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.

 

Gun Grabbing Congress Critters Come Out of Woodwork After Giffords Shooting

page: 11
47
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 11 2011 @ 08:00 PM
link   
Look the guy made a mistake, he should have went after the entire congress and senate and military industrial complex, CIA, FBI, as well as a host of many others but that's what happens when amateurs try and play like the big dogs...I mean look at Obama and Bush and the whole lot of them the murder 1,000's of people everyday and get away scott free and smelling like a rose while making billions in profit from it. Obama's new saying should be "killing is my business and business is good! " and besides I have never seen a gun get up on it's own and shoot someone there's always some idiot or govt. patsy behind it pulling the trigger!




posted on Jan, 11 2011 @ 08:01 PM
link   
Oh, and Budski . . .

Here is a very good list of quotes for you to take a gander at.

I am still waiting for your quotes from the Framers of the Constitution stating to the contrary.



posted on Jan, 11 2011 @ 08:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by Kryties
reply to post by Whereweheaded
 


You have to admit though, if Laughner hadn't have had access to firearms then this incident would not have occurred.

Just saying.....

Exactly how would you 'prevent' access when there's the black market for fireams?
There's always been and always will be a black market for firearms.

Also a running man with a knife can inflict death and wounds just as easy as a gunman can.
In Japan, Korea and China knife spree's are the 'new' shooting spree's



posted on Jan, 11 2011 @ 08:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by JayinAR
reply to post by TreadUpon
 


I'm sorry, but I had to jump in and post this although I haven't read the thread.... You are saying that these rights are "god given?" ... That is absurd. Patently false.
Did God tell you that he gave you these rights? Who told you God gave you these rights?

Good grief man! I support the "right" to bear arms myself, but it makes no sense to say that I support it as a "right" granted by God. It was written into the constitution by the founding fathers. Not a divine being.
And they aren't real "rights" either. They are privileges at best. The Government can and WILL remove your so called "rights" if you aren't vigilant in defending them... (and no, you don't defend these privileges with the guns they are trying to remove, it's called self governance... en masse)...

It's like what George Carlin said... If these are "rights" then why do we have ten (that later had to be amended 14 times) and the British have more? Does god segregate rights according to geographical location? If God was responsible for the "rights" we have as citizens, he would make sure we were given the RIGHT to food every day. To a roof over our heads. To clean drinking water.... Not your ability to pack a pistol.

And I say this as a gun supporter.


British have more 'rights'???
What are you smoking?!

There's been a systematic roll-back of gun rights in the UK since 1920!
In the UK we're subjects, not citizens!
Since 1953 we've been criminalised if we carry ANY type of weapon for self-defence.
As a person who has lived in the UK and US I can tell you there's far more rights in the US than most other country's in the world.
Also when someone declares 'God given' it means inalienable rights that NO-ONE, not even kings can take away.
This is something that the UK doesn't have and it's the monarch that changes things, via parliement.



posted on Jan, 11 2011 @ 08:40 PM
link   
Anyone who truely looks into the facts knows that populations who are armed are less likely to be suppressed and marched off to the slaughter houses or more appropiately fema camps as in Americas case.
I look forward to your comments...
www.youtube.com...
This one is more applicable to the US.
www.youtube.com...

edit on 11-1-2011 by Mythkiller because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 11 2011 @ 08:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by Whereweheaded
Side note, I wonder even if these politico's managed to abolish the 2nd Amendment, I wonder?, do they really think those of us who are law abiding citizens are just gonna hand over our guns?

Most likely, it would be all out war, and by rights, there should be!


We wouldn't have to turn over our guns. They just have to ban the sale of ammo.



posted on Jan, 11 2011 @ 08:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by budski
Isn't the well regulated milita now the national guard?

.


Not exactly. US Code essentially defines militia as any able-bodied male of draft age. It is subdivided into two components, organized militia, which indeed is the National Guard, but also the unorganized militia, which is basically everyone else.

Still, if you're hanging your hat on the militia argument, you've already lost. The US Supreme Court has ruled as recently as the DC vs Heller case a couple of years ago that firearms ownership is a right unconnected to militia membership.


