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.

 

Second Amendment Advocates Have Blood on Their Hands

page: 22
88
<< 19  20  21    23  24  25 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 6 2017 @ 11:44 AM
link   

originally posted by: Kurokage
a reply to: Shamrock6

This is just the typical response you get here.

Nothing at all but attack the members country and not what is posted.





Strange. You impugn the members of one country, then cry foul when somebody else responds to it in kind. It's almost as if you're a massive hypocrite or something.




posted on Nov, 6 2017 @ 11:46 AM
link   

originally posted by: Shamrock6

originally posted by: Kurokage
a reply to: Shamrock6

This is just the typical response you get here.

Nothing at all but attack the members country and not what is posted.





Strange. You impugn the members of one country, then cry foul when somebody else responds to it in kind. It's almost as if you're a massive hypocrite or something.


Here here.



posted on Nov, 6 2017 @ 11:46 AM
link   

originally posted by: Shamrock6
a reply to: Kurokage


I don't know why you even bother trying to have a conversation with members from across the "pond" to be honest.


It's sad that the OP is what passes for "trying to have a conversation" in your country.

"You have blood on your hands" isn't much of a conversation starter in most civilized areas. Unless, y'know...the person being spoken to has just recently sustained a wound to the hand.


The idea behind everything I write is to make you think!

Think about it.

So long as there is a sizeable element of the voting electorate who strongly oppose any restriction on gun control there will be mass shootings. This is because you guys hold the keys to the offices of power, any politician who votes to say ban hand guns (just a example not a suggestion) is going to lose come the next election because the electorate will oppose it.

So long as this continues there will be mass shootings and nothing will change.

If however, you lot changed your minds and accepted that gun laws had to change and guns more strictly controlled then it would give your politicians the political will to start making changes.

Thats what this thread is about, not attacking me personally or me attacking you.

ohhhh and its also got sweet F.A to do with trucks or me being British.



posted on Nov, 6 2017 @ 11:46 AM
link   
a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin

OSOTC, what’s happening is when there is a shooting the dogmatic get more dogmatic in their gun dogma—they get more stubborn not less

Yesterday I posted a very innocuous (for me) statement that we need to come together as a nation and resolve this.

You should have heard them:

To paraphrase the noise...

“What do you mean come together and take our guns

"Take our rights"

"Your crazy, what are you talking about there’s countries that solved the problem—WHAT COUNTRIES"


On and on and on, one would think I posted the statement that All second amendment advocates should be in Fema camps


Umm...interesting idea



posted on Nov, 6 2017 @ 11:47 AM
link   

originally posted by: OtherSideOfTheCoin

originally posted by: intrepid
The blind lady from Deadpool says vinegar and lemon juice is good for getting out blood.


Do you have your own rubber shoes?


Nope but I have enough sense not to take this topic seriously. This horse isn't beaten to death, it's become compost. IDK why people keep taking the bait.



posted on Nov, 6 2017 @ 11:47 AM
link   

originally posted by: OtherSideOfTheCoin
Again a fair point.

You make the point that in this instance a gun was used to defend these people.

I would counter that point with saying that although that is commendable, when you look at the statistics there are about 1700 cases were a gun has been used in self defence so far this year but there have also been just as many cases of accidental shooting.

So for every time a person uses gun in self defence, another is potentially some how accidentally shooting someone.


The BIG difference is that I, and the rest of the country, are not worried about an "accidental shooting" walking into a church or concert or airport and shooting the place up.



posted on Nov, 6 2017 @ 11:47 AM
link   
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

Because your country seems to be going backwards with its policies and political system.
individual freedom is fine but not at the expense of everybody elses.

edit on 6-11-2017 by Kurokage because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 6 2017 @ 11:48 AM
link   
a reply to: cinerama

The cumbria shootings weren't that long ago for the UK. at 1/6th the population, they should statistically be less frequent. But this only really matters if you're of the view that gun violence is worse than other violence, because "guns OMG!"

The UK has bombings and mass stabbings to add to their list. When was the last bombing in america? You guys need bomb control.



posted on Nov, 6 2017 @ 11:48 AM
link   
a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin




So long as there is a sizeable element of the voting electorate who strongly oppose any restriction on gun control there will be mass shootings.


