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: 31
88
<< 28  29  30    32  33  34 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 6 2017 @ 01:35 PM
link   
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan


I think when a mass shooting happens, its how quickly and easily it happens compared with the other types of murder you mention. knives and cars seem to happen far less and to fewer people most of the time but I do agree with you on some of your comments.
I think this must be the biggest difference between the US and the UK and the rest of the western world and its hard for us to understand.
edit on 6-11-2017 by Kurokage because: (no reason given)




posted on Nov, 6 2017 @ 01:36 PM
link   
im thinking an antifa man has the blood on his hands.
m.youtube.com...

blogger says kelley was registered UAF on colorado voter registration. United agaist Fascism.



posted on Nov, 6 2017 @ 01:36 PM
link   
a reply to: Kryties




So why worry about something that cannot ever happen?


Bold emphasis mine.

Why do you believe this? Just because it would be a failure doesn't mean it could never be attempted.

You don't invade Russia in the winter. Everyone has known that for hundreds of years. Idiot Nazis did it anyway and paid the price.

Could you imagine what would have happened if Russia actually had a professional military focused only on destroying their enemy rather than aiding them in killing their own people?



posted on Nov, 6 2017 @ 01:38 PM
link   


The truth is that every time you defend your right to own a gun you are defending the rights of the shooter as well and as such I believe you have blood on your hands.

Really! The funniest argument there.

You want to say it is not legitimate to argue that a knife killing is equal, well it is.
If a person kills someone with a knife do all knife owners have blood on their hands?
How about choking to death?

Don't you understand that a person who wants to kill can find a way? If there were no guns more people would burn to death or dye by homemade explosives or some other. But then if you ever need a gun to protect from a turn in government or outside invasion or other, you have no option but surrender, and what become a people imprisoned like NK.




Since 2006, at least 1,068 people have died from gunshots in a mass killing, defined by the FBI as an incident with four or more victims. But another 140 people suffered fire-related injuries, 104 were stabbed and at least 92 were killed by blunt force, according to data tracked by USA TODAY.

www.usatoday.com...
edit on 6-11-2017 by SeaWorthy because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 6 2017 @ 01:39 PM
link   
Had somebody in that church been armed, what is described in the article I have linked would have happened much sooner. It's the exact opposite of what you're advocating. These shootings happen in gun-free zones. Not the other way around.

An armed citizenry of good responsible people is a good thing. Not the other way around.

But please, continue this discussion. Don't let reality get in your way.

Here's the link. Please make sure you don't read it.

nypost.com...

And always remember, when every second counts the police are mere minutes away.

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



posted on Nov, 6 2017 @ 01:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: neo96

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.


I'm sure some Constitutional scholars and lawyers could come up with a way of amending one without touching the others too much.

Pity we can't even try to have a theoretical discussion about it when people like you come along and shut down all debate by yelling, screaming and stomping your feet like you're the be-all and end-all of law in your country.



posted on Nov, 6 2017 @ 01:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: Kryties
a reply to: projectvxn

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?


Minor technicality,

but all military bases are currently surrounded by millions heavily armed civilians and a high percentage of those on base are on our side.

If hit the fan resupply be nightmare and things wouldn't last long even with whiz bang weaponry.

See unlike other countries where one must tow line and be good little subject, turn it on head and say citizens will only tolerate so much from politicians.

What that limit is, I do not know, I do know politicians raher not have that limitation over their heads and continually attempt to dilute it.



posted on Nov, 6 2017 @ 01:45 PM
link   
a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin

Why yes, yes it can.

It only needs a two-thirds majority vote in order to amend. By each state of the union. Feel free to try. It'll fail.

That's why the anti-2nd amendment types don't want to do it that way. They want it to be done in a courtroom at the hands of the tame judge they've found.

Bring it before the people. Let the chips fall where they may. Go ahead. But they won't. Because the result is predictable, they'd lose, and lose big.



posted on Nov, 6 2017 @ 01:46 PM
link   
a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin

360 lives taken a year with any kind of rifles a year

3600 are killed by arson a year

#Banassualtfire

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



posted on Nov, 6 2017 @ 01:47 PM
link   
a reply to: Kurokage




knives and cars seem to happen far less and to fewer people most of the time but I do agree with you on some of your comments.


