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.

 

Here we go again. More circumventing the 2nd by the Admin

page: 14
43
<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 1 2015 @ 04:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: ScientificRailgun

originally posted by: thesaneone
a reply to: ScientificRailgun

Driving is not a right so please stop using that comparison it's just silly.
I'm not the one that brought it up.


But you keep rolling with it.




posted on Jun, 1 2015 @ 04:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: thesaneone

originally posted by: ScientificRailgun

originally posted by: thesaneone
a reply to: ScientificRailgun

Driving is not a right so please stop using that comparison it's just silly.
I'm not the one that brought it up.


But you keep rolling with it.
If they insist on continuing with the fallacy, I will continue to debunk it.



posted on Jun, 1 2015 @ 04:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: ScientificRailgun

originally posted by: thesaneone

originally posted by: ScientificRailgun

originally posted by: thesaneone
a reply to: ScientificRailgun

Driving is not a right so please stop using that comparison it's just silly.
I'm not the one that brought it up.


But you keep rolling with it.
If they insist on continuing with the fallacy, I will continue to debunk it.




Maybe I missed it but what exactly did you debunk?



posted on Jun, 1 2015 @ 04:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: ScientificRailgun
a reply to: nenothtu

Ah, so mental gymnastics are fine to justify forced prayer in school, but the moment someone suggests that maybe not EVERYONE should own a gun, suddenly it's fire and brimstone and the government wants to erode your rights?

You know what happened when I finally took a stand and actually stood outside during morning prayer? Two people threatened to rape me, I got a death threat in my locker, and I was effectively ostracized through the rest of my high school life. My car (when I finally saved up enough to get one) was keyed, and it's tires got slashed.

Now tell me that prayer wasn't forced.


OK. That prayer was not forced. You seem to have an imperfect view of Constitutional Law. The First Amendment prevents the government from forcing you to pray. It does not prevent individuals from spouting off their minds. Out of the two who "threatened" to rape you, how many actually did? Did the death "threat" in your locker kill you? How long was their prison sentence? Did anyone even lay a hand on you, much less "force" you to pray?

There are no "mental gymnastics" here - I simply seem to not comprehend your notions of "force" - they sound more like weakness of character to me.

Your apparent notion of "forced prayer" is like calling it "forced eating" if Bubba and Igmo sat on either side of you in the cafeteria and said "we don't like peas and carrots - you get ours" and put them on your plate. Some of us would have made Bubba and Igmo wear those peas and carrots, and apparently some of us would have eaten them, because there was "forced eating" being put on us in that school.






edit on 2015/6/1 by nenothtu because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 1 2015 @ 04:15 PM
link   
a reply to: intrepid

Actually they aren't accidents. They are vehicle collisions. An accident is something that is unavoidable. Vehicle collisions are avoidable.

And the fact that you are not a US citizen is just that, you have no say in US law when it comes down to it.



posted on Jun, 1 2015 @ 04:16 PM
link   
You don't need a license to operate a car. Just one to operate on public roads.
And there is no RIGHT to drive a car.
Care to try again?

a reply to: ScientificRailgun



posted on Jun, 1 2015 @ 04:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: macman
a reply to: intrepid

Actually they aren't accidents. They are vehicle collisions. An accident is something that is unavoidable. Vehicle collisions are avoidable.


Hardly. I have been in many accidents I couldn't avoid.


And the fact that you are not a US citizen is just that, you have no say in US law when it comes down to it.


Man, I wish the world could apply the same logic but Uncle Sam keeps screwing with them.



posted on Jun, 1 2015 @ 04:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: macman
a reply to: introvert

I love the whole "I'm a gun owner" but want more gun restrictions. That is very cute.


What are those stats again for Chicago, NY and LA??? All with the most restricting gun laws.


It's the truth. I want you to know that I'm not some gun-grabber that is afraid of a firearm or have never discharged a weapon. That is important context within the conversation.

If you want to know about those cities, go find the stats. What's important to know is that even though those cities may have high crime rates, the states in which they reside are still very low on the mortality rate vs the number of laws they have.

I provided a link to the study 2 pages back. Check it out.



posted on Jun, 1 2015 @ 04:24 PM
link   
a reply to: ScientificRailgun




don't try to talk up gun regulations like they're someone MORE strict than car regulations.


Oh there is no try too it.

When the anti gunners can point to ATF forms like this one being filled out EVERY SINGLE time a person buys a car.


www.atf.gov...

Should really check out 14a.

Imagine doing that to buy a car.

A house.

TO VOTE.



posted on Jun, 1 2015 @ 04:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: intrepid
This is quite funny. Every time a mass shooting happens the gun supports say, "IT'S NOT THE GUNS. IT'S THE CRIMINALS AND MENTALLY ILL!!!!!" OK, now they are doing something about that and now it, "WHOA. WE DIDN'T MEAN IT." Which leads me to only one conclusion. Gun advocates don't want ANY change and if you happen to die in a mass shooting.... oh well.


I beg to differ - they are NOT doing anything about the mentally ill or dangerous people, they are taking 2nd Amendment rights. Doing something about mentally ill or dangerous people would be institutionalizing them to get them help - which they clearly need if a gun can make them a danger to Joe At large. They are merely trying to reduce access to ONE tool, while leaving the lunatics to run wild with scissors in the classroom with the rest of us.

If I happen to die in a mass shooting, feel free to call me an idiot. Give me your worst, because clearly if I die in one, my situational awareness was not up to par well enough to keep me in the gene pool.

Everyone else can feel free to say "he shoulda been armed".

And the dance will continue - just without me.



posted on Jun, 1 2015 @ 04:35 PM
link   
I'm a vet.
I am a gun owner.

