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.

 

Pete King bill would ban guns within 1,000 feet of lawmakers

page: 3
23
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 11 2011 @ 08:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by JayXBraun
reply to post by Cygnis
 


i agree with you 100%!
americans should start training everyone!
everyone in america joins the military already anyway..
bring back the wilwild west!


It would hardly be the wild-west, tho I am sure there would be a few who would end up being ignorant, or delusional, but would vastly cut down on the current crime-sprees.

That is my opinion, others disagree, and that is their right.. but obviously the anti-gun rhetoric, and gun bans and gun laws haven't helped much but punish the law-abiding citizens. Nor can we simply "Throw all the guns away".

Banning guns from within 1,000 feet of someone... pfft. Might as well ban knives, sewing needles, nail files, hammers, screw-drivers, pens, pencils, steel-toed boots and shoes, roller-skates, glass bottles, plastic bottles, clip-boards, sticks, canes, walkers, leashes, rope, and everything else, because if someone is truly bent on killing someone, anything can be used.. This goes for politicians, and the common man.. Look at the U.K. they use knives and clubs to commit crime.

Violence is a human trait, it's based off of emotion, and until we can rid ourselves of emotion and violence, we are prone to it. There will always be killing, death, and other unpleasant things.. Welcome to life.. nothing is fair, and you will die eventually.




posted on Jan, 11 2011 @ 08:24 PM
link   
I don't know why the focus is on firearms when the focus should be on the individual.

It's well known that this Jared Loughner gave people the creeps before his killing rampage this past Saturday. Classmates that knew him said he was a bit weird, so to say, and some classmates were scared to be in the same room with him. One of his teachers even commented that he didn't like having his back turned to Jared while he was present in class.

Here's what I'm coming to. There should be a law stating that when an individual shows signs of behavior that could lead to violence, this individual should be reported to authorities for a mental evaluation. If the individual in question should commit acts that result in the deaths of innocent lives and investigation shows that friends, family, co-workers, classmates, etc. were aware of any behavioral abnormalities, then charges could be brought against individuals who had knowledge of behavioral changes in individuals who commit violent crimes such as the one Jared Loughner is guilty of.

I know that this may sound a bit harsh but stricter gun laws aren't going to help decrease the violence that mentally-ill people inflict on society. You'll hear things like, "That guy's crazy. He'd be dangerous if he had a gun." and then "I knew he was crazy. I knew he'd do something like this' only after a person goes on a killing spree. The signs were there and nothing was done.

The thing about lawmakers is they want themselves to look good by coming up with legislation only other lawmakers will agree with. They don't care about the voter who is mentally stable and law-abiding. It's easier to make a criminal out of them than to solve any real problems.



posted on Jan, 11 2011 @ 08:35 PM
link   
reply to post by Intelearthling
 


Perhaps the reason that we only hear "Yes, he was always weird," after a killing spree is that the knowledge of the killing spree changes what people say, and how people perceive events in retrospect. For example, if it turned out that ATS was a US government organisation for keeping conspiracy theorists from stating their views in a more unrestricted format, you might think back to all the threads that had been deleted, and all the times that members got banned, or posts got trimmed, and think "Yes, I always thought something fishy was going on", when, in fact, you didn't.

Elizabeth Loftus proved, beyond reasonable doubt, that even the way a question is worded can effect your perception of your own memories, and that's why so many countries now have laws about not leading the witness. An event like this would surely be much more powerful in that respect.


(EDIT: My point - just because people say that they always thought he was weird doesn't mean that he was. And do you really think that being psychoanalysed because a classmate or teacher, possibly in heightened sensitivity after an event like this, thinks that you're a bit odd is LESS invasive than gun restrictions?)
edit on 11/1/2011 by TheWill because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 11 2011 @ 08:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by schuyler
Let's see. It's alreeady against the law to take a gun onto a college campus like Virginia Tech or a high school campus like Colombine or a mall like the Tacoma Mall, and yet, somehow, the antagonists who committed crimes in all three places failed to read the signs!

