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: 16
47
<< 13  14  15    17 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 12 2011 @ 02:09 PM
link   
reply to post by Primordial
 
So if I'm hearing you correctly, your entire reasoning for owning assault weapons/mods/etc is paranoia?
edit on 12-1-2011 by technical difficulties because: (no reason given)




posted on Jan, 12 2011 @ 02:11 PM
link   
Hand over your guns...its funner to take the good guns away from the soldiers and law enforcement when Martial Law begins and build up a nice inventory from scratch.



posted on Jan, 12 2011 @ 02:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by Habit4ming
Primordial says:

I will grant you this though. Even though I am a defender of the right to bear arms I do agree that those convicted of a violent crime and the mentally ill should not be allowed to possess them.
---------------------------------
I have seen this line of thinking posted elsewhere and it worries me greatly. To begin with, please note that I believe in the 2nd Amendment.
While I understand the reasoning for those who think guns should be banned from the "mentally ill", one should also consider this: Who gets to define "mentally ill"? Nowadays, some political leanings are classified as "mental illness"!! Tread carefully...


I agree to a point, who gets to decide, but at the same time I don't want some suicidal schizophrenic contemplating who they are going to take with them. There would have to be a clear definition to adhere to. Not easy, but I feel necessary.



posted on Jan, 12 2011 @ 03:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by technical difficulties
reply to post by Primordial
 
So if I'm hearing you correctly, your entire reasoning for owning assault weapons/mods/etc is paranoia?
edit on 12-1-2011 by technical difficulties because: (no reason given)


Typical comment.

Have you ever read a history book? If you had you would know that history is FULL of governments, kings, emperors, etc ... slaughtering their own people. Can never happen here, right? Is that what your thinking. I bet those people throughout history thought the same thing .... until they started being killed by the millions.

I'm not paranoid, just aware.


en.wikipedia.org...


Democide is the murder of any person or people by a government, including genocide, politicide, and mass murder. Democide is not necessarily the elimination of entire cultural groups but rather groups within the country that the government feels need to be eradicated for political reasons and due to claimed future threats.

...

Rummel's counts 43 million deaths due to democide during Stalin's regime inside and outside the Soviet Union. This is much higher than an often quoted figure of 20 million. Rummel has responded that this is based on a figure from Robert Conquest's book The Great Terror from 1968 and that Conquest's qualifier "almost certainly too low" is usually forgotten. Conquest's calculations excluded camp deaths after 1950, and before 1936; executions 1939–53; the vast deportation of the people of captive nations into the camps, and their deaths 1939–1953; the massive deportation within the Soviet Union of minorities 1941–1944 and their deaths; and those the Soviet Red Army and secret police executed throughout Eastern Europe after their conquest during 1944–1945. Moreover, the Holodomor that killed 5 million in 1932–1934 is not included.[citation needed]

His research shows that the death toll from democide is far greater than the death toll from war. After studying over 8,000 reports of government caused deaths, Rummel estimates that there have been 262 million victims of democide in the last century. According to his figures, six times as many people have died from the inflictions of people working for governments than have died in battle.

One of his main findings is that liberal democracies have much less democide than authoritarian regimes.[9] He argues that there is a relation between political power and democide. Political mass murder grows increasingly common as political power becomes unconstrained. At the other end of the scale, where power is diffuse, checked, and balanced, political violence is a rarity. According to Rummel, "The more power a regime has, the more likely people will be killed. This is a major reason for promoting freedom." Rummel concludes: "Concentrated political power is the most dangerous thing on earth."


Have you noticed the gov't grabbing more and more power. It's a natural process. Once they feel they can go no further then the disarming becomes a priority. The pattern has been repeated in the past in other nations. Then what comes next?

Oh, and please define assault weapon. I find most people who use the term really have no clue of what it actually is.
edit on 12-1-2011 by Primordial because: (no reason given)

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



posted on Jan, 12 2011 @ 05:01 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.....


If the Government didn't have their rights as politician's.. eg.. didn't exist, the states would over see themselves and I would ponder what would the country would be like then.. hmmmm

Just saying...

P.S. I hear the Fed's do not contribute to the states infrustucture and other common functions which assists its citizens.. as the states sustain themselves.. or try too under these trying times... what "good" is the U.S. Federal Government to the average people these days who are not employed by them directly or indirectly?

