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.

 

My Final Thoughts on Gun Control

page: 4
40
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 22 2015 @ 05:08 AM
link   
Does this mean you won't answer us?
Because if you do, then they will be your final thoughts, unless they too are superseded by another later reply.
I do hope you haven't already replied.
And please don't reply. It would invoke the above scenario.

Thanks,

a reply to: projectvxn




posted on Jun, 22 2015 @ 06:22 AM
link   

originally posted by: beezzer
a reply to: CharlieSpeirs

Charlie, the thing is;

One, "they" already have us all on a list, Janet Napolitano made sure of that.

Two, if the time ever came when the government wanted to disarm the population, THEY would be in violation of the Constitution that the current (and all former) military swore to defend and protect.

So "they" would be in violation. Now politicians and supporters of gun-grabbers are free to talk about it all day long.

But the second they act, then they will be the criminals.


And this "list" everyone speaks of, would go "poof" in an instant if this happened. That I can guarantee you folks. It's all just bits...and its amazing how these bits can get corrupted or deleted. Just ask the 4million govt workers that just had their credentials breached recently.

That list is safe? I think not.



posted on Jun, 22 2015 @ 06:59 AM
link   

originally posted by: projectvxn
a reply to: CharlieSpeirs

You don't get it.

It isn't my firearms I worry about.

My firearms are inanimate objects that represent no intent other than that which I convey with my actions.

My firearms have no feelings nor conscience to fear for their future.

I don't actually care about my firearms at all. I care about my firearms in the same way I care about my table vise, or a hammer.

I care about my liberty. I care about my liberty like I care about my wife and kids. I love liberty deeply and will jealously guard it like I would my wife or kids from those who think they can take them away from me.

My family isn't up for debate anymore than my liberty.




Are you implying that the only way to defend your own liberty is to have a gun? Jesus H. How sad for the 21st century. The problem is you can't see it since you are imprisoned by your own fear of not having a gun.......ironic isn't it.

Except for a few odd areas here in the UK nobody fears a knock at the door or the police (unarmed but still effective DUH!) or walking (yes walking!!!) down the street.

Anybody can a get a gun over here, despite what you might think, but very very very few people do. We are not obsessed and our liberty is defended by our right to protest. Politicians still fear the vote over here, just look at what Scotland did to westminster in the last 9 months. It scared them sh.tless with scores having lost their "lifetime" positions.



posted on Jun, 22 2015 @ 07:21 AM
link   
Phew, the testosterone is high in this thread! If I didn't know any better, I'd think some of you guys are really hoping someone tries to come take your guns - then you'd have a chance to actually use all those guns you have for more than just target practice. Sorry to disappoint, but I don't think it's going to happen.

I guess I'm considered a "progressive liberal", whatever that really means. I've never owned or even held a gun in my life, and I'll be 55 next week. My parents are in their mid-70's, and other than a bb gun my dad had as a kid, neither of them have ever owned guns either.

Here's how I look at it: I have absolutely no problem with reasonable, sane, law abiding people owning guns, if that's what floats your boat. I have no desire to see our government taking away any of your guns. I have no desire to see the second amendment removed from the Constitution. Truly, I do not. What I DO want is to try to make it harder for non-law abiding people, and people like Dylann Roof and Jared Loughner and James Holmes and Adam Lanza, etc., etc., etc. to get guns. Should we also deal with the problem of how the mentally ill are dealt with in this country? Absolutely. Should we also be dealing with how to create more jobs and improve quality of life for everyone so those who resort to a life of crime don't have to? Absolutely. I believe in a multi-pronged approach to the problem of gun violence in this country.

But to say that we should open it up to anybody and everybody who wants a gun is irresponsible and will only hurt us all. Guns in and of themselves are not the problem, but we have a gun culture in this country that is very much a problem, in my opinion.



posted on Jun, 22 2015 @ 07:31 AM
link   
Everyone should be armed and well trained and the crime rate would drop enormously. By everyone, mean most mentally fit people.



posted on Jun, 22 2015 @ 08:26 AM
link   
www.youtube.com...



