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.

 

Obama urges gun control after Colorado Springs shooting: 'Enough is enough'

page: 15
70
<< 12  13  14    16  17  18 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 29 2015 @ 07:48 AM
link   
a reply to: Eilasvaleleyn


Of course I have. That's why the input of foreigners is useful. Because while I have reasonable idea as to what propaganda I have been exposed to, it's best to triple check.


So basically you are claiming some kind of moral/intellectual superiority? Uh-huh. Nice try.

And it's interesting that I've never seen that ad despite your claim, and I do watch some Fox News on occasion. And given this thread and others like it where you have a large percentage of Americans arguing back and forth, I think it puts paid to your casual assumption that the "general attitude" in the US is that easy access to guns is good or important.

You are missing the mark. It is distrust of authority in the form of government that prompts our feelings that firearms ownership is part of our identity as a free people who intend to remain so. But as a European, I wouldn't expect you to understand that. Unless you are French, your national character likely has not included rebellion against your governing authority no matter how abusive they might have gotten.

However, given that most European nations don't have large militaries having outsourced much of that to the US and UK, I suppose it isn't much of a stretch to imagine you simply over-running your governing authorities in an unprincipled mob a la Bastille Day and manning the guillotines either.

Given our military, we have a different order of magnitude problem here. Our government is VERY capable of shooting back.

PS - I though I'd try my hand at making high handed assumption about your national character the same way your are doing it about us.



edit on 29-11-2015 by ketsuko because: (no reason given)




posted on Nov, 29 2015 @ 07:50 AM
link   
a reply to: stormbringer1701

Somewhat. While I agree with the sentiment, it is often what our judicial system is based on.
Of course not, but the difference is in whether that person reaches for a knife, or their trusty AR-15.

Ideally I'd like to see somewhat stricter guns laws in unison with the introduction of actual, community-driven militia.



posted on Nov, 29 2015 @ 07:52 AM
link   
Let's say a UBC law is passed and you have to disclose any mental health issues or certain medications. What will be acceptable and what will have your rights denied? What will be considered a mood altering medication?

Will your alcohol consumption be on the application? What about your religious beliefs? Those could be considered "mood altering" How about marital status? Could your recent divorce get you denied on a background check? I know some bitter divorced dudes that should be no where near a firearm.

What about your education background? Or annual income? A dumb and broke person can be just as dangerous as a person on Prozac.

I just don't see any good answer to the gun control debate without taking people's rights away.



posted on Nov, 29 2015 @ 07:53 AM
link   
a reply to: Sublimecraft

Made me chuckle a little....but there is some truth to it. Hypocrisy once again. But hey its the government the biggest hypocrites of all. Disclaimer.......both parties.




posted on Nov, 29 2015 @ 07:55 AM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko

Your neighbor would have to go to a FFL and get a background check.
If you choose to sell your pistol to them without it, and they commit a crime, you would be liable as well.

Banning guns and cashless society is fear-mongering

We have a system now where someone can find your gun for sale online, meet up with you and purchase that gun without a background check. That buyer may be a psychopath escaped con, but you'd never know.


edit on 29-11-2015 by HighFive because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 29 2015 @ 08:00 AM
link   

originally posted by: rossacus
a reply to: stormbringer1701
Nothing to do with the documents or history, it is simply the mentality. Justifying the need for something simply based on documents centuries old is the same type of perspective many christians have.

Legally in the UK you still have to practice archery on Sundays but we don't, tines change.

Please leave strawman type arguements out. It helps amplify the smugness.
OK let's check your little theory out then: What did men like George Mason state was the primary reason for Citizens to bear arms?

www.backwoodshome.com...




To disarm the people; that it was the best and most effectual way to enslave them.


Thomas paine:




Arms discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property. Horrid mischief would ensue were the law-abiding deprived of the use of them.


James Madison:




The highest number to which a standing army can be carried in any country does not exceed one hundredth part of the souls, or one twenty-fifth part of the number able to bear arms. This portion would not yield, in the United States, an army of more than twenty-five or thirty thousand men. To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties and united and conducted by governments possessing their affections and confidence. It may well be doubted whether a militia thus circumstanced could ever be conquered by such a proportion of regular troops. Besides the advantage of being armed, it forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of. The governments of Europe are afraid to trust the people with arms. If they did, the people would surely shake off the yoke of tyranny, as America did. Let us not insult the free and gallant citizens of America with the suspicion that they would be less able to defend the rights of which they would be in actual possession than the debased subjects of arbitrary power would be to rescue theirs from the hands of their oppressors.


Elbridge Gerry:




What, Sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty...Whenever Governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise an army upon their ruins.


Jefferson quoting Cesare Beccaria's On Crime and Punishment:




Laws that forbid the carrying of arms...disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes...Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.



posted on Nov, 29 2015 @ 08:00 AM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko

Moral? Intellectual? Of course not. Maybe superiority in terms of awareness, but that is easily rectified and likely to be incorrect to begin with. Sadly, I am intelligent enough to realise that I am vastly lacking in knowledge.

