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: 14
47
<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 12 2011 @ 05:16 AM
link   

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


No. As I posted on page 11, the US Supreme Court has found that the individual right to bear arms is unconnected to militia service.

Additionally, if the 2nd Amendment were repealed tomorrow, it would still change absolutely nothing. You'd still have the right to own a gun. Why? In virtually every jurisdiction in the country, there are no laws banning citizens from gun ownership. Until those laws were passed, you would still have the right to own firearms, regardless of the existence of the 2nd Amendment.

BTW, don't assume that a knife-wielding perpetrator couldn't do something like this. China has found that out the hard way this year.

Crazies will find a way, no matter what you try to do to limit them.

edit on 12-1-2011 by vor78 because: (no reason given)




posted on Jan, 12 2011 @ 05:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by beveridge02
First of all, the law permitting you to bear firearms is not a "god-given" right. There is serious flawed thinking in that.


I disagree. Whether they are inherent human rights or given by a supreme being is irrelevant. From a logical perspective, government cannot possibly grant rights regarding human behavior. In the absence of any government, you could carry a firearm anytime and anywhere. That fact alone makes it clear that government does not grant you the right to bear arms. It can only protect it, as 2A does, or it can restrict it, as the various gun control laws do.



posted on Jan, 12 2011 @ 05:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by Kryties
reply to post by mydarkpassenger
 

Very rarely do we get reports of people being killed by guns here.

Knives - yes,


That just proved the point that if you take away guns, people will find other tools. The people that have guns for legitimate reasons are not the ones to worry about, also proven in your statement.

It is the intent, not the tool used to generate the outcome.

Like the old saying goes, guns don't kill people, people kill people.

Take away the guns and what do people use next? Knives.



posted on Jan, 12 2011 @ 06:09 AM
link   
reply to post by Whereweheaded
 


my response to all those that want to outlaw handguns or oversized clips...

Get a Kevlar vest...that way you protect yourself without trampling constitutional freedoms...

but, alas, many of the fearful politicos are keen on taking guns because they have far more grevious
ethical & near criminal skeletons in their closets & want to have their cake & eat it too.
keep voting in favor of the corrupt banker/treasury/fed cartel and even two vests, a helmet,
a bulletproof codpiece might not be enough



posted on Jan, 12 2011 @ 06:17 AM
link   
reply to post by SeekerofTruth101
 


I agree 100% with your post. It becomes more obvious the sheriff became hostile and outspoken to the point he did as a matter of deflection, because he knew instantly he had failed. He knew there were issues and failed blatantly in his job to protect and serve, and his knee jerk reaction was to point the finger at everyone else.

The fact that the most outspoken person is the guilty one is glaringly obvious. I think he doth protesteth too much.

Sheriff admits Loughner made death threats


"As we understand it, there have been law enforcement contacts with the individual where he made threats to kill," Dupnik said during a press conference Saturday evening. But he wouldn't say who those threats were aimed at.


Once this was pointed out to Dupnik, he rapidly began backtracking, claiming he *meant* to say that no threats were made *immediately* before the attacks, but thats exactly the point here. Threats were made well before the attack but:


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.

Link

Had he been prosecuted for the death threats previous to the attack, he may have had a felony on record to have prevented him from buying the gun legally, and passing the background checks.

The sheriff in this case, was an epic FAIL.

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



posted on Jan, 12 2011 @ 06:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by Libertygal
[...] if you take away guns, people will find other tools. The people that have guns for legitimate reasons are not the ones to worry about, also proven in your statement.

It is the intent, not the tool used to generate the outcome.

Like the old saying goes, guns don't kill people, people kill people.

Take away the guns and what do people use next? Knives.


Also, if guns were the problem, why isn't gun violence such a prevalent problem in Norway or Canada? The problem obviously lies deeper than just the availability of firearms.



posted on Jan, 12 2011 @ 06:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by TedStevensLives
Also, if guns were the problem, why isn't gun violence such a prevalent problem in Norway or Canada? The problem obviously lies deeper than just the availability of firearms.


If guns are such a problem, then why has the US homicide rate been in steep decline for 20 years, despite record gun sales? Furthermore, while I haven't seen the 2010 data compiled yet, in 2009, the United States had the lowest total number of homicides since 1969. Its also a fact that rural areas with high rates of gun ownership and very few gun restrictions tend to have lower homicide rates than the national average and certainly far less than the gun-banning urban centers.