Making tougher Gun laws makes it easier for criminals That do not obey any laws.

www.youtube.com...


There is a Correlation between Gun-Bans and Increased Murder Rates.
edit on 22-6-2015 by Gestas because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 22 2015 @ 09:53 AM
link   
In a perfect world, guns would be banned...but our world isn't perfect and banning guns isn't part of step one. I used to be against all guns but now I understand that criminals will always have guns, so there is no use to stop law abiding citizens that right.

I'm very liberal but rationality defines me much better.



posted on Jun, 23 2015 @ 05:10 AM
link   
It's sad that once again a politician and elected official has to use a tragedy to bring up his own political views.
some elected officials do not care about our rights. It's sad that 9 people recently died.
It's also sad that over 10,000 people die in the US every year due to car wrecks but I do not hear anyone talking about banning all cars and trucks to make us safer. Some people do not believe in the bill of rights and want to use every tragedy to promote some agenda of theirs. I think in South Caolina, the focus has shifted on removing the flag flying at the confederate memorial. The fact it's at a confederate memorial is usually left out. It was removed from the state Capitol building and moved to the memorial but apparently the compromise did not satisfy those opposed in other states. Even local politicians where I live have their own agenda to try to change the law.

Apparently you can't even change a statue in SC now without an act of SC congress with a 2/3 majority. Meanwhile our roads are full of potholes and some are expecting us to forget about fixing everything else as if we have nothing better to do, that is elected officials. I personally think the flag debate will lead to nothing changing but I'll let everyone else argue that. I don't care what flag they fly at a confederate memorial and I live in South Carolina.

I'll add that the people here that had relatives die in the civil war, take honoring their dead seriously. If a hate group hijacked the US flag and slightly altered it and another group wanted all US flags banned because they said it was a symbol of hate, I could better understand the debate. I think most people don't care but all those defending gun rights can be happy the agenda has changed focus for the moment. I mean how many people are affected by a flag at a confederate memorial that has been there for almost 2 decades? I'm just glad this nation has no serious issues to discuss anymore. If it was up to me, the flag would have been put in a museum about 20 years ago. I'd be discussing identifying mental health issues and whether or not people saying they are going to shoot up a school etc should be in possession of firearms and weapons. I'd be ok with a 30 or 60 day ban if you made a public statement that you planned on doing a mass shooting against innocent civilians.
edit on 23/6/15 by orionthehunter because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 23 2015 @ 05:20 AM
link   
Gun banning is only one little piece of the problem. Anything our tyrannical government wants to do, without an outcry from the people in majority is solely for the government's benefit. It is really simple. First you have to understand that the government is our biggest enemy...then you can begin to understand. Every action they take is for the purpose, sometimes in a roundabout manner, of taking control from the people and the states. Then end goal is that the government wants total control over everything you are allowed to and not allowed to do. And I can promise you that isn't a good thing.

Sure...you can be sold on the idea that gun confiscation is in some way a good idea. Many believe that. But when you see the government can't do it, and then they resort to changing the way you can get a gun, expand the exclusion list, buy up ammunition, make some ammunition illegal, make some guns illegal, etc...you see the pattern. They want this so badly that when they can't do it outright, they start eroding the foundation. Later, after it is too difficult to get ammunition (for example), they will again try to take your guns and you won't care because they are useless anyway. That is how they work.

Any time the government wants to do something, and can't, you will slowly see it erode away so they can. And it is done for a reason they care about which has nothing to do with the people's safety. Is the government willing to cause events that will make people reconsider gun bans? Yes...of course. When you don't care about the people, the people are just pawns.

They say follow the money. Well, follow the goals. Look at what the government wants to do. Control health care, control guns, control school lunch, control the bias of your child's education, control who drives, who works, your health...and it goes on and on. I won't spell out my opinion of what the goal is, but I'll say this. People are the government's greatest financial asset like livestock is to a farmer. They need us and hate that they need us, but since they do...they want control over us.

