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.

 

Time to take the gun from the American public!

page: 50
48
<< 47  48  49    51  52  53 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 8 2012 @ 02:18 PM
link   
reply to post by nenothtu
 



Oh, no doubt the swindlers make it hard on most folks. Speculation and trading in futures should carry a prison sentence rather than a back pat. I'm thinking 20 years would not be excessive. Those activities are not "capitalism", they are theft, pure and simple. They make their money by betting you will have some at some future point, then stealing it before you can get your hands on it.


Capitalism is BASED on investment and speculation. It is nearly impossible to seperate those elements and that is why many people have a beef with capitalism. Sooner or later the people who accumulate the most wealth have a monopoly on influence and power indirectly.

If the anti-trust laws were enforced whenever necessary going back centuries, banking was treated seperately from investment&speculation, spending was porpotionate to the money collected, less wars, less ufo research, less bailling out other nations THEN obviously capitalism COULD work.

Yes speculation on future contracts is the worst of all. Basically they are rellying that speculators keep up with the minutetest details to fix prices based on current events. At least 50% of it is psychological pressure which has no basis in reality. I would prefer that only the parties directly involved in the trade get to haggle and once a deal is reached they accept delivery.
edit on 4/8/2012 by EarthCitizen07 because: (no reason given)




posted on Apr, 8 2012 @ 04:17 PM
link   
Deleted because I accidentally posted before I was finished.
edit on 8-4-2012 by BenReclused because: Mistake



posted on Apr, 8 2012 @ 06:47 PM
link   
There are currently over 7.5 million valid Conceal and Carry Permits issued in the United States.
Source

Here are the Violence Policy Center's murder and murder-suicide stats regarding those individuals with valid Conceal and Carry Permits from 2007 to present:
Total Police officers killed=11

Total private citizens killed=391

Total number of "mass shootings"=20
Note: Nine of the cases cited here do not meet the FBI's criteria for mass murder, and the true total should only be 11.

Total number of Murder-Suicides=31
Note: Of these 31 incidents, 10 were also cited under "Mass Shootings Committed by Concealed Carry Killers May 2007 to the Present".
Source of the above statistics

Handgun murders based the FBI's statistics:
Total police officers killed by handguns 2007 through 2010=130
Source

Total private citizens murdered 2007 through 2010 by handguns=26,659
Note: That total is based on figures from here, and my caluculation for 2010 of 6009 handgun murders from information found h ere.

The above numbers show, without a doubt, that handguns in the hands of law abiding citizens are not the problem, and that criminals truly are. Until criminals are COMPLETELY disarmed, those numbers also show a REAL need for firearms by law abiding citizens in the United States.

I find it unfortunate that advocacy groups such as the Violence Policy Center can't get their heads out of their asses long enough to realise that "gun laws" only affect law abiding citizens.

See ya,
Milt
edit on 8-4-2012 by BenReclused because: Typo



posted on Apr, 8 2012 @ 11:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by Freeborn

reply to post by nenothtu
 




I'm not familiar with the organization of the EU very much, but it seems to be at a stage that the US was in around 1790. From there it seems that the Federal government has periodically seized more power than it is allocated in the Constitution. It would be reasonable to expect the same thing to occur in the EU.


Don't really know about the first part of this paragraph but you're quite correct about the EU illegally seizing more power than it is entitled to.

The EU is being forced upon the peoples of Europe by a group of people who seek to impose a Franco-Germanic dominated European superstate and eliminate national identities and cultures.

This is totally against the wishes of the British people and probably the majority of continental Europeans.

Every single British Prime Minister from Heath onwards, and our current monarch, have been guilty of treasonously allowing a transfer of sovereignty to a foreign power.



In 1790, the US States were independent political entities with the Federal government as an "umbrella organization". As a matter of fact, the Feds had to step in and mediate to keep Virginia from going to war against Pennsylvania over a disputed territory which is now in southwestern Pennsylvania, around Washington County. That degree of independence with an "umbrella organization" is what I was referring to with the EU being at the stage now that the US was at then.