Held: 1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53.


Link to summary of the decision.



posted on Jan, 11 2011 @ 09:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by Whereweheaded
Never any statistics that show there are more deaths in this country caused by other means. Guns, believe it or not, have a very small percentage of deaths.

source ; webappa.cdc.gov...

also:

Firearms 3,951 2.5% 2,272 0.9% 1,941 0.4% 1,723 0.2% 600 0.1% 18 5.1%


Motor Vehicle Accidents 5,361 3.3% 3,506 1.5% 3,038 0.7% 3,173 0.5% 1,288 0.2% 26 7.3%





Comparing other things that cause death to a pistol is an "apples to oranges" argument. A gun is made for one purpose: to hurl hot lead into something. Period. It makes a lousy hammer, I can't drive it to work, and I can't cut my steak with it. Stating that other objects can kill people (there must be thousands of them) to something that is solely created to actually do that, is obfuscating the subject.

That argument holds no merit beyond statistical causes of death.



posted on Jan, 11 2011 @ 09:07 PM
link   
reply to post by Helig
 


So if the Law tells you to jump off a cliff....... never mind, it's useless to argue with people who have slave mentalities.



posted on Jan, 11 2011 @ 09:13 PM
link   
Please recognize that every freedom we have in this country was because of guns and the brave men that used them to create and protect those freedoms.

FREEDOM IS GUNS and without them we are nothing but helpless



posted on Jan, 11 2011 @ 09:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by BeauxComparing other things that cause death to a pistol is an "apples to oranges" argument. A gun is made for one purpose: to hurl hot lead into something. Period. It makes a lousy hammer, I can't drive it to work, and I can't cut my steak with it. Stating that other objects can kill people (there must be thousands of them) to something that is solely created to actually do that, is obfuscating the subject.


[I'm guessing you are not all that open to real discussion so I'll skip any reference to the pesky constitution that guarantees the people the right to guns.

That and the purpose of guns is also to protect life, ones property, to hunt and feed ones family etc. The purpose of the 2nd Amendment or guns, in the in the view of our founders, was to to defend our liberty and to protect the people from the government itself should they become tyrants again.

Regarding crime with guns...

Guns do not shoot themselves in a murder any more than a knife wields itself in a stabbing or a phone or a computer connects istelf to commit fraud. The people who commit the crimes do so of their own choice and are the only ones culpable.

Besides, guns will never be confiscated in America...rural America is a great place to live.

I doubt very seriously any of the LEOs where I live would go along with such an order; I Turkey hunt with the county sheriff who is a veteran who is an oath keeper as are most of the local police and local deputies.

The military would also likely not agree to confiscate weapons from the public for the same reasons. Go to oath keepers and see how many Special Forces people there are on the rolls.

To the tyrant who tries it I say good luck without your best troops.

There will be civil war in the streets and rightly so over any such order to confiscate guns in America.

edit on 11/1/2011 by Golf66 because: typo



posted on Jan, 11 2011 @ 09:44 PM
link   
The funny thing is that when they talk about banning a certain item, people go out and buy every single one they can find. Then gun manufacturers go into serious production, and make as many as they can to satisfy demand.

The brady bill did the exact opposite of what it was supposed to do. Right now, because of the scare of lack of hi-cap mags during the 1994-2004 assault weapons ban, you can buy 30 round AR-15 mags for like 10$.

I kinda think the gov't wants us to have a ton of guns, because if they don't they are being stupid about how to get them from us.



posted on Jan, 11 2011 @ 09:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by chiponbothshoulders
reply to post by Kryties
 
Guns are only a tool.

Any tool can be used for the wrong purpose.





So is a knife and I don't let my 6 year old play with one. Gun control just means been more careful who we choose to give weapons to. A guy who was quite possibly schizophrenic? no gun.

-rrr



posted on Jan, 11 2011 @ 10:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by budski

Originally posted by tiger5

Originally posted by budski

Originally posted by TreadUpon
The problem with these libs is that they don't understand that our rights are God given! They prefer not to believe in a higher power than the government. That's why we have all these inane "debates" about our rights. We don't have any rights to commodities (healthcare, education, etc), only rights inherent to being human (life, liberty, free pursuits). They prefer a wienie lawyer turned legislator whittle our freedom down to a nub.



