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: 15
25
<< 12  13  14    16  17  18 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 20 2011 @ 07:32 PM
link   
AHEM!!!

Kindly STAY On Topic and cease the personal sniping back and forth. They add nothing to the issue at hand. If you find yourself unable to do so perhaps its time to take a break from this topic and explore another and come back

Cheers
FredT




posted on Jan, 20 2011 @ 08:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by Tollon

* "We need guns to protect our property"
No you don't. You have the right to protect your property and your family, but you can do it just as well with a non lethal weapon. If you catch a burglar breaking in and you get a good aim at him with your gun - what difference to the cause of protecting your property and family is it to you, if the gun you are aiming with is a stun gun/bean bag gun etc or a lethal one? None. You still take him out and fulfill your goal to protect what is yours. I do however think it will make a big difference for HIM. He might be a lowlife and a criminal, a terrorist or taliban or whatever, but he is still your fellow man on this earth. As much as you have the right to protect what is legally yours, I think you have an obligation to save a fellow man's life if you can do so.


Nope. He gave up all rights to that classification as soon as he broke into MY house, and became a threat. He then gets reclassified from "fellow man" to "moving target". I have no obligation whatsoever to treat that target with kid gloves. If his folks didn't teach him any better, he's not mine to instruct. One thing is for sure - if h survives to continue his predations, he'll think long and hard about his next victim.



* "You don't blame a pencil for a spelling mistake, why blame guns for killings? It's the hand holding the tool that is guilty of it's actions."
True, but a pen is designed and optimized for writing on a paper. A GUN IS DESIGNED AND OPTIMIZED FOR KILLING. That's a big difference. That goes for all other aguments such as "if you really want to kill someone you don't need a gun. You could get a knife/rock/your hands to do it. Should we ban them to?"
No, because a knife/rock/your hands aren't designed to kill someone. They COULD be used to do it, but those tools have other more useful purposes. A GUN IS DESIGNED AND OPTIMIZED FOR KILLING ONLY.


Now, do you think if you or I are killed with a fountain pen, that it's really going to make any difference to our corpses or families that the instrument wasn't "designed" to kill? I've owned guns nearly all my life, of several different varieties. NOT A SINGLE ONE WAS "DESIGNED TO KILL". They were designed to propel slugs, some with greater efficiency than others.. What I choose to do with those slugs is up to me, not the gun mechanism or designer.



posted on Jan, 20 2011 @ 08:09 PM
link   
reply to post by Sinnthia
 


Can a child own property? If they can, then i would suppose it is then up to the parent and the seller to decide what they will do.

My point is that it is a moot point until such point that children are afforded the full rights as adults (such as a right to vote).



posted on Jan, 20 2011 @ 08:18 PM
link   
So, everyone in the world who owns a gun is a racist? Hmm, sorry Mike, but that is too much of a stretch for me.

I am sure that there are gun owners who are racist, but honestly I have never met one. I have met plenty of non gun owners who are racist. I wonder what their excuse is.

Bottom line, stereo typing a whole group of people to be all the same is prejudice Mr. Moore. This is exactly what you did in calling every gun owner racist. You, Sir, just made a prejudice statement. Are you sure you don't own a gun yourself?

Oh wait, is it different when you make a prejudiced statement? That's odd, that would suggest that you think yourself superior to others.... Wait a second....

Mr. Moore. There have been plenty of times I have agreed with you. This time I could not disagree more.


edit on 20-1-2011 by gimme_some_truth because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 20 2011 @ 08:25 PM
link   
Let me try this again. Apologies for falling for diversions when the actual poster in question never weighed in. So, as I tried so many times before, BACK ON TOPIC...


Originally posted by hotpockets128
I personally believe that guns should remain legal to fight the governmet when they cross the line


That seems fair. Guns to fight the US government. I have to question how well that would work though. The Germans had guns in WWII, right? Maybe you should have more than guns?

My point is, I question if that is really something anyone actually believes or just something people say to themself for some abstract feel good reason.


(for me they already have).


So, if you feel guns should be legal to fight the government whenever they cross the line
and guns are legal
and you say they have crossed the line

are you using your guns to fight that or just letting it happen all while claiming your guns will protect you from it? I assumed you would get my question and did not take into account the diverse audience on ATS.
I am not asking for personal infor and an ammo count. I am questioning the logic of statement A verses statement B in this post by THIS POSTER. Thank you.
edit on 20-1-2011 by Sinnthia because: adding US to a sentence for further clarification.



posted on Jan, 20 2011 @ 08:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan
reply to post by Sinnthia
 


Can a child own property? If they can, then i would suppose it is then up to the parent and the seller to decide what they will do.


