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: 7
65
<< 4  5  6    8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 24 2018 @ 11:07 AM
link   

originally posted by: ErrorErrorError
A society where everyone needs to own a gun to feel safe ?! A society where armed guards protect schools ?! What kind of bs freedom are you talking about when even your freaking schools need armed guards?


False premise: I don't need a gun to feel safe. Safety comes from knowing that you can take care of yourself, and are not prevented from acquiring those resources.

What do you call a society where the people in power *know* that everyone cannot take care of themselve and need the power structure to handle everything? Cattle. Children. In some cases, Slaves.




posted on Feb, 24 2018 @ 01:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: Justoneman

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.



We are talking about the developed world. Countries will developed legal systems and generally no death penalty.



posted on Feb, 24 2018 @ 01:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: murphy22
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!










It's always possible to get a firearm just about anywhere but stricter rules mean you are far more likely to get caught trying to get a gun for an illegal purpose.

Stricter rules also dramatically reduce homicides where there is no pre-planning as there is far far less chance of a gun being involved in crimes.

Its simply not true that reducing firearm ownership increases other forms of violent crime. Violent crime overall is also lower or similar level in most developed countries.

Why is the perfect capita argument nonsense? It isn't even an argument it's a simple statement of fact. The US has far higher rate of homicides than any comparable countries.



posted on Feb, 24 2018 @ 03:13 PM
link   
a reply to: ScepticScot

Absolute hyperbola - Stricter rules make no difference it's upbringing, why shoot someone when you can gain more pleasure out of learning the martial art's with emphasis on restraint. Just because you learn how to kill someone with one finger doesn't mean you should run around doing it!

The penalty should fit the crime.

[Quote]It's always possible to get a firearm just about anywhere[/Quote]

That's true and they should remain under a lock!

If you get one in your hands and your mentally unstable enough to shoot someone with it, then perhaps you shouldn't have been able to Buy one in the first place. *Restraint!*
edit on 24-2-2018 by micromark because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 24 2018 @ 03:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: micromark
a reply to: ScepticScot

Absolute hyperbola - Stricter rules make no difference it's upbringing, why shoot someone when you can gain more pleasure out of learning the martial art's with emphasis on restraint. Just because you learn how to kill someone with one finger doesn't mean you should run around doing it!

The penalty should fit the crime.

[Quote]It's always possible to get a firearm just about anywhere[/Quote]

That's true and they should remain under a lock!

If you get one in your hands and your mentally unstable enough to shoot someone with it, then perhaps you shouldn't have been able to Buy one in the first place. *Restraint!*


Countries with stricter rules on firearms have less firearms deaths and less homicides. Seems stricter rules work well.



posted on Feb, 24 2018 @ 03:26 PM
link   
a reply to: ScepticScot

Sigh, that is not true. Our rates are not considerably higher, and are extremely low in fact. 4.9/100,000 is very low. Smoking, drinking, distracted driving, DUI, unhealthy foods and not-exercising kills far more each year.

Ahem: UNODC (United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime) reported a global average intentional homicide rate of 6.2 per 100,000 population for 2012

Our intentional homicide rate is 4.9/100,000 = much lower than the global average. And a large majority of these countries have stricter gun laws than ours.

There is absolutely no reason to believe more guns = more murder. This nation has more than 1 gun for every person, while nations like Honduras (which do not have nearly as many guns) have murder rates 10-15 times higher than ours. Even Canada/Finland/Australia/UK are only around 1/2 to 1/3 of our murder rate. And since firearms are virtually banned there (the useful ones, anyhow), how do you explain that?

Legal firearms in THIS country would be even more effective if there weren't so many "gun free easy target zones" out there and people on the left trying to force innocent Citizens to confront deranged killers with no firearms. Insanity.



posted on Feb, 24 2018 @ 03:28 PM
link   
a reply to: ScepticScot

And... here are some stats from the CDC


Heart disease: 633,842
Cancer: 595,930
Chronic lower respiratory diseases: 155,041
Accidents (unintentional injuries): 146,571
Stroke (cerebrovascular diseases): 140,323
Alzheimer’s disease: 110,561
Diabetes: 79,535
Influenza and Pneumonia: 57,062
Nephritis, nephrotic syndrome and nephrosis: 49,959
Intentional self-harm (suicide): 44,193


Notice intentional murders (of which firearms only make up a fraction of) don't even make the "leading causes of death" list!

www.cdc.gov...

