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.

 

This is why they want our guns, and why they cant have them

page: 9
77
<< 6  7  8    10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 3 2018 @ 07:30 PM
link   
a reply to: Maroboduus

Im going to drive-by this because I mostly enjoy lurking...

..but on the surface, as reported by the LA Times, his version sounds more accurate than yours.

www.latimes.com...



edit on 3-4-2018 by johnnysixguns because: Source




posted on Apr, 3 2018 @ 07:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: johnnysixguns
a reply to: Maroboduus

Im going to drive-by this because I mostly enjoy lurking...

..but on the surface, as reported by the LA Times, his version sounds more accurate than yours.

www.latimes.com...





And on which assertions are you basing that opinion?



posted on Apr, 3 2018 @ 08:02 PM
link   
a reply to: spy66

A Personal Firearm is the Best Insurance any American Citizen can have to Insure their Personal Survival as an Individual Born into this World without anyone's Help other than ones Creator . Any one , or Any group that tries to Prevent a Citizens Right to Self Defense should be Considered an Enemy Combatant , and be Dealt with accordingly .
edit on 3-4-2018 by Zanti Misfit because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 3 2018 @ 09:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: Wayfarer

originally posted by: johnnysixguns
a reply to: Maroboduus

Im going to drive-by this because I mostly enjoy lurking...

..but on the surface, as reported by the LA Times, his version sounds more accurate than yours.

www.latimes.com...





And on which assertions are you basing that opinion?


Have a read.

Essentially, the absolute statement of "everything being false and inaccurate".

By the overall tone and picture being painted, LA Times article reads more like the first narrative, rather than the rebuttal talking in absolutes.
edit on 3-4-2018 by johnnysixguns because: (no reason given)

edit on 3-4-2018 by johnnysixguns because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 4 2018 @ 12:18 AM
link   

originally posted by: EmmanuelGoldstein
Do you think that one day, after all the guns have been rounded up that cops will also have to leave their gun at the station before they head home?

Otherwise, everyone should just become a cop.



Hey that's a really good idea, why shouldn't everyone be a cop?
"Hey, you're under arrest!"
"No, you're under arrest!"
"That's is, I'm calling for backup!"
"Fine, then I'M gonna call f- Crap! Hold on, this guy on my radio needs backup! We'll finish this later!"


No, but seriously... I might start my own police department...



posted on Apr, 4 2018 @ 03:53 AM
link   

originally posted by: Zanti Misfit
a reply to: spy66

A Personal Firearm is the Best Insurance any American Citizen can have to Insure their Personal Survival as an Individual Born into this World without anyone's Help other than ones Creator . Any one , or Any group that tries to Prevent a Citizens Right to Self Defense should be Considered an Enemy Combatant , and be Dealt with accordingly .


I am not saying you dont have a right to own Your own gun to protect Your self, becasue you do as of right now. What i am saying is that Your government would rather have that job in the future. They want to make sure you are safe. The issue is that you dont trust Your government With that job, and the government dont want americans running around With weapons posing as a threat to them and everyone else.

There is a trust issue as the common nominator With this case. You dont trust Your government and Your government dont trust you With having Assault weapons. They dont actually see your point as very valid when they see it as their job to keep you safe. Your government have the idea that they dont pose as a threat to Americans.

This is also probably the reason why Your government will pass a New gun ban Law.



posted on Apr, 4 2018 @ 07:01 AM
link   
Well, maybe.

However, I think there's more to it than that. The desire to end freedom and things such as gun rights has always been there. But now they want to ban guns in a big way and I'm not sure why. I mean, I'm not sure why they're more determined now than ever before, considering people are reasonably peaceful these days and crime is actually way down these days.

It almost seems like they know something we don't.
edit on 4-4-2018 by BrianFlanders because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 4 2018 @ 07:23 AM
link   
a reply to: BrianFlanders

The number of people serving a life sentance actually quintupled since 1984.


The number of people serving life sentences continues to grow even while serious, violent crime has been declining for the past 20 years and little public safety benefit has been demonstrated to correlate with increasingly lengthy sentences. The lifer population has nearly quintupled since 1984. One in nine people in prison is now serving a life sentence and nearly a third of lifers have been sentenced to life without parole.



posted on Apr, 4 2018 @ 07:36 AM
link   

originally posted by: PublicOpinion
a reply to: BrianFlanders

The number of people serving a life sentance actually quintupled since 1984.


