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.

 

Donald Trump backs improved gun background checks

page: 3
5
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 20 2018 @ 12:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: Eshel
Gun control, legislation, regulation... whatever word you choose. That's what we need.

Opinion, not fact.


My right to life, my child's right to life and any child's right to life, precludes any right you think you have to a weapon of this sort.

Actually, the guarantee of a sustained life is nowhere, but the right to keep and bear arms is enshrined in the constitution.


There's no need for an AR-15 in the civilian market. None. You hunt with shotguns, handguns, and rifles. That should be good enough. I suggest anything that has a capacity to hold more than 5-6 rounds at a time is completely unnecessary. They're just ego toys beyond that.

Opinion, not fact (and an AR-15 is a rifle...one that I would use to hunt [well, the AR-10 version]).

Where did you come up with your arbitrary "5-6 rounds," from the cylinder size of most revolvers? From some passed gun-control legislation somewhere? From a talking point?


I have no problem with the 2nd amendment. I like it.

Except for where it doesn't specify which arms we cannot own, or the part that says that our right "shall not be infringed?"


But let's be honest, you're not going to stand up to a tyrannical government with an AR-15. Don't be ridiculous. (and if you think you are, then you probably won't pass the mental health check). Let's keep in mind, however that the constitution is a malleable document. It's meant to be pliable. I'm not saying we rescind it, but by god, we can sure as hell regulate it.

You can try to regulate it, but there are limits. And just because we can amend it doesn't mean that "it's meant to be pliable."

And if you think that AR-15s are all that are available to fight a tyrannical government for civilians, you're obviously uninformed. But yes, in the hands of the right group of people, AR-15s CAN fight a tyrannical government. Only the uninformed believe otherwise. Like many of us fully grasp while others do not--it's not always about the tool, but about the person/people using it.

And who says that it would only be civilians joining the fight?


But what about (knives, hammers, cars etc)? How about we stop being silly.

You first?


Those items were invented with a primary purpose and can be used for murder. I get it. But what is the primary purpose for a gun?

Depends on the gun. I can show you many that are designed for one thing primarily: Competition target shooting. I can also show you many knives, axes, sticks, metal "stars," and many, many other things that were designed for killing.


Again, I'm not against all guns, but surely we can draw a line at assault type weapons. (my simplistic definition being: a semi-automatic weapon that is capable of firing more than 5-6 rounds without reloading)

Opinion, not fact.

Hell, my EDC pistol has more rounds that that arbitrary number that you keep throwing out.


Since I'm on this thought, let's take a look at another possible option. Let's keep that car comparison for a second. You have to take a test and prove you are capable and proficient at using an automobile. There's even different license classifications. Why can this not be applied to firearm ownership? You get endorsed for specific weapons and have to renew at set intervals. Seems like an option to me that would work wonders. Doesn't affect your "right to own" and only regulates the more "sporty" variety of weapons.

Actually, once you do that, it's not a right anymore, it becomes a privilege, so, yes, it does affect one's right to own firearms if you make the simple act of ownership something that must be licensed.


I'm gonna stop here before I get too long winded. I understand that this post isn't going to be the "a-ha" moment for anyone.

That's because there are no "a-ha" points made, only opinion and subjective statements.


Only a fool would think he'd propose an idea and the whole world would just be like "holy sh*t, he's right!" lol. But I just want to get some of my thoughts off my chest and hope maybe I can open an avenue of discussion in the course.

I'm discussing it



I'll wrap up with the "licensing" idea being my favorite theory at this point. Would give us some regulation and a more specific database about who owns what kind of weapon. I'd like to think it would be a step in coupling with some other ideas that could make this country at least a little safer.

You want to make the country a little safer? Quit relying on government entities to provide you a false sense of security. Quit pretending that making illegal this or that style of firearm would make a tangible difference--you know that the AR platform has existed since the 1950s, right? And if every magazine held only 5-6 rounds in the whole of the world, would AR-15s still bother you? How about AK-47s? AR-10s? AK-74s? I mean, if all rifles held the same amount of ammo, would you still be scared of the scary black gun, or the scary gun with wood on it?

