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’s What The World Thinks About The American Response To The Oregon Massacre

page: 20
53
<< 17  18  19    21 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 6 2015 @ 11:26 AM
link   
a reply to: Kryties

The rubbish here is believing that your words would make some kind of difference or "progress" in what goes on in MY country.

The rubbish is that you thought that somehow your "quotation" of nearly an entire article from one of the most incredulous media outlets would "strike a chord" with Americans and make us see the er of our ways over a freaking hoax of a "mass shooting".

The rubbish is you completely ignoring the fact that we have our own battle to fight here which will likely not be settled through legislative means.. For Christ's sake, TPP had some sort of agreement as of late..... Yet you are distracted with the "alleged" death of people you never knew, in a place where you do not reside, by a tool you do not even possess.

The rubbish is you not acknowledging that we do not value your opinion on this topic. I don't care.. Others don't care.. It is not your problem to fix, so go home.

Why bring a speech to a gun-fight?
edit on 6-10-2015 by Bobaganoosh because: (no reason given)




posted on Oct, 6 2015 @ 11:27 AM
link   

originally posted by: queenofswords
When Obama is gone, things will settle back down.

He has a way of targeting America's People and stirring the sh*tpot, whether it is about race and now guns. He has an agenda to accomplish and this is part of it.

Since he took office, we have had Sandy Hook, the Sikh Temple, Aurora, Charleston, Ft. Hood, and now Oregon. I probably left out a couple.

Yep, when he is gone, we can get back to a semblance of normalcy, unless, of course, another stupid Democrat carries on.


This issue has nothing to do with Obama. It is uninformed statements like these that give the anti-2nd crowd ammunition (pun intended).

When they read stuff like this it reinforces their idea that us pro-2nd supporters are nutters. And they are right! Many of us are nutters. That is why I distance myself from the "shall not be infringed" people because they tend to be loony, uneducated and do nothing to advance understanding of our 2nd amendment right.



posted on Oct, 6 2015 @ 11:28 AM
link   

originally posted by: Subaeruginosa

originally posted by: Vasa Croe

originally posted by: Kryties

originally posted by: Asktheanimals
Sorry but we Americans could care less about Democracy. The mob can vote whatever they like but our rights are protected and that is the end of the story. If mass shootings occur it is indeed a sad side effect of those freedoms but far more sacrificed their lives to gain and protect those freedoms than have killed by their abuse.


So deaths of innocents are "collateral damage" as long as you get to keep unrestricted guns?

What a barbaric society.


Must be collateral damage in Australia since the number of killings has not gone down since gun control.....pretty barbaric not to take a look at the real cause.


Its nothing short of a miracle that our murder rate has remained so stable all this time, which by the way, is still far lower than the overall murder rate of the US.

But, for argument sake, just say Australia abolished its strict gun restriction laws tomorrow and then adopted Americas gun laws... Are you honestly trying to claim we wouldn't have a sharp rise in overall murder rates and also a sharp rise in police shootings?



Sure it's lower, but it has nothing to do with guns...proven by the stats and sources I posted directly from the Aussie government.

I can do a "for argument's sake" all day long, but the fact that adding gun restrictions IN did not curtail the homicide rate, only transitioned it to a different weapon and it actually went up, speaks for itself, so yes I would say that abolishing the gun restrictions would result in a net-null effect based on facts and stats proven over the last 10-20 years by your own government.

It is not a "miracle" it is simply that a criminal will use whatever means necessary to kill. Sure a gun may make it easier, but making it more regulated has changed nothing there.



posted on Oct, 6 2015 @ 11:29 AM
link   

originally posted by: Vasa Croe


I have been to Australia and do like it. Have you been to the US? I have no fear any day of being shot anywhere I go. Or would that be too much actual truth for YOU?


As I said previously, I have been to Hawaii and yes, I am aware that Hawaii is not a good/only example.

My father, however, traveled extensively throughout the US for his various jobs and he commented frequently on how naked and unsafe he felt there - and how glad he was to be home and didn't have to look over his shoulder constantly.



posted on Oct, 6 2015 @ 11:29 AM
link   

originally posted by: Kryties

originally posted by: Semicollegiate

Freedom and restrictions together are an oxymoron.


If you really meant that then am I to assume you would want to legalise murder, rape, theft, extortion etc etc?

I mean, to live in a completely "free" society, according to your view, then such things would also have to be completely legal wouldn't they?


Do you regulate murder?

No, you enforce the law as a deterrent.

Regulation has side effects, like people being shot because they are not allowed to have guns.



posted on Oct, 6 2015 @ 11:30 AM
link   
a reply to: Kryties

Oh you are from Australia? Oh, haha. Tell us (because I'm sure you are aware) why Australians got their guns taken away.



posted on Oct, 6 2015 @ 11:32 AM
link   

originally posted by: Kryties

originally posted by: retiredTxn

If they are so "powerful", why do you refer to them as "pea-shooters"?


Compared to tanks, bombs, drones, airstrikes, rocket launchers and all things a government would have access to then YES they are pea-shooters.

I thought that meaning was quite apparent, apparently I was wrong.

