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: 8
25
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 25 2017 @ 07:35 PM
link   
a reply to: SudoNim

I am condoning law enforcement officers follow their oaths, which states that they will uphold the Constitution of the United States. I have the utmost respect for LEOs, which my posting history will testify to. Anyone who would enforce such a blatant offense against the Constitution would be abdicating their oath and destroying their legitimacy as an officer of the law.




posted on Aug, 25 2017 @ 07:37 PM
link   
a reply to: face23785

Those 74 pages that you didn't read contained survey data... (pssst the same 'data' you are trying to pass off, only mine is sourced and yours isn't)

So because someone said it in an interview you believe it?

Where is your data? Do you know what data is?



posted on Aug, 25 2017 @ 07:39 PM
link   
a reply to: SudoNim

Yeah I'm not gonna read 74 pages right now, sorry. If there's good data in there, post some of it. Bottom line, 55,000 defensive uses is higher than 8 or 9,000 gun murders every year.

I posted data a few pages ago. You ignored it because they're straight numbers like the ones above and you can't refute them.
edit on 25 8 17 by face23785 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 25 2017 @ 07:41 PM
link   
a reply to: burdman30ott6

So if their was another amendment to the constitution that brought the right to bear arms back to it's intended meaning before the NRA changed it you'd happily give up your guns.

I mean the fact that you now support the new meaning rather than the one your ancestors supported means you are talking BS when it comes to supporting the founding principles of your country.

I'd still like your clarification on supporting all the founding principles... like slavery and womens rights. You seem to have dodged missed that.



posted on Aug, 25 2017 @ 07:42 PM
link   
a reply to: SudoNim

I could just do what you did. www.fbi.gov

Dig through it and find the data that proves my side of the argument.

I linked you to a short article that contained the numbers I was citing, with sources.



posted on Aug, 25 2017 @ 07:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: face23785
a reply to: SudoNim

Yeah I'm not gonna read 74 pages right now, sorry. If there's good data in there, post some of it. Bottom line, 55,000 defensive uses is higher than 8 or 9,000 gun murders every year.

I posted data a few pages ago. You ignored it because they're straight numbers like the ones above and you can't refute them.


Where did you post?

Why are you comparing 55,000 defensive uses to a 9,000 murders (a figure you completely made up btw).

Why not 55,000 defensive uses against all gun-related injuries/murders.

Or why not the figure from the 55,000 that were proven to directly prevent a homicide against the actual number of homicide caused by firearm?

Is it because you don't know or don't understand keep spewing the same 55,000 figure after realising you messed up your previous 500,000 figure and couldn't find anything to back up that claim.



posted on Aug, 25 2017 @ 07:51 PM
link   
a reply to: face23785

So you don't have sources for the figures you were giving... gotcha.

For such a knowledgable expert on this topic I would of thought you could quote some studies or at least a link to the survey data that you keep spouting about.

How about the one in regards to Death Penalties? You know, the one that I debunked straight after you posted.



posted on Aug, 25 2017 @ 07:52 PM
link   
a reply to: SudoNim

Or why not compare what I posted a few pages ago, that even anti-gun folks acknowledge about 30% of defensive gun uses involve discharging the firearm. You can only legally discharge the firearm if you're in mortal danger, so at a bare minimum you have to acknowledge 30% of those cases save a life. There's 8 or 9000, gun murders per year, vs 55,000 DGUs AT A MINIMUM, at least 30% of which saved a life. Do the math, which one is higher? Murders or lives saved?



posted on Aug, 25 2017 @ 07:52 PM
link   
a reply to: SudoNim

The NRA had a time machine? Really? I had no idea they went back in time and altered the original document to read "the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." WOW!!! That's effing incredible, dude! What other nuggets of make believe from your timeline can you share with us on this topic?

The Constitution listed unquestionably the right of people to keep and use the same arms as the standing militaries possessed. Truth be told, I want my GD nuclear armaments and I want them now, but I recognize that's not going to happen, so... a compromise has been made. We the People aren't demanding Reaper Drones and Abrams tanks, where's your side's compromise? Careful now, Nazis grabbed guns as one of their first acts... it would be awkward for you to obtain a label based on your endorsement of nazi practices, ya?



posted on Aug, 25 2017 @ 07:56 PM
link   
a reply to: face23785

Not when faced with.... dum dum dum... FACTS.


originally posted by: SudoNim

Hemenway, David; Miller, Matthew; Azrael, Deborah. Gun use in the United States: Results from two national surveys. Injury Prevention. 2000; 6:263-267.