The AR platform is popular because it is super-versatile and has a million-and-one accessories that can make it better for the owner to use for whatever reason that the vast majority of them deem appropriate within the law. Just because some murderous psychopaths use them illegally and with ill intent does not make the weapon the problem.




posted on Feb, 20 2018 @ 12:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sillyolme
Isn't there a way that we can come up with some kind of solution that would protect gun rights and our population from people who go off the deep end?
Can't we put our heads together to find a solution?

Instead of posting debates on the issue of rights and ownership and personal safety?

Well, if I'm not mistaken (and I'm not), we cannot propose solutions that negate constitutional rights--personal safety not being one of those.

The problem is that the majority of left-of-center people in legislative bodies poopoo any attempt to do things like allow people to legally carry firearms on school property. My congressman (Massie) has proposed to abolish the laws that make possessing a firearm on school campuses a matter of federal authority, and I wholeheartedly agree with that approach. At the very least, let the states decide.

I bet you that, based on ideology alone, every single democrat in the house will vote against it, if it even comes up for a vote at all.

And then the same people voting that down only propose more and more legislation that calls for whittling away (or chopping away, in some cases) at our 2nd amendment right, all the while willfully ignoring and trivializing the fact that laws already exist against all of these atrocities that are committed.

I'm in no way saying that the right has all of the answers, because some of them are getting it wrong, too, but I will say this: If the leftist legislators cannot quit solely relying on appeals to emotion and paths that they should be able to assume would get struck down by the SCOTUS as being unconstitutional, then they're not at all interested in coming to a solution (which won't be found at the federal level, anyhow).

I, for one, believe that our ability to keep ourselves and out communities safe rests in the hands of the individuals, not government-run agencies and security details. But with how laws are currently written, we don't even have the ability to take that on at the local level, so in reality, what good does discussing approaches that would work do if those approaches are generally made illegal by governing bodies?

It's been said before and it bears repeating: We cannot legislate away the evil that exists in people's hearts.

We can, however, make it easier for ourselves to defend against it at the individual level.
edit on 20-2-2018 by SlapMonkey because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 20 2018 @ 12:51 PM
link   
a reply to: PublicOpinion

I was focusing on schools, but church shootings are something to look at as well.



posted on Feb, 20 2018 @ 12:51 PM
link   
a reply to: SlapMonkey




And if you think that AR-15s are all that are available to fight a tyrannical government for civilians, you're obviously uninformed.


Me? I wont fight tyranny with automatic rifles and expect to win this fight with violent means. That might be the mindset of the slaver, but it aint mine.

Which one was Ghandis weapon of choice? The way I see it, there have been more cases of automatic rifles ending the fight against tyranny than the other way around.

It's a thought worth to ponder for a while and I think you missed the mark.
edit on 20-2-2018 by PublicOpinion because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 20 2018 @ 01:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: Willtell

How many shootings have taken place in private schools, charter schools, religious schools?


Really curious about this.




Checking Wikipedia, many of the private school/religious school shootings were targeted against an individual. Kid busted for smoking shoots the teacher who reported him. Dad goes to a boarding school and shoots his daughter when she refuses to come home from school.

One exception to this seems to be a shooting at an Amish school back in 2006.
edit on 2/20/2018 by Subrosabelow because: fixed link



posted on Feb, 20 2018 @ 01:10 PM
link   
a reply to: SlapMonkey




Opinion, not fact.

I know right. It's cool that we're allowed to have opinions.




Actually, the guarantee of a sustained life is nowhere, but the right to keep and bear arms is enshrined in the constitution.

I'm not even sure how to address this. The right to own a gun is somehow more important than a right to life?




Where did you come up with your arbitrary "5-6 rounds," from the cylinder size of most revolvers? From some passed gun-control legislation somewhere? From a talking point?

How about where I said, "I suggest". Could it be that maybe I'm just spitballing ideas looking for logical discussion?




You can try to regulate it, but there are limits. And just because we can amend it doesn't mean that "it's meant to be pliable."

