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.

 

Anyone opposed to the hard right propaganda, please stop debating BS..

page: 5
11
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 7 2017 @ 04:40 PM
link   
Personally speaking, I don't like guns. People with low self control tend to use them and the result is often so sad.

That being said...

I absolutely understand the stance taken by those who consider the right to bear arms a right that should not be challenged.

The thing that strikes me as particularly low is the way some have taken the opportunity to play the undercard.

What is the undercard?

(Fake) Anger with a hint of sadness.

They profess sadness, solidarity, might even sit down in the middle of San Francisco eating a doughnut but...
As soon as the opportunity to protest in a crowd, where they have a 59% chance of not getting f***** up, they are there, acting as if sh** really got real this time...

It isn't that they are coming for your guns, it is that they are trying to sneak them away through fake anger and false tears.

.
edit on 7-10-2017 by Jonjonj because: (no reason given)




posted on Oct, 7 2017 @ 04:52 PM
link   



posted on Oct, 7 2017 @ 04:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: Soloprotocol


I guess that:

Iran is a sword,
Iraq is a sword,
Arabia...sword,
Middle East entire is a sword...

But there you are defending it all.

Like I said.

Fake.

Oh and Scotland? Nature's film set impregnated with dirty toilets.



posted on Oct, 7 2017 @ 05:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: DisinfoEqualsTerrorism
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

And I basically said all that, even that they run from gunfire.


My point is this man is the one that PRESUPPOSES he will need that much firepower to deal with intruders.


The risk of not being prepared is your own death. Like isaid, its better to have and not want than need and not have.

Prearedness is prudence



A cultural that thinks they need a AR-15 for home defense will inevitability be fighting much more armed gunman.


A prediction using slippery slope logic doesnt warrant much consideration. But if i do consider it ill have to assume these hypothetical gunmen would be more easily spotted entering and leaving the home imvasion with 2.5 foot rifles.



You casually remark the tool for the job matters, would criminals not embrace such a thought and arm up more to intrude against an armed culture?

Do you see my point here? If they know you're armed, they're more interested in arming themselves.

Not to even mention how many gun owners are shot with their own weapons by intruders.


Maybe i lose the gunfight. Better to fight than lay down to die though.

Nontheless, why would someone not wanting police attention choose less concealed weapons? Why would a home intruder choose a home where they know they might die? Dont you think they will vhoose softer targets? People without NRA stickers on their car, etc?

Or are criminals oblivious to risk?



posted on Oct, 7 2017 @ 05:16 PM
link   
a reply to: projectvxn

Amen.

I'm done compromising. Compromising implies that both sides give a little to make everyone equally unhappy...

Where has the other side ever compromised? I can't recall a single instance.

This is as far as I go.



posted on Oct, 7 2017 @ 06:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: Lab4Us
I was going to leave this alone, mainly because the title is pure click bait begging for flags and stars (here’s your trophy!).

As an independent who is nowhere near far right, perhaps I can share a few facts with you and you might “get it”.

1. I own several handguns.

Fact - for each and every purchase I had to complete paperwork at the dealer, the dealer called the FBI’s NIC system, and my background was checked...E.V.E.R.Y. S.I.N.G.L.E. T.I.M.E. Amazing huh? A law already in place was followed.

Fact - one of these handguns I bought on the internet. To receive my purchase, it had to be sent to a Federally Licensed gun dealer who then had me fill out paperwork, ran my background through FBI NICS and O.N.L.Y. after cleared by FBI was I allowed to take possession. Law in action...neat, huh?

Fact - I purchase an annual membership at an indoor gun range and visit once or twice monthly, rotating through my handguns, running 50 rounds or so through the ones with me that day, and ensure I can hit exactly what I’m shooting at, where I intend to shoot it (within an inch ot two, give or take).

Fact - I am licensed to carry. To receive that license, I had to attend a six hour class and then fire 50 rounds within the 8 ring of a silhouette target at various distances while timed. 3 yards, 7 yards, and 15 yards. There were some who sat through the class with me but did not pass the qualifying step. No license for them...what? The law was followed? Say it isn’t so...

