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: 32
88
<< 29  30  31    33  34  35 >>

log in

join
share:

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

originally posted by: Kurokage
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.


Its easily understood in the context of geography. Half our nation is urban, half is rural (give or take). The only real issues with "mass shootings" tends to be in more urban areas. The story in the OP, despite being a "small town" was in an urban center bordering on San Antonio. I know the area pretty well. The shooter drove down from New Braunfels, a city I visit every couple of weeks due to friends who live there.

In the country we don't get much in the way of mass shootings. There just isn't enough humanity present for that kind of critical mass. The half that lives rural lives thinks the city folks have lost their minds. THe half that lives in the city thinks the country folks are bumpkins.

Our nation is actually more like 2 nations living side by side. More fractured if you take race into account, as urban minorities have very little in common with life experience to urban white or any rural citizens.




posted on Nov, 6 2017 @ 02:00 PM
link   
Ooooo a cyber replay of the 1812 war.






posted on Nov, 6 2017 @ 02:02 PM
link   
a reply to: Kryties




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


Aint there ALREADY laws against that ?

Why YES there is.



It shall be unlawful for any person to sell or otherwise dispose of any firearm or ammunition to any person knowing or having reasonable cause to believe that such person— (1) is under indictment for, or has been convicted in any court of, a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year; (2) is a fugitive from justice; (3) is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance (as defined in section 102 of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 802)); (4) has been adjudicated as a mental defective or has been committed to any mental institution; (5) who, being an alien— (A) is illegally or unlawfully in the United States; or (B) except as provided in subsection (y)(2), has been admitted to the United States under a nonimmigrant visa (as that term is defined in section 101(a)(26) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101 (a)(26))); (6) who [2] has been discharged from the Armed Forces under dishonorable conditions; (7) who, having been a citizen of the United States, has renounced his citizenship; (8) is subject to a court order that restrains such person from harassing, stalking, or threatening an intimate partner of such person or child of such intimate partner or person, or engaging in other conduct that would place an intimate partner in reasonable fear of bodily injury to the partner or child, except that this paragraph shall only apply to a court order that— (A) was issued after a hearing of which such person received actual notice, and at which such person had the opportunity to participate; and (B) (i) includes a finding that such person represents a credible threat to the physical safety of such intimate partner or child; or (ii) by its terms explicitly prohibits the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against such intimate partner or child that would reasonably be expected to cause bodily injury; or (9) has been convicted in any court of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence.


en.wikipedia.org...

And here it is AGAIN parroted in the 93 law.



Section 922(g) of the Brady Bill prohibits certain persons from shipping or transporting any firearm in interstate or foreign commerce, or receiving any firearm which has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce, or possessing any firearm in or affecting commerce. These prohibitions apply to any person who: Has been convicted in any court of a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year; Is a fugitive from justice; Is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance; Has been adjudicated as a mental defective or committed to a mental institution; Is an alien illegally or unlawfully in the United States;


en.wikipedia.org...

So you want to 'theoretically' talk about something already addressed by TWO laws ?

Sisyphus much?



posted on Nov, 6 2017 @ 02:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: Kryties

originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: Kryties

Because inalienable rights aren't up for debate.

Key word inalienable.


Another key word: Amendment


I think you aren't understanding what "inalienable" means.

The amendment was first placed there due to oversight noticed by the founders. Inalienable is a non-religious way of saying "given by God". The intent is that it is a right that man has no authority to stifle, as it was a gift from God. The reason being is that all animals have a right to use their tools of defense. Humans primary tool of defense is intellect and the tools we created using that intellect, and as per natural law we have a right to use those tools (the hallmark of humanity is tool use...it defines us as a species).

If you amend around an inalienable right, you have created a tyranny that does not protect the individual rights of all citizens.



posted on Nov, 6 2017 @ 02:06 PM
link   
a reply to: Kryties

You may take issue with the way he's saying things, but he's not wrong on this.

Our rights are considered inalienable. And as I explained earlier, all rights in the Bill of Rights assume a preexisting right. The language of the B of R is written to protect already existing rights, not to grant them.

There is no amendment or law to be passed that can change that.



posted on Nov, 6 2017 @ 02:09 PM
link   
In the 70"s the libs thought mental intuitions were bad and wanted them closed. The conservatives said what a great way to save money. tens of thousands of workers lost their jobs and tens of thousands are now out in public with problems and powerful meds. What could go wrong???





posted on Nov, 6 2017 @ 02:09 PM
link   
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan




The intent is that it is a right that man has no authority to stifle, as it was a gift from God.


