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.


ABC Special to Dismiss Idea of Using Guns for Self Defense?

page: 6
<< 3  4  5    7  8 >>

log in


posted on Apr, 9 2009 @ 11:03 AM

Originally posted by A NeWorlDisorder

And thats all I have to say about it.

That woman in the video is right. Politicians think they have the power to take away from us our right to own firearms.

I feel for her loss, and can't even imagine how I would feel if what she went through happened to me with my family.

The Second Ammendment does not allow for ANY firearm to be banned, and all these guns bills that target law abidding citizens are UnConstitutional.

I saw previews for this ABC Mockumentary. These people don't know what else to do.

Kids are curious about EVERYTHING. If you leave your kids unnatended, they could get into your kitchen and drink some, or a lot of bleach from your kitchen, or any of the other products that could kill a child.

Do you see any politician or news media trying to ban these products? No, because it is stupid to ban anything that COULD kill a child when left unnatended.

This woman, the ABC, and the rest of the gun grabbing people and politicians out there are nothing more than hypocrits.

I used to attend neighborhood watch meetings in Miami Florida, in which those of us who were part of it would meet with cops, and other reps to talk about problems in our neighborhood, for the most part it was constructive.

Anyway, I left Florida and moved up north but I still receive emails from the neighborhood watch about issues down there, and more so since I still have family down there.

About three weeks ago I got an email from one of the neighbrohoodwatch reps claiming, and giving advertisement to pass legislation to ban law abiding citizens from buying assault weapons, and the excuse, which is the same excuse the present administration is giving, is that the Mexican drug cartels have FULLY AUTOMATIC WEAPONS because Law abiding citizens in the Republic of the United States can buy, own and use SEMI AUTOMATIC WEAPONS....

Well, I sent a response back to her, and I explained to her the differences between FULLY AUTOMATIC WEAPONS, and SEMI AUTOMATIC WEAPONS...

But then after I sent the email which was a bit long, and I went into detail about our history, and the Second Ammendment, I realized that this woman, like the other anti-gun brainwashed people out there, don't care about facts.

They want to ban ALL law abiding citizens from owning, and bearing ANY, and ALL firearms. These people will use, any, and every excuse they can find trying to pass legislation and laws to restrict our Second Ammendment right, no matter what the facts say.

That is the main goal of these people, and if we are not careful we are going to find ourselves in the same situation the British have been, and that is crimes with firearms has almost doubled, and crime in general has increased since the ban on all weapons in Britain.

We cannot allow these brainwahsed, UnConstitutional, gun grabbing aholes ban our Second Ammendment, or put more restrictive laws on firearms, WHICH IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

[edit on 9-4-2009 by ElectricUniverse]

posted on Apr, 9 2009 @ 11:10 AM
reply to post by The Oracle

The Oracle,

This is very very naive. It is however textbook politics and of public education standards which is also paid for by the body politic. Are you getting the connection??

Chances are it was committed with a stolen weapon. The less guns around the less gun crimes

While this kind of quote I have posted of yours above makes good initial sense and those who can think outside the doesn't make good nonsense...which is what a lot of the body politic does now days if you can once again ..think outside the box.

What your statement does not do is speak of less crime..period. It makes the numbers look good in gun crime..but not crime. Crime includes murder, rape, theft, kidnapping and all kinds of nefarious conduct. Your statement is one of the body politic who's main occupation is making the poll numbers come out correctly...which could also mean all kinds of poor unlawful immoral conduct being supported by law and government as long as the gun crime numbers go down. Any thinking moral person can see past that one. But not the body politic who's main intent is poll numbers used or misused to get elected and re elected.

People take real risks with their lives and safety in their occupations. Real risks to earn their properties. What you and others do ..especially the body politic is carte blanche ...state that these people have little right to enforce protecting themselves and their families in their homes ..nor their properties..against crime of any kind...but must be subject to the whims of the body politic in order to make the gun crime numbers come out correctly.
This does "nothing" to protect people nor their private property. Private property so often earned and purchased at great risk to themselves in their occupations.
What it does is make citizens themselves .."Disposable and expendable" second class peoples along with their private propertys, for the whims of government. A government who is also financing public education to promote more of this feel good stupidity.

This is the same or similar tack the old Soviet Union used to use in declaring how much milk was produced that year..but no one could get it.
It was simply not available. In other words ..politics.

