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.

 

Senate Dems unveil new gun control push

page: 6
18
<< 3  4  5    7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 8 2015 @ 03:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: Mianeye
a reply to: neo96

I agreed with that already, but as i said 1 life saved is one happy person with the RIGHT TO LIVE, you are not in anyway interested in saving that one life...or a % of the 11.000.

Right to live should come before right to shoot watermelons..


Then why oh why aren't you interested in banning privately owned vehicles?

If you truly cared about saving lives, you could save far more people that way.




posted on Oct, 8 2015 @ 03:25 PM
link   
a reply to: Mianeye

Oh hell no.

The RIGHTS in the US constitution primarily the BILL OF RIGHTS, and the 14th amendment comes first.

It's the very reason they wrote in the first place.

www.legendsofamerica.com...

Read it.

Enough of the troll.



posted on Oct, 8 2015 @ 03:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: Mianeye
a reply to: butcherguy

11.000 people would disagree with you, but unfortunately they can't because they are dead...


How many by mass shooters, how many by criminals in less desirable areas? I understand anti gunners don't care about gun death as long as it stays in the undesirable areas and that gun deaths amount to less than half a percent of total death each year, but if you really want to drop that 11k down what's your plan for criminals and the black market. That generates the most homicides



posted on Oct, 8 2015 @ 03:27 PM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko

Actually i support it too, but i see no sense in arming people when people can't handle it, it doesn't matter if it's only a small % that can't handle it...



posted on Oct, 8 2015 @ 03:31 PM
link   
a reply to: neo96

I'm not trolling at all, i asked you one question, which has now lead me to trying to get an answer.

I will accept the answer you just gave me as i see that's the only one you have, but i will also call it idiocracy....
edit on 8-10-2015 by Mianeye because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 8 2015 @ 03:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: Mianeye
a reply to: ketsuko

Actually i support it too, but i see no sense in arming people when people can't handle it, it doesn't matter if it's only a small % that can't handle it...


No then you don't because you argument is just another variation of if we can't all be saved then none of us is saved.

Since there will always be those who will be unfit owners, then you figure it's best no one ever be allowed to own. Of course, that won't stop people from acquiring guns illegally, including the unfit owners you say you are only interested in stopping. All you do in punish the rest of us who only, as you so flippantly put it, "want to shoot watermelons."

In the end, the only legal holders will be private security firms, cops, and licensed state officials. The disarmed private citizens will be sandwiched between them and the unfit owners whom you have done nothing at all to prevent from owning and carrying.

It's like a firearms version of Cloward-Piven where we in the middle are the ones to suffer most.



posted on Oct, 8 2015 @ 03:33 PM
link   
a reply to: Mianeye




I'm not trolling at all, i asked you one question, which has no lead to me trying to get an answer.


That has NOTHING to do with the topic.



The Democratic push focuses on three areas: bolstering current background check requirements, closing "loopholes" on background checks when guns are bought at gun shows or online, and closing the "pipeline of illegal guns" by making gun trafficking a federal crime.


Which can be found here:

www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Oct, 8 2015 @ 03:35 PM
link   
a reply to: neo96

I asked from one of your comments in this thread, so i'm completely on topic...



posted on Oct, 8 2015 @ 03:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: Mianeye
a reply to: neo96

What about the 11.000+/- dead people a year who completely loose their rights, because you wanna keep your right to shoot watermelons and paper men.


Fallacy: Straw Man



posted on Oct, 8 2015 @ 03:42 PM
link   
a reply to: neo96



Have a good one



posted on Oct, 8 2015 @ 03:52 PM
link   
Lets increase the time spent in prison for burglary by 5 times if they steal a gun.

Instead of doing 3 years they would do 15 years.

And they do it again give them 30 years.



posted on Oct, 8 2015 @ 04:05 PM
link   
a reply to: neo96

And even in Afghanistan and Iraq not everyone walks around armed...



posted on Oct, 8 2015 @ 04:22 PM
link   
"bolstering current background check requirements, closing "loopholes" on background checks when guns are bought at gun shows or online,"



For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction plus an internet over reaction. WTF people???


edit on 8-10-2015 by Grimpachi because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 8 2015 @ 04:31 PM
link   
a reply to: Grimpachi

Yeah what the hell.

No mass shooter used those means.

If it takes the FBI longer than 3 days to clear someone ? That is on the FBI.

ALL weapons sold on line have to be shipped to a FFL dealer. Where the background check has to be performed before pickup.

Holmes,Mercer, and Lanza did not use those means of their firearm procurement.

It's basically the same AGENDA they have had since CLinton.

So yeah WHAT THE HELL ?



posted on Oct, 8 2015 @ 04:38 PM
link   
a reply to: neo96

I don't care if a mass shooter used those means or not. Honestly that is besides the point. Making it harder for people that are not lawfully able to have guns to get them is a good thing. That is the Agenda and there is nothing wrong with it.


You seem to have a problem with that so yeah WTF.
edit on 8-10-2015 by Grimpachi because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 8 2015 @ 04:43 PM
link   
a reply to: Grimpachi




I don't care if a mass shooter used those means or not. H


Obviously




Making it harder for people that are not lawfully able to have guns to get them is a good thing.


How the hell is that ?

Since it's ALREADY hard for them to get them.




That is the Agenda and there is nothing wrong with it.


There is a HELL of a lot wrong with it. Starting with the civil liberty violations of people that do NOTHING wrong.

So yeah WTH ?



posted on Oct, 8 2015 @ 04:46 PM
link   
a reply to: FamCore

I live in Pa and if you buy a gun at a show you have to fill out the forms (both federal and state) and pass the check. I sold a gun to a friend once and I made him go to a gun store with me and have him fill out the forms and pass the check. I did that to protect myself in case anything happened with that gun in the future.

I don't my the check at point of sale. Keeps guns out of the hands of felons, maniacs, illegals....

The big loophole with the background check is the gun-runner with a clean background who buys 50 guns a month at several stores and then sells them on the black market. The runner could do this for years, peddling guns to fellow criminals before she/he got caught.



posted on Oct, 8 2015 @ 04:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: Grimpachi
a reply to: neo96

I don't care if a mass shooter used those means or not. Honestly that is besides the point. Making it harder for people that are not lawfully able to have guns to get them is a good thing. That is the Agenda and there is nothing wrong with it.


You seem to have a problem with that so yeah WTF.



People not lawfully able to have a gun go to the black market. So what's your plan to address the black market? The same one that can't stop drugs, sex, and so on. What is the plan stop guns in the black market that nothing else operating there can be stopped???????????



posted on Oct, 8 2015 @ 04:46 PM
link   
a reply to: neo96

What civil liberty law would be violated NEO?

You have the right to Bear arms, but you never had the right to acquire them in the fashion you wished.

They want to close some loopholes NEO. Why do want those loopholes to remain open?



posted on Oct, 8 2015 @ 04:56 PM
link   
a reply to: Metallicus

I'm a gun owner, so don't paint me as anti-gun, but the constitution never says “gun,” it says ...keep and bear arms...

Arms mean weapons in this case, I believe, and the government can limit what weapons you can own. You cannot have live grenades, or working rocket launchers, or ICBMs. It is a very serious crime even to make firecrackers unless you have the correct permits and submit to inspections.

Just sayin' – we should keep the language straight.

On an interesting side note, if guns are banned, will we have to get carry permits for our swords, lances and pikes?
edit on 8-10-2015 by olbe66 because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
18
<< 3  4  5    7  8 >>

log in

join