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: 5
13
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 6 2015 @ 01:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: TsukiLunar
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?


My point is, laws may not protect me from criminals. But a gun in my hand may. Got it?
edit on 6-10-2015 by joemoe because: (no reason given)




posted on Oct, 6 2015 @ 01:46 PM
link   
a reply to: Titen-Sxull




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.


The founders also said a thing or two about DUE PROCESS.

Hell that is one of the biggest reasons the bill of rights was written.

The colonials did not want a repeat of what the British Crown did to them.

Ya know going around arresting people, and throwing them in jail for crimes they did not commit.



posted on Oct, 6 2015 @ 01:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: TsukiLunar
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?


But there are no Tornado's at Mt. Ida!

Anywho...you have not responded to my post kind person.



posted on Oct, 6 2015 @ 01:49 PM
link   
a reply to: greencmp

Not entirely sure, but ours seem to be able to get their hands on them with ease. How do we but a dent in that?



posted on Oct, 6 2015 @ 01:50 PM
link   
a reply to: TsukiLunar




1. My biggest concern is the behavior of the most prominent people in support of basically everyone having a gun. "If someone broke into my house, I would blow them away! " I hear that a lot more than I really thought I ever would. Or talking about rising up against the United States government and going on and on about how there is so much oppression in this country and they just want to blow a dude away.

You can't deny that certain people, especially on a site like this, do seem a bit bloodthirsty when they talk about their weaponry. It doesn't sound very reasonable at all.

Also they seem to fantasize about themselves has some sort of action star from the 80s that's going to take down a tactical unit or something single-handedly... I think that's a whole nother thread though.


You're are talking about multiple types of gun owners here. Who do you think you are to be telling people that they can't protect themselves in their own homes? You can talk about it, but you can't legislate it. I have a right in my own home to possess a gun and shoot some invaders if I know not their intent. I would not be a good Husband if I am not able to protect my wife in our own home. That is a fact. Don't bring a knife to a gun fight.

If the populace ever rose up to remove our leadership, it would not be by the direction of laymen like me. It would be the Veterans directing things. I'm sure you could learn some things from CT7 on this aspect. We sure as hell have the right to have these tools, should a situation arise that they are needed. This is why these tools and leadership are entrusted to tried and true Americans.

The last group of "gun owners" you speak of may be you projecting thoughts on others. I haven't really seen much Billy Badass around here. I have seen people bringing up the fact that Gun-Free zones are an invitation to mass-killers. And the fact that even 1 gun carrier could even the score right quick. Not much abut the Die-Hard, Bruce Willis heroism.



2. Obviously we are talking about weaponry here and the whole concept pretty much boiling down to the question " should you be able to end my life at any time, just because?" Heh, not sure I feel comfortable with that idea. As a general rule I enjoy existing.



Would it change your mind knowing I have a Louisville Slugger named My Bitch Thug Eater and he doesn't play baseball? If you are in my line of sight I can kill you at anytime. Whether is be by car or gun, if I want to you are dead. This is not a threat. I do not know you nor do I wish to ever kill another human being. I love living so I would never intentionally put myself in a position to put my life or anyone else's in danger. I would hope you too.



3. I've heard people quoting Einstein a lot lately . And while I haven't checked on the veracity of the quote I appreciate the thought, but it really shouldn't be necessary in this situation. Obviously there is an issue in this country with the shootings and I think gun-control is a reasonable thing to be discussing. The Republicans seem to be wanting to talk about mental health, which is fine, but they don't seem to have any ideas on what to do about it.


I am not sure, but I believe you are referring to the Insanity quote. It seems to be on the money. Please enlighten my if I am wrong.
The 2nd amendment allows for no gun control. Shall not be infringed. Meaning the only gun control legal is you better be a steady shot. And don't sleep with your gun in the nightstand or gun locker.
Republicans may not have any ideas on Mental Health. That is not necessarily a bad thing in my opinion. I don't want someone I consider to be at worse mental health, i.e. Greedy, Glutton, Pride, etc. judging my mental health status. And I hope you wouldn't either, unless it was voluntary on your part.
The Republicans may be deflecting, who knows. The establishment does not represent the base.

What are your thoughts on mental health and gun ownership?



4a. There is a good chance many of you have heard argument that is saying " even without guns, people would still kill." And while I think that is true I do not think that is an argument in favor of no gun-control. The logic does not follow.

If guns, knives, spears, swords and halberds were on the same level then we wouldn't have guns to begin with. Guns are obviously very effective at killing people, very little effort and skill on the part of the wielder. Duh, would gun owners even like them if they only stunned?


This is true, I could kill you however I want and no laws will stop me. When I possess a gun, I want it to be lethal, duh. What I do not want is for my gun to kill YOU.

Guns are very good for self-defense, other weapons not so much. Lookey here, I could have some propane tanks and walk into the mall. Turn the valves, light the fire, throw in department store and run. Probably won't catch me because this stampede of people will hurt/kill a lot and may block the exit. You could walk around with a fire extinguisher just in case, but I wouldn't. Same things with guns. If you are as afraid as you "Ignorant Liberals" make gun owners out to be, what is stopping you from leaving the house in a flak jacket and ballistic helmet? Gun owners are everywhere and may kill you at anytime, right?



