It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable 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: 43
<< 40  41  42    44  45  46 >>

log in


posted on Nov, 7 2017 @ 02:13 AM
Anyone who is trying to get rid of the 2nd Amendment should be considered a domestic enemy of the Constitution.
Also, let's not forget the plumber that had a weapon that shot the church shooter.

posted on Nov, 7 2017 @ 03:12 AM
a reply to: hunamongyou

Like an 18 month old baby. Packing babies! Yee haw pardner.

posted on Nov, 7 2017 @ 04:03 AM

originally posted by: blackspirit
Even if the US followed Australia's control on gun laws(which yes, we still have gun crime), the pro 2nd would still whinge and bitch. I'm sorry though you all seem to need the pretty looking guns, it's how I see it.

I always see arguments raised about defense and pest control, blah blah blah etc when something like this occurs. I'm sure both the mentioned could easily be taken care of with a lighter range of arms.

I am sure Bears and Mtn lions don't care about your ideas on small weapons.. How foolish people come off with this whole mess. Give it up.

Evil people will kill. Disarming innocent people is never the answer. I hope Aussie never have a Paris like ISIS attack is all I can say. The Brit's are having them. It is not about a religion, for the ISIS people are certainly mentally ill.

posted on Nov, 7 2017 @ 04:15 AM

originally posted by: OtherSideOfTheCoin
Another mass shooting.

And this is not going to be a popular thread……

So before anyone wants to post some knee jerk reaction this title please just read what I have to say.

So I have often said that the reason that Trump does what he does is because his base of support do not challenge him. If every time he says or tweets something stupid and his base of support rush to defend him he will keep doing it, even to the detriment of the nation. This is because there are two extremes, his opposition are pretty unlikely to support him no matter what and he knows this, trying to appease them is pretty pointless yet his supporters it seems will defend him no matter what. By extension then so long as Trump supporters continue to defend him they too are also partly to blame for the mess he is slowly creating.

This however is not another Trump thread.

I realised yesterday that this line of thinking applies to more than just trump supports and partisan politics. It could apply to political issues, second amendment advocacy for example.

The biggest obstacle to introducing gun control policies in America is a lack of political will and the force behind the big lobbies. If Trump and the Republicans were to turn around today and announce they were going introduce British or Australian gun laws it would be political suicide. The NRA has something like 5 million members (some estimate up to 14 million) so right away they have lost 5 million votes. That alone could be enough to have a huge impact in swing states however we know that there are many millions more in America who would also strongly oppose any such changes to gun laws. It would be political suicide so no politician is going to want to do it because doing so would be to sacrifice the power that comes with political office. Some would probably even take to actual violence in opposition to any changes in the law.

Let me say that I think its sickening that the politicians refuse to act out of this fear, they fear losing the support of the gun lobbies and they fear losing the votes that will see them maintain their position of power.

Yet if the people who are such strong advocates of gun rights were to revolt, if they were to say enough is enough and in enough numbers and demand sweeping changes to gun laws to try to stop all these senseless killings then things would change. It would give the politicians the political will to stand up to the gun lobbies and pass laws that would be the start of adopting more sensible gun laws.

The big problem then lies with those who refuse to challenge these gun laws for selfish reasons. After every mass shooting there is a plethora of individuals who rush to defend their guns and deflect away with other arguments about cars, knifes, mental illness and that I am British…..

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. So long as you continue to defend your precious second amendment you are defending the ability for these men to walk into a church or school and kill indiscriminately. If you would change your thinking, admit this is wrong and pressure your politicians to act to bring about stronger gun regulation and kick out the gun lobbies it would happen.

You have the power you just refuse to use it.

It coms down to that old quote

“The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing”

That is what is happening right now you are all sitting back doing nothing, preventing change and the result is a mass shooting almost every day.

You second amendment advocates have blood on your hands.
I get what you're saying. But if there was no collective right for fire arms (depending on HOW these limits are enforced) would that not increase the likelihood of individual harm through other means? A fair fight with brutal means is hardly justified by any circumstance which is why firearms are decent tools for self defense, allowing for a clean and potentially painless act of protection. Imagine if a man broke into an old woman's house (I know very poor and 'cliche' analogy) with a crowbar because he couldn't get a gun, and the old woman had the same restriction; if she had a gun she could have been able to defend herself, but in this case she has hardly a chance. I know this is a cliche message, but if the bad can't get guns neither can the good, and that's practically giving them the same amount of power as before over us.

