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.


Exposing American hypocrisy- The Interview Part Deux.

page: 3
<< 1  2   >>

log in


posted on Dec, 26 2014 @ 03:51 PM
I clicked on this thread expecting it to be about the movie 'The Interview'.

But it's just another gun thread.

Before I fall there a connection?

posted on Dec, 26 2014 @ 04:28 PM

originally posted by: RodNasty
a reply to: neo96
Freedom is the wild west.

The goal is "Peaceful pursuit of freedom." The importance of this simple phrase seems lost on most.

posted on Dec, 26 2014 @ 06:40 PM
a reply to: Cuervo

The 'basic" measures are already in place. One can't yell "fire" in a theater, it's against the law. You can't shoot a gun in most places, can't shoot people, as a rule, can't carry in most places, can't buy if your nuts or have a criminal record...or aren't a citizen, also against the law...seems like the 'basics are already covered...Hello?

Background checks, hmmm. More people are killed in cars BY FAR, than guns, no "background checks" there.( And that one isn't a Constitutional right, it's a 'privilege').

If we can't get rid of 'illegal' drugs-just create a profit venue for criminals, what sense in creating a new profit venue by further restricting weapons?

Where there's a demand there will be a supply. Just more expensive.....

posted on Dec, 26 2014 @ 06:50 PM
Why do gun owners have to be so extremists? I agree people should have the right to own guns. However, there is a limit to having a right that can actually infringe on the safety of citizens. To allow people who have committed crimes with a fire arm, and those who are mentally ill to posses a fire arm is simply gross negligence.

I would like to hear if a gun owner would change their perspective if one of their daughters or sons was gunned down by a mentally ill and psychotic individual who had the right to own a gun. It's just as bad as handing a five year-old a loaded gun. If I knew my next door neighbor was mentally deranged, the last thing I would want is for him to be in possession of a gun.

Along with the right to free speech, and bearing arms, is the moral responsibility to respect others when using it. To flaunt it as if there shouldn't be no boundaries, or using it when it defames, disrupts, or endangers another person's right to feel secure and safe is stomping on the rights of other individuals that is also guaranteed by the same constitution.

posted on Dec, 26 2014 @ 08:00 PM
a reply to: neo96

You re 100% rigght and it could not be better said and its impossible to dissagree with IMO. Thank you for your post. I will copy and keep your post for reference in future discussions with others about guns.

For what its worth, I wish people would choose not to have have guns. Americia is off the planet with insanity, madness and weired thinking based on guns but the right of people to have them is far too important to agree to have them taken away from people.

Australia is much more saner and peaceful place without any where near the number of guns as there is in the US but unfortunately more and more people are getting them and so its becoming more like the US.

Never the less, the rights of people and the their right to have a gun must come first. It is not for the state to determine what people shall and shall not have. Decomocracy, as little of it we have, is far too important for it to be otherwise.

posted on Dec, 26 2014 @ 08:12 PM

originally posted by: ScientificRailgun
I can counter your thread with one simple truth:

Free speech doesn't put hundreds of fatal holes in school children.

I'm all for gun ownership, before I moved to Japan I owned a .45 ACP and an Armalite rifle.

But there needs to be some common sense measures in place to at least put SOME roadblock on crazies and criminals getting their hands on weapons.

Crazies and criminals are always going to get their hands on guns no matter what laws are passed. I do not believe the goverments desire to take guns off people has anything to do with the safety of the population. I believe it has everything to do with preventing people from resisting tyrrany.

I always ask myself, why do the US and other goverments always appear to very concerned about the physcial well being of its citzens but they don't give a stuff about the finanical well being of those same citzens?

Not giving a stuff about the finanical well being of the same people whose physcial safety they try to pretend they are so concerned about proves the lie that they are concerned about the physcial safety of the citzens.

posted on Dec, 26 2014 @ 10:06 PM
a reply to: neo96

Seriously...each to their own.

I don't agree with you...but that is ok.

posted on Dec, 27 2014 @ 12:32 PM

originally posted by: nerbot

originally posted by: deadeyedick

a reply to: neo96

People with guns can say anything.

And if they relied more on intelligence they ironically wouldn't need guns.

Unless one is shooting a target for fun or dinner BECAUSE YOU'RE HUNGRY, guns serve no positive purpose other that to perpetuate intimidation, cowardice, annoyance, fear and ignorance imo.

And speaking of "rights"...what about the right for the normal unarmed people to live in peace without open carry madness? Or does your logic only apply one way?

My logic?
I stated a fact and did not impute either of the dualities that go along with it.
The truth is that weapons are used to uphold truth and lies. The problem is once someone speaking lies all the time has power then the truth is silenced. The system was designed to go the other way but these things always backfire.

posted on Dec, 30 2014 @ 11:38 AM

originally posted by: ScientificRailgun
Free speech won't kill anyone. It's really that simple. I can't shout at you and kill you. But I sure as hell can shoot you and kill you.

But I know there's no changing your mind. Any reason to be angry about anything, it seems.

I wonder what your opinion would have been if Sony never released the film.

Have you ever heard of a ship called the Lusitania? Ya, the one that got us into World War 1. The one that also was reported to be intentionally sent into German infested waters in order to intentionally propel America into the war. Right, so not only was that mass murder of innocent people. It was a complete and utter lie, but hey at least the President was able to freely speak that lie in order to kill even more lives during the war. Right?

Hypocrisy, my friend, is a beautifully miserable thing.

Free speech includes North Korean threats, and the hypocrisy of people telling North Korea it's just a joke.

Imagine if the shoe was on the other foot. The Interview was coming from another country about our President.
Short thread about The Interview written by Losonczy

In order to call for free speech, you must be willing to give it out first.

new topics

top topics

<< 1  2   >>

log in