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.

 

Michael Moore - People own guns because they're fearful racists.

page: 13
25
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 20 2011 @ 04:11 PM
link   
This whole argument just really confuses me. Even the pro-gun lobby is for gun control. You are all for gun control, it is just a matter of degrees. You do not advocate babies being armed. You do not advocate personal nuclear weapons. You all just want your own personal version of gun control, like everyone else.




posted on Jan, 20 2011 @ 04:12 PM
link   
reply to post by Patrioitinsheepclothing
 


nah, no fetish. but i appreciate high quality japanese steel, and am actually a prodigious cook.
that has worked against me, too....as now i am working all that extra weight off. I am down about 30 lbs since the first of the month, but when you eat low carb you need those knives to cut up all the meat.



posted on Jan, 20 2011 @ 04:13 PM
link   
Um maybe the reason people have guns is because this country is born of capitalists with no other morals than the ultimate pursuit of money, sometimes at any cost.



posted on Jan, 20 2011 @ 04:22 PM
link   
I am no racist.

I am gun owner. I practice a lot with my guns, but I don't hunt.

I get Christmas cards from jews and palestinians, two beautiful little girls whom I love dearly.

My best man at my wedding was a black man.

So how does me owning guns make me an intolerant racist?



posted on Jan, 20 2011 @ 04:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by Sinnthia
This whole argument just really confuses me. Even the pro-gun lobby is for gun control. You are all for gun control, it is just a matter of degrees. You do not advocate babies being armed. You do not advocate personal nuclear weapons. You all just want your own personal version of gun control, like everyone else.


Break it down even further
PEOPLE CONTROL / BEHAVIOR CONTROL

but since that is even further from being realistic I'll settle for controlling what can happen to me or my loved ones, and even then it's still an unknown, but the odds improve.



posted on Jan, 20 2011 @ 04:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by Sinnthia
This whole argument just really confuses me. Even the pro-gun lobby is for gun control. You are all for gun control, it is just a matter of degrees. You do not advocate babies being armed. You do not advocate personal nuclear weapons. You all just want your own personal version of gun control, like everyone else.


The 2nd amendment is in place strictly to protect the people from their government. The government trying to take it away from us is the exact reason why we have the 2nd amendment and its exactly whats happening right now.

All arguements aside this is the reason we have the option to be armed and imo everyone in this society everyone should be trained in how to use a firearm unless you're a convict or have serious mental health issues at the age of 18.
edit on 20-1-2011 by AndrewJay because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 20 2011 @ 04:31 PM
link   
reply to post by AndrewJay
 


Dont the Swiss have something like that set up for what they call their Army?? Mandatory service of some sort??



posted on Jan, 20 2011 @ 04:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by Patrioitinsheepclothing
reply to post by AndrewJay
 


Dont the Swiss have something like that set up for what they call their Army?? Mandatory service of some sort??


Im not saying mandatory but you should be given the option at 18 to be trained in how to use a firearm unless you're a convict or show obvious signs of mental illness. Nothing should be mandatory aside from taxes and death.



posted on Jan, 20 2011 @ 04:34 PM
link   
reply to post by AndrewJay
 


Got news for you we do own you lol

Queen Elizabeth controls and has amended U.S. Social Security, as follows:

S.I. 1997 NO.1778 The Social Security ( United States of America)
Order 1997 Made 22nd of July 1997 coming into force 1st September 1997. At
the Court at Buckingham Palace the 22nd day of July 1997. Now, therefore Her
Majesty an pursuance of section 179 (1) (a) and (2) of the Social Security
Administration Act of 1992 and all other powers enabling Her in that behalf,
is please, by and with advise of Her privy Council, to order, and it is
hereby ordered as follows:

"This Order may be cited as the Social Security (United States of America)
Order 1997 and shall come into force on 1st September 1997."

Does this give a new meaning to Federal Judge William Wayne Justice
stating in court that he takes his orders from England? This order goes on to
redefine words in the Social Security Act and makes some changes in United
States Law.

do a search on this site tpuc.co.uk for this title THIS IS A MUST READ!! CROWN, COUNTRY, BANKS, AMERICA, THE LISBON TREATY! you will be very surprised



posted on Jan, 20 2011 @ 04:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by AndrewJay
The 2nd amendment is in place strictly to protect the people from their government. The government trying to take it away from us is the exact reason why we have the 2nd amendment and its exactly whats happening right now.


Until I see you pushing for toddlers to have access to chemical weapons or personal tanks, planes, carriers, etc, that is the most empty group of words one can pen.


All arguements aside this is the reason we have the option to be armed and imo everyone in this society everyone should be trained in how to use a firearm unless you're a convict or have serious mental health issues at the age of 18.
edit on 20-1-2011 by AndrewJay because: (no reason given)


Like I said, you are all for gun control. What are you arguing?



posted on Jan, 20 2011 @ 04:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by HappilyEverAfter
Break it down even further
PEOPLE CONTROL / BEHAVIOR CONTROL

but since that is even further from being realistic I'll settle for controlling what can happen to me or my loved ones, and even then it's still an unknown, but the odds improve.


