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.

 

Why is the Left worrying about Gun Control when they have DAKA to pass?

page: 2
5
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 3 2017 @ 09:16 AM
link   

Why is the Left worrying about Gun Control when they have DAKA to pass?


Um, what is DAKA?

Never heard of it.




posted on Oct, 3 2017 @ 09:54 AM
link   
a reply to: Liquesence

I think its Deferred Action (to simply) Killing Arrivals

Joking of course. Deferred Action to Childhood Arrivals. It was misspelled.
edit on 40am17famTue, 03 Oct 2017 09:54:58 -0500America/ChicagoTue, 03 Oct 2017 09:54:58 -0500 by Wayfarer because: good taste



posted on Oct, 3 2017 @ 10:06 AM
link   
a reply to: Wayfarer

What's the plan to deal with the over 100 million legally owned guns?

And also, you truly believe that *all* the guns in Australia were rounded up?



posted on Oct, 3 2017 @ 10:08 AM
link   
How can the Dem's pass anything when the don't control any part of the gov't?



posted on Oct, 3 2017 @ 10:09 AM
link   
a reply to: cynicalheathen

Government buy-back and destruction.

Of course not. Off the top of my head I seem to remember somewhere in the range of 70k were collected. Apparently enough were rounded up that there is a dearth of access to them now, and concurrently hasn't been another 'mass' shooting since.



posted on Oct, 3 2017 @ 10:17 AM
link   
a reply to: Wayfarer

What about those who refuse to go along with the government buy-back?

I for one will refuse to part with most of my collection. More than a few firearms I own have sentimental value, as they were inherited.

Also, even if we're talking cheap Hi-Points, we're talking $20,000,000,000 to buy back every gun. And there are guns that are worth WELL over that. I have easily over $15,000 worth of firearms in my safe.

How would you handle the bitter clingers like me?



posted on Oct, 3 2017 @ 10:45 AM
link   

originally posted by: cynicalheathen
a reply to: Wayfarer

What about those who refuse to go along with the government buy-back?

I for one will refuse to part with most of my collection. More than a few firearms I own have sentimental value, as they were inherited.

Also, even if we're talking cheap Hi-Points, we're talking $20,000,000,000 to buy back every gun. And there are guns that are worth WELL over that. I have easily over $15,000 worth of firearms in my safe.

How would you handle the bitter clingers like me?


I also have a plethora of guns (and many of which are heirlooms with significant sentimental value as well), so I completely sympathize with your feelings herein. At the same time I ask myself this question: How many people that I know am I willing to let die so that I may hold on to these? My answer is none, so although the thought is extremely distasteful to me for the reasons you mentioned, I still choose life.

The round-up/buyback would not be 100% effective (i'm not sure what actual % effective it would be) but I believe it would be a step in the right direction (as would eliminating the sale of semi-automatics, fully-automatics, and shotguns).



posted on Oct, 3 2017 @ 12:23 PM
link   
I'm British so I know some American will come on and tell me that I don't know what I'm talking about. But here goes.
The anger by some Americans towards anyone who suggests that you have more gun control is ludicrous. America seems to be having mass shootings almost daily now but someone will come and say "It's not the guns, its the people!!", "its my right!!" or "Liberals!!!" or something more colourful.
After Sandyhook I suggested in a thread on here that it was about time America thought about more vigorous psychological tests for gun owners and that they were re-tested yearly or so to prove you were of sound mind to own said firearms and had to show that your guns where kept in a safe and secure place (not under a pillow) and maybe a test to also prove you knew how to handle said firearms correctly, I was treated like I was telling you guys that you should get rid of all your weapons and melt them down into ornaments! I said that that it was to late to remove your weapons now but something should be done and I was still treated with distain. American is no longer the wild west form 150 years ago but it seems to be returning to those times. Your government wants to make it easier to buy silencers and armour piercing rounds (I don't ever remember seeing a deer or bear in a bullet proof vest) Don't you guys think it's the perfect time to look at gun control before the next even bigger event. It's to late to remove all firearms from your society as its now instilled in you but surely a few changes could reduce the amount of people dying from these types of events?

I see pure hatred on news feeds and here on ATS just because you have a different political view to a fellow countryman and this anger seems to be boiling over into everything that's discussed on here. We can't seem to open a thread without it turning into a bitter political argument about American left this or right that. You guys need take breath and check the words you use to describe each other and look at gun control with a more logical approach instead of which party you support.
edit on 3-10-2017 by Kurokage because: (no reason given)

edit on 3-10-2017 by Kurokage because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 3 2017 @ 12:41 PM
link   
a reply to: Wayfarer

I reject your premise as flawed.

