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.

 

Ban gun free zones to reduce mass shootings

page: 6
19
<< 3  4  5   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 8 2015 @ 09:34 AM
link   
For those that just can't seem to grasp the SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED amendment of the second.


For those that just can't seem to grasp the 9th where it talks about DENY or DISPARAGE.

For those that just can't seem to grasp the 14th where it says:



All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.


www.law.cornell.edu...

To drive this point home.

Certain people that don't like guns support gun free zones.

They they would scream bloody murder if they were 'Gay free zones'. 'Black free zones'.

For example.

'Gun free zones' are UNCONSTITUTIONAL, but the anti gunners don't care.




posted on Dec, 8 2015 @ 09:46 AM
link   
a reply to: neo96

Then get to screaming bloody murder about the Patriot Act, why don't you? All's fine and dandy until they try to take your guns. makes me wonder what the point of the whole thing is, since the only purpose of having guns seems to be defending your right to have guns.


They they would scream bloody murder if they were 'Gay free zones'. 'Black free zones'.


I think you've got a short circuit in your cerebellum. That's one of the most ridiculous comparisons I've ever heard.



posted on Dec, 8 2015 @ 07:33 PM
link   
a reply to: AngryCymraeg


Ummm...is your circular logic...a symptom of living on a tiny little island...?

Round and round he goes...where he stops...everybody...knows...




YouSir
edit on 8-12-2015 by YouSir because: of all that space...



posted on Dec, 9 2015 @ 08:50 AM
link   
Begs the question, what would have happened at the Bataclan if security were carrying firearms?



posted on Dec, 9 2015 @ 09:17 AM
link   
a reply to: Konduit

I feel like I shouldn't need to point out that there is a difference between authorized and trained security personnel carrying firearms, and literally everyone carrying firearms.



posted on Dec, 9 2015 @ 09:47 AM
link   
a reply to: Eilasvaleleyn

Just because we propose that everyone should be trained with and carry firearms concealed does not mean everyone will ultimately choose to do so. It is the unknown quantity and location of firearms that makes planning an attack much harder for would be assailants. Gun free zones make this calculation very simple for potential terrorists and other armed criminals.



posted on Dec, 9 2015 @ 10:01 AM
link   
a reply to: machineintelligence

You know, I'd be fine with everyone owning a gun if I could even trust them to be even moderately responsible. Unfortunately, I know many people whom I would not be able to do so for. They would end up shooting themselves, or others, in a fit of sheer, slobbering stupidity.

I think that there needs to be some compromise, and actually in favour of the gun nuts for once. A few people within the zones, trusted people, who have to go through background checks first (yes, I know those are hated) should carry something on them for defensive measures. People who we can trust to... Oh, I don't know, not shoot seven year old girls in a fit of paranoia for instance.

In an ideal world, everyone would have a gun. To be fair, in an ideal world, nuclear weapons access could also be totally unrestricted. Alas, humans are human. Actually, it's probably a good thing that I have no access to firearms.
There are a lot of humans I don't like very much.

Sadly, the root issue is that guns exist. At all. Ever.



posted on Dec, 9 2015 @ 10:51 AM
link   
a reply to: Eilasvaleleyn

CCW permit holders are trained and are required to have background checks and are finger printed. There are far more CCW permit holders than there are police officers in some states already. You keep mentioning a shooting of a seven year old girl but you provided no resource for that and I have not seen that news. What you also do not include in your calculus is the huge number of times every day that a concealed weapon is used to prevent a crime or attack. Many of these situations are not reported to authorities. My brother for instance was retrieving items from his car at a motel when a man approached him while he was half way in the car. The man brandished a hunting knife and demanded his wallet. He responded by pulling his Glock and pointing at the man's knee cap and asking him to back away. The man retreated but being in a strange place and headed to another state he did not call the police. This sort of situation is quite common. CCW holders simply mind their own business unless they must act in self defense or to protect the unarmed who are threatened within their immediate area.



posted on Dec, 9 2015 @ 11:02 AM
link   

originally posted by: machineintelligence
a reply to: Eilasvaleleyn

So how does a 10 year old deal with a rattle snake out in a pasture without a gun where you live? My gun sure seemed like the best tool for that job at the time for me I can tell you.


Here's a better question; When has anyone advocated to limit your right to carry a gun out in the pasture?

I too own guns and I even had a concealed carry permit for a while, but for completely different reasons than yourself.

I got my permit due to the fact that during the build-up to the 2003 Iraq War, the port where I worked experienced a massive increase of military shipments bound for Iraq and our weekly payroll went from around 75 thousand up to 1.3 million overnight.

Every Friday I was passing out 1.3 million or more in payroll checks and cashing over a third of them because we had workers from all over the country who didn't have any other avenue to cash their checks without being charged excessive fees.

I had bars on my office door, behind which we were passing out checks. Two of us actually open carried at all times while passing out & cashing checks and we had one man sitting right behind us with a loaded double barrel shotgun throughout the entire process, which usually took 10 to 12 hrs to complete. We also employed two off duty police officers to maintain a standing presence in our parking lot, to insure that no one got robbed outside after cashing their checks.

