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: 9
13
<< 6  7  8    10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 6 2015 @ 05:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: stormbringer1701

originally posted by: butcherguy
a reply to: stormbringer1701

Chiappa
Is making it again.
Thank you. I'll check it out.


EDIT: wow. that thing is incredible!


here is one I have been dying to get done.....





Custom takedown Marlin 1894 SS 44 mag




posted on Oct, 6 2015 @ 05:23 PM
link   
looks good.


EDIT: looking on the web there may be a quality control issue with the new issue of the standard gun though.
edit on 6-10-2015 by stormbringer1701 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 6 2015 @ 05:26 PM
link   
a reply to: stormbringer1701

Yes.
That model is definitely a good bug out gun. Very wide selection of ammo....



posted on Oct, 6 2015 @ 05:29 PM
link   
a reply to: Vasa Croe
Winchester quit making the 1892Trapper model, it retailed for around 1200 bucks when they stopped production.



posted on Oct, 6 2015 @ 05:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: butcherguy
a reply to: stormbringer1701

Yes.
That model is definitely a good bug out gun. Very wide selection of ammo....
yup you could fire what every you had or could find on the go.



posted on Oct, 6 2015 @ 05:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: Titen-Sxull
a reply to: neo96

Your interpretation of due process is so loose that it seems like utter madness.

Most people understand that limits are placed on some freedoms to protect people. In the case of guns we have something that is specifically designed to kill people, that is the intention behind its design.



Wrong.

IS every gun that hasnt killed anyone considered defective then? If they dont operate as designed ( to kill people according your uninformed logic), then they must be defective, correct?

A gun is designed to fire a projectile. Whether that projective impacts a deer, a soda can, or your skull is determined by its human operator.

You are stating that an inanimate object has critical thought process. While it may have more of one than you do, a gun cannot independently choose to kill someone. It requires interaction by something with a pulse.



posted on Oct, 6 2015 @ 05:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: introvert

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!


Many people feel the need for one because they are brainwashed by propaganda. These are usually the people that always revert to the "shall not be infringed" mantra. These are also the people that delve deep in to the political conspiracies and believe there is someone ultimately out to get them.

"The Left is trying to take your arms"
"Jade Helm is Obama trying to invade Texas"

They live in constant fear and a firearm makes em feel better. Sad thing is many do not know the true purpose of the 2nd amendment right.

It is these sorts of nutters that I keep a very close eye on because I believe they are a big threat to this country. I even keep my distance from them at the range. There is something wrong with these people and I do not want to be around them when their crazy comes out.


"I will not attack your doctrines nor your creeds if they accord liberty to me. If they hold thought to be dangerous - if they aver that doubt is a crime, then I attack them one and all, because they enslave the minds of men."

-Robert Green Ingersoll



posted on Oct, 6 2015 @ 05:55 PM
link   
a reply to: neo96

No one is holding you criminally responsible for the actions of mass shooters.

They are trying to pass reasonable regulations to prevent the people who DO want to commit crimes with guns from getting them.

Like I said I don't necessarily think such laws are the answer, but saying they violate your due process is like saying the government should let all Americans buy whatever kind of deadly poisons or drugs they want because YOU happen to have no intention of poisoning anyone.

We understand that there are limits to what we as citizens should be able to own and under what conditions because not all of us have the best of intentions.

Again I have to ask, what about other non-gun forms of ARMAMENT? What about mustard gas, that is a weapon, it falls under the general definition of armament, I personally don't feel my rights being infringed or my due process violated by not being able to own such a thing.

Calling the minor inconvenience of a background check or getting a permit a violation of due process is absurd.



posted on Oct, 6 2015 @ 06:02 PM
link   
a reply to: Titen-Sxull




No one is holding you criminally responsible for the actions of mass shooters.


Yes they are.

That's why the background checks, and ever other gun regulation.

Me and every other gun owners RIGHT has been whittled away because of things we have never done.

THAT IS A FACT.
edit on 6-10-2015 by neo96 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 6 2015 @ 06:05 PM
link   
a reply to: SaltyRibeye

And what is that projectile traditionally designed to be aimed at?

Animals and people.

What sort of people carry guns I wonder?

Hunters, cops, the military.

And why do they carry them? Because of their effectiveness at shooting soda cans?

No, because they're designed to mortally wound a person or an animal.

Are you seriously going to argue that in the history of guns they were harmlessly designed just to shoot projectiles for sport and not at all for the taking of lives? No, of course you aren't!



You are stating that an inanimate object has critical thought process.


Read what I said again, your argument here is a strawman.

The INTENT behind the DESIGN is to kill. It is the human designers that have an intention, and that intention is to design a deadly weapon. Sometimes gun fans say things like "I don't see anyone trying to ban cars, cars cause more deaths than guns" but a car has a primary function it's designed for, the conveyance of human beings from place to place. The two objects are different in the intentionality behind their design. Of course you are right that they CAN be used for things other than killing, that doesn't change why they were invented and designed to begin with.

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



posted on Oct, 6 2015 @ 06:06 PM
link   
a reply to: Titen-Sxull

They are trying to pass reasonable regulations to prevent the people who DO want to commit crimes with guns from getting them. 

What's reasonable?
Doesn't matter anyway. They have completely unreasonable regulations against possession of heroin, being that you can't have it in any way, sell it or transport it. A doctor can't write a script for it and a pharmacy can't stock it.
I say unreasonable because the only person that heroin hurts is the jackass that takes it.
Plus, heroin doesn't have it's own amendment in the bill of rights.

Anyway, as illegal as it is, heroin is widely available.

What makes guns any different?

The old meme about Gun control making as much sense as combating drunk driving by making it more difficult for sober people to drive still holds true.