Unless of course you are trying to twist what I meant into something else?



Correct me if I am wrong here.

But isn't the US government as well as most of NATO currently arming citizens of other countries with those things?

Why yes they are.

And those same people deny their own citizens they very things they are giving to others to fight their own government.

Tell me again why I should care what they say ?



posted on Oct, 6 2015 @ 11:33 AM
link   

originally posted by: Kryties

originally posted by: retiredTxn

If they are so "powerful", why do you refer to them as "pea-shooters"?


Compared to tanks, bombs, drones, airstrikes, rocket launchers and all things a government would have access to then YES they are pea-shooters.

I thought that meaning was quite apparent, apparently I was wrong.

Unless of course you are trying to twist what I meant into something else?


Not trying to twist anything. My other question, "what do you consider "powerful assault weapon's"? No answer to that? It would really help to know what you are talking about here.



posted on Oct, 6 2015 @ 11:34 AM
link   

originally posted by: Kryties

originally posted by: Vasa Croe


I have been to Australia and do like it. Have you been to the US? I have no fear any day of being shot anywhere I go. Or would that be too much actual truth for YOU?


As I said previously, I have been to Hawaii and yes, I am aware that Hawaii is not a good/only example.

My father, however, traveled extensively throughout the US for his various jobs and he commented frequently on how naked and unsafe he felt there - and how glad he was to be home and didn't have to look over his shoulder constantly.


Seriously? Your dad traveled extensively in the US and felt he always had to look over his shoulder for fear of a mass shooter? Where exactly are mass shooters more likely to be walking around so I can make sure I don't go to any of the areas your dad went to? You should tell him to buy a ticket to Syria and then compare how unsafe the US was in comparison....

This is ridiculous. So naked and unsafe but managed to escape unscathed.....lucky for him he didn't wander into the wrong mass shooting area of town.....


Our homicide rate has stayed the same or fallen in the same period of time yours has risen. I would be more afraid of being stabbed/bludgeoned to death versus shot.
edit on 10/6/15 by Vasa Croe because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 6 2015 @ 11:35 AM
link   

originally posted by: Semicollegiate

Do you regulate murder?

No, you enforce the law as a deterrent.

Regulation has side effects, like people being shot because they are not allowed to have guns.


Funny how the evidence disproves that.

To go back to your previous point, you claim that "Freedom and restrictions together are an oxymoron." I was simply pointing out that every society, including yours, MUST have restrictions on certain things like murder, rape etc etc if they are to call them selves a civilised society and yet this does not impact on their "freedom" at all. In fact, some might argue that certain restrictions on certain things actually make a society freer.



posted on Oct, 6 2015 @ 11:36 AM
link   
a reply to: Kryties


Between 2000 and 2014, there were 33 mass shootings in Argentina, Australia, Canada, China, England, Germany, Finland, Israel, Mexico, Norway, Russia, South Africa and Switzerland combined.


I really find that hard to believe. Do the shootings by Mexican drug cartels not count? Does it not count when Israelis kill Palestinians?



posted on Oct, 6 2015 @ 11:38 AM
link   

originally posted by: VictorVonDoom
a reply to: Kryties


Between 2000 and 2014, there were 33 mass shootings in Argentina, Australia, Canada, China, England, Germany, Finland, Israel, Mexico, Norway, Russia, South Africa and Switzerland combined.


I really find that hard to believe. Do the shootings by Mexican drug cartels not count? Does it not count when Israelis kill Palestinians?


That 'gun violence' in Mexico was made possible by the US government.

And Imma suppose to turn in my gunz to them!

I think not.



posted on Oct, 6 2015 @ 11:41 AM
link   

originally posted by: Kryties

originally posted by: Semicollegiate

Do you regulate murder?

No, you enforce the law as a deterrent.

Regulation has side effects, like people being shot because they are not allowed to have guns.


Funny how the evidence disproves that.

To go back to your previous point, you claim that "Freedom and restrictions together are an oxymoron." I was simply pointing out that every society, including yours, MUST have restrictions on certain things like murder, rape etc etc if they are to call them selves a civilised society and yet this does not impact on their "freedom" at all. In fact, some might argue that certain restrictions on certain things actually make a society freer.


Yeah because criminals follow the law and everything
. Please Mr. President take away all my freedoms and make me safe!!



posted on Oct, 6 2015 @ 11:42 AM
link   

originally posted by: introvert

This issue has nothing to do with Obama. It is uninformed statements like these that give the anti-2nd crowd ammunition (pun intended).

When they read stuff like this it reinforces their idea that us pro-2nd supporters are nutters. And they are right! Many of us are nutters. That is why I distance myself from the "shall not be infringed" people because they tend to be loony, uneducated and do nothing to advance understanding of our 2nd amendment right.


To add my piece to the "Second Amendment" subject, one that I have been wrongly accused of not respecting at all, I absolutely respect the fact that America has a constitution and amendments protecting the rights of its people. One thing many people forget though is that Amendments can be altered, repealed or changed to reflect the current situations - as they have been in the past and the reason why you have amendments in the first place.