Fact - Gun control does not reduce crime - it increases the amount of criminals buying guns out of trunks (or stealing them). See Chicago, Baltimore, NYC, et al.

Fact - Actually enforcing A.N.D. prosecuting the gun laws aleady on the books W.O.U.L.D. make a dent in violent crime. You know, like getting the guns from the thugs in Chicago, Baltimore, NYC, et. al., throwing said thugs on super max prisons, and throwing away the keys.

Fact - if people with gun purchasing disqualifiers do not lie on their apllications, they do not L.E.G.A.L.L.Y. buy guns. Those with arrests for domestic abuse do not L.E.G.A.L.L.Y. buy guns. Those with felony convictions...well, I think you get the point.

Fact - unless you’ve actually read all the documents that must be completed to L.E.G.A.L.L.Y. buy a gun or be awarded a license to carry, please refrain from making suggestions on how gun laws should be changed—


This bears repeating.

We’ve given anti gunners everything they’ve wanted. From the racist roots of gun control, to the ‘94 AWB.

I have never not gone through exactly these steps. Anti gunners seem to outright ignore the national background check scheme we have.

What we need are smarter updates to mental health laws so that relevant info sharing on mentally-defective(severely mentally ill)adjudications so that such information can be better used by NICS doing what they already do.

Banning any style of gun or accessory isn’t even a band aid. The anti gunners have been repeating this nonsense so long they actually believe it.



posted on Oct, 7 2017 @ 09:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: MOMof3
a reply to: JoshuaCox

You cannot reason with religious zealots and cults.

Gun control is an attack against the 2nd amendment. In their minds.

Repubs understand sabotage because that is what they do to women's reproductive Rights and the ACA.



The religious Zealots are the left. They have a Satanic worship of the Government. They worship government....... How damn stupid. This is nothing new, It has gone on for thousands of years. Same thing all over again. Child sacrifice thousands of years ago, and the government cult is still at it. Now they use abortion as their choice of slaughter and sacrifice.




edit on 7-10-2017 by visitedbythem because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 7 2017 @ 09:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: OtherSideOfTheCoin
yup!

Its not gun-grabbing that is being proposed its just sensible changes.

Ban on certain modifications, something I hear even the NRA supports.

Tougher background checks in all states.

Ban on new sales of certain weapon variants.

I think mandatory training should also be required, strikes me as pretty stupid you need training to drive a car but not own a gun.

I also think that it should be much harder to own multiple firearms and a shed full of amo.

It should be easier for authorities to take away firearms, for example in cases of domestic abuse, or for other convicted criminals.


then when they drive a truck into a crowd of people and kill more than they could have with a gun what are you going to do then?



posted on Oct, 8 2017 @ 07:23 AM
link   
a reply to: visitedbythem

This makes no sense.



posted on Oct, 8 2017 @ 07:32 AM
link   
a reply to: Jonjonj

A scimitar.... obviously..

Maybe a camel...


Oh, oh.... a camel WITH a scimitar!!!

Lol



posted on Oct, 8 2017 @ 07:51 AM
link   
a reply to: visitedbythem

BWAHAHAHA


No flippin way the person spouting about nonexistent satanic cults is calling other people stupid!?!?!


Oh man I seriously chuckled out loud at that...

Man it was good.. it’s too early in the morning for all that!!

There is not one single documented case of a satanic cult...

Not one..

There are literally 3-4 cases of teenagers pretending they are a satanic cult to piss off mom and dad, but that’s it..

It is a BS straw man created by Christianity to validate their religion.. you have way more credibility if you can create a bad guy to fight against..


If ANYONE actually believed in Christianity, why in the world would they play for the team offering eternal torment, rather than the side offering paradise eternal???


They wouldn’t. No one would.. it is ridiculous..

If you types would use about a table spoon of deductive reasoning. There wouldn’t be a Christianity , nor a Conservative party..



posted on Oct, 8 2017 @ 08:06 AM
link   
a reply to: JoshuaCox

Worshiping anything other than God (or some divine agent other than mankind) is what the poster is referring to.

