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.

 

Jeh Johnson: Gun control is now a matter of homeland security

page: 2
24
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 15 2016 @ 12:41 AM
link   
a reply to: shredderofsouls




Some Gun owners are disgusting, the fact that another killing spree has happened means nothing to them, just as long as they get theirs guns.


Why should it ?

Over 299 millions guns didn't kill any one. Neither do 99.9% of gun owners.

What is DISGUSTING is trying to make ever single person in this country responsible for a crime they didn't commit.

Hell the 5th amendment says something about that, and it goes something like THIS.



NO PERSON shall be held accountable for a capital or otherwise infamous crime..........


But hey WHO CARES.




posted on Jun, 15 2016 @ 12:41 AM
link   

originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: shredderofsouls

A rifle has never walked nor has it ever fired itself at anyone ever.

And yes...MULTIPLE and RESPONSIBLE gun owner.

Glad you are enjoying your freedom of speech as well!



Yeah because when we ask for stricter laws we want the tool itself to be put through a thorough background check, a safety course and to mentally fit to have an owner..gawd don't be an idiot.



posted on Jun, 15 2016 @ 12:43 AM
link   
a reply to: BoxFulder


Tell me, why is it that Chicago and New York, the cities with the most restrictive guns laws amongst some others have so many crimes with guns? You seem to believe that "more and more restrictive gun laws help"... Why isn't that these very restrictive gun laws are not working in those cities in the U.S?

Oh, and btw, it is illegal for any government agency to have a list of gun owners, and what guns they have... What you propose would make such a list legal...



posted on Jun, 15 2016 @ 12:43 AM
link   
a reply to: neo96

Then the background wasn't strict enough if he legal bought them knowing his father was a radical Muslim and he was under FBI investigation before. Your 2nd point makes my point about fingerprint identifiers. He couldn't use his mom's gun only she could. I'm not a gunaphobe I am a military veteran and used guns more than you have also a hunter from MIchigan. Just tired of dumbasses like that Mateen guy and others shooting up people.



posted on Jun, 15 2016 @ 12:43 AM
link   
a reply to: shredderofsouls

Hows that ?

I thought the ENTIRE system of LAW was predicated on INNOCENT until proven guilty in a court of LAW.

The background check has that backasswards.

Guilty until proven innocent.



posted on Jun, 15 2016 @ 12:44 AM
link   
a reply to: shredderofsouls

Your going to put a rifle through a background check and safety course? Rifles have a mentality?

This is getting redundant.



posted on Jun, 15 2016 @ 12:45 AM
link   

originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: shredderofsouls




Some Gun owners are disgusting, the fact that another killing spree has happened means nothing to them, just as long as they get theirs guns.


Why should it ?

Over 299 millions guns didn't kill any one. Neither do 99.9% of gun owners.

What is DISGUSTING is trying to make ever single person in this country responsible for a crime they didn't commit.

Hell the 5th amendment says something about that, and it goes something like THIS.



NO PERSON shall be held accountable for a capital or otherwise infamous crime..........


But hey WHO CARES.


WTH wants to make every gun owner responsible for the idiots. If you a law abiding citizen, are mentally fit to own one and background checks have been thorough on you then don't worry about it.

Why are you against making it harder for the criminals and crazies to own one?



posted on Jun, 15 2016 @ 12:45 AM
link   
a reply to: ElectricUniverse
I will keep quoting this!!!!



“Those who surrender freedom for security will not have, nor do they deserve, either one.”
― Benjamin Franklin


You hurt my feelings when you say this, can I remove your free speech? Removing one amendment gives them the right to remove any of them...



posted on Jun, 15 2016 @ 12:46 AM
link   
a reply to: shredderofsouls

The fact is...murder is illegal. By law.



posted on Jun, 15 2016 @ 12:46 AM
link   
a reply to: ElectricUniverse
You are missing my point didn't say anything about gun free zones. That to me doesn't make sense either. Its a 2nd amendment right.....except for these areas exactly right dumb. Criminals will get guns anyways. That's why with fingerprint identifiers it will stop the black market trade of guns, put guns into rightful gun owners hands and make crime solving easier.



posted on Jun, 15 2016 @ 12:50 AM
link   

originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: shredderofsouls

Your going to put a rifle through a background check and safety course? Rifles have a mentality?

This is getting redundant.



