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.

 

Hypocrisy: List of 26 gun-owning Democrats who participated in anti-gun sit-in

page: 10
33
<< 7  8  9    11  12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 24 2016 @ 11:07 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

Functionally, they are the same. They can put food on the table, protect those you care about, be fun to shoot, or if absolutely necessary, to protect your way of life from usurpers. The FF had to fight a war to even think about making self defense a natural right.

They used history as their guide and wanted to make sure the newly formed federal US government did what the people wanted it to do, and if not, give the people a way to fight back. As the Declaration states, "deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed".




posted on Jun, 24 2016 @ 11:17 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

I don't think private citizens should have to ask the government's permission to sell private property to another citizen.

These terrorists you speak of, is it known actual terrorists or people on terrorist watch lists like the no-fly list? It takes exactly zero due process to be put on some government list and who knows how many hours and dollars to get off one. Known terrorists should already be locked up and suspected terrorists need to be investigated and charged with crimes where applicable or left alone.



posted on Jun, 24 2016 @ 11:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: thov420
a reply to: Gryphon66

Functionally, they are the same. They can put food on the table, protect those you care about, be fun to shoot, or if absolutely necessary, to protect your way of life from usurpers. The FF had to fight a war to even think about making self defense a natural right.

They used history as their guide and wanted to make sure the newly formed federal US government did what the people wanted it to do, and if not, give the people a way to fight back. As the Declaration states, "deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed".


They also intended that there be no standing armies and provided that each individual had not only the right, but the the responsibility to to bear arms in a well-regulated fashion to protect not only themselves and their homes, but also, the community, the State and if necessary, the nation.

As to your next post ... guns aren't just any "private property." The same reasonable restrictions on professional gun sales also apply just as strongly to "private" ones ... as to the terrorist question ... I've stated many times that a long overdue job of Congress is to get the Terrorist Watchlist process straightened out so that our freedoms and right to due process are balanced with our need for secrecy to keep us safe.


edit on 24-6-2016 by Gryphon66 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 24 2016 @ 11:43 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66




As to your next post ... guns aren't just any "private property." The same reasonable restrictions on professional gun sales also apply just as strongly to "private" ones .


Name a single mass shooter or terrorist that used either.

Those hypocrits in the op have been pushing that CRAP since the 90s.



posted on Jun, 25 2016 @ 12:04 AM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66


They also intended that there be no standing armies and provided that each individual had not only the right, but the the responsibility to to bear arms in a well-regulated fashion to protect not only themselves and their homes, but also, the community, the State and if necessary, the nation.


I totally agree. I think we've both seen what a US standing military force has done since after WWII. Believe it or not, I actually lean left on a lot of issues, but gun rights is a high priority for me. And "with great power comes great responsibility" isn't just some catch phrase, it's absolutely true and owning a gun is literally power over lives.


... guns aren't just any "private property." The same reasonable restrictions on professional gun sales also apply just as strongly to "private" ones ...


They actually don't except in your opinion. Go back and reread roguetechie's post if you don't believe me or missed it. Everything stated in that post is factual except maybe the question I posed to him that he hasn't replied back to and I'm not 100% on. If you think they should, great. You seem like you are fighting for a cause you believe in and that's awesome. What do you mean by not just any "private property"?


as to the terrorist question ... I've stated many times that a long overdue job of Congress is to get the Terrorist Watchlist process straightened out so that our freedoms and right to due process are balanced with our need for secrecy to keep us safe.


I'm very glad to hear you say this. I wasn't aware of your previous declarations and I agree for the most part. I don't think due process and safety are related though. I think even terrorists should be allowed due process in our judicial system. Innocent until proven guilty is another high priority of mine.




posted on Jun, 25 2016 @ 03:51 AM
link   

originally posted by: thov420
a reply to: Gryphon66

They actually don't except in your opinion. Go back and reread roguetechie's post if you don't believe me or missed it. Everything stated in that post is factual except maybe the question I posed to him that he hasn't replied back to and I'm not 100% on. If you think they should, great. You seem like you are fighting for a cause you believe in and that's awesome. What do you mean by not just any "private property"?


We have decided, as a people, that there are certain controls on gun purchase that are necessary. You can debate this fact, but the laws have been on the books for almost a century in some cases.

If a gun sale is public or private, it's still a gun sale. If there's a reason for a background check in the first case, there's one in the second.

I'm not sure why you're asking why firearms constitute a special class of "property." The answer seems obvious.



posted on Jun, 25 2016 @ 05:11 AM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: xuenchen

They own guns.

They had a background check.

They aren't terrorists.


More misdirection teetering on the edge of dishonesty.


Our Congress aren't terrorists?
Have you seen the legislation they've passed in the last 15 years?
PATRIOT ACT, NDAA, TPP and many more.
A thousand suicide bombers would have done less damage to the country than this pack of hyenas has.



posted on Jun, 25 2016 @ 05:24 AM
link   

originally posted by: Asktheanimals

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: xuenchen

They own guns.