How many of the guns in Chicago are legally owned?

edit on b000000312015-10-06T18:18:54-05:0006America/ChicagoTue, 06 Oct 2015 18:18:54 -0500600000015 by butcherguy because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 6 2015 @ 06:08 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?


Gun control advocates don't care about gun deaths as long as it stays in the inner cities and poor areas. It's only when a small small percentage of gun nuts who invade the precious gun free school zones, etc do they get upset. That's evident by the lack of outrage and press coverage of the gang bangers and criminal elements on a daily basis. They of course will never admit it, but keep it inner city and out of gun free zones no problem. The occasional journalist on live broadcast will get outrage too, but in general.



posted on Oct, 6 2015 @ 06:16 PM
link   
a reply to: butcherguy

This isn't a discussion about drugs but with that said personally I'm in favor of going with a rehabilitation and decriminalization approach.



posted on Oct, 6 2015 @ 06:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: Titen-Sxull
a reply to: butcherguy

This isn't a discussion about drugs but with that said personally I'm in favor of going with a rehabilitation and decriminalization approach.

I did an edit so you can more easily grasp the point.

I wasn't talking about drugs.



posted on Oct, 6 2015 @ 06:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: Edumakated
We don't have a gun problem. We have a young male nut job and black male thug problem. What is it that is causing disillusioned young males to shoot up places? What is it about black culture that causes young black men to view violence as acceptable?


Thank you. It's a mental issue. Don't tell me I'm making your imbalanced cousin feel bad. Nurture plays a huge part in insanity. I'm an American severe lefty, and I've managed to keep a happy, rational, and critically thinking family going. It can be done.

Mental health services are like most other medical services: by the book, drawn out, and expensive. Even if a handmade wack job realized he needed help, he couldn't get it. Even "someone to talk to" would freak out. On the whole, we are horrible parents, psychologists, and friends.

Maybe this young country is just going through adolescent rebellion, but we need signs that say "Not A Gun Free Zone". If you don't want to shoot the shooter, you deserve a Darwin Award carved into your tombstone.
edit on 6-10-2015 by gentledissident because: came off a little harsh

edit on 6-10-2015 by gentledissident because: no "h" in wack



posted on Oct, 6 2015 @ 06:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: Titen-Sxull




No one is holding you criminally responsible for the actions of mass shooters.


Yes they are.

That's why the background checks, and ever other gun regulation.

Me and every other gun owners RIGHT has been whittled away because of things we have never done.

THAT IS A FACT.


Well, if these mass shooters give lawful, responsible gun owners a bad name -- maybe some kind of self-policing, self-regulation might be in order? Take care of one own's house and those inside it?



posted on Oct, 6 2015 @ 06:31 PM
link   
a reply to: butcherguy

Ah I see, thanks.

What makes guns different is the thing they are designed to do.

Recreational drugs are just that, recreational. We have laws about using vehicles and machinery under their influence and other laws put in place to protect people from the actions of those who are drugged up. But, if someone is just out in the middle of the woods doing mushrooms or whatever who are they hurting? Themselves and that's it.

A gun is designed with the intention of being used to cause mortal injury, they were invented to and designed to kill animals/humans.



The old meme about Gun control making as much sense as combating drunk driving by making it more difficult for sober people to drive still holds true.


Which is why I've repeatedly said in this thread and others that I don't hold extra laws or regulations to be the answer, certainly not by themselves. I do think your analogy is slightly off, we do make sure that drivers are insured and take a drivers test to make sure they can control a vehicle safely. A similar thing for gun owners, such as a safety class, is not entirely out of line.

Personally though I think the whole thing is cultural, guns are in-grained in American culture as just about the most patriotic thing other than over-eating, Apple Pie and the American Flag. We have a society of restless folks some of whom aren't medicated when they should be, others who are over medicated and we have a media that glorifies mass shooters while ignoring any other type of violence.

Legislation or taking guns away is not the answer and by itself certainly would accomplish nothing, education and getting into people's heads how serious a responsibility owning a gun is would help more. Making people realize that they don't HAVE to own a gun for self-defense, that there are alternatives, that maybe they should weigh the decision carefully instead of just shrugging their shoulders and declaring it their "right".

Edit to add: Some say, "regulations will never stop shooters from getting guns" but you know what would, convincing people from an early age that guns aren't the answer to everything. Sure you'd occasionally still get a person born without empathy, some sociopath who happened to get hold of a gun and you'd still have some crime committed with illegal guns but we wouldn't have 200+ mass shootings a year.
edit on 6-10-2015 by Titen-Sxull because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 6 2015 @ 06:33 PM
link   
a reply to: MystikMushroom




Well, if these mass shooters give lawful, responsible gun owners a bad name -- maybe some kind of self-policing, self-regulation might be in order? Take care of one own's house and those inside it?


My house is in order.

45 years now zero accidents. Zero injuries. Zero mass shootings.



posted on Oct, 6 2015 @ 06:35 PM
link   
a reply to: neo96

You're not wrong.

Not just our Second Amendment rights, either.

Taken a look at what's been done to the first amendment, lately? Or what some would do to it?

Or the fourth? Fifth? Sixth?

All of them, actually...in one shape, or another.

Of all the amendments, the first and second are, IMHO, the most important.

For reasons that become obvious with only a little thought. I know you know why...we've had this conversation before. But others might want to think about this a bit more deeply.



posted on Oct, 6 2015 @ 06:35 PM
link   
a reply to: Titen-Sxull


A gun is designed with the intention of being used to cause mortal injury, they were invented to and designed to kill animals/humans. 

Yes.
That is why we have the second amendment. The framers of the Constitution were not talking about marshmallow pies.




top topics



 
13
<< 6  7  8    10  11 >>

log in

join