But, like said, I could be wrong about that, not knowing very much about the EU or it's organization internally.

Over time, our Federal government has seized more and more power for itself, and the only places it can seize that power from is the States and their citizens. I believe the EU will likely undergo the same evolution if it isn't stopped soon. Many years from now, it's entirely possible that the citizens of Germany will be arguing with the citizens of the UK over whether or not it's "legitimate" for the EU to ignore it's own constitution "for the public good", and seize even more power, on a nearly daily basis.

We had a civil war over that issue. Most people think it was over slavery, but it was not. They think that only because history books are written by the victors - and in the US Civil War, the Federal government were the victors big time, and the States and the People were the losers. Slavery was not an issue in the war until late 1862/ early 1863, when the Emancipation Proclamation was issued not out of compassion for slaves, but rather as an economic weapon against the south which later became an ideological weapon in a propaganda war.

To relate the situation to modern Europe, let's say that Germany came up with a local law that imposed taxes on the UK, which the UK rejected (and rightfully so) then went to war by convincing the EU government to impose the taxes on their behalf, and for their sole benefit. In the end, the EU becomes more powerful, and BOTH Germany and the UK less so, because the EU siphoned power off from both of them for itself.




reply to post by nenothtu
 




Common sense


Alas, if only sense was common.


I'm with you on that! I wish it were so, even though it would make any disagreements that did arise much more bland!



edit on 2012/4/8 by nenothtu because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 8 2012 @ 11:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by reitze
reply to post by nenothtu
 


I'm referring to robber-barron anti-trust sherman act sort of concepts. And when things aren't stopped from being manopolies there ceases to be any competition so first the prices get fixed while the market itself gets robbed.


So you believe monopolies are "too big to fail"?




Otherwise I hope you like playing rollerball.


I've never played it, so I can't be sure, but I probably wouldn't like it any more than football, baseball, basketball, hockey, etc. I'm just not a team player, and spectator sports just put me to sleep.



posted on Apr, 8 2012 @ 11:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07
reply to post by nenothtu
 



Oh, no doubt the swindlers make it hard on most folks. Speculation and trading in futures should carry a prison sentence rather than a back pat. I'm thinking 20 years would not be excessive. Those activities are not "capitalism", they are theft, pure and simple. They make their money by betting you will have some at some future point, then stealing it before you can get your hands on it.


Capitalism is BASED on investment and speculation. It is nearly impossible to seperate those elements and that is why many people have a beef with capitalism. Sooner or later the people who accumulate the most wealth have a monopoly on influence and power indirectly.


No, it isn't. It's based upon production, consumption, and sales. Investment and speculation are none of those. They are theft, pulling money out of the future that may or not be there to be taken.



If the anti-trust laws were enforced whenever necessary going back centuries, banking was treated seperately from investment&speculation, spending was porpotionate to the money collected, less wars, less ufo research, less bailling out other nations THEN obviously capitalism COULD work.


Banking would obviously be treated separately from investment and speculation if both of the latter were made illegal - unless banking were made illegal, too. Spending uof proportion to collections is called "living beyond your means", and is a very bad idea for individuals as well as governments. Eventually, those who engage in it wind up in servitude to their creditors.



Yes speculation on future contracts is the worst of all. Basically they are rellying that speculators keep up with the minutetest details to fix prices based on current events. At least 50% of it is psychological pressure which has no basis in reality. I would prefer that only the parties directly involved in the trade get to haggle and once a deal is reached they accept delivery.
edit on 4/8/2012 by EarthCitizen07 because: (no reason given)


Delivery on the transaction should be required immediately upon closure of the deal. No delivery right then, someone goes to jail. For a very, very long time, for selling something that they didn't have to sell. In any other area, that is fraud - it's "selling the Brooklyn Bridge" or "swampland in Arizona".



posted on Apr, 9 2012 @ 11:15 AM
link   
reply to post by BenReclused
 


The thing that YOU can't get your head around is that the ONLY way the police have successfully gotten rid of the majority of criminals hand-guns (and related hand gun crime) is THROUGH regulation.

