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.

 

Democrat Rep. Debbie Dingell To Introduce Gun Confiscation Legislation

page: 6
10
<< 3  4  5   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 5 2018 @ 09:15 AM
link   

originally posted by: CB328



How is what she is proposing bad in the case of mentally unstable or certifiably violent people not possessing firearms?


Because violent and unstable people are mostly conservative and a big part of Trump's base.


Except for New York City, Cleveland, Detroit, Chicago, Milwaukee, St Louis, Denver, Kansas City, Los Angeles, Seattle and, all places in between.

(( 😀✌😀 ))





posted on Apr, 5 2018 @ 10:19 AM
link   

originally posted by: dawnstar
a reply to: bulwarkz

ya, sure.....
except that out of all the demostrations that occurred around the time of trump being sworn in, were there any incidents of violence during the women's marches??? I think it's also obvious that those wearing the pink hats weren't prone to violence!!

unlike the groups that flocked to charlottesville who came armed to the teeth!!!

but, hey, my answer is simple, don't ever start a thread asking why the liberals never talk about mental illness when it's related to mass shootings!!! it doesn't matter anyways!!! you'd insist that my crazy uncle ralph had every right to keep his guns, unless of course, he was living in the apartment next to you and your family!!!

Actually I am not a big supporter of inbreeding and crazy as a result in heritage inadequacies. Thats why most muslims should not have guns, because of inbreeding crazy generationally



posted on Apr, 5 2018 @ 10:28 AM
link   

originally posted by: bulwarkz

originally posted by: dawnstar
a reply to: bulwarkz

ya, sure.....
except that out of all the demostrations that occurred around the time of trump being sworn in, were there any incidents of violence during the women's marches??? I think it's also obvious that those wearing the pink hats weren't prone to violence!!

unlike the groups that flocked to charlottesville who came armed to the teeth!!!

but, hey, my answer is simple, don't ever start a thread asking why the liberals never talk about mental illness when it's related to mass shootings!!! it doesn't matter anyways!!! you'd insist that my crazy uncle ralph had every right to keep his guns, unless of course, he was living in the apartment next to you and your family!!!

Actually I am not a big supporter of inbreeding and crazy as a result in heritage inadequacies. Thats why most muslims should not have guns, because of inbreeding crazy generationally
charlotesville? To me that looked like a staged psy-op. That is a grossly unfair comparison. A tea party rally would be a more fair comparison, unless you are agreeing with my use of wearing pussy hats as a sign of crazy?.
The difference between those rallys is in the aftermath. The tea partiers picked up all their trash!

Those pussy hat people, though as nonviolent as ALL those tea part rallies, are friggin slobs. I mean complete slobs. They should have worn piggy hats. They trashed the place. No wonder most of them that showed up aren't married



posted on Apr, 5 2018 @ 12:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: dawnstar
a reply to: seagull

...
And I remember a thread not that long ago, asking why us liberals never want to talk about mental illness and how it relates to these mass shootings.. well, this thread, along with that video, shows why it doesn't matter what we say about that. nothing can be done till the crime is committed I guess, only by the time that happens we end up with a whole lot of needless deaths and injuries...


If the liberals would propose or accept a proposal that would preserve due process and not bypass that for the sake of false security, then I am sure the conservative base would listen. However, it seems that expediency and feelings are valued more than due process and being innocent until proven guilty in a court of law by liberal thinkers.

Life is a series of risks. There is no 100% safe place anywhere, there never will be. If anyone thinks that, then they should be reviewed by a professional for mental illness and delusional thoughts. Does that mean we go the complete other way and throw up our hands and use hyperbole about "then remove all laws" is not helping either.

There are laws on the books, and processes in place to deal with this situation. In each of these mass shooting cases, wither those processes were NOT followed, or were shoddily done. Is it difficult to get someone involuntarily committed? Yes, and for good reason! Unless that person demonstrates the intent or ability to harm themselves, and is willing to harm others, then they STILL HAVE RIGHTS.

Why is that not understood????

We should NEVER be stripping rights from someone without due process based upon mere accusations and feelings or something they "might" do. That...is...wrong. That is how dictatorships work. Someone merely needs to be accused of saying something wrong, and they can go to jail or be executed if "you know or pay the right people".

Again, I ask, why is that not understood????




top topics
 
10
<< 3  4  5   >>

log in

join