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: 7
13
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 6 2015 @ 02:49 PM
link   
a reply to: TsukiLunar



If that's so easy then why do you need guns?


For 1001 and one reasons.
Hunting: let me drive my trucks through the woods to hunt a deer. Sound logical? No, it doesn't. You will crash into a tree before you hit a deer.

Self Defense: Hmm. People break into my home. Quick lets get in the garage and start our car. Back out and crash through our house in pursuit of the invaders? No, firearms on hand is best.

I was saying if I want to kill you, I have other means. Gun regulators deny this obviously.
How bout this question, who should have guns under the 2nd Amendment? That may clear things up a bit.




posted on Oct, 6 2015 @ 02:54 PM
link   
a reply to: neo96

Right, held answerable, as in CHARGED WITH A CRIME, held LEGALLY RESPONSIBLE. You do understand that due process refers to due process of LAW right?

No one is saying all gun owners should be charged as criminals. I certainly do not advocate guns being outlawed OR confiscated in any way shape or form.

REGULATIONS meant to protect people by stopping crazy folks from obtaining guns are not holding law-abiding gun owners ANSWERABLE on any real level, any more than car insurance and drivers tests hold ALL drivers responsible for vehicular homicide or deadly car crashes.

Sane rational people understand there is a balance to be struck between our freedoms and public safety, especially in an era where guns are far far more deadly than they were 200+ years ago when the Bill of Rights was penned.



posted on Oct, 6 2015 @ 02:54 PM
link   
a reply to: harvestdog




How bout this question, who should have guns under the 2nd Amendment? That may clear things up a bit.


The state, and the police.

That didn't work out too well for the natives here before.



posted on Oct, 6 2015 @ 02:55 PM
link   

originally posted by: MystikMushroom
a reply to: stormbringer1701

For self defense isn't that like using a baseball bat to swat a fly?
Well they wouldn't let me buy a chain gun.



posted on Oct, 6 2015 @ 02:55 PM
link   
a reply to: Titen-Sxull




Right, held answerable, as in CHARGED WITH A CRIME, held LEGALLY RESPONSIBLE. You do understand that due process refers to due process of LAW right?


Thats RIGHT.

Tell what CRIME have I committed ?



posted on Oct, 6 2015 @ 02:57 PM
link   
a reply to: neo96

First tell me what crime you've been charged with.

As a legal gun owner (I assume) how many government or law enforcement officials have taken you into custody against your will and charged you with a crime without due process?



posted on Oct, 6 2015 @ 02:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: Klassified
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.


Here...Ed answered this for you...regarding the idiots who killed your uncle.


originally posted by: Edumakated
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 @ 02:58 PM
link   
a reply to: ScepticScot

Just having a yard sign saying you have a dog is probably a deterrent. Heck, even a fake alarm will keep burglars away. When I lived in the ghetto, I used to have a big Rottweiler. I always kept a huge dog bowl and a cleaned ham bone at my front door even after he died. Everyone always assumed the dog was still at the house.

I once had a drunk crack head try to force his way into my house. My rottie came from the other room when he heard the commotion and let out a massive bark and just stood there eyeballing the guy growling. It is amazing how fast you sober up when a 125lb rottie bares his teeth.



posted on Oct, 6 2015 @ 02:58 PM
link   
Okay, here's one for everyone.

According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics (a government agency):



Among persons who had contact with police in 2008, an estimated 1.4% had force used or threatened against them during their most recent contact, which was not statistically different from the percentages in 2002 (1.5%) and 2005 (1.6%).

bjs.gov

These stats deal with how often a cop had to resort to force, or threaten the use of force. That isn't specifically pulling of firing a gun even...but still only 1.4%. Think about that. In 99.6% of all interactions a cop has with the public, they never have to use force.

Cops are people that intentionally put themselves into dangerous situations and seek out dangerous people.

If police who put themselves intentionally into these situations only have to use "force" -- not even guns in particular -- 1.4% of the time ... why is the average gun-toting American feeling they are so unsafe they need to also be carrying a side arm?

People seriously think it is that dangerous out there? They're not even cops...and most intelligent people try to avoid dangerous places and people.
edit on 6-10-2015 by MystikMushroom because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 6 2015 @ 02:59 PM
link   
a reply to: MystikMushroom

Alaska's a HUGE state. What part are you talking about?



posted on Oct, 6 2015 @ 02:59 PM
link   
a reply to: Titen-Sxull

Let me see.

Because of the CRIME someone else has committed I have to ask the state for permission to buy a firearm.

Because of the CRIME someone else has committed I am TOLD what kind of weapon I get to buy.

Because of the CRIME someone else has committed I am told how many rounds it can fire at the squeeze of the trigger.

Because of the CRIME someone else has committed I am told how many rounds it can hold.

I ask AGAIN.

WHAT crime have I committed ?



posted on Oct, 6 2015 @ 03:01 PM
link   
a reply to: harvestdog

It doesn't matter where in Alaska, no permit is required for concealed carry or open carry. You could walk down the main street in Fairbanks, Juneau or Anchorage with a pistol on your hip.



posted on Oct, 6 2015 @ 03:03 PM
link   
a reply to: Titen-Sxull

Dangerous criminals and those judge mentally ill should be barred from guns .. this much I agree. There's already laws on the books that make selling to these people illegal. What is it you are proposing that will improve upon these existing laws without infringing on the innocent gun owners?



posted on Oct, 6 2015 @ 03:05 PM
link   
My point is this ... even cops hardly ever are in situations where a gun is needed, so why do people feel they have some kind of need for one? In my above post I showed that police use "force" only in 1.4% of all interactions -- and this is the police! The police are in much more danger on a daily basis!



posted on Oct, 6 2015 @ 03:08 PM
link   
a reply to: neo96

I guess you could define being told something as a punishment, I don't really see it that way. You choose to interpret the law as "being told" when you could view it as just the way the law is, and part of your social contract for being a citizen of the United States.

