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.

 

Trump says deadly Pittsburgh synagogue attack would have been different with armed guard

page: 11
25
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 28 2018 @ 09:00 AM
link   
a reply to: Phage


Ok but that looks like a service rendered to "we the people" being "armed" and organized say during a time of need, invasion ect. However its author explained in the federalist papers the possible affliction of the people by government and a clearer look at group and personal weapon independence. None of whats said in the amendment says anything about taking guns away or challenges individuals or individual states from arming themselves.




posted on Oct, 28 2018 @ 09:32 AM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: projectvxn



It's not legal to charge people with crimes?

For being part of a group? I don't believe so. So far.
If there is evidence of having committed a crime, absolutely. To make up evidence, nope.



Or conspiring to commit a crime (gathering materials and "intelligence" and having a plan). That qualifies as grounds for a warrant and legal surveillance/arrest.



posted on Oct, 28 2018 @ 09:36 AM
link   
Usually these attackers are not looking to get in a gun battle they want easy victims, so in a sense yes an immediate armed response may have saved lives.



posted on Oct, 28 2018 @ 10:01 AM
link   

originally posted by: projectvxn
a reply to: Phage

You're a child.

Way to add nothing.


So you accuse Phages post as adding nothing by replying with...nothing. Not to mention YOU brought up leftest ignorance, what has the left got to do with antisemitism? YOU made this leftist ignorance idea up.



posted on Oct, 28 2018 @ 10:03 AM
link   
a reply to: Thecakeisalie

Shhh.

Your whining is uninteresting.



posted on Oct, 28 2018 @ 11:47 AM
link   

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: chr0naut


Removing the availability of guns removes the possibility of them becoming a shooter.

Please explain how you intend to remove all guns from society?

There are millions of legal guns already in the US. Would you send the cops door to door to search every home? That still won't work; quite a few of those guns are well-hidden just in case.

Anyone with a machine shop can make a gun... all they need is the steel. Would you outlaw steel? Machine shops?

I keep hearing your argument... please explain your plan for accomplishing it.


Also, making it illegal to carry weapons for the general public does not disarm the police.

Then you haven't removed all guns from society. A gun can be stolen or taken off a dead body. How do you then remove them from existence?

TheRedneck

Do you frequently come across dead bodies lying around with guns on them in your country? What a sad state of affairs (or, alternately, an unrealistic argument).

Perhaps the US could look to other countries in the world where it has been done successfully, like in Australia.

Reducing the public availability of guns is different from removing guns from existence. It is do-able, has been done before and it works.

This is how it would work:
You very tightly regulate the sale of guns, requiring that sellers have to conform to very tight rules of accreditation and that purchasers are trained, fully vetted and licensed. The ATF and police could visit stores and ensure that the process is complied to and arrest those who deal in arms illegaly. Private sales of arms would be treated similarly.

Simultaneously, the government announces that gun ownership without an annual vetting and licensing credentials will be treated as a criminal offence. At the same time, a gun amnesty will be introduced for three months, allowing for those who are unlicensed to either obtain credentials or to sell their arms to the government in a gun buy back. The recovered weapons will then be destroyed.

Anyone found with a gun in their possession and who cannot furnish accreditation on demand will be arrested, summarily tried and jailed. Their gun/s will also be confiscated and destroyed.

These first steps will disarm the general public, leaving guns only in the hands of those specially licensed to own and carry and the criminals.

If law enforcement have a belief that someone has firearms illegally, they can obtain a search and seizure warrant from a judge and illegal ownership of firearms be treated very seriously by the courts rendering offenders as felons and involving mandatory sentencing regardless of if the weapons are used.

Anyone caught using a firearm in the commission of a crime will be charged with attempted murder.

Discharge of a firearm in the possession of law enforcement officers will also be treated more seriously and may lead to the suspension of the officer and criminal charges if the use of the firearm is unreasonable.



posted on Oct, 28 2018 @ 12:16 PM
link   
a reply to: chr0naut


Do you frequently come across dead bodies lying around with guns on them in your country?

Only in Memphis, TN and Chicago, IL.

I was referring to a criminal who uses a gun, and can then retrieve the victim's gun... quite plausible if the victim is a cop.


Reducing the public availability of guns is different from removing guns from existence. It is do-able, has been done before and it works.

Ah, there it is! The goal post move. You were talking about removing all guns; now it's reducing guns.

You cannot remove all guns from society. The last ones to give up their guns will be the criminals, because they make a profit from using them.