I'm sure a law like this will work and that had this Jared character actually known it was illegal to be within a thousand feet of this representative he would have sighed in frustration, turned a round, and walked dejectedly away,


Seriously, this law is all about trampling on the rights of Americans.

I'm sure if somebody in the US wants to go on a massacre that a stupid law like this is going to stop them. They see it as a one-way mission anyways. And really, what are the police going to do, forcibly search anyone within a 300m of a government official to see if they might be concealing a gun?

Obviously the US government wants its people to be disarmed. Government officials have police, special agents, and military soldiers to protect them, so disarming regular Americans would be nothing but beneficial to them.



posted on Jan, 11 2011 @ 11:08 PM
link   
reply to post by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi
 


Either totally disarmed, or to where they make it so hard to get a gun, or be anywhere with a gun it will not be worth it. Making it where it will be too expensive to buy ammo with high arms tax... What good is a gun without ammo? You could make your own of course but what if they make it hard to get black powder? I still think this should be political suicide for King or ANY politician who would like to restrict our rights.



posted on Jan, 11 2011 @ 11:24 PM
link   
What is some one made a old type bow and arrow. I mean an old one like used back 300 and 400 years ago and killed some one like this. Would they try and ban the building material to make bows and arrows? The answer is yes. They would try some crap like making you show ID to buy something that could be used as a bow string or some other crap. They do this every time something happens. They do thing just to be doing them trying to make it look like that are doing something. It all is a big pile of B/S.



posted on Jan, 12 2011 @ 12:07 AM
link   
All of these new gun bans/laws ect are so stupid, do you really think that you can stop someone that wants to do something like this....Illegal guns are easier to get then a licensed one the fact that jarad used a legal gun means nothing he could have just as easily used an illegal one, just as anyone else could...

Along with that what are you going to do search everyone without 1000ft of a government person? good luck with that...

Ever heard of a sniper rifle, seemed to work for JFK

Why are people so stupid it just doesn't make sense make all the laws you want, when the government spits in the face of the people, the people will fight back... WHAT DO YOU EXPECT? but thats what they want so they can try to take all of our rights away.

The biggest problem is the amount of people we have now in America its almost impossible to say oh well lets just take down the government because if you did then everything would stop in its tracks and we would all be #ed... So what do you do when you can no longer trust the government to have the people best interest at heart and view us as sheep? I have no clue if I knew that answer to that I would surely tell you.

Most of the population is so scared of what could happen if something changed they would rather just let the government do whatever they want as long as it doesn't affect their life the problem is they don't understand that it will it will just be a matter of time...

Watch the movie equilibrium and that is what the government wants, conform or be cleansed.



posted on Jan, 12 2011 @ 12:45 AM
link   
this will never fly ... cause then we'd know for sure it was a sniper hit ... gotta keep the 'plausible deniability' concept going at all costs. And remember, if a crisis does not exist, create one.



posted on Jan, 12 2011 @ 12:46 AM
link   
I honestly don't think that the people that are going to shoot these asinine lawmakers really care about laws



posted on Jan, 12 2011 @ 01:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by 46ACE

Originally posted by MisterCrowley
reply to post by thisguyrighthere
 


While you are correct on both ends, my sniper comment is based on the *1,000ft* BS.


See that's the progression Nobody NEEDs any:,evil "saturday night specials"; "evil black assault rifles"...nasty high power centerfire "Sniper" weapons( remington model 700 ;ruger and browing bolt action hunting rifles.) coming soon
devastating "terror weapon" shotguns( remington 870 /1100 mosberg 500) .
edit on 11-1-2011 by 46ACE because: (no reason given)

and that's a good point because they Will go after the shotguns first ... they are not required to be registered. The tptb have no clue how many, where or when they'll show up and that really rattles their cage.



posted on Jan, 12 2011 @ 01:08 AM
link   
you know what i find hilarious about the whole concept?
the fact that the most heinous, long-lasting, crime sprees were committed withOUT guns.
from the crazed serial killers to the lunatics that swipe children and lock them away for years as sex slaves.

when and if we address the problems like those mentioned above, then it's time to look at guns, again (maybe)
i only say maybe because as previously stated, the intent to do harm has nothing to do with a gun.

besides, as the govt probably sees it ... who needs to impose martial law when state law already accomplishes it?
edit on 12-1-2011 by Honor93 because: add text



posted on Jan, 12 2011 @ 01:22 AM
link   
What makes federal officials more important than the rest of us?

