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.

 

Police: Concealed carry license holder kills armed gunman

page: 2
36
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 2 2015 @ 12:06 AM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: infolurker
I don't see how that relates to my post. I asked who's guns were confiscated.

They took them by preventing the ownership of them in the first place.




posted on Nov, 2 2015 @ 12:08 AM
link   

originally posted by: Agit8dChop

originally posted by: Sublimecraft
a reply to: liejunkie01

CCP holder - 1
Criminal - 0
Obama and other gun grab advocates - **crickets**


for crying out loud..

no one wants to grab guns.. just make laws tougher so every tom dick and harry cant get one when he wants to go on a rampage.

your exaggerating the argument to such a nth degree.

so because there's 1 story in the media about a responsible gun owner killing a robber we should ignore the dozens of mass murders that have occurred at schools, shops, cinema's?

as far as im concerned, America has the society and government it deserves.


One story?

This happens all the time.

Here are a few reports. (sarcasm).

www.nraila.org...



posted on Nov, 2 2015 @ 12:09 AM
link   
Just a note, I will take the anti-gun crowd seriously when they start putting "gun free zones" signs in front of their houses.



posted on Nov, 2 2015 @ 12:11 AM
link   
a reply to: OccamsRazor04


They took them by preventing the ownership of them in the first place.

You said they "grabbed everyone's guns." It is not illegal to own a gun in Chicago.

Are you saying my Tesla was taken from me because I'm prevented from buying one?
edit on 11/2/2015 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 2 2015 @ 12:13 AM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: infolurker
I don't see how that relates to my post. I asked who's guns were confiscated.


Umm.. the entire State of Illinois was not allowed to carry or have a weapon in their cars.

What good are firearms if you can't use them for self defense and have them when you need them.

Hey, we might give them an idea.... you can carry a gun but the ammo must be in a separate location and rounds must not be pre-loaded in a magazine!

Yeah....



posted on Nov, 2 2015 @ 12:18 AM
link   
a reply to: infolurker




What good are firearms if you can't use them for self defense and have them when you need them.

I don't know.
But that doesn't have much to do with my post either.



posted on Nov, 2 2015 @ 12:19 AM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: OccamsRazor04


They took them by preventing the ownership of them in the first place.

You said they "grabbed everyone's guns." It is not illegal to own a gun in Chicago.

Are you saying my Tesla was taken from me because I'm prevented from buying one?

And the law was decided by the courts to be Unconstitutional.

If Dems say we aren't banning guns, you can have one, you just can't get one .. how is that different? Semantics. The law's intention was preventing people from having guns. Then when the courts overturned it ... they used other methods to prevent people from lawfully having guns.



posted on Nov, 2 2015 @ 12:26 AM
link   
a reply to: OccamsRazor04
You've moved the goalpost. From "grabbing everyone's guns" to "preventing people from having guns." That's the difference.

If a law is unconstitutional it should not stand. But I don't think everybody packing iron is going to make the city a safer place. I think, as someone said earlier, the real problem is lax laws concerning the use of weapons in the commission of crimes, in Chicago.



posted on Nov, 2 2015 @ 12:30 AM
link   
I say we castrate every male. That would end rape of women.



posted on Nov, 2 2015 @ 12:45 AM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: OccamsRazor04
You've moved the goalpost. From "grabbing everyone's guns" to "preventing people from having guns." That's the difference.

If a law is unconstitutional it should not stand. But I don't think everybody packing iron is going to make the city a safer place. I think, as someone said earlier, the real problem is lax laws concerning the use of weapons in the commission of crimes, in Chicago.


I haven't. They took the guns away by preventing them from being had to begin with. They took away the ability to lawfully have a gun as guaranteed by the Constitution. When the courts said you can't do that, they then played games to continue to keep guns out of the hands of law abiding citizens.

That was their intention.


If I could have banned them all – ‘Mr. and Mrs. America turn in your guns’ – I would have!



posted on Nov, 2 2015 @ 12:48 AM
link   
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

They took the guns away by preventing them from being had to begin with.
Yeah, you said that before. Did Tesla take my car away from me?



