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: 12
47
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 11 2011 @ 11:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by pforkp
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.


Heres why I think guns are useful:

Target Shooting
Putting ailing, living things out of their misery (if necessary)
Signals

Other than that Im not sure because I stopped thinking gins were fun when I was like 12. But just because it is most often used to kill people does not mean we make it illegal. It is simply not the cure for homicide by gun.




posted on Jan, 11 2011 @ 11:43 PM
link   
reply to post by Salamandy
 


also good for props in future movies and tv shows about back in the day when we could have guns



posted on Jan, 11 2011 @ 11:47 PM
link   
I support the measure they are attempting to pass...its not taking guns away.
anyone whom suggests it is is a flat out liar.

Its trying to make high count mags illegal.

Tell, me, why do you need to have more than 11 bullets before reload? Give me some senarios that do not involve "when the red army comes..."

If you have shot 11 slugs at a home invader and still haven't managed to hit, do you honestly think another 30 tries is going to? your blind..face it.

There is no reasonable argument against it...so now the NRA is demanding we accept unreasonable mentality.

And about the liberals...you might want to check in on what Reagen did to gun ownership..under his administration, he banned a bunch of things such as owning a personal machine gun, owning plastic guns, etc...ya..them damn reagen liberals.



posted on Jan, 11 2011 @ 11:52 PM
link   
reply to post by SaturnFX
 


Why do you need to own more than one book?

Why do you need a car that goes 100mph?

Do you even know the history of the 2nd Amendment?



posted on Jan, 11 2011 @ 11:57 PM
link   
reply to post by Salamandy
 





Target Shooting
Putting ailing, living things out of their misery (if necessary)
Signals

Target shooting is a form of training. I see that it could also be a hobby, but guns are not made to be used for non-living target shooting - non-lethal weapon analogues would suffice for that.

I think you'd be hard pressed to find someone carrying around a gun for the express purpose of putting an ailing thing out of its misery should the opportunity arise. This doesn't even speak to the controversial debate over who has the authority to decide what should live and die. Anyways, guns are still a tool used to kill things.

I'm not sure I understand what you mean by signals - like, if you happen to be in trouble, fire your semi-automatic off into the air and the police will be there soon to assist you? Or is it a signal to others, like wearing a detailed kill tally on a necklace to tell others that if they mess with you, you'll shoot them? Fire off potshots to communicate in Morse code to other enthusiasts that you "Like Guns (full stop)"?

I find it hard to justify a "tool" that is made for the explicit purpose of death and destruction.



posted on Jan, 12 2011 @ 12:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by GeneralAwesome
reply to post by SaturnFX
 


Why do you need to own more than one book?

Why do you need a car that goes 100mph?

Do you even know the history of the 2nd Amendment?


What a completely stupid argument...the argument is not owning more than one book..its owning one book with every book in the book if you want to make a absurdly moronic argument.

now, tell me on what occasion you will need more than 11 shots before reload..because that is what is being discussed.

tapdancing around logic means jack there dude, wake up.



posted on Jan, 12 2011 @ 12:10 AM
link   
reply to post by Kryties
 


o.k. so they take away the right to own guns, then what? it can never happen again?

www.bbc.co.uk...

www.metro.co.uk... < he had a handgranade, whilst the other weapons he used were legal under permit i believe. however i doubt handgranades are legal.

www.bbc.co.uk...

www.guardian.co.uk...
here's what happens with everyday items that people use and need as a tool to do many jobs on a daily basis.
like i said in another thread, if somebody is deranged enough, they will use what ever weapon they can. legal or not. should the right to own knifes be taken away?


edit on 12-1-2011 by lifeform11 because: (no reason given)


edits to add new links the others do not work.
edit on 12-1-2011 by lifeform11 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 12 2011 @ 12:10 AM
link   
Guns indeed had been made for the purpose of death and destruction - of your enemies.

From stones,to bows and now guns, its explicit purpose had been to be the most effective weapon, and threat to any nation that seeks to harm you and your fellow citizens.

During the 17th century, guns had been useful to face down domination by tyrannical despots, freed and created a new nation and a new civilisation that lasted till today, and will last for centuries more.

During the 18th century, guns were more for self protection, as the land was vast and the army small to protect settlers from brigands or murdering thieves.

Today, the gun's explicit use had still been used for such continued threats as listed above. It is most unfortunate that there were others whom were more violent and had sought to use such weapons on their fellow innocent citizens. But then, if guns were unavalible, other weapons that the mind can concieve in rage would have equally been capable of doing that job.
edit on 12-1-2011 by SeekerofTruth101 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 12 2011 @ 12:17 AM
link   
reply to post by SeekerofTruth101
 


Naa...they are also fun..shooting targets is simply fun..be it bottles on a fence, or spring loaded zombies that pop out now and then for game.