It was never my intention to suggest you had ads for guns to begin with. They are likely quite uncommon, if more than the one I linked even exist.
I'm not sure I've seen any Americans arguing for the control side here, however? Even I am not. It is true that this is not a representative sample, however.

Actually, I am Australian. Indeed, our government has bare existed for more than a century.
I think you may have misunderstood what I'm arguing for, I am not arguing for universally stricter gun control, I am arguing for stricter control in regards to certain weapons in tandem with the creation of a proper, community-driven militia. Sadly, I doubt that is likely to occur.

Once again, I am not actually European. Point taken, though.

The military overspending of your government is really quite disgusting. You have my condolences.

At least I got your nationality correct.



posted on Nov, 29 2015 @ 08:02 AM
link   
a reply to: Tarzan the apeman.

While I am not too aware of this particular incidence, the US does seem to be "Land of the broke, home of the double standard" nowadays.
Not meant to be an insult to the citizens, it's your terrible government's fault. My own country suffers, too.



posted on Nov, 29 2015 @ 08:02 AM
link   

originally posted by: Eilasvaleleyn
a reply to: stormbringer1701

Somewhat. While I agree with the sentiment, it is often what our judicial system is based on.
Of course not, but the difference is in whether that person reaches for a knife, or their trusty AR-15.

Ideally I'd like to see somewhat stricter guns laws in unison with the introduction of actual, community-driven militia.


The purpose of a militia is to have the right to independent armed bodies that are not government sanctioned. If you begin to make them "community-organized" then they become organs of the state, and we already have that in the form of the National Guard. And we keep that restricted so that only the governor of the state can request it mobilized to keep armed troops from ever operating inside the borders of the country against the day when the Chief Executive might feel the need to mobilize troops against his own people.

Making the militia part of this apparatus would be like adding a whole new armed body any would be rebelling apparatus would have to work against.

In the sense of the word, as was historically applied, the militia is simply the local force of men who had their own guns and could be mustered to pick them up in immediate defense of hearth and home.

It seems to me that you simply have a deep and immediate distrust of anything that isn't completely controlled and regimented by the government, and if that's so, then you are the opposite of quite a few Americans on a lot of issues.



posted on Nov, 29 2015 @ 08:04 AM
link   
a reply to: RainyState

I'll chime in quickly because you've touched on something that concerns me. There is no possible way to maintain gun rights and require medical disclosure to purchase, obtain, or have in one's possession a firearm. Every medical case is unique and requires a unique evaluation to determine what the problem is. Because it's subjective, a doctor's personal bias can and will play a part in the determination of which patient can or cannot own a firearm.

This leads to another problem. Because of how time consuming each unique evaluation is, there would quickly be a general criteria drawn up that will be used as a temporary guide for initially determining who should and shouldn't have a firearm until a full evaluation can take place. For instance, you might tell your doctor you've been depressed over the last few days and then you have the sheriff's office knocking on your door looking to confiscate your firearms or a red flag in the ATF computer. Then you fall right back into the trap of it being a subjective decision of the doctor and their personal beliefs.

This whole side of things is pretty alarming.



posted on Nov, 29 2015 @ 08:09 AM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko

Sadly, you are incorrect. My distrust of the government runs quite deep.

I should clarify what I mean by "community-driven" militia. By that, I mean a militia that has close ties to its local community, because it is staffed by local community members that have a strong desire to protect that community. Alternatively, a Militia with a strong belief in and dedication to the constitution such as the Oathkeepers would be ideal.



posted on Nov, 29 2015 @ 08:09 AM
link   
not to mention that at the time the bill of rights were written there was no organized militia. the militia act came after the bill of rights were ratified. they were not talking about such a militia and even were they they were on record as saying every able bodied man except some public officials was a member of the militia they referred to. i posted that cite further back in the thread (page 4.)
edit on 29-11-2015 by stormbringer1701 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 29 2015 @ 08:13 AM
link   
Before we continue this discussion, I would like to know what class of weapons, or level of... "Power"? Is acceptable.

Are you in favor of a complete revocation of all gun control? Wherein citizens can buy RPGs with no background check or licensing.
If you are in favor of partial gun control, similarly to what you have now, what would be ideal as far as restrictions go? Heavy assault weaponry? Automatic weapons? Semi-automatic weapons? Easily concealed weapons? So on and so forth.



posted on Nov, 29 2015 @ 08:13 AM
link   
a reply to: stormbringer1701

Absolutely. There's nothing ambiguous about the 2nd amendment. The militia was then, and today, a volunteer force made up by citizens. What kind of citizens? Armed citizens.



posted on Nov, 29 2015 @ 08:16 AM
link   
- Richard Henry Lee, Federal Farmer No. 18, January 25, 1788




“A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves…and include, according to the past and general usage of the states, all men capable of bearing arms… "To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them."
- Richard Henry Lee, Federal Farmer No. 18, January 25, 1788



posted on Nov, 29 2015 @ 08:16 AM
link   
a reply to: EternalSolace

Your constitution has already been torn to shreds. The issue of the second amendment is at most a tangential justification.
And strictly speaking, its terms could be fulfilled by allowing unmitigated purchase of manual-action rifles. Or muskets, with a total ban on everything else.