4b. The following argument is " guns aren't dangerous , it's people that kill people. " There is one big gaping flaw. Just because something is not human does not mean it is not capable of harming you. For instance asbestos has no consciousness, does that mean it not dangerous?

Avoiding things that are dangerous is literally the entire point of our existence. We Take precautions every day to make sure that we and the people around us are as safe as possible. 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?"


People do kill people. Hammers don't. Guns don't. It's me, my mind, that would kill people. It would be necessary to carry out the act of killing. Speaking of asbestos, when the last time you stuck your head in a drum brake and inhaled? Probably never and you probably aren't scared of drum brakes either. Educate yourself and don't put yourself in harms way. Be it Cancer, Gun shot, etc. My heel and fist can create enough kinetic energy to kill you on the spot. do you desire to ban them?



What if everybody had some sort of device installed in their brain that instantly killed them and everyone else was given free control to use that device whenever they thought it was necessary? Would you support that?


That is some weird # you are thinking of. I would not support compulsory brain implants, and especially the self-destruct type. Please tell me you don't either.

ETA: I use ME in the hypotheticals because it is easier than 3rd person. I do not make threats on anyone, and this should not be construed as such.
edit on 6/10/2015 by harvestdog because: added ETA



posted on Oct, 6 2015 @ 01:51 PM
link   
a reply to: neo96

Yes you're absolutely right.

What in the heck does that have to do with the discussion at hand about guns and gun control?

At no point did I suggest anyone should have their guns confiscated or have their due process taken away in any way shape or form. Or are you saying the 2nd amendment is there so that citizens can shoot at the cops if they try to arrest them without cause?

Are you suggesting that people with guns should use their guns against law enforcement to ensure they get due process? Pretty sure that's what the 5th Amendment is for.



posted on Oct, 6 2015 @ 01:51 PM
link   
the pro/anti gun control/ownership debate is unwinnable. the wildly differing cultural mindsets involved guarantee that. it is a feedback loop of blame, counter-blame and dismissive rejection. not only is there no easy answer, there is no answer at all. a bleak diagnosis i know, but inescapable when one considers the way such debate unravels each and every time it is recommenced. fundamentally opposed philosophies can never be reconciled. rinse and repeat.



posted on Oct, 6 2015 @ 01:55 PM
link   

originally posted by: RoScoLaz4
the pro/anti gun control/ownership debate is unwinnable. the wildly differing cultural mindsets involved guarantee that. it is a feedback loop of blame, counter-blame and dismissive rejection. not only is there no easy answer, there is no answer at all. a bleak diagnosis i know, but inescapable when one considers the way such debate unravels each and every time it is recommenced. fundamentally opposed philosophies can never be reconciled. rinse and repeat.


Actually it IS winnable if the anti side would agree that all lives matter, not just those involved in mass shootings. Take away ALL guns in the entire world and you will still have the same homicide rates as you see now. It has been shown in every place guns have been regulated....it has happened WELL before guns were even invented. People kill....it is clearly in our nature as every single historical record ever made references death/killing in some form for many people.
edit on 10/6/15 by Vasa Croe because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 6 2015 @ 01:55 PM
link   
a reply to: greencmp
I would entirely agree that most gun owners are responsible therefore if I see a rifle in a situation where there is reasonable reason to be one I see no reason for alarm.
To me however concealed carry (or weapons that can be concealed easily) confers more benefit to those with nefarious intentions rather than the law abiding majority.



posted on Oct, 6 2015 @ 01:56 PM
link   
a reply to: Titen-Sxull




What in the heck does that have to do with the discussion at hand about guns and gun control?


Seriously ?

Hello there.

People get to go to courts of laws, and have their crimes PROVEN. By a jury of their peers.

People that commit No crimes are NOT responsible for what someone else does.

Ya knw like the 5th amendemnt.



Amendment V No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.


READ IT.

www.law.cornell.edu...



posted on Oct, 6 2015 @ 01:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: ScepticScot
a reply to: greencmp
I would entirely agree that most gun owners are responsible therefore if I see a rifle in a situation where there is reasonable reason to be one I see no reason for alarm.
To me however concealed carry (or weapons that can be concealed easily) confers more benefit to those with nefarious intentions rather than the law abiding majority.



You would be surprise. Concealed Carrier represent the unknown danger factor for criminals. Because of this, it acts as a deterrent that also benefits people who would prefer to be unarmed.
edit on 6-10-2015 by joemoe because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 6 2015 @ 02:05 PM
link   
a reply to: Vasa Croe

1. Have no problem with that reasoning. owning again for self-defense is completely reasonable reason.

2. Must understand though, just because you say you can be trusted does not mean you can be trusted. As a matter of fact, someone who couldn't be trusted would say that exact same thing.

4. You are trying to imply that you can kill as effectively with knives as you can with guns. I adressed this already. Also have you considered researching answers to your questions? I think to look up those statistics again and pay attention to what you would accept as fact.

