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: 30
88
<< 27  28  29    31  32  33 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 6 2017 @ 01:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: Kryties

originally posted by: Dfairlite
a reply to: Kryties

It's called the bill of rights for a reason.


The "2nd" is still an amendment within that Bill of Rights mate. By very definition, it can be amended.


Going to 'amend' the 4th,5th,7th,8th,9th,10th and 14th as well ?

Because they ALL are in play.

Due process where CRIMES have to be proven in courts of law.

The RIGHT to trial by jury.

The RIGHT to life,LIBERTY and the pursuit of happiness.

Where EVERYONE has EQUAL protection under the law.

Just because you and the mob don't like something.

There is no legal authority the mob has. The state has.

To INFRINGE,DENY or DISPARAGE the RIGHTS the people retain.
edit on 6-11-2017 by neo96 because: (no reason given)




posted on Nov, 6 2017 @ 01:14 PM
link   
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan


I've never been to your beautiful country, but i do have the net and watch documentries on the vast open spaces you have there, but I'm not talking about defending yourself from bears and such or even whether you should own a firearm.

Shootings on mass is what seems to be the big problem there in the US and this seems to happen far more often there than in any other country and why easy axcess to guns is so ingrained in your society.





Then stop bringing them up and/or participating in them. Its a simple solution, and since you don't live in the US, its a solution that is pretty much final in how your life is effected.

My comment was about how quickly the threads turn into "your not taking my guns from me" or how soft we are in the UK because we don't want guns.




Otherwise, you could realize that shooting is only one method of murder, and murders happen all across the globe.

But mass shootings seem to be happening more often in America than in any other country in the world and this seems to be increasing in frequency.





The UK is disarmed. Whatever you want to call it...you have to beg permission before you are given a firearm. That is disarmed.

See, this is the sort of response that happens everytime, Should getting something that was soley design to kill be difficult to obtian? i think so.




Had he used a truck...what would the discussion be?

But vehicles were not designed to kill, they were designed to transport. People using vehicles as terror weapons is evil and something we can understand on both sides of the Atlantic now, but we made it a lot harder to obtain firearms a long time ago and as our countries and people are so similar in so many ways, its hard to understand how a few changes to an out of date idea seems so hard for you guys.



posted on Nov, 6 2017 @ 01:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: Willtell
There’s a way to solve this, really

Just latch up the psychological part of attaining a gun

Enforce the laws we already have

Make them more extreme regarding owning the big bad guns—limit how many one can buy

Let people still have handguns

Create a national, state based militia for the real gun lovers, but they have to go through a very taxing psyche tests


This seems like a good starting point in my opinion, I think the increase in psychological testing is a must.



posted on Nov, 6 2017 @ 01:22 PM
link   
a reply to: Kurokage

a gun costs at least $400 and requires a background check. That isn't exactly easy to obtain. And for that $400 your gun may misfire from time to time, or jam. Quality costs money.

Yes, the US has mass shootings. This seems like an obvious result from there being guns available. Nations without guns available have stuff like mass stabbings, slashers, bombings, and cars running into crowds. Like i keep saying: murder is murder. The US has its chosen method, it seems, and it relates to availability of tools. But at the end of it all, murder is still murder and methodology is irrelevant.

And that is my big gripe here: the discussion is about guns instead of murder. Guns are just an object. Murder is the real issue. Me owning a gun that is never used for murder bothers no one. Its not guns that should be discussed...its murder, and the spike in the act of mass murder. Remove guns, and another methodology takes its place.

It doesn't matter what something is designed to do. Its an object, and the object will be used however the murderer decides to use it. I have a paperclip on my desk right now that I could kill someone with. Not designed for it, but im intelligent and can use inanimate objects in ways that go against design. In fact, doing this is how rednecks invented the open face reel...they used inanimate tools in ways they weren't designed to be used, and created a new technology.



posted on Nov, 6 2017 @ 01:24 PM
link   
a reply to: projectvxn

Isn't it nice when we can discuss issues without resorting to insults or ad homs? (NOTE: I'm not saying you did this, it's aimed at everyone in the thread in general).

Your point about "despotic western nations" brings me back to my point of, if you need those guns to protect against your own government, how will they defend against all the modern military hardware they could throw back at you?



posted on Nov, 6 2017 @ 01:24 PM
link   
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan


I have a paperclip on my desk right now that I could kill someone with.


Need proof




posted on Nov, 6 2017 @ 01:26 PM
link   
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan




a gun costs at least$400 and requires a background check.




Amendment VII In suits at common law,where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law. Wex Resources


www.law.cornell.edu...

I guess they are too chicken snip to take us to court and prove our crimes.



posted on Nov, 6 2017 @ 01:26 PM
link   
a reply to: nonspecific

What about the good amount that were arrested for expressing an opinion?

