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.

 

The gun confiscation redux: law makers caught on hot mic.

page: 3
33
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 6 2017 @ 12:21 PM
link   
a reply to: Shamrock6

Thanks for the reply, I certainly hope it doesnt come to that. I appreciate your candor, and have great respect for you, and every officer who looks out for citizens rights.
Keep up the good work out there




posted on Oct, 6 2017 @ 12:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: OtherSideOfTheCoin
If they wanted to take your guns why did they not do it after Sandy Hook???



Ummm...isn't the present timeline...after...Sandy Hook...?


YouSir



posted on Oct, 6 2017 @ 12:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: YouSir

originally posted by: OtherSideOfTheCoin
If they wanted to take your guns why did they not do it after Sandy Hook???



Ummm...isn't the present timeline...after...Sandy Hook...?


YouSir


Not in my timeline, I travel back and forward in time and right now am sitting in 1974.



posted on Oct, 6 2017 @ 12:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: OtherSideOfTheCoin
Does anyone else think that giving a whole load of military grade weapons to the same people who voted for George Bush (twice!) and Trump are probably not the best idea?

Its a bit like letting a wife beater work in a women's refuge.

Sorry but I have to be honest and stand by my convictions on this one.

You lot having carte blanche to own pretty much any killing tool you want with very little in the way of restoration or regulation is dumber than two planks of woods.

Your whole concept of a second amendment is broken, the founding fathers would be rolling in their graves to see the horrible situation your obsession with these tools of death has caused. Over 600 kids killed or injured last year thanks to guns, 600, thats mental! All because the you guys have this irrational fear that the redcoats are going to turn up and ensalve you all or your government is going to turn against you all.

If there were not so many people dying form it, it would be hilarious!


Even more people are killed by cars and road traffic accidents: 120,000. That's without any terrorist intent. In Chicago alone there are over 500 people killed in gun related crime every year.

Since the criminal element in inner cities have weapons, shopkeepers need them as well. Right there is the problem.



posted on Oct, 6 2017 @ 12:31 PM
link   
a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin

Gun crime, including mass shootings is not a Bush or Trump voter issue. It is concentrated heavily in Democrat areas.
33 cities account for over 50% of all the 270 odd mass shootings this year - 29 of those 33 of them are in Democrat strongholds.



posted on Oct, 6 2017 @ 12:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: OtherSideOfTheCoin
a reply to: JDmOKI




How come the most strict gun law areas have the worst crime rates?


With our without gun laws that won't change.

Whats funny is when people say point out Chicago as a example, strict gun laws high gun crime, as if that somehow means we shouldn't have gun laws.

Its like saying a area has a high rate of narcotic related deaths so we just shouldn't have drugs laws.



Funny you mention drug deaths. God knows how many drug laws. A decades long war on drugs. All sorts of incentives for law enforcement to capitalize on all those drug laws.

And narcotics abuse puts more people in the ground, by several orders of magnitude, every year than guns do.

Goes to show how making things illegal-er isn't really a great plan when it comes to keeping people away from it.



posted on Oct, 6 2017 @ 12:37 PM
link   
a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin

Excuse me? You live in the UK and you want to lecture the US about gun control?

Living in the UK, you have absolutely no understanding of the problems in the US.

Let me give you an example. So, lets suppose they did away with the 2nd amendment and confiscated the firearms from, of course, the law abiding citizenry thoroughly opposed to doing jail time. That would only leave about 10 million firearms in the hands of criminals. AND THAT in a country where one of our feral gang bangers walked up to a Harris County Sherriff's Deputy while he was pumping gas into his squad car and blew his brains out, walked away and drove off.

The point is, the criminals will NEVER surrender their stashes of firearms; gun control/confiscation would result in an incredibly lucrative cross-border black market trade in firearms and the crooks would continue killing crooks and law abiding citizens alike.

Do you know what a "home invasion" type crime is? They happen in Harris County, probably at the rate of 1 or more a week. Why? Because participating in a home invasion is a gang initiation rite! You're proposed solution would have meant that very likely, the home owner in this situation would likely be dead!
abc13.com...

To my mind, your position on gun control in the US is nothing more than virtue signaling and a tell-tale that in reality, you don't very much like law abiding US American citizens and could care less how many true "innocents" are killed by the millions of feral criminals circulating throughout this country!



posted on Oct, 6 2017 @ 12:38 PM
link   
a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin

More people die yearly to knives than rifles. More people die yearly to cars than rifles. More people die yearly to blunt objects than rifles. More people die yearly to assaults with hands/feet than rifles. The only gun that beats any of those categories is handguns. Also 40% of firearms used in crimes came from illegal means of sale...and if we include the portion obtained through family and borrowing them that rises to around 70+%.