The number of people serving life sentences continues to grow even while serious, violent crime has been declining for the past 20 years and little public safety benefit has been demonstrated to correlate with increasingly lengthy sentences. The lifer population has nearly quintupled since 1984. One in nine people in prison is now serving a life sentence and nearly a third of lifers have been sentenced to life without parole.


Not sure what that has to do with what I posted?



posted on Apr, 4 2018 @ 07:53 AM
link   
a reply to: BrianFlanders

And I'm Not Sure how you could be Not Sure. Is this Idiocracy already? Are we the same person?!?



posted on Apr, 4 2018 @ 11:53 AM
link   

originally posted by: 3n19m470

originally posted by: EmmanuelGoldstein
Do you think that one day, after all the guns have been rounded up that cops will also have to leave their gun at the station before they head home?

Otherwise, everyone should just become a cop.



Hey that's a really good idea, why shouldn't everyone be a cop?
"Hey, you're under arrest!"
"No, you're under arrest!"
"That's is, I'm calling for backup!"
"Fine, then I'M gonna call f- Crap! Hold on, this guy on my radio needs backup! We'll finish this later!"


No, but seriously... I might start my own police department...


That could be a very profitable business. All you need is an aggressive Civil Asset Forfeiture program and a way to get taxpayers to foot the bill for any lawsuits.



posted on Apr, 4 2018 @ 08:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: EmmanuelGoldstein
Do you think that one day, after all the guns have been rounded up that cops will also have to leave their gun at the station before they head home?

Otherwise, everyone should just become a cop.





I don't know, but I do know one thing. Look at the way the Government/Police treat us right now. I can only assume that things would get soooo much worse if we didn't have any guns. Could you imagine the carnage?



posted on Apr, 4 2018 @ 10:14 PM
link   
a reply to: babybunnies

You are SO SHORT SIGHTED. 1) there are MANY in the military that have the same values as the normal, civilian population...not to mention they have a responsibility to PROTECT the CONSTITUTION.
2) The shear numbers of armed civilians FAR exceeds the military.
3) do you think MILLIONS of armed American demanding the constitution be followed, would just be ignored.
I am heavily involved in multiple WRAM's, you have no idea what you're talking about.



posted on Apr, 5 2018 @ 08:31 AM
link   
.



posted on Apr, 5 2018 @ 10:16 AM
link   

originally posted by: johnnysixguns

originally posted by: Wayfarer

originally posted by: johnnysixguns
a reply to: Maroboduus

Im going to drive-by this because I mostly enjoy lurking...

..but on the surface, as reported by the LA Times, his version sounds more accurate than yours.

www.latimes.com...





And on which assertions are you basing that opinion?


Have a read.

Essentially, the absolute statement of "everything being false and inaccurate".

By the overall tone and picture being painted, LA Times article reads more like the first narrative, rather than the rebuttal talking in absolutes.


So a fact is less believable because it is absolute? I suppose it would make sense then why you would prefer an opinion piece to the previous posters lists of facts.....

It would seem more likely you think it more accurate because the LA times article opinion piece agree's more with your preconceived notions of what you were expecting already.

Personally, I prefer fact to opinion (and give it more weight accordingly). If you have actual facts to rebut an argument, I think it would go much farther towards engendering a worthwhile discussion than simply claiming facts are less accurate because they contradict what you want to believe.



posted on Apr, 5 2018 @ 01:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: Wayfarer

originally posted by: johnnysixguns

originally posted by: Wayfarer

originally posted by: johnnysixguns
a reply to: Maroboduus

Im going to drive-by this because I mostly enjoy lurking...

..but on the surface, as reported by the LA Times, his version sounds more accurate than yours.

www.latimes.com...





And on which assertions are you basing that opinion?


Have a read.

Essentially, the absolute statement of "everything being false and inaccurate".

By the overall tone and picture being painted, LA Times article reads more like the first narrative, rather than the rebuttal talking in absolutes.


So a fact is less believable because it is absolute? I suppose it would make sense then why you would prefer an opinion piece to the previous posters lists of facts.....

It would seem more likely you think it more accurate because the LA times article opinion piece agree's more with your preconceived notions of what you were expecting already.