Just saying...



posted on Jan, 12 2011 @ 05:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by Primordial

I agree to a point, who gets to decide, but at the same time I don't want some suicidal schizophrenic contemplating who they are going to take with them. There would have to be a clear definition to adhere to. Not easy, but I feel necessary.


I ponder your inquiry and it leads me to wonder how those in the crossfires by those who subject them to wars they did not ask for or wish to have. Those individuals who do not have a say when a soldier makes his way down a street and indiscriminately fires on the innocents to safe guard his/her right to enforce his employers views on others with deadly accuracy and an agenda.

Where are their rights which you so desperately think your entitled to when others are killed and maned by those whom you do not wish to take action on when you can but won't.

What gives you the right to be subjected to be bound by some law or safeguard when you take away others by not contributing or changing how your society evokes their rights on others elsewhere....

If you voice a right to protect how you wish to live.. then you should by all rights express those views in your society and its government. But instead, you hide in a forum like 98% of the people and write down your dreams, ambitions, aspirations and mock what is wrong with society then take action to do something. This is why "they" are winning and will win.



posted on Jan, 12 2011 @ 05:45 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.....


It really depends on how badly he wanted it. Felons get guns all the time even though they are by law, not allowed to purchase them. If you want to get a gun bad enough, you'll do it. If you're serious enough to go shoot someone, you're serious enough to get a gun by any means.



posted on Jan, 12 2011 @ 08:30 PM
link   
Loughner was stopped by order and with a gun in his face. Without the aid of an armed citizen loughner would have continued to spray bullets.



posted on Jan, 12 2011 @ 08:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by budski
Ever thought they just meant exactly what they said?


I agree, they said exactly what they meant:

"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.

Which means, no law can be passed which would violate the 2nd amendment. Period.



posted on Jan, 12 2011 @ 08:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by Primordial

Originally posted by technical difficulties
reply to post by Primordial
 
So if I'm hearing you correctly, your entire reasoning for owning assault weapons/mods/etc is paranoia?
edit on 12-1-2011 by technical difficulties because: (no reason given)


Typical comment.

Have you ever read a history book? If you had you would know that history is FULL of governments, kings, emperors, etc ... slaughtering their own people. Can never happen here, right? Is that what your thinking. I bet those people throughout history thought the same thing .... until they started being killed by the millions.

I'm not paranoid, just aware.

Maybe in developing countries, but in America of a places, especially in this time? Not at all. Besides, the Government is pretty incompetent anyways (Unless you're one of those types who think it's all an act). Unless you can name a few cases of this happening in a developed nation similar to America, it's based on paranoia.
edit on 12-1-2011 by technical difficulties because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 12 2011 @ 10:49 PM
link   
reply to post by technical difficulties
 


To be fair, can you name a developed nation similar to America?



posted on Jan, 12 2011 @ 10:59 PM
link   
Damn, you guys still falling for the whole left/right BS? You guys never learn, eh?



posted on Jan, 12 2011 @ 11:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by Whereweheaded

Gun Grabbing Congress Critters Come Out of Woodwork After Giffords Shooting



Sorry, but the headline in itself says it all.
Please show me where in historically taught textbooks where it's been advantageous for the people to relinquish their weapons?
One of "their own" was taken out so expect a class rift to become more apparent in the coming months.

b



posted on Jan, 12 2011 @ 11:30 PM
link   
Governments always want your weapons just before they take your sanity. Speaking of sanity, maybe congress should take this guys weapons?www.seattlepi.com...



posted on Jan, 12 2011 @ 11:50 PM
link   
"Congress critters" great phrase you've coined there. I guess they refuse to admit that the assailant was a pot smoking liberal during his "lucid" moments and the congresswoman was not liberal enough for him.
edit on 12-1-2011 by bigrex because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 13 2011 @ 07:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by technical difficulties

Originally posted by Primordial

Originally posted by technical difficulties
reply to post by Primordial
 
So if I'm hearing you correctly, your entire reasoning for owning assault weapons/mods/etc is paranoia?
edit on 12-1-2011 by technical difficulties because: (no reason given)


Typical comment.