The biggest flaw in that so called logic was Columbine happened during the height of the Clinton Gun Control era.

And Cities like Chicago and DC have some of the highest murder rates in the country.

Both bastions of authoritarianism gun control.

So.

Keep spinning that tale.

It's as far from truth as it gets.



posted on Nov, 6 2017 @ 11:48 AM
link   

originally posted by: face23785

the ban in Australia


They are restrictions, not a ban. We can still have guns here, I'm currently applying for my gun license.

The restrictions have resulted in zero mass shootings since, and it has become MUCH harder for bad guys to get their hands on them here. Not impossible, nobody has EVER tried to claim that it stops ALL gun violence, just reduced it dramatically.

Gun laws in Australia - Wikipedia



posted on Nov, 6 2017 @ 11:50 AM
link   
a reply to: neo96

Clinton did not go far enough.

This has to be a massive change on the scale of what happened in Australia.

Also changing gun laws will not stop mass shootings but it will mean less gun deaths overall over a period of time.
edit on 6-11-2017 by OtherSideOfTheCoin because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 6 2017 @ 11:50 AM
link   
a reply to: Kryties




They are restrictions, not a ban. We can still have guns here, I'm currently applying for my gun license.


Awesome!

Having to ask mommy and daddy for permission.

What liberty yall have.



posted on Nov, 6 2017 @ 11:50 AM
link   
a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin

Which is why my comment was directed at the member that felt the need to get ugly about the conversation and wasn't directed at you.

I'm perfectly willing to have a conversation about gun control that doesn't begin with telling me I have blood on my hands. Unfortunately, this conversation started out exactly like that. Which makes the more moderate supporters of the Second Amendment (which are the majority of it's supporters, by the way) defensive from the outset. Telling us that we are directly responsible for somebody's death that we didn't murder isn't a real good way to get us on your "side" of the discussion.



posted on Nov, 6 2017 @ 11:51 AM
link   

originally posted by: watchitburn
a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin

If they couldn't use a gun, they would use IEDs, vehicles, poison, airplanes, knives....

People intent on mass killings will find a way.


Do you not believe that guns are an efficient way of killing? I'm mean that is their sole purpose after all....



posted on Nov, 6 2017 @ 11:51 AM
link   
a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin

What do you mean he didn't go far enough.

Outright bans.

The kicker was the sunset clause.

They could have made a permanent ban and chose NOT to.



posted on Nov, 6 2017 @ 11:52 AM
link   

originally posted by: Shamrock6
a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin

Which is why my comment was directed at the member that felt the need to get ugly about the conversation and wasn't directed at you.

I'm perfectly willing to have a conversation about gun control that doesn't begin with telling me I have blood on my hands. Unfortunately, this conversation started out exactly like that. Which makes the more moderate supporters of the Second Amendment (which are the majority of it's supporters, by the way) defensive from the outset. Telling us that we are directly responsible for somebody's death that we didn't murder isn't a real good way to get us on your "side" of the discussion.


Well unfortunately I don't care all that much if what I have to say offends you.

I think I might need to break out my wet socks again.



posted on Nov, 6 2017 @ 11:52 AM
link   
The same people that want to ban all guns because of the actions of a single person are obviously the same people that want to ban all Muslims because of the actions of a single person.

Right?



posted on Nov, 6 2017 @ 11:53 AM
link   
a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin

Sweet, another uninformed post mostly about trump, while saying it's not at all about Trump. This guy wasn't allowed to have guns. So you're entire post in pointless.



posted on Nov, 6 2017 @ 11:53 AM
link   
a reply to: DBCowboy

Yes DBC epic cognitive dissonance has been on display.

Gun owners. Terrorists since 1934.



posted on Nov, 6 2017 @ 11:54 AM
link   
a reply to: Kurokage

If I'm free to have a gun and you're free to have a gun, whose freedom has been infringed upon?
edit on 6-11-2017 by Dfairlite because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
88
<< 19  20  21    23  24  25 >>

log in

join