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.

 

Bernie Sanders Calls for All Guns Not Used Specifically for Hunting to be Outlawed!

page: 20
50
<< 17  18  19    21  22  23 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 2 2016 @ 07:01 AM
link   

originally posted by: Eilasvaleleyn
a reply to: butcherguy

I think that reveals a whole other problem.
Even if you like guns... Well, water is good, is it not?
Too much water, everyone drowns.

Yes, guns are like water, hammers, stones, cars, circular saws, knives, iron pipes..... the list is nearly endless, in that they are inanimate objects that have other purposes, but can be hazardous to humans if used improperly.




posted on Mar, 2 2016 @ 07:03 AM
link   
a reply to: Eilasvaleleyn



But are they a "certain type of gun used exclusively for killing people? " That's what all the fuss is about, isn't it?

I have asked before for an example of a gun that is designed exclusively for killing people.
Do you have an example?



posted on Mar, 2 2016 @ 07:07 AM
link   
a reply to: butcherguy

You have too many guns.
If there are more guns than people, I don't care what you think. That's too many guns.


I have asked before for an example of a gun that is designed exclusively for killing people.
Do you have an example?


I'm not sure such a thing exists outside of weapons already limited exclusively to military use, which is why I think Sanders made a blunder and needs to clarify exactly what it is that he means. Perhaps he wants to regulate handguns, and worded it in an incorrect manner.



posted on Mar, 2 2016 @ 07:12 AM
link   

originally posted by: Eilasvaleleyn

You have too many guns.
If there are more guns than people, I don't care what you think. That's too many guns.



That's the problem we face today. Others getting to determine what is too much.

"You have too much money, you don't need all that money."
"You have too many guns. You don't need that many."

Perhaps it's a good thing you aren't in charge.




posted on Mar, 2 2016 @ 07:14 AM
link   
a reply to: Eilasvaleleyn



Perhaps he wants to regulate handguns, and worded it in an incorrect manner.

It is not a difficult thing to articulate.
I think he did not want to say what he actually meant for political reasons.
Yeah...
Getting votes by conning the people.



posted on Mar, 2 2016 @ 07:19 AM
link   
a reply to: butcherguy

i honestly dont care if someone doesnt get to hunt. if it saves the lives of kids and innocent people, the banning high capacity mags is a sacrifice im willing to make, wouldnt you agree?

if your whole point is to be a contrarian and not to propose any solutions to the mass murderer problem, i dont see the point in our discussion. the fact is, mass murderers have easy access to weapons that allow them to kill dozens of people in a very very short period of time. more gun control and limiting the type or number of weapons will mean in less casualties.

to just say no no no and say, what about my hunting? i dont care about your rec activities, what i care is about making it harder for mass murders to obtain enough or certain weapons that allow them to kill a large number of people. i hear a lot of no's i dont hear a lot of solutions.
edit on 2-3-2016 by vjr1113 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 2 2016 @ 07:22 AM
link   
a reply to: DBCowboy

I don't think the gun and money issues are the same. Yes, some people possess an exorbitant amount of wealth, but in my eyes the issue is moreso how they came to possess that wealth. Whether through corruption, extremely morally dubious things, or outright illegal acts.

How much do you think is "too many" guns?
I think one per person is fine. Once you have more guns than people it's just sort of ridiculous.
I take it that you'd be fine with an infinite number?
Fifty per person, higher and higher and higher.
Well, I think you're likely to say "as many as there is demand for."


Perhaps it's a good thing you aren't in charge.


I'm not so sure.


Um, just one question though, if others getting to decide what is "too much" is an issue, then how do you apply that to criminal activities? Is it bad that people aside from a murderer think that killing one person is "too much"?
Is it a problem that people aside from a rapist think that raping one person is "too much?"
I don't know. The logic just seems inconsistent. I'm probably misunderstanding, however.

edit on 2/3/2016 by Eilasvaleleyn because: Reasons



posted on Mar, 2 2016 @ 07:23 AM
link   
a reply to: butcherguy

Maybe he genuinely believes that there are guns that are indeed exclusively for killing people. He could have arguably meant those in the hands of people convicted of violent crime. Not necessarily totally correct, but a fair enough assumption.
But the problem is, we don't know.



posted on Mar, 2 2016 @ 07:25 AM
link   
a reply to: vjr1113



i honestly dont care if someone doesnt get to hunt is it saves the lives of kids and innocent people. the banning high capacity mags is a sacrifice im willing to make, wouldnt you agree?

Yes, I will agree that YOU are willing to make that sacrifice. I, however, am not willing.



if your whole point is to be a contrarian and not to propose any solutions to the mass murderer problem, i dont see the point in our discussion.

I have been asking for clarifications and pointing out holes in your argument.



what i care is about making it harder for mass murders to obtain enough or certain weapons that allow them to kill a large number of people.

Why do you care so much about mass murders? (I am being serious and want to know why you are concerned about this and would appreciate an answer.)



posted on Mar, 2 2016 @ 07:25 AM
link   
a reply to: Eilasvaleleyn

I don't think anyone has the right to determine "what is enough" for any other person.

But then again, I'm for freedom.



posted on Mar, 2 2016 @ 07:26 AM
link   
a reply to: DBCowboy

I made an edit you might have missed. My apologies.