How does a law-abiding gun owner giving up their lawfully owned property make anyone safer?

By definition, a law abiding gun owner poses absolutely no threat to anyone.

If I were to sell every guy I own, the only things that would be safer are paper targets, steel targets, coyotes, and anyone who intended to do me actual physical harm.

So again I ask, what does a ban or more laws actually accomplish?

Kurokage, the reason those of us who are law-abiding gun owners get angry is this:

Gun grabbers are never satisfied. They got the ( unconstitutional imo ) NFA in 1934, GCA in 1968, FOPA in 1986, the now sunset "Assault Weapons Ban" in 1994, and STILL they want more.

All more gun laws do is cause law-abiding gun owners to jump through more hoops to exercise a right. Criminals, by definition, don't have to jump through said hoops. If a ban/confiscation is enacted, and gun owners disagree with it and keep their firearms, they are made felons with the mere stroke of a pen.. Gun owners could literally go to bed one night and wake up wanted criminals the next.

Imagine becoming a criminal overnight merely for owning something you've owned for decades, which you have never used to hurt anybody.

Imagine suddenly something you enjoy in your leisure time involves a lot more expense and red tape on a politician's whim.

That's why law-abiding gun owners get mad every time the drumbeat of new gun laws starts after a tragedy ( and often before the bodies are even cold ).

But it's easier to attack the inanimate object rather than address the root causes of gun violence.



posted on Oct, 3 2017 @ 12:47 PM
link   
a reply to: cynicalheathen

I believe that even responsible gun owner's guns can and do end up in the hands of those that shouldn't have them (see mentally unfit/criminals/etc.). I also believe that a gun owner is a responsible gun owner until they aren't: ie. until they use those guns on other people (for an example of this see the recent Las Vegas shooter).

Criminals don't have a difficult time acquiring guns because there are so many of them around (perpetuated by the Gun Lobby and driven by the legal sale of guns to responsible gun owners).
edit on 40pm17fpmTue, 03 Oct 2017 12:48:10 -0500America/ChicagoTue, 03 Oct 2017 12:48:10 -0500 by Wayfarer because: spelling



posted on Oct, 3 2017 @ 12:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: Stephen20
I love how Democrats think they can get to Gun Control when they havent even touched DAKA yet. And are still fighting off Republicans trying to get rid of Obama Care. 6 months goes by real quick. Also no amount of Gun Control would have stoped this attack as he was NEVER A CRIMINAL. All those big fancy Gun Laws wouldn't have stoped him.


Because just like anything in life they can chew gum and walk at the same time. As can conservatives.

Heck this morning, I was cooking a bagel, tying my son's tie, doing laundry and washing dishes and charging my cell phone at the same time. also dethawing juice and working on logistics for a demonstration in two weeks and figuring out new insurance costs. If I can do all that at one time I'm sure the democrats can too. LOL



posted on Oct, 3 2017 @ 01:04 PM
link   
a reply to: cynicalheathen

Thank you for replying to me.

I do see your point and also understand it as I used to teach and practice Japanese martials arts, so own a katana, which are now harder to buy in the UK but purchasable, and wouldn't want to give up my katana if they were banned but I would jump through any "red tape" to keep it even though its just for sentimental value.

I know this terrible event so far seems to have been committed by "the guy next door" and would probably have been committed any way but I don't understand that to keep your firearms that you don't want to make sure you are using it right, that your child can not get hold of it and that your gun owning neighbour is as sane as you and has proven it?
I'm not saying remove your second amendment or ban guns, just that possibly a lot of these massacres could be avoided if there were less access to firearms in cases like sandyhook and the cinema shooting.
edit on 3-10-2017 by Kurokage because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 3 2017 @ 01:19 PM
link   
a reply to: amazing

Nice Humblebrag you 8 armed Houdini!



posted on Oct, 3 2017 @ 01:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: Kurokage
a reply to: cynicalheathen
I know this terrible event so far seems to have been committed by "the guy next door" and would probably have been committed any way but I don't understand that to keep your firearms that you don't want to make sure you are using it right, that your child can not get hold of it and that your gun owning neighbour is as sane as you and has proven it?


Personally, I exercise as much safety as possible, train with firearms as often as possible, and go to great lengths to keep my firearms secure. I couldn't live with myself if someone else was accidentally hurt with one of my guns, or if one of my guns was stolen and used in a crime.

However, I have no control of my neighbor's actions beyond trying to educate and instruct them.

There is a balance to be struck between freedom and security. To be free and have privacy, there are certain risks. You can attempt to mitigate them, but they will always be there. On the flip-side, you can have security, but at the cost of freedom.