Our local police dept. actually told us that we didn't need any permits for the guns in my office while conducting payroll but it wouldn't hurt to have them either, especially when transporting cash to and from the bank. So we got the permits.

When my permit expired, I didn't feel the need to carry and IMO, there may indeed be times when the need to carry is obvious.

But then we have those who just prefer to carry out of a sense of paranoia and no, I'm not talking about while out in the wild.

I don't think that increasing the number of paranoid people carrying firearms in public is really going to accomplish anything positive. If anything, that's how 7 yr olds at soccer practice end up getting killed.

Here's another good question; If having more guns in public equates to safer streets, we should be the safest nation on earth, why aren't we?
edit on 9-12-2015 by Flatfish because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 9 2015 @ 12:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: introvert
You cannot ban gun-free zones because people have personal property rights that are on par with one's right to bear arms. People have the right to demand people follow their rules, within constitutional reason, on their own property.

Your right ends where someone else's rights begin.


That's not the case. The Constitution is the highest law in the land. Can you quote an amendment that gives citizens the right to deny other people's rights on their private property? This would effectively be legal sovereignty on your own land, as if they can refute the highest law in the land on their private property, then they can refute all of them.

The third amendment prevents soldiers from being quartered within a house without the owner's consent. The fourth amendment protects us from unreasonable search and seizure without a warrant, the fifth amendment states that private property shall not be taken for public use without just compensation. I'm not aware of any laws that give landowners legal sovereignty.

We do not forfeit our Constitutional rights on private property. Gun-free zones are unconstitutional.



posted on Dec, 9 2015 @ 12:55 PM
link   
a reply to: Flatfish




I don't think that increasing the number of paranoid people carrying firearms in public is really going to accomplish anything positive. If anything, that's how 7 yr olds at soccer practice end up getting killed.


I don't think increasing the number of crazy people carrying guns in public is a good idea either and I have never advocated that. I do think increasing the number of sane people licensed to carry guns in public and removing restrictions on the armed and prepared people to defend themselves and innocent little children is a great idea.



Here's another good question; If having more guns in public equates to safer streets, we should be the safest nation on earth, why aren't we?


Unlicensed crazy people carrying guns in public is a terrible idea of course, but because it can, and does happen we who are trained in combat arms, have passed background checks, and are licensed to carry should not be restricted from our right to defend not just ourselves but all of those who find themselves in harms way in our presence.

The US is not the safest place because we have more liberty which also increases our risks. We also have very uneven distribution of rights being respected and that is the issue of the OP. I for one also carry a first aid kit, fire extinguisher, water, emergency flares, thermal blankets, and emergency food supplies in my car. Am I paranoid because of that? No I am prepared for as many situations as I can. Perhaps because my training started very early and has continued into the present day. I have rendered first aid when an accident happened while those without training or a first aid kit stood around wringing their hands or talking on their cell phone with 911 while their family member was in distress. Had I not seen the situation and stopped to render aid that person might have bled out.

I advocate for mental, physical, and material preparedness for emergency situations. Restricting my ability to perform a needed act with the required tools and materials as I am trained to do endangers the lives of those who are vulnerable and in danger of immediate peril. The San Bernadino incident as an example. I would notice the impending danger, find cover, when it was clear we were coming under fire I would draw my weapon, aim for exposed flesh areas on the shooters and meet their fire with fire from cover. The shooters who were standing and shooting and not from cover would have been wounded and rendered incapacitated or ran or dispatched.

Waiting unarmed under a hail of gun fire for swat to arrive is not a situation that helps anyone but the assailants.



posted on Dec, 9 2015 @ 03:47 PM
link   
There should be a federal CCW permit.
And it should be like the CCW permit system in Israel.
www.theblaze.com...
www.freerepublic.com...

Won’t looser gun laws make it easier for criminals to get weapons?
"Every criminal who wants a weapon already has one,"

www.calguns.net...



posted on Dec, 9 2015 @ 04:14 PM
link   
a reply to: ANNED

I don't know that I like the idea of a federal CCW license. If you do that, you're giving more influence to anti-2A/anti-CCW forces in states where those types currently hold little influence. Personally, I'm tired of self-righteous morons from NYC and San Francisco telling me what's good for me already.
edit on 9-12-2015 by vor78 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 9 2015 @ 05:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: machineintelligence
a reply to: Flatfish




I don't think that increasing the number of paranoid people carrying firearms in public is really going to accomplish anything positive. If anything, that's how 7 yr olds at soccer practice end up getting killed.


I don't think increasing the number of crazy people carrying guns in public is a good idea either and I have never advocated that. I do think increasing the number of sane people licensed to carry guns in public and removing restrictions on the armed and prepared people to defend themselves and innocent little children is a great idea.



Here's another good question; If having more guns in public equates to safer streets, we should be the safest nation on earth, why aren't we?


Unlicensed crazy people carrying guns in public is a terrible idea of course, but because it can, and does happen we who are trained in combat arms, have passed background checks, and are licensed to carry should not be restricted from our right to defend not just ourselves but all of those who find themselves in harms way in our presence.