You're right in saying that if we as a nation decided to change our constitution we could...maybe a controlled revolt to change the rules governing us. But to say that the blood is on the hands of people who support the constitution...just because someone used their inherent rights to obtain a firearm, saying their blood is on their hands...wouldn't it then be on the other group of those against gun laws? Still doing nothing for evil to triumph even if you support the cause that could stop it. If anyone has blood on their hands for what this person did, it is the system which propagated them or more specifically everyone who was not killed by them, if not just the killer himself.

We are equally responsible for the actions of others. Supporting an idea does not give distinction of group or power to cause. Although you are correct in a sense stating that people with guns outnumber those without them and the political thing...what good is good men who can't do anything? Saying that those who support the constitution are responsible because we don't give up our rights if very according to the white-guilt structure of thought; do we blame members of a group for other members who obviously have acted differently? If so, what keeps us all from having automatic guilt? Distinction of thought?

How do innocent people ever have blood on their hands because someone else killed somebody?
They did just as little as everyone else, UNLESS you consider how the townsfolk intercepted the chase with open arms to prevent drive by shooting...

Making them illegal would hardly stop criminals. And we shouldn't have our rights taken because of another's actions; he had his taken away and maybe that will make the next person stop and think before ending their life with those of others.

posted on Nov, 7 2017 @ 04:20 AM

originally posted by: jacquesdarippa
I don't think they have blood on their hands but I do know they are pretty damn useless when it comes to stopping anything. Out of all the gun violence that happens daily in America, how many times have we heard a story about a NRA/2nd amendment person actually stopping a crime? I think it is like a 1 in a million shot that a gun owner actually stops anything. Also they say they need guns so that the government does not screw them over or abuse it's power, hows that working out for them?

I mean, America has third world gun violence in a supposedly first world country. What kind of life is it, where a person feels the need to be armed at all times? Owning a gun to protect your family and home is a legit reason but to feel the need to carry one everywhere says something about that person or where they live.

If your live in fear that much, maybe never leave your house or move to a town, city, state or country where you can feel safe.

We hear about those way than the number of times that it happens. They don't publish many of the anecdotal evidence of John Q. Smith stopping something with a gun without having to fire the weapon. The media here is trying to vilify the innocent gun owners. We can't be easily over run with guns and ammo and knowledge. Those three things the media and TPTB have been attempting to quell. Knowledge being the most important thing the Media and TPTB attempt to control because a dumb citizenry is a docile one. Docile to their every whim and the have some strange fetishes for most of us.

posted on Nov, 7 2017 @ 04:29 AM

originally posted by: strongfp
They should regulate gun manufacturing.

Although some will obviously slip through the cracks it will make common idiots like this guy in Texas extremely hard to obtain a gun. There is a problem, and no one seems to want to address it full on, whether it be the old "mental health" or people kill people, not guns, etc, etc. there must be a way for regulating guns more strictly.

The other industrial countries who make weapons will stop?

posted on Nov, 7 2017 @ 04:30 AM

originally posted by: Phoenix
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.

That goes for the US though too we just have different laws that make little sense to the other side of the water.

For sone rason a lot of Americans have this crazy idea that in the UK you cannot own a gun and we have an active minority report stlye thought police and it is just not the case.

We have freedom of speech, we just dont have an old written document to quote when we use it.

The difference over here is that there is quite rightly a line to be drawn when your own personal right to an opinion starts becomeing upsetting or intimidating to people and the vast majority are happy with this.

I can say that I think homosexuality is wrong or that all christians are retarded, that is my opinion regardless of what others may think.

I can say that all homosexuals should be killed or all hindu's should be set on fire but i am going to get in a lot of trouble because that oversteps the line.

Personally I am glad that people cannot say things that could cause others to commit violence or promote intollerance and then hide behind an old law.

posted on Nov, 7 2017 @ 04:36 AM

originally posted by: face23785

originally posted by: Irishhaf
a reply to: face23785

Its not meant to stop bad guys from getting a gun, its meant to price it out of the average persons reach.

Great point. Sadly they've already done this to the poor, who are actually the most vulnerable to crime and could most use a means to defend themselves.

