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.

 

U.S. Senate Ready to Vote on Gun Bans

page: 12
21
<< 9  10  11    13  14 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 21 2016 @ 06:32 AM
link   

originally posted by: dismanrc

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: Zanti Misfit
a reply to: xuenchen

None of those Idiots in the Senate can't seem to Understand how Any Bill they bring up in the attempt to Amend the Second Amendment will stop these things from happening Again .The Only way to stop Future Radical islamic inspired Terrorists Attacks is to screen ALL Muslims coming into the United States Thoroughly , and make Damn sure the American People are Protected from those who could Conceivably Pose a Threat . Also , Gun Free Zones should be Suspended in Areas where Possible Future Acts of Terror could be Perpetrated for the Sole Purpose of Killing innocent People . Americans DEMAND to Enforce their God Given RIGHT to Defend Themselves and their Loved Ones from the Animals that the Federal Government Can't or Won't seem to Control by themselves at this moment .


You know, there is an Amendment before the Second, known as the First. You may want to read it sometime.

The government cannot act prejudicially against religions.



Um I think we need to look at that one also.

The Founding Father wrote that when only hand set, hand cranked presses where in use. They never imagined these new evil high speed presses that print muitiple pages a second. and this internet thing... I just don't think thats what they had in mind.





... and while you're looking at things ...

look up false equivalency.




posted on Jun, 21 2016 @ 07:10 AM
link   

originally posted by: Ohanka

originally posted by: SudoNim

originally posted by: dismanrc

originally posted by: roadgravel
Terrorists and bad guys will get weapons. My concern is people who have mental issues that are not compatible with firearms, rage waiting to explode. Aren't the first two racking up the most kills.

50 killed in a club or 50 killed in a week in Chicago - the first is a bigger deal because it was by one person. Still 50 dead. Most of the second group of 50 has already been written off by society.

I can see the concern for what was an average person walking in with a weapon that can easily be used to fire 100s of rounds in a few minutes.

Question:

Do semi automatic rifles need to be legally allowed in public? Or should they be kept in homes and businesses?

I am in support of the right of citizens to possess firearms and to defend their homes.


i.imgflip.com...



I think this pretty much covers it



Classic ignorance. There IS a PROBLEM and most people DO know about it. Problem is that lots of Americans don't care about it and hide behind generic statements and bravado.




Um I think we need to look at that one also.

The Founding Father wrote that when only hand set, hand cranked presses where in use. They never imagined these new evil high speed presses that print muitiple pages a second. and this internet thing... I just don't think thats what they had in mind.


Yet your intrepreation of the 2nd Amendment is fine? Despite it being completely out-dated and irrelevant to modern society you still cling to its every word. Yet one that prevents casual racism needs changing? Unbelievable.


The United States has more gun deaths with it's 300 million people than countries with 60 million and 80 million (Britain and Germany)

Who would've thought it.


Given that its expressed as a rate, it takes account of the population differences.

I'm more concerned by the fact that the numbers it uses are flat out wrong and inflate US yearly firearm-related deaths by about three times the true number and no one noticed.

Its actually closer to 10 per 100,000, not 29.7.



posted on Jun, 21 2016 @ 08:31 AM
link   
a reply to: vor78

So I offered a source of the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, whats your source for your number?



posted on Jun, 21 2016 @ 08:46 AM
link   
a reply to: dismanrc

That one got me too initially. When referring to gun show loophole, they are referring to Joe Blow that is not an FFL holder, that rents a booth/table at a show to sell guns from his personal collection. You don't need an FFL as long as you don't purchase firearms with the specific intent to resell them. And as such, you don't have to run a background check on the buyer. Now, I'm sure some, possibly most, gun show promoters may require an FFL for a booth, but there will also be those that don't.

Same deal applies to internet sales that are personal, not commercial, transactions.



posted on Jun, 21 2016 @ 08:53 AM
link   
a reply to: SudoNim

The CDC. They say 10.6.