Gawd, do i have to put sarcasm in quotes to make you realize that I was being sarcastic about putting the gun through those.

One more time, for the not so bright. We want to make it harder for the criminals and crazies (PEOPLE not guns) to gain access to guns.

The sane and law abiding, we or I have no issue with. Just want to make it harder for those "PEOPLE" to get one.

Can't believe I have to capitalize PEOPLE to make sure you understand that I am talking about people not guns.



posted on Jun, 15 2016 @ 12:52 AM
link   

originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: shredderofsouls

The fact is...murder is illegal. By law.



Murder is illegal but a criminal and the insane can get a gun whenever. You don't find anything wrong with that?



posted on Jun, 15 2016 @ 12:53 AM
link   
a reply to: BoxFulder

Stricter how? What else could have been done?

Why do you want stricter checks for law biding American citizens the people trying to get into your country?

how many times can you name where the gun was stolen then used in mass shooting? Finger print locks will have the ability to be changed, so that wouldn't stop the Obama administration from selling guns to the cartels then the cartels passing them out.



posted on Jun, 15 2016 @ 12:55 AM
link   

originally posted by: shredderofsouls

originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: shredderofsouls

Your going to put a rifle through a background check and safety course? Rifles have a mentality?

This is getting redundant.



Gawd, do i have to put sarcasm in quotes to make you realize that I was being sarcastic about putting the gun through those.

One more time, for the not so bright. We want to make it harder for the criminals and crazies (PEOPLE not guns) to gain access to guns.

The sane and law abiding, we or I have no issue with. Just want to make it harder for those "PEOPLE" to get one.

Can't believe I have to capitalize PEOPLE to make sure you understand that I am talking about people not guns.


How do you not see by making it more difficult for "those people" with these measures, you are making it more difficult on everyone?

Infringement is the word you are looking for. You are asking to infringe against all PEOPLE because SOME PEOPLE do bad things.



posted on Jun, 15 2016 @ 12:55 AM
link   
a reply to: BoxFulder

What? Where did I say anything about "gun free zones"? Even thou yes that is another example of a law that criminals will never follow, hence that law, among others makes no sense...

Criminals are criminals, and as such they always find workarounds to new laws, or regulations...



posted on Jun, 15 2016 @ 12:56 AM
link   
a reply to: shredderofsouls

I responded to what your typed.

So you a non gun owner want to tell me when and how I can exert my constitutional rights?

Again, and you'll have to use your oh so bright mind to rationalize this. More laws WILL NOT solve the problem. You are chasing the wrong boogeyman.



posted on Jun, 15 2016 @ 12:57 AM
link   
a reply to: shredderofsouls

A felon already can not buy or own a weapon. Someone with known mental issues can not own or buy a weapon. These along with murder are already laws. So please oh superior one, tell me how more laws will fix this.



posted on Jun, 15 2016 @ 12:58 AM
link   
a reply to: thinline

Stricter in if you under investigation of the FBI, has ties to radical Islam than you shouldn't get a gun period. The technology of fingerprintblocks for guns havent even been developed yet how do know they can be changed? Fast and furious was a disgrace and borderline treason I agree to the fullest. Quit thinking I'm a liberal or ab anti gun person. Attacks like in Orlando will hurt legal gun owners like you and me. Can't we find a common sense solution to the problem? Or are you not gonna admit there is a problem with the way things are when pieces of excrement like Mateen can get a gun?
edit on 2912016xJune000000Wednesday15America/ChicagoWed, 15 Jun 2016 00:59:20 -0500 by BoxFulder because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 15 2016 @ 12:59 AM
link   

originally posted by: atomish

How do you not see by making it more difficult for "those people" with these measures, you are making it more difficult on everyone?

Infringement is the word you are looking for. You are asking to infringe against all PEOPLE because SOME PEOPLE do bad things.


I have no criminal record, I am currently not under investigation , I have no ties to criminal activity and I have no mental health issues, so if I want a gun I can get one..even if the laws were stricter.

Now though, if I had any of those issue, I can still get a gun because people want it easy when they go for a gun and you see no issue with that.



posted on Jun, 15 2016 @ 01:01 AM
link   
I stole this saying from someone else...says it perfectly.

Gun Control = Victim Disarmament

It is the law abiding public, NOT the criminals that will be held within the constraints of the new laws.



new topics

top topics



 
24
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join