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: 8
25
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 27 2018 @ 10:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: projectvxn
a reply to: chr0naut

It's not a choice between the two.

One is often used to defend the other.

My rights are not at fault when someone commits a crime.


Without guns, there can be no gun crime.

Surely the commission of a crime with a gun on hand, regardless of if it is used or not, is an indicator of intent to commit murder in commission of the crime. It should be a mandatory life sentence for the perp and the gun should be confiscated and destroyed.

Surely an average citizen with a gun on hand for the purposes of 'personal protection' is an indicator of intent to commit an act of murder against a potential assailant. It should be a mandatory court case for attempted murder for the perp and the gun should be confiscated and destroyed.




posted on Oct, 27 2018 @ 10:09 PM
link   
a reply to: projectvxn




Killing people is not expressing your opinion.

It is also an illegal activity which is handled by the judicial system. You don't seem to think it is enough. Even with the enhancement of "hate crime" laws.

Again, please clarify what you meant when you said this:

But Letters of Marque and declarations of insurrection have been used before to end violence or threats to the United States and her people.

Is war (actual war) to be declared by Congress against US citizens who are nothing more than vile criminals with which existing laws can deal?

Is it an insurrection to have abhorrent ideas?
edit on 10/27/2018 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 27 2018 @ 10:09 PM
link   
a reply to: chr0naut




Without guns, there can be no gun crime.


Is it the guns you care about or the violence?




Surely the commission of a crime with a gun on hand, regardless of if it is used or not, is an indicator of intent to commit murder in commission of the crime.


Surely the use of a gun in self-defense ISN'T a crime. Criminal activity is no reason to take rights away from good people.




It should be a mandatory life sentence for the perp and the gun should be confiscated and destroyed.


Ok. I'm fine with that.




Surely an average citizen with a gun on hand for the purposes of 'personal protection' is an indicator of intent to commit an act of murder against a potential assailant.


The tool does make the intent. I carry a gun every day and I have no intention of committing murder.



It should be a mandatory court case for attempted murder for the perp and the gun should be confiscated and destroyed.


Self-defense isn't a crime. I can't believe this has to be said.



posted on Oct, 27 2018 @ 10:16 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage




Is war to be declared against US citizens? Is it an insurrection to have abhorrent ideas?


There's another strawman. Who said its war because of their ideas? Its war because their criminal activities are a declaration of war with respect to conspiracy to overthrow the US government and to commit to open armed hostilities against US Citizens. You do understand that Congress has this authority right? You act like I'm declaring we should abandon the Constitution when it is, in fact, being followed.
edit on 27 10 18 by projectvxn because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 27 2018 @ 10:19 PM
link   
a reply to: projectvxn




Who said its war because of their ideas?

No one.
You brought up a clause which gives Congress powers to hire civilians for certain activities during wartime. Unless Congress declares war they have no power to do so. Ergo, Congress would by necessity have to declare war against US citizens to employ others to undertake those activities.

Similarly, invoking clause 15 would necessitate an active insurrection against the US Government.

edit on 10/27/2018 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 27 2018 @ 10:21 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

It also allows armed forces to apprehend or engage.

I also brought up declaring them insurrectionists, because they are.

Is it going to happen? Probably not. But it wouldn't be illegal as you suggest nor would it be immoral.

You don't let your enemy obtain a beachhead.

But I'm just a soldier talking.




No one.


You repeatedly.
edit on 27 10 18 by projectvxn because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 27 2018 @ 10:23 PM
link   
a reply to: projectvxn




It also allows armed forces to apprehend or engage.

That has nothing to do with that clause. During a declared war the forces of the US Government can act on any designated foreign power.


But it wouldn't be illegal as you suggest nor would it be immoral.
It would be illegal.


edit on 10/27/2018 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 27 2018 @ 10:26 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

There is nothing preventing the military to act against a domestic or foreign actor who is engaged in hostile armed activities against the US and a letter of marque is no exception. Usually, if you had a letter of marque against you, the military is after you too.



posted on Oct, 27 2018 @ 10:26 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage




It would be illegal.