It eventually destroys the security and fabric of a people and nation while subsidizing those in the populace of the Lowest common denominator. Those with a propensity towards criminal/immoral activity. This includes the body politic.
This clearly means that our own government has become themselves...criminal. For they are fostering criminal activity in order to get re elected and have the poll numbers come out right. But the reality is something quite different.

This is evident in areas of England, Australia, and New Zealand. Also in nations in Africa. Places in Europe are the same.

This poor politics does nothing about crime...period...

This textbook bait and switch. in other words it is textbook politics. Also known as "Whoredom." The bartering, selling, trading of peoples souls for power...under the guise of a false sense of security.

What is clear in nations where this trend has taken place is that anyone's life, property, and risks are safe except yours if you decide to defend the same. This is why it doe not make good nonsense to those of us who can think outside the box.

All this cheap politics will do is protect those of dubious character...criminals and politicians...while making the rest of us take more risks, over and over, to re earn the property stolen from us the last time.

One has to go to school and be educated to get this stupid. People left to their own devices are not this stupid. But that is precisely what government tries to do...stupid us down to tolerate what does not make good nonsense...such that they can get elected and re elected.

That article you looks good and intelligent initially..but then look at the title.

"Less guns mean fewer gun homicides"

Once says nothing about crimes...or even homicides by other than guns. It is textbook number crunching and furthermore..the author states in the article that the numbers are difficult to digest.

It just looks good to those who can only see the title. Makes good rationale sense..until you learn to look past the nonsense.

This does nothing about crime across the board. It will only shift the crime in favor of criminals and the body politic. It will not help the ordinary citizen going about their business and earning their properties. It will do nothing for them.

The shift..the placebo arguments so often prevalent in boards like this is that gun crime is mentioned in lieu of crime of all types. This is a false and misleading argument point on the part of the anti gun peoples. It is a three card monte shuffle...the pea is not under any of the shells.

But it makes good

Thanks to all for their posts,

I am adding this to the bottom of my post earlier today as a way of putting more emphasis on the concept of private property.

Private property is important to Americans as the very basis of good government and life principles. The ability to own and obtain private property by a process called labor.

Implicit in this in court case after court case from the begining of this country to the ability to protect private properties. Thus protecting our ability to labor not in vain.

Remove the private property and or the ability to protect the same..and you have remove the Republic gauranteed by the Constitution of the United States. Our country was formed on the right to Persuit of Happiness...meaning the right to own/acquire property...which includes your person..private...not public. To be safe in your homes/properties.

Remove the ability to do this and you have private property. You now remove the principle of being an American.

Wealth redistribution is removal of private property...since your property is now subject to the whims of government and is not private nor property.
Our arms as well as our persons are private property. We are not subjects who must ask...Yes Governor?? By your leave my Lord.

Private ownership of property is what seperates Americans from the rest of the world. What is desired by politicians to be elected/ re elected is to get rid of private property and have subjects....a captive audience.
This is why we have leaders who kowtow to other countries and apologize to them for us being Americans. We must be made to take on the mantle of other countries while giving up that which makes us Americans.

BEWARE!! of those who will constantly remove from you...your private properties.


[edit on 9-4-2009 by orangetom1999]

posted on Apr, 9 2009 @ 11:33 AM
I hope that everyone here is going to be at the Tea Party next week.

We need to let our government know that we are not happy with the current situation.

posted on Apr, 9 2009 @ 11:40 AM
*Post Removed*

Mod edit: This looks like it was posted to the wrong thread. I've sent you a copy via U2U and encourage you to post it where intended. -- Majic

[edit on 4/9/2009 by Majic]

posted on Apr, 9 2009 @ 11:44 AM

off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


posted on Apr, 9 2009 @ 11:56 AM
post removed because the user has no concept of manners

Click here for more information.

posted on Apr, 9 2009 @ 12:53 PM
We should start a pro gun, and pro concealed carry push after these recent mass murders. How many people would have been killed if one of those people in the community center would have had a gun? Possibly a dozen less that's for sure. It's better to have one and not need it, than to need it and not have it.

posted on Apr, 9 2009 @ 01:18 PM

off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


Mod note: Please read this. Disagreement is fine, but please address the topic, not other members. -- Majic

[edit on 4/9/2009 by Majic]

posted on Apr, 9 2009 @ 01:56 PM
reply to post by News And History
Its very hard to defend yourself your family or your countrymen when you have surrendered your guns, and are facing an armed enemy…especially when your opposition is carrying automatic rifles and sub-machine guns. The difference between resistance and submission depends very largely on who has possession of the arms.