Personally, I prefer fact to opinion (and give it more weight accordingly). If you have actual facts to rebut an argument, I think it would go much farther towards engendering a worthwhile discussion than simply claiming facts are less accurate because they contradict what you want to believe.


As I said - have a read. As far as facts and opinions.

Just between the two arguments between the article and the poster, there are differences in fact and opinion.

I also didn't mention facts in terms of absolutes. I meant that he is giving his opinion as an absolute (E-prime?).

I find it humorous that you allude to the idea that my words have to do with a preconception, while disregarding the fact that it functions the same way on your end.

Btw- I have no skin in the Bundy game. I don't really care. But I tend to question people who put their ideas or beliefs on a pedestal.

The first article under a search seemingly contradicted the rebutters narrative. Sorry.



posted on Apr, 5 2018 @ 01:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: johnnysixguns

originally posted by: Wayfarer

originally posted by: johnnysixguns

originally posted by: Wayfarer

originally posted by: johnnysixguns
a reply to: Maroboduus

Im going to drive-by this because I mostly enjoy lurking...

..but on the surface, as reported by the LA Times, his version sounds more accurate than yours.

www.latimes.com...





And on which assertions are you basing that opinion?


Have a read.

Essentially, the absolute statement of "everything being false and inaccurate".

By the overall tone and picture being painted, LA Times article reads more like the first narrative, rather than the rebuttal talking in absolutes.


So a fact is less believable because it is absolute? I suppose it would make sense then why you would prefer an opinion piece to the previous posters lists of facts.....

It would seem more likely you think it more accurate because the LA times article opinion piece agree's more with your preconceived notions of what you were expecting already.

Personally, I prefer fact to opinion (and give it more weight accordingly). If you have actual facts to rebut an argument, I think it would go much farther towards engendering a worthwhile discussion than simply claiming facts are less accurate because they contradict what you want to believe.


As I said - have a read. As far as facts and opinions.

Just between the two arguments between the article and the poster, there are differences in fact and opinion.

I also didn't mention facts in terms of absolutes. I meant that he is giving his opinion as an absolute (E-prime?).

I find it humorous that you allude to the idea that my words have to do with a preconception, while disregarding the fact that it functions the same way on your end.

Btw- I have no skin in the Bundy game. I don't really care. But I tend to question people who put their ideas or beliefs on a pedestal.

The first article under a search seemingly contradicted the rebutters narrative. Sorry.


I have read the article (and did so again at your request) just to confirm that it didn't contradict Maroboduus's post. Again, I have to question why when Maroboduus listed facts about the case, you discount them (because in your words, there are differences in fact and opinion - in the LA Times article) when rather I see Maroboduus list a variety of facts which are neither mentioned nor contradicted in the LA times article. The very same article you then claim is 'more accurate'. So I ask you how is the LA times more accurate? I would also ask why the LA times article (having not listed contradictory facts to allow a reasonable person to make the assertion that it 'sounds more accurate' than Maroboduus's post) be evidence that either Maroboduus's post is wrong in any way, or that I have a preconception that Maroboduus's post is more accurate (which the evidence is plainly in front of everyone to see). I wouldn't call a comparative analysis a 'preconception'.



posted on Apr, 5 2018 @ 01:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: Wayfarer

originally posted by: johnnysixguns

originally posted by: Wayfarer

originally posted by: johnnysixguns

originally posted by: Wayfarer

originally posted by: johnnysixguns
a reply to: Maroboduus

Im going to drive-by this because I mostly enjoy lurking...

..but on the surface, as reported by the LA Times, his version sounds more accurate than yours.

www.latimes.com...





And on which assertions are you basing that opinion?


Have a read.

Essentially, the absolute statement of "everything being false and inaccurate".

By the overall tone and picture being painted, LA Times article reads more like the first narrative, rather than the rebuttal talking in absolutes.


So a fact is less believable because it is absolute? I suppose it would make sense then why you would prefer an opinion piece to the previous posters lists of facts.....

It would seem more likely you think it more accurate because the LA times article opinion piece agree's more with your preconceived notions of what you were expecting already.

Personally, I prefer fact to opinion (and give it more weight accordingly). If you have actual facts to rebut an argument, I think it would go much farther towards engendering a worthwhile discussion than simply claiming facts are less accurate because they contradict what you want to believe.


As I said - have a read. As far as facts and opinions.

Just between the two arguments between the article and the poster, there are differences in fact and opinion.

