It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Example of what law abiding, recreational gun owners are up against..

page: 2
<< 1   >>

log in


posted on Mar, 11 2009 @ 11:33 AM

Originally posted by hotrodturbo7
reply to post by stikkinikki

Nothing personal, but you should watch the news sometimes and you will find this statement to be true.

2nd line

If you can't understand this I will have to wonder what you ulterior motives are. Stick to facts not fearmongering.

posted on Mar, 11 2009 @ 11:34 AM
reply to post by LiveFreeOrDie..

My bad, I just looked at your post and took it for what it said. I didn't follow the links so if I was wrong I am sorry.

posted on Mar, 11 2009 @ 11:36 AM
Ill take your guns, if youre trying to get rid of em.
You can hide em at my house!
Or just sign em over.....

posted on Mar, 11 2009 @ 11:36 AM
reply to post by stikkinikki

no biggie, didn't take it personally

posted on Mar, 11 2009 @ 11:39 AM

Originally posted by thisguyrighthere

Originally posted by stikkinikki

Originally posted by thisguyrighthere
The media and gun grabbers alike see 1 gun as unnecessary and it's owner mentally unstable.

I don't believe that and I voted for Barack Obama. That's just an alarmist statement you have made with no facts, only paranoic emotion. Nothing personal...


What does anything you said have to do with anything I said?

Where's "Obama" where's "Obama voters" where's the "alarmist statement?" Where's "stikkinikki believes such and such."

Nothing personal.

people are on edge today including me. There is a big stereotype that "the democrats" or "the left" wants to take all guns or ban all guns. There are control freaks on all sides that want to limit our freedoms. I assumed "gun-grabbers" was code for people like me.

I was overly sensitive and reactionary. Sorry. I should concentrate on work.
carry on!

posted on Mar, 11 2009 @ 11:51 AM
reply to post by stikkinikki

I hear you. There are Reps just as there are Dems that would like to restrict gun freedoms. Just as both sides hide pork in Bills and both sides vote for "stimulus" Bills.

The problem is that from what I can see at least, it seems to always be an overwhelming number of Dems that introduce and support Bills that want to infringe upon gun rights as well as other rights. I may be wrong, but thats how it seems.

You know what they say about assuming, lol. Just because someone may claim to be either Rep or Dem or vote Rep or Dem, it doesn't always have to mean that they support EVERYTHING that their party pushes.

I know conservative Dems and liberal Reps, go figure

posted on Mar, 11 2009 @ 12:41 PM

Originally posted by LiveFreeOrDie..

sorry, but I'm going to have to file this response and your reading comprehension under "epic fail".

the injustice, your word, is in 2 shotguns and 1 rifle being called an "arsenal".

the post is simply a reference to 2 shotguns and 1 rifle being called an "arsenal", as you can plainly see by the last line of my initial post.

My reading comprehension is just fine, thank you.

The title of this thread is "Example of what law abiding, recreational gun owners are up against..". The article you linked to is about a scumbag murderer who shot up a church. I fail to see said "example". It seems to be an example of what scumbag muderers are up against.

To use this article as an "example of what law abiding gun owners are up against" is just so far off the mark it's laughable. Regardless of the word "arsenal" being used, there is absolutely nothing in said article having to do with "law abiding gun owners". Your title is sensationalistic at best.

If that one word is all you can come up with to build your case on, you're on pretty thin ice. A quick look at a dictionary defines "arsenal" as:

ar·se·nal (ärs-nl)
1. A governmental establishment for the storing, development, manufacturing, testing, or repairing of arms, ammunition, and other war materiel.
2. A stock of weapons.
3. A store or supply:


Now, regardless of how many guns he had, it is still considered a "stock of weapons", which fits the definition nicely. So you see, he did, indeed, have an arsenal, just not a large one. Thus the article is accurate and factual, and the only problem here is the fact that you have a different definition of "arsenal" from the one in the dictionary. So much for "reading comprehension", eh?

So, unfortunately, this still resides in the "epic fail" file.

posted on Mar, 11 2009 @ 01:09 PM
reply to post by subject x

whatever, dude. you seem to be the only one that doesn't get it.