That entirely depends on your definition of child and property which legally have some fluidity. Like I said, a 16 year old can do all those thigns in some places. Would you call 16 a child? If not, then what does that make of your requirement of 18?

Does the rest of your statement mean that you feel "children" should have the right to bear arms as long as...
well I am not sure what stipulations you have settled on. Paying taxes, owning property, I am trying to get specific. Either everyone had a right to every kind of weapon including toddlers owning nuclear arms, or there should be certain controls in place. Why is this getting so convoluted?


My point is that it is a moot point until such point that children are afforded the full rights as adults (such as a right to vote).


My point is that claiming you are against gun control is almost always followed by "I mean except for......" is nothing but hypocrisy. You can maybe bicker about what makes a person a full fledged citizen deserving of rights under the constitution in maybe another thread.
My premise is simple. Either the right to bear arms shall not be abridged is clear as day and means what it says - ANYONE cand own ANY KIND of weapon...or people are all for at least some degree of controls on that. Why is it so hard to just admit you are for gun control? Will they kick you out of a club?



posted on Jan, 20 2011 @ 08:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by Sinnthia
The Germans had guns in WWII, right? Maybe you should have more than guns?



It turns out that you are "slightly incorrect" again.

The German army had guns
, but not so the general population.

source

The whole article is very interesting reading - especially the parts about how Jews were singled out.


Nazi Weapons Act of 1938 (Translated to English)

Classified guns for "sporting purposes".
All citizens who wished to purchase firearms had to register with the Nazi officials and have a background check.
Presumed German citizens were hostile and thereby exempted Nazis from the gun control law.
Gave Nazis unrestricted power to decide what kinds of firearms could, or could not be owned by private persons.
The types of ammunition that were legal were subject to control by bureaucrats.
Juveniles under 18 years could not buy firearms and ammunition.



edit on 1/20/2011 by centurion1211 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 20 2011 @ 08:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by Sinnthia


Originally posted by hotpockets128
I personally believe that guns should remain legal to fight the governmet when they cross the line


That seems fair. Guns to fight the government. I have to question how well that would work though. The Germans had guns in WWII, right? Maybe you should have more than guns?



No.



"The laws adopted by the Weimar Republic intended to disarm Nazis and Communists were sufficiently discretionary that the Nazis managed to use them against their enemies once they were in power." In other words, they didn't need to pass additional laws. The Nazis did pass a weapons law in 1938, but that only added restrictions to the previous law, especially for Jews and other "non-citizens."


This is from Clayton Cramer, cited in an article attempting to disprove the allegation that the Nazis banned gun ownership in 1935. What it succeeded in proving was that the year 1935 was in error, not the allegation of a restriction on gun ownership in Nazi Germany.

Source: The Straight Dope



posted on Jan, 20 2011 @ 08:39 PM
link   
reply to post by nenothtu
 

reply to post by centurion1211
 


How did you both miss that by so much? Were the German citizens the ones fighting the US government? I think you both need to re-read that post and give that another shot. Or are you both trying to claim that the US was fighting an unarmed military?

I now edited in two letters to help. I can try the point again but I feel that some people were just looking to argue. The poster I was writing to (are you all his protectors?) said we have guns to fight the government. Well, our government did a pretty good job of fighting the Germans during WWII and the last I checked, they were armed. I thought that was pretty obvious but I guess I can see how it could have been read. The German military had guns and fought the US government. How did that work out? Now, you can pick apart my example even further and I can just find a better one. Or you can all let that poster maybe address me themself before pouncing for crying out loud. I had hoped speaking of the US government and specifically saying WWII and not the Nazi takeover of Germany was kind of clear. I do know at least one of you is smarter than this. Perhaps some people are just full of anger and looking to bicker about anything and everything?
edit on 20-1-2011 by Sinnthia because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 20 2011 @ 08:51 PM
link   
reply to post by Sinnthia
 


The post was about FIGHTING THE GOVERNMENT if necessary.

You said the German (people) had guns - WRONGLY inferring that they could/should have done something about the nazis - which just isn't true.

What you said about the German people in WW II also has NOTHING to do with this discussion regarding armed citizens in in the U.S. in case our government "goes rogue".

Fact checking yourself never hurts.




posted on Jan, 20 2011 @ 09:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by centurion1211
reply to post by Sinnthia
 


The post was about FIGHTING THE GOVERNMENT if necessary.


Which government?


