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.

 

Challenge to those in favor of more gun control.

page: 4
6
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 16 2018 @ 09:36 AM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t




For one thing, it is HIGHLY likely that the EO that Trump overturned earlier this year that prevented mentally disabled from getting guns could have been used to stop the most recent shooting down in Florida.


That is a bold faced lie.

Anyone that's bothered to read the Gun Control Act of 1968, and The Brady Handgun Prevention Act knows it 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 verbatim.



Has been adjudicated as a mental defective or committed to a mental institution;


en.wikipedia.org...

And you really sat there and blamed Trump.

Hell NO.




posted on Feb, 16 2018 @ 09:37 AM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t
Yes I read it but I'm willing to accept that we all read through our own opinion goggles.

I stated it was MY OPINION that it was Obama's motivation. The election was over, his person did not win, he instituted a whole host of actions pushing his agenda on the way out the door. But, again, my opinion.

Having an organization that represents millions of Americans but hated by others applaud your action does not make their point wrong. I doubt that is all the NRA had to say on the matter.

Just say "you have a point there" or debate it rather than attacking. For example, where in the article did it delve into the issue of a government being able to restrict YOUR constitutional rights without due process? Do we really want to get in a position where the government, regardless of who is in charge, can create "rules" that allow themselves to decide? Isn't that a dictatorship? Today its guns tomorrow its the 1st Amendment, the 4th Amendment, etc.. Its a slippery slope when you ask the government to solve a societal problem.



Perhaps look at some other sources of information than NBC. Your other post about the Mother Earth statistic doesn't even make sense. I can't figure out the graph they included. Maybe you can explain it to further the debate. I honestly am trying not to sink into the lefty loon versus the rightest troglodyte conversation.

Respectfully



posted on Feb, 16 2018 @ 09:37 AM
link   

originally posted by: network dude
www.atf.gov...

Here is a site where the form you fill out to purchase a weapon is explained. If this form was investigated properly, and the system that logs mental illness and ties it to the NICS background checks, was in place, he should not have been approved to purchase this weapon.

That is not to say he couldn't obtain one other ways.


Yeah, but, what if we made all guns illegal and his neighbor had one to sell him because even though guns are now illegal, and murder is illegal, and weapons near school grounds are illegal? He couldn't POSSIBLY shoot a school then could he? I mean, not without Trump giving him the ok first.

Obviously that's sarcasm, as banning firearms to stop or drop school shootings and other mass shootings will have about as much of an effect as the most strict gun laws in the country have in Chicago.



posted on Feb, 16 2018 @ 09:38 AM
link   
a reply to: Irishhaf

Lets just say that if guns had been outlawed in the USA many years ago, there wouldn't have been so many of these shooting events occur. Also each generation would have got used to NOT seeing events like this or seeing gunshops on the high street, therefore not even thinking about buying a gun.

Yes, there would be ways to obtain a gun illegally but there would still be lot less incidents of this type of event, way way less.



posted on Feb, 16 2018 @ 09:38 AM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: skunkape23
Letting kids spend hours playing video games where the main goal is to blow away as many as possible mixed with a coctail of pharmaceutical drugs could be a factor.
Just speculating.
A lack of education in gun safety could also be a factor.

Kids play violent video games ALL over the world yet mass shootings are only really a problem here. This isn't the 1990's stop blaming video games on violence.


The rest of the world doesn't have easy access to firearms like the USA does, though there are a few countries that come close.source Nor does the rest of the world have a culture that celebrates violence in the way the USA does.

Pharmaceuticals could play a large role, and the presence of video games may not play a role BUT it could certainly be a training tool.



posted on Feb, 16 2018 @ 09:40 AM
link   

originally posted by: Shamrock6
a reply to: GeechQuestInfo


So most data can show you that the AW Ban actually DID help these events from occurring with less frequency and with less overall death. Would you be in favor of that?


Most of the data actually shows little to no statistical impact was found that could be tied to the ban.

Why? Well, because the ban affected an incredibly small percentage of weapons used during crime. Even the Brady Center, which has a chubby for any and everything that curtails gun rights, was only able to attribute a statistically insignificant reduction in crimes committed with assault rifles.

Pretty much everybody else that did studies on the ban's effectiveness was left unimpressed.


Any idea why mass causality shootings just happened to drop during the ban?

Again, only 2 of the top 34 events occurred during the ban, while 7 (2 of them greater than any that happened during said ban) occurred in the decade prior?

I'm in no way saying the ban is the ONLY reason why that is, but I'm also no daft enough to think it played no part. It would be EXTREMELY coincidental and more than just a statistical anomaly (again, we have data of what occurred prior to the ban and after the ban) to think it played no part.

-In the aggregate of single homicides, I'd agree with an insignificant (if any reduction) due to the ban
-In suicides, I'd agree with an insignificant (if any reduction) due to the ban.

In these MASS CAUSALITY EVENTS (8 or more deaths), I'd have to believe it played a part.



posted on Feb, 16 2018 @ 09:40 AM
link   
Well it's not rocket science. America has too many guns. And they are too easy to get. Sadly this won't change for a long time I think.

Other countries have far less guns and they are much harder to get, and that includes criminals. That's my 2c and I know the gun nuts don't like it.

You can probably never reduce gun crime to zero but you can reduce the number of guns in circulation in the society which does make it much harder and more expensive for criminals to get guns.



posted on Feb, 16 2018 @ 09:41 AM
link   

originally posted by: skunkape23
Letting kids spend hours playing video games where the main goal is to blow away as many as possible mixed with a coctail of pharmaceutical drugs could be a factor.
Just speculating.
A lack of education in gun safety could also be a factor.


