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: 15
43
<< 12  13  14    16  17  18 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 1 2015 @ 05:47 PM
link   
Again. Ignoring that schizophrenia is an obsolete term that covers a range of disorders, let's stick with it and pretend it means "bonkers to the point of being dangerous and scary to everyone, even Satan".

Do you honestly think that a person who truly and deeply means to harm others is going to stop because of a law on the books? You know, murder is against the law but dozens happen every single day in the US. Drug use, burglary, car theft, rape, shoplifting... all illegal. All with laws, statutes, and even countermeasures to protect people... and bad things still happen.

Let's go one step further and imagine that somehow we all wake up tomorrow and not only is every gun on the planet magically vanished - but also nobody can, for the life of them, remember how to make one. There is no way any more guns will ever exist again - in any form.

Guess what. That bonkers to the point of being dangerous person. He'll just drive to Lowe's and pick up a can or ten of propane and blow up a few city blocks. Or he'll buy a drywall hammer and walk into a daycare. Or he will point his car at a long line outside of the Apple store as the iFanantics await their newest phone.

Thinking that guns are the cause of violence is sadly one of the reasons that the real discussion about the root causes of violence never takes place - we have all these neat things like illness and guns to scapegoat.




posted on Jun, 1 2015 @ 05:50 PM
link   
a reply to: greencmp

THAT is a HIPPA violation .



posted on Jun, 1 2015 @ 05:51 PM
link   
a reply to: ScientificRailgun

Prayer wasn't forced nin my schools.



posted on Jun, 1 2015 @ 06:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: intrepid

originally posted by: SubTruth

originally posted by: intrepid

originally posted by: SubTruth

originally posted by: MoreBeer
And the bootlickers will be along to praise King Obama for taking their rights simply because he is a progressive and doing "whats right".




Progressives value idealism over reality and this is why they float in the air like a paper bag. It is also the reason many progressives are young and or sketchy older people. Young people have not lived long enough to gain the wisdom that only comes with age and the older people make the same mistakes over and over again.


Really? Do a Google image search of "Sandy Hook funerals" and tell me if that isn't reality.





If you have to use tragedies like this to make your point or win an argument your argument is weak. I welcome debate about the issue but using people and tragedies is sad and wrong.


Why? It is the outcome of these issues. I know the gun lobby would LOVE for this inconvenient truth to go away but it won't.

Pretty much what I've been saying. Lives don't matter, only guns. Very sad. And know what? I'll let it drop if you guys would just admit it.


And not a peep about all the lives that were lost to insure that the government wouldn't interfere with the right to be armed...

I reckon only some lives matter.



posted on Jun, 1 2015 @ 06:28 PM
link   
a reply to: YouSir

I do not carry a pocket knife.

There is little that one could achieve with a pocket knife, that I cannot achieve with my hands, and so I tend to leave such things at home. If my Bowie or my bill hook were legal to carry about with me at all times, then I would probably take full advantage of that, but alas, a British citizen is not permitted to walk the streets of his or her homeland while in possession of a decent edged weapon.

And although it is true that I am unbalanced, I have never been convicted of a criminal offence, or even so much as arrested on suspicion of having committed one.



posted on Jun, 1 2015 @ 06:28 PM
link   
a reply to: nenothtu




I reckon only some lives matter.


Yep that is why politicians, and congressman hide behind guys with guns.

While denying them to the 'little' people.



posted on Jun, 1 2015 @ 06:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: ScientificRailgun

Two: Health Insurance and 2nd amendment are completely unrelated, but for the record,



"Completely unrelated"? Both are heavily regulated by a government which has no business regulating either one - how is that "completely unrelated"?




I would fully support a single payer system for health care, or just free universal healthcare in general. Yes it would mean higher taxes, but at least then healthcare wouldn't be a LUXURY, but instead a right. I digress.



1) as long as I'm not the "single payer" paying for it, knock yourself out. I don't deal with doctors at all - and that includes paying them. I don't play the insurance lottery, either - it's rigged, a losing game - so I don't pay THEM, either.