You said the German (people) had guns - WRONGLY inferring that they could/should have done something about the nazis - which just isn't true.


No, that is what you inferred but not what I said or even implied. I said the Germans during WWII. I know I did not specify WHICH Germans I meant but since we were talking about WWII and the US government, I thought it was clear. I have since clarified. You insist on seeing something that is not there. You assumed and you assumed wrong. Sorry.


What you said about the German people in WW II also has NOTHING to do with this discussion regarding armed citizens in in the U.S. in case our government "goes rogue".


Probably because I never said it.


Fact checking yourself never hurts.



Reading and understanding context is great too.

I think my point is more than clear now. Now you are nitpicking to nitpick or you have something to say about the point that having even more than guns is not always enough to stop the US from doing what it wants. I never said anything about the Germans PEOPLE stopping the Nazis. That is not in my post anywhere.

Last I checked, during WWII, the US was not fighting against an unarmed nation.
edit on 20-1-2011 by Sinnthia because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 20 2011 @ 09:05 PM
link   
reply to post by Sinnthia
 


Well, it appeared to me that the discussion was about an armed citizenry against an oppressive government, not war between two governments.

Now, was the original assertion on which you pounced that governments just can't take on governments, or was it:



Originally posted by hotpockets128
I personally believe that guns should remain legal to fight the governmet when they cross the line


?

If that was the original argument, how does it morph into a "government versus government" argument, and when did that happen? Doesn't that sort of change it to a comparison of apples and propeller beanies?



posted on Jan, 20 2011 @ 09:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by nenothtu
reply to post by Sinnthia
 


Well, it appeared to me that the discussion was about an armed citizenry against an oppressive government, not war between two governments.


I get that, that is why I have since added clarification. Why are we still going over it?


Now, was the original assertion on which you pounced that governments just can't take on governments, or was it:



Originally posted by hotpockets128
I personally believe that guns should remain legal to fight the governmet when they cross the line


?

If that was the original argument, how does it morph into a "government versus government" argument, and when did that happen? Doesn't that sort of change it to a comparison of apples and propeller beanies?



No, it was never about government on government or people on government. It was simply about the US government being vulnerable to a group of people with guns. What constitutes that group really does not matter. Just having guns does not make you a threay to the US government. As I pointed out, being a well armed military does not make you a threat to the US government so....just having a gun kind of makes you even less of a threat than that nonthreat. Get it yet?

I take umbrage with saying I pounced on any argument. I simply asked a poster a question about something they said. What the three of you have done is more akin to pouncing and arguing than anything I was doing
edit on 20-1-2011 by Sinnthia because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 20 2011 @ 09:14 PM
link   
Personally, I never did like the guy. But using the race card as the OP mentioned is quite tiresome. Guns are supposed to be used PRIMARILY for protection against the "bad guys" (for those living in the cities) and "hungry animals" (for those living in the country).



posted on Jan, 20 2011 @ 09:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by Sinnthia

Originally posted by nenothtu
reply to post by Sinnthia
 


Well, it appeared to me that the discussion was about an armed citizenry against an oppressive government, not war between two governments.


I get that, that is why I have since added clarification. Why are we still going over it?


Because I wanted to, and you were willing to comply. You let me take lead in this dance. I'll back down from it now...



No, it was never about government on government or people on government. It was simply about the US government being vulnerable to a group of people with guns. What constitutes that group really does not matter.


Actually, the composition does sort of matter, since the question under discussion is the rationale for "the right of the people to keep and bear arms", rather than "the right of the government of Nazi Germany to keep and bear arms"



Just having guns does not make you a threay to the US government.


That should be as self-evident as the fact of having apples doesn't make me an apple pie, either. It's what you do with what you have that makes the difference. Fact is, I'm not a threat to the government presently, armed or not, because the government is not yet a credible threat to ME. Oh, they've passed legislation to try to take away my freedoms, but as yet have been supremely unsuccessful at that endeavor. Therefore, they are not a threat yet, either - at least no more so than I and my arms.



As I pointed out, being a well armed military does not make you a threat to the US government so....just having a gun kind of makes you even less of a threat than that nonthreat. Get it yet?


Actually, that "well armed military" you speak of was a threat to the US government - otherwise, there would have been no need for a fight. Do you know other folks who go around fighting non-threats? I submit that they may not be the most stable of individuals if you do, and perhaps should seek some sort of counselling.



I take umbrage with saying I pounced on any argument. I simply asked a poster a question about something they said. What the three of you have done is more akin to pouncing and arguing than anything I was doing.