The US is not the safest place because we have more liberty which also increases our risks. We also have very uneven distribution of rights being respected and that is the issue of the OP. I for one also carry a first aid kit, fire extinguisher, water, emergency flares, thermal blankets, and emergency food supplies in my car. Am I paranoid because of that? No I am prepared for as many situations as I can. Perhaps because my training started very early and has continued into the present day. I have rendered first aid when an accident happened while those without training or a first aid kit stood around wringing their hands or talking on their cell phone with 911 while their family member was in distress. Had I not seen the situation and stopped to render aid that person might have bled out.

I advocate for mental, physical, and material preparedness for emergency situations. Restricting my ability to perform a needed act with the required tools and materials as I am trained to do endangers the lives of those who are vulnerable and in danger of immediate peril. The San Bernadino incident as an example. I would notice the impending danger, find cover, when it was clear we were coming under fire I would draw my weapon, aim for exposed flesh areas on the shooters and meet their fire with fire from cover. The shooters who were standing and shooting and not from cover would have been wounded and rendered incapacitated or ran or dispatched.

Waiting unarmed under a hail of gun fire for swat to arrive is not a situation that helps anyone but the assailants.


Yeah, like the "Oath keeper" who accidentally discharged his weapon into the sidewalk while standing outside the military recruiting office to "protect" them from would be assassins.

Or how about the guy with a concealed carry permit who's gun went off while he was paying his tab in the Chipolte restaurant in Sandy Utah last year?

And those people were lucky. According to the CDC, accidental discharges actually killed 591 people in 2011 alone.

All those other emergency supplies you carry around with you don't have the potential to kill others and are hardly worthy of mention in this debate. Unless your just trying to inject a strawman into the mix.

Statistics clearly show that guns purchased for protection actually kill more innocent people then they protect.

Furthermore, the training provided in most concealed carry classes is a far cry from combat training and in most cases, is just enough to keep those being licensed from shooting themselves or someone else while attending the class.

I too was raised around hunting and guns from a very early age and gun safety is second nature to me, but that's not the case with most people and a few hours of instructions is hardly adequate IMO to be out there "defending" the general public.

During my tenure as a longshoreman, we occupied 5 different union hiring halls at different points in time where we conducted meetings, daily hiring, passing out payroll, etc..

During that time, somebody got shot and/or killed at every single one of those union halls and speaking as someone who's been "in the mix" more than once, the last thing you need when the shooting starts in a crowded public space, is more people with guns.

I too have been at the scene of tragedy where quick reactions save lives, at both shootings and workplace accidents and I can't ever once remember needing a gun to do it.



posted on Dec, 9 2015 @ 08:19 PM
link   
a reply to: Flatfish



All those other emergency supplies you carry around with you don't have the potential to kill others and are hardly worthy of mention in this debate. Unless your just trying to inject a strawman into the mix.

It was an analogy not a strawman device. The analogy is that those tools, skills, and materials are required for me to provide the service of rendering aid in a crisis. It is no different then a firearm, training with said firearm and the ammunition to operate it in an attempted mass shooting event. Had 2 or 3% of the people in the resource center been so armed and trained it could well confounded the attempt to cause mass casualties and saved lives. It has happened many times and you should know this if you are in Texas. A person with concealed carry weapon disrupts a potential mass shooter. It is a fact that when someone wants to kill innocents they will often choose a place where they can shoot unarmed people and meet little if any resistance.



posted on Dec, 9 2015 @ 09:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: machineintelligence
a reply to: Flatfish



All those other emergency supplies you carry around with you don't have the potential to kill others and are hardly worthy of mention in this debate. Unless your just trying to inject a strawman into the mix.

It was an analogy not a strawman device. The analogy is that those tools, skills, and materials are required for me to provide the service of rendering aid in a crisis. It is no different then a firearm, training with said firearm and the ammunition to operate it in an attempted mass shooting event. Had 2 or 3% of the people in the resource center been so armed and trained it could well confounded the attempt to cause mass casualties and saved lives.


Yeah right! That explains why all those survivors are now calling for more of their co-workers to carry guns in the workplace.

Truth be told, when the bullets start flying most concealed carriers are diving for cover just like everybody else and they don't raise their heads again until the shooting stops. I've seen it happen with my own eyes.


originally posted by:
machineintelligence
It has happened many times and you should know this if you are in Texas. A person with concealed carry weapon disrupts a potential mass shooter. It is a fact that when someone wants to kill innocents they will often choose a place where they can shoot unarmed people and meet little if any resistance.


Yeah, I hear about some patriot with a gun saving innocents from certain death every day here in Texas. Hardly!!

Although, I do hear about someone getting shot or killed in accidental shootings on pretty regular basis down here and the sad part is, the victims are usually kids.

In closing, I will state that I don't think you can provide any factual evidence proving that people who go on shooting rampages give any consideration to gun restrictions at their target locations.

Especially when we're talking about those dedicated to dying as martyrs in the course of committing their own attacks.




top topics



 
19
<< 3  4  5   >>

log in

join