So you are basing the danger an object is capable of on some arbitrary line you just got up because it sounded good?


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

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 @ 02:06 PM
link   
a reply to: neo96

Who is holding them responsible?

Is this the old petulant "if you pass gun laws you only punish the law-abiding gun owners" claim?

You do understand that REGULATING gun ownership is not PUNISHMENT right?

America has safety standards to safeguard the people, there are certain things people can't own legally as private citizens and certain things they can own but must jump through certain hoops to own (such as a car). Guns are designed solely to end lives (of both humans and animals), given that there is naturally a balance to reach between the freedom to own guns and the safety of the people.

I think I mentioned knuckle dusters and certain types of knives are illegal to be carried in many places. Does this mean that law-abiding knife owners or owners of brass knuckles are being oppressed and denied their due process?



posted on Oct, 6 2015 @ 02:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: ScepticScot
a reply to: greencmp
I would entirely agree that most gun owners are responsible therefore if I see a rifle in a situation where there is reasonable reason to be one I see no reason for alarm.
To me however concealed carry (or weapons that can be concealed easily) confers more benefit to those with nefarious intentions rather than the law abiding majority.



Aside from their constitutionality here is the US, I think that is the point of contention, the assertion that concealed weapons benefit criminals more than law abiding citizens.

Obviously, I disagree with that assessment.



posted on Oct, 6 2015 @ 02:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: joemoe

originally posted by: ScepticScot
a reply to: greencmp
I would entirely agree that most gun owners are responsible therefore if I see a rifle in a situation where there is reasonable reason to be one I see no reason for alarm.
To me however concealed carry (or weapons that can be concealed easily) confers more benefit to those with nefarious intentions rather than the law abiding majority.



You would be surprise. Concealed Carrier represent the unknown danger factor for criminals. Because of this, it acts as a deterrent that also benefits people who would prefer to be unarmed.

Slightly sceptical that that is indeed the case. The US is the only western country I know with even relatively common handgun ownership or legal concealed carry yet has the highest murder rate.



posted on Oct, 6 2015 @ 02:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: TsukiLunar
a reply to: Vasa Croe

1. Have no problem with that reasoning. owning again for self-defense is completely reasonable reason.

2. Must understand though, just because you say you can be trusted does not mean you can be trusted. As a matter of fact, someone who couldn't be trusted would say that exact same thing.

4. You are trying to imply that you can kill as effectively with knives as you can with guns. I adressed this already. Also have you considered researching answers to your questions? I think to look up those statistics again and pay attention to what you would accept as fact.

So you are basing the danger an object is capable of on some arbitrary line you just got up because it sounded good?



I am not asking anyone to trust me nor do I care if they do. Are you asking me to trust you won't try to break into my house and harm my family? So, which of us is correct in our assumption here?

Sure, I can kill just as effectively with a knife as a gun. Dead is dead. Addressing it doesn't change the fact that the numbers are the same with or without gun regulations for homicides.

And I don't follow your last statement/question at all so not really sure how to answer.



posted on Oct, 6 2015 @ 02:12 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sremmos80
a reply to: greencmp

Not entirely sure, but ours seem to be able to get their hands on them with ease. How do we but a dent in that?


I would agree that it is much easier to acquire a firearm illegally than legally in the places where spates of violent crimes occur. My solution is to make it easier to get firearms legally and for law abiding citizens to kill violent criminals thus removing them from the equation.

Not what you want to hear I'm sure but, that would be my solution.



posted on Oct, 6 2015 @ 02:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sremmos80
a reply to: greencmp

Not entirely sure, but ours seem to be able to get their hands on them with ease. How do we but a dent in that?

I think the government should figure out why anyone can buy heroin just about anywhere in the US before they tackle guns. It has been completely illegal for a long time and has to be imported from outside of the country.
If guns were made to be as illegal as heroin is, the black market would be selling guns made right here in the USA, just like meth is made here.



posted on Oct, 6 2015 @ 02:15 PM
link   
a reply to: joemoe

Once again I feel it important to reiterate what the Founders actually meant vs. the modern gun-nut interpretation.

Thomas Jefferson isn't giving crazies an excuse to fire off guns at the government at the first sign of something they delusion-ally label as "tyranny". He's talking about if the government legitimately becomes tyrannical THEN it may be necessary to fight back.

The American Revolution was a philosophical movement, not just a military one, it had to be reasoned out and the British had to push pretty damn hard before any kind of violence even broke out.

The main intent of the 2nd Amendment is not to safeguard against imagine tyrannies but to create a well-regulated militia that actually helped hold the young nation together and defend against attacks, be they from the British, the Natives or some inter-colonial dispute.



posted on Oct, 6 2015 @ 02:16 PM
link   
I love the gun control debate

Progressives want to take guns away because they care about life and people dying

But still want to be able to have the right to kill babies, because, freedom and rights

LOL they want to take my right to defend myself away, but they want to maintain their right to commit murder........

lololololstupidtylololol



new topics

top topics



 
13
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join