My real point is you don't really have a choice when government has all the power to dictate, seemingly benevolent one day, possibly tyrannical the next.

No choice at all from my view.

Your safety is perceived, so long as you tow the line and behave as a good subject.



posted on Nov, 6 2017 @ 01:28 PM
link   
a reply to: Phoenix



Your safety is perceived, so long as you tow the line and behave as a good subject.


Why do you have this strange misunderstanding that British people are subjects as opposed to citizens.

Its really annoying

but its even more ignorant.



posted on Nov, 6 2017 @ 01:28 PM
link   
a reply to: Phoenix



Your safety is perceived, so long as you tow the line and behave as a good subject.


Why do you have this strange misunderstanding that British people are subjects as opposed to citizens.

Its really annoying

but its even more ignorant.



posted on Nov, 6 2017 @ 01:28 PM
link   
a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin

What's a pom?



posted on Nov, 6 2017 @ 01:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: Beach Bum
a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin

I love the Second Amendment it allows me to protect myself and others if need be. I've never had to use it but damn glad it's still there, any blood on my hands would be due to someone who tried to hurt or kill someone I loved. I'd sleep perfectly ok with that.


We hear quite often that an officer had to discharge his weapon and take a life. We hear quite often that it is one of the hardest things they are tasked to do.

But here you are fantasising about killing someone, and sleeping peacefully like a new born.

*coughpsychocough*



posted on Nov, 6 2017 @ 01:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: Kurokage

But mass shootings seem to be happening more often in America than in any other country in the world and this seems to be increasing in frequency.


I will add to that with the fact that each subsequent mass killer seems to be trying to outdo the last in terms of how many people they killed. I'm not saying this is planned, or by design, I am suggesting that it is evidence that the problem is getting a lot worse.

Also, even per capita - with population differences taken into account, America suffers MANY more of these mass killings than most other countries in the Western world.



posted on Nov, 6 2017 @ 01:30 PM
link   
a reply to: Kryties




Your point about "despotic western nations" brings me back to my point of, if you need those guns to protect against your own government, how will they defend against all the modern military hardware they could throw back at you?


I addressed this already.

An American insurgency would be the deadliest and most costly insurgency in history. In warfare it isn't always about the guns, but the tactics. If the Taliban and their Haqqani network allies had what Americans have with the education and experience to back it up, then the Afghan insurgency would have been far worse.

Remember how bad it got in Iraq?

Imagine that here. What force in the US military could hold any area of the US? Even if participation in this crime is 100%?

I've spent time in Afghanistan. There is no troop level appropriate to hold a nation the size of Afghanistan what makes you think they'd have an advantage here?



posted on Nov, 6 2017 @ 01:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: angeldoll
a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin

What's a pom?



We Aussies call our UK brothers and sisters "Pommies" or "Poms". It's used affectionately.



posted on Nov, 6 2017 @ 01:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: angeldoll
a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin

What's a pom?



A pom:




posted on Nov, 6 2017 @ 01:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: mamabeth
a reply to: DBCowboy

Ahhh,the 3 idiots to the rescue! You're bringing pies,so
I will make the sammies!


Yay!

Sammies and pie!


I brought a cookie... but I ated it.




posted on Nov, 6 2017 @ 01:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: projectvxn
a reply to: Kryties




Your point about "despotic western nations" brings me back to my point of, if you need those guns to protect against your own government, how will they defend against all the modern military hardware they could throw back at you?


I addressed this already.

An American insurgency would be the deadliest and most costly insurgency in history. In warfare it isn't always about the guns, but the tactics. If the Taliban and their Haqqani network allies had what Americans have with the education and experience to back it up, then the Afghan insurgency would have been far worse.

Remember how bad it got in Iraq?

Imagine that here. What force in the US military could hold any area of the US? Even if participation in this crime is 100%?

I've spent time in Afghanistan. There is no troop level appropriate to hold a nation the size of Afghanistan what makes you think they'd have an advantage here?


So why worry about something that cannot ever happen?



posted on Nov, 6 2017 @ 01:33 PM
link   
a reply to: projectvxn




An American insurgency would be the deadliest and most costly insurgency in history.


Plus the fact there would be foreign states giving us machine guns, and grenades and snip.

Like Russia or No Ko.

Or a fifth column in the police and military.

edit on 6-11-2017 by neo96 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 6 2017 @ 01:33 PM
link   
a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin




You second amendment advocates have blood on your hands.


Do I now?

Did I pull the trigger in any of these instances? Nope. I didn't. So, please, take your attempted guilt tripping and go play elsewhere with it.

Try something else.




top topics



 
88
<< 27  28  29    31  32  33 >>

log in

join