I can pull definitions, too. From MSN Encarta:


1. weapons storehouse: a building where weapons and military equipment are stored

2. armaments: a stockpile of weapons and military equipment

3. resources: a supply of methods or resources

def of stockpile as noun:

large supply: a large supply of something such as food or weapons, often accumulated in anticipation of future difficulties

3 guns a large supply? don't think so.

oh, and look, I have 3 pens on my desk, I must have a whole arsenal of pens! (as a possible example of #3)

so once again, I'm afraid your response still resides in the "epic fail" file

enough time wasted on someone who thinks 3 of anything is a stock or stockpile

[edit on 3/11/2009 by LiveFreeOrDie..]

posted on Mar, 11 2009 @ 01:15 PM
Actually, it seems to me that I'm the only one who has read the article and understood that it has nothing to do with "law abiding gun owners".

But that's cool. Maybe we can have a couple of frosty ones while relaxing in the "epic fail" file.

posted on Mar, 11 2009 @ 01:19 PM
reply to post by subject x

I have to tell you, you made me have the first laugh I've had all day!!

good response

I can certainly agree to disagree, now pass me my Sam Adams!!

nice to know that there are still people like us that can poke at each other and laugh about it.

you get a star for that one from yours truly!

posted on Mar, 11 2009 @ 01:27 PM
One frosty Sam comin' up! A very appropriate brew for someone with your user name, I think.

Yeah, I agree that there's no reason you can't have fun while bashing on each other.
In my world, friends aren't friends unless they can shred you one end to the other.

posted on Mar, 11 2009 @ 01:40 PM

Originally posted by stikkinikki

Originally posted by thisguyrighthere
The media and gun grabbers alike see 1 gun as unnecessary and it's owner mentally unstable.

I don't believe that and I voted for Barack Obama.

where did I say anything about you wanting my guns?

posted on Mar, 13 2009 @ 05:25 PM
This is such sensationalist crap. Anyone buying any ammo at the local Wal Mart knows that 550 rounds of .22 long rifle is a standard issue batch sold across the counter. They often come such in boxes or a milk carton looking set up a bit larger than a pint.

It is nothing for people to go out and buy two or three such boxes of 550 rounds.

Two shotguns is not an arsenal. Nor two handguns nor two shotguns and two handguns.

This is textbook drama techniques used by the media to instill fear into an ununformed public raised on television substituting for thinking and education. THe uninformed are easily put on the string.

In states like Illinois..all you have to do is look at the dominant political party and what their stance is ..particularly in instilling a sense of fear and dred in the public with the bait of that if they vote for this political party we will make the world safer for you. Illinois has been shown to have a dismal record in almost everything they handle.and they are not alone in this as it goes with states. The overall tendency is that the more liberal the state the more fear and less self sufficiencey they want you to have. More depencency on the political machine.

The media is an integral and important part of this fear/insecurity breeding machine in getting thier message to an insecure public. They will never expose themselve to you in this manner and for the essence of what they are while promoting fear and insecurity as they are attempting to do in this news article.


posted on Mar, 14 2009 @ 02:47 AM
.22s I never bought them by the box.

I would buy a brick of .22s

At one time I could get 500 rounds for $5 (1970)

In those days i would buy 4 brick at $20

That would take care of a days shooting with my military surplus Mossberg 44B
training rifle.

posted on Mar, 14 2009 @ 04:12 AM
reply to post by subject x

That may as well be the defenition of arsenal but you and me both know why the writer chose to use that word. What image comes to mind when you hear the arsenal??? I am sure it is not a couple of shotguns and a .22 pea shooter. The image that jumps into my head, and probably others, is a rather large variety of firearms that have been stockpiled for years. That is the image the writer wanted to give to the reader and everyone knows it. That (at least what I have taken from this thread) is what the argument is about, the writer's choice to use the word "arsenal" rather than collection. It is proof that this "journalist" (I'm sorry I have to use that word loosely because journalists are not suppose to be biased, even though that is getting harder and harder to find) had a very transparent agenda and to argue otherwise would be a waste of keystrokes.