The drug lords have guns and share with their homey's who smuggle stuff in

The innocent law abiding are not so lucky and have their lives threatened. If the LEO's capture them and they die even while holding a gun, the neighborhood forgets who was their to save their kids sitting on the porch, minding their own business. Then lefty's blame those who want to be able to protect themselves from the drug lord and their people, or whoever. Going to door to door taking guns will make the threat more severe for them. But TPTB have a saying about the useless eaters and with Margaret Sanger's Eugenic plans that speak volumes.

posted on Nov, 7 2017 @ 04:47 AM

originally posted by: nonspecific

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin

There are gun control policies in America. What, in particular, would you see as being needed in addition to what is already there?

Beyond this, why are we talking about gun control when this turd kills people randomly, but not drivers license control when another turd runs a van into a crowd? WHy is one mode of murder more alarming than another?

The term "gun violence" is a propaganda term. It asks its user to ignore that violence is the issue by putting "gun" as a classifier. Pure propaganda.

A vans primary function is to transport goods.

A carving knife's primary function is to carve meat.

A hammers primary function is to knock in nails.

All of the above can and have been used to kill people.

What is the primary function of a hand gun?

Guns are intended to protect and defend. Anyone who uses it offensively is a law breaker. Law breakers have a tendency to not care what the law said at all. Why is that so confusing to anybody?

If it says can't have it and someone can get it anyway because of the Pandora's box principle, what have you accomplished. Yes, you may reduce gun deaths, but not what happens when someone brings a gun with intent to kill people. The haters are gonna' hate and murder will happen easily some other way no matter as we have seen. Meanwhile a right to be able to protect myself will be taken away when they take our guns. If i was in Paris with a pistol and the others had them too, all those deaths are prevented. Being sheep for the slaughter is not a good plan for the children either that were killed recently at a concert.

An armed society is a polite society. We have disarm zones that are very dangerous right now in America. THAT has been the kill zone for the monsters. Church has been a place you don't pack but that has changed for good now if only to protect the children in attendance.

posted on Nov, 7 2017 @ 04:59 AM

originally posted by: carewemust

originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: carewemust

After watching the second to the last episode of Orville bout a 'direct' democracy.

I'm gonna say oh HELL NO.

You feel that Congress is doing a good job representing all of us?

NO, but WE voted them in. WE have to vote someone else or keep this rolling.

posted on Nov, 7 2017 @ 05:15 AM
a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin

He did the shooting himself..the blood is on HIS hands. I'm not held accountable for anyone else's actions. You Liberal are always blaming everyone else for everything. Gun grabbers. Had it not been for a plumber WITH A GUN ON HIM...this guy would have taken out many more people. If guns were taken from 2nd amendment supporters..criminals that don't even care about laws would have a field day and would STILL be able to get illegal guns...illegal guns like this guy had. Gun laws will not fix that, and thus far...your gun laws have stopped nothing. The definition of crazy, is doing the same thing over and over, and expecting a different outcome. More gun laws when the ones your party has put in place...have only increased the shootings? Really smart. Stop posting blame on everyone and let some people mourn. The body's not even warm before you Liberals come in and step up on your self-righteous soap boxes. The world hates Liberals for this reason you know.
edit on 7-11-2017 by IlluminatiTechnician because: (no reason given)

posted on Nov, 7 2017 @ 07:41 AM

originally posted by: Groot
Got to ask, for those anti gun advocates on here, did your dad ever take you out and teach you how to use a gun?

Never. He showed me how to ride a bike, how to drink beer carefully, how to sail a boat and how to ride a car. I never understood the fable for guns, I'm more the blades type and prefer to swing a sword now and then. Krauts... I know.

Did your dad never mock you for playing the orcish troll in LARPs? Maybe you should've wasted more time in the woods as a kid, hitting each other with funny sticks.

posted on Nov, 7 2017 @ 09:20 AM
a reply to: dothedew

By carry, you mean run into his house, unlock his gun safe, grab his gun and go back outside, right?

posted on Nov, 7 2017 @ 09:20 AM
Double post
edit on 7-11-2017 by ryeguy1980 because: (no reason given)

posted on Nov, 7 2017 @ 10:10 AM
"Let me say that I think its sickening that the politicians refuse to act out of this fear, they fear losing the support of the gun lobbies and they fear losing the votes that will see them maintain their position of power."

Lost your argument right there, buddy. The politicians work for the people, not the other way around

posted on Nov, 7 2017 @ 10:19 AM

originally posted by: Needle2
"Let me say that I think its sickening that the politicians refuse to act out of this fear, they fear losing the support of the gun lobbies and they fear losing the votes that will see them maintain their position of power."