I also didn't mention facts in terms of absolutes. I meant that he is giving his opinion as an absolute (E-prime?).

I find it humorous that you allude to the idea that my words have to do with a preconception, while disregarding the fact that it functions the same way on your end.

Btw- I have no skin in the Bundy game. I don't really care. But I tend to question people who put their ideas or beliefs on a pedestal.

The first article under a search seemingly contradicted the rebutters narrative. Sorry.


I have read the article (and did so again at your request) just to confirm that it didn't contradict Maroboduus's post. Again, I have to question why when Maroboduus listed facts about the case, you discount them (because in your words, there are differences in fact and opinion - in the LA Times article) when rather I see Maroboduus list a variety of facts which are neither mentioned nor contradicted in the LA times article. The very same article you then claim is 'more accurate'. So I ask you how is the LA times more accurate? I would also ask why the LA times article (having not listed contradictory facts to allow a reasonable person to make the assertion that it 'sounds more accurate' than Maroboduus's post) be evidence that either Maroboduus's post is wrong in any way, or that I have a preconception that Maroboduus's post is more accurate (which the evidence is plainly in front of everyone to see). I wouldn't call a comparative analysis a 'preconception'.


I'm at work. Just off the top of my head?

The support vs fear of the people in the area

The "just" reasoning why the case was dismissed (with prejudice).

Those are two just off the top of my head.

No threats of government violence yet snipers were posted.

As I said... the tones and narrative are two separate things.

Pretty disingenuous.
edit on 5-4-2018 by johnnysixguns because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 5 2018 @ 02:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: johnnysixguns

originally posted by: Wayfarer

originally posted by: johnnysixguns

originally posted by: Wayfarer

originally posted by: johnnysixguns

originally posted by: Wayfarer

originally posted by: johnnysixguns
a reply to: Maroboduus

Im going to drive-by this because I mostly enjoy lurking...

..but on the surface, as reported by the LA Times, his version sounds more accurate than yours.

www.latimes.com...





And on which assertions are you basing that opinion?


Have a read.

Essentially, the absolute statement of "everything being false and inaccurate".

By the overall tone and picture being painted, LA Times article reads more like the first narrative, rather than the rebuttal talking in absolutes.


So a fact is less believable because it is absolute? I suppose it would make sense then why you would prefer an opinion piece to the previous posters lists of facts.....

It would seem more likely you think it more accurate because the LA times article opinion piece agree's more with your preconceived notions of what you were expecting already.

Personally, I prefer fact to opinion (and give it more weight accordingly). If you have actual facts to rebut an argument, I think it would go much farther towards engendering a worthwhile discussion than simply claiming facts are less accurate because they contradict what you want to believe.


As I said - have a read. As far as facts and opinions.

Just between the two arguments between the article and the poster, there are differences in fact and opinion.

I also didn't mention facts in terms of absolutes. I meant that he is giving his opinion as an absolute (E-prime?).

I find it humorous that you allude to the idea that my words have to do with a preconception, while disregarding the fact that it functions the same way on your end.

Btw- I have no skin in the Bundy game. I don't really care. But I tend to question people who put their ideas or beliefs on a pedestal.

The first article under a search seemingly contradicted the rebutters narrative. Sorry.


I have read the article (and did so again at your request) just to confirm that it didn't contradict Maroboduus's post. Again, I have to question why when Maroboduus listed facts about the case, you discount them (because in your words, there are differences in fact and opinion - in the LA Times article) when rather I see Maroboduus list a variety of facts which are neither mentioned nor contradicted in the LA times article. The very same article you then claim is 'more accurate'. So I ask you how is the LA times more accurate? I would also ask why the LA times article (having not listed contradictory facts to allow a reasonable person to make the assertion that it 'sounds more accurate' than Maroboduus's post) be evidence that either Maroboduus's post is wrong in any way, or that I have a preconception that Maroboduus's post is more accurate (which the evidence is plainly in front of everyone to see). I wouldn't call a comparative analysis a 'preconception'.


I'm at work. Just off the top of my head?

The support vs fear of the people in the area

The "just" reasoning why the case was dismissed (with prejudice).

Those are two just off the top of my head.

As I said... the tones and narrative are two separate things.

Pretty disingenuous.