Remember in the 80's and 90's when all the rage was blamed on Dungeons & Dragons? If they only knew how much video games would progress.... . . .



posted on Feb, 16 2018 @ 09:44 AM
link   
a reply to: GeechQuestInfo

So you want to treat the symptom, not the cause.



posted on Feb, 16 2018 @ 09:48 AM
link   
Just ban all semi automatic weapons, period, end of story. Obviously the mental defectives on the right will never agree to a definition of what an assault weapon is, so we may as well end the debate.

No need to pry them out of their cold dead moronic hands, which we could certainly go that way if they want. Just progressively tax the ownership of them until it no longer is feasible or socially acceptable to keep them.

Allow law suits with no limit to be filed against those who’s weapons are used for murder. Including the manufacturers.

It’s a start.....

I wouldn’t see such a law as impeading my rights one iota. I could still own the weapons that make sense.

knowing that we are never going to stop those who would commit mass murder at least the lethality would be greatly diminished. Kinda like the reason that we don’t want nukes in the hands of certain countries.





a reply to: Irishhaf



posted on Feb, 16 2018 @ 09:49 AM
link   

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: GeechQuestInfo

So you want to treat the symptom, not the cause.



Would you remove drugs from a drug addict while treating the cause of the addiction? What about alcohol from an alcoholic?

You realize that is how most people deal with problems. Until you can root out the cause, you treat the symptom.

If you eat because you're depressed, and this has caused high blood pressure, is your doctor going to tell you to keep overeating until you can solve your depression?

Just dumb metaphors you create...

edit on 16-2-2018 by GeechQuestInfo because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 16 2018 @ 09:50 AM
link   
a reply to: TruthxIsxInxThexMist

And we would be counteracting something else whether it was machetes, cars, trucks, bombs, chainsaws, or anything else that could kill. The only way to get up on this is to monitor social threats or follow any lead you can find.



posted on Feb, 16 2018 @ 09:51 AM
link   
a reply to: soundguy




Just ban all semi automatic weapons, period, end of story


So our right to civil liberty and the right to choose should be taken from us?

How very FASCIST.



posted on Feb, 16 2018 @ 09:52 AM
link   

originally posted by: GeechQuestInfo

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: GeechQuestInfo

So you want to treat the symptom, not the cause.



Would you remove drugs from a drug addict while treating the cause of the addiction? What about alcohol from an alcoholic?

You realize that is how most people deal with problems. Until you can root out the cause, you treat the symptom.

If you eat because you're depressed, and this has caused high blood pressure, is your doctor going to tell you to keep overeating until you can solve your depression?

Just dumb metaphors you create...


And your idiotic deflections.

It's more about restricting rights than it is solving problems for you and those that just want to ban guns.



posted on Feb, 16 2018 @ 09:53 AM
link   
I think my solution may have merit.

It really pissed off the gun grabbers.




posted on Feb, 16 2018 @ 09:53 AM
link   

originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: soundguy




Just ban all semi automatic weapons, period, end of story


So our right to civil liberty and the right to choose should be taken from us?

How very FASCIST.


Teddy Roosevelt and the 73rd Congress. What FASCISTS!!!

Serious question: Where were you educated?



posted on Feb, 16 2018 @ 09:53 AM
link   
a reply to: DBCowboy




It's more about restricting rights than it is solving problems for you and those that just want to ban guns.


The definition of a police state.



posted on Feb, 16 2018 @ 09:56 AM
link   

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: GeechQuestInfo

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: GeechQuestInfo

So you want to treat the symptom, not the cause.



Would you remove drugs from a drug addict while treating the cause of the addiction? What about alcohol from an alcoholic?

You realize that is how most people deal with problems. Until you can root out the cause, you treat the symptom.

If you eat because you're depressed, and this has caused high blood pressure, is your doctor going to tell you to keep overeating until you can solve your depression?

Just dumb metaphors you create...


And your idiotic deflections.

It's more about restricting rights than it is solving problems for you and those that just want to ban guns.


"Ban guns"????

Nobody is saying "Ban Guns". People are saying ban these SPECIFIC types of guns (as they had a ban, albeit small, in your lifetime). The same way we've "banned" you from owning grenades, RPGs, nukes, etc...

You're lifetime is full of bans. Why do you cling to this SPECIFIC weapon?

Have you petitioned to get your "rights" back in regards to other weapons you can't have?



posted on Feb, 16 2018 @ 09:56 AM
link   
a reply to: GeechQuestInfo

Where were you?

Telling people what their rights should be?

What do you call it?

It's spelled out in the GD Bill of Rights.

First through the 10th, and the 14th.

That spoke bout the rights to keep and bear arms not being infringed, Due process where crimes have to be proven in courts of law. The right to equal protection under the LAW, and that NO STATE shall make or any law that abridges our natural inalienable RIGHTS.

All it takes to GET THAT is basic reading skills.



posted on Feb, 16 2018 @ 09:57 AM
link   

originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: GeechQuestInfo

Where were you?

Telling people what their rights should be?

What do you call it?

It's spelled out in the GD Bill of Rights.

First through the 10th, and the 14th.

That spoke bout the rights to keep and bear arms not being infringed, Due process where crimes have to be proven in courts of law. The right to equal protection under the LAW, and that NO STATE shall make or any law that abridges our natural inalienable RIGHTS.

All it takes to GET THAT is basic reading skills.


So please, go to Congress and get your right to bear arms back!

You're already restricted on what arms you can and can't have goof!

I know it's hard to believe, but you can't walk in to WalMart and get ANY type of weapon you'd like. Any clue why that is, and why it's held up?
edit on 16-2-2018 by GeechQuestInfo because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
6
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join