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.

 

I have had enough.

page: 3
19
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 19 2016 @ 06:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: zazzafrazz
a reply to: INEVERQUIT
^^^^^^^^^^^^Has had enough



Nice÷
I was going to say that, but you beat me to it!




posted on Jun, 19 2016 @ 06:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: INEVERQUIT
Listen up people. I have some venting to do. Since this is the rant section, a ranting I will go.

Let's get this straight------>

Guns do not kill without assistance from PEOPLE.
Bombs do not explode without assistance from PEOPLE.
Cars do not crash without assistance from PEOPLE.
Drugs do not cause death without assistance from PEOPLE.

Everyone wants to blame everything for anything on something, but they all have one very important common

denominator, what could that be I wonder, hmmmm, oh it must be PEOPLE.

I want to make it clear, I am a PERSON so I am included. I just get so angry when the obvious gets overlooked. I personally, have tried very hard to avoid being the type of PERSON that refuses to accept responsibility for their own actions.

That is why, I do not own a gun, I do not manufacture bombs, I do not drive impaired or while texting or talking or Blue Toothing or being distracted by something, I do take pain pills and if I overdose on them it will be because I did it.

End of Rant


That was quite a rant. Here in the US we don't lock up the guns in a cell, we put the people (people) who are found guilty in a cell. The thing with objects is they need assistance to do anything, be it good or bad. See in our society we have a trial, at great expense, to find the person either guilty or not guilty of let's say capital murder with a firearm. Would you put the firearm on trial and let the person walk free?
I hope you are trying to get a knee jerk response from the ATS group cause from my perspective this seems like a fairly weak argument. Have I missed something?

edit on 19-6-2016 by seasonal because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 19 2016 @ 06:09 PM
link   
It's people + guns that are killing folks in large numbers.

We can't get rid of the people part of that equation.

But we maybe can get rid of some of the guns part.



posted on Jun, 19 2016 @ 06:12 PM
link   
a reply to: Painterz

How would you get "rid" of some of those guns?



posted on Jun, 19 2016 @ 06:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: reldra
a reply to: INEVERQUIT

Well, it's difficult to ban people, or certain tyoes of people.


Are you kidding?? Planned Parenthood does it on a massive scale.

As of October 2013:
"Planned Parenthood at 97 Years: 6,300,000 Babies Aborted, Billions in Profit"

www.lifenews.com...



edit on 19-6-2016 by EternalShadow because: add



posted on Jun, 19 2016 @ 06:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: DAVID64
a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin

No, sorry, people kill people.
My gun is right over there and it's not running around shooting any one. My shotgun has been hanging on the rack for....can't remember the last time I shot it.....and it's not killing any one. People do these things. Whether they do it with a gun, a hammer or a golf club, it's not the weapon, it's the maniac on the other end.
Anti 2nd keep saying we should ban assault weapons. Define assault weapon. Any gun used is an assault weapon. There are so many guns that do exactly the same thing, but folks want to ban a gun because it looks like a military style weapon, without realizing that the only difference between an AR and a hunting rifle are purely cosmetic. Same round, same capacity, but the one looks scary and the other, well that's ok, because it doesn't look like the other.



This is the same gun with cosmetic changes only and the ignorant want to ban the one that looks scary.


ETA - Do nuclear weapons launch themselves.......or does it take a person to make that decision to push the button?


This is why people think some Americans are A-HOLES .

lol the statement you made reminds me of beef out of back to the future .


Ps is you last name trump lol

My names trump , BEEF TRUMP lol
edit on 19-6-2016 by Denoli because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 19 2016 @ 06:17 PM
link   
a reply to: EternalShadow

nice



posted on Jun, 19 2016 @ 06:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: seasonal
a reply to: Painterz

How would you get "rid" of some of those guns?


I realize that you didn't ask me but the simple solution is to completely ban military ammunition.

Folks that say that their semi-automatic assault rifles aren't different from battlefield weapons should only be provided with the ammo to back that claim up.



P.S. Thus leading people to realize that for civil combat my dueling suggestion is the only real choice thusly leading to my Master-Plan for total societal chaos. Might even bring on a zombie-apocalypse, but it can't really be said.




edit on 19-6-2016 by Bybyots because:



(post by DOCHOLIDAZE1 removed for a manners violation)

posted on Jun, 19 2016 @ 06:24 PM
link   
a reply to: Bybyots

So I can't buy ammo from the US military? There are a number of manufactures CCI, remington, bear, and the list goes on and on. This is available at the local walmart, sporting goods store or hardware.

Or are you talking about banning all ammo?


(post by DOCHOLIDAZE1 removed for a manners violation)

posted on Jun, 19 2016 @ 06:28 PM
link   
a reply to: seasonal

I'm talking about not providing military grade, "ball"-type ammunition, the kind I was provided with in the military for my assault rifle, to civilians.

At all.

You get .22lr for your little fantasy life, if there is one, and that's it.

Yay!

Then rapiers and single-shot dueling pistols.