This won't end well and needs to be stopped. Reverse what they are trying to do. Start deconstructing the federal government...shrink them. Give the power back to the states and then continue from there until the people are the power.
edit on 6/23/2015 by WeAreAWAKE because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 23 2015 @ 02:27 PM
link   
No one's trying to ban guns, (except those that don't realize that will never happen). Responsible people are trying to do what they can to make it harder for 'nutjobs' to get guns. Anytime a fanatic gun owner, like yourself it seems, hears anything about what should be common sense in regards to how people can get guns, they freak out - like a child who doesn't want to go to bed. Your right to bear arms is not disputed. Why is the right to have a least a little bit more peace of mind that the neighbor who just came home with half a dozen assault rifles and 20,000 rounds of ammo has at least had a back ground check and has maybe passed some kind of qualification/education training, so hard to understand. As a responsible gun owner, you should be pissed that these nutjobs keep giving you a bad name. Do you like being identified with murders? Wouldn't you like to see gun owners considered responsible people? Now, when one identifies him/her self as an avid gun enthusiast, others automatically think, 'potential shooter', even if that thought is just a speck in their mind. This nearly unrestricted access to firearms is what's going to eventually lead to just what you're rallying against - a heavy handed government crackdown. It's called a self-fulfilling prophecy.

a reply to: projectvxn



posted on Jun, 23 2015 @ 04:27 PM
link   
a reply to: TownCryer

Everyone is responsible for their own actions.

Individuals should not have to answer for the crimes committed by others they have no connection with.

My 4th Amendment right should not be trampled for exercising my 2nd Amendment rights. I addressed that.

You can call me a fanatic if you want. But I don't see the Constitution as a menu you can pick and choose from and throw out the rest. It's the supreme law of the land, and forbids the government from infringing on my rights. Exercising a right, especially a constitutionally protected one, should not be grounds for violating other rights.
edit on pTue, 23 Jun 2015 17:30:08 -0500201523America/Chicago2015-06-23T17:30:08-05:0030vx6 by projectvxn because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 24 2015 @ 05:25 AM
link   
Good for you. Enjoy your guns. Meanwhile, the rest of the civilised world will continue to look at you guys like the selfish. crazy nutjobs you are. Putting your desire to shoot things ahead of public safety. And meanwhile, week after week after week, kids will die, parents will die, teachers will die, etc....but no, the US nas absolutely NO gun problem whatsoever. Sure.

A week after the Charleston shooting, there was a a kids 10th birthday party that was shot up. How you can sit there and argue for no gun control is disgusting beyond belief.

I cant tell you what i think of you as i will get a warning.

Ill see you in next weeks thread about the latest mass shooting.



posted on Jun, 24 2015 @ 05:27 AM
link   

originally posted by: orionthehunter
It's sad that once again a politician and elected official has to use a tragedy to bring up his own political views.
some elected officials do not care about our rights. It's sad that 9 people recently died.
It's also sad that over 10,000 people die in the US every year due to car wrecks but I do not hear anyone talking about banning all cars and trucks to make us safer. Some people do not believe in the bill of rights and want to use every tragedy to promote some agenda of theirs. I think in South Caolina, the focus has shifted on removing the flag flying at the confederate memorial. The fact it's at a confederate memorial is usually left out. It was removed from the state Capitol building and moved to the memorial but apparently the compromise did not satisfy those opposed in other states. Even local politicians where I live have their own agenda to try to change the law.

Apparently you can't even change a statue in SC now without an act of SC congress with a 2/3 majority. Meanwhile our roads are full of potholes and some are expecting us to forget about fixing everything else as if we have nothing better to do, that is elected officials. I personally think the flag debate will lead to nothing changing but I'll let everyone else argue that. I don't care what flag they fly at a confederate memorial and I live in South Carolina.

I'll add that the people here that had relatives die in the civil war, take honoring their dead seriously. If a hate group hijacked the US flag and slightly altered it and another group wanted all US flags banned because they said it was a symbol of hate, I could better understand the debate. I think most people don't care but all those defending gun rights can be happy the agenda has changed focus for the moment. I mean how many people are affected by a flag at a confederate memorial that has been there for almost 2 decades? I'm just glad this nation has no serious issues to discuss anymore. If it was up to me, the flag would have been put in a museum about 20 years ago. I'd be discussing identifying mental health issues and whether or not people saying they are going to shoot up a school etc should be in possession of firearms and weapons. I'd be ok with a 30 or 60 day ban if you made a public statement that you planned on doing a mass shooting against innocent civilians.