That's why there's avenues to make changes. Maybe you're not sure what pliable means? Amendments imply that it's pliable to begin with.




And if you think that AR-15s are all that are available to fight a tyrannical government for civilians, you're obviously uninformed. But yes, in the hands of the right group of people, AR-15s CAN fight a tyrannical government. Only the uninformed believe otherwise. Like many of us fully grasp while others do not--it's not always about the tool, but about the person/people using it. And who says that it would only be civilians joining the fight?

Most. Ridiculous. Thought. Ever. (but,hey, that could just be my opinion)




that arbitrary number that you keep throwing out.

I brought up a number off the top of my head twice. You sure you don't need to take a few deep breaths?




Actually, once you do that, it's not a right anymore, it becomes a privilege, so, yes, it does affect one's right to own firearms if you make the simple act of ownership something that must be licensed.

Perhaps you misunderstand. The "licensing" or "testing" or whatever would be for the weapons that fit into the "assault weapon" category. (that would have to be rounded out of course into a more specific definition). This would not affect you from buying any other firearm you wanted. And would only add one step into purchasing an AR-15. (used as a general reference so we're not typing out every weapon in the category). I kind of like the idea of a way of tracking these type of weapons. Yeah, it won't stop all, but it's a start.




would AR-15s still bother you?

This is my favorite part. I own 3 AR-15's myself and my wife has one. They are great weapons and fun to fire at the range. They have a nice intimidation factor for those people showing up on property without invitation. However, I do not delude myself into thinking that outside of the range, the sole reason for this weapon is to put as many holes into a human being as possible. Just as I was trained to do.

I agree that murderous psychopaths are the core problem. But can we at least stop making it easy for them to rack up the body counts?





only opinion and subjective statements.

and finally. This is how discussion works. I propose a suggestion, you counter propose. We find the middle ground to our two points and hope that's a viable solution.

Good day, sir.

(PS: I'd like to point out that you come across as pretty argumentative. I'm hoping that's just me misreading because a conversation would be more benefiting to us both, I believe.)



posted on Feb, 20 2018 @ 01:17 PM
link   
i like how all the trump voters here want to protect the sanctity of the 2nd amendment to the constitution.....but, the emoluments clause of the constitution, article 1, section 9, clause 8....screw it, that one doesn't count....hypocrites...
uphold the entire constitution, or don't give me this patriotic BS....you can't pick and choose a part of the constitution you like, and say screw the ones I don't like.



posted on Feb, 20 2018 @ 02:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: jimmyx
i like how all the trump voters here want to protect the sanctity of the 2nd amendment to the constitution.....but, the emoluments clause of the constitution, article 1, section 9, clause 8....screw it, that one doesn't count....hypocrites...
uphold the entire constitution, or don't give me this patriotic BS....you can't pick and choose a part of the constitution you like, and say screw the ones I don't like.


As Lord Earl Duke of Blootsville, Oregon, I forgive you your irrational posts.

Kiss my ring knave.




posted on Feb, 20 2018 @ 05:01 PM
link   
a reply to: DBCowboy




Last week there was another tragic mass shooting. The media went on to make this young man a celebrity. Some, including Donald Trump, even painted him as a victim. I still don’t understand why we have to give the names of the shooters in the media. Probably because it makes a better story. CBS head Leslie Moonves said of Trump: “It may not be good for America, but it’s damn good for CBS.” The same can be said for these shootings. If stardom has anything to do with the shootings, it is irresponsible to make these people into fixtures of the American psyche. Anyone who watches Quentin Tarantino, Clint Eastwood, or most any American blockbuster would get the sense that violence, although tragic, is normal and heroic.

The personal story of this kid shouldn’t surprise us—white nationalist and animal abuser. This “lonely” guy made his vengeful killing on Valentine’s Day, but if he did have a Valentine he may have been like most of his predecessors, a domestic abuser. Republicans, bought by the NRA, talk about mental health (even though Donald Trump repealed an Obama protection on the mentally ill buying guns). The Democrats, who don’t have many organizations left that haven’t bought their silence made sure to rail against the NRA and the GOP. They are right of course but they don’t have much credibility left given how they act 99% of the time.

