2014 by ProfessorChaos because: typo



posted on Oct, 27 2014 @ 04:20 PM
link   
Guns and all the issues surrounding them effects all of us. We should all be able to chime in voice our opinions and have the debate. Without fear of death threats and insults.

We should be able to discuss why there is less gun violence in Canada and why us Americans are desensitized to all but mass shootings. We should be able to discuss background checks and waiting lists without being insulted by gun nuts. We should be able to talk about the right to bear arms and have guns for self defense without those on the left branding us gun nuts. We should be able to discuss all of it.

Good for that model. Celebrities have a platform that reaches thousands, hundreds of thousands, millions and hundreds of millions of people. They have a responsibility to jump start conversations. This is all good.



posted on Oct, 27 2014 @ 09:01 PM
link   
Ok Listen up.. I made an honest mistake in my first reply to this topic. I know the bill of rights I am not an idiot, I was so focused on how I was gonna phrase what I wanted to say that I typed "4th Amendment" when I obviously meant the 1st. Now that I think about it I'm glad I made the mistake because everyone's reaction to my mistake proves what I said in that post. So thank you all.



posted on Oct, 28 2014 @ 07:53 AM
link   
a reply to: geldib

No problem. Most of us thought you were probably a super model and let it slide.

Don't the first 3 amendments deal with makeup, shoes and eating, so speech starts at 4.





top topics



 
18
<< 4  5  6    8 >>

log in

join