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.

 

In the United States, Knives, Fists, and Feet are More Dangerous Than Rifles

page: 8
28
<< 5  6  7    9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 21 2016 @ 01:58 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



SM2

posted on Jun, 21 2016 @ 02:04 PM
link   
a reply to: TXRabbit

really? resulting to name calling now? can't win on the merits of your arguments so stoop to that level eh?



posted on Jun, 21 2016 @ 02:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: AmericanRealist
a reply to: Greggers

the question begs, if there is no evidence, what causes this person to be investigated to begin with? Is it a loyalty to the Bill of Rights, States rights, and loving America? Yes, that will do it.




So, for example, let's say someone at his mosque overheard him pledging allegiance to ISIL, but the FBI were unable to prove it was true.

Or maybe a couple of gun shop owners heard him requesting level 3 body armor and a truckload of ammunition and called the FBI because the dude was mumbling something under his breath about Jihad.
edit on 21-6-2016 by Greggers because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 21 2016 @ 02:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: macman
a reply to: Greggers

The irony of the 2nd being put in place, so the People can defend themselves firstly from a Govt, and people want the Govt to regulate this is insane.


The Wolf wants to make the rules about the hen house, and enforce said rules.



Well the 2nd can be interpreted to imply such things.

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Hence why there is such confusion over the topic in general. Many arguments can be made to the amendment's intended scope.



posted on Jun, 21 2016 @ 02:41 PM
link   
a reply to: DeadFoot


"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."


You do understand that the term "well regulated" at the time meant "practiced and in good working order" don't you?

It had nothing at all to do with restrictions upon the types of arms which are being kept and borne.

That is where a lot of the confusion comes in and where people think it needs to be 'reinterpreted.'

The intended scope is quite clear if you understand the meanings behind the words used.


SM2

posted on Jun, 21 2016 @ 02:43 PM
link   
a reply to: DeadFoot

true, it could mean well trained and disciplined line Army regulars of the time. Or it could mean as well equipped as Army regulars, what it does not mean is regulated through tons of laws, or else the whole shall not be infringed would not be there would not be there. Funny that this particular amendment specifically says shall not be infringed, almost like they knew that overzealous politicians and their dupes would try exactly that.



posted on Jun, 21 2016 @ 02:46 PM
link   
a reply to: DeadFoot

Title 10 USC 311. Militia composition and classes.
The Gist of it...

"All able-bodied americans from 17 to 45 years of age are members of the Militia. American women who are members of the national guard are members of the Militia. Former members of the U.S.Army, navy, air force and Marine corps are members of the Militia until 64 years of age. (described in 32-313). The national guard and naval militia are called the organized Militia. The unorganized militia is everyone in the militia who is not in the national guard or the naval militia."

The interpretations you look at are from lawyers that wish to change it to what they want it to say.


The 2nd is so clear and direct a child can understand it.



posted on Jun, 21 2016 @ 03:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: macman
a reply to: DeadFoot

Title 10 USC 311. Militia composition and classes.
The Gist of it...

"All able-bodied americans from 17 to 45 years of age are members of the Militia. American women who are members of the national guard are members of the Militia. Former members of the U.S.Army, navy, air force and Marine corps are members of the Militia until 64 years of age. (described in 32-313). The national guard and naval militia are called the organized Militia. The unorganized militia is everyone in the militia who is not in the national guard or the naval militia."

The interpretations you look at are from lawyers that wish to change it to what they want it to say.



Um, you're citing code instituted in 1956 under Eisenhower.

It's another interpretation.

Happens to be the one I agree with as well.




The 2nd is so clear and direct a child can understand it.



Yet many adults don't agree. You really shouldn't be surprised about your previous confusion as to why people might interpret it differently. The debate has been happening for centuries. If you genuinely want it to end, perhaps it's not the best idea to paint all of the opposition as dumber than children? It's hardly compelling.
edit on 21-6-2016 by DeadFoot because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 21 2016 @ 03:16 PM
link   



You do understand that the term "well regulated" at the time meant "practiced and in good working order" don't you?


My statement had nothing to do with me or what I think.

I'm sorry to have somehow baited such a response.

