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.

 

Has the 2nd ammendment been taken away in Oregon?

page: 5
25
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 25 2017 @ 04:32 PM
link   
a reply to: ANNED

Not only that but who determines that? All it takes is someone to perceive that you threatened them with it, even if you actually didn't. I've said it over and over the problem here is the low burden of proof. No one's rights should be taken away through such ham-handed means.




posted on Aug, 25 2017 @ 04:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: face23785
a reply to: kelbtalfenek

The only way there's a legal way to do it is if it's codified in a law. Otherwise you'd be violating their constitutional rights. So yeah, you are talking about a law, regardless of how you word it. Of course there's a problem with the high crime rate in this country, but access to guns isn't driving the crime. There's no data to support that, and it simply makes no sense. If you can find one case where someone committed a crime, and when they asked him why he did it he said "Because I own a gun." I'll give you a dollar.


I never equated high crime with gun ownership, whether legal or illegal. I mentioned a high ownership rate of guns and a high firearm murder rate. I'm positive that there's a correlation there. I'm not saying that legal gun owners are responsible for this...as I know many law abiding, responsible gun owners that have never committed a crime.

So please don't put words, or ideas into my posts when they aren't there.

That would be the equivalent of me saying "face23785 supports murder" which I'm sure is not the case.

I can tell you this, if one of my kids/siblings/friends was being threatening, brandishing a firearm and I had a chance to disarm them, I sure as heck would. To hell with constitutional rights at that moment...

I would also like to say, thank you for discussing this with me rationally, and with some very good points and counters. Like I said before, I'm taking the "pro" side in this argument even though I don't agree wholly with it.
edit on 25-8-2017 by kelbtalfenek because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 25 2017 @ 04:37 PM
link   
a reply to: kelbtalfenek

I did not make that mistake on purpose, I mistyped that. I get your point. But there's actually not a correlation there. If you look at statistics, there are countries where it's hard to get a gun but still have high firearm murder rates and there's places where it's hard to get a gun and they have low rates. If the underlying cause was firearm availability, there would be a distinct pattern. There's not, it's all over the map.

Owning a gun does not cause you to decide to commit murder.
edit on 25 8 17 by face23785 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 25 2017 @ 05:01 PM
link   
a reply to: ANNED

That's exactly it. It's too easy to make this read the way you want it to. A cop on the take, an over zealous DA, any number of things could lead to a wrongful confiscation.



posted on Aug, 25 2017 @ 05:04 PM
link   
a reply to: Skadi_the_Evil_Elf

Yes, it does. ...and it should be, in the interests of the facts, put out there.


I've no problem with party affiliation being attached to this sort of nonsense. It only proves how much alike they all are.



posted on Aug, 25 2017 @ 06:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: burdman30ott6
a reply to: SudoNim

That's a fact. Every attempt in this country to grab guns has resulted in people willing to retain their rights and their firearms through force, if needed. No different than defending your property from thieves, really.


So you condone it?



posted on Aug, 25 2017 @ 06:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: face23785
a reply to: SudoNim

I'm not 100% certain this was directed at me because it looks like you screwed up the quote, so if it wasn't disregard the below:

Don't call me an idiot because you lack the intelligence to understand the point I was making. The point was that thousands of people in the US commit murder every year without a gun. The common denominator is they want to kill someone, not what weapon they use. No one decides they want to kill someone and then changes their mind if they can't get a gun. They will just do it another way. Don't be ridiculous.



So you think its just as easy to kill someone without a gun as it is with?



posted on Aug, 25 2017 @ 06:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: seagull
a reply to: SudoNim

Pretty much a fact. People who are ordinary law abiding folks tend to react badly when people try to steal their stuff.

I know I do.

This law is, as should be obvious, even to the most staunch anti-gun advocate (notice I didn't say nut), such as yourself, unconstitutional. It'll get by the 9th circuit, but the Supreme's will not, it's to be most fervently hoped, allow it to stand.


I don't really give a f##k if its unconstitutional, times have changed.

The fact you hide behind constitution written years ago instead of allowing yourself to consider whether it should still be applicable is moronic at best. The world has moved forward yet some of you still want to live in the past, someone told you long ago what you can and can't do and you don't have the balls to question it. Ego trumps reason.