I apologize to you for my poor choice of words. I was out of line.



posted on Jan, 20 2011 @ 10:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by Sinnthia

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan
reply to post by Sinnthia
 


Can a child own property? If they can, then i would suppose it is then up to the parent and the seller to decide what they will do.


That entirely depends on your definition of child and property which legally have some fluidity. Like I said, a 16 year old can do all those thigns in some places. Would you call 16 a child? If not, then what does that make of your requirement of 18?

Does the rest of your statement mean that you feel "children" should have the right to bear arms as long as...
well I am not sure what stipulations you have settled on. Paying taxes, owning property, I am trying to get specific. Either everyone had a right to every kind of weapon including toddlers owning nuclear arms, or there should be certain controls in place. Why is this getting so convoluted?


My point is that it is a moot point until such point that children are afforded the full rights as adults (such as a right to vote).


My point is that claiming you are against gun control is almost always followed by "I mean except for......" is nothing but hypocrisy. You can maybe bicker about what makes a person a full fledged citizen deserving of rights under the constitution in maybe another thread.
My premise is simple. Either the right to bear arms shall not be abridged is clear as day and means what it says - ANYONE cand own ANY KIND of weapon...or people are all for at least some degree of controls on that. Why is it so hard to just admit you are for gun control? Will they kick you out of a club?


I will admit to whatever it is that is truthful.

I am not making up the age of 18 arbitrarily. I am depending on the legal defintion of an adult. If a child has a gun, their parents are responsible. Age of consent. I would suppose it is up to each state to decide what is best in that state.

If you want to be honest here, I personally do not care. Gun laws do not prevent anything, people who want something bad enough will get it regardless of law. The laws are often just silly inconveniences to the willful. So make all the laws you want, and see how ineffective it will be. You can even ban the manufacture...i can make a pretty deadly weapon using a can of hairspray, some pvc, a potato, and an ignitor from an old lighter. I could construct it in about 15 minutes, and shoot out a car window. We made one once that shot a bowling ball from a cast iron pipe using nitro as the propellant. We fired it from across the yard, behind the shed. Collapsed the side of a Pinto when we finally got the aim down. Oh, the young and the stupid.

Are you being obtuse on purpose? And do you think making a law about something makes any difference to anyone but the docile sheep of society?



posted on Jan, 20 2011 @ 10:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by Imightknow

Yes, are government is taking away our rights left and right and nobody is doing anything about it, fine. Have armed Americans done anything about it yet? NOT YET, but the time is coming. Don't know when and I don't care, all I know is that it is coming. You can only tread on people for so long before they bite back. Yes, unfortunately we Americans are allowing wayyyyyyyy to much pushing without pushing back, and it's sad, but it will happen.


They took your rights? Why'd you let THAT happen? They've only tried to take mine, by sitting on their chunky asses in DC and passing ineffective and unenforceable legislative tripe AIMED AT taking those rights. They haven't actually gotten around to taking anything from me at all. I've still got all my rights, intact. I never gave them up.

Now, if one sunny morn they come marching up to try to ENFORCE that nonsense, then it's game on, and all bets are off. Until then, they've not taken a damned thing other than a paycheck.

Silly politicians, thinking they can legislate away a right!



posted on Jan, 20 2011 @ 10:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by macman

You are not as free as I am.


LOL you just keep telling yourself that mate, even though the rest of the world knows that is complete bollocks. But whatever floats your boat I guess - do they sell tickets to the Fantasyland you live in?



posted on Jan, 20 2011 @ 10:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by kerazeesicko
And the argument that other countries are just jealous...is such a playground insult. Nyah nyah ur juss jealous...lol. I thought this site was full of adults...not school children in a sandbox...


This man speaks truth. This is what us 'foreigners' hear a lot from Americans - "Shutup, you're just jealous of our 'freedoms'. LMFAO. What a joke.



posted on Jan, 20 2011 @ 10:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by Kryties
reply to post by Imightknow
 


Also, you do realise that man hunted animals for food LONG before guns were invented don't you? Your fearmongering about people without guns starving when TSHTF is a load of nonsense. Anyone with half a brain can make a bow and arrows, or set a trap etc

Nice try though.


Spoken like a man who has never made bows, arrows, or set a trap. It's not something you can just read about in a book and then go DO, with ANY expectation of success!

Yeah, Imightknow is right. There's gonna be a lot of staving predators out there! Damn shame they won't be armed well enough to do much about it, ain't it?




top topics



 
25
<< 12  13  14    16  17  18 >>

log in

join