There are plenty of people who bear all the hallmarks of having put government (mankind) on that pedestal.

Technically, for the concept of a right to be effective you have to believe it is derived from an agent outside mankind and larger than man. That's it's sacred effectively and cannot be taken away by any agency of mankind, only oppressed. People who make the government god believe the government gives and takes rights as it sees fit and so have no issue with removing a person's right to self-defense for what they perceive as some greater good.

Of course, they're also the same people who think Trump is maybe one or two short steps away from turning the US into a fascist dictatorship and unleashing the racist police to hunt every POC down and slaughter them ... so I have no idea why they're so keen to be disarmed ...

But maybe you could tell me?



posted on Oct, 8 2017 @ 09:57 AM
link   


No one is talking about banning all guns , nor starting a confiscation program..


www.nytimes.com...

They aren't.

There's countering the hard left PROPAGANDA.



posted on Oct, 8 2017 @ 11:05 AM
link   

originally posted by: projectvxn

originally posted by: Lab4Us
I was going to leave this alone, mainly because the title is pure click bait begging for flags and stars (here’s your trophy!).

As an independent who is nowhere near far right, perhaps I can share a few facts with you and you might “get it”.

1. I own several handguns.

Fact - for each and every purchase I had to complete paperwork at the dealer, the dealer called the FBI’s NIC system, and my background was checked...E.V.E.R.Y. S.I.N.G.L.E. T.I.M.E. Amazing huh? A law already in place was followed.

Fact - one of these handguns I bought on the internet. To receive my purchase, it had to be sent to a Federally Licensed gun dealer who then had me fill out paperwork, ran my background through FBI NICS and O.N.L.Y. after cleared by FBI was I allowed to take possession. Law in action...neat, huh?

Fact - I purchase an annual membership at an indoor gun range and visit once or twice monthly, rotating through my handguns, running 50 rounds or so through the ones with me that day, and ensure I can hit exactly what I’m shooting at, where I intend to shoot it (within an inch ot two, give or take).

Fact - I am licensed to carry. To receive that license, I had to attend a six hour class and then fire 50 rounds within the 8 ring of a silhouette target at various distances while timed. 3 yards, 7 yards, and 15 yards. There were some who sat through the class with me but did not pass the qualifying step. No license for them...what? The law was followed? Say it isn’t so...

Fact - Gun control does not reduce crime - it increases the amount of criminals buying guns out of trunks (or stealing them). See Chicago, Baltimore, NYC, et al.

Fact - Actually enforcing A.N.D. prosecuting the gun laws aleady on the books W.O.U.L.D. make a dent in violent crime. You know, like getting the guns from the thugs in Chicago, Baltimore, NYC, et. al., throwing said thugs on super max prisons, and throwing away the keys.

Fact - if people with gun purchasing disqualifiers do not lie on their apllications, they do not L.E.G.A.L.L.Y. buy guns. Those with arrests for domestic abuse do not L.E.G.A.L.L.Y. buy guns. Those with felony convictions...well, I think you get the point.

Fact - unless you’ve actually read all the documents that must be completed to L.E.G.A.L.L.Y. buy a gun or be awarded a license to carry, please refrain from making suggestions on how gun laws should be changed—


What we need are smarter updates to mental health laws so that relevant info sharing on mentally-defective(severely mentally ill)adjudications so that such information can be better used by NICS doing what they already do.


This is exactly what we need. Yet Democrats shot down a bill that would have done this last year.

I would like to ask those who think 30 rounds is too many for one gun:

What exactly do you think limiting it to 6 rounds would accomplish? The idea that having to change magazines because you're out of bullets would limit the havoc a mass shooter can cause is simply false. Columbine, VA Tech, Newtown, Pulse nightclub shooting, everyone one of these the killer had to change magazines multiple times. It's not a problem, it literally takes a few seconds. It's not a movie, by the time you peek out from behind cover to see why he stopped shooting, he's already inserted his new mag. You're not gonna be able to charge him and disarm him. Making him change mags more often will accomplish absolutely nothing.



posted on Oct, 8 2017 @ 11:51 AM
link   
a reply to: face23785

Those incidents do not compare with each other. I.e. Lanza didn't pause to reload. His Bushmaster still had rounds left in it from 30 magazine. Columbine had two shooters.