All I'm saying is that people shouldn't be outright offended by the peoples' discussion of the topic. It seems a little more enthusiastically finite to some than it truly is, I suppose.



posted on Jun, 22 2016 @ 01:32 AM
link   
Adding on to the OP, sort of off a tangent, this morning, I did a small math project that somewhat relates.

I used Wikipedia and counted up every death from a mass shooting that has occurred in the last 25 YEARS

720.

In 2014, according to the FBI, 1567 people were killed with a sharp instrument.

Even if you assumed that every one of those people in those mass shootings were killed with an Assault Rifle (which wasn't the case, by far) - you could still double the amount of deaths, and STILL be over 100 deaths short of how many people were stabbed to death. In 2014. Alone.

To put it more simply:

Double 25 years worth of American mass shooting deaths, and you still wouldn't reach the number of people who were stabbed or cut to death just 2 years ago.

Crazy. . . . . . It's almost as if, regardless of weapons, people will still find ways and justifications for murdering each other.


SM2

posted on Jun, 22 2016 @ 07:08 AM
link   
a reply to: chuck258

facts like these don't matter to the anti gun people. The have selective hearing when it comes to facts. They have an irrational fear and an emotional response to guns.

On a personal note, I have a sister in law that though I was completely insane because I own several firearms and I keep one in my nightstand draw loaded at all times ( 1911 in .45acp). Then, after they had a child, someone broke into their house in the middle of the night. The very next day, my brother was asking me to go to the gun shop with him because his wife had changed her tune. Funny how the tune changes when you realise you actually needed one and didnt have one



posted on Jun, 22 2016 @ 07:20 AM
link   
a reply to: AmericanRealist

Why are you quoting statistics about rifles? They only accounted for 285 deaths in 2013, as compared to 1,490 by knives. Rifles are not the problem; they are difficult to conceal and dispose of. The real problem is handguns. Handguns caused 5,782 deaths in 2013, three times the number killed by knives.

Every time a psycho kills a bunch of strangers, you can count on the NRA lying to the American public. I don't believe in revoking any right guaranteed by the Bill of Rights, but the NRA has poisoned the conversation with its bribery and propaganda. The moment Congress even begins to talk about some form of gun control, sales of firearms spike. It is fear that is destroying America. It's disgusting.

Source.
edit on 22-6-2016 by DJW001 because: (no reason given)


SM2

posted on Jun, 22 2016 @ 07:39 AM
link   
a reply to: DJW001

does that number of handgun deaths also include people shot and killed by law enforcement ? The stat usually does, and also includes accidents and suicides, so it is very misleading as it pertains to this discussion.

If people truly want more and more gun control as the anti gun people claim, and the polls they roll out constantly saying the majority of Americans want more gun control then, by all means, call a Constitutional convention and change the second amendment. Any other attempts to circumvent and bait and switch your way around it will just get struck down in court as being unconstitutional. However, i think those polls are false, the gun control crowd is a minority of the people that want to force their fear of an inanimate object down the collective throat of everyone else.



posted on Jun, 22 2016 @ 07:57 AM
link   
a reply to: SM2


does that number of handgun deaths also include people shot and killed by law enforcement ? The stat usually does, and also includes accidents and suicides, so it is very misleading as it pertains to this discussion.


The rifle deaths would also include police shootings and suicides. I am in favor of enforcing the Second Amendment by having all gun owners enlist in a well organized militia that trains them to use their firearms properly.


SM2

posted on Jun, 22 2016 @ 08:05 AM
link   

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: SM2


does that number of handgun deaths also include people shot and killed by law enforcement ? The stat usually does, and also includes accidents and suicides, so it is very misleading as it pertains to this discussion.


The rifle deaths would also include police shootings and suicides. I am in favor of enforcing the Second Amendment by having all gun owners enlist in a well organized militia that trains them to use their firearms properly.


