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: 40
43
<< 37  38  39   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 4 2015 @ 02:08 PM
link   
a reply to: intrptr



Depends on who you ask.


Very true, that is why I asked for your definition.

I'm still confused, though, as to why "average joe garage gun factory enthusiasts" cannot be a "true patriot". I never considered how vigorously one exercised their second amendment right to be a prerequisite for obtaining "true patriot" status.

Perhaps I am misunderstanding or I need you to explain this to me. I always thought a patriot was someone who openly expressed their love for country, making anyone a potential candidate for "true patriot" status, but it appears that your opinion is that one must be knee-deep in gun culture to apply for "true patriot" awesomeness.

I'm sure I'm looking at this completely wrong and you can set me straight. Thanks!




posted on Jun, 4 2015 @ 02:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: Indigo5

originally posted by: Answer

originally posted by: Indigo5

originally posted by: cavtrooper7
a reply to: introvert

Then the attack on ammo sales online..thehill.com...





buyers would still be able to complete an Internet sale, but would need to present a photo I.D. in-person at an authorized dealer before the shipment can be made.


Again...seems reasonable..
James Homes in Colorado?...The theater shooter?


Holmes also bought 3,000 rounds of ammunition for the pistols, 3,000 rounds for the M&P15, and 350 shells for the shotgun over the Internet.


vs. this



On June 25, less than a month before the shooting, Holmes emailed an application to join a gun club in Byers, Colorado. The owner, Glenn Rotkovich, called him several times throughout the following days to invite him to a mandatory orientation, but could only reach his answering machine. Due to the nature of Holmes' voice mail, which he described as "bizarre, freaky", "guttural, spoken with a deep voice, incoherent and rambling", Rotkovich instructed his staff to inform him if Holmes showed up, though Holmes neither appeared at the gun range nor called back.


en.wikipedia.org...

There is a value to non-digital communications. I trust a gun dealer more than I do paypal to determine if someone is out of their mind.


Of course it seems reasonable, to you.

If James Holmes purchased his ammo at WalMart, what would your solution be, then?



Solution? No. But a mechanism for caution. The owner of the gun range knew enough listening to James Holmes guttural, unbalanced ramble on his answering machine to know there was trouble there and to instruct his employees to not allow James on the shooting range before fetching the manager.

Yes..If James Holmes had showed up in his "Joker" get-up at Walmart looking clearly unbalanced and unable to speak rational sentences, perhaps he would have been denied service at the gun counter. Maybe even made a threat and been arrested before he burst into that theater a few days later.

I think I am about done guys...happy to serve as rhetorical object for you guys to scramble on and pat eachother on the back
But I am not feeling as if there is enough rational arguments here to make my input anything useful. I don't think insane people (determined to be so in a court of law) should own guns....and I see nothing wrong with having a human look someone in the eyes before selling them large quantities of ammunition or guns.


You don't have any rational arguments. You keep repeating the same nonsense that we've already addressed.

James Holmes didn't run around acting like a nutter to everyone he came into contact with. He was able to buy 4 guns shortly before the shooting. If he was convincing enough to those individuals, he would have been convincing enough to anyone checking his ID for an ammo purchase. His crazy voicemail is irrelevant to the discussion.

Your argument holds no water. That's why you're being addressed as such. Come up with something that you can actually defend and maybe you won't have to get butthurt and leave the thread.



posted on Jun, 4 2015 @ 02:12 PM
link   
a reply to: introvert


I'm sure I'm looking at this completely wrong and you can set me straight. Thanks!

Not on here.



posted on Jun, 4 2015 @ 02:18 PM
link   
a reply to: Indigo5

And what exactly will a face to face transaction stop??
Unless we go with the Nazi'esk style of branding people with an armband who have mental illness, this stops nothing.

And I am well aware of how internet purchases operate.

What you offer is a false security blanket, much like the TSA.


Oh, and the restricting of Rights and all.



posted on Jun, 4 2015 @ 02:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: macman
a reply to: Indigo5

The purchase of anything over the internet requires either a credit card, or a check/money order.
Either of those require an ADDRESS and a person to send it to.



Just to be clear...There dozens of ways you can purchase things on the internet without linking to a CC or Checking Account...even Paypal.

Secondly on the "ADDRESS" to send it to thing..



The federal law enforcement source also told CBS News that authorities obtained a video of Holmes picking up approximately 160 pounds of ammunition from a FedEx store.

www.cbsnews.com...