Ahhh...the ban cars argument. Straight from the kindergarten debate team. Let me put it very clearly so you understand.

- We need cars to work and move around
- No one other than a few groups need guns to live.

Get it? Easy huh?



posted on Jun, 24 2015 @ 06:00 AM
link   
a reply to: 3danimator2014

I have no desire to shoot anything other than targets in my training courses.

Firearms are tools. They have no intent.

Firearms don't cause mass shootings, people who don't respect life do.

I don't personally care what you think of me as a person. You don't know anything about me outside of my stance on gun control.

The SC shooting had nothing to do with me and I will not be held to account for that or any other shooting I was not involved in.



posted on Jun, 24 2015 @ 06:26 AM
link   

originally posted by: projectvxn
a reply to: 3danimator2014

I have no desire to shoot anything other than targets in my training courses.

Firearms are tools. They have no intent.

Firearms don't cause mass shootings, people who don't respect life do.

I don't personally care what you think of me as a person. You don't know anything about me outside of my stance on gun control.

The SC shooting had nothing to do with me and I will not be held to account for that or any other shooting I was not involved in.


Yes...of course its the people who do the shooting....and what do you think will happen if people dont have access to firearms so easily? Less shootings!! Hooray!

You should be held mildly accountable. You and every gun nut who clings on to a passage in the bill of rights that has absolutely ZERO relevence in 2015 are partly responsible and you should feel guilty. This is partly your doing. By refusing to even entertain the topic of gun control, you left the door open for this to happen. WHo do you think it will be next week? Another school? Or maybe another church? Or maybe just random strangers in the street.....

Sickening.

But in all seriousness...who cares about lives...have you seen the new AR-15...woah baby!

Answer me something and im being serious...since you say we are all responsible for our own actions...should i be allowed to get hold of some Plutonium to play around with? After all, its not the deadly isotopes that kill people, its man...and if i promise to use it carefully, should i be allowed to have some? Serious question


edit on 24-6-2015 by 3danimator2014 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 24 2015 @ 06:43 AM
link   

originally posted by: 3danimator2014
and every gun nut who clings on to a passage in the bill of rights that has absolutely ZERO relevence in 2015 are partly responsible and you should feel guilty.


What was the purpose of including the Second Amendment in the Constitution?



posted on Jun, 24 2015 @ 07:10 AM
link   
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Isnt it to do with forming militias to protect he land? Something that has no bearing anymore.



posted on Jun, 24 2015 @ 07:11 AM
link   

originally posted by: 3danimator2014
Isnt it to do with forming militias to protect he land? Something that has no bearing anymore.


In so much as the protection was being the first and last line of defence against a tyrannical government.



posted on Jun, 24 2015 @ 07:17 AM
link   

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: 3danimator2014
Isnt it to do with forming militias to protect he land? Something that has no bearing anymore.


In so much as the protection was being the first and last line of defence against a tyrannical government.


Ok, still has no bearing today. Whats your point? What, you think you guys with your little guns can go against the might of the army, navy and air force?

Are you SERIOUSLY expecting to ever form a militia and fight against the govt? Are you insane? or just delusional?
edit on 24-6-2015 by 3danimator2014 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 24 2015 @ 07:22 AM
link   

originally posted by: 3danimator2014
Ok, still has no bearing today.


It certainly does as the intent of the Amendment is still valid.


Whats your point? What, you think you guys with your little guns can go against the might of the army, nacy and air force?


And what do you think? That the Air Force is going to indiscriminantly bomb suburban neighborhoods, the Navy will blockade harbors and the Army will roll tanks down 5th Ave?


Are you SERUIOUSLY expecting to ever form a militis and fight against the govt? Are you insane? or just delusional?


Your rather poor grasp of military history, some of it quite recent, shows that asymetrical warfare stopped the United States military on many occasions.




top topics



 
40
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join