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.

 

Gun Debate: I'm still flummoxed!

page: 1
8

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 10 2016 @ 12:15 AM
link   
I understand people not wanting to own guns. I understand why some may not even want them near. What I don't understand, and please educate me, is why one person thinks another law abiding citizen should not have a gun or why they deem that the 2nd amendment should not be as important as the rest? Thoughts? . . . please?!~?

First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Socialist.

Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me. Pastor Martin Niemöller (1892–1984)



edit on 10-6-2016 by JinMI because: Stuff and Thangs




posted on Jun, 10 2016 @ 12:19 AM
link   

originally posted by: JinMI
I understand people not wanting to own guns. I understand why some may not even want them near. What I don't understand, and please educate me, is why one person thinks another law abiding citizen should not have a gun or why they deem that the 2nd amendment should not be as important as the rest? Thoughts? . . . please?!~?

First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Socialist.

Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me. Pastor Martin Niemöller (1892–1984)



People often lose sight of the fact that guns don't squeeze their own triggers. Gun violence is a mental illness problem, not a second amendment problem. Instead of blaming Psychiatry for failing to do it's job, the government targets law abiding citizens. Factually speaking, you cannot pass laws to deter criminals.
edit on 10-6-2016 by Aristotelian1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 10 2016 @ 12:25 AM
link   
a reply to: JinMI

I actually completely understand why people don't want law abiding citizens to have guns. Murders, accidents, suicide, selling them to criminals etc. Everyone is a law abiding citizen until they break the law.

I personally don't think banning guns would have any positive impact on gun violence, but I get why some people do. I don't think they put enough thought into it, how many guns are already floating around illegally, and most I think live in more urban areas where guns aren't a thing. You don't have to worry about predators, the cops are actually close enough that you don't worry, etc.

I used to be a little nastier towards anti gun people, but now I realize they legitimately want what they think is best, even though they're wrong.



posted on Jun, 10 2016 @ 12:38 AM
link   
We live in a day and age where everybody thinks their opinion matters and that they are always correct. They post something to facebook and get 3 likes so they think they have the best point of view ever an know what people want. I think a lot of people demonize guns because of a lack of understanding on how they actually work and usage.

I hade a debate with a coworker the other day she wanted to completely ban all guns. So I said to her "If we ban all guns and we going to take away police officers guns as well?"

She said "well no because criminals will still have guns"

I just looked at her until she realized her flawed reasoning.



posted on Jun, 10 2016 @ 01:32 AM
link   


First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out— Because I was not a Socialist. Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out— Because I was not a Trade Unionist. Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out— Because I was not a Jew.

how are you trying tie together the basis of the nazi pogroms, with what i assume would be the democrats who, just had a guy run on a semi socialist ticket?

the second amendment was signed in 1791, I know the forefathers said you had a right to own a gun, but they also said you could own people, the constitution is a lot like a grandfather. he’s wise, we love him, and he means well, but, he’s getting really, really old and every once in awhile he says something crazy and we gotta go to the other room and discuss what we’re gonna do about him.
in 1791, the us was in its nascency after it had just completed a very messy, bloody divorce from britain. maybe a 'well-regulated militia' seemed like a good idea at the time because everyone was scared of another war breaking out.
but the popular guns included muskets, flintlock pistols and blunderbusses, which were basically Happy Meal Toys compared to the machine guns and automatic rifles of today.
you need to take a good, hard look at how you're giving an antiquated law the power to take modern lives.

here we made it tough to get guns decades ago, and near impossible after dunblane.
in a normal society, guns aren't needed in everyday life, yes shootings happen here but, they're extremely rare.
your country has school kids getting shot in the face, and the nra tell you more guns are needed, because of an over two hundred year old law.



posted on Jun, 10 2016 @ 01:37 AM
link   

originally posted by: stinkelbaum


First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out— Because I was not a Socialist. Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out— Because I was not a Trade Unionist. Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out— Because I was not a Jew.

how are you trying tie together the basis of the nazi pogroms, with what i assume would be the democrats who, just had a guy run on a semi socialist ticket?

the second amendment was signed in 1791, I know the forefathers said you had a right to own a gun, but they also said you could own people, the constitution is a lot like a grandfather. he’s wise, we love him, and he means well, but, he’s getting really, really old and every once in awhile he says something crazy and we gotta go to the other room and discuss what we’re gonna do about him.
in 1791, the us was in its nascency after it had just completed a very messy, bloody divorce from britain. maybe a 'well-regulated militia' seemed like a good idea at the time because everyone was scared of another war breaking out.
but the popular guns included muskets, flintlock pistols and blunderbusses, which were basically Happy Meal Toys compared to the machine guns and automatic rifles of today.
you need to take a good, hard look at how you're giving an antiquated law the power to take modern lives.

here we made it tough to get guns decades ago, and near impossible after dunblane.
in a normal society, guns aren't needed in everyday life, yes shootings happen here but, they're extremely rare.
your country has school kids getting shot in the face, and the nra tell you more guns are needed, because of an over two hundred year old law.

Do you think all guns should be banned, or just some?



posted on Jun, 10 2016 @ 01:42 AM
link   
The poem was used to analogize watching others rights being taken away and doing nothing, then wondering were the help is when they get to your freedoms.