I always use the example of a lion. On the savanna, he is free, but could starve, get injured hunting, or killed for sport. In a zoo, he has protection from hunters, vet care, and all the food he can eat. However, the lion is not free.

Freedom or Security. Choose wisely.


I'm not saying remove your second amendment or ban guns, just that possibly a lot of these massacres could be avoided if there were less access to firearms in cases like sandyhook and the cinema shooting.


The issue comes in with this: Criminals always find a way to commit crimes. If it's not guns, it's bombs, cars, or trucks.

A reduction in firearms, if possible, would only result in other tools being used for violence, as evidenced in recent attacks.



posted on Oct, 3 2017 @ 03:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: Wayfarer
a reply to: amazing

Nice Humblebrag you 8 armed Houdini!


LOL



posted on Oct, 3 2017 @ 04:15 PM
link   
a reply to: cynicalheathen

Thank you again for your replies



However, I have no control of my neighbor's actions beyond trying to educate and instruct them.

But should someone unstable be able to buy and own firearms and shouldn't the supplier of said firearm not have an interest in how and who uses said firearm?




The issue comes in with this: Criminals always find a way to commit crimes. If it's not guns, it's bombs, cars, or trucks.

Yet it seems like in some states that its easier to buy a gun than alcohol.
Terrorists of all sorts weather domestic or other will find a way to cause terror even if we banned and remove all of those things listed that's just life these days but does that mean we shouldn't try do something about the ease that firearms are brought and restrict at least one of those and make it harder for someone to cause mass chaos?

edit on 3-10-2017 by Kurokage because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 3 2017 @ 04:17 PM
link   
a reply to: Stephen20

Politicians will never pass an opportunity to pass more laws that empower government.

They don't care about anyone but themselves.



posted on Oct, 3 2017 @ 04:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: Kurokage
a reply to: cynicalheathenBut should someone unstable be able to buy and own firearms and shouldn't the supplier of said firearm not have an interest in how and who uses said firearm?


With the HIPAA laws, there's not much of a way to prevent a mental person from legally buying a gun. The retailers do have an interest. If they sell a firearm used in a crime, there is a good chance that the ATF will be shoulder-deep in their rectums about it.

I have had several friends who sold guns. They all have related instances to me that they refused a sale based on someone's comments or jokes at the gun counter.



Yet it seems like in some states that its easier to buy a gun than alcohol.


Not in my state.

If retail, then I have to give my government issued ID, fill out a 4473 form and wait.

Face to face, I could just hand over the cash, true, but I always ask for a photo ID, pistol permit, and get a signed bill of sale for both parties. It's not really a requirement, but it protects ME.

Booze, I just pays my money and takes my chances.

When criminals buy guns, they just exchange money with no paper trail.

Now... where did the law make it harder for criminals to get a gun?


Terrorists of all sorts weather domestic or other will find a way to cause terror even if we banned and remove all of those things listed that's just life these days but does that mean we shouldn't try do something about the ease that firearms are brought and restrict at least one of those and make it harder for someone to cause mass chaos?


If we place draconian restrictions on law-abiding citizens for the sake of security, the terrorists have won.



posted on Oct, 3 2017 @ 04:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: Wayfarer

originally posted by: Stephen20
Also no amount of Gun Control would have stoped this attack as he was NEVER A CRIMINAL. All those big fancy Gun Laws wouldn't have stoped him.


I'm not sure how you can say that. If you can't buy the guys, how can you get the guns?

In 1996 when Australia passed sweeping gun restrictions both rounding up all existing weapons and banning the sale of semi/full auto and shotguns, they stopped having mass shootings.


Is this when terrorism is different from mass shootings except when it's not because I seem to recall some terrorists shooting a bunch of people in a restaurant there fairly recently.



posted on Oct, 5 2017 @ 06:44 AM
link   
Grown up people don't ban stuff, they come up with solutions. It's not like the US can be turned into some sort of Italian provincial bigot place controlled by Euro-corrupts. Instead of talking of intrusive gun control laws, why don't they come up with a solution to be able to identify and trace each single weapon produced by the manufacturer. This can be done by very simple RFIDs embedded into the metal of barrels and trigger groups. This will uniquely identify the gun, the owner and a lot of info regarding the manufacturing location of the weapon's functional parts.

I have already heard idiotic stories about Suppressors and Bumper stocks or other secondary parts ... pointless discussion. The FBI should have a database which stores simply the association of each functional element (trigger group and barrel) with an owner.



new topics

top topics



 
5
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join