That's not true about knives that is.

More people are killed with them than 'assault weapons'.

ucr.fbi.gov...

In fact OTHER weapons are choice beat out in demagogued 'assault weapon'

The handgun is the number one choice.


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



posted on Nov, 6 2017 @ 01:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phoenix

See unlike other countries where one must tow line and be good little subject, turn it on head and say citizens will only tolerate so much from politicians.



Aaaaand thats where you lost me, the bolded part.

I am a CITIZEN not a subject. This has been pointed out to you before by several people, why do you persist with this nonsense?

I am just as free as you are - DESPITE the nonsense you are taught there that America is the only free country on Earth.

Stop with the nonsense or I shall stop interacting with you.



posted on Nov, 6 2017 @ 01:48 PM
link   
a reply to: Kryties




I'm sure some Constitutional scholars and lawyers could come up with a way of amending one without touching the others too much.


It doesn't WORK like that.

Because antis are violating the entire Bill of RIGHTS.



posted on Nov, 6 2017 @ 01:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: Kryties




I'm sure some Constitutional scholars and lawyers could come up with a way of amending one without touching the others too much.


It doesn't WORK like that.

Because antis are violating the entire Bill of RIGHTS.



So lets DISCUSS how it could theoretically be done without violating other rights. Lets STOP shutting down all conversation with what amounts to "SHUT UP IM RIGHT YOU'RE WRONG GO AWAY" that you have persisted with.



posted on Nov, 6 2017 @ 01:51 PM
link   
a reply to: Kryties




I'm sure some Constitutional scholars and lawyers could come up with a way of amending one without touching the others too much.


Our constitutional rights don't work like that. Our enumerated rights don't exist in an independent vacuum separated from the other rights. They overlap and reinforce each other.



posted on Nov, 6 2017 @ 01:52 PM
link   
a reply to: Kryties

There is NO discussion to be had.

The presumption of innocence.

Crimes have to be proven in courts of law.



posted on Nov, 6 2017 @ 01:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: projectvxn
a reply to: Kryties




I'm sure some Constitutional scholars and lawyers could come up with a way of amending one without touching the others too much.


Our constitutional rights don't work like that. Our enumerated rights don't exist in an independent vacuum separated from the other rights. They overlap and reinforce each other.


So cannot they discuss how to amend one without affecting the other? Why can't this discussion happen? Why do people not want to even THEORETICALLY DISCUSS it?

THAT is the problem.



posted on Nov, 6 2017 @ 01:54 PM
link   
a reply to: Kryties

Because inalienable rights aren't up for debate.

Key word inalienable.



posted on Nov, 6 2017 @ 01:55 PM
link   

originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: Kryties

Because inalienable rights aren't up for debate.

Key word inalienable.


Another key word: Amendment



posted on Nov, 6 2017 @ 01:57 PM
link   
a reply to: Kryties

And ?

The second bill of rights was an abject failure.

Harder than you think.

ETA:

The Clinton Era assault weapons ban was political suicide.

They got kicked the eff out.
edit on 6-11-2017 by neo96 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 6 2017 @ 01:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: Kryties

There is NO discussion to be had.

The presumption of innocence.

Crimes have to be proven in courts of law.



Whats that got to do with theoretically discussing how to alter the 2nd Amendment in order to keep guns out of nutjobs hands?

I think there IS a discussion to be had, and you have returned to the "IM RIGHT YOU'RE WRONG SHUT UP GO AWAY" which is not conducive to debate whatsoever on a DEBATE WEBSITE.

I am not here to be dictated your opinion without giving mine and being able to discuss it. If that's the kind of place you want, park yourself in front of a mirror and talk to yourself - that's NOT what this website is about.

Don't like it? Not my problem. I'm not going anywhere. Deal with it.




top topics



 
88
<< 28  29  30    32  33  34 >>

log in

join