You can also calculate it from any number of sources that provide the total number of firearm related deaths in the US, which is a little over 30,000 yearly when suicides and homicides are combined. I can source that if you need it as well. Regardless, 30,000 in a group of 300 million calculates to a rate of 10 per 100,000 (a few tenths higher without rounding as I have).

And let me just add, if you take the rate in your chart, and calculate out an actual number, you'd need close to 100,000 firearm deaths per year in the US to have a base rate of 29.7 per 100,000. Can you find me any stat that shows the US has 100,000 yearly deaths from firearms? Nope. It doesn't exist, because its not true.

Understand, I'm not blaming you for that, but rather the source of the chart.
edit on 21-6-2016 by vor78 because: (no reason given)

edit on 21-6-2016 by vor78 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 21 2016 @ 09:15 AM
link   

originally posted by: DanteGaland
a reply to: burdman30ott6

You do REALIZE that your comments in this thread and the MINDSET you are throwing around give justification to 'those people' who make the lists to PREVENT people from BUYING guns.

The more you complain......

...the more likely you and others end up ON a list. A list to NOT be allowed to BUY or OWN guns.

What is messed up?

I can go on the Facebook to buy/sell/trade groups and BUY a gun tonight with CASH...no background check from a private individual.

And that's NOT a 'loophole'? And we are A-OK with that as a nation? Are we people? ARE WE?


Ahem according to that law not without a judicial review he cant be restricted from buying a gun. They cannot just toss you on a list for no reason at all like exercising your first amendment rights. Also Unless they are stripped of all rights they can still own the guns because its a right not a prilidge. Someone can give them one for a present an dit would be perfectly legal.



posted on Jun, 21 2016 @ 10:22 AM
link   
a reply to: SudoNim

And all crimes committed with guns are committed by criminals.

How would you expect the government to stop criminals before they commit crimes?

Use big city gun crimes as a starting point.




posted on Jun, 21 2016 @ 10:53 AM
link   
The problem for the government is ...there are way more veterans on the gun owner side of the equation than there are active military. It wont be like taking guns from goat herders.



posted on Jun, 21 2016 @ 11:22 AM
link   
And thankfully...every single attempt at taking away our rights has been defeated! It is the first time in quite a while I have to give the Republicans a little credit. At least there is still some logic in our government...a little. Now, maybe the Democrats will try going after the nuts, criminals and terrorists instead of law abiding citizens.

Fat chance! Why...because they want to take guns from law abiding citizens. Otherwise, why wouldn't they try to come up with ways to keep them only from those who commit mass murder?


SM2

posted on Jun, 21 2016 @ 11:48 AM
link   

originally posted by: SudoNim

originally posted by: dismanrc

originally posted by: roadgravel
Terrorists and bad guys will get weapons. My concern is people who have mental issues that are not compatible with firearms, rage waiting to explode. Aren't the first two racking up the most kills.

50 killed in a club or 50 killed in a week in Chicago - the first is a bigger deal because it was by one person. Still 50 dead. Most of the second group of 50 has already been written off by society.

I can see the concern for what was an average person walking in with a weapon that can easily be used to fire 100s of rounds in a few minutes.

Question:

Do semi automatic rifles need to be legally allowed in public? Or should they be kept in homes and businesses?

I am in support of the right of citizens to possess firearms and to defend their homes.


i.imgflip.com...



I think this pretty much covers it



Classic ignorance. There IS a PROBLEM and most people DO know about it. Problem is that lots of Americans don't care about it and hide behind generic statements and bravado.




Um I think we need to look at that one also.

The Founding Father wrote that when only hand set, hand cranked presses where in use. They never imagined these new evil high speed presses that print muitiple pages a second. and this internet thing... I just don't think thats what they had in mind.


