Is the post about getting rid of the second amendment and the constitution a fishing operation?

reply to post by GeneralAwesome


I have noticed that the basis of arguments with the gun " haters" is based off emotion. Haven't seen any relevant facts submitted to plead ones case?

Yes, a mental examination of the above posters is required~

Originally posted by thisguyrighthere
Reply to post by lpowell0627

 

...NJ isnt really part of the US. It's some creepy entity all its own.

And I'm the one wrong from all directions?

I can't imagine why we have the state of mind in this country that we do when one such as yourself is so willing to, upon disagreement of an opinion, to make outlandish claims and ridiculous statements that offer nothing to a discussion.

As for the rest, you are correct regarding the hollows law bring for NJ, and on that, and that only, I stand corrected.

My point remains:

Outlawing something, including guns, due to the actions of a mentally ill person or a person solely focused on harming others that are innocent, does nothing to prevent crime or possession of said illegal items by those that wish to misuse it and have no problem breaking the law in order to obtain it.

reply to post by lpowell0627


Ipowell, I noticed your signature and wanted to make a comment.

It's not the person that pulls the trigger that you have to keep an eye on, it's the one that orders him to.

While all the arguments swirl about gun rights every one forgets that every single one of those people in Congress, with very few exceptions, HAVE BLOOD ON THEIR HANDS.

Why? because they VOTED to pay for the bullets that are killing people in countries where WE HAVE NOT DECLARED WAR!

And People like these are morally justified in trying to take away OUR rights???

reply to post by Whereweheaded


All they have is emotion. They are usually the same group that wants people to give government more of our money because it's "for the children".

When facts disappear, emotion is all they have.

reply to post by GeneralAwesome


Or they want big government to give them instructions on how to live their lives, because the very idea of putting forth the effort, and taking the initiative to make decisions for ones self...well ...that would be just plain undignified.

MOD NOTE:

Let's not turn this into a WUK bashing thread.


You don't have to agree, but you don't have to be mean spirited either.

reply to post by Whereweheaded


We are in a seemingly never-ending saga of "who's to blame?" And the worst part is that not only do citizens take part in this fruitless ridiculousness, but so do members of Congress, our representatives, the media. It's outrageous.

As soon as the shooting happened, some of the first talking points revolved around:

-- Did someone miss something that could have prevented this?
-- Should we still be allowing gun ownership with anti-government rhetoric on the rise?
-- The Republicans encouraged these actions by enflaming the public...
-- Should we allow crosshairs and other controversial symbols to be used when communicating with the general public?
-- Were his actions carried out due to his ability to spread his ideas around the Internet?

Every single one of them is linked to: Whose fault is this really?

I just can't understand why coming to the conclusion that Loughner is responsible and nobody else is so difficult.

MOD NOTE:

Guys...I know it's a contentious issue.

I KNOW.


But please keep to the topic. It is NEVER a good idea to bash members.
If you want to discuss something send me a U2U or use the complaint feature.
and I will respond to it.

Firstly, I do not own a gun, but let me give you a concrete example of "gun control" we have had up here in Canada.

In 1995 bill c-68 was passed to create a fire-arm registry. It is still legal to own a gun, only you must provide proof of license and register all your guns with the RCMP (our version of the FBI).

It had a budget of $2 million... by today it cost over $1 billion ... that is 500 x's more! (then again, I guess that is pretty par for any government project.)

Here is the astonishing kicker... criminals did not line up to register their guns. (I know, who would ever have thunk it!?!)

Our

Auditor General's report found that the program does not collect data to analyze the effectiveness of the gun registry in meeting its stated goal of improving public safety. The report states:
The performance report focuses on activities such as issuing licenses and registering firearms. The Centre does not show how these activities help minimize risks to public safety with evidence-based outcomes such as reduced deaths, injuries and threats from firearms.[7]

Former Ontario Provincial Police Commissioner Julian Fantino is opposed to the gun registry, stating in a press release in 2003:
We have an ongoing gun crisis including firearms-related homicides lately in Toronto, and a law registering firearms has neither deterred these crimes nor helped us solve any of them.