The mental health issue is valid too but the Republicans are trying to make all of us as mentally ill as they are. Schools are turning into prisons, in both their physical structure and their philosophical one. Prisons themselves are crowded enough to be schools. The argument what kills (guns or people) is a silly one because they both do. Who could deny that Barack Obama was mentally ill as he dropped drones around the world and expanded the nuclear arsenal? But there is also the obvious point that if Obama was the President of say, a garden club, he wouldn’t be killing as many people because he wouldn’t have the weapons to do so (Obama’s Garden Club would be snooty and pretentious I’m sure, even for a garden club).
[...]
What the latest shooting tells us is that when we pick up arms we are playing by the master’s rules. We are using the master’s tools. And we are shooting our own schools. The revolution towards peace and equality must be nonviolent. Because it seems that sadly most of us still have no idea who our enemy is.

counterpunch

Was that more to your inking, Syre of Bloatsville?


edit on 20-2-2018 by PublicOpinion because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 22 2018 @ 07:57 AM
link   

originally posted by: PublicOpinion
a reply to: SlapMonkey


Me? I wont fight tyranny with automatic rifles and expect to win this fight with violent means. That might be the mindset of the slaver, but it aint mine.

Which one was Ghandis weapon of choice? The way I see it, there have been more cases of automatic rifles ending the fight against tyranny than the other way around.

It's a thought worth to ponder for a while and I think you missed the mark.

Here's a thought worth pondering: Civilian AR-15s aren't automatic rifles.

Also, Gandhi is a rare occurrence, but a people rising up against a government and winning is much less rare.

And the funny thing is, you responded to my comment that said that the AR-15 isn't the only thing at the disposal of civilians to use during an uprising and then lectured by on different ways to approach an uprising, all while mischaracterizing the AR-15.



posted on Feb, 22 2018 @ 08:13 AM
link   
a reply to: SlapMonkey

Concentrate on "violent means" and don't stop now, you're nearly there.



Also, Gandhi is a rare occurrence


That didn't stop Christians from developing values according to another rare occurrance, either. So it aint worth to fight for a win?
edit on 22-2-2018 by PublicOpinion because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 22 2018 @ 09:07 AM
link   

originally posted by: Eshel
a reply to: SlapMonkey


I know right. It's cool that we're allowed to have opinions.

Well, to be fair, you have the right to say almost anything (without a license to do so, or it would be a privilege), but that doesn't mean that it's right or worthy of in-depth discussion.




I'm not even sure how to address this. The right to own a gun is somehow more important than a right to life?

Let me restate this simple fact: A right to life, which is an inalienable right noted in the Declaration of Independence, is not tantamount a right to a long, full, healthy life.

Our Constitution, on the other hand, expressly forbids the federal government infringing on the right of the individual to keep and bear arms. If you want to use appeals to emotion over the hard facts, that's fine, just don't expect me to fall for that tactic.

Also, it would go a long way in credibility to agree that I never said that the 2nd Amendment is more important than someone's life, I just said that one is an actual right and one is not. Don't make false equivocations, please.



How about where I said, "I suggest". Could it be that maybe I'm just spitballing ideas looking for logical discussion?

But there's nothing logical about "just spitballing ideas" when said ideas are arbitrary and not backed by any facts. But thank you for answering, because that was my assumption--that the numbers were pulled out of nowhere.


That's why there's avenues to make changes. Maybe you're not sure what pliable means? Amendments imply that it's pliable to begin with.


Maybe I misconstrued the point of your comment, as it came across to me that you meant that it was designed specifically to be changed, which is not really true. Yes, it holds a mechanism to make changes to it, but it makes it exceptionally difficult to do so on purpose. That's basically what I was thinking that you meant--re-reading your original comment, I see that's not how you meant it.

My apologies for the misinterpretation.



Most. Ridiculous. Thought. Ever. (but,hey, that could just be my opinion)

And it is your opinion, and one not based on any facts at all. But quite honestly, your opinion and (mis)characterization of my comment doesn't matter in the grand scheme of important points on this topic.





