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.

 

Ignorant Liberal Speaks out on Gun Control

page: 2
13
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 6 2015 @ 12:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: butcherguy
a reply to: Edumakated



While mass shootings are abhorrent, they really aren't all that common.

Good point.
If it were really about saving lives, the progressives would be trying to pass laws mandating that every human on Earth be forced to wear protective headgear and a personal flotation device, since a lot of people die from falls in the home and drowning.


Exactly. It just shows that they are debating from an emotional view point and not one of logic and reason.

For example, should we castrate all men? There are thousands of rapes committed every year. So in order to prevent rapes, lets just castrate all men. This is the logic they are putting forth with guns.

We are in a nation of 300 million FREE people of varying cultures. Statistically, we are going to have a few nut jobs do some crazy stuff. It can't be stopped. You don't restrict the freedom of the entire society just to prevent a few incidents from happening.




posted on Oct, 6 2015 @ 12:13 PM
link   
a reply to: Edumakated

It really depends on the definition used for mass shooting

www.washingtonpost.com...

That said despite being pro gun control I do agree with a number of your points. The anti gun arguments seem to revolve around mass shootings, military style rifles and magazine sizes. Personally I couldn't care less what rifles look like and I doubt any mass shooter has ever been put off by the thought that they might need to reload.

On the other hand I think hand guns serve no social use, are morally indefensible and should be banned outright.

In fairness I also concede that this would not be simple in the US due to the existing number of hand guns and my views are obviously from an outside point of view.



posted on Oct, 6 2015 @ 12:16 PM
link   
a reply to: Edumakated




Text
Exactly. It just shows that they are debating from an emotional view point and not one of logic and reason. 




Yep, it's liberals making the illogical, reactionary based comparisons.




Text
For example, should we castrate all men? There are thousands of rapes committed every year. So in order to prevent rapes, lets just castrate all men


It's a liberals comparing castration to gun control.
edit on 6-10-2015 by TsukiLunar because: (no reason given)

edit on 6-10-2015 by TsukiLunar because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 6 2015 @ 12:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: greencmp
a reply to: TsukiLunar

"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."

-Benjamin Franklin

What are your thoughts on trading liberty for security?

I know that most "liberals" (socialists) are more than willing to trade every other liberty (employment, health care, etc.) for security so, I assume you simply extend the very same logic but, I am curious if this quote holds any value to you.


enough greencmp....don't lump every liberal into the socialist category....the fact that you do, shows that you have a warped sense of their meaning, fed to you by the extreme right. sorry pal, but there are a hell of a lot of us "liberals" that are patriotic Americans, and don't need you, or anyone on the right, to define who we are.



posted on Oct, 6 2015 @ 12:17 PM
link   
a reply to: TsukiLunar

The police state will take care of all your shattered broken dreams and ideals.




posted on Oct, 6 2015 @ 12:20 PM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen

Are you actually gonna make an argument or not. There are plenty of examples of guns being restricted end people not being ruled by a 1984 style totalitarian shadow government? You can't possibly be for insinuating that everyone with guns equal freedom? Effective governance? I happy population? I don't know what you're trying to imply.



posted on Oct, 6 2015 @ 12:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: jimmyx

originally posted by: greencmp
a reply to: TsukiLunar

"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."

-Benjamin Franklin

What are your thoughts on trading liberty for security?

I know that most "liberals" (socialists) are more than willing to trade every other liberty (employment, health care, etc.) for security so, I assume you simply extend the very same logic but, I am curious if this quote holds any value to you.


enough greencmp....don't lump every liberal into the socialist category....the fact that you do, shows that you have a warped sense of their meaning, fed to you by the extreme right. sorry pal, but there are a hell of a lot of us "liberals" that are patriotic Americans, and don't need you, or anyone on the right, to define who we are.


First of all, I don't accept your misuse of the term "liberal", you are not a liberal in the sense that it was coined and is still contextually so in written word.

Show me a big government anti-individualist who is not a socialist.

Your statism is showing.


+3 more 
posted on Oct, 6 2015 @ 12:26 PM
link   
a reply to: TsukiLunar


These fantasies of a break in are always right on the tip of your tongue aren't they?

Fantasies? Perhaps you would like to tell that to my dead uncle, or one of my friends who was raped during a break-in. In both cases, had they been armed, things would have ended quite differently.