Their main function is for death though, yes.



posted on Jan, 12 2011 @ 12:36 AM
link   
reply to post by jrod
 


More like the shooting proved that the freaking cops need to do their jobs.

Jared Loughner is a product of sheriff dupnik's office

The sheriff has been editorializing and politicizing the event since he took the podium to report on the incident. His blaming of radio personalities and bloggers is a pre-emptive strike because Mr. Dupnik knows this tragedy lays at his feet and his office. Six people died on his watch and he could have prevented it. He needs to step up and start apologizing to the families of the victims instead of spinning this event to serve his own political agenda.

Jared Loughner has been making death threats by phone to many people in Pima County including staff of Pima Community College, radio personalities and local bloggers. When Pima County Sheriff’s Office was informed, his deputies assured the victims that he was being well managed by the mental health system. It was also suggested that further pressing of charges would be unnecessary and probably cause more problems than it solved as Jared Loughner has a family member that works for Pima County. Amy Loughner is a Natural Resource specialist for the Pima County Parks and Recreation.


And you can't stop a nut, whatever you may do.

Also, Laughner went to the shooting area in a cab... better ban cabs!

And if anyone supports this banning of the natural right of self-defense, and the banning of free speech they are also proposing, you are not in humanity anymore, you're a slave and should be deported to North Korea and feels how it's like to be a slave.
edit on 12-1-2011 by Vitchilo because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 12 2011 @ 12:48 AM
link   
I’m not anti 2nd amendment but would it be that big a deal to get rid of some of these assault weapons? Obviously there is shades of grey here how far the word “arms” can go in regards to what we have the right to bear…. otherwise the day they invent nuke bullets I am going to have myself a very neat pistol

So then it becomes a matter of where you draw the line, and to me I don’t see the big loss if we cant legally arm ourselves with some of these more extreme guns. Yes I’m aware the really bad guys aren’t going to turn in their guns (the gangsters and thugs never do) but I also think a simple hand gun is more than adequate self defense vs these guys even, especially if it is concealed and they think they are the hottest # around with their crazy gun. If you are armed with the same thing, then it just becomes a really wild shoot out and it’s not going to end pretty anyway. In most any situation I can imagine where a good citizen apprehends a criminal, it would be through the element of surprise and a well timed attack. If the criminal already has a machine gun pointed at you , having a machine gun back is just a coin flip at that point, not really the best case to make for why we need to sell some of these crazy weapons (and ammo at wal mart)

Now I’m open to admitting I”m wrong here and I’ve been wrong on the gun thing before (used to be way anti gun) but Im just wondering can someone explain to me why it would be so bad if we did tone it down a bit here in the US, outside of slippery slope rhetoric or etc? Why do you really need a semi automatic or hand gun with 30 bullets vs 10, etc?



posted on Jan, 12 2011 @ 12:48 AM
link   
Haha, I love it. Everyone on here is bringing up the Constitution. Valid, valid... well, sorta...

How's this for ya: The Constitution specifically says: "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."

Nowhere does it specify which type of arms the citizenry can have - it merely says that we are allowed to bear arms. Arms can be rifles; pistols; AK-47s; nukes; it can cover just about anything, honestly. Do you think that it's our God-given right to be able to have nukes in our house, which we can use against the government whenever we don't agree? Should we be like people in the Middle East, who give AK-47's to the children?

You people are being silly! Gun control is absolutely necessary so that we don't have problems like this! Yes, we're allowed to have arms, and yes, the government absolutely cannot and will not take away the citizens' right to keep weapons. However, it is only people without common sense who think that there shouldn't be any limits or control of this process. It's not a liberal thing - it's a common sense kinda thing. I don't want the guy living next door to me to have access to nukes, and honestly, I doubt you do either, and it would really suck if 10 year old Mikey down the street pulled an AK-47 on 9 year old Tommy, wouldn't it? Let's have some common sense here folks.


edit to add: in case it wasn't clear... Mikey not being allowed to get an AK-47 IS a form of gun control

edit on 1/12/2011 by spacekc929 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 12 2011 @ 12:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by Helig

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!


Actually yes law abiding citizens will hand over their firearms in droves because if the 2nd amendment were to be theoretically removed then its no longer legal to possess firearms, thus the majority of firearms owners would do the right thing and hand them over because the law is the law; even if you don't agree with it you still have to follow it or face the consequences. I wouldn't like to be put in such a situation but if the law states it as such then I have no recourse but to comply with the law, no matter how stupid or moronic it may be.