Source

An interesting debate which is rarely, if ever, touched on would be a harsher control on arms manufacturers. It is not a hobbyist's basement project to build an m-16 or an ak-47, these are built and sold by legitimate manufacturers who, I'm sure, are easy to find.

the Billmeister

Originally posted by whatukno
reply to post by Whereweheaded

 

Just the year 1871. the same year the KKK was deemed an illegal terrorist organization.

Too much of a coincidence not to be connected.

The KKK is made illegal, and the NRA is born. hmm, for people who believe in conspiracies that one doesn't seem to bother anyone at all?

Or maybe it was created to protect themselves from the now illegal, fully-armed KKK that they knew would now come out blazing with nothing left to lose?

I try to avoid addressing individual posters/members. And I am not saying the following in condemnation of or with any lack of respect to SkinRipper's views, beliefs, opinions, or ways. I respect everyone and their beliefs, whether I agree with them or not and do not bear ill will toward or create enmity between myself and those who disagree with me.

However, I will at least acknowledge the confusion and curiosity I feel with respect to his thread, given his introduction thread. In his introduction, he states that he is a psychopath, and has no empathy or concern for others' wellbeing or happiness. Don't get me wrong. Neutral or ambivalent levels of concern for others is not tantamount to malicious intent. I just fail to understand, and would appreciate clarification of, this (to my mind, and perhaps incorrectly of course) incongruity between his previous statements, and his subsequent statement that, quote:

"shootings in America need to STOP. And trying to kill a government official is just plain WRONG!!!" -unquote.

He previously stated, quote:

“I lack all empathy and compassion toward the human being. In fact my brain registers lots of activity in parts that offer deception, aggressive behaviour pointers indicating that I do not value any form of human life.

I only do things to please myself. I will destroy lives to get to where I need, and I do not respond to emotion pleading. I lack emotional intelligence apparently.” -unquote.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Again, this is not intended as an attack or a assertion of deception (although he himself stated that his brain registers high levels of activity in the regions associated with deception.) It's just a request for clarification. IN short: why does someone with no regard for human life regard killing as "wrong?"

reply to post by Billmeister


I take exception to this line only:

It is not a hobbyist's basement project to build an m-16 or an ak-47

There are plenty of people in the US who build AK's(semi-auto) and ARs(semi-auto) as a hobby, from scratch. Going after the manufacturers of weapons would only move the practice underground and like in the 20 and 30s with all the prohibition talk, it would turn a bunch of law abiding citizens into criminals over night...And then a criminal culture will take over to meet demand..We DO NOT need that.

Ok guys that's enough.

Please do not respond to this post.

Originally posted by Lunatic Pandora
reply to post by Billmeister

 

I take exception to this line only:

It is not a hobbyist's basement project to build an m-16 or an ak-47

There are plenty of people in the US who build AK's(semi-auto) and ARs(semi-auto) as a hobby, from scratch. Going after the manufacturers of weapons would only move the practice underground and like in the 20 and 30s with all the prohibition talk, it would turn a bunch of law abiding citizens into criminals over night...And then a criminal culture will take over to meet demand..We DO NOT need that.

edit on 11-1-2011 by Lunatic Pandora because: I know I said I was done with the thread...But I got curious and I'm over being called a psycho killer...

I apologize and plead ignorance on the topic.

I made an uneducated assumption that specialized machining equipment was involved in producing sophisticated weaponry.

I nonetheless think it makes for an interesting debate. Perhaps more appropriate to their role in armed conflicts around the globe than this particular domestically inclined debate. I think that concentrating on the arms manufacturers could make a real impact on the number of weapons available.

But, point well taken.

the Billmeister

Reply to post by lpowell0627

Can't take a NJ joke?

Let me guess, blow-out haircut, spray tan and a ravioli stained wife-beater?

Fist pump!!!!!


Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com

reply to post by whatukno


I just want to say that that was a very succint way of expressing how I feel about guns.

I own guns, but some people take it to the extreme. I know of a few that have enough weapons and oridinance to arm a small militia. I ask "why"? They say "why not"!

reply to post by sixswornsermon


You ever hear of "collectors" or are people who own more than one gun insane by default?

I know a guy here in town that owns several hundred weapons. Some of them are from all the way back to the revolutionary war, some are brand new.

He's a very nice man, aside from the his service in the military his weapons haven't killed anyone State side.

You say "Why?" I say, "because it's my right".