They took away the ability to lawfully have a gun as guaranteed by the Constitution. When the courts said you can't do that, they then played games to continue to keep guns out of the hands of law abiding citizens.
I agreed with you. An unconstitutional law should not stand.



posted on Nov, 2 2015 @ 12:53 AM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

They took the guns away by preventing them from being had to begin with.
Yeah, you said that before. Did Tesla take my car away from me?

What does Tesla have to do with you having a car? Did he pass a law that was Unconstitutional? Why are you unable to buy a car, what law?


I agreed with you. An unconstitutional law should not stand.

Then why are we still arguing? The Dems went overboard in order to prevent people from having guns. They wanted to keep guns out of everyone's hands, not just criminals.



posted on Nov, 2 2015 @ 01:00 AM
link   
a reply to: OccamsRazor04



What does Tesla have to do with you having a car?

Not "him" Tesla. "It" Tesla. I am prevented from buying a Tesla because they are way out of my price range. I can legally own one but I cannot buy one. No one took it away from me.



Then why are we still arguing?
Because you said "they grabbed everyone's guns" when they didn't.


They wanted to keep guns out of everyone's hands, not just criminals.
Didn't seem to work, did it? For criminals or others. I wonder, do you think any otherwise law abiding citizens have obtained weapons illegally?



posted on Nov, 2 2015 @ 01:03 AM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
Not "him" Tesla. "It" Tesla. I am prevented from buying a Tesla because they are way out of my price range. I can legally own one but I cannot buy one. No one took it away from me.

What does that have to do with them passing laws so people could NOT legally buy one? No one is complaining about a particular manufacturer charging too much, we are complaining about laws being passed to prevent purchase and ownership.

It would be like you able to afford a Tesla car, but a law is passed preventing citizens from purchasing ANY car.



posted on Nov, 2 2015 @ 01:09 AM
link   
a reply to: OccamsRazor04


What does that have to do with them passing laws so people could NOT legally buy one?
No one "grabbed" their guns. No one "grabbed" my Tesla. In order to have something "grabbed" from you, you have to have it in the first place. Your implication was that legal guns were confiscated. They were not.

BTW, people can buy guns in Chicago.
edit on 11/2/2015 by Phage because: (no reason given)

edit on 11/2/2015 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 2 2015 @ 01:20 AM
link   
a reply to: Phage

The law was found unconstitutional. The rest is semantics and not much more needs to be said.

No one grabbed your Tesla because you could have it. The court decided people were denied that right.
edit on 2-11-2015 by OccamsRazor04 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 2 2015 @ 07:28 AM
link   

originally posted by: hopenotfeariswhatweneed
Maybe the title should read more like..." armed gunman killed by armed gunman ".....Seems to me concealed carry is just a nice way of saying armed gunman....the only difference between the two is one was a good guy and one a bad guy


When I saw the title of the article, the first thing that popped into my head was media buzzwords. Just like a government the US doesn't like is a "regime" while a government friendly to the US is an "administration."

Criminals are gunmen. People with guns not committing crimes are concealed weapons permit holders. People carrying guns that are above the law are police. And nobody is opting for the more politically correct term "gunperson." The title could have read "Gunperson: gunperson kills gunperson." But the media needs to get the government approved spin on it.



posted on Nov, 2 2015 @ 07:51 AM
link   
a reply to: liejunkie01

I would have done the same, based on just one single point.

Holdup announced, weapon shown while marching employee to possible death in a backroom.

That would be enough for me to do the same.



posted on Nov, 2 2015 @ 08:17 AM
link   
a reply to: Phage

Love it Phage. You took one of Occams favourite arguments, threw it back in his face, and he totally missed the irony of it.

Bravo sir well played.



posted on Nov, 2 2015 @ 08:26 AM
link   
a reply to: Agit8dChop

There's plenty more stories like this that the media doesn't tell. There was an armed citizen at the college shootings that was prohibited form going to help. What does that say?
Making laws against the right to have guns infringes on that right, no matter the excuse behind it. A criminal or someone with criminal intent will never obey any law, regardless of how many.



new topics

top topics



 
36
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join