Perhaps you misunderstand. The "licensing" or "testing" or whatever would be for the weapons that fit into the "assault weapon" category. (that would have to be rounded out of course into a more specific definition). This would not affect you from buying any other firearm you wanted. And would only add one step into purchasing an AR-15. (used as a general reference so we're not typing out every weapon in the category). I kind of like the idea of a way of tracking these type of weapons. Yeah, it won't stop all, but it's a start.

I didn't misunderstand your point at all--you're trying to license a right, and that turns it into a privilege. It's a simple concept.

I disagree with your opinion on this matter, and it's as simple as that.



This is my favorite part. I own 3 AR-15's myself and my wife has one. They are great weapons and fun to fire at the range. They have a nice intimidation factor for those people showing up on property without invitation. However, I do not delude myself into thinking that outside of the range, the sole reason for this weapon is to put as many holes into a human being as possible. Just as I was trained to do.

What are you talking about? I asked you a question as to whether or not limiting AR-15s to 5-6 rounds would stop you from being so afraid of (meaning 'concerned about' or 'worried about') that particular firearm.

You respond without substance, because no matter how many you own, it doesn't negate the obvious concern that you have about the weapon's availability and capabilities. So, would you care to answer my question, or does it not matter how limited the magazine is, you still advocate for licensing to own one just because maybe, statistically speaking, a percent of a percent of a percent of AR owners might use them to commit mass murder?

And no gun's sole reason for existence "is to put as many holes in to a human being as possible"--if someone ever tells anyone that, they need to seek out better training, because that person is a lunatic.


I agree that murderous psychopaths are the core problem. But can we at least stop making it easy for them to rack up the body counts?

Yes, but not the way that you seem to think is the answer.




(PS: I'd like to point out that you come across as pretty argumentative. I'm hoping that's just me misreading because a conversation would be more benefiting to us both, I believe.)

No, I was meaning to be confrontational because most of what you said was self-professed to be opinion and arbitrary. You avoid any tangible facts in what you said, yet implied with your own tone that much of what you said has a logical basis behind it.

You are contributing little of substance to the debate, just oft-used scapegoats and talking points that are elementary in their factual basis, if there is any, and are easily countered with facts and statistics.

You talk about how much you like the 2nd Amendment, but then immediately imply that it should be changed. You negated your own credibility in one paragraph.

You talk about the purpose of the invention of some things ("knives, hammers, cars etc") and how silly it is to talk about since their intended purpose is not death. I countered that claim, and you ignored it. I physically train to use things that you would stereotype as not being designed to kill as killing weapons, and they are designed to do just that. That's another instance where you negate your own credibility--intent or a product design doesn't matter, the actual use of an item does.

You then follow up saying that ARs should be licensed, and how that doesn't infringe upon them being rightfully owned, again negating your credibility.

Sometimes opinions and conjecture are not worth engaging in actual debate or discussion, but that also doesn't mean that an argumentative tone cannot yield a logical and rational debate. Bring something to the table that would actually address the problems, and I'm happy to discuss them logically--keep supplying opinionated talking points, though, and that's where constructive engagement gets lost.

Best regards.



posted on Feb, 22 2018 @ 09:09 AM
link   

originally posted by: PublicOpinion
a reply to: SlapMonkey


That didn't stop Christians from developing values according to another rare occurrance, either. So it aint worth to fight for a win?

Let's not call upon mythical happenings to try and sway someone like me.

And to be fair, Christianity as a historical movement has failed in very unforgivable ways concerning values and peace (as have nearly all other religions at different points).

One man's win is another man's loss--something that shouldn't be forgotten, and it's a point that attests to the complexity of many of these issues.


edit on 22-2-2018 by SlapMonkey because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 22 2018 @ 11:49 AM
link   
a reply to: SlapMonkey

I wont sway someone like you with nonviolent means. You'd need to be invited for an exhibition into a more hippy_esque mindset. Ya know... heavy usage of mind-altering stuff, lotta fine people and extremely loud music.

Agreed to agree on that.


edit on 22-2-2018 by PublicOpinion because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
5
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join