Why again is having a human involved in the sale a bad thing?

Scratch that...I am leaving the debate for real now



posted on Jun, 4 2015 @ 02:30 PM
link   
a reply to: macman

I'd have to check the thread, but kinda surprised it took 40 pages before someone tossed in the Nazi's


Catch ya later..



posted on Jun, 4 2015 @ 02:37 PM
link   
a reply to: Answer

Huh, thought those loans went to the student.

Never taken out a student loan.



posted on Jun, 4 2015 @ 02:42 PM
link   
a reply to: Indigo5

Sounds like offense is taken due to a nerve touched upon.

If you must exit, then you must exit.



posted on Jun, 4 2015 @ 02:44 PM
link   
a reply to: Indigo5

Paypal has to authenticate to a person in some manner.

Picking up at FedEx still requires you to produce a Photo ID.

And, what you provided is a face to face transaction for the purchase of ammo. Yet............it didn't stop a damn single thing.

Would you like to phone a friend?



posted on Jun, 4 2015 @ 03:09 PM
link   
a reply to: Indigo5

Again I will NOT be measured by NUTS in isolated incidents so ANY such one can forment more control ,AT ALL.
edit on 4-6-2015 by cavtrooper7 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 4 2015 @ 03:12 PM
link   
a reply to: vor78

It isn't the CRUX at all.
IT'S HUMAN NATURE,and the ability to help or stop with exact specificity ,those who are dangerous, ALONE .



posted on Jun, 4 2015 @ 03:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: Indigo5


Why again is having a human involved in the sale a bad thing?



It would have changed absolutely nothing. Holmes was able to buy 4 guns IN PERSON before the shootings so clearly he was able to present himself as a sane individual.

You keep ignoring that point.



posted on Jun, 4 2015 @ 07:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: cavtrooper7
a reply to: vor78

It isn't the CRUX at all.
IT'S HUMAN NATURE,and the ability to help or stop with exact specificity ,those who are dangerous, ALONE .


That's not the point I was arguing. It was specifically in reply to the idea of rewriting the 2nd Amendment in a manner so that it is more clear with regard to the types of weapons allowed. In response to that, I was in agreement with the poster who said that the real issue to that specific point regarding what should and shouldn't be covered in terms of weapon classification were full and semi-automatic firearms, not the usual extremes of nuclear weapons, and other such nonsense usually trotted out to make a useless rhetorical point.

Nothing was implied in that particular post about the mental health of the people themselves purchasing the weapon or who should or should not be allowed to purchase one.
edit on 4-6-2015 by vor78 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 4 2015 @ 07:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: Indigo5
Right...Like the gun range owner with James Holmes.

Soooo...What's the issue?


Didn't he buy his firearms legally? A more thorough check missed that, so I'm not sure why you think a mere show of ID will stop anything. One thing I am certain of is that you're not helping yourself on this point by using that as an example.

Let me flip this around a bit and maybe you'll see why I say its pointless. Would you support eliminating the background check requirements for firearms purchases and having a mere dealer verification of ID instead? The dealer can reliably spot the problem cases, right?

Of course not, because you know it won't work. Nor will it work when applied to ammunition purchases. The ONLY way to make that effective is to raise the burden to the same level as the purchase of a firearm itself, which is to say, mandating the same background checks on ammunition purchases as for firearms. Understand: I'm not in favor of that. Otherwise, its a much lower standard and really doesn't do anything useful, except make it more expensive and difficult for law abiding buyers to obtain what they need. Its pandering, feel good garbage legislation.




edit on 4-6-2015 by vor78 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 5 2015 @ 12:10 AM
link   

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: nenothtu

No, it's not very clear at all. You've come to your own conclusion on how it is interpreted, and others do the same. As we can tell from this very thread, even those of us in the pro-2nd crowd disagree on what it means to varying degrees of some sort.



"Interpret" it? I haven't "interpreted" it at all - I read it exactly as it is written, word for word. I find that when one does that, no "interpretation" is necessary. It's very clear. Plain English. That may be the entire problem - you are trying to "interpret" it. What language are you trying to interpret it into?





What is already written is already very clear, and certainly clear enough for a child to comprehend. Any incomprehension therefore is either willful, or accomplished by an intellect low enough that they should in no way be dabbling in political matters.