Lost your argument right there, buddy. The politicians work for the people, not the other way around

Nope I don't think you quite get it

My point was exactly that, the politicians work for the people, so long as the people refuse to accept that gun laws need to change there will not be the political will to bring about change that will save lives.

posted on Nov, 7 2017 @ 10:29 AM

originally posted by: OtherSideOfTheCoin

originally posted by: Needle2
"Let me say that I think its sickening that the politicians refuse to act out of this fear, they fear losing the support of the gun lobbies and they fear losing the votes that will see them maintain their position of power."

Lost your argument right there, buddy. The politicians work for the people, not the other way around

Nope I don't think you quite get it

My point was exactly that, the politicians work for the people, so long as the people refuse to accept that gun laws need to change there will not be the political will to bring about change that will save lives.

As if the half dozen or so major changes in gun laws haven't been enough indicator of how empty this promise actually is.

posted on Nov, 7 2017 @ 10:37 AM
a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin

You're right. I do have blood on my hands due to my support of the 2nd amendment.

So what? You think if I supported abolishment of the 2nd amendment and we succeeded in abolishing it, that then We WOULDN'T have blood on our hands?

How about the single mother and her 2 children who hid in the attic and a home intruder still crawled up there to get to them (he obviously wasnt after money or valuables), and the mother was able to defend her family with her gun. I can't imagine what they would have endured if she wasnt properly armed and trained.

Abolish the 2nd and you STILL have "blood on your hands". Just different blood.

HINT: It's impossible to Not have "blood on your hands" unless you want some kind of authoritarian society...then i have a feeling youd STILL have blood on your hands...

You people don't seem to get it.

Its Worth It to risk being killed in order to have FREEDOM. Its the price we pay. If you want freedom, then that guy over there gets to have freedom too, and i cant control that guy. He might strangle me with his hands. We could cut off everyones hands but i like my hands. So i have to be ok with the fact that he gets to keep his hands too, even though he might kill me with them, the risk is worth it to me.

If this card game is too rich for your blood, go somewhere else with less freedom. You'll just be whining about something else though... But at least then I won't have to deal with it. And you'll never be happy here, so...

I'll help pack? As long you don't mind that I'll be packing.

posted on Nov, 7 2017 @ 10:39 AM

originally posted by: Shamrock6
Which is why (overwhelmingly) LE pushes for mandatory minimums and no plea deals for gun crimes, rather than harsher gun control.

I'm quite against mandatory minimums--the punishment for illegally owning a firearm should not be the same for a violent felon as it is, say, for a woman who is 'borrowing' a firearm because she is worried that her ex who used to beat her will be stalking her home at night (for fun, we'll call him the violent felon).

Obviously, different states would handle these situations differently--if in my state (KY), the latter would not be illegal because we don't have to register firearms, so she'd be fine, but the felon with the gun would not.

In California, where my father lives, both would be guilty of a gun crime. Should both be sentenced to the same punishment? I would argue that they should not.

I can mostly agree with the no plea deals, though, because that generally only benefits the criminal...but even then, if the violent felon above will plea in exchange for names as to where he got his firearm on the black market, that throws a monkey wrench into it as well.

I absolutely agree that harsher gun control laws are pointless, though.

posted on Nov, 7 2017 @ 11:03 AM
a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin

I'm not certain that you get it.

Just because you FEEL that gun laws need to change doesn't mean that innocent people have blood on their hands. Honestly, I don't even think that you have a solid idea concerning gun laws in America, at the federal, state, and municipal levels. You're just basing your entire OP and most of your comments on feelings.

Generally, that can be ignored, but you repeatedly double down, triple down, and much more, on your claims and feelings, even in the face of facts and logical arguments that negate your claim.

Why? What do you gain from being so stubborn in the face of reality? Why do you continue to ignorantly blame a group of people for something that they had nothing to do with?

Here are the basics of Kelley's actions: Kelley is a felon, therefore he could not legally own or possess a firearm and he disregarded both of those laws; he cannot murder people, and he disregarded that law; he could not assault people with a deadly weapon, and he disregarded that law; he (probably) could not discharge a firearm in the area that he did, but he (probably) repeatedly disregarded that law.

I mean, considering your appeal to emotion in the OP, how should American laws be, in your opinion? Let us know what you think should have been done differently as far as laws go in a country with a second amendment like ours.

Aaaaaaaaaaaand, go...

new topics

top topics

<< 40  41  42    44  45  46 >>

log in