They had a background check.

They aren't terrorists.


More misdirection teetering on the edge of dishonesty.


Our Congress aren't terrorists?
Have you seen the legislation they've passed in the last 15 years?
PATRIOT ACT, NDAA, TPP and many more.
A thousand suicide bombers would have done less damage to the country than this pack of hyenas has.


I understand the sentiment.

But no, they're not terrorists in the sense I was using.



posted on Jun, 25 2016 @ 07:48 AM
link   

originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: Gryphon66




I'm not against assault or semi-automatic rifles, but the differences between a musket and an AK are obvious.


Tell us then G.

WHAT are the differences?



originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: Gryphon66

By todays standards a musket would be a pinto.

And AR would be a ferrari.


If you think there's no difference between a Pinto and Ferrari .... /shrug



posted on Jun, 25 2016 @ 08:00 AM
link   
a reply to: Connector


So now who's acting like a toddler when they don't get their way ( or perceived way)?

They are. This country is being run by adult children.



posted on Jun, 25 2016 @ 10:29 AM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

Nope.

Especially in the case of Orlando.

a 3 hour stand off.

A locked building.

A person armed with a musket,and a pistol of the same era could have accomplished the same end.



posted on Jun, 25 2016 @ 10:33 AM
link   

originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: Gryphon66

Nope.

Especially in the case of Orlando.

a 3 hour stand off.

A locked building.

A person armed with a musket,and a pistol of the same era could have accomplished the same end.


You said the difference was the same as between a Pinto and Ferrari Neo.

Not me.



posted on Jun, 25 2016 @ 10:38 AM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

Well I actually know what I Am talking about.

Functionally speaking No difference between a musket, and an AR.

1 round per squeeze of the trigger.

Caliber of the musket is significantly larger .75 as the Brown Bess. Bad day for anyone that was shot by one.

.223 smaller.



posted on Jun, 25 2016 @ 10:44 AM
link   

originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: Gryphon66

Well I actually know what I Am talking about.

Functionally speaking No difference between a musket, and an AR.

1 round per squeeze of the trigger.

Caliber of the musket is significantly larger .75 as the Brown Bess. Bad day for anyone that was shot by one.

.223 smaller.



So were you mistaken when you compared the difference to a Pinto v. a Ferrari?

Or what?



posted on Jun, 25 2016 @ 10:46 AM
link   

originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: Gryphon66

Well I actually know what I Am talking about.

Functionally speaking No difference between a musket, and an AR.

1 round per squeeze of the trigger.

Caliber of the musket is significantly larger .75 as the Brown Bess. Bad day for anyone that was shot by one.

.223 smaller.



There is a big difference between an AR and a musket, as an AR has a higher RPM rate than a musket that must be reloaded after each shot.



posted on Jun, 25 2016 @ 10:47 AM
link   

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: Gryphon66

Well I actually know what I Am talking about.

Functionally speaking No difference between a musket, and an AR.

1 round per squeeze of the trigger.

Caliber of the musket is significantly larger .75 as the Brown Bess. Bad day for anyone that was shot by one.

.223 smaller.



There is a big difference between an AR and a musket, as an AR has a higher RPM rate than a musket that must be reloaded after each shot.


Meaningless.



posted on Jun, 25 2016 @ 10:49 AM
link   

originally posted by: neo96

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: Gryphon66

Well I actually know what I Am talking about.

Functionally speaking No difference between a musket, and an AR.

1 round per squeeze of the trigger.

Caliber of the musket is significantly larger .75 as the Brown Bess. Bad day for anyone that was shot by one.

.223 smaller.



There is a big difference between an AR and a musket, as an AR has a higher RPM rate than a musket that must be reloaded after each shot.


Meaningless.


If it's meaningless then why does the military use firearms with high RPM and not a musket?



posted on Jun, 25 2016 @ 10:51 AM
link   
a reply to: introvert

The MILITARY doesn't use AR's.

Want to know the FIRST thing soldiers are told ?

CONSERVE ammunition.



posted on Jun, 25 2016 @ 10:51 AM
link   
Experienced Minuteman is in the club. Right beside Mateen.

According to Krakatoa, who doesn't seem to be confused about Pintos and Ferraris, the Minuteman can fire once every 20 seconds.

Mateen shoots 2 times a second. (He had been trained and won awards for marksmanship.)

The suggestion that the outcomes would be similar underline how blatantly ridiculous and extreme some Anti Gun Control advocates are.



posted on Jun, 25 2016 @ 10:54 AM
link   

originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: introvert

The MILITARY doesn't use AR's.

Want to know the FIRST thing soldiers are told ?

CONSERVE ammunition.


I didn't say they used AR's.

I said they use firearms with higher RPM than a musket.

If the difference between the two are meaningless, why do they use higher RPM firearms?



new topics

top topics



 
33
<< 7  8  9    11  12 >>

log in

join