I listened to interview of several lv survivors who said they found safety during the pause.



posted on Oct, 8 2017 @ 12:36 PM
link   
a reply to: JoshuaCox

Some more research from her early times. www.congress.gov...

Died in committee, but gave a very wide definition to semiautomatic assault weapons including pistols and shotguns.



posted on Oct, 8 2017 @ 12:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: MOMof3
a reply to: face23785

Those incidents do not compare with each other. I.e. Lanza didn't pause to reload. His Bushmaster still had rounds left in it from 30 magazine. Columbine had two shooters.

I listened to interview of several lv survivors who said they found safety during the pause.


FYI, Lanza did change mags. He still had rounds left in the last mag he inserted. He killed 27 people and wounded 2, and some were hit more than once. Simple math. He did indeed change magazines.


On March 28, 2013, court documents released from the investigation showed that the school shooting had occurred in the space of less than five minutes with 156 shots fired. This comprised 154 shots from the rifle and two shots from the 10mm pistol.


Also, the fact that there were 2 shooters at Columbine doesn't change the fact that changing magazines is no problem for a single shooter. In fact it gives an example of how, even if you did limit magazine capacity, 2 shooters could simply alternate turns so there would never be a break regardless.

I also heard the stories of survivors who said they ran when there was quiet and took cover when he started shooting again, as if when they heard shooting start up again you could outrun bullets to cover. They made it because he wasn't aiming at them when he resumed shooting, that is the only reason.

Bottom line: magazine limits would have zero impact on mass shootings. They are nothing but an inconvenience to the shooters, and can easily be circumvented anyway. The San Bernardino terrorists were in California, which has magazine restrictions. They simply illegally modified their firearms so they could change magazines easier and purchased illegal magazines. Big shocker, they didn't follow Cali law.
edit on 8 10 17 by face23785 because: (no reason given)

edit on 8 10 17 by face23785 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 8 2017 @ 12:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: Ahabstar
a reply to: JoshuaCox

Some more research from her early times. www.congress.gov...

Died in committee, but gave a very wide definition to semiautomatic assault weapons including pistols and shotguns.


Exactly. She practically wanted to ban everything except revolvers and bolt/lever-action weapons. People who say nobody wants to ban are ignorant and/or lying.



posted on Oct, 8 2017 @ 02:42 PM
link   
a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin

You would, you simply stir a pot of already stinking crap. But then again your in the U.K. and don't have the 2nd amendment.......You jealous of America, my man? I've read most of your stuff and I do believe you are. Does it bother you on a personal level that I own guns? I own more guns than you can carry. It's called collecting...look it up it's a REAL thing. I purchase mine as stock or any other investment.....most if you buy higher end, don't lose their value. About 3 years 5 years ago I sold off little less than a third of my "arsenal"( that was for the gun haters) collection. I probably paid around $8000 for them......sold them off for right at $17,000 . So to sum that up....that was just a damn good return on my investment. Those were the ones I didn't want. I used that money to make sure my one & only granddaughter gets to go to college......So, I own them, I sell them, I invest in them, I shoot them. I respect them for what they are. A tool.
edit on 8-10-2017 by openyourmind1262 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 8 2017 @ 04:24 PM
link   
a reply to: MOMof3

That's called denial.

This is the same group without a moral compass, that has been in bed with Harvey weinstien.
Of course it doesn't make sense to them. That's because they don't want the truth, they don't like the truth, and they can't handle the truth.

The lefts new realm of bad behavior is attacking and even resorting to murder of those who have opposing views to their own.
Can you even begin to imagine the drop in violent crime if progressive liberal communistas were disarmed? If they were all deported to a Democrat people's republic of North korea, both nations would be far better off.......




top topics



 
11
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join