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: 4
13
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 6 2015 @ 01:13 PM
link   
a reply to: joemoe

The intention was to protect against the British and Native Americans and perhaps even against any in-fighting that might break out among the newly freed Colonies. America was very much still a dangerous frontier and a newborn nation and the militia every-man soldiers were a big part of winning the war and keeping America safe. Minute-men were drilled to roll out to defend their homes on a moments notice.

Do you really think the Founders, who were the wealthy men in power at the time, wanted to leave a back door to would-be rebellions that might usurp the government by force? Washington squashed an attempted rebellion known as the Whiskey Rebellion. The 2nd Amendment is NOT there so folks with itchy trigger-fingers who view every little move of the federal government as tyranny can fight back.


Throughout counties in Western Pennsylvania, protesters used violence and intimidation to prevent federal officials from collecting the tax. Resistance came to a climax in July 1794, when a U.S. marshal arrived in western Pennsylvania to serve writs to distillers who had not paid the excise. The alarm was raised, and more than 500 armed men attacked the fortified home of tax inspector General John Neville. Washington responded by sending peace commissioners to western Pennsylvania to negotiate with the rebels, while at the same time calling on governors to send a militia force to enforce the tax. With 13,000 militiamen provided by the governors of Virginia, Maryland, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania, Washington rode at the head of an army to suppress the insurgency.


Source




posted on Oct, 6 2015 @ 01:14 PM
link   
a reply to: TsukiLunar


Laws do nothing the actions that are implemented by them are the things that affect society.


So would said laws affect criminals if by definition criminals are law breakers? Just want to clarify.



posted on Oct, 6 2015 @ 01:14 PM
link   
a reply to: joemoe

They would, obviously.



posted on Oct, 6 2015 @ 01:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: Subaeruginosa

originally posted by: Vasa Croe

originally posted by: Subaeruginosa

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


One of my favourite quotes ever.

Unfortunately, I don't relate liberty to a bunch of people freely walking around me with a "tool" that was designed for the sole purpose of killing... But that's just me.

Other than that, I'm just gonna lurk though this one.

'Backing off slowly, trying hard to not make any sudden movements, which might be interpreted the wrong way.'

Peace


Would you feel any better if I had a butchers knife or axe in hand walking around?


Depends... How fast can you run?


Pretty fast, but only for short distances....



posted on Oct, 6 2015 @ 01:19 PM
link   
a reply to: Vasa Croe

Annoyingly I now have the lumberjack song going through head...

More seriously I think there is a valid point about context. One of the many reasons I am far far far more relaxed about rifle/shotgun ownership is visibility. If in a rural area I see a guy carrying a rifle I will generally assume nothing untoward, I see someone walking through Glasgow with a rifle I will generally assume I should get as far away as possible as quick as possible.



posted on Oct, 6 2015 @ 01:24 PM
link   
a reply to: Titen-Sxull

Of course then there are these and many more. I agree that not all founding fathers agreed on arming the citizens, but the Constitution is the final draft they all agreed upon.

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms."
- Thomas Jefferson

"The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes.... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man."
- Thomas Jefferson

"To disarm the people...(i)s the most effectual way to enslave them."
- George Mason

“Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote!”
- George Mason
edit on 6-10-2015 by joemoe because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 6 2015 @ 01:25 PM
link   
a reply to: TsukiLunar

So if criminal do not follow the letter of the law. That means laws to disarm the populace will only disarm the law abiding. Correct?



posted on Oct, 6 2015 @ 01:29 PM
link   
a reply to: butcherguy

You know Chi town didn't really have much of a problem with guns until 1987 and it had a massive surge at that point. Both murders and murders by guns, specifically hand guns, were on the decline until then. It's almost like something else happened out side of gun control laws...


I was just thinking about this the other day. I wonder how many people who have a gun for say an intruder in their home also have a security system or other measures.... or if their only defense is the gun. Kinda putting all your eggs in one basket if that is the cas
That last part is not directed at just you btw.



posted on Oct, 6 2015 @ 01:31 PM
link   
a reply to: joemoe

Were you raised by wolves are something? Seriously, do you not know the intent and effect of laws?

Yes criminals are prosecuted under the law. And how is a law abiding citizen on the wrong side of the law? A self defeating statement.



posted on Oct, 6 2015 @ 01:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: ScepticScot
a reply to: Vasa Croe

Annoyingly I now have the lumberjack song going through head...

More seriously I think there is a valid point about context. One of the many reasons I am far far far more relaxed about rifle/shotgun ownership is visibility. If in a rural area I see a guy carrying a rifle I will generally assume nothing untoward, I see someone walking through Glasgow with a rifle I will generally assume I should get as far away as possible as quick as possible.


It comes down to the presumption that brandishing a weapon is consistent with responsible firearm stewardship, it is not.

I am specifically interested in concealed carry because it extends to benefit unarmed citizens as well as armed. Part or all of the utility of an armed society is heavily reliant upon the inability of criminals to determine the ability of an individual or group to be victimized. Who is and who is not armed as well as how "trigger-happy" they might be. The more untrained, potentially, the more unpredictable and therefore the more dangerous. Thugs don't mouth off to granny because she might freak out and blow them away.