It is comments like this that give fuel to those that would want to restrict the 2nd amendment. Coming to the debate with an attitude that says "this is my opinion on the 2nd amendment, and anyone who does not see it my way is stupid and shouldn't be part of the debate", does not make people such as yourself look very intelligent, nor should you represent the rest of us within the debate.

Very arrogant and elitist point of view.



It's not my "opinion", either - it is what is clearly written, word for word. I can't say that I care at all whether that makes me "arrogant" or "elitist" or unintelligent. I am at least intelligent enough to read basic, plain English.



posted on Jun, 5 2015 @ 12:24 AM
link   

originally posted by: intrptr

If they find you at home, you already lost. Thats was my point to you in that other thread you made about the cops surrounding your abode looking for your brother.



Maybe. That seems a little defeatist.




Blaze of glory, huh?



There is no "glory" in fighting, killing, or dying. Life ain't a movie.




I prefer hit and run, he who fights and runs away, lives to fight anther day. You can't win by drying in a horrific fire like Waco, SLA or MOVE, you survive by not being found and hitting the enemy where they ain't.



Depends on how one defines "win" - you're using it in the sense of "merely survive", which is ok. I see a "win" a bit differently, but that's not the subject of the thread. I'd be interested to hear how you "hit the enemy" (or anyone else) "where they ain't". If they ain't there, how you gonna hit 'em? That would be like hitting them where YOU ain't, wouldn't it? takes two to tango last time I checked. If one or the other of you isn't there, no hitting will ensue - and no "win", either, unless a "win" is still simple survival - on the run, looking over your shoulder.




I'd go all guerrilla on you but I know you know this and have selected the die in bunker approach…



Well, that remains to be seen - whether I die in a bunker or not, that is. I seriously doubt you'd go all guerrilla on anyone, me included, however. It IS possible you might attempt to, but I really sort of doubt that, too.



posted on Jun, 5 2015 @ 02:50 AM
link   
a reply to: nenothtu

Yah, really a pretty silly argument for the most part.

What I meant by hit them where they ain't, is to exploit a weakness left unguarded. Its a principle of warfare, hitting their flanks, attacking supply lines, isolating weaker units and piece meal destroying them, whomever that may be.

And I wasn't implying you.



posted on Jun, 17 2015 @ 03:39 AM
link   
a reply to: Hefficide

As a Swede I have just a minor correction to make - The gun laws over here is anything but liberal.
But that doesn't stop an increasing numbers of gang related "shoot-out's", it does, however, FUBARs life for the law-abiding ordinary citizens, like hunters.



posted on Jun, 17 2015 @ 04:00 AM
link   
a reply to: Sublimecraft

Just after the "mentally ill" song began being sung as a way to stop gun crimes by taking them away from so called mentally ill people, I happened to need to go to the doctor for a physical ailment, and when I got there I was filling out paperwork since I was new to that Doctors office.

The first thing it asked me was if I owned a gun which was not on any of these forms before a few weeks back from that date.
I wrote in that they have no legal reason to ask the question and I didn't answer it, and then after that I went in to see the doctor and they did not know yet how I filled out that paperwork, so they were just continuing along with their new process and the first thing they did was ask me if I have any problems at home which had nothing to do with my reason for going to the doctor.

They asked if I was depressed and wanted me to fill out a survey on that, so I did, and answered all the questions which I knew were trying to steer me into a finding of "mentally ill or suffering depression" so I could be entered without my knowledge into the NCIC as being denied future 2nd amendment rights. But I didn't allow this to happen because I knew well before that what they were doing after seeing that question on that form if I owned a gun.

After all of this I confronted the doctor and staff if they were purposely trying to get people denied the right to owning a gun by way of their little "steering sessions and paperwork tricks" They didn't answer me, but I warned them not to submit anything about me which was dishonest or I would file a multi million dollar lawsuit against their practice, and I let them know who my lawyer was.

They assured me that I didn't have to worry. I will find out soon when I buy some guns. I used to own many but sold them when my sons were younger. I love shooting and it is long due to get back into it.

I would really like to get the news here to investigate how Obama's anti gun plans have been silently implemented by those who support him, and how they have done this so smoothly. It can't just be a coincidence to see this being done by liberal supporting doctors and whoever else is being conned into helping destroy the bill of rights.



posted on Jun, 22 2015 @ 06:20 PM
link   
a reply to: introvert

I see they want to get passed HIPPA so they can get those PESKY PTSD vets again....



new topics

top topics



 
43
<< 37  38  39   >>

log in

join