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

Criminal court judges who read the self-reported accounts of the purported self-defense gun use rated a majority as being illegal, even assuming that the respondent had a permit to own and to carry a gun, and that the respondent had described the event honestly from his own perspective.




posted on Aug, 25 2017 @ 07:58 PM
link   
a reply to: SudoNim

So you have a study and I have a study. Which one do we believe? Yours of course haha. You already acknowledged the 55K number though. Sorry. And what he's talking about, since you're not knowledgeable on the subject, is brandishing, which a lot of times is illegal. What I'M talking about though are the 30% of cases where the weapon is discharged. If they weren't in mortal danger they'd be charged with a felony.
edit on 25 8 17 by face23785 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 25 2017 @ 08:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: burdman30ott6
a reply to: SudoNim

The NRA had a time machine? Really? I had no idea they went back in time and altered the original document to read "the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." WOW!!! That's effing incredible, dude! What other nuggets of make believe from your timeline can you share with us on this topic?


I wonder why you didn't quote the whole thing... I mean you even capitalised "People" to try and make it sound like it was the start of the sentence.

No time machine needed just look back at 1977.



posted on Aug, 25 2017 @ 08:02 PM
link   
a reply to: face23785

Where is your study again? You keep failing to post anything.



posted on Aug, 25 2017 @ 08:04 PM
link   
a reply to: SudoNim

I'm not going back to repost stuff I already posted because you failed to see it or refused to acknowledge it. Read back a few pages where you missed it. In case you didn't know, wikipedia has sources at the bottom. That's what the little numbers in the body of the article are for.



posted on Aug, 25 2017 @ 08:07 PM
link   
a reply to: SudoNim

And you're ignoring the math. You acknowledged the 55K DGUs per year, that's the bare minimum number. Brandishing is illegal in a lot of cases, even if it deters a hostile act from another person. But you can't change the math. 30% of 55K involve discharging the weapon, which is a felony unless you're in mortal danger. So 30% of 55K were lives saved. Is that higher than the 8 or 9K gun murders every year or not? Quit pretending those numbers aren't there.



posted on Aug, 25 2017 @ 08:09 PM
link   
a reply to: SudoNim

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Did you miss that part about "being necessary to the security of a free state? What about the part about "shall not be infringed"?

edit on 25-8-2017 by Lojack because: Misspelling



posted on Aug, 25 2017 @ 08:16 PM
link   
a reply to: face23785

So your study is a wikipedia page, let me help you out here since you seem to be struggling.

Was this your source ... scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu...

Lets look at the conclusions from this study... which I assume you read in full and agree with since you are so adament about quoting its data.


Similarly, many respondents who claim to have used a gun
successfully in the past year may be unconsciously improving on the
truth-e.g., on situations in which they were afraid, they retrieved a
gun, and nothing bad happened


Hmmm.



posted on Aug, 25 2017 @ 08:21 PM
link   
a reply to: face23785

You are confusing facts with your own fantasy.

Why do you jump from 55,000 DGU's (something I haven't acknowledged btw) to that 55,000 lives were saved.

Where is your data for that? Show me the figures for this?

And why do you keep saying 8 or 9k gun murders? Where is your data for that?

Quit pretending because you say something that it suddenly becomes fact and post some sources.



posted on Aug, 25 2017 @ 08:22 PM
link   
a reply to: SudoNim

I linked you to a wikipedia page which summarizes the numerous studies that have been done on the subject, with links to them in the sources at the bottom of the page that you're obviously being willfully ignorant about because I know you know they're there. That's ok though. And you're still ignoring the numbers. Is 30% of 55K more or less than the 8 or 9K gun murders per year? You're like a spoiled child pretending I haven't asked you that 3x already.



posted on Aug, 25 2017 @ 08:25 PM
link   
a reply to: Lojack

Why do you think I missed those two parts?

There is no evidence that the original amendment was meant for individuals self-protection, that is something you've been fed by the NRA.




top topics



 
25
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join