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.

 

Why the left hates individual preparedness/rights

page: 6
65
<< 3  4  5    7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 24 2018 @ 01:14 AM
link   
There are limits to ALL of our freedoms. We have the right to free speech, but we do not have the right to engage in hate speech or to yell "Fire!" in a crowded theater.

Gun control laws are not the same thing as gun confiscation laws. You do not need an AR-15 for any reason. Ever. Period.

Do you really want to stand behind the ideology that we have the Second Amendment to protect us from government tyranny? If so, you should also be fighting for and advocating for your right to own an Apache helicopter and an armada of tanks, because that is what is coming after us in the event of an uprising. Your ownership of firearms will fall extremely short in a battle with the military of this country. As such, stop using the Second Amendment as an excuse to own weaponry that is simply not necessary to your day-to-day existence.

Other countries disallow gun ownership. They also do not have school shootings. See the connection?

Arguing to keep the right to bear arms unabridged is ludicrous. I stand by our right to to own guns that serve specific purposes, but arguing to be able to own any sort of weaponry you want based on an ambiguous and amorphous amendment is misguided at best, and insidious at worst. Knock it off.
edit on 24-2-2018 by Thejaybird because: (no reason given)




posted on Feb, 24 2018 @ 04:01 AM
link   

originally posted by: Justoneman

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: murphy22
a reply to: ScepticScot
Murder "per capita". Murder by what? "Per Capita"? Murder, is murder! Guns are not a reason, anymore than being choked to death by a good necktie.
What easy access? Tell me, how easy it is to get a "legal" "gun" in The USA?
Anything else, is "illegal".
So are you speaking from experience? Or are you just parroting what you have heard?



Murder by capita = murder per head of population.

The US has far higher rate than any comparable country.

Are you really denying that it's easier to get access to a firearm in the US than in other developed countries.


We have the very highest rate because of the so called War on Drugs that enables thrill seeking drug fueled punks to get rich quick. They literally fight for territory just like the Mafia do in the movies. They wear colors to tell who they belong to and it is a big problem in some places like Chicago (Sheetcago to some).

I would vote for legalization of a lot of the stuff and provide help to the addicts who want it like we handle the gamblers. If they just want to go about stoned all the time, fine if they can't hurt anyone else. But I would hope we could find a way to get them to stay with other stoned people or go some where to "dry" out and not work it out here among us until they sober up.



Drugs are illegal across the developed world. No where else has near the same level of gun deaths.



posted on Feb, 24 2018 @ 04:13 AM
link   

originally posted by: JBurns
a reply to: ScepticScot


Absolutely, large inner city crime rates vs. rural area.

Still want to argue population size/density doesn't matter?

Regardless, a mere 5.5/100,000 is nothing. Especially compared to other ways we die. Saving lives starts in tackling problems like obesity, smoking, fast food, drinking, distracted driving (cell phones), etc. None of those things I mentioned are a Constitutional right, and all kill far more than ALL murder combined (guns are only used in a FRACTION of all murders)

Yet, the left wants to target the one thing that IS a Constitutional right yet has the least impact among ALL the other issues I listed. So since we know this isn't *really* about saving lives, I can only assume the push for gun-control is to allow government hegemony over the use of force/violence - something the Constitution simply doesn't permit.

Firearms (military ones) are required to pose a credible threat to a tyrannical domestic threat or foreign invasion. They also make defeating criminal/terrorist threats much easier. There is no legitimate argument to remove firearms.

1) hundreds of millions already exist, unregistered/unknown/many intentionally cached 2) criminals always find a way to get them/make them/steal them and 3) you wouldn't like the result of turning tens of millions of gun owners into criminals overnight.

Furthermore, as has been pointed out numerous times, my guns have nothing to do with what some thug criminal decides to do with them. Start rounding up gang members or keeping a better eye on mental health issues, I really don't know what to tell you. Either way, liberty has a price as we see time and time again. Often that price is pretty damn high. But always worth it. Always will be.

Franklin said it best: "Those who would sacrifice essential liberty for mere temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."

There are plenty of "safe" countries out there, though. UK/Australia/etc. But this isn't one of those places. We aren't subjects. We're Citizens in a Constitutional Republic. The government exists primarily to uphold our constitutional rights, and if they aren't going to do that properly then what purpose do we have for them?

Thank goodness nobody is trying to cherry pick your Constitutional rights though. You, yes you! You may have an abortion, but only by a Doctor named "Fred" wearing a polka-dot jacket on Tuesdays from 4:30pm-4:41pm. How's that sound to you? Does it sound "fair and reasonable" or does it sound like whoever wrote that law is *actually* trying to persuade you not to exercise your right?

Now lets try this one... "shall not be infringed..." What does this mean to you? Does it mean "Infringe whenever possible and apply needless regulations?" or does it mean "do not infringe under any circumstance." To me, this is obvious. Yet our anointed "judges" and lawyers have yet to figure it out.. "Shall not" is pretty clear to me, though. See that? You don't need a big expensive Ivy league legal education to have a clue after all.

Or how about the first amendment? Well, you have free speech. You can't publish anything negative about the government though. And you can only tell the truth if it shows the Trump administration in a good light. Does that sound very "Free" to you, either? It sure wouldn't to me....and I'm a Trump voter.

Just think it over..

Everyone, and especially the federal government, needs to keep their grubby little greedy hands off our Constitution.


Europe has a higher population density with less gun deaths than the US. Population density may be a factor but it's not nearly as major one as availability of guns.

The ' fraction' of murders involving guns is about 2/3 in the US. That is a fraction but not really what you were implying.

People in Europe are citizens also to with their own rights and constitutions. America really isn't as exceptional as many if you seem to think in that regard.

There things being done to tackle deaths from obesity, drink driving. Trying to claim they are ignored is simply false. Although most of the opposition to measures to reduce those deaths comes from the same groups and people who oppose gun control.



posted on Feb, 24 2018 @ 04:26 AM
link   

originally posted by: JBurns
...and please don't tell me the second amendment doesn't apply to military/automatic weapons. Those who act as though "the musket" was the only firearm to exist in the founder's time are simply misinformed.

Not only did "machine guns" exist, but explosive ordnance and other weapons were quite familiar to the founders - they used these types of weapons to defeat tyrants. Twice.

en.wikipedia.org...

Puckle gun

This wasn't the only advance in technology, but struck me as particularly relevant given its patent date: 1718 (well before our founders were even born)

Additionally, gun laws do NOT have a lawful basis in the United States. Up until 1934, no gun laws existed and our nation got on just fine. Regardless, the argument that the second amendment is outdated is simply untrue. It always envisioned our firearms remaining up to speed with current develops, seeing as the founders surely realized that would be the weapons said hypothetical tyranny would also procure.

The 2A is a bulwark against oppression or invasion, and is the ultimate guarantor of our civil rights - ALL civil rights.



From your link.

'The Puckle gun drew few investors and never achieved mass production or sales to the British armed forces. As with other designs of the time it was hampered by "clumsy and undependable flintlock ignition" and other mechanical problems.[1] A leaflet of the period sarcastically observed of the venture that "they're only wounded who hold shares therein". Production was highly limited and may have been as few as just two guns'

Two of them, yep I am sure that was very much in minds of the founding fathers and is totally comparable to modern automatic and semi-automatic rifles..



posted on Feb, 24 2018 @ 04:40 AM
link   
a reply to: ScepticScot

But it does show the thoery was there in their time frame, which kind of kicks the idea that the founding fathers could not conceive of a semi auto weapon to the curb.

Just because the techonology was not there to make it work, doesnt mean it was not discussed.



posted on Feb, 24 2018 @ 04:49 AM
link   

originally posted by: Irishhaf
a reply to: ScepticScot

But it does show the thoery was there in their time frame, which kind of kicks the idea that the founding fathers could not conceive of a semi auto weapon to the curb.

Just because the techonology was not there to make it work, doesnt mean it was not discussed.






The theory existed but there is little to suggest they anticipated handheld weapons with the rate of fire possible now being in general circulation.

The circumstances the constitution was written in see radically different from the circumstances America finds itself in now.



posted on Feb, 24 2018 @ 04:58 AM
link   
a reply to: ScepticScot


Got it, in your eyes men that succeeded so well in looking to the future while laying the foundation to their country were not smart enough to look at the advances in weapons and hazard a decent guess at where they would eventually reach.

Even though in their life time experimental weapons were greatly increasing the rate of fire, none of these highly intelligent people would have thought to investigate the experimental weapons to see if it was feasible for the rebellion while they were fighting a desperate war for independence.



posted on Feb, 24 2018 @ 05:07 AM
link   
a reply to: neo96


The left don't hate you. They dnt think you're less of a person. Stop the victim complex.

What 'the left' (and I hate that phrase because there are virtually zero left wing people in America), but what they hate is seeing kids get murdered in schools.

Don't you hate that too?

Don't you want that to stop?

Why there are people getting so angry, why these kids are getting so angry, is because they are seeing the far right do absolutely nothing to try and stop kids getting murdered.

Doesn't that make you angry too?



posted on Feb, 24 2018 @ 05:23 AM
link   

originally posted by: Irishhaf
a reply to: ScepticScot


Got it, in your eyes men that succeeded so well in looking to the future while laying the foundation to their country were not smart enough to look at the advances in weapons and hazard a decent guess at where they would eventually reach.

Even though in their life time experimental weapons were greatly increasing the rate of fire, none of these highly intelligent people would have thought to investigate the experimental weapons to see if it was feasible for the rebellion while they were fighting a desperate war for independence.



I know many Americans like to treat the founding fathers a demi god's but they are just men (politicians actually) trying to put together the framework of a brand new country in pretty stressful and contentious circumstances.

So no I doubt very much they even considered the possibility of weapons technology developing the way it has when putting together the bill of rights.

As they were generally pretty practical men I also doubt they would have expected or wanted to religious worship of the constitution that we see in modern America. They intended it to be a practical structure to ensure good governance. Having the highest murder rate of any comparable country would not have struck them as promoting the general welfare.



posted on Feb, 24 2018 @ 07:43 AM
link   

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Justoneman

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: murphy22
a reply to: ScepticScot
Murder "per capita". Murder by what? "Per Capita"? Murder, is murder! Guns are not a reason, anymore than being choked to death by a good necktie.
What easy access? Tell me, how easy it is to get a "legal" "gun" in The USA?
Anything else, is "illegal".
So are you speaking from experience? Or are you just parroting what you have heard?



Murder by capita = murder per head of population.

The US has far higher rate than any comparable country.

Are you really denying that it's easier to get access to a firearm in the US than in other developed countries.


We have the very highest rate because of the so called War on Drugs that enables thrill seeking drug fueled punks to get rich quick. They literally fight for territory just like the Mafia do in the movies. They wear colors to tell who they belong to and it is a big problem in some places like Chicago (Sheetcago to some).

I would vote for legalization of a lot of the stuff and provide help to the addicts who want it like we handle the gamblers. If they just want to go about stoned all the time, fine if they can't hurt anyone else. But I would hope we could find a way to get them to stay with other stoned people or go some where to "dry" out and not work it out here among us until they sober up.



Drugs are illegal across the developed world. No where else has near the same level of gun deaths.


The difference in other country's is we have a very diverse population, we have laws that say they get a fair trial instead of being summarily shot shortly after the trial for drug possession.