If you want to get further riled up take a read of this article in the New York Times...

At the same time, the unrelenting meme being pushed by the right that Obama will mount an assault on the Second Amendment has helped fuel the panic buying of firearms. According to the F.B.I., there have been 1.2 million more requests for background checks of potential gun buyers from November to February than there were in the same four months last year. That’s 5.5 million requests altogether over that period; more than the number of people living in Bachmann’s Minnesota.

For you viewing pleasure (or rather displeasure) here is a little taste of how this is all being set up...and "framed" in the media...talking heads on hardball...Op ed columnist Charles Blow refers any thought about gun control rights to an "echo chamber" and says that whatever is happening in that chamber is "very dangerous". He frames the nutcase immigration shooting with that phrase! Then Blow goes on to say that if "people want to ramble on" and that is the way that they want to use the platform they have, that is "irresponsible" ???

posted on Apr, 9 2009 @ 02:15 PM

Originally posted by ElectricUniverse
Kids are curious about EVERYTHING. If you let your kids unnatended, they could get into your kitchen and drink some, or a lot of bleach from your kitchen, or any of the other products that could kill a child.

I agree. Why do I agree? Because I've done exactly what you said. When I was 8 years old I drank bleach my mom had in a cup to take to the basement for laundry(thought it was water). 28 years later I can still remember it and I still can't be anywhere near bleach. Just the smell of it burns my eyes, takes my breath away, and makes me nauseous. Drinking bleach is not something I would recommend.

Kids getting a hold of their parent's gun and shooting themselves or someone else is the fault of the parent's not being responsible enough to secure their guns and not the fault of all gun owners. I keep mine locked up and unloaded, except for my pistol which I use for home defense, even it has a trigger lock on it and no round chambered. Yeah I know not exactly ideal if a quick need for it arises. My thoughts are if someone breaks in my house they can dance with my dog while I get the lock off my gun. If anything is left of them after my dog gets done I'll finish them off.

posted on Apr, 9 2009 @ 02:22 PM
reply to post by burntheships

Amazing, the talk head in that video is trying to deny facts. Yes the present administration is trying to pass ways to restrict our Second Ammendment right, and they are giving lame excuses that "Mexican drug cartels have fully automated weapons, so let's ban American's right to have assault weapons which for the most part are semi-automatic weapons".

The present administration already gave control of our kids' education, as well as the voluntary, and mandatory service programs if you don't volunteer to the Corporation. Whatever this corporation is. Not to mention the militarizing of young people this administration wants which will respond to Obama, and this Corporation.

As I said before this sort of people dismiss facts, they don't care about the facts and think their messiah can do no wrong.

posted on Apr, 9 2009 @ 03:26 PM

off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


posted on Apr, 9 2009 @ 04:23 PM
The only thing true about this is that people with guns should know that without a ton of practice they aren't Billy the Kid and can not fast draw against someone who already has a gun drawn on them. So they are drawing out a simple point into the basis of a whole propaganda hit piece. They think people are all that stupid.

Every cop should have seen a video about a guy with a knife attacking a guy with an undrawn pistol. The knife guy has to start from a lot further away than you might think before he loses. It is true that if you had a gun and you were unfortunately sitting in a desk in a classroom under attack, you'd be almost as screwed. You'd have to hit the deck and wait for the shooter not to be looking at you.

If this "special" harps on that the whole time, it's definitely an anti-gun propaganda hit piece and ABC should be hit back HARD by a boycott and anything else we can come up with..

So far all I can come up with personally is maybe pirating the NBA playoffs online instead of watching their commercials and helping to fund their propaganda. Otherwise, I don't watch their # anyway.

I really really really hate ABC right now. This is a direct attack on the foundation of our remaining freedoms.

It's disgusting to even have to rebut such an obviously one sided premise for a show. What about the janitor who gets an emergency alert to his cell phone and has a gun in his truck? What about a different teacher in a different classroom, who can cover the hall in case the gunman decides to roam beyond the classroom (and they often do)? Schools should all have cell phone alert systems by now, a whole campus alerted could have 10 or 20 armed citizens within walking distance, and a much shorter response time than police.

contact ABC: let them know they have made enemies and the people are going to push back against their sick propaganda:

posted on Apr, 9 2009 @ 04:38 PM
Contact the NBA:

Do we know who the sponsors will be during this broadcast?