Apparently you do not understand the concept of rights. The Bill of rights does not "grant" us our rights...we were BORN with them. The Bill of Rights merely LISTS the rights that we have NATURALLY that Congress isn't allowed to tamper with.



posted on Jan, 12 2011 @ 12:55 AM
link   
reply to post by spacekc929
 



it would really suck if 10 year old Mikey down the street pulled an AK-47 on 9 year old Tommy


Then maybe 9 year old Tommy should have had an AR-15.

Go ahead and take whatever guns YOU feel are unnecessary away. We'll just go back to running around killing each other with swords, and if not swords, poison, and if not poison, we'll all train in Kung Fu and do it with our bare hands.



posted on Jan, 12 2011 @ 12:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by dalan.
reply to post by spacekc929
 



it would really suck if 10 year old Mikey down the street pulled an AK-47 on 9 year old Tommy


Then maybe 9 year old Tommy should have had an AR-15.

Go ahead and take whatever guns YOU feel are unnecessary away. We'll just go back to running around killing each other with swords, and if not swords, poison, and if not poison, we'll all train in Kung Fu and do it with our bare hands.



Do you really think 9 year old Tommy should have an AR-15? Really? I am kind of appalled that ANYONE on ATS would advocate for a small child to be carrying around automatic weapons.

As for the second part of your statement: you are very pessimistic. I don't need anyone to take away my guns because I don't have any and I never plan on killing anyone. But I suppose if killing is your thing...



posted on Jan, 12 2011 @ 01:00 AM
link   
REMEMBER we must all use our second amendment right to protect our first



posted on Jan, 12 2011 @ 01:13 AM
link   
reply to post by spacekc929
 



Do you really think 9 year old Tommy should have an AR-15? Really? I am kind of appalled that ANYONE on ATS would advocate for a small child to be carrying around automatic weapons.

As for the second part of your statement: you are very pessimistic. I don't need anyone to take away my guns because I don't have any and I never plan on killing anyone. But I suppose if killing is your thing...


I really do advocate it, because you advocated for little Mikey to have an Ak-47 so I just thought that it would be fair to give Tommy an AR-15 in imagination land to even the playing field. If Tommy were going to be attacked by Mikey then he would be grateful for the AR-15 in the aftermath of the confrontation as it would have given him the opportunity to defend himself. Only a fool believes that weapons are useless because they are not living in reality. You can train anyone to use a weapon and still value and respect human life, the same way you send your child to a dojo to learn martial arts.

Move to any ghetto in the US and see how long you hold on to your attitude.



posted on Jan, 12 2011 @ 01:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by spacekc929
You people are being silly! Gun control is absolutely necessary


Gun control is no more necessary then to placing ALL humans in empty cells so that they cannot have access to any weapon.

What needs to be controlled is VIOLENCE and your propensity to take cheap shots to deride others during a discussion. Who is the silly one now?



posted on Jan, 12 2011 @ 01:18 AM
link   
reply to post by SeekerofTruth101
 

what needs to happen is our government needs to be controlled, then we wouldn't be concerned about our weapons



posted on Jan, 12 2011 @ 01:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by SeekerofTruth101

Originally posted by spacekc929
You people are being silly! Gun control is absolutely necessary


Gun control is no more necessary then to placing ALL humans in empty cells so that they cannot have access to any weapon.

What needs to be controlled is VIOLENCE and your propensity to take cheap shots to deride others during a discussion. Who is the silly one now?


You're right that violence needs to be controlled as well. However, there are crackpots in the world who won't be swayed - oh, say, people like Jared Lee Loughner, who are going to get their hands on any weapon they can and shoot small, innocent children for reasons which us 'sane' people can't comprehend. Do you think we should let people like Loughner have guns? (to clarify: I am absolutely not saying that the Loughner incident means we should increase gun control; I was actually just getting annoyed reading about how gun control itself is a bad thing.)

Oh, we should educate people about violence. Therefore, people would need to go through an education process before they got a gun, right? But isn't stopping someone from getting a gun for ANY reason gun control, and isn't stopping someone from buying a gun until they are mature enough to use it or not use it wisely enough a form of control?

Can a 3 year old toddler go to the store and buy a gun? Should a gun seller who knows that someone will very likely use a weapon to kill someone sell that person a gun? Should psychoes like Loughner be limited in their ability to buy weapons? I hope you are understanding my point. Gun control is necessary, because no matter how much you'd like to believe it, there are people in this country who shouldn't have guns. My 11 year old little brother is probably one of them, and I imagine Loughner was one of them also. Therefore, we should control their access to them.




top topics



 
47
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join