None of that fits the gun-grabbers' narrative that more guns results in more homicides and violent crime. Its not necessarily true, and throughout much of the United States, it certainly isn't.
edit on 12-1-2011 by vor78 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 12 2011 @ 06:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by Beaux
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.


I've said it many times before: the flintlock rifle was the uber military arm of the period. Every bit the the equal slightly slower to reload; but more accurate than the british musket ( smoothbore).Guns kill.The second amendment is not about hunting;or sporting purposes but "securing the liberty of the free state".

They didn't say the right to Keep and bear a S&w revolver shall not be infringed. Because they were concerned with the larger picture. securing the freestate.which means if"British" Jackboots come to take the farm they are met at the gate by the farmers family wielding the weapons of the day. Not the "security of the free state" but one must have ones right hand tied behind ones back so as not to gain any advantage over the interloper.I believe they clearly meant any enemy foreign or domestic.and the tyranny could indeed come from the (then) newly minted government.

edit on 12-1-2011 by 46ACE because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 12 2011 @ 07:10 AM
link   
reply to post by SaturnFX
 



I am normally in agreement with your reasoned posts. I am in disagreement here becaue of the thin end of the wedge. It has happened elsewhere in the issue of weapons. Today the large mags or clips fine tomorrow?



posted on Jan, 12 2011 @ 07:57 AM
link   
WEIRD THOUGHT FOR THE DAY;

Why not make it law that every citizen above 18 MUST carry a gun. Yeah, thats right, give everybody guns and let the problem sort out itself...
If that congresswoman had a gun, and perhaps a faster hand, maybe she could have protected herself and less people would get hurt.
Furthermore, criminals would be less likely to attack the general public if they knew they were "packing heat" themselves...

"Bring back the Wild West!!!"



posted on Jan, 12 2011 @ 08:02 AM
link   
It doesn't matter if high cap mags are banned or not. They exist. If someone wants one they will get it, or just load up more lower capacity ones.

In this case the sheriff and mental health system failed. Not the gun legislation in place. He was already not allowed to own a gun because of his mental state. Didn't stop him. The sheriff received complaints about him and did nothing. Fail. If he couldn't legally buy a gun he could easily get one on the street or steal one. He could have calmly walked in and cracked a guard in the head and taken his gun. If he REALLY couldn't get a gun and was determined to kill these people he COULD have just pulled a McVeigh and blown the whole place up, killing everyone in there.

People calling for more restrictive laws ... I just don't get it. Maybe we should all get collars to wear with little transmitters and microphones that relay back to the government ... you know, because the thousands of laws in place that invade every aspect of our lives already aren't enough. I've had shackles on, I don't like how it feels.

Some comments on points made in this thread...

* Some people have a problem with the term "God given right". Get over it and stop being a baby. You know what it means. A "RIGHT" is not something GRANTED by a government or anyone else. Otherwise it becomes a privilege bestowed upon you by some other human who now has power over you and can remove that privilege at will. A right is something that you are born with and cannot be taken away. Whether you call it god given, natural human rights, or just a right, the meaning is the same. If you believe that people do not have the inalienable right to protect themselves from violent aggressors, whether it be a crackhead rapist or a tyrannical government then you are just a slave dependent on your masters whims. Any look at history shows you what happens when a people with the ability to advance violence encounters a defenseless populace.

* The constitution does not grant rights, it recognizes them and prevents government from violating them. Actually some of the amendments do. If you believe it is outdated you probably have never actually read it, or about the history behind it.

* "The sole purpose of a gun is to kill people." False. The purpose of a gun is to hurl a chunk of metal at high velocity in a particular direction. How you put that to use is up to you. Millions of people hunt and put food on their table to feed their family. Millions of people compete in various sport shooting activities and competitions for fun and to earn money. Millions of people use firearms to PREVENT crimes. And yes they do excel at killing people. What if the person killed was the person trying to kill you ... or your family?

* They are called magazines, not clips. I know, stupid, it's just a pet peeve of mine. A clip is something else ... look it up.

* An AR-15 IS NOT an automatic weapon. It is a .223 (or 5.56mm) caliber semi auto rifle just like many hunting rifles, but with a smaller round.



posted on Jan, 12 2011 @ 08:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by SaturnFX

tapdancing around logic means jack there dude, wake up.


I will take your refusal to answer the question about the history of the 2nd Amendment as a confession of your ignorance on the subject.