This is how it would work:

No offense, but HItler would have been proud of you.

You are talking about a police state, where law enforcement can search and seize on a whim. That not only reduces the number of guns in the hands of law-abiding citizens, but it also increases the advantage a criminal element has and removes the ability of people like me to defend myself against threats.

Those threats are not always human... in my case, they are more likely to be a rabid animal or a hungry predator. Don't tell me animal control can handle that, because we have no animal control... heck, in a life-and-death emergency, it takes 15-30 minutes for the law to get here!

No. Just no. Over my dead body. I'd wind up dead either way anyway.


Anyone caught using a firearm in the commission of a crime will be charged with attempted murder.

Change criminal to felony and I'll agree with this one. I just don't think having a gun while removing the tag from a pillow should be charged such.


Discharge of a firearm in the possession of law enforcement officers will also be treated more seriously...

It is pretty damn serious already...

TheRedneck



posted on Oct, 28 2018 @ 12:26 PM
link   
a reply to: chr0naut




You do have a right to defend yourself but you don't have a right to use deadly force.


The hell I don't. Someone tries to harm my family or myself I'm gonna unplug 'em from the power source real fast.

I don't play games with deadly force encounters. If my life is threatened it's gonna end with someone dead. I don't rely on the mercy of criminals. If that's what you want to do, go ahead. Don't tell me how I will defend myself.
edit on 28 10 18 by projectvxn because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 28 2018 @ 02:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: Irishhaf
Usually these attackers are not looking to get in a gun battle they want easy victims, so in a sense yes an immediate armed response may have saved lives.


Do you have any data that says these people don't want gun fights?

Usually when you put on bullet proof vests its crossed your mind.

Killers want easy victims. That is just an understatement. Of coarse there are many who also want to get shot by an officer after getting the easy victims.

Is there any attacker in the world including military that says, you know I want to decrease my chances and let the victims have a fair shot..

Pretty sure every military and hit man in the world wants easy victims.

In the US a cop with a 7 lb trigger on his 9 isnt going to do well against a guy with a rifle unless they are in very cqc. Particularly a rifle with a high rate of fire.

In fact it took over 12 cops to bring the guy down.



posted on Oct, 28 2018 @ 02:24 PM
link   
a reply to: luthier

Look up how man go down by suicide as soon as they are confronted, or surrender as soon as confronted.

Shooters that exchange gunfire with cops is not the usual situation.



posted on Oct, 28 2018 @ 02:27 PM
link   
a reply to: Irishhaf

How about you break down how many shoot out with cops vs not?

This guy in this instance got in a major shoot out that took a dozen officers to stop. Which is always going to be the case with a guy that has more powder, more accuracy, and more rounds. Police are terrible marksman and have terrible sidearms.

A guard most likely would not have stopped this particular nut.
edit on 28-10-2018 by luthier because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 28 2018 @ 03:02 PM
link   
a reply to: luthier

How about no since we have done this before and you switched to saying my sources sucked.

Plus I'm out and about and not going to try and do this over a phone.



posted on Oct, 28 2018 @ 06:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: chr0naut


Do you frequently come across dead bodies lying around with guns on them in your country?

Only in Memphis, TN and Chicago, IL.

I was referring to a criminal who uses a gun, and can then retrieve the victim's gun... quite plausible if the victim is a cop.


Reducing the public availability of guns is different from removing guns from existence. It is do-able, has been done before and it works.

Ah, there it is! The goal post move. You were talking about removing all guns; now it's reducing guns.

You cannot remove all guns from society. The last ones to give up their guns will be the criminals, because they make a profit from using them.


This is how it would work:

No offense, but HItler would have been proud of you.

You are talking about a police state, where law enforcement can search and seize on a whim. That not only reduces the number of guns in the hands of law-abiding citizens, but it also increases the advantage a criminal element has and removes the ability of people like me to defend myself against threats.

Those threats are not always human... in my case, they are more likely to be a rabid animal or a hungry predator. Don't tell me animal control can handle that, because we have no animal control... heck, in a life-and-death emergency, it takes 15-30 minutes for the law to get here!

No. Just no. Over my dead body. I'd wind up dead either way anyway.


Anyone caught using a firearm in the commission of a crime will be charged with attempted murder.

Change criminal to felony and I'll agree with this one. I just don't think having a gun while removing the tag from a pillow should be charged such.


Discharge of a firearm in the possession of law enforcement officers will also be treated more seriously...

