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.

 

Monitor a Group of People? Let’s Start with White Male Gun Owners

page: 2
19
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 22 2016 @ 02:06 PM
link   
a reply to: DanteGaland

I'm a white male gun owner and I'm being monitored daily, now what?




posted on Jun, 22 2016 @ 02:10 PM
link   
Did you forget your respirator before painting again?

The only white gun owners I know shoot a few farm raised pheasant and chuckers, maybe a duck.

Some kill deer, if not the deer will overpopulate and kill people, as they fly through your windsheild at highway+deer speed.

So in essence, you are causing innocent people to die.

That is not very neighborly of you.



posted on Jun, 22 2016 @ 02:20 PM
link   
a reply to: DanteGaland


We have MORE than 1 gun for EVERY person in the USA. In FACT there are 112 guns per 100 people. JUST HERE in the USA.

I guess you need the handgun for church and the bowling alley, the nine-gauge to fit the rack in back of the Ram, and the four assault rifles (two with grenade-launcher options) for protecting the trailer when the Lesbian Mujahiddin attack.

You're right, man. Beyond ludacris. In fact poor old Ludacris.


+5 more 
posted on Jun, 22 2016 @ 02:21 PM
link   
I'm gonna take a stab at the OP.

White folks who own guns - you don't like being generalized, do you?

Well - it's kind of the same exact concept when it comes to Muslims.

Remember: When a mentally ill person (who happens to be white) uses a gun to murder innocent people - "they do not represent the whole."

But when it comes to Muslims - the few somehow DO represent the whole (and I'm not too sure how the logic follows for some).

White folks who own guns do not like the notion of being "monitored," or under "surveillance." (rightfully so in my opinion)

So - don't expect to do unto others what you will not do to yourself.

I understand it is not as black and white as many make it out to be (including myself), but it stands to reason.

To put it in layman terminology: Just because you're scared of "big bad scary GUNZ," or "big bad scary brown people," - doesn't mean that legislation needs to be implemented to have an ENTIRE demograph of MILLIONS of people scrutinized for the actions/behavior of a SMALL minority.

Man, people whine and complain about "it's Unconstituional!," all the while proposing and perpetuating ideals that are Unconstituional (no-fly, no-gun). It's utter madness.

DISCLAIMER: I am not a Democrat. I have voted for Ron Paul and Gary Johnson. I do not support gun control measures of surveillance of American citizens whatsoever. I am not a Hillary Clinton supporter. Let the ad hom run rampant.



posted on Jun, 22 2016 @ 02:22 PM
link   
a reply to: Hazardous1408

In principle you're right. In practice these blunt examples may help.


+5 more 
posted on Jun, 22 2016 @ 02:23 PM
link   



posted on Jun, 22 2016 @ 02:25 PM
link   
a reply to: butcherguy

They're afraid of a witch-hunt, clearly.

They have to govern. We only have to criticize. You're a sensible lad; think about it.



posted on Jun, 22 2016 @ 02:25 PM
link   
a reply to: DanteGaland

I'll take a spin on this Gerbil Wheel thread.

The U.S has far to many home grown nut jobs causing mayhem. Adding the Muslim brand of nut jobs seems like a bad idea.

I see zero problem with monitoring a particular community. Black communities are heavily monitored, as are various white communities. The Muslim community needs to earn the respect that they are demanding, they should first understand why some folks would feel at ease knowing that our government was monitoring them, and then cooperate.

Any person that comes to this country from abroad or over our toilet paper borders, needs to not make demands, politically correct or otherwise.

Stop whining.



posted on Jun, 22 2016 @ 02:29 PM
link   
Why not start with Chicago, L.A., and Detroit gang bangers first? Remove all the illegal guns from the streets first.

edit on 22-6-2016 by AutOmatIc because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 22 2016 @ 02:31 PM
link   
a reply to: DanteGaland




Monitor a Group of People? Let’s Start with White Male Gun Owners


WHy as most people killed by white people is themselves, and judging by this I would say there is another group that should be monitored first...

www.brookings.edu...

The reason why white gun owners are the target...most of them have legally obtained and registered weapons making them an easy target for this BS.

Hard to track someone that uses and obtains guns illegally.


edit on 22-6-2016 by tsurfer2000h because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 22 2016 @ 02:37 PM
link   
a reply to: Konduit

You are an ass... and know I say this with full confidence.

That hateful, poor, little white boy that killed 9 innocent people is the ONLY reason they took that flag down. We have been marching on the SC state grounds every year since 2001 to have that damned flag taken down. Nobody cared. This is SC, run by racist conservatives who think it is a sign of heritage that their sorry, savage, ancestors LOST a war.