There's no place on earth that has ever commercialised a weapon to the extent the US has and managed to keep it away from criminals. Never has happened, never will happen.

The only way to get rid of the 26K gun related murders you note is to get rid of all the hand guns, from criminals and law abiding citizens alike.

But gun owners won't ever do that.

They'd rather see 26K people die needlessly every year so that they can protect a fake right to hand guns.

The arms the Founding Fathers envisioned militias bearing weren't hand guns.

Most rational people realise that there can be guns and safety, but not the way the US is doing things.

There's guns in many countries, lots in some countries, but no other rich country has the rate of gun related deaths the US does. Pretending that that is fine, or that it's some abstraction that has nothing to do with your hand gun is delusional. Switzerland, lots of guns, few hand guns, almost no gun crime, same in the UK and Canada.

Continue deluding yourself, I know you will, but that's the reality of this situation. The proliferation of hand guns, more than anything else, is why the US murder rate is so high.



posted on Apr, 9 2012 @ 02:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by Xcathdra
reply to post by METACOMET

 
The Swiss are a good example of sensible gun laws working, as are many of the Scandinavian countries. Those people seem to get along fine with very little gun crime or mass murder on a regular basis.. With the exception of what happened in Norway last year. Maybe there are deeper social problems within the U.S, particularly amongst young people..


Scandnavian countries and their gun control laws are not a model to use to be honest. Its entirely possible 77 children would not have had to die from the wingnut on his shooting spree had the police on the island been armed. The body count might not have been that high had the police not had to wait for authorization to go back to the station to get their guns, which required approval from command staff first.

Gun control does not work and as we see in the case of the scandanavian country, the criminal was able to get guns to use in light of the "strict gun control laws" of the country.

So we have law abiding citizens who were murdered because the very law designed to protect them by outlawing gun possession allowed the criminal to do his killing spree unopposed.

Guns do not kill people - people do.

There is a reason a criminal is called a criminal... Its because they have no intention of complying with a law. If they have no intention of complying with a law, then how does that law protect those who comply with it?

In the end the very law designed to protect and make society safer is responsible for the deaths of the people who obeyed the law in the first place.


The big massacre in Australia could have been stopped too. The shooter stopped at a house and stole a car after shooting the people, then drove on to the marina where most of his victims were killed.

At the first house was a gun, and a guy who knew how to use it.

But he was being a good citizen and storing the ammunition in a locked case seperate from the gun, just like the feds told him to. So even though he could get to the gun, he couldn't get to the ammo.



posted on Apr, 9 2012 @ 02:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by kerazeesicko

Originally posted by RedBeardRay
My two cents on this issue....

If guns kill people, do pencils misspell words?





Can you erase a mistake if a gun goes off an kills a loved one?


More likely that you will decide to answer a text message while driving and accidentally kill all of your family on the freeway....



posted on Apr, 9 2012 @ 02:43 PM
link   
reply to post by PapaKrok
 




More likely that you will decide to answer a text message while driving and accidentally kill all of your family on the freeway....


Which is why using a cell phone in such a manner whilst driving is a criminal offence in the UK.

To be honest that seems perfectly fair to me, don't know if it's the same in The States?



posted on Apr, 9 2012 @ 03:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by Freeborn
reply to post by PapaKrok
 




More likely that you will decide to answer a text message while driving and accidentally kill all of your family on the freeway....


Which is why using a cell phone in such a manner whilst driving is a criminal offence in the UK.

To be honest that seems perfectly fair to me, don't know if it's the same in The States?


But do you blame the driver, or the phone?

Because if you think it's stupid to blame the phone, well....



posted on Apr, 9 2012 @ 03:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by Freeborn
reply to post by PapaKrok
 




More likely that you will decide to answer a text message while driving and accidentally kill all of your family on the freