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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
In so doing we keep alive people that would get whacked overseas.
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.
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?
originally posted by: Justoneman
The Marxist leaning media have essentially declared no guns allowed zones will 'protect' people for their 'own good'.
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?
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.
originally posted by: AScrubWhoDied
The sad part:
You actually believe the BS you typed.
Keep at it America.