Actually, what was the most dangerous gun in the times of the founding fathers? Did they even have semii-automatic back then?


properly formed


You do not have properly formed militia. Your militia are not "formed" at all. I want to see proper militia, because I also believe they would be more effective if the worst came to b than a bunch of scattered citizens who have no trained together.

edit on 29/11/2015 by Eilasvaleleyn because: Reasons



posted on Nov, 29 2015 @ 08:17 AM
link   

It was never my intention to suggest you had ads for guns to begin with. They are likely quite uncommon, if more than the one I linked even exist.
I'm not sure I've seen any Americans arguing for the control side here, however? Even I am not. It is true that this is not a representative sample, however.


Oh, there are plenty. Mostly, the "gun wars" are waged via media in the form of news. There really aren't ads unless you seek out publications for firearms or political publications. The political publications don't advertise guns themselves, but they will carry op-eds expressing POVs either pro or con on the various issues surrounding firearm legality.

The mass media organ in this country as a whole carries a left leaning bias (despite what many will say), so you will see many stories crafted to carry the perception that we are the Wild West over here and shooting ourselves to death at a horrible rate. This perception obviously carries over seas. The actual truth is far more complicated.

Most of the violent crimes (gun crimes to use the media coined term, as if a gun gets up and decides on its own to go shoot someone) take place in the very big cities, and even in those cities, they take place in certain neighborhoods. If you live in one (I live on one that constantly hits the top list for most dangerous), you know where those places are avoid them. Outside of those narrow places, the cities are mostly safe, no more dangerous than anywhere else with no more likelihood of being shot.

And what you also don't hear is that most of those crimes are committed by guns owned illegally, not legally. So the legal measures taken, would only impact those people who own their firearms legally and don't commit the crimes in the first place in the main. The media heavily politicizes and publicizes any event that fits the narrow truth they want people to believe - the most crimes are committed by legal gun owners, so we need to take the guns away. That's why this latest incident is getting so much publicity as compared to a similar mass shooting event in New Orleans. That one was likely carried out by rival gangs using illegal guns ... nothing to see here, doesn't fit the narrative ... move along.

None of it makes violent crimes less tragic, but then again, I don't see where any of it justifies taking the millions of guns away from law-abiding owners, either. They aren't the main problem, and taking those guns away won't do anything to address the issue.

Maybe it helped you, but you live on an island with easier control to your access points. We have a government with no will to control our borders and very active criminal cartels who already smuggle in large amounts of illicit drugs largely unchecked. Take away the guns, and they'll simply add those to their inventory. In short, the criminals will still be heavily armed and easily armed while we the people who did nothing in the first place will now have no protection except for our police who seem hell bent on shooting anything that moves lately.
edit on 29-11-2015 by ketsuko because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 29 2015 @ 08:19 AM
link   
a reply to: Eilasvaleleyn

This is the best explanation of the whole nuclear bomb, RPG, and grenades argument I have ever seen.

Why can't I own nuclear weapons? The Second Amendment guarantees it! [THREAD THREE]



posted on Nov, 29 2015 @ 08:22 AM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko

-sigh-
Very well, I will allow you to convince me. For now, at least.

However, would it not be better for proper militias to be formed? I truly believe they could be nothing but beneficial. While I am not suggesting vigilantism, your police force is... Quite terrible, and I doubt you will disagree.
Still, militia could lead to another civil war... But at this rate, it might be heading there anyway.

I feel like Republicans would garner far more respect if the most vocal of that group were not so utterly insane. It saddens me, because Republican does not necessarily mean ultra-conservative. Nowadays, however... That is how it is perceived. And I would not say without good reason, unfortunately.
edit on 29/11/2015 by Eilasvaleleyn because: Reasons

edit on 29/11/2015 by Eilasvaleleyn because: Mysterious Reasons



posted on Nov, 29 2015 @ 08:28 AM
link   
a reply to: Eilasvaleleyn

The 2nd amendment does not state "properly formed militia". It states, "A well regulated militia..."

In the Heller decision, the SC ruled that it means well trained and disciplined. You're right that there are very few well trained militia that are legitimately recognized by individual states. But that doesn't negate that in order to have a militia to train to begin with, you have to have armed volunteers.

And sadly, yes. Our Constitution has been more or less shredded. It doesn't mean we shouldn't fight to return to it.


edit on 11/29/2015 by EternalSolace because: Clarity



new topics

top topics



 
70
<< 12  13  14    16  17  18 >>

log in

join