No further gun control needed. Restrictions must be loosened if anything. Good conversation though. Ignoring these basic facts (none of which are CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS by the way...everything except firearms could be legally eliminated/banned tomorrow) just proves you aren't interested in facts or saving lives, but for pushing a tired and historically unpopular agenda onto the American people who have rejected that agenda time after time.
edit on 2/24/2018 by JBurns because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 24 2018 @ 03:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: JBurns
a reply to: ScepticScot

Sigh, that is not true. Our rates are not considerably higher, and are extremely low in fact. 4.9/100,000 is very low. Smoking, drinking, distracted driving, DUI, unhealthy foods and not-exercising kills far more each year.

Ahem: UNODC (United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime) reported a global average intentional homicide rate of 6.2 per 100,000 population for 2012

Our intentional homicide rate is 4.9/100,000 = much lower than the global average. And a large majority of these countries have stricter gun laws than ours.

There is absolutely no reason to believe more guns = more murder. This nation has more than 1 gun for every person, while nations like Honduras (which do not have nearly as many guns) have murder rates 10-15 times higher than ours. Even Canada/Finland/Australia/UK are only around 1/2 to 1/3 of our murder rate. And since firearms are virtually banned there (the useful ones, anyhow), how do you explain that?

Legal firearms in THIS country would be even more effective if there weren't so many "gun free easy target zones" out there and people on the left trying to force innocent Citizens to confront deranged killers with no firearms. Insanity.


The global average includes countries in the midst of civil war and those with barely functioning legal systems. Compared to other developed countries the US rate is far higher.



posted on Feb, 24 2018 @ 03:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: JBurns
a reply to: ScepticScot

And... here are some stats from the CDC


Heart disease: 633,842
Cancer: 595,930
Chronic lower respiratory diseases: 155,041
Accidents (unintentional injuries): 146,571
Stroke (cerebrovascular diseases): 140,323
Alzheimer’s disease: 110,561
Diabetes: 79,535
Influenza and Pneumonia: 57,062
Nephritis, nephrotic syndrome and nephrosis: 49,959
Intentional self-harm (suicide): 44,193


Notice intentional murders (of which firearms only make up a fraction of) don't even make the "leading causes of death" list!

www.cdc.gov...

No further gun control needed. Restrictions must be loosened if anything. Good conversation though. Ignoring these basic facts (none of which are CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS by the way...everything except firearms could be legally eliminated/banned tomorrow) just proves you aren't interested in facts or saving lives, but for pushing a tired and historically unpopular agenda onto the American people who have rejected that agenda time after time.


Your claim was gun related homicides make up a fraction of total homicides. That fraction is 2/3.

You understand there is a difference between people dying of disease and being murdered.



posted on Feb, 24 2018 @ 03:34 PM
link   
Scot,

To further reduce the impact of those stats..


67 percent of homicide victims were killed using a firearm


So only 2/3 homicides are even commited with a firearm to begin with. Therefore, you can lower our intentional murder rate from 4.9 to around ~3.5/100,000 people being killed with a firearm. That is nothing compared to the leading killers in this country.

And as I said, not ONE of those leading causes of death are protected Constitutional rights. They could be eliminated tomorrow by the stroke of the President's pen or act of congress, and it'd be perfectly legal. The one thing that can't be eliminated on a whim is our RKBA, a Constitutional right.

If you really want to save lives, focus on this big-time killers above. If you don't want to save lives, then stop trying to troll us into giving up our rights. It won't work. In fact, it has already failed. The fact that those deputies refused to enter the school disputes every single argument against pro-gun/armed teachers.



posted on Feb, 24 2018 @ 03:35 PM
link   
a reply to: ScepticScot

I just posted that.


To further reduce the impact of those stats..


67 percent of homicide victims were killed using a firearm


So only 2/3 homicides are even commited with a firearm to begin with. Therefore, you can lower our intentional murder rate from 4.9 to around ~3.5/100,000 pe


That is my point exactly. That reduces it to ~3.5/100,000 killed with a firearm. That is extremely low. Doesn't matter who you compare it with. With those "developed" countries, we're merely 2-3 times higher. And we have a much larger population, specifically an urban population (which is responsible for the vast majority of these intentional homicides, factually)



posted on Feb, 24 2018 @ 03:39 PM
link   
a reply to: ScepticScot

And our yearly deaths from automobile accidents is 10.6/100,000. Your point?