You mentioned Einstein, who is often quoted as saying: "Insanity is doing the same thing over and over, and expecting a different result."
History repeatedly shows what happens when you disarm the public. Yet here we are in the 21rst century, hearing the "same old song and dance". Insanity.


edit on 10/6/2015 by Klassified because: grammar



posted on Oct, 6 2015 @ 12:26 PM
link   
a reply to: butcherguy

Well they did remove the Proaganda law back in July 2nd 2013. I do wonder if you can see a measured spike after that time.



posted on Oct, 6 2015 @ 12:29 PM
link   
My two cents....

- I often hear anti-gun people say that the second amendment is outdated because having a physically oppressive government just can't happen here nowadays. While I don't foresee any kind of civil war on the horizon, the potential for this still exists and always will exists. That is the purpose of the second amendment, as best I can tell.

- Thus far I have never owned a gun. One of the advantages of renting an apartment in one of the crappiest looking buildings from the outside is that nobody is going to break into my place (partially kidding but it is true). That being said, my wife and I agree that when we finally purchase our own home, it will be time to purchase a gun (and learn how to use it). I also want to add that while I do what I have to for my family, I am not nor I pretend to be a "tough guy." When we do purchase a gun it wont be locked and loaded sitting on the night stand. However, I do think it is important to have a gun even if it is not to have a 3:00AM shoot-out with a would-be burglar. You see, my area was hit pretty hard during Hurricane Sandy. The power was out for a LONG time. While it's true that at first everybody sort of pulled together, as the days led to weeks stores started getting broken into and cleaned out. There was an overall sense of lawlessness creeping in. Although we didn't have a generator, we had (because we always do) plenty of supplies, batteries, that adapter that plugs into our cars' cigarette lighter socket that provide a single outlet which we used to power some lamps in our house. Point is, after a while I started getting nervous that some of the less civilized people out there, at some point, might come to take what we have by force. I don't think that is a huge stretch. I'm not talking end-of-the-world scenarios or anything like that, but not too hard to imagine natural phenomenon can cause temporary chaos.

- As others have said, there already are plenty of "gun laws" on the books. Also as others have said, most shootings are by criminals that are already operating outside of the law and stricter laws only make it difficult for law abiding citizens.

- I think our courts, or more specifically sentencing routines, need a thorough review. WAY too often I read an article about someone who gets arrested for one heinous act or another only to find out they have a rap sheet a mile long, often with crimes associated with guns. If you want to deter would-be gun criminals, make them so afraid of the punishment as to at least give them reason to pause before acquiring a weapon. Some of this 'slap on the wrist' stuff needs to change.



posted on Oct, 6 2015 @ 12:34 PM
link   
a reply to: butcherguy

Proof of what? in Canada most of the recent gun problems here locally are due to handguns coming from the U.S..and that is via an international border..ie what good is gun control in Chicago when they flow freely from surrounding areas with no border.
Just sayin..lol I do not have the answer but the Chicago deal is meaningless unless done nationwide..not saying it would work at this point either.
Cheers.



posted on Oct, 6 2015 @ 12:37 PM
link   
a reply to: inquisitivenature




The view that 'My 100''s+ year old amendment to laws cannot be amended'. It makes no sense.


There is a process for that called a Constitutional Convention. That isn't going to happen, unless we are ready for a 2nd Civil War.

I would rather live my life happy enough knowing I may get mass slaughtered as long as I know I can protect my family in my own home against home invaders.



posted on Oct, 6 2015 @ 12:42 PM
link   
a reply to: TsukiLunar

While I chew on your post, I thought I would "debunk" this right now.



It comes down to the question "do I think that you should be able to channel kinetic energy in such a way that it can instantly end my life?"


Well whats your answer? My fists can gain enough kinetic energy to kill you instantly. Want to ban those?



posted on Oct, 6 2015 @ 12:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: Bennyzilla
So if someone breaks into my house I should hand him my wife and children, just so long as I don't harm him or stand up for myself right? Who am I to shoot the nice man breaking into my home? He probably just wants some help, maybe a job?



Why don't you use a knife? I hear it's just as good at killing people.



posted on Oct, 6 2015 @ 12:44 PM
link   
Do not tread on my civil liberties, and have the nerve to call yourself a liberal.

Gun control is the antithesis of what the word means.

Signed. John Q. Gun owner.



posted on Oct, 6 2015 @ 12:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: TsukiLunar
a reply to: xuenchen

Are you actually gonna make an argument or not. There are plenty of examples of guns being restricted end people not being ruled by a 1984 style totalitarian shadow government? You can't possibly be for insinuating that everyone with guns equal freedom? Effective governance? I happy population? I don't know what you're trying to imply.