Then, in your mind, is one person free to take another's freedoms?
After all, you support freedom.
It is somewhat of a paradox, I admit.
edit on 2/3/2016 by Eilasvaleleyn because: Reasons



posted on Mar, 2 2016 @ 07:30 AM
link   

originally posted by: Eilasvaleleyn
a reply to: DBCowboy

I made an edit you might have missed. My apologies.

Then, in your mind, is one person free to take another's freedoms?
After all, you support freedom.
It is somewhat of a paradox, I admit.


Where did I ever state that I was for the infringements of anyone 's rights?

Can you point out where I was for infringing on someone's rights?

Thanks in advance.



posted on Mar, 2 2016 @ 07:35 AM
link   
a reply to: butcherguy

im arguing that more gun control and making guns capable if killing a large number if people illegal would reduce the casualties in mass murders.

the fact you wont sacrifice the ownership of something you dont need and is purely for recreation, even if it saves lives, means this conversation is over. you fail ethically.

i care that potential mass murderers dont have easy access to weapons that can kill dozens of people easily, because i could be a victim and i want there to be less casualties in mass killings.



posted on Mar, 2 2016 @ 07:39 AM
link   
a reply to: vjr1113



i care that potential mass murderers dont have easy access to weapons that can kill dozens of people easily, because i could be a victim and i want there to be less casualties in mass killings.

So you do care about the people that might be killed or suffer harm in a mass shooting, other than yourself?


edit on b000000312016-03-02T07:40:26-06:0007America/ChicagoWed, 02 Mar 2016 07:40:26 -0600700000016 by butcherguy because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 2 2016 @ 07:43 AM
link   
a reply to: DBCowboy

I wasn't accusing you of advocating that, and if I did I apologise as it was unintentional.

The issue as I see it is that you support freedom. However, stealing another's freedom would fall under what one is "free" to do. To stop someone from doing that would be restricting them.
Another example is buying elections. I take it you are pro-Citizens United? Or rather, you think that anyone and everyone should be able to donate as much and as secretively as they want to any politician. (Even foreign entities, of course.)
It would not seem to fall in line with your ideals otherwise.

Or do you point to the Bill of Rights and say "Not all freedoms, just those freedoms"?
I suppose that is reasonable. But in that case, it would seem hypocritical of you to use "Freedom" as an argument for anything that is not contained within that document.

I guess, ultimately, you would have to say, "I want this because this is what I want" without any sort of overarching message. "I think these freedoms are important. Others, perhaps maybe not so much, but these are definitely what matter to me."
It seems reasonable. You are within your rights to think that way, and I would not judge you for doing so.



posted on Mar, 2 2016 @ 07:44 AM
link   
a reply to: butcherguy

of course. why is that even a question?



posted on Mar, 2 2016 @ 07:52 AM
link   
a reply to: Eilasvaleleyn

Wow. You're all over the place.

Early on in my ATS tenure, I stated my philosophy quite clearly.

I don't care.

I don't care;

What you make
What you have
What you smoke
Who you sleep with
What god you pray to
How many guns you have
Why you don't have guns
Who you'll vote for
Why you vote
What you do


I really don't care. As long as you're not infringing on the rights of others, I don't care what you do.

It's none of my business.

But I expect the same in return.

It's none of your business;

How many or types of guns I have
How much I earn
What I smoke
What I drink
What I eat
What I do

Because I don't infringe on the rights of others.



posted on Mar, 2 2016 @ 07:54 AM
link   

originally posted by: vjr1113
a reply to: butcherguy

of course. why is that even a question?

Which is more dangerous to children?
Gun?
Or
Swimming pools?

ScienceBlogs Op Ed Piece
Please, think of the children and start a crusade against swimming pools..... I don't care what you like to do for recreation.

Mass shooting deaths in the US in 2014..... 9 people.
Mother Jones Mass Shootings



posted on Mar, 2 2016 @ 07:59 AM
link   
a reply to: butcherguy

thats really dumb im sorry but mass murderers and accidentally drowning are not even in the same ballpark. its not even in the same planet. and to add, its an equivocation fallacy. pools are just as dangerous and guns, therefore guns aren't that dangerous. its just a failure in logic.

what about homicides? what if only one person dies from an atomic blast ever, does that mean atomic bombs are less dangerous than pools? its just, such a weak argument.



posted on Mar, 2 2016 @ 08:03 AM
link   

originally posted by: vjr1113
a reply to: butcherguy

thats really dumb im sorry but mass murderers and accidentally drowning are not even in the same ballpark. its not even in the same planet. and to add, its an equivocation fallacy. pools are just as dangerous and guns, therefore guns aren't that dangerous. its just a failure in logic.

what about homicides? what if only one person dies from an atomic blast ever, does that mean atomic bombs are less dangerous than pools? its just, such a weak argument.


But it IS about children dying and....
AHHHHH, so now we see the truth.
You don't care about children dying.
You must want them to die.
That is terrible... not caring about children dying, all because you want to have recreation.
BY THE WAY,
I never said guns aren't that dangerous.... That would be YOU putting words in my mouth.
What I did was show that you have a problem with guns.... and apparently not with children dying!
edit on b000000312016-03-02T08:05:51-06:0008America/ChicagoWed, 02 Mar 2016 08:05:51 -0600800000016 by butcherguy because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
50
<< 17  18  19    21  22  23 >>

log in

join