Also here is some fun reading material for you so you dont have to be so ignorant on the subject...Linky

Sources...
FBI Statistics

Again FBI Statistics

Stop acting like an expert with all the answers when its clear to anyone who's taken the time to actually acquire knowledge about a subject that you're the farthest thing from it.



posted on Oct, 6 2017 @ 12:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: OtherSideOfTheCoin
If they wanted to take your guns why did they not do it after Sandy Hook???


The Obama Administration had the ability from 2009-2011 to take the guns...why didn't they? They had total control of congress back then...just something to chew on...I'm sure there are factions within the house that want to legitimately take guns but as a whole they will not...



posted on Oct, 6 2017 @ 12:50 PM
link   
a reply to: gladtobehere

i wonder if anybody has asked these New Jersey State scumbags about this and what was their reactions.
bet they stammered and hem hawed saying that people didn't understand what they where talking about.

sorry sacks of sh@@.



posted on Oct, 6 2017 @ 12:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: chrismarco

originally posted by: OtherSideOfTheCoin
If they wanted to take your guns why did they not do it after Sandy Hook???


The Obama Administration had the ability from 2009-2011 to take the guns...why didn't they? They had total control of congress back then...just something to chew on...I'm sure there are factions within the house that want to legitimately take guns but as a whole they will not...


Because that would have ended the Democratic party in short order, and above all these parasites want to be in power so they will do so in small bites to remove it, or price it out of the grasp of the regular people.



posted on Oct, 6 2017 @ 12:55 PM
link   
a reply to: caterpillage

Here's a couple of surveys of LEOs you might find interesting, as they pertain pretty directly to your questions. One is a survey directed at chiefs and sheriffs, the other is directed at rank and file LEOs. Two different groups conducted the surveys. The one for senior officers is from last year and the other is from 2013. Of note, the 2013 survey almost directly answers your question/questions with several of the questions it asked.

Chiefs/Sheriffs survey (it's pretty short)

Rank and file survey (17 pages)

Article both those surveys can be found in



posted on Oct, 6 2017 @ 12:57 PM
link   
a reply to: chrismarco

They were pretty focused on completely fixing health care in this country. They put their huge brains all out for it, and came up with something beautiful.

After fixing the health care issues for good, if they could have stayed in power I'm sure they would have rolled up their sleeves and got to work on making everyone safe.

They care so much you know. Brings a rear to my eye just thinking about them
edit on 10 6 2017 by caterpillage because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 6 2017 @ 12:59 PM
link   
a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin


If they wanted to take your guns why did they not do it after Sandy Hook???


they tried, more than a couple times, one of the most politicized was after sandy hook. don't you remember the big shame on you obama came out saying after sandy hook, and his phone and pen?

we were fortunate that there were still some people in congress that know and protect our rights.



posted on Oct, 6 2017 @ 01:05 PM
link   
a reply to: Shamrock6

Hey thanks! Thats an interesting read, and yeah it does answer my questions very well. And I like what I see



posted on Oct, 6 2017 @ 01:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: Irishhaf

originally posted by: chrismarco

originally posted by: OtherSideOfTheCoin
If they wanted to take your guns why did they not do it after Sandy Hook???


The Obama Administration had the ability from 2009-2011 to take the guns...why didn't they? They had total control of congress back then...just something to chew on...I'm sure there are factions within the house that want to legitimately take guns but as a whole they will not...


Because that would have ended the Democratic party in short order, and above all these parasites want to be in power so they will do so in small bites to remove it, or price it out of the grasp of the regular people.


I don't think that would end the democrat party one bit...the reality is that the democrats benefit from guns via lobbyist and the legal machines



posted on Oct, 6 2017 @ 01:49 PM
link   
a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin

All of this from a loud mouth in the U.K.....I'm rolling on the floor laughing at you. You still more pots of shat than Mike Rowe did on Dirty Jobs....at least Mike used a tool and not his mouth. How do the bad people in the U.K. assault people? I suppose you all bore them to death.
edit on 6-10-2017 by openyourmind1262 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 6 2017 @ 03:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: OtherSideOfTheCoin

originally posted by: RickyD
a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin

You really couldn't sound any more ignorant here...I think its time to back away from the keyboard lol.

I think its time you lot considered if your constitutionally gauranteed penis enlargements are really worth so many deaths each year?


Is that part of Obamacare's required coverages?

Gun grabbers are always so infatuated with penis size, I just don't understand it.



posted on Oct, 6 2017 @ 03:49 PM
link   
a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin

You're a fool if you think the citizenry doesn't need guns. Look at history anytime the people have been denied the right to bear arms they've been run over roughshod by their governments. Like being in the freest country in intend to help it become more free rather than less. Let's get it back to where we have more freedom not less.

Jaden



posted on Oct, 6 2017 @ 03:50 PM
link   
a reply to: hounddoghowlie

Yeah I love how in one breath he says they don't want to come take your guns and then in the next breath says but you should let them take all your guns. LOL

Jaden



new topics

top topics



 
33
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join