Gun Grabbing Congress Critters Come Out of Woodwork After Giffords Shooting

Originally posted by anumohi
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

I'd be concerned if a homicidal person out to kill me had a gun around me. Not that they're government or anything, but man, when someone who says they want to kill me has a gun or a weapon, I am pretty concerned...

Originally posted by dalan.
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.

I think you misunderstood my point, haha, which was that Mikey SHOULDN'T have that AK-47 in the first place. And I don't think weapons are necessarily useless, nor that they should be taken away. But I do think that it's absolutely wrong to believe that there should be no gun control. Because if Tommy has a gun to defend himself against Mikey, one of them is going to die, see? Because even though we'd like to think that if everyone has a gun there is a "Mutually Assured Destruction" phenomenon, there isn't! Look at our modern warfare. Everyone has guns, but that doesn't stop people from fighting with each other. And eventually, certain nations get more guns and use those to take over smaller nations. I'm guessing that after Mikey kills Tommy, Tommy's friends gather in a group to kill Mikey, then Mikey's friends gather in a group to kill Tommy's friends, and it just goes on and on, both groups getting more and better weapons to kill the other, regardless of the danger. That is how humans function.

And I'd rather there be no guns in the ghetto than everyone having a gun in the ghetto.

To be consistent with the anti-gun proponents' line of argument, we should ban Congress members from casting any votes. Then they would not be able to pass treasonous legislation like the Patriot Act and other laws which they didn't read before voting.

If any single one of those people were trained in how to use a firearm and actually had one like they should have that man would have been shot dead as soon as he pulled out the gun and fired the first shot. The fact is, we need to arm the sane people to defend themselves from the crazy people that WILL end up getting a gun no matter if its legal or not.

Originally posted by dubiousone
To be consistent with the anti-gun proponents' line of argument, we should ban Congress members from casting any votes. Then they would not be able to pass treasonous legislation like the Patriot Act and other laws which they didn't read before voting.

Hm, is it gun banning or gun controlling and regulating? Is it stopping Congress from passing votes, or is it controlling their ability to pass treasonous votes? Although the two things aren't really comparable, I see your point, but I don't think anyone is advocating for the citizens to have no guns; rather, that there are instances in which it makes sense for gun ownership to be limited in order to prevent chaos... I think control on Congress' ability to propose certain laws so that we can prevent chaos is a good idea, actually...

Originally posted by spacekc929

Originally posted by anumohi
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

I'd be concerned if a homicidal person out to kill me had a gun around me. Not that they're government or anything, but man, when someone who says they want to kill me has a gun or a weapon, I am pretty concerned...

cars make good weapons for homicidal persons, however they tend to call it an accident most of the time.
it's weird how such assumptions are made before investigations are complete. so would you feel safe knowing that a homicidal person has the right to own and drive a car?

Originally posted by AndrewJay
If any single one of those people were trained in how to use a firearm and actually had one like they should have that man would have been shot dead as soon as he pulled out the gun and fired the first shot. The fact is, we need to arm the sane people to defend themselves from the crazy people that WILL end up getting a gun no matter if its legal or not.

If we had more violence consciousness and decency, people like Loughner would never get guns. Who would sell a gun to him? Who would buy a gun for him? Alas, since there were already laws on the books preventing this guy from getting a gun, we are forced to realize that he got it anyways because we, the people who are allowed to get guns, were circumventing the law to get the guns for him. Somehow, in some illegal way, Loughner obtained semi-automatic weapons, likely with help from friends. It's a perfect example of why these laws are important, because they are obviously in place for a reason - how about we follow them instead of complaining about them not working, when it's our fault they're not working.

Originally posted by lifeform11

Originally posted by spacekc929

Originally posted by anumohi
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

I'd be concerned if a homicidal person out to kill me had a gun around me. Not that they're government or anything, but man, when someone who says they want to kill me has a gun or a weapon, I am pretty concerned...

cars make good weapons for homicidal persons, however they tend to call it an accident most of the time.
it's weird how such assumptions are made before investigations are complete. so would you feel safe knowing that a homicidal person has the right to own and drive a car?

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

edit on 12-1-2011 by lifeform11 because: spellings

First, my whole comment was to point out to the person I responded to that it's not just the government who worries me when it comes to weapons - normal people worry me too. Second, guns and cars can't really be compared, seeing as cars are used for transport and in an innocent way most of the time, whereas there are few innocent ways you can use a gun unless it's a hunting rifle. Third though, if I knew someone was homicidal, I really don't think I'd want them driving around haha, finding victims to kill, driving away from the scene of the crime, running people over... haha. But no, for real, I just wouldn't want to be around a homicidal person with any sort of weapon. Thing is, there is a real difference between using otherwise innocent objects as weapons and using a weapon as a weapon, which has no other function but to inflict damage. Your analogy, while good, is not completely comparable. But don't you think, if we knew someone had committed vehicular homicide in the past, that maybe we shouldn't let them drive around anymore? Hm?

reply to post by spacekc929


i understand what your saying, i was just trying to point out that it is not the weapon that commits the act, it is the person using it.

also anything can be turned into a weapon, the people who drive properly are no different to the people who use guns properly.

people who use cars to kill or injure innocents are no different to those who use guns for the same purpose. it does not matter what the weapon is, those intent on hurting people will do it regardless of law changes, regardless of guns.