There have been many rebellions put down in the US legally.



posted on Oct, 27 2018 @ 10:35 PM
link   
a reply to: projectvxn

Maybe. Nat Turner's rebellion comes to mind. Legal?
Kent State? Was that really an insurrection?


The civil war might be more along the lines of what you're looking for. But I don't think nazi idiots reach that level.
edit on 10/27/2018 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 27 2018 @ 10:41 PM
link   
That just means that the first person shot would have been the guard.

2 cents

Third line



posted on Oct, 27 2018 @ 10:43 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

There have been others. Several others.

Your assertion that it would be illegal is false as well. Congress has this authority and always has. They've used it.
edit on 27 10 18 by projectvxn because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 27 2018 @ 10:49 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.



Sure an armed guard may have stopped this person. Or he, most likely had a service side arm and would be shot with a rifle, which for you folks that don't know guns, or pretend to know guns because it is cool, is a lot more powder. Even a crap .223. Round. Meaning one in the chest even with a full flak is 2 minutes of wondering wtf just happened.

Conversely a terrible service issued side arm 9mm like most police dept use may have a 10 second E
WTF just happened or maybe nothing at all with enough speed and adrenaline.


So folks the answer is to create a society that doesnt need to arm spiritual locations.

The short term, learn to understand how your surroundings can be used for defense and offense, check your exits.


The solution in no way is to arm people at spiritual locations. It could be a short term necessity but it is not a solution to pass bruno the armed guard at church.


You failed as a society if that is your solution.



posted on Oct, 27 2018 @ 10:54 PM
link   
a reply to: projectvxn




Congress has this authority and always has. They've used it.
War was declared upon the Confederacy. Yes. An insurrection because the Confederacy declared itself independent of the United States.

War was not declared upon student demonstrators at Kent State. The National Guard was not called in to suppress an insurrection, the were called in to maintain order, to aid law enforcement. And things got way out of hand. That is not the same thing as declaring war protests to be illegal. That is not the same thing as declaring nazism to be illegal. Nazis rioting? Fine. Bring on the heat. Nazis carrying signs and being their usual idiot selves, not so much.



posted on Oct, 27 2018 @ 10:55 PM
link   

originally posted by: projectvxn
a reply to: chr0naut



Without guns, there can be no gun crime.
Is it the guns you care about or the violence?


I cannot stop violent humans but I can stop violent humans with guns by removing the gun.

Gun crime has been almost entirely abolished in other countries by the crimminalization of, and confiscation of, gun ownership for invalid reasons.




Surely the commission of a crime with a gun on hand, regardless of if it is used or not, is an indicator of intent to commit murder in commission of the crime.

Surely the use of a gun in self-defense ISN'T a crime. Criminal activity is no reason to take rights away from good people.


Even criminals have a right to life and you do NOT have a right to deprive someone else of their life.

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

The use of a gun against a person is an intent to cause grievous bodily harm, potentially fatally. It makes you a criminal by intent.




It should be a mandatory life sentence for the perp and the gun should be confiscated and destroyed.


Ok. I'm fine with that.




Surely an average citizen with a gun on hand for the purposes of 'personal protection' is an indicator of intent to commit an act of murder against a potential assailant.


The tool does make the intent. I carry a gun every day and I have no intention of committing murder.



It should be a mandatory court case for attempted murder for the perp and the gun should be confiscated and destroyed.


Self-defense isn't a crime. I can't believe this has to be said.


What is the point of carrying a gun if you never intend to use it?



posted on Oct, 27 2018 @ 10:59 PM
link   
a reply to: chr0naut
2nd Amendment.

Personally, I think it's there because the Government couldn't afford to buy guns for the militia (National Guard) but they didn't get the wording quite right.