Yet your intrepreation of the 2nd Amendment is fine? Despite it being completely out-dated and irrelevant to modern society you still cling to its every word. Yet one that prevents casual racism needs changing? Unbelievable.


this graphic is very misleading and a lie. the original graphic you took this from and edited, was gun deaths per 1,000,000 not 100,000. here is the link to a snopes article containing it and saying how even at 1m people, it was still not entirely true

www.snopes.com...

if you read it it actually states that the real rate of gun related homicides per 100,00 is actually 2.99 in 2013. that is 2.99 people per 100, 000 a far cry from the almost 30 you represented in this sham of a graphic. Subtract from this figure some of things that should not be considered in here, such as police involved shootings which count towards that 2.99 people

"Using the same Centers for Disease Control (CDC) mortality data tool we used to verify a similar gun death rate claim, we were able to locate the specific metric (rate of gun-related homicides per 100,000 people) referenced by the chart. In 2003 (the year from which the 2011 article's data was pulled) the rate was 4.11 (not 3.7), and the rate in 2013 (the most recent year for which such statistics were available) was 3.55

Although those difference may not meaningfully impact the chart's assertions, other factors render it highly misleading. As noted earlier, the chart title ("Gun Murders Per 100,000 Residents") hints that the United States comes in at the top globally in rate of gun murders, but the article from which the chart was sourced ("Homicide, Suicide, and Unintentional Firearm Fatality: Comparing the United States with Other High-Income Countries, 2003") contrasted the U.S. only with what it categorized as "high-income" nations. (Compared to all countries in the world, the United States ranks significantly lower in this metric.) While an argument could be made about the validity of comparing gun homicide rates in countries with similar economic conditions, viewers who stumbled upon the chart out of context had no way of knowing that it referenced only a specific subset of the world's nations.

As we noted in a previous article about gun deaths in the United States compared to the rest of the world, the U.S ranks behind dozens of other nations (for both gun-related murders and non-gun-related homicides. The UK Guardian newspaper ported comprehensive gun homicide numbers onto a spreadsheet in 2012 [DOC] based on then-recent data compiled by the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) culled from various agencies worldwide, and that information enabled readers to more meaningfully assess how the U.S compared to other countries in terms of the actual rate of gun homicides. The combined data provided a total per capita gun homicide rate for the U.S. of 2.99, which ranked it behind 27 other nations (including Brazil, Puerto Rico, Honduras, and South Africa)."

a copy from said article in case you are too busy to click How can we have an honest debate when one side refuses to use anything resembling the truth to debate ?



posted on Jun, 21 2016 @ 02:45 PM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen

U.S. Senate Ready to Vote on Gun Bans




posted on Jun, 21 2016 @ 02:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: dismanrc

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: Zanti Misfit
a reply to: xuenchen

None of those Idiots in the Senate can't seem to Understand how Any Bill they bring up in the attempt to Amend the Second Amendment will stop these things from happening Again .The Only way to stop Future Radical islamic inspired Terrorists Attacks is to screen ALL Muslims coming into the United States Thoroughly , and make Damn sure the American People are Protected from those who could Conceivably Pose a Threat . Also , Gun Free Zones should be Suspended in Areas where Possible Future Acts of Terror could be Perpetrated for the Sole Purpose of Killing innocent People . Americans DEMAND to Enforce their God Given RIGHT to Defend Themselves and their Loved Ones from the Animals that the Federal Government Can't or Won't seem to Control by themselves at this moment .


You know, there is an Amendment before the Second, known as the First. You may want to read it sometime.

The government cannot act prejudicially against religions.



Um I think we need to look at that one also.

The Founding Father wrote that when only hand set, hand cranked presses where in use. They never imagined these new evil high speed presses that print muitiple pages a second. and this internet thing... I just don't think thats what they had in mind.





... and while you're looking at things ...

look up false equivalency.





posted on Jun, 22 2016 @ 12:58 AM
link   
a reply to: SM2

I couldn't agree more with your assertion.

But if dems were actually stupid enough to keep this insanity going, courts be damned, we all know what would happen.



posted on Jun, 22 2016 @ 01:05 AM
link   

originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: xuenchen

U.S. Senate Ready to Vote on Gun Bans



Seriously


That is not even a REAL QUOTE by Freud. He NEVER SAID that. Stop spreading false information and terrible memes.