So, admittedly, those numbers are misleading. firearm death numbers include suicide and police shootings. Those can be removed from the discussion, as people will kill themselves with whatever is the easiest method at hand. That number would not change one bit if they had no access to firearms. Police shootings need not be discussed as it relates to gun control either. So what are you left with? A very small number of actual civilian gun homicides? They need to just admit it already, it's not about the deaths, it's about control and removing something they are afraid of.



posted on Jun, 22 2016 @ 08:13 AM
link   
a reply to: SM2


So what are you left with? A very small number of actual civilian gun homicides?


No, an average of two or three per day in Chicago alone. I guess that's an acceptable sacrifice so that frightened people can delude themselves into thinking that guns make them safe.

I don't know about you, but I resent the fact that ordinary people are being treated like potential criminals in public places. I resent that children are being taught what to do in the event of a mass shooting at school. I am completely fed up with the NRA's lies and bribes to create the climate of fear underlying our diseased "gun culture." The purpose of the Second Amendment is not to allow every lunatic to have a gun, it is to organize the community to provide for its mutual self defense. The NRA has been actively working to undermine this. It has divided the electorate... and what happens when a people are divided?


SM2

posted on Jun, 22 2016 @ 08:32 AM
link   
a reply to: DJW001

well, i have to disagree with you on some of this. While I agree we should not allow lunatics access to guns, that is already a law. You can not buy a gun if you are mentally ill, granted it has to be either reported or admitted to on the form. If all these gun measures people supposedly want work so well, explain Chicago. They have some of the most restrictive gun laws in the country and also the highest violence rate as it pertains to guns. That right is evidence that these laws do not work.

What lies has the NRA spread?

The purpose of the second amendment is further reaching then what you say. Yes it is about common defense. against enemies of the country both foreign and domestic. It's about the people not being powerless in the face of a tyrannical government, or outside invaders. it is about self defense of one's property and life and that of others. It's about being able to put food on the table. It's not a simple as mutual self defense.

Once again I ask for specifics on what lies the NRA is responsible for and how they are actively working to undermine the second amendment.



posted on Jun, 22 2016 @ 09:27 AM
link   
a reply to: DJW001


Why are you quoting statistics about rifles?


Because that is the premise of the thread? (looks at title of OP)

And especially the "assault rifle" as is kept being pushed by our president and media. This is the type of weapon which is continually used as a reason for pushing more restrictions upon the 2nd.

After reading the remainder of SM2's posts, I am left with very little to say. He has succinctly and concisely laid out well reasoned arguments to which you will no likely rebut with more of the same hyperbole you've displayed in nearly every post you've made.

However, there are still a few points I would make:


The real problem is handguns.


No, the problem is why people choose to do violence upon another, not the method they use to inflict that violence.

In subsequent posts are a few other odds and ends I wish to address as well:


I am in favor of enforcing the Second Amendment by having all gun owners enlist in a well organized militia that trains them to use their firearms properly.


Actually, I would not mind see some sort of mandatory civil service for each and every resident of the country. Among other things, during the period of time in which each person is serving, people would be taught gun safety and responsible use; along with the meanings and reasons for each of the amendments.

When I went to high school, I was in JROTC and fired weapons very similar to what Omar Mateen used in his atrocity. There was a rifle range underneath the seats of the auditorium and never was there an incident.

Of course, something like the above will never happen for a multitude of reasons, and so we are left to argue over things that will not affect the root causes of the problems of which firearms violence is merely a symptom.


It has divided the electorate... and what happens when a people are divided?


And the reason the electorate is divided are many, all of all of which can be traced back to a corrupt system that has ensured those reasons are never addressed. Politicians continue to champion causes which only further serve to divide us more, and most aren't able to or are unwilling to recognize this for what it is.
edit on 22-6-2016 by jadedANDcynical because: typos


SM2

posted on Jun, 22 2016 @ 10:01 AM
link   
thank you for the kind remarks Jaded.

Something I would like to add, as it always seems to get lost in the discussion.

The AR-15 rifle. It is always demonized as this "high power weapon of war" lets get the facts on this evil rifle.