Maybe they're worried about reprisals due to something they're about to do?

Or he's just another Illuminati puppet using Gifford as an excuse to ban guns.



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

Originally posted by anumohi
I honestly don't think that the people that are going to shoot these asinine lawmakers really care about laws


Yeah.

Why don't they make a law saying it's illegal to murder someone, and stop things like this happening once and for all?



posted on Jan, 12 2011 @ 03:59 AM
link   
reply to post by MisterCrowley
 


Lame. Did people freak out like this when President Kennedy or Abe Lincoln was shot? NO. I have an idea for a new law: "It would be illegal for someone to knowingly carry a gun within 1,000 feet of ANOTHER HUMAN BEING." I love how our "high-ranking federal officials" actually care about our well-being.

PS, if this passes, looks like Dick Cheney won't be hanging out with his D.C. posse anytime soon.



posted on Jan, 12 2011 @ 05:35 AM
link   
They said nothing about rocket propelled grenade launchers



posted on Jan, 12 2011 @ 07:26 AM
link   
How would such a law even be enforced? If someone had a gun with a criminal desire, and it was concealed, no one would know. Honest law abiding people would not have a gun, but a criminal intended person could, and he'd be the only one with a gun.



posted on Jan, 12 2011 @ 07:28 AM
link   
Near the end of three pages now and not of the gun grabbers from the plethora of other threads has popped in to say "hey, this is a great idea!"




 
Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com
 



posted on Jan, 12 2011 @ 11:20 AM
link   
reply to post by TheWill
 


I can see your point and it makes sense. What I was referring to is that we come into contact with people that are either withdrawn with questionable behavior or they have a tendency to verbally or physically express violent behavior on a continuous basis. Continued anger from a person is not normal behavior. These are the people who exhibit abusive behavior to everyone around them. You've got to admit that non-hunting, reclusive people who show up at a pawn shop or gun store to purchase firearms and accessories display a behavior that can be questionable.

I haven't purchased a firearm in 6 years. There's no need. The guns I own will still be in great shape years after I've passed from this plane of existence. I'll take them out so often for inspection and the occasional target practice. I'm not a gun freak. I know that a firearm is a tool that will be handy when the time comes to use it.

To me, it's better to have a gun and not need it than to need a gun and not have it.

Getting back to the display of unusual behavior patterns of questionable people, you'll have to admit that the people who display anger and/or talk about violence on a continuous basis do not have a normal social life. "Normal" people tend to distant themselves from these individuals for different reasons and the primary reason is a concern for their own safety.



posted on Jan, 12 2011 @ 12:20 PM
link   
reply to post by Intelearthling
 


Likewise, I do get your point, but there are a great many recluses/introverts/sociopaths that aren't a danger to themselves or others, and how reclusive/introverted/sociopathic does someone have to be to for someone to call the cops and say "I think this person's unbalanced! Send white coats!" ?

It would be more appropriate if people buying guns had to first prove that they had no previous convictions, and weren't a danger to themselves or others. And even besides the issue of the sale of second hand guns, I seriously doubt that the american public would find that idea appealing.


Sociopaths have rights, too!

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



posted on Jan, 12 2011 @ 12:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheWill
Sociopaths have rights, too!


Thanks for re-assuring me that I have rights.


Just kidding! No I'm not! Yes I am.


But really, some people do keep to themselves and there's nothing wrong with being introverted. It's just that being paranoid, schizophrenic and delusional combined with an introverted personality is something to scrutinize.




top topics



 
23
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join