It is pretty damn serious already...

TheRedneck

I didn't move the goal posts.

I was clearly speaking about the availability of guns. Please re-read my post that you replied to.

Also, I keep reading about officers who 'accidentally' shoot a member of the public and yet remain on the force with little apparent consequence to themselves or their employment (hint, go to the ATS search, put in "officer shoots innocent" as a search string and browse a few of the resulting threads).



posted on Oct, 28 2018 @ 06:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: projectvxn
a reply to: chr0naut




You do have a right to defend yourself but you don't have a right to use deadly force.


The hell I don't. Someone tries to harm my family or myself I'm gonna unplug 'em from the power source real fast.

I don't play games with deadly force encounters. If my life is threatened it's gonna end with someone dead. I don't rely on the mercy of criminals. If that's what you want to do, go ahead. Don't tell me how I will defend myself.


The military and law enforcement need authorization to use deadly force.

Killing someone, with intent, is murder.

And at what point do you know if you are threatened with actual bodily harm rather than an empty threat? There have been cases where the police have shot people who only appeared to be threatening, but have later been shown to be unarmed.

Wanting to play cops & robbers with a real firearm does not qualify or justify you to take someone else's life. If you take someone's life, it is homicide. if it is with intent, it is at minimum second degree murder.



posted on Oct, 28 2018 @ 06:55 PM
link   

originally posted by: projectvxn
KRNV News 4 Reno


Trump also said the outcome might have been different if the synagogue "had some kind of protection" from an armed guard and suggested that might be a good idea for all churches and synagogues.


He's right. We protect our money with guns but shun doing so to protect our very lives in places of worship and schools. All because we allow leftist ignorance to convince us that being a good victim is morally superior to shooting back.

Keep in mind this synagogue was the target of antisemitic vandals and threats of violence in the past.

So Trump wants some bozo rent-a-cop to do something a superbly trained SWAT team couldn't do without getting 4 of their members shot all to hell? I think Phage may be onto something.




posted on Oct, 28 2018 @ 06:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: projectvxn

So, this was a false flag to forward the notion of arming...everybody?

Isn't that how it all works?

classy!

I didnt see the OP mention ''false flag'' at all...
Why jump in and set the tone like that? projectvxn did a good post

- respect

as for Trumps comments, its true!
If there was an armed guard at these kinds of things people would probably hestitate to attack or be shot quickly to limit deaths.

but, then they'd just go and attack weaker targets..

America has a mental health issue and its compounded by the gun issue



posted on Oct, 28 2018 @ 07:33 PM
link   
a reply to: F4guy




So Trump wants some bozo rent-a-cop to do something a superbly trained SWAT team couldn't do without getting 4 of their members shot all to hell? I think Phage may be onto something.


I think the point the President was trying to make was that an armed guard there, or armed citizens, or an armed designee of some kind would have been able to stop the threat and minimize the damage.

Combat isn't guaranteed and guns aren't magical talismans to ward off evil. Stop being childish about this.
edit on 28 10 18 by projectvxn because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 28 2018 @ 07:35 PM
link   
a reply to: chr0naut

That's not how it works legally in the US. It's cute that you think so though.



posted on Oct, 28 2018 @ 07:36 PM
link   
a reply to: chr0naut

I originally replied to this:

originally posted by: chr0naut

Without guns, there can be no gun crime.


But now you say there will be guns, just not on the hands of honest people. I call that moving the goalposts.

Bottom line is, you cannot guarantee my protection through any means that are possible. No one can. You cannot guarantee that I won't be attacked by an animal, and you can't guarantee I won't be attacked by a human. We have all seen over and over the failures that can happen even where armed "professionals" are on premises.

So, until such time as you can guarantee my safety from anything that would otherwise require I possess a firearm to protect myself, the answer is no. Period. Hell to the no.


Also, I keep reading about officers who 'accidentally' shoot a member of the public and yet remain on the force with little apparent consequence to themselves or their employment (hint, go to the ATS search, put in "officer shoots innocent" as a search string and browse a few of the resulting threads).

Yes, you do. And now you want them to be the only ones with guns. Are you daft?

TheRedneck



posted on Oct, 28 2018 @ 07:37 PM
link   
a reply to: projectvxn

Can't have an armed guard at every location where people gather. It's more practical for We The People to be armed 24/7.

Hopefully, every church has at least a few members who believe in doing more than "praying" for protection and safety.




top topics



 
25
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join