I am not sure how this applies to or addresses what I wrote.
Can you please elaborate if you wish me to understand.



posted on Jan, 20 2011 @ 04:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by Sinnthia

Originally posted by AndrewJay
The 2nd amendment is in place strictly to protect the people from their government. The government trying to take it away from us is the exact reason why we have the 2nd amendment and its exactly whats happening right now.


Until I see you pushing for toddlers to have access to chemical weapons or personal tanks, planes, carriers, etc, that is the most empty group of words one can pen.


All arguements aside this is the reason we have the option to be armed and imo everyone in this society everyone should be trained in how to use a firearm unless you're a convict or have serious mental health issues at the age of 18.
edit on 20-1-2011 by AndrewJay because: (no reason given)


Like I said, you are all for gun control. What are you arguing?


Im for gun control when its obvious the person shouldnt have a gun like being a child, a convicted fellon or someone with a mental illness. Nobody in this thread would agree to giving a pistol to either of those persons. Laws do need to be in place and thats something I wont argue against, but taking the ability to own a firearm from responsible individuals goes against our constitution and needs to be stopped.

If you're going to start an arguement atleast be practical.



posted on Jan, 20 2011 @ 04:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by AndrewJay
Im for gun control when its obvious the person shouldnt have a gun like being a child, a convicted fellon or someone with a mental illness.


Gun control is gun control no matter how many words you add after it.


Nobody in this thread would agree to giving a pistol to either of those persons.


Which is why I pointed out that everyone in this thread is for gun control. My point stands, does it not?


Laws do need to be in place and thats something I wont argue against, but taking the ability to own a firearm from responsible individuals goes against our constitution and needs to be stopped.


Okey dokey.


If you're going to start an arguement atleast be practical.




I made a statement. You are arguing with it and hardly being practical about it.



posted on Jan, 20 2011 @ 04:43 PM
link   
reply to post by FlyersFan
 


doesn't canada have a higher percent of private gun ownership.... and with less violence???



posted on Jan, 20 2011 @ 04:45 PM
link   
Liberalism has led to the destruction of societies and empires down through the centuries. The Greek and Roman empires are two perfect examples. What makes people think that this empire won't collapse, or hasn't already? From where I sit its rather obvious that the brain just doesn't realize that this body is dead already. When people realize just how bad the situation is, then the trouble will really start to happen. Directly relates to the prophecy that declared that a 'time of trouble' would occur near the end of this age!



posted on Jan, 20 2011 @ 05:02 PM
link   
reply to post by Sinnthia
 



I am opposed to all forms of gun control. ALL forms.

Our second amendment says "keep and bear arms", not "keep and bear guns". It does not distinguish between arms. Since it was meant to fight tyranny, my opinion is that whatever Uncle Sam has in his arsenal should be fair game.

I also don't think convicts should be omitted. If you are a legal citizen of the US, you are entitled to full protection under the US constitution. This means that kids don't get guns because they are not legal citizens until the age of 18.



posted on Jan, 20 2011 @ 05:07 PM
link   
I for one believe in the right to own a gun responsibly. I am not going to go out looking for trouble. I am not racist. If you come breaking in my home I'm going to shoot you I don't care what race or nationality you happen to be.I'm going to shoot you. I think the biggest problem with all the crap going on here is "people watch too much tv and movies" They think the real world is like that. Now before you laugh at this idea why don't the people who are condemning talk radio and some of the politicians "rhetoric" on the Tuscon shooting look at the Media (tv,movies, music) for some of this s#!t . They cannot have it both ways. Besides, if you don't want me to shoot you Do not break in on me.



posted on Jan, 20 2011 @ 05:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan
reply to post by Sinnthia
 



I am opposed to all forms of gun control. ALL forms.

Our second amendment says "keep and bear arms", not "keep and bear guns". It does not distinguish between arms. Since it was meant to fight tyranny, my opinion is that whatever Uncle Sam has in his arsenal should be fair game.


Agreed 100%. I have always maintained that it does not specify what types of arms so to narrow the view to just guns is already accepting control and limits. You unfortunately seem to be rather rare in that.


I also don't think convicts should be omitted. If you are a legal citizen of the US, you are entitled to full protection under the US constitution. This means that kids don't get guns because they are not legal citizens until the age of 18.


Children are not legal citizens until they are 18? Sorry I guess I never heard that before.



posted on Jan, 20 2011 @ 05:22 PM
link   
I personally believe that guns should remain legal to fight the governmet when they cross the line (for me they already have).



posted on Jan, 20 2011 @ 05:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by hotpockets128
I personally believe that guns should remain legal to fight the governmet when they cross the line (for me they already have).


Mind if I ask how you used or are using your guns to fight back now that they have already crossed the line?



new topics

top topics



 
25
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join