More links to sponsors people, I am going to write them ALL.

posted on Apr, 9 2009 @ 06:23 PM
reply to post by MrAnonUK

Wow, the stats on the map are so telling! How ironic is it that Washington DC and IL are at the top of the list of violent crime with a total ban on guns? With the exception of police and politicians? So I need to ask who is it that's doing the killing in those two areas mentioned above? I can not help but laugh, this is so obvious. Why hasn't this map and a documentary about this been shown nationwide?

posted on Apr, 9 2009 @ 09:20 PM

Originally posted by TheOracle

Originally posted by pooty
perhaps someone should ask Ms. Sawyer if she had been in Binghamton a few weeks ago if she would have prefered to have had a gun or not.I myself have no guns at all however I know I could have one tomorrow by connecting with the criminal element.New York requires handgun permits which I do not posess however I can buy a handgun from the criminal element and the same goes for fully automatic weapons.I think we can all figure out what would have taken place in Binghamton had everyone of the fourteen people now dead had firearms when that nut job started shooting.

Chances are it was committed with a stolen weapon. The less guns arond the less gun crimes

"About one-third of the gun-homicide decline since 1993 is explained by the fall in gun ownership." ...

But in More Guns, More Crime (NBER Working Paper No.7967), Duggan uses a new proxy for gun ownership -- state and county-level sales rates for the nation's largest handgun magazine -- to show that guns foster rather than deter criminal activity.


national bureau of economic research

I rest my case.

lol silly less guns = more crime. When the State of Virginia made it easier to get a conceal carry permit within days crime went down in Northern Virginia and went up in Maryland and Washington DC. here recently when DC was forced to allow citizens to own guns, crime went down in DC almost over night. It appears even criminals don't want to get shot.

Even know I believe children who are at the age to have sex ed in school should also be taught basic firearms training to encourage safety and discourage ignorance and I believe everybody should own a gun, I understand some people don't look at things like I do and because of this you don't have to buy a gun, but please don't make anybody who owns a gun into a criminal, freak, or survialist because they have one. Just because the one source you have quoted supports your position doesn't mean you are right. There are things that you do not get from your source, like how biased they are, where they got their numbers from, how they used the numbers, are they skewed for any reason? What I said in the paragraph above, DC claims that the reason why crime suddenly dropped was not because of citizens owning guns, but because additional cameras that are in use. Maybe that is the case, but in London they don't seem to stop any crimes so that is why I believe its the guns. Plus if I want to own a gun, it doesn't matter what the reason is, I just want to own one. Maybe its to display, maybe its to hunt, maybe its to compensate for something, but its not really any of your business unless I am endangering the public good with it.

Like I say. If you don't like it here in the US and the way we have it, please leave there are other countries that will take you and they are all equally wonderful in their own way and I'm sure you can find one that suites you just fine. So don't force your will on me because you might not like the unintended results.

posted on Apr, 9 2009 @ 09:28 PM
I forgot to mention that the author, aside from the late 1800's-early 1900s Politican who has the same name, is a Democrat and politically motivated to write an article using numbers from an unknown source (possibly made up source) to advance a political agenda created by the people who give him a paycheck.

You may rest your case, but its resting on rotting wood that is about to break.

I think we should ban cars, they kill more then guns do, crime is caused by them and caused for them (grand theft auto anybody?) and they cause untold amounts of pollution which harms the trees and grass and the air and because of that it harms us. I bet you don't want to ban cars because they are useful to you even know they are far worse then any gun could ever be.

posted on Apr, 9 2009 @ 09:55 PM
maybe ban stairs too since they are the leading cause of household injuries.
and bungee cords since they are the leading cause of eye injuries.
but why stop there? lets build a fence around anywhere there is water because people can drown!
and stoves because you can get burned etc. etc. etc.

posted on Apr, 10 2009 @ 04:29 AM
Maybe I'm just "Old School" but nothing says don't mess with me better than a board with a nail through it!

posted on Apr, 10 2009 @ 10:53 AM
reply to post by Darkpraetorian

Nothing old school about it. "Arms" are not simply guns. We have the right to bear arms. Baseball bats, firearms, ammunition and any personal weapons that have yet to be invented. The 2nd amendment seems to cover it all.

"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

However, in a democratic country, the people are able to dissolve the constitution and bill of rights and start over, if such a "need" arises.

new topics

<< 3  4  5    7  8 >>

log in