Believe me, the rapiers will become WoC when it come to CC.


edit on 19-6-2016 by Bybyots because:




posted on Jun, 19 2016 @ 06:31 PM
link   
a reply to: Bybyots




You get .22lr for your little fantasy life, if there is one, and that's it.


?? please embelish on this i dont understand.



posted on Jun, 19 2016 @ 06:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: Bybyots
a reply to: seasonal

I'm talking about not providing military grade, "ball"-type" ammunition. the kind I was provided with in the military for my assault rifle, to civilians.

At all.

You get .22lr for your little fantasy life, if there is one, and that's it.

Yay!

Then rapiers and single-shot dueling pistols.

Believe me, the rapiers will become WoC when it come to CC.


Agree to disagree. This would push people to other modes of killing because we haven't fixed what is broken inside the person. Of course we all know how successful bans are like alcohol, fireworks, or MJ are/were.



posted on Jun, 19 2016 @ 06:51 PM
link   
Well, you can also argue we should allow people to own nukes, grenade launchers and chemical weapons. We shouldn't have to worry about it because these weapons don't kill people, people do! I don't know about everyone else, but I wouldn't be comfortable allowing people to own those weapons.

There is no way that our founding fathers could have foreseen how guns would develop to the point where you could kill a regiment of soldiers in a matter of seconds. The 2nd Amendment was clearly designed to meet the need for a militia.

I don't see a problem with gun ownership. However, owning automatic rifles, machine guns and other guns that can wipe out a crowd of people in a matter of seconds is insane! They simply shouldn't be in the hands of the general populace. It's foolish to think everyone is mentally stable and responsible to own such a weapon that can kill on a massive scale.

Ask yourself, if your next door neighbor had an arsenal of automatic weapons who displayed bouts of uncontrolled anger, would you feel comfortable standing up for his right to own these weapons?



posted on Jun, 19 2016 @ 06:51 PM
link   

edit on 19-6-2016 by WeRpeons because: Double post, damn reply button!



posted on Jun, 19 2016 @ 07:02 PM
link   
a reply to: DOCHOLIDAZE1



?? please embelish on this i dont understand.


Okay, I'll give it my best shot.

It was only, like, 6 or 7 years ago that I learned that civilians could buy military-grade ammunition; that is to say "ball"-type ammunition. I'm not a gun-nut so bear with me.

The shock to me was that ammunition that was designed to create irrecoverable "battlefield" wounds was available to civilians.

I must admit that I was naive to this fact despite having purchased the same sort of stuff in my distant past, as a military soldier spending money on a local U.S. economy, governed by the same (changing) laws that would allow anyone to buy it. I think that I must have thought I was automatically given access because I was a soldier. I dunno.

But the fact is that civilians don't need that #.

That's where I am coming from.

The ammunition should not be available for retail purchase in America. And for folks that like to play "Army"?

They can configure their # to fire .22lr.

That's what I think.

Otherwise rapiers and dueling pistols (with obnoxious cartridges that contain maybe willie pete ((I've been giving it more thought and I think WP should be the only option for pistols)).

What do you think?


edit on 19-6-2016 by Bybyots because:




posted on Jun, 19 2016 @ 07:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: WeRpeons
Well, you can also argue we should allow people to own nukes, grenade launchers and chemical weapons. We shouldn't have to worry about it because these weapons don't kill people, people do! I don't know about everyone else, but I wouldn't be comfortable allowing people to own those weapons.

There is no way that our founding fathers could have foreseen how guns would develop to the point where you could kill a regiment of soldiers in a matter of seconds. The 2nd Amendment was clearly designed to meet the need for a militia.

I don't see a problem with gun ownership. However, owning automatic rifles, machine guns and other guns that can wipe out a crowd of people in a matter of seconds is insane! They simply shouldn't be in the hands of the general populace. It's foolish to think everyone is mentally stable and responsible to own such a weapon that can kill on a massive scale.

Ask yourself, if your next door neighbor had an arsenal of automatic weapons who displayed bouts of uncontrolled anger, would you feel comfortable standing up for his right to own these weapons?

Do you know of anyone that owns an automatic weapon, let alone an arsenal?

A regiment has 3000 men in it in WWII.



posted on Jun, 19 2016 @ 07:05 PM
link   
a reply to: INEVERQUIT


I agree.


We should ban people.



posted on Jun, 19 2016 @ 07:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: OtherSideOfTheCoin
Saying guns don't kill people people do is the most stupid argument second amendment advocates have.

Guns kill people just acsept it.

Really? I just set my gun down beside me and now I'm looking at it. How's it going to kill me or anyone else? It won't and never will without someone pulling the trigger.

That's just like saying hammers kill people. I now went and took my hammer out of the toolbox and set it next to. I'm now looking at it. Nope, it's not going to kill me either unless someone swings it.

It takes a person to pull the trigger or swing a hammer. Saying that an inanimate object kills people by itself is the most ludicrous load of BS I've heard, ever.





top topics



 
19
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join