At the end of the day, the regulations proposed will likely never pass congress, and if it does, it will be drastically different from what you read today, with many if not all of the proposals seriously reworked or discarded entirely.



Congress passes "laws", not "regulations". Congress has nothing to do with this. Congress has no say in executive fiat. That's a whole 'nuther branch of government.



posted on Jun, 1 2015 @ 06:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: ScientificRailgun

My freedom of speech doesn't put bullet wounds in children.



My guns don't, either. How 'bout that? We have something in common - we can both exercise our rights without punching holes in babies!






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



posted on Jun, 1 2015 @ 06:55 PM
link   
a reply to: macman

The big problem is WHO will decide exactly WHAT is 'Mentally Unstable"

That's the rub, right there. It's a definition that can change with the needs of the definer.

Did you post an anti government post to ATS today? You might be mentally unstable.

Are you on a prescription for Xanax for panic attacks? You might be considered mentally unstable.

Did you get in a fight at a bar last year, and got the cops called? You might be mentally unstable.

The very meaning of a slippery slope. that only leads to one place.....down.



posted on Jun, 1 2015 @ 06:58 PM
link   
I'm a vet with a head injury.




posted on Jun, 1 2015 @ 07:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: beezzer
I'm a vet with a head injury.



My point exactly.

Liberals are the most tenacious idiots at beating a dead horse.

America will NEVER be disarmed. They may try, but it will never happen to the extent that they want, and it will turn out badly for them if they try.



posted on Jun, 1 2015 @ 07:04 PM
link   
a reply to: poncho1982

I take a benzo for PTSD and I am labeled "mentally unstable" - so we're already at your example. Oh and I am liberal too - so don't carpet bomb liberals as being anti 2nd Amendment because a LOT of us support the Bill of Rights. We just interpret social issues differently.



posted on Jun, 1 2015 @ 07:04 PM
link   
a reply to: poncho1982

Oh I think it would be amusing.

"Gimme your guns."

"No."

"But I said, gimme!"

"No."



posted on Jun, 1 2015 @ 07:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: ScientificRailgun
But why shouldn't there be some common sense measures in place to at least make it more difficult for a deranged person to obtain a weapon? For every road block a person might face, that's another opportunity for them to think it over, and maybe decide that's not what they really want.



Sigh...

"Common sense measures" are already in place to make it more difficult for a deranged person to obtain a gun.

THAT is why people who know the laws and pay attention see every new push as an attempt to make things harder on law-abiding gun owners.

There are a ridiculous number of laws already on the books. Passing more will not affect crime in any way.



posted on Jun, 1 2015 @ 07:12 PM
link   

originally posted by: Hefficide
a reply to: poncho1982

I take a benzo for PTSD and I am labeled "mentally unstable" - so we're already at your example. Oh and I am liberal too - so don't carpet bomb liberals as being anti 2nd Amendment because a LOT of us support the Bill of Rights. We just interpret social issues differently.



Whatever label you attach to yourself is your deal.

I personally wouldn't call you a Liberal, if you truly believe that way.

I'm an Independent, but I believe we should have Universal Healthcare, and I believe in reducing the military budget, and every other darling program of the right and left to pay for it.

I believe that the first two years of College should be completely covered as well, for every citizen who chooses to take advantage of it. Why? Because I could not afford college, my mom couldn't help, my Dad refused to help even though he could have. Our life experiences dictate our beliefs.

I also believe religion should be 100% OUT OF GOVERNMENT.

My point is no one is 100% left or right, except zealots. And they are the loud ones that the moderates refuse to make shut up.
edit on 1-6-2015 by poncho1982 because: typo



posted on Jun, 1 2015 @ 07:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: beezzer
a reply to: poncho1982

Oh I think it would be amusing.

"Gimme your guns."

"No."

"But I said, gimme!"

"No."


Pretty much!