This is not a statement that appears in any translation of any of Freud's works. It is a paraphrase of a statement from the essay "Guns, Murders, and the Constitution" (February 1990) by Don B. Kates, Jr.

LINK

It's EASY to whip up some catchy propaganda images.

If you make CLAIMS make SURE you know the background.




posted on Jun, 22 2016 @ 01:56 AM
link   
a reply to: DanteGaland

This, folks, is why you don't speak in memes.



posted on Jun, 22 2016 @ 03:21 AM
link   
a reply to: SuperDaveAPK

Then it is not a "gun show" loop hole. A private sell is a private sell, could be done anywhere. I have not been to a gun show in a few years, but when I did, I don't remember seeing a lot of private people with booths selling guns. Most of them where selling "add ons" and stuff. IE cases, scopes, mags... I did see a few people that had one or two guns they where carring around for trade/sale.

You will NEVER stop this type of sale, and you shouldn't. The day the government controls the person to person sell of private property is the day we no longer have anything private.



posted on Jun, 22 2016 @ 03:29 AM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66


Why?

It is standard play book policy for the liberals.

AR-15 = full auto military weapon. (which it is NOT.)

AR-15 - Evil black gun that should be banned. Mini-14 - good "ranch" rifle used by farmers --Truth - For all practical issues it is the same weapon.

Semi- auto means it sprays bullets when you hold the triger down. (Yeh right)

So go ahead yourself and look up false equivalency.

I won't even go into the issue that the Founding Fathers knew about machine guns and multi shot rifles. (already done that a number of times.)



posted on Jun, 22 2016 @ 03:50 AM
link   
a reply to: SudoNim

I'll let someone else answer you.

www.youtube.com...


But I know it won't make a difference.



posted on Jun, 22 2016 @ 10:39 AM
link   

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
a reply to: yuppa

It was based on a Sig platform but what does it matter when you have ess for brains sensationalist politicians who cannot tell a shotgun from a glue gun.







I know you and I hardly meet eye to eye on anything. But I need to ask you, what is your stance on the gun control debate? Should we ban guns or should we keep them and why?

Are you pro second amendment or against the second amendment?


@Xuenchen

Most of us saw this one coming looong ago. Are you even surprised this is happening?


SM2

posted on Jun, 22 2016 @ 10:59 AM
link   
I know you didnt ask me, but I will answer anyways to keep the debate going.

I am pro second amendment, just as I am pro first, third, fourth fifth etc.

I think banning guns, is unconstitutional and will never work. here is why I think it wont work. America is unique to a degree as our nation was founded on armed rebellion from tyrannical and oppressive regime. It is part of our core national identity to be armed to protect ourselves from those who wish to do us harm or lord over us in a tyrannical way. police departments are under no legal obligation to protect you, they do not have the resources to do so. They show up afterwards and take reports and search for the criminal, thats about it. So, it falls on the individual ( as so much in the US does) to take care of the business at hand, which is yet another part of national identity, at least it used to be. We take care of ourselves with limited intrusion from the government. outsourcing our own security is not something people want to do. Guns are also used to provide food for many families.

Let's consider the economic impact as well. How many more families and children would go hungry without the meat that hunting provides? I know plenty of people that hunt for economic reasons. How many people would be unemployed by the banning of guns? Gun shops going out of business, gun manufacturers and ammo makers going out of business, companies that make and sell gun and hunting accessories out of business, shooting ranges, gun instructors, places like Cabelas would have to lay people off, the list goes on and on. Then you add in the tax impact, no more property and business taxes from those businesses, no more sales tax, no more special taxes that some items require combined with the imnpact of all those new unemployed workers and specialists that no longer have an industry would be extremely hard on the economy. this is all just to start, the ripple effect would carry over to many more areas.




top topics



 
21
<< 9  10  11    13  14 >>

log in

join