God given rights...

m'kay.

Care to point out the relevant bible passage?

Yeah, why bother with facts when you can make something up


More guns = more gun crime.
It's that simple.



Please lets leave God out of it!!

just to restate the equation. More gunsowned by criminals = more gun crime. There I knew something was missing. The criminals make crime. Later on I shall show the sad fate awaiting American law abiding gun entheusiasts.



I tell you what, let's NOT leave god out of it, not when every time gun control is mentioned, some bible thumper starts going on about his god given rights as though god were a fact rather than a belief system perpetuated to control the masses.

Let's also not forget that the 2nd amendment reads "militia" not "citizen"

Let's also not forget that the US has one of the highest murder rates in the western world, one of the highest prison rates in the world, and is one of the very few developed countries to cling to the death penalty.

more guns = more gun crime, as posted previously, with facts and sources to back this up.



Heybudski

its been shown more guns=Lesscrime infact theres been a book published about it
theWhole misinterpreted"militia" thang:" A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state the right of the people to keep and bear arm shall not be infringed.
Ttry this:
A sharp, strong disciplined, well equipped ( well regulated)militia ( i.e. peoples para military force) is necessary to assure the security of the state.
Inorder to have this(militia) the right of the people ( who form the "militia"and provide armsfor) to keep ad bear arms shall not be infringed.

?? easy to understand; tough to twist to liberal ideas. guns= no communism.


An interview with
John R. Lott, Jr.
author of More Guns, Less Crime: Understanding Crime and Gun Control Laws

Question: What does the title mean: More Guns, Less Crime?

John R. Lott, Jr.: States with the largest increases in gun ownership also have the largest drops in violent crimes. Thirty-one states now have such laws—called "shall-issue" laws. These laws allow adults the right to carry concealed handguns if they do not have a criminal record or a history of significant mental illness.

Question: It just seems to defy common sense that crimes likely to involve guns would be reduced by allowing more people to carry guns. How do you explain the results?

John R. Lott, Jr.
John R. Lott, Jr. is a resident scholar at American Enterprise Institute. He was previously the John M. Olin Visiting Law and Economics Fellow at the University of Chicago Law School.


Lott: Criminals are deterred by higher penalties. Just as higher arrest and conviction rates deter crime, so does the risk that someone committing a crime will confront someone able to defend him or herself. There is a strong negative relationship between the number of law-abiding citizens with permits and the crime rate—as more people obtain permits there is a greater decline in violent crime rates. For each additional year that a concealed handgun law is in effect the murder rate declines by 3 percent, rape by 2 percent, and robberies by over 2 percent.

Concealed handgun laws reduce violent crime for two reasons. First, they reduce the number of attempted crimes because criminals are uncertain which potential victims can defend themselves. Second, victims who have guns are in a much better position to defend themselves.

Question: What is the basis for these numbers?

Lott: The analysis is based on data for all 3,054 counties in the United States during 18 years from 1977 to 1994.

This interview is copyrighted please find more at the link below:




www.press.uchicago.edu...
edit on 11-1-2011 by 46ACE because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 11 2011 @ 10:27 PM
link   
reply to post by Golf66
 




Originally posted by Golf66: [I'm guessing you are not all that open to real discussion so I'll skip any reference to the pesky constitution that guarantees the people the right to guns.


And I'm guessing you do not do well with speculation since you are incorrect. Although tying an adjective like "pesky" to the constitution does deliver a level of unwarranted and needless sarcasm.

As a gun owner myself and a proponent of the Second Amendment of that "pesky" constitution, I have always supported responsible gun ownership. But I also know that they are made for only one purpose: to kill. I know of many reasons when that may be necessary but comparing gun deaths to automobile deaths is still a useless comparison and is meaningless except to say people get killed all the time. They were just killed by things not made to specifically do so. A gun is unique in that perspective.