What type, kind, caliber or action is not a basis for discussion. Those were "high tech" at the time and I dare say anything available to a civilian now is not on par with the firepower of our modern U.S. Military.



posted on Jun, 10 2016 @ 02:15 AM
link   
My theory on gun control is., if you are aggressive and dumb with a gun you are probably gonna die. There is no love lost. If you are responsible and have a gun. Probably gonna protect your family. Sure an idiot can get a gun but restricting gun ownship is not a good idea, especially for the intended purposes. I'm not a gun owner by choice. Im a Veteran with PTSD and know I couldn't make a responsible decision based on my biases. Not everyone is me
edit on 3442016xJune000000Friday10America/ChicagoFri, 10 Jun 2016 02:16:34 -0500 by BoxFulder because: (no reason given)

edit on 3452016xJune000000Friday10America/ChicagoFri, 10 Jun 2016 02:17:03 -0500 by BoxFulder because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 10 2016 @ 02:48 AM
link   

originally posted by: Domo1
a reply to: JinMI

I actually completely understand why people don't want law abiding citizens to have guns. Murders, accidents, suicide, selling them to criminals etc. Everyone is a law abiding citizen until they break the law.

I personally don't think banning guns would have any positive impact on gun violence, but I get why some people do. I don't think they put enough thought into it, how many guns are already floating around illegally, and most I think live in more urban areas where guns aren't a thing. You don't have to worry about predators, the cops are actually close enough that you don't worry, etc.

I used to be a little nastier towards anti gun people, but now I realize they legitimately want what they think is best, even though they're wrong.


First of all I present you with this
for the most logical flip-flops in one single short post that I have read in a while.




posted on Jun, 10 2016 @ 06:18 AM
link   
a reply to: JinMI

What I don't understand, and please educate me, is why one person thinks another law abiding citizen should not have a gun or why they deem that the 2nd amendment should not be as important as the rest?

Simple really. Many, if not all, of the gun control advocates believe they know better than anyone else what rights you should and shouldn't have. At the same time, they also want to equalize victimization. They see one demographic group suffering more at the hands of gun violence than another and they want to make the group that isn't so adversley affected suffer from gun violence and crime at the same rate. Put simply, they know that the crooks will still have guns and that's the whole point, they want those criminals to feel they can safely victimize the "haves" as easily as they victimize the have nots. So, if you have more "stuff" than the poor, they want to make you an easier victim so the crooks can hurt you and take your stuff. In this way, crime falls more equally upon those who work for their stuff because they'll be disarmed and unable to protect themselves and their loved ones.

Welcome to the new hell that the US will become when they take your firearms.



posted on Jun, 10 2016 @ 09:02 AM
link   
a reply to: JinMI

If people wouldn't shoot other people so much, there wouldn't be as much of an issue. It's clearly not all self defence - how can a person tell if another is mentally ill, or medicated on something, or just ready to snap?



posted on Jun, 10 2016 @ 09:17 AM
link   
Most gun control advocates hearts are in the right place, but unfortunately, their heads are in another. They look at it from a position of emotion which is understandable. Most gun violence is pretty senseless and they can't fathom that man can be so cruel to one another. Guns make it easy, so they figure if they can just get rid of guns, they can stop the violence.

Obviously, this is not the case.



posted on Jun, 10 2016 @ 09:35 AM
link   
Probably what would help the most and wouldn't piddle on anyone 2nd amendment chips would be a few simple things

Basic gun safety courses in schools, take some of the glamour and curiosity out of the thing.

Proper mental health, not just a 15 min consultation and then a bottle of pills shoved in your hand.

Police getting the resources to crack down on the low end petty gang stuff that causes a lot of these problems.

Help for those who want to get off drugs, so they don't need to break into properties etc.



posted on Jun, 10 2016 @ 09:47 AM
link   
The people affected by gun laws are the people that you don't have to worry about in the first place.
No. The push to remove guns from law abiding citizens is part of the Communist / Socialist mantra. That way the Progressives can enact their idea of Utopia without fearing that the people will revolt once they find out what this Utopia is.



posted on Jun, 10 2016 @ 09:53 AM
link   
a reply to: JinMI

"Common sense" gun laws are just like "common sense" bathroom laws.

Both target innocent citizens over fear of what some crazy person might do.



posted on Jun, 10 2016 @ 05:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: Maxatoria

Basic gun safety courses in schools, take some of the glamour and curiosity out of the thing.



Bingo!

When I was younger guns were literally everywhere. In my home, at my Uncles and my Grandparents. Literally within reach wherever I was. I helped clean them and was taught gun safety from the start. When I got into school, hunter safety classes were a few times a year and were cheap or almost free. In boy scouts we had rifle and archery merit badges and whole camps designated for obtaining them. In high school my ROTC class had rifle training, not just drills but marksmanship.

Where did all this go?!

When it left did it create a vacuum?

Was it intentional?

Back on topic, I guess there's not many gun haters on ATS.



posted on Jun, 10 2016 @ 07:49 PM
link   
a reply to: JinMI

Simply put, it's brainwashing. Some politicians want no one to have guns because they want total control. They push for propaganda that convinces large numbers of people that guns are somehow bad, and dangerous, and teach people to distrust guns. Some have even speculate that various shootings are false flags, planned events, to further the agenda.



new topics

top topics



 
8

log in

join