So yes, a poor little racist white boy kills 9 innocence black Christians, and because Nikki Haley did not want the ENTIRE state to be viewed as the racist cesspool it is, she got it taken down. Nobody listen to the pleas, petitions, and demands of the black and white citizens who worked tirelessly the past 15 yrs to get the symbol of hate removed.

edit on 22-6-2016 by Istaywoke77 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 22 2016 @ 02:37 PM
link   
a reply to: DanteGaland

I'd start with liberals and their SJW spawn. Overall, they seem to be creating the highest level of presently non-lethal violence. Of course they could graduate from that eventually.

Cheers - Dave



posted on Jun, 22 2016 @ 02:38 PM
link   
a reply to: AutOmatIc




Why not start with Chicago, L.A., and Detroit gang bangers first? Remove all the illegal guns from the streets first.


Because the majority of those you are talking about are not white so they don't fit in with this monitoring.

Funny that Chicago has such a high death rate and our president ignores the problem...I guess we see he really doesn't care about the people he should be helping the most.



posted on Jun, 22 2016 @ 02:41 PM
link   
a reply to: AutOmatIc

The problem is that groups like BLM will scream racism when police try to crack down on gang violence, while completely ignoring the fact that according to the DOJ almost 90% of black murders are committed by other blacks.

It makes me wonder if black lives really matter to BLM or if it's just a movement for attention and money.

edit on 22-6-2016 by Konduit because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 22 2016 @ 02:43 PM
link   
a reply to: Mandroid7

You just admitted to willingly enacting genocide on other mammals.

Youve been added to another list for that. You want all gorillas and lions to die dont you?

Republican sicko!

yawn



posted on Jun, 22 2016 @ 02:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: chiefsmom
OOOOOO

Yes please!

That way, us white FEMALE gun owners can take over the world!!!!


sheesh


Ha. Won't happen because it would take way too long for so many women to find shoes that matched their gun. Half of you would be waiting for the other half and then once they finally got there you'd all start arguing over it.

Besides, women already run the world from behind the curtain. Why on earth would you want to rule it from in front??? You have the same amount of power only then you'd also be the target out in front. Let the men take the hits while you lead from behind. Don't get greedy. You can see where that got the men.



posted on Jun, 22 2016 @ 02:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: DanteGaland
SO HOW MANY GUNS DOES IT TAKE TO KEEP US SAFE?


It doesn't matter, as our right to keep and bear arms does not come with a quantity limit. And just because there is an ESTIMATED 1.12 guns per person, we all know that not everybody has a firearm, nor are all of the firearms in working order, have ammo available for them still, etc.



How does TARGETING a minority religious group make sense when THEY aren't the problem?


Well, when you take Trump's comment out of context, it doesn't. But he was citing the very real issue of the few bad people coming in with the good because there is no way to properly vet everyone at the moment, so his call was to ban the immigration UNTIL the government got off of its ass and fixed the vetting issues--and that is a right that the president has under immigration laws of the United States.

Absorb that for a moment.



posted on Jun, 22 2016 @ 02:59 PM
link   
a reply to: Istaywoke77

You know the Confederates were Democrats... right? The Republican north fought to end slavery, and after the war the Republicans voted 100% in favor of ending slavery while the Democrats voted 77% against.

Much like how the Republicans introduced the 19th amendment to allow women to vote while the Democrats fought against it.

But hey, Margaret Sanger said that the Democrats need to pose as Liberals to "get rid of these weeds". So apparently they have been on the right side of history for a few years and we can just assume that they have always been right.

edit on 22-6-2016 by Konduit because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 22 2016 @ 03:01 PM
link   

originally posted by: RomeByFire
But when it comes to Muslims - the few somehow DO represent the whole (and I'm not too sure how the logic follows for some).


Can you source me the evidence that it is a small minority who make the whole look bad? Like, where the ideology differs? Where their religious beliefs are not the same? Or is it because the work is being done by a minority that the majority don't have to actively participate, just yet, that lulls you into a false sense of security?




And you're letting millions into your country, unchecked, from places where these people are leaders for all... good luck.



posted on Jun, 22 2016 @ 03:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: Konduit
a reply to: Istaywoke77

You know the Confederates were Democrats... right? The Republican north fought to end slavery, and after the war the Republicans voted 100% in favor of ending slavery while the Democrats voted 77% against.

Much like how the Republicans introduced the 19th amendment to allow women to vote while the Democrats fought against it.

But hey, Margaret Sanger said that the Democrats need to pose as Liberals to "get rid of these weeds" so the Democrats have apparently been on the right side of history for a few years, so we can just assume that they have ALWAYS been right.


This always gets mentioned by Republicans when they try and use History as the winning argument. However, they never mention the fact that while what you said here is true, between the 1860s and the 1930's Democrats and Republicans switched platforms. Meaning the Republicans of Today are those Racist Democrats you're talking about while the Freedom Fighting Republicans you mention are now the Democrats of Today.

That's a really important piece of info that you're leaving out.




top topics



 
19
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join