I do not know one gun owner who would turn in their weapons if, of all entities, the government asked for them.



posted on Jun, 1 2015 @ 07:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: 200Plus
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.


The firearm information isn't provided to the FBI when the background check is conducted.



posted on Jun, 1 2015 @ 07:27 PM
link   

originally posted by: ScientificRailgun
Actually, there are several regulations in place that are MORE strict not for car OWNERSHIP, which anyone can OWN a car, but for car OPERATION.

You need a license to drive a car. You don't need a license to operate a firearm.


And what do you consider a concealed handgun permit to be? It's a license to carry a firearm in public... In most states, if you don't have a permit, you can't carry a gun in public.


It's illegal to drive drunk. It's not illegal to drink and shoot.
It's illegal to carry a gun while intoxicated. If you even have one in your car and you're stopped for DUI, it's an additional offense.


If you become senile, or otherwise disabled (such as epilepsy), your driver's license can be revoked. A senile old man can still use a gun.


So who gets to decide when someone is too old to own a gun? Are we going to take defensive tools away from the old and feeble, the ones who need them most? If you can point out cases where senile old people are shooting innocent people, you may have a rational argument. Good luck.


If you don't pay parking tickets, they take away your driver's license. They don't take away your gun.
If you fail to renew your concealed carry permit, you lose it.


Perscription drugs can only be issued by a PhD or MD, and can only be sold be a Pharmacist. Anyone with a business license and the proper paperwork can sell a gun, you don't even need a degree.


Anyone with the proper paperwork can sell explosives. They do have to pass federal background checks and go through an interview with the ATF... just like gun dealers. A degree has exactly jack and squat to do with selling firearms. Your comparison is idiotic.


If you abuse perscription drugs, or sell them to another party, you could go to jail. If you sell your shotgun to your neighbor, you make a neat profit, in fact, there are entire Gun Shows based around selling owned firearms to other people.


Because prescription drug companies don't like the idea of someone cutting into their profits. There are gun shows where licensed dealers carry out their business just like they normally would in their store. Non-licensed individuals at those gun shows happen to sell to each other the same way they would if they listed the gun in the classifieds. Don't buy into the "gun show loophole" nonsense.


Chainsaws are so rarely used in violent crimes that regulating them is stupid.


There are 310,000,000 privately owned firearms in the U.S. A tiny fraction are used in violent crimes.


Baseball bats are glorified sticks. If you regulate baseball bats, you may as well regulate trees.


The vast majority of firearms in this country are as harmful to innocent people as trees.



posted on Jun, 1 2015 @ 07:28 PM
link   
Up until recently I wasn't considered mentally ill. I'm not a veteran. I'm not a member of the any party. I'm not a felon. But a recent study by some folk with letters following their names decided that eating healthy "can be" a mental disorder if I go out of my way to eat healthy foods. Apparently I fit their definition because I DO go out of my way to eat healthy foods; I even go so far as to get my hands into dirt and raise my own food.
Some of those folks with the letters behind their names have gone as far as suggesting that those of us who refuse to eat Frankenfoods need to be medicated with Big Pharma's poisons to "correct" our views and bring us around to eating whatever is shoved at us from BigAg/BigChem. Just goes to show me that some of the people with letters following their names have too much time on their hands.
When I see people being hauled into the justice system for growing their own food on their own property---I know that government has abused their powers. There is nothing in our history to assure me that they won't do the same with the second amendment. This is especially true when their proposals include words like "military style."



posted on Jun, 1 2015 @ 07:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: ScientificRailgun
Yes, frankly, you should.

A simple background check would do wonders to keep guns out of the hands of criminals.

It's a MINOR inconvenience for you, not an infringement of the 2nd amendment. At the end of the process, you still get a gun.


Simple background checks are already performed when people buy guns from a dealer.

You can't regulate a criminal buying guns from other criminals.

Keep going... post some more points for me to debunk.



new topics

top topics



 
43
<< 12  13  14    16  17  18 >>

log in

join