What "argument" are you looking for?

I'm not even sure what your argument is.

What *IS* your argument by the way?




posted on Oct, 6 2015 @ 12:47 PM
link   
a reply to: kaylaluv

LOL yeah hopefully that's all he has as well. We can tie our hands together and play some MJ, real old school-like



posted on Oct, 6 2015 @ 12:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: greencmp

originally posted by: jimmyx

originally posted by: greencmp
a reply to: TsukiLunar

"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."

-Benjamin Franklin

What are your thoughts on trading liberty for security?

I know that most "liberals" (socialists) are more than willing to trade every other liberty (employment, health care, etc.) for security so, I assume you simply extend the very same logic but, I am curious if this quote holds any value to you.


enough greencmp....don't lump every liberal into the socialist category....the fact that you do, shows that you have a warped sense of their meaning, fed to you by the extreme right. sorry pal, but there are a hell of a lot of us "liberals" that are patriotic Americans, and don't need you, or anyone on the right, to define who we are.


First of all, I don't accept your misuse of the term "liberal", you are not a liberal in the sense that it was coined and is still contextually so in written word.

Show me a big government anti-individualist who is not a socialist.

Your statism is showing.


you are the one that defined "liberal" and right next to it put in parenthesis () socialist, which implies most liberals are socialists....you wrote it, not I....even though Bernie Sanders declares himself to be a socialist....reads the Wikipedia page below under "tenure".....not exactly what a raving socialist would have as a voting record.

en.wikipedia.org...



posted on Oct, 6 2015 @ 12:47 PM
link   
People are inherently lazy creatures. Humans are always finding new ways to automate things and make life easier for ourselves. If an easier option exits, we will likely take the path of least resistance.

Look at music pirating. In the begining with Napster-like software it was easier to download a song you wanted than to drive or walk into a store and spend your money on a CD. People flocked to a digital distribution system that was easier to deal with.

When something is easier, people are more inclined to partake. When something is more difficult, people tend to put the idea aside.

Guns make killing a lot easier compared to a sword or knife. You can kill more people in a shorter amount of time, at a greater distance.

If the same mass shooters only had swords or bows & arrows at their disposal, I think some of them may have opted not go through with their crimes.

"That's to much of a headache..."

When things are easy, more people tend to give it a go.

How many things have you tried that you may never have tried because they didn't seem that hard? How many things have you wanted to do but turned away from because they were hard?

That's just an observation, I'm not advocating anything. Just something to think about.



posted on Oct, 6 2015 @ 12:48 PM
link   
I'm going to try to struggle through a response here, and I hope I make sense. First, I don't necessarily believe in "gun control" as in banning them etc. If you want to own a gun or two, fine with me. I won't get in to the silly open carry crap, as it just looks silly to me.

I own a gun, purchased legally through a gun shop years ago. That being said, I hear the following argument very often when theses debates begin, and it's just a dumb statement: "Criminals don't follow the law, so harsher gun laws would only impact the law abiding citizens."

B.S. There are various ways for a criminal to acquire a gun legally, and these loopholes need to end. Mainly, person to person sales, which require no background check or anything else. If legislation were passed requiring every single gun purchase to be registered after a thorough background check, and then any time the owner moves etc, that registration must be updated. Every time said gun is sold, the registration must be updated and another background check completed. Full accountability for every legal gun in the country would go a very long way to accessibility to guns by criminals. This is the same loophole straw purchasers use when buying legally and then distributing the guns to criminal elements with no accountability.

There is no "illegal guns manufacturing warehouse.

Now we move on to those guns acquired by theft. Certainly the average gun safe is adequate to deter a B&E wanting to get in and out as fast as possible? Make that a requirement.

The fact is, stronger laws don't and won't hurt gun sales, but keeping the perpetual paranoia of "he is going to come and take your guns" garbage I've been hearing since the 1990's is a boon to gun and ammo sales. Common sense has failed when it comes to realistic and sound legislation regarding strengthening existing gun laws.

Again, I don't want anyone to take your guns. I don't give two poops about your guns. I just think it's high time we actually address a problem in a realistic way.

Finally, don't give me that people kill each other with knives crap either. Unless you are the American ninja Warrior, nobody has taken out twenty people in a matter of minutes with throwing stars or a butcher knife.



new topics

top topics



 
13
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join