When the Second Amendment was written, the Founding Fathers were addressing flintlocks and muskets. I do not know that they ever envisioned a future when a single person with a gun could have destroyed a squad or company of their soldiers in under a minute. If they knew that in 1791 when it was adopted into law, would they have so easily ratified it? I do not know and neither does anyone else. But we can speculate.

So, argue onward. And save the drudgery of the standard "Guns 101" rhetoric. Guns don't kill people, only people using the gun for the sole purpose it was made.



posted on Jan, 11 2011 @ 10:32 PM
link   
reply to post by Beaux
 


The whole idea behind militia, is that every single town, has an its own military on standby, that could be called together on moments notice should the need arise. That means the people need to possess military grade firearms. That is why all these gun bans and restrictions are unconstitutional.



posted on Jan, 11 2011 @ 10:35 PM
link   
I cant believe we have politicians who use this logic. if they see a common problem within the stories the media pumps at us, then they are in charge of making the situation better. First off politicians, stop following yahoo, fox, msnbc headlines and do some actual hands on work towards bettering the country. Secondly, in no way should a politician be in any position to try and cure the world of madmen. They will always be here. That is something you come to understand as an adult. In fact a lot of people spend most of their life learing how to avoid them.
Guns, drugs, a lot of things, should always remain completely legal, regulated perhaps, but legal. Label yourself a member of any party you want or follow any creed you want - we all supposedly hold our freedoms very precious.
The idea of making these acts illegal is basically like telling a child he is not allowed to play with a match because he may get burned. The obvious difference being that the people of the US are not children. Can some act like some indefinitely? Sure. But to forbid and make punishable situations otherwise left up to a child and their parents is as if to say that without the government we would be dribbling messes is insulting to say the least.
People are not inherently evil. The media sells their stories because humans are fascinated by the macabre, but humans are good people.
Government needs to punish laws that physically violate another person or another persons property. Anything else, unless related to government property (roads and such), should be as free to do as urinating (if I may be so bold).
Everybody I know is utterly offended when you point out examples of our progressivley worsening nanny state, yet we keep seeing more bills passed and "ideas" for more laws that will protect us. Who is lying? The government or my friends?



posted on Jan, 11 2011 @ 10:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by TKDRL
reply to post by Beaux
 


The whole idea behind militia, is that every single town, has an its own military on standby, that could be called together on moments notice should the need arise. That means the people need to possess military grade firearms. That is why all these gun bans and restrictions are unconstitutional.


I agree, TKDRL. In my town, they are called the National Guard.



posted on Jan, 11 2011 @ 10:53 PM
link   
reply to post by Whereweheaded
 


Obviously, there is just one thing left preventing a One World Order, Americans with Guns.
If it takes such an Event to circumvent changes, then this would certainly make it easier to restore Kaos once the Next Financial Crisis kicks in again and later One World Order.

Never agreed that People ever needed Guns, except for next 2 years. There is the Chance that Obama and his Advisers are Absolutlely Corrent with Top Down money Flow really does work and don't stop spending on Credit Cards is the Best Advice Ever. Unless the White House is Absolutely wrong and Kaos rules, in which case your going to need those guns.



posted on Jan, 11 2011 @ 11:00 PM
link   
reply to post by chiponbothshoulders
 



Guns are only a tool. Any tool can be used for the wrong purpose.

Sorry, can you explain what other purpose a gun serves other than to kill things? Unless you're a badass with an interesting way of opening beers, people buy guns in the off-chance they need/want to shoot someone or something. Creepy collectors items, maybe. But they are not multipurpose tools.

Furthermore:



Gun control just means been more careful who we choose to give weapons to. A guy who was quite possibly schizophrenic? no gun.


This is a dangerous argument. Constitutional rights should not be left up to selective interpretation. You have a mental disorder? You're given less rights. Immigrant? Less rights. This means whoever has the power to define what social group you're in also has power to define what rights you're applicable for, which sort of defeats the purpose of a constitution that applies to the entire populace. Saying that constitutional rights should not apply equally to all begs for unequal dispersion of power, for exclusion, for the antithesis of democratic relations.
edit on 11-1-2011 by pforkp because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
47
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join