Criminals aren't suicidal so they generally refocus their efforts on non-violent crime.



posted on Oct, 6 2015 @ 01:32 PM
link   
a reply to: joemoe

I would say if we stopped flooding the market with guns, since we have upwards of 300 million in the states it would be a lot harder for them to get their hands on them. If we truly want to talk about keeping guns out of criminal hands then we need go have that discussion at the very least.



posted on Oct, 6 2015 @ 01:34 PM
link   
a reply to: TsukiLunar

Perhaps you may not realize this but laws will not directly protect you from criminals. Yes criminal may be prosecuted under the law ... if they get caught. However, by then you and your family may already be dead. How did that law helped you?



posted on Oct, 6 2015 @ 01:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: butcherguy
What has been happening the past several days makes me wonder if marching orders may have been handed out to the progressives by their handlers. I am not saying that this is the case, just saying that it makes me wonder.
There certainly have been a lot of threads promoting gun control.

Where were all of these threads when Chicago set records for gun murders, albeit by people that were not legally possessing those guns?


To be fair, most of those Chicago murders happen to gang members or others somehow involved in a lifestyle of violence. I'd rather a gangster have guns than a troubled kid with negligent parents whose brain chemistry has been destroyed by pharmaceuticals. The gangster has no reason to kill me. The broken kid does (in his mind.)



posted on Oct, 6 2015 @ 01:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: greencmp

originally posted by: ScepticScot
a reply to: Vasa Croe

Annoyingly I now have the lumberjack song going through head...

More seriously I think there is a valid point about context. One of the many reasons I am far far far more relaxed about rifle/shotgun ownership is visibility. If in a rural area I see a guy carrying a rifle I will generally assume nothing untoward, I see someone walking through Glasgow with a rifle I will generally assume I should get as far away as possible as quick as possible.


It comes down to the presumption that brandishing a weapon is consistent with responsible firearm stewardship, it is not.

I am specifically interested in concealed carry because it extends to benefit unarmed citizens as well as armed. Part or all of the utility of an armed society is heavily reliant upon the inability of criminals to determine the ability of an individual or group to be victimized. Who is and who is not armed as well as how "trigger-happy" they might be. The more untrained, potentially, the more unpredictable and therefore the more dangerous. Thugs don't mouth off to granny because she might freak out and blow them away.

Criminals aren't suicidal so they generally refocus their efforts on non-violent crime.


+100! This is why concealed carry works! Thugs don't know who is armed and who isn't so it makes it harder to victimize people. People learn real quick that you can't run up on someone threatening them.

An armed society is a polite society.



posted on Oct, 6 2015 @ 01:38 PM
link   
a reply to: joemoe

They key difference between the Founders and the modern gun toters who say "I need it to fight against tyranny" is that the Founders had well reasoned thoughts on what actually constituted tyranny.

In the example I gave of the Whiskey Rebellion we have folks who are protesting a tax they feel as unjust. Are they as justified as the Founders themselves who were also protesting taxes? Not exactly, because the Founders were protesting the fact that they had no direct representation in the British government, among other grievances. The American Revolution was both a well thought out philosophical movement and a military endeavor where the common man played a big part in the victory. I think most Americans would agree the American Revolution is way way more justified than any of the BS conspiracy claims of modern far-right nutters who are off training in their own "militias" for some imaginary day when martial law arrives.

Like I said the idea isn't to arm every anti-government individual so that they can just fight the government indiscriminately, if there's going to be a rebellion there has to be due cause for that sort of action. In order to say there will be due cause some folks resort to absurd conspiracy theories about FEMA camps, depopulation and martial law.

The Founders weren't stupid, they were the wealthy slave-owning "elite", they wouldn't have written the 2nd amendment the way it was written if their intent was to inspire an armed rebellion that would have torn the fledgling nation apart.



posted on Oct, 6 2015 @ 01:38 PM
link   
a reply to: Sremmos80

But that's just it, you can't keep guns out of criminal hands.



posted on Oct, 6 2015 @ 01:38 PM
link   
a reply to: joemoe

Laws also won't protect me from a tornado either . What's your point? Did you think I thought laws created some magical force field that intercepted bullets?



posted on Oct, 6 2015 @ 01:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: dogstar23

originally posted by: butcherguy
What has been happening the past several days makes me wonder if marching orders may have been handed out to the progressives by their handlers. I am not saying that this is the case, just saying that it makes me wonder.
There certainly have been a lot of threads promoting gun control.

Where were all of these threads when Chicago set records for gun murders, albeit by people that were not legally possessing those guns?


To be fair, most of those Chicago murders happen to gang members or others somehow involved in a lifestyle of violence. I'd rather a gangster have guns than a troubled kid with negligent parents whose brain chemistry has been destroyed by pharmaceuticals. The gangster has no reason to kill me. The broken kid does (in his mind.)


A lot of the violence in Chicago is because the housing projects were mostly torn down and a lot of the thugs go shipped off to other neighborhoods resulting in turf wars. Chicago is the gang capital and so you had rival gangs being mixed up like oil & water with the closing of the projects.



posted on Oct, 6 2015 @ 01:42 PM
link   
a reply to: dogstar23
The stories about innocent bystanders, especially children being shot in their crossfire sucks though.

edit on b000000312015-10-06T13:42:45-05:0001America/ChicagoTue, 06 Oct 2015 13:42:45 -0500100000015 by butcherguy because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 6 2015 @ 01:42 PM
link   
a reply to: Titen-Sxull

"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."
- Thomas Jefferson

You are correct the Founding Fathers were no fools. They know that everything build by men will eventually end up corrupt.







 
13
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join