Another point I should make is that these Amendments are open to interpretation, as is evidenced by the court debates that have taken place already regarding such things as the Second Amendment. I have read opinions from other learned people that the 2nd can be read many different ways, and interpreted many ways - one being that it was written hundreds of years ago and did not account for the kinds of firepower now available to the general public. Another being that "militias" back then were in fact the de-facto US Army as back then there was no standing army.

I honestly think that the Second Amendment has to be looked at again, thoroughly, and altered/amended to reflect such changes to society, just as Amendments and such have been altered before when the need arose.
edit on 6/10/2015 by Kryties because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 6 2015 @ 11:45 AM
link   
a reply to: Kryties



For instance, I take antidepressants and yet I have no desire to grab a gun and go on a killing spree.

Knock on wood, right?

There are instances where cops have seemingly lost their marbles and went berserk and murdered people. These are guys that are under the watchful eyes of supervisors that are trained to notice if their heavily armed subordinates are having mental problems... still, cops are more apt to kill themselves than the normal population.



posted on Oct, 6 2015 @ 11:45 AM
link   
a reply to: Kryties




To add my piece to the "Second Amendment" subject, one that I have been wrongly accused of not respecting at all, I absolutely respect the fact that America has a constitution and amendments protecting the rights of its people. One thing many people forget though is that Amendments can be altered, repealed or changed to reflect the current situations - as they have been in the past and the reason why you have amendments in the first place.


No.

Your DISRESPECTING the entire BILL OF RIGHTS extending to the 14th amendments, and trying to deny me,and my fellow Americans our rights to DUE PROCESS.

Also called the willful,wanting slap in the face of Americans CIVIL LIBERTIES.

That dog don't hunt.



posted on Oct, 6 2015 @ 11:47 AM
link   

originally posted by: Sublimecraft
a reply to: Kryties

The right for US citizens to bear arms under the 2nd amendment is not in dispute here but I would like to have a reasonable discussion on who gets to own guns in the US so as to best avoid nutters taking out innocents.



Said the Majority of Americans for the last 40 years...

Maybe when the number of parents who lost children equals the NRA membership and lobbying, we can start to have a rational discussion.



U.S. law explicitly prohibits law enforcement agencies from collecting or releasing statistics that could provide an accurate picture of gun ownership. The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives is barred from releasing gun traces to the public and can't require gun dealers to turn over inventories. The FBI, which is in charge of federal background checks, is required to destroy purchaser records within 24 hours.

Gun-rights groups oppose collecting such data, raising the concern that it could be used to create a gun registry and that the government eventually could use that to seize guns from private citizens.

...

Two years ago, President Barack Obama ordered the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to produce research on gun violence. Congress has now prohibited such research.


www.cnn.com...

Get that? The NRA/GOP has made it illegal to even gather information about gun deaths..let alone discuss it.



posted on Oct, 6 2015 @ 11:48 AM
link   
reply to: TechniXcality

I don't want to be rude however you do understand what an 'Amendment' is... Don't you? Law and Rights governed by law have changed and will continue to change to satisfy the changing needs of any given society. Yay for your (as in to many people in the USA) mentally deficient indulgence with a Second AMENDMENT. People are dying, USA, USA, USA, is mentally defective, psychotically fearful of its own people and demostrontively very capable of forging the most intellectually devoid arguments to protect a position on 'Rights'. Rights at the expense of what should be more important to any reasonable minded human... The Right to be safe... Not shot.

I used to like driving my car really fast but LAWS prevent me from doing so and for good reason. IT IS DANGEROUS TO OTHER PEOPLE. For anyone so sancresenct regarding its position only demonstrates your own inability to amend laws from 100's of years ago to better suit your own modern day social dynamics, you are either stupid or just insane. Something must change. People are dieing. Terrorists are not the USA's problem. It's some of its own people who continue to peddle the rubbish of 'it's my right'.



posted on Oct, 6 2015 @ 11:52 AM
link   

originally posted by: Kryties

originally posted by: Semicollegiate

Do you regulate murder?

No, you enforce the law as a deterrent.

Regulation has side effects, like people being shot because they are not allowed to have guns.


Funny how the evidence disproves that.

To go back to your previous point, you claim that "Freedom and restrictions together are an oxymoron." I was simply pointing out that every society, including yours, MUST have restrictions on certain things like murder, rape etc etc if they are to call them selves a civilised society and yet this does not impact on their "freedom" at all. In fact, some might argue that certain restrictions on certain things actually make a society freer.


Freedom by way restriction is brainwashing.

You don't know what you are talking about.

Prison is as safe as you can get. Are there any murders in prison?

If each person carried a gun, or not, as he would, there would be a minimal number of mass shootings.

Your love of rulership guides your thinking.



posted on Oct, 6 2015 @ 11:52 AM
link   
a reply to: Indigo5

Well there I

Let's start with the data collection of the police, and how many people the US government kills every year.

How about that ?

Rational discussion!!

That was funny.

As there is NO rationality from gun control crowd.

Trying to hide behind the biggest mass murder in the world. The US government.



new topics

top topics



 
53
<< 17  18  19    21 >>

log in

join