Laws change and you'd no-longer be considered law-abiding. Don't like it, leave.



posted on Aug, 25 2017 @ 06:14 PM
link   
a reply to: SudoNim

Real life isn't like the movies. If someone really wants to kill you, and they come at you with a decent size knife, unless you have professional training you're probably gonna die. Especially if they surprise you. Have you outrun many cars? Anyone, no matter how big you are or expertly trained, can run you down with their vehicle. There's loads of ways to kill people, and the fact that I pointed out, that between 3 and 5K murders occur in the US every year without a firearm, supports that it's not that difficult if you're determined, no matter what you choose to use.

There's no talking around it, if you take away guns people will just kill by other means. At the end of the day, would survival rate from attempted murder go up? Maybe. There's way to prove that. There is data to support the most effective way to defend yourself is with a gun. Survival rate if the victim has a gun on them is much higher than by any other means of defense. So the lives you might save by taking away guns will be offset by the lives you will lose from people not being able to defend themselves.



posted on Aug, 25 2017 @ 06:17 PM
link   
a reply to: face23785


So you think its just as easy to kill someone without a gun as it is with?



posted on Aug, 25 2017 @ 06:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: face23785
a reply to: SudoNim

So the lives you might save by taking away guns will be offset by the lives you will lose from people not being able to defend themselves.


Oh look I can do this too...

So the lives you will will save by taking away guns will far outweigh the lives you might lose from people not being able to defend themselves with a gun.
edit on 25-8-2017 by SudoNim because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 25 2017 @ 06:21 PM
link   
a reply to: SudoNim

Yeah, I actually do. Constitutional and property rights trump unjust government regulations. Not a PC answer, but at least I'm being honest.



posted on Aug, 25 2017 @ 06:23 PM
link   
a reply to: SudoNim

There's no data to support that, in fact the data suggest the exact opposite. More lives are saved every year than are taken by guns.
edit on 25 8 17 by face23785 because: changed "suggests" to "suggest". I forgot "data" is plural



posted on Aug, 25 2017 @ 06:24 PM
link   
a reply to: burdman30ott6

You condone shooting a law enforcement officer who is asking you to abide by the laws of the state you reside in?

Who decides if its unjust? You? What if I think what your doing is unjust? Do I get to petrol bomb your family home?



posted on Aug, 25 2017 @ 06:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: face23785
a reply to: SudoNim

Survival rate if the victim has a gun on them is much higher than by any other means of defense.


If anyone is curious about educating themselves on the topic, and wonders where I got that from, give a read here. And yes some anti-gun extremists have claimed to debunk Lott, through their analysis of biased news articles about shootings. Lott gets all his data from federal and state law enforcement agencies.



posted on Aug, 25 2017 @ 06:26 PM
link   
a reply to: SudoNim

Ladies and gentlemen, I present to you the epitome of why we defend the Constitution from "all enemies, foreign and domestic." You just vocalized exactly why the Constitution must be protected and followed to the letter.



posted on Aug, 25 2017 @ 06:27 PM
link   

originally posted by: face23785
a reply to: SudoNim

There's no data to support that, in fact the data suggest the exact opposite. More lives are saved every year than are taken by guns.


No data to support what?

Please show your data then. How can you quantify lives saved by guns? Pure BS.



posted on Aug, 25 2017 @ 06:28 PM
link   
a reply to: face23785

Your source is www.keepandbeararms.com... why not source the FBI homicide statistics?



posted on Aug, 25 2017 @ 06:28 PM
link   
a reply to: burdman30ott6

Not to mention he's wrong. Laws can't change the Constitution, only Amendments can. If he doesn't like that, he should leave.



posted on Aug, 25 2017 @ 06:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: SudoNim
a reply to: burdman30ott6

You condone shooting a law enforcement officer who is asking you to abide by the laws of the state you reside in?

Who decides if its unjust? You? What if I think what your doing is unjust? Do I get to petrol bomb your family home?


The Constitution decides, period. "Petrol bomb?" Why in the blue hell is someone from either Europe or Canada arguing American Constitutional law? I think you're in the wrong neighborhood, son.



new topics

top topics



 
25
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join