posted on Mar, 14 2009 @ 04:17 AM
reply to post by subject x

Hey if you're taking orders I will have a nice mich golden light "ya i know all the rips about light beer, my waistline is not what it used to be

[edit on 02/04/2009 by Cool Breeze]

posted on Mar, 14 2009 @ 04:25 AM
The reporter who wrote that needs to stay out of Louisiana. We drive around with that "arsenal" in our trucks...... Sheesh (And I'm a Democrat BTW)

posted on Mar, 15 2009 @ 04:25 AM
That is the definition of the most pitiful arsenal possible.
It's like having a sparrow and a seagull and calling it a flock of birds.
Or having a cat and a dog and calling it a zoo!
It's funny the image you get in your head from the word arsenal. I think of 50 cal machine guns and grenades and mines...even a bazooka!
A 22 rifle doesn't even enter into the equation.

posted on Mar, 23 2009 @ 04:45 AM
Yes, the writer of the article is trying to scare people. That is how cold war works. Politicians and the journalists that support them try to persuade citizens to voluntarily give up. It is important to know who is behind the Media. They know they can not win an all out hot war and so they simply try to incrementally win a cold war generation by generation. There are only 5 generations on the planet at any one time. The youngest infant one is useless as are the older two grand and great grandparents, which leaves the father and son to hold down the fort. If a grand parent is able then you can have 3 generations active. It is a precarious balance at all times. It always has been. It always will be.

To say "I don't want your guns" is to imply that the speaker is not interested in guns and also is not interested in you having your guns either. It is a word trick. They mean they don't want your guns and they don't want you to want your guns and they will eliminate guns if they can, generation by generation, as they work to change the thoughts of the youngest generations.

I know grown men that do not want guns and will argue all day that nobody should have a gun. They are grown men begging to be dominated. Their mental disability actually manifests in a desire to drag others down also. It is the mindset of a loser that wants company. It is to be avoided at all cost.

As for the word "arsenal" the dictionary I looked at said an arsenal is "a collection of weapons". So, indeed two or more guns, or one gun and a knife, constitutes an arsenal. Also, in your kitchen silverware drawer you have an arsenal of weapons. The neighborhood construction site is a massive arsenal of hammers, saws, shovels and nail guns. The fact is that most people are impressed by the word and it definitely carries a negative connotation in the mind of anti-gunners the world over.

Now, on to the AP article! OMG! Did you actually read it?

Get a load of these facts....

1. The nutter scheduled the shooting in his planner and left a last will on an index card.

2. Apparently the guy left the .22 rifle and 12 gauge shotguns at home as he preferred the easy carry and proven stopping power of his .45 caliber handgun and 3 magazines.

3. His Glock .45 jammed after only 4 rounds fired. Glock. 45. Jammed.

4. Only 1 round struck the preacher. 25% success rate, but the writer of the article forces the issue of "perhaps" 30 people potentially being killed by this lone gunman with 3 magazines and reckless abandon. 150 people were present. Nobody returned fire.

5. The crazy guy was jumped by 2 free men with active will, at which time the perp used a knife to "allegedly" wound the 2 men and then... and then.... stab himself in the throat! Nobody knows for certain if the two heroes were wounded. It is simply "alledged".

6. I think the AP writer, who remains unidentified, was simply throwing in a liberal dose of wild words for effect. What a goofball.

7. The shooter/stabber was the type of criminal that would use any weapon available. If a gun was not handy, he would choose a knife. If a knife was not available he would probably use a baseball bat. If the sporting goods store was closed he would most likely grab a stick or a stone.

8. There are 6 billion people on Earth. This happens every day. The Media selects what story to run each day. You can run a shooting story every day if you want. You can run a stabbing, a fist fight, a rape, a birth or a sports score every single day of the year. It is cold war Media style.

That is all.
I just had to rant.
I need 25 posts so I can see my super excellent avatar. I hope you enjoyed it.

[edit on 23-3-2009 by THX-1138]

new topics

top topics

<< 1   >>

log in