Senator Feinstein thinks that automatically makes me unstable. She gets a vote. I do not.

I do support background checks for the purchase of a firearm. It's common sense.

It should include:
My name
My Social

It should not include:
My address
The make of the firearm
The model of the firearm
The serial number of the firearm

That is what the "background" check consists of right now. Of course that information isn't shared and it isn't kept on file. We can trust the .gov to never keep that information because that would be a NATIONAL REGISTRY OF FIREARMS and they are adamant that they would never create one of those.



posted on Jun, 1 2015 @ 04:38 PM
link   
a reply to: TrueBrit

Ummm...I see by the information under your avatar...that your unbalanced...and that...your a "True Brit" living in Britian that used to be great but now it isn't...as well

Sounds like we should be taking away your pocket knife and loose change...cause people have been known to choke on a ha-pence...

Gods man...Scotland yard and your version of the upskirt boys...no doubt already have you fitted for a rubber room...

SARC.................................................................................................................................................. .....Right...?


YouSir



posted on Jun, 1 2015 @ 04:42 PM
link   
I grow so weary of these gun debates.

*sigh*

To the gun grabbers;

Take all the guns. Go ahead, take them. You know you want to, we know you hate, despise, revile the 2nd Amendment. We know you dislike freedoms and liberties. We know you want a police-state and authoritarian government. You crave a tyranny because freedom is Just. Too. Hard.

Knock yourselves out.

Ban all firearms.

And when you start confiscating all the firearms, please, please, please! Put it on Pay-Per-View.

It'll be fun to watch you try.



posted on Jun, 1 2015 @ 04:51 PM
link   
a reply to: introvert

Bully for you. I'm not a gun owner, have never owned one in my life, and I still find these regs highly suspicious for variety of reasons.

I would rather my honest friends and neighbors and family be allowed to own them (to say nothing of myself should I choose), than that no one can and that we are all at the mercy of our elected officials and their bureaucrats.

I notice that many of you who think the police are untrustworthy are also arguing for more disarmament of the very same friends and neighbors who might help you stand up to those same corrupt cops.



posted on Jun, 1 2015 @ 05:14 PM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko



I notice that many of you who think the police are untrustworthy are also arguing for more disarmament of the very same friends and neighbors who might help you stand up to those same corrupt cops


I have never asked for anyone to be disarmed. All I have said since the beginning of this conversation that I am open to discussing these regulation once they are released and if some of them are rooted in common sense, I'm open to that.

As Beezer indicated above, a complete confiscation will never happen. Too many lives would be lost and I fear the police wouldn't stand a chance.



posted on Jun, 1 2015 @ 05:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: ScientificRailgun

And yet despite all this "branding" and "labelling" your average U.S. citizen still has just as much right to own a firearm as he did 30 years ago.



He still has as much right, but not as much ability. It depends on how one handles privileges vs. rights. There has been a definite erosion of government permission (which is where "privileges" come from) over the last 80, or even 45 years. My rights depend on no one's permission, not even the governments. It becomes a matter of how strongly I am willing to defend those rights, and what price I am willing to pay to insure their recognition.




How is that, I wonder? If the government is slowly eroding away your 2nd amendment right, who took YOUR guns away?



No one. No one can "take" a right. They are attacking those rights. There is a difference. An "attack" requires a defense, but "rights" are not negotiable.




edit on 2015/6/1 by nenothtu because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 1 2015 @ 05:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: joemoe
a reply to: ScientificRailgun

First they came for the Domestic Abuser's Guns, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Domestic Abuser.
Then they came for the Gun Nuts' Guns, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a "Gun Nut".
Then they came for the Mentally Ill's Guns, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not Mentally Ill.
Then they decided every gun owner had a metal illness and came for the rest of us —and there was no gun left to defend us.




LOL ....Yes, we should give schizophrenics AK-47's, cuz otherwise "they" will abolish the 2nd amendment!!!!

hmm.......



posted on Jun, 1 2015 @ 05:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: Indigo5

originally posted by: joemoe
a reply to: ScientificRailgun

First they came for the Domestic Abuser's Guns, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Domestic Abuser.
Then they came for the Gun Nuts' Guns, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a "Gun Nut".
Then they came for the Mentally Ill's Guns, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not Mentally Ill.
Then they decided every gun owner had a metal illness and came for the rest of us —and there was no gun left to defend us.




LOL ....Yes, we should give schizophrenics AK-47's, cuz otherwise "they" will abolish the 2nd amendment!!!!

hmm.......




SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED!!!

It's that simple.



posted on Jun, 1 2015 @ 05:40 PM
link   
a reply to: Indigo5

yes because there are 125 million mental patients out running the streets with automatic clip drum uzi machine guns with large velocity capability right?

125 million gun owners (250 million firearms) should equal 125 million shootings, shouldn't it? Or does every "gun nut" have extended belt fed clips as well?
edit on 1-6-2015 by 200Plus because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 1 2015 @ 05:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: Indigo5

originally posted by: joemoe
a reply to: ScientificRailgun

First they came for the Domestic Abuser's Guns, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Domestic Abuser.
Then they came for the Gun Nuts' Guns, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a "Gun Nut".
Then they came for the Mentally Ill's Guns, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not Mentally Ill.
Then they decided every gun owner had a metal illness and came for the rest of us —and there was no gun left to defend us.




LOL ....Yes, we should give schizophrenics AK-47's, cuz otherwise "they" will abolish the 2nd amendment!!!!

hmm.......


Straw man argument. No one is arguing to give schizophrenics AKs. Let them get their own damned guns. I'm not giving them mine!




edit on 2015/6/1 by nenothtu because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
43
<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in

join