So we have a right to keep and bear weapons. Really hard to get around a codified right.
edit on 10/27/2018 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 27 2018 @ 11:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: chr0naut
2nd Amendment.

Personally, I think it's there because the Government couldn't afford to buy guns for the militia (National Guard) but they didn't get the wording quite right.

So we have a right to keep and bear weapons. Really hard to get around a codified right.



I don't think that's quite right but it is historically accurate.

Most of the philosophical foundation was based on levels of representation, to the point where the federal government had more executive authority than policy.


I think the founders intended to be more like 50 Switzerlands to use a modern analogy.

In fact Switzerland is probably more American than America if you study philosophy. But we were supposed to have locals defending themselves and have communication and protocol sharing with other militias they may need to work with.


They certainly were not supposed to be used to squash labor disputes, or college kids protesting bombing cambodians.



posted on Oct, 27 2018 @ 11:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: projectvxn
a reply to: chr0naut



Without guns, there can be no gun crime.
Is it the guns you care about or the violence?


I cannot stop violent humans but I can stop violent humans with guns by removing the gun.

Gun crime has been almost entirely abolished in other countries by the crimminalization of, and confiscation of, gun ownership for invalid reasons.




Surely the commission of a crime with a gun on hand, regardless of if it is used or not, is an indicator of intent to commit murder in commission of the crime.

Surely the use of a gun in self-defense ISN'T a crime. Criminal activity is no reason to take rights away from good people.


Even criminals have a right to life and you do NOT have a right to deprive someone else of their life.

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

The use of a gun against a person is an intent to cause grievous bodily harm, potentially fatally. It makes you a criminal by intent.




It should be a mandatory life sentence for the perp and the gun should be confiscated and destroyed.


Ok. I'm fine with that.




Surely an average citizen with a gun on hand for the purposes of 'personal protection' is an indicator of intent to commit an act of murder against a potential assailant.


The tool does make the intent. I carry a gun every day and I have no intention of committing murder.



It should be a mandatory court case for attempted murder for the perp and the gun should be confiscated and destroyed.


Self-defense isn't a crime. I can't believe this has to be said.


What is the point of carrying a gun if you never intend to use it?



But crime hasn't change all that much in these situations. Just how it gets done. So instead you are stabbed in London or Massachusetts.


The problem is without a healthy society and healthy people taking guns away doesnt effect crime rates in a definite way. It just changes gun crime rates.

The problem in high crime areas is not related to guns. It's related to economics and politics. They failed to solve the problem..as decades pass in places like Chicago the poisoned tree grows and it gets harder to cut. Nearly 100 years of corruption in Chicago from Capone to vice lords and all the mayors and police chiefs on the dole.

Vermont has no carry permits. None. If you are old enough you can put it in your pocket.

The home of Bernie Sanders allows you to put a gun in your pocket and walk into any place that doesn't have a posting. No permit, no test..


Lowest crime in the us.

How?


edit on 27-10-2018 by luthier because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 27 2018 @ 11:32 PM
link   
a reply to: luthier




But crime hasn't change all that much in these situations. Just how it gets done. So instead you are stabbed in London or Massachusetts.

It is far easier to kill someone (and more someones) with a gun than it is with a knife.
A knife is up close and personal. And slow. You can't run from a gunman.



Lowest crime in the us.
People in Vermont are nice.

edit on 10/27/2018 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 27 2018 @ 11:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: luthier




But crime hasn't change all that much in these situations. Just how it gets done. So instead you are stabbed in London or Massachusetts.

It is far easier to kill someone (and more someones) with a gun than it is with a knife.
A knife is up close and personal.



Lowest crime in the us.
No.


That may be the case.

But if that is your focus and not the level of nuts and the help they get the number doesnt match up with the nuts. More nuts equal more instances.

More guns with less nuts does not..look at vermont's numbers.

Edit. while everyone probably agrees the level of buts is important I meant nuts.

edit on 27-10-2018 by luthier because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
25
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join