we do not call out to ban cars when somebody used it to kill innocent people on purpose. it does not matter the car is designed for driving and not killing if it can be used to kill.

the way i see its all part of the master plan one world government.......... lautenberg was used as a puppet to disinform tha public into thinking thats how people are.. if they are "disturbed" so ...yes... they can take away our 2nd amendment and no one will protest agianist it instead think thats what they are chooseing .!! when its really about taking the whole constitution out and making this a one world government a "new world order" a.k.a a new rome HE was probley mind controled into doing it ...but hey thats just me thinking that

Originally posted by lifeform11
reply to post by spacekc929

 

i understand what your saying, i was just trying to point out that it is not the weapon that commits the act, it is the person using it.

also anything can be turned into a weapon, the people who drive properly are no different to the people who use guns properly.

people who use cars to kill or injure innocents are no different to those who use guns for the same purpose.

I agree. That is why I am glad we have speed limits and traffic laws, and age limits on when we acquire cars and can drive them. It's also why I am glad we have laws about the ways in which we acquire guns and use them. It is the same principle.

reply to post by spacekc929


As the dust settles, and issues become more clearer, the problem with Jared doing what he had achieved was with much thanks to the Sheriff that had blame everything under the sun for the rampage except himself, which made the media and ATS went nuts, soul searching for what could have caused that defendant to be in the position where he is today.

There were reports to the Sheriffs on Jared's weird behaviour by the community, and the authorities there were made aware of Jared's death threats against others.

And yet....with clues to signs of violent behaviour from Jared, the Sheriff did nothing.

Worse was when SHTF, he started laying blame on everyone else.

The Sheriff will have much accounting to do to the dead as well as well as to humanity at large whom had been blamed by the media on their witch hunt and also to the congressional battles ahead over what could have been prevented without blood shed or incarceration.

Originally posted by spacekc929

Originally posted by dubiousone
To be consistent with the anti-gun proponents' line of argument, we should ban Congress members from casting any votes. Then they would not be able to pass treasonous legislation like the Patriot Act and other laws which they didn't read before voting.

Hm, is it gun banning or gun controlling and regulating? Is it stopping Congress from passing votes, or is it controlling their ability to pass treasonous votes? Although the two things aren't really comparable, I see your point, but I don't think anyone is advocating for the citizens to have no guns; rather, that there are instances in which it makes sense for gun ownership to be limited in order to prevent chaos... I think control on Congress' ability to propose certain laws so that we can prevent chaos is a good idea, actually...

Good point.

Like many others, I fear being near untrained people who have possession of any kind of firearm in any context. It is just too easy to cause major irreparable harm through negligence, carelessness, or intentionally.

Or eh, Loughner is jewish... so why don't we round up all the jews and exterminate them?

That would make as much sense as banning all the guns. I mean, if jews would have been banned from America, this wouldn't have happened right?

Anyone wanting to ban something for everyone because of a few people is a freaking retard of the highest order.

reply to post by budski


How do more guns = more crime? Are people so easy to forget Kennesaw,GA? They require every head of household to own a gun and as of 2007 as the article states was their 25th year without a murder. Crime practiacally fell over night due to this mandatory gun ownership. So if you can find something to say more guns = more crime please do because this pants a whole different picture. Here's a link, check it out. www.wnd.com...

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?

I highly doubt Dick Cheney, Fiddy Cent, or Ted Nugent would turn in their gun.

reply to post by Whereweheaded


If they abolish the 2nd Amendment, they should legalize marijuana. Take away a right, replace it with a new one. I would be down with that. Of course that would never happen because the people who run this country are lame.

Originally posted by 46ACE

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.....

To begin with, the citizenry was granted the right to bear arms as another balance to keep the government working for the people, and to allow the citizenry to revolt if they were oppressed too much. Also, making guns illegal altogether would not make it that much harder for a criminal to get one, because, for one thing, there is a lot of weaponry already on the ground in this country and criminals know how to run the black market.

However, an insane person... there is an argument that it would make it harder for an insane person to get a gun if they were illegal, I can't really get around that one.

But this argument really does go out the window when you consider that it probably should have been illegal for *him* to own a gun already.

Originally posted by chiponbothshoulders
reply to post by Kryties

 

Guns are only a tool.

Any tool can be used for the wrong purpose.

True, but do you think he would have been able to kill six people if he only had a knife? Even with a sword he would have struggled. I believe the easy access to firearms, without the proper training, reduces the respect held for them.

Anyway, I thought the 2nd Amendment was for the right to bear arms to form a militia???

First of all, the law permitting you to bear firearms is not a "god-given" right. There is serious flawed thinking in that.

The scenario present in the United States brings about the possibility for people who are mentally unfit to bear arms, quite easily. And quite easily is the principality of the argument that gun control needs to be exhibited in the United States. Sure maniacs can rob stores with guns, go on shooting sprees, or simply shoot another person anywhere in the world where access to a gun is granted. But in the United States it happens all the time because of the accessibility of weapons and the culture of the United States' obsession with them.

So these gun toting fanatics will be ready to tell you, "It doesn't matter if the laws and regulations allow for mentally unfit people to have guns because ILL HAVE MINE" - What a great scenario.