It is all about how you want to frame your circumstances and view things. You can choose to see yourself as being a victim and under punishment if you want, that's all up to you.



posted on Oct, 6 2015 @ 03:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: MystikMushroom
a reply to: harvestdog

It doesn't matter where in Alaska, no permit is required for concealed carry or open carry. You could walk down the main street in Fairbanks, Juneau or Anchorage with a pistol on your hip.

That's how it should be in the whole country.



posted on Oct, 6 2015 @ 03:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: MystikMushroom
My point is this ... even cops hardly ever are in situations where a gun is needed, so why do people feel they have some kind of need for one? In my above post I showed that police use "force" only in 1.4% of all interactions -- and this is the police! The police are in much more danger on a daily basis!


You can ask the police then why do they need to arm themselves? There's over 200,000 defensive gun use every year ... so it happens often enough. Remember most defensive gun use never involve a shooting, just the sight of the gun will deter the criminals most of the time. But to answer you here's a quote as to why I carry a gun ... "If you ever need a gun you will need it worse than anything else you ever needed - and nothing else will do."
edit on 6-10-2015 by joemoe because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 6 2015 @ 03:14 PM
link   
a reply to: neo96

None of those violate due process in the slightest, they are regulations set up to protect people. As I said rational people understand that freedom has limitations, even the 2nd Amendment acknowledges this by mentioning it is there to set up well-regulated militias (something sorely needed when it was written). Well regulated does not mean, "I get to do whatever I want or else its a violation of my liberty".

You have been inconvenienced by a few hoops to jump through before you buy your DEADLY WEAPON DESIGNED SPECIFICALLY TO KILL OTHER PERSONS/ANIMALS. I really feel like this is an obvious thing here, the intention with a gun or any weapon is in its design, it is meant to kill or mortally wound, that is its primary function. So before we just go handing these things out like Halloween candy you have to fill out a few forms to make sure you're not going to shoot up a school.

Obviously the laws haven't been very effective, but then that was NEVER my argument. Nor was my argument that super-strict gun regulations must be imposed. Please understand that I am merely responding your ridiculous assertion that any regulation is a violation of your due process.



Because of the CRIME someone else has committed I am told how many rounds it can hold.


Whatever your motivation is to own a gun with that many rounds is trumped by the fact that the more rounds you have the more supremely dangerous the weapon is to masses of innocent people. If someone somehow got a hold of your gun to use it in a shooting, hypothetically, I would think you'd be glad that it had 15 rounds instead of 30 or whatever the regulation says.

You have not committed any crime and are not being punished, nor has a driver who must get insurance and pass a drivers test, but you are TAKING ON A RESPONSIBILITY to own a weapon DESIGNED SOLELY FOR KILLING.



posted on Oct, 6 2015 @ 03:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: MystikMushroom

... why is the average gun-toting American feeling they are so unsafe they need to also be carrying a side arm?


Who says you have to feel unsafe in order to carry a side arm? though, feeling unsafe is a perfectly valid reason to carry a side arm in my opinion. Not everyone lives and works in locations that are particularly safe. Not everyone lives and works in a place where the average response time for a 911 call is less than 5 minutes.

and a lot can happen in 5 minutes.


People seriously think it is that dangerous out there? They're not even cops...and most intelligent people try to avoid dangerous places and people.


I'm sure some people do think it is that dangerous there. I'm sure not everyone does though. People who have a choice or are reasonably intelligent probably do try to avoid dangerous places and people.

but one doesn't always know what a dangerous place or person is going to look like. It isn't always cut and dry. As I said above, not all people can avoid placing themselves at risk due to where they live or work. Emergency services aren't always readily available.

It's impossible to prepare for the unexpected, but that does't mean someone shouldn't try by taking reasonable precautions.



posted on Oct, 6 2015 @ 03:18 PM
link   
a reply to: MystikMushroom




Among persons who had contact with police in 2008, an estimated 1.4% had force used or threatened against them during their most recent contact, which was not statistically different from the percentages in 2002 (1.5%) and 2005 (1.6%).






These stats deal with how often a cop had to resort to force, or threaten the use of force. That isn't specifically pulling of firing a gun even...but still only 1.4%. Think about that. In 99.6% of all interactions a cop has with the public, they never have to use force.



No, that is 98.6% and it doesn't prove crap. Maybe it proves most cops are revenue generators. You know simple drug use and traffic tickets?



Cops are people that intentionally put themselves into dangerous situations and seek out dangerous people.


Is that a fact? Anyways they better do it, because that is their PAID JOB.



If police who put themselves intentionally into these situations only have to use "force" -- not even guns in particular -- 1.4% of the time ... what makes your average gun-toting American think they are so unsafe they need to also be carrying a side arm?

People seriously think it is that dangerous out there? They're not even cops...and most intelligent people try to avoid dangerous places and people.


You can't be serious with this argument. Apples and Oranges. Cops show a display of force on first contact. No shyness in exposing their tool belt and radio. Why do you think the general public gets mugged more than the police?



new topics

top topics



 
13
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join