That is clearly spelled out in the Declaration of Independence.



The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America, When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth,the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.




We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,


www.archives.gov...

I do not consent to eroding/Infringing/Denying/Disparaging what little RIGHTS we have left.



posted on Nov, 6 2017 @ 02:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: projectvxn
a reply to: Kryties

You may take issue with the way he's saying things, but he's not wrong on this.


To the point where I am going to begin ignoring him completely if he doesn't change his attitude PRONTO. I will NOT put up with being spoken to like that when I have done nothing but try to be respectful.

It's simple human decency.


Our rights are considered inalienable. And as I explained earlier, all rights in the Bill of Rights assume a preexisting right. The language of the B of R is written to protect already existing rights, not to grant them.

There is no amendment or law to be passed that can change that.


So that's it? End of discussion? Bring on the next mass shooting? We can't do jack about it so why bother trying?



posted on Nov, 6 2017 @ 02:12 PM
link   

originally posted by: Kryties

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan

All of this turns a right into a privilege.


Driving is considered a privilege and not a right. I rarely see people complaining that they have to jump through some hoops to get their drivers license. Nobody seems to have a lesser lifestyle or any negative effects because of this.


Depends who you ask.




posted on Nov, 6 2017 @ 02:14 PM
link   
a reply to: Kryties




To the point where I am going to begin ignoring him completely if he doesn't change his attitude PRONTO.



Lol.
🙄



posted on Nov, 6 2017 @ 02:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: seagull
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.


Yep. That's why there's always a rush to, as they say, "strike while the iron is hot." It's well documented that after a particularly vile mass shooting, there's a spike (though generally not a huge one) in public sentiment for gun control. But after a few months go by and nothing new has happened, it settles back to where it usually is most of the time: half the country says no thanks, the government has infringed plenty already.

Pretty hard to get that Constitutional Amendment passed.



posted on Nov, 6 2017 @ 02:15 PM
link   
a reply to: face23785

Cars eh?




posted on Nov, 6 2017 @ 02:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: face23785

Depends who you ask.



The only answer I have to that is:




posted on Nov, 6 2017 @ 02:15 PM
link   
a reply to: Kryties




So that's it? End of discussion? Bring on the next mass shooting? We can't do jack about it so why bother trying?


That's not the end of the discussion.

There are administrative changes we can make that I and others have discussed in the past.

But don't ask me to violate rights, restrict access to law abiding citizens, or make onerous regulations on mag size and other nonsense.



posted on Nov, 6 2017 @ 02:16 PM
link   
a reply to: Kryties




So that's it? End of discussion?



Yup.



posted on Nov, 6 2017 @ 02:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: Kryties


So that's it? End of discussion? Bring on the next mass shooting? We can't do jack about it so why bother trying?


If your "in" is through stifling gun ownership, then no. You can do nothing.

If your "in" is through stopping murderers from murdering, then you have dozens of options for action to take. The benefit of this approach is you effect all forms of murders, and not just the one chosen method that is a pet peeve of people.



posted on Nov, 6 2017 @ 02:17 PM
link   
If I said what I think, I would get kicked off of ATS. So go troll your self.



posted on Nov, 6 2017 @ 02:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: Kryties

originally posted by: face23785

Depends who you ask.



The only answer I have to that is:



Hey we can agree on something.



posted on Nov, 6 2017 @ 02:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan

originally posted by: Kryties


So that's it? End of discussion? Bring on the next mass shooting? We can't do jack about it so why bother trying?


If your "in" is through stifling gun ownership, then no. You can do nothing.

If your "in" is through stopping murderers from murdering, then you have dozens of options for action to take. The benefit of this approach is you effect all forms of murders, and not just the one chosen method that is a pet peeve of people.


Great! Lets begin discussing that. Clearly it WASN'T the "end of discussion" that some people are trying to claim.



posted on Nov, 6 2017 @ 02:18 PM
link   
a reply to: projectvxn




But don't ask me to violate rights, restrict access to law abiding citizens, or make onerous regulations on mag size and other nonsense.


I got this one covered too.




new topics

top topics



 
88
<< 29  30  31    33  34  35 >>

log in

join