Have you ever read a history book? If you had you would know that history is FULL of governments, kings, emperors, etc ... slaughtering their own people. Can never happen here, right? Is that what your thinking. I bet those people throughout history thought the same thing .... until they started being killed by the millions.

I'm not paranoid, just aware.

Maybe in developing countries, but in America of a places, especially in this time? Not at all. Besides, the Government is pretty incompetent anyways (Unless you're one of those types who think it's all an act). Unless you can name a few cases of this happening in a developed nation similar to America, it's based on paranoia.
edit on 12-1-2011 by technical difficulties because: (no reason given)


Being 'developed' has nothing to do with it. Hitlers Germany and Stalins Soviet Union are two examples of developed nations where the people died in the millions because of their own governments actions, either by directly being killed or dieing as a result of policy.

You don't need to be actively hunted down and killed by soldiers or mercenaries to be killed by government. Bad fiscal policy coupled with corruption and disregard for the people could lead to any number of things. Financial collapse, rioting, civil war, ....

The US is currently in a very precarious financial position. The actions of a few nations (as well as our own leaders) could theoretically crash our economy and toss us into a deep depression and hyperinflation. If this were to happen the millions of people dependent on government programs (welfare, social security, unemployment, food stamps, ...) would immediately be cut off financially. Many many others who are unprepared for such a scenario would soon follow. Not to mention that if the police, firemen, and other emergency workers weren't getting paid, they wouldn't be working for very long. I could see some considering it their duty to help for a short while, after a few weeks of no pay they will stop.

If that were to happen, because of government policy and ineptness, we would have millions and millions of people out of work with no money and no way to feed themselves and their families or pay their mortgage or rent.

Few police.
Anger and frustration rising.
Crime increasing.
....

Millions of hungry people with hungry families, either becoming homeless or very close to it, with no help in sight and becoming more desperate with every day that passes. How do suppose that would play out? All because of our governments policies that put us in that position of being vulnerable in the first place. This is not 'out there' or something that 'cannot happen here'. We're actually not, as a nation, in a very good position right now.

Would you want to be able to protect yourself and family? Would you rather have a high cap mag when a mob is coming your way tearing up houses or a 5 round mag? Would you rather have an AR with a few 30 round mags or a single shot bolt action hunting rifle?

You MAY not need it. MAYBE one shot would send the mob running. Maybe. Would you want to risk your families life on a maybe, or would you rather have every advantage you could to protect them.



posted on Jan, 13 2011 @ 01:59 PM
link   
The thing I find funniest is that gun sales shot up 66% after the shooting in AZ.



posted on Jan, 13 2011 @ 03:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by thov420

Originally posted by budski
Ever thought they just meant exactly what they said?


I agree, they said exactly what they meant:

"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.

Which means, no law can be passed which would violate the 2nd amendment. Period.


Oh, bullplop - it's just a matter of time before they find a reason to stamp all over that part of the constitution.

And when it happens, all the little sheeple will gobble up the excuses, the faked emergency or whatever else the corporate owned government throws at you, along with their friends in the MSM who will drill the brainwashing home.



posted on Jan, 13 2011 @ 04:45 PM
link   
The 2nd Amendment, always has and always will be under attack. But due to the fact it is a ' touchy" subject for our beloved politicians, and because they want the vote...that alone should prevent any " rule " over the people that would infringe on the 2nd right.



posted on Jan, 13 2011 @ 04:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by Whereweheaded
The 2nd Amendment, always has and always will be under attack. But due to the fact it is a ' touchy" subject for our beloved politicians, and because they want the vote...that alone should prevent any " rule " over the people that would infringe on the 2nd right.


It won't be the government that overturn it, it will be the corporations.

The same corporations running the prison system on slave labour, and the same corporations that are keeping troops in Iraq and Afghanistan.

I don't really care if you agree or not - the corporations make the rules, the government just dot the i's and cross the t's.

When it comes down to it, it's exactly the same thing that has been written about many times, and by many respected people, including ex-presidents.

America is run by corporations, and when they decide that the 2nd is over, it will be over - and it won't matter a jot to them who loses votes, power or anything else.

Time for you guys to wake up and smell the coffee - the US is run by corporations, for corporations and it matters not a jot who sits in the oval office.




top topics



 
47
<< 13  14  15    17 >>

log in

join