Is 4.9/100,000 "huge and unbearable" or is that really just hyperbole? Because 10.6/100,000 sounds far worse. Especially when you consider we have far more guns than cars in this country.

So please explain.



posted on Feb, 24 2018 @ 03:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: JBurns
Scot,

To further reduce the impact of those stats..


67 percent of homicide victims were killed using a firearm


So only 2/3 homicides are even commited with a firearm to begin with. Therefore, you can lower our intentional murder rate from 4.9 to around ~3.5/100,000 people being killed with a firearm. That is nothing compared to the leading killers in this country.

And as I said, not ONE of those leading causes of death are protected Constitutional rights. They could be eliminated tomorrow by the stroke of the President's pen or act of congress, and it'd be perfectly legal. The one thing that can't be eliminated on a whim is our RKBA, a Constitutional right.

If you really want to save lives, focus on this big-time killers above. If you don't want to save lives, then stop trying to troll us into giving up our rights. It won't work. In fact, it has already failed. The fact that those deputies refused to enter the school disputes every single argument against pro-gun/armed teachers.


Concern with the US homicide rate and gun deaths in no way means people aren't concerned with deaths by other means.

The US already spends billions on cancer research. There are laws on drink driving. Most people seem perfectly capable of walking and chewing gum at the same time.

I suspect that there is considerable overlap between those who oppose gun control and those who oppose stricter drink drive laws or improving the US healthcare system.



posted on Feb, 24 2018 @ 03:43 PM
link   
a reply to: ScepticScot

Dying of disease? Automobile accidents are not disease. Giving yourself a heart attack by intentionally consuming junk-food like McDonalds or pure sugar is not a disease, it is an act of stupidity and excess. Strokes and lung cancer from choosing to smoke cigarettes. Once again, the results of exercising your freedom of choice and personal liberty.

Every right comes with a price.

There is no words a person can say to convince gun owners to surrender any more gun rights to the government. There is so simply no reason for us to trust them or the anti-gunners who use extremely dishonest tactics to push a BS agenda.

Look at the anti-gun organization that Washington Post just called out? One of those Newtown fact-distorters, I believe. "Moms demand action" or one of the other failed anti-gun hate groups. Stop attacking our damned Constitutional rights.

The second amendment says "shall not be infringed" eliminating any need for the present discussion.



posted on Feb, 24 2018 @ 03:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: JBurns
a reply to: ScepticScot

And our yearly deaths from automobile accidents is 10.6/100,000. Your point?

Is 4.9/100,000 "huge and unbearable" or is that really just hyperbole? Because 10.6/100,000 sounds far worse. Especially when you consider we have far more guns than cars in this country.

So please explain.


Despite the fact that comparing deaths between cars and guns is ridiculous in the first place let's run with that.

You have to pass a test to drive a car, you need insurance, there are multiple regulations to make cars safer.

Do you support these things first gun ownership?



posted on Feb, 24 2018 @ 03:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: JBurns
a reply to: ScepticScot

Dying of disease? Automobile accidents are not disease. Giving yourself a heart attack by intentionally consuming junk-food like McDonalds or pure sugar is not a disease, it is an act of stupidity and excess. Strokes and lung cancer from choosing to smoke cigarettes. Once again, the results of exercising your freedom of choice and personal liberty.

Every right comes with a price.

There is no words a person can say to convince gun owners to surrender any more gun rights to the government. There is so simply no reason for us to trust them or the anti-gunners who use extremely dishonest tactics to push a BS agenda.

Look at the anti-gun organization that Washington Post just called out? One of those Newtown fact-distorters, I believe. "Moms demand action" or one of the other failed anti-gun hate groups. Stop attacking our damned Constitutional rights.

The second amendment says "shall not be infringed" eliminating any need for the present discussion.


Something written over 200 years ago eliminates the need for discussion? That sounds reasonable..

The 2nd is an amendedment. The framers of the constitution intended for it to be a dynamic document hence the need for amendments at all. There is never a point when there is no need for discussion.



posted on Feb, 24 2018 @ 03:47 PM
link   
a reply to: ScepticScot


There are laws on drink driving.