We are probably weak in those country's eyes when it comes to killing the druggies. But they wipe them out with no family members left wanting to be carrying on the brand when they are done. Yet, still new people come along to make the opium drugs like heroin and "push" them in Asia.

I truly think we should continue to be erring on the side of loving the human and not the crime. We have the responsibility here to be more compassionate about human habits here based simply on the diverse population being allowed to live among us as long as others are not harmed. In so doing we keep alive people that would get whacked overseas.


edit on 24-2-2018 by Justoneman because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 24 2018 @ 07:50 AM
link   
a reply to: Justoneman

And now The Netherlands have the same War on Drugs going on like ... the Philippines.
AmeriKKKa, land of free non-education!



In so doing we keep alive people that would get whacked overseas.


Sure. Like the heroes you guys are. And Trump aint Dutertes buddy, right. Right? .... Right?



posted on Feb, 24 2018 @ 07:51 AM
link   

originally posted by: Irishhaf
a reply to: ScepticScot


Got it, in your eyes men that succeeded so well in looking to the future while laying the foundation to their country were not smart enough to look at the advances in weapons and hazard a decent guess at where they would eventually reach.

Even though in their life time experimental weapons were greatly increasing the rate of fire, none of these highly intelligent people would have thought to investigate the experimental weapons to see if it was feasible for the rebellion while they were fighting a desperate war for independence.



There were repeating flintlock rifles (Kalthoff and Lorenzoni repeaters; similar to modern lever actions) in existence 100 years before the ratification of 2A, and yes, the founders were aware of them.

Regardless, its almost certain that they understood that the limiting factor of firearms development at the time was the lack of self-contained ammunition cartridges and that, theoretically, the energy of the prior round could be harnessed to load the next one. And note that the first self-contained ammunition cartridge was invented in 1808, less than 20 years after the ratification of 2A, so at the very least, we know that people were thinking about that particular issue around the same time.



posted on Feb, 24 2018 @ 07:54 AM
link   

originally posted by: Painterz
a reply to: neo96


The left don't hate you. They dnt think you're less of a person. Stop the victim complex.

What 'the left' (and I hate that phrase because there are virtually zero left wing people in America), but what they hate is seeing kids get murdered in schools.

Don't you hate that too?

Don't you want that to stop?

Why there are people getting so angry, why these kids are getting so angry, is because they are seeing the far right do absolutely nothing to try and stop kids getting murdered.

Doesn't that make you angry too?



I totally disagree.
The kids are mad because the CNN's SAY to them in a brainwashing opportunistic fashion that all the people not Democrat/Progressives are the ones responsible. This is instead of investigating the Meds we are force feeding our kids that make them killer zombies. Instead of the zombie killers they play in their games.

The answer was not to enforce "GUN FREE ZONES". The Marxist leaning media have essentially declared no guns allowed zones will 'protect' people for their 'own good'. Removing means of self defense for the little old ladies and others too weak to fight off an attacker or to even be able to legally shoot back at a thug was asking people to be willing to be play the victim on their local Nightly News.



edit on 24-2-2018 by Justoneman because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 24 2018 @ 09:21 AM
link   
Property, guns,shelter,water, a garden, and livestock.
Am I missing any basic concepts?



posted on Feb, 24 2018 @ 09:49 AM
link   
a reply to: JBurns

How does one reply to a vacuous rant based on a video by Mike Adams?

With a knowing chuckle. I mean, it's not like he makes a very good living selling solutions to imaginary problems, is it?
edit on 24-2-2018 by Whodathunkdatcheese because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 24 2018 @ 09:50 AM
link   

originally posted by: Justoneman
The Marxist leaning media have essentially declared no guns allowed zones will 'protect' people for their 'own good'.




I keep reading about the Marxist leaning media.