I don't know how 100 Bundy supporters showing up to the trial is a direct contradiction to Maroboduus's claim that people were scared. Is in unthinkable to imagine those who might have been frightened didn't show up to the court case in support of Bundy?

Maroboduus's didn't claim the dismissal was unjust (in fact he reported it exactly as it was - a mistrial from the Prosecution's bungling of evidence).

I can appreciate you trying to reply from memory alone, and welcome more damning comparisons if you should have the time later to find the specifics.



posted on Apr, 5 2018 @ 06:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: Wayfarer

originally posted by: johnnysixguns

originally posted by: Wayfarer

originally posted by: johnnysixguns

originally posted by: Wayfarer

originally posted by: johnnysixguns

originally posted by: Wayfarer

originally posted by: johnnysixguns
a reply to: Maroboduus

Im going to drive-by this because I mostly enjoy lurking...

..but on the surface, as reported by the LA Times, his version sounds more accurate than yours.

www.latimes.com...





And on which assertions are you basing that opinion?


Have a read.

Essentially, the absolute statement of "everything being false and inaccurate".

By the overall tone and picture being painted, LA Times article reads more like the first narrative, rather than the rebuttal talking in absolutes.


So a fact is less believable because it is absolute? I suppose it would make sense then why you would prefer an opinion piece to the previous posters lists of facts.....

It would seem more likely you think it more accurate because the LA times article opinion piece agree's more with your preconceived notions of what you were expecting already.

Personally, I prefer fact to opinion (and give it more weight accordingly). If you have actual facts to rebut an argument, I think it would go much farther towards engendering a worthwhile discussion than simply claiming facts are less accurate because they contradict what you want to believe.


As I said - have a read. As far as facts and opinions.

Just between the two arguments between the article and the poster, there are differences in fact and opinion.

I also didn't mention facts in terms of absolutes. I meant that he is giving his opinion as an absolute (E-prime?).

I find it humorous that you allude to the idea that my words have to do with a preconception, while disregarding the fact that it functions the same way on your end.

Btw- I have no skin in the Bundy game. I don't really care. But I tend to question people who put their ideas or beliefs on a pedestal.

The first article under a search seemingly contradicted the rebutters narrative. Sorry.


I have read the article (and did so again at your request) just to confirm that it didn't contradict Maroboduus's post. Again, I have to question why when Maroboduus listed facts about the case, you discount them (because in your words, there are differences in fact and opinion - in the LA Times article) when rather I see Maroboduus list a variety of facts which are neither mentioned nor contradicted in the LA times article. The very same article you then claim is 'more accurate'. So I ask you how is the LA times more accurate? I would also ask why the LA times article (having not listed contradictory facts to allow a reasonable person to make the assertion that it 'sounds more accurate' than Maroboduus's post) be evidence that either Maroboduus's post is wrong in any way, or that I have a preconception that Maroboduus's post is more accurate (which the evidence is plainly in front of everyone to see). I wouldn't call a comparative analysis a 'preconception'.


I'm at work. Just off the top of my head?

The support vs fear of the people in the area

The "just" reasoning why the case was dismissed (with prejudice).

Those are two just off the top of my head.

As I said... the tones and narrative are two separate things.

Pretty disingenuous.


I don't know how 100 Bundy supporters showing up to the trial is a direct contradiction to Maroboduus's claim that people were scared. Is in unthinkable to imagine those who might have been frightened didn't show up to the court case in support of Bundy?

Maroboduus's didn't claim the dismissal was unjust (in fact he reported it exactly as it was - a mistrial from the Prosecution's bungling of evidence).

I can appreciate you trying to reply from memory alone, and welcome more damning comparisons if you should have the time later to find the specifics.


Actually I'm not commenting on so much on the trial aspect. More on the fact that people traveled for 100s of miles to show support. Is there any citation of towns folk being scared because supporters were waving guns in their faces? (That was the assertion in the rebuttal).

I also never said the rebuttal was "unjust". I was referring to the idea that it was "just because (insert reason)". Yet i think the article had the judge using words like "reckless" and "constitutional" in a context. And was dismissed with prejudice.

So like I said... the narratives don't match, and the rebuttal doesn't seem to jive with an actual media article (and I'm not sure, but for some reason I feel safe in assuming LA Times is not right-wing media).
edit on 5-4-2018 by johnnysixguns because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
77
<< 6  7  8    10 >>

log in

join