And there are laws against:

1) murdering people
2) illegally possessing a firearm
3) bringing a firearm to school

yet these don't seem to be enough? For some reason, when it comes to the second amendment, some of you are too happy to call for further infringement. Not because you think it will save lives (otherwise you wouldn't be content with drunk driving/texting merely being illegal - you'd want cars or phones outright banned or heavily "regulated")

How about we force you to install a blow and go in your vehicle, so we can "make sure" you aren't drunk before driving? Even though you may never touch alcohol personally and have lived a legally upstanding life, you have to install this obtrusive device simply because someone 5 states away may decide to abuse their PRIVILEGE to drive a vehicle and drink or text behind the wheel.

Now what if we also make you install a Cell Phone jammer device in your car? Even though you may have a terrible accident one day and need to dial 911, you must always use the jammer because "someone" "somewhere" may decide to utilize their cell phone dangerously and illegally while driving. Is that sensible as well?

Firearms are no different. You're telling me I should give up a piece of hardware I consider essential to my own defense and the defense of my nation simply because someone somewhere may decide to abuse that right? We have laws to punish that type of action. And we have rights to protect ourselves from it. Nowhere in that is person A giving up a right so person B can feel safer/be safer. It doesn't work that way. This isn't equity or a "sharing" Republic. This is a constitutional right. And FYI, the first machine gun (Puckle Gun) was invented 20 years before the founders were even born. So don't tell me it is out of date. It is not out of date.

Now, does that sound reasonable? Or does it sound like we're *severely* over-stepping and imposing undue restrictions on you arbitrarily? And again, driving a car/having a cell phone is NOT a constitutional right. RKBA is.

RKBA is not a privilege. It is not something we need permission from the government to exercise. The sovereign authority of the Constitution already gave us that right, which has been upheld by American heroes paying in blood to defend those rights.


edit on 2/24/2018 by JBurns because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 24 2018 @ 03:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: JBurns
a reply to: ScepticScot


There are laws on drink driving.


And there are laws against:

1) murdering people
2) illegally possessing a firearm
3) bringing a firearm to school

yet these don't seem to be enough? For some reason, when it comes to the second amendment, some of you are too happy to call for further infringement. Not because you think it will save lives (otherwise you wouldn't be content with drunk driving/texting merely being illegal - you'd want cars or phones outright banned or heavily "regulated")

How about we force you to install a blow and go in your vehicle, so we can "make sure" you aren't drunk before driving? Even though you may never touch alcohol personally and have lived a legally upstanding life, you have to install this obtrusive device simply because someone 5 states away may decide to abuse their PRIVILEGE to drive a vehicle and drink or text behind the wheel.

Now, does that sound reasonable? Or does it sound like we're *severely* over-stepping and imposing undue restrictions on you arbitrarily? And again, driving a car/having a cell phone is NOT a constitutional right. RKBA is.

RKBA is not a privilege. It is not something we need permission from the government to exercise. The sovereign authority of the Constitution already gave us that right, which has been upheld by American heroes paying in blood to defend those rights.



1. Laws against murdering people include running over them with a car. You still need to pass a test.

2. So you agree that there should be restrictions and ruled on gun ownership/ possesion despite the 2nd?

3. I agree gun free zones are stupid unless you are willing and able to enforce them effectively.
edit on 24-2-2018 by ScepticScot because: Weird spell check fail.



posted on Feb, 24 2018 @ 03:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: Justoneman

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.





Well look old chap, the US media is not 'marxist' in any sense of the word. Please look up the wiki article on Marxism. It's really interesting. And you'll learn a lot about why the US media is nothing at all like that.


And nobody is saying you can't fight off an attacker. They're just saying you don't need an assault rifle to do it.


And I think the kids are plenty angry enough all by themselves without getting told how to think by CNN. The kids are being brutally slaughtered in their hundreds and thousands by gun men. You don't need CNN to tell you to be angry about that.


However, the NRA brainwashing people to think that the mass murder of schoolchildren is a price worth paying to keep your assault rifle? That is brainwashing.



posted on Feb, 24 2018 @ 04:03 PM
link   
Is that the rwnj word of the day?

a reply to: JBurns




top topics



 
65
<< 4  5  6    8 >>

log in

join