Soundbites aside, is there any evidence that they are Marxist leaning instead of self serving corporations working within a fairly liberalised market?



posted on Feb, 24 2018 @ 10:10 AM
link   

originally posted by: Whodathunkdatcheese

originally posted by: Justoneman
The Marxist leaning media have essentially declared no guns allowed zones will 'protect' people for their 'own good'.




I keep reading about the Marxist leaning media.

Soundbites aside, is there any evidence that they are Marxist leaning instead of self serving corporations working within a fairly liberalised market?


en.oxforddictionaries.com...
Damn straight but you, having not seen it by now, are perhaps in danger of actually being of their useful idiots.
edit on 24-2-2018 by Justoneman because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 24 2018 @ 10:25 AM
link   
a reply to: JBurns

I guess I can appreciate that you created this OP in order to push a partisan political narrative and get the mandatory back-slaps from your like-minded friends, but I would have thought that if you were going to make an OP with such specific accusations and assertions you would have been a bit more...prepared.

Not only have you made several accusations and assertions that you have not provided any evidence for, you say some things in the OP that make it entirely reasonable to question if you have become brainwashed by Right Wing propaganda and even question your intelligence.

Surely you are not dumb enough to actually think the US is the only free nation on Earth. Hell, that's a sign of your ignorance there. The US is not a truly free nation. In fact, I'd say your last paragraph is ripe with idiocy and it's actually quite humorous.



Don't accept their false choices. We are the only truly free nation on Earth for a reason and have a duty to uphold the legacy of freedom that was hard-EARNED through the blood and tears OUR ancestors passed on to us. We are the keepers of liberty and freedom, and do our future generations a disservice by allowing liberalism to destroy individualism.


Keepers of liberty and freedom, huh?


You do realize that you contradict yourself in this statement, correct?

You are the gate keepers of freedom and do our future generations a disservice by allowing liberalism to destroy individualism, but if we are truly free that means you have to allow people to choose what they want to believe, like believing in liberalism.

Sounds to me like you and your friends are the keepers of hypocrisy, ignorance and an abundance of moral superiority and self righteousness.



posted on Feb, 24 2018 @ 10:29 AM
link   
a reply to: [post=23173034]ScepticScot

I honestly don't know. I have never tried
to get a firearm in another country. But if I had to? I'm sure I could figure something out. I've seen sticks in Germany that looked like they'd "hold a good point".

So what if it is easier? It's easy to get chainsaws, machetes, kitchen knives, screwdrivers, gasoline, bug killer, trucks, cars, common "ingredients",.. for? Many things. Regardless of the intended, "legal" use. Evil will always find a way.
The fact liberal minds believe that devices designed for war, or for sport, can not be interchanged and used illegally, is my point.
Your per capita argument is nonsense and is always used by the sheeple type.
Every country that have banned firearms have had rises in other crime. Especially "violent crime".
We can go around and around, with "statistics". Just depends how much personal freedom you are willing to give up for a safety delusion.
So basically everyone that cries "ban the gun" is telling there fellow citizens, "I can't trust myself with a gun". .."So nobody else should have one". Is that it?

That's what I'm always hearing anyway. And that's how I take it.
My firearms would defend you, my family, me, country and give me a good day at the range on targets. Or set around locked up and do nothing.
Before they ever commit a crime.
People die in swimming pools but I still like to use them. Same with cars.

Educated, civilized society needs to man up! And stop being fearful of every little thing "that could" do something.
Fear creates cowards.
Fear is also anti-freedom. You people will legislate yourselves into serfdom with no tools, (because they're all illegal) and won't recover. But you'll be safe from each other, except that big guy in the corner that wants your daily food rashion. But don't worry, he's only going to stab you with a "modified" "assault toothbrush".

You folks crack me up!



posted on Feb, 24 2018 @ 11:00 AM
link   

originally posted by: AScrubWhoDied
The sad part:

You actually believe the BS you typed.

Keep at it America.


Which came first: People or Government?




top topics



 
65
<< 3  4  5    7  8 >>

log in

join