The intent and purpose of the 2nd Amendment would answer your question about why private citizens have a need to own a mag capable of holding 11 or more rounds.

A proper education would obviously do you a world of good.



posted on Jan, 12 2011 @ 08:09 AM
link   
reply to post by Primordial
 


Right on man. People should also be thankful that it wasn't a "gun nut" that did this, and very rarely is a one of us "gun nuts" that go on shooting sprees like this. If it was one of us "gun nuts", he wouldn't have been fumbling to change magazines like he was when he was supposedly tackled. Seriously, I can change a magazine blindfolded, it don't matter if it is one high capacity magazine, or a few low capacity ones, I still get off about the same amount of shots in the same amount of time. Chances are I get more kill shots as well. So be thankful that us "gun nuts" are not literally nuts afterall.



posted on Jan, 12 2011 @ 08:45 AM
link   
reply to post by Kryties
 


then he would of stabbed her wake up dude guns dont kill people...people kill people



posted on Jan, 12 2011 @ 08:51 AM
link   
This right here.


Originally posted by Primordial
It doesn't matter if high cap mags are banned or not. They exist. If someone wants one they will get it, or just load up more lower capacity ones.

In this case the sheriff and mental health system failed. Not the gun legislation in place. He was already not allowed to own a gun because of his mental state. Didn't stop him. The sheriff received complaints about him and did nothing. Fail. If he couldn't legally buy a gun he could easily get one on the street or steal one. He could have calmly walked in and cracked a guard in the head and taken his gun. If he REALLY couldn't get a gun and was determined to kill these people he COULD have just pulled a McVeigh and blown the whole place up, killing everyone in there.



posted on Jan, 12 2011 @ 08:57 AM
link   
reply to post by beveridge02
 


yeah, well, look at all theses dangerous psychopathic,narcissistic politicians we vote in that cant be checked or controlled.

which is more dangerous to this country?


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



posted on Jan, 12 2011 @ 09:06 AM
link   
reply to post by anumohi
 


Look how they are trying to pass a bill that makes them above the gun laws that THEY made! That should tell you a thing or two about those people. They think they are above us, they need to wake up....



posted on Jan, 12 2011 @ 09:10 AM
link   
reply to post by Versa
 


You said it yourself:



A gun doesn't fire without a person pulling the trigger!


So how does your argument have merit? You openly admit it's the user, not the gun. Why?..because guns are inanimate objects. They can't do harm with out the physical pressure applied by a person.
edit on 12-1-2011 by Whereweheaded because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 12 2011 @ 09:14 AM
link   
reply to post by PieKeeper
 


Your statement:



why you would need a 30-round clip for a handgun



You obviously have no knowledge of firearms and there correlating pieces of equipment. They are not " clips " as you inadequately described, they are magazines.

Once you have a full understanding of the proper terminology, then come back and talk to us.



posted on Jan, 12 2011 @ 09:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by Whereweheaded

Gun Grabbing Congress Critters Come Out of Woodwork After Giffords Shooting


www.infowars.com

The shooting of Rep. Giffords and others by a mentally deranged man in Arizona has brought anti-Second Amendment ghouls out of the shadows.
Dedicated gun-grabber Sen. Frank Lautenberg, a New Jersey Democrat, is renewing his effort to chisel away at the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. “The only reason to have 33 bullets loaded in a handgun is to kill a lot of people very quickly. These high-capacity clips simply should not be on the market,” Lautenberg said on Monday following the weekend shThe poster child for the destruction of the Second Amendment, New York Democrat Rep. Carolyn Mc
(visit the link for the full news article)



I will be back later to post how the FEDERAL LAWS/STATUTES do not apply to American Nationals....YOU AND ME!!! We are NOT corporate fictions no matter WHAT the politicinas may believe. We are NOT Chattel, NOT cattle, NOT goyim, NOT persons and so on, you are a flesh and blood living soul with the AUTHORITY OVER the federal government.

STOP THE FRUAD NOW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

edit to add....GUNS are p[roperty, NO DIFFERENT than a chainsaw, baseball bat, hockey stick, golf club and so on... annd you can KILL anyone with ANY of those listed and more.....GUNS DO NOT KILL PEOPLE, PEOPLE KILL PEOPLE. And they will use whatever is at hand, a gun is just as easy as anything else when the other thing is properly used. Just as deadly.
edit on 12-1-2011 by daddio because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
47
<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in

join