The vast majority of the AR-15 rifles out there are chambered in .223 Remington. first off this is NOT a military cartridge. It is a civilian sporting cartridge that is one of the least powerful center fire cartridges available, only slightly ahead of the .17 HMR. It first the same caliber projectile as a .22. In roughly half the states in the nation, it is not even legal to hunt deer with. There is a military version, it is called the 5.56x 45 NATO . that ammunition , even though it appears to be the same is very different. If you attempted to fire a 5.56 round in a typical AR-15 chambered in .223, that .223 rifle would suffer a catastrophic failure. the Chamber pressures of the 5.56 would eventually (most likely within a few rounds) destroy the chamber in the .223 rifle. So to recap, the .223 is an overpowered .22 that is not an ideal hunting round and is illegal to hunt deer with in several states. It is a very very far cry from a high powered weapon of war as dear leader continues to call it. In full disclosure, you can purchase the AR15 chambered in 5.56 Nato and that will allow you to shoot both the NATO round and the .223.

Now, onto another fallacy when it comes to this rifle. It is NOT an automatic. An automatic weapon continues to fire as long as you a) feed it ammunition or b) release the trigger. An AR15 is a semi automatic rifle, which means one trigger pull per round. So therefore, all of this he sprayed automatic fire blah blah is a flat out lie. Furthermore, it is not "easy" to convert an ar15 to full auto as some like to claim. It takes advanced knowledge and skills to do so. for one, .223 ammo does not produce enough chamber pressure to cycle the system in a precise and fast enough manner to accomplish full auto fire reliably in the AR platform, hence the 5.56 NATO round as discussed previously. Secondly, the fire control group of the AR 15 is different then the M4 military carbine (as the ar 15 isnt even really a rifle, it is a carbine). The bolt, sear, and trigger group are different. as well as the lower receiver. granted not much different. The difference in the receiver is a notch cut into a shelf at the rear of the fire control cavity as well as location of hole for the retaining pins and a stop that will allow the safety switch to go further then the "safety" and "fire" positions. The M4 has the third position for burst fire ( it is not full auto either). The sear is physically different between the two rifles, and no, you cannot just go to a gun shop and purchase the sear as it is a controlled item and only available for vietnam era M16 rifles which will not work as is, in a new off the shelf AR 15. The bolt is also physically different. Now, to be fair, you can purchase a lower receiver that is the full auto version, as well as the bolt. Some people that build these rifles will use these parts as they are built a little better and can hold up to wear and tear better. The key ingredient is the sear.


This weapon is so popular for many reasons, obviously people like it for the appearence. others like it for its relatively simple operation and ease of shooting. As it uses such a small round, it has very little recoil, add in the recoil buffer system in the stock, and the recoil is near about non existent. Due to its small projectile and powder amount relative to the projectile mass, it obtains a fast and flat trajectory which makes it very accurate over its effective range (about 300-400 yards), so target shooters love it. Varmit hunters love it, as the small round, low recoil and accuracy provide a dependable firearm for hunting and pest removal of small game.

so to recap yet again

A.R does not mean assault rifle, as it is neither a rifle, nor a military weapon. It is a sporting carbine. It means Armalite, the developer of the weapon platform (side note, the AR-10 fires a .30 caliber round such as the .308)

fires a relatively weak, underpowered round typically

is not, nor can it be easily made to be full auto regardless of what you see on youtube and what you read from anti gun articles and such



posted on Jun, 22 2016 @ 01:28 PM
link   
a reply to: chuck258

I Think your counting all victims including injuries, not just fatalities. Try the Mother Jones link I cited a few pages back. They source to every article, catalogue by weapon type, and have the numbers injured and killed in some kind of spreadsheet chart. Total number killed I came up with was under 500 over the last 25 years.


a reply to: Greggers

And yet, no action was taken, imagine that. Because Obama and Hillary Clinton were given orders by people who attended the UN small arms treaty for global disarmament june 6-10 and the Bilderbergs June 9-12. Our President was complicit in the conspiracy to allow this to happen. So was the witch from Arkansas who has been familiar with this person since at least 2011 due to her connections with his Taliban loving father.

a reply to: DJW001

I cite rifles because it is the "big scary rifles" that the politicians keep trying to ban, even though they were also the least used weapon in mass shootings, or any shooting for that matter. In fact they are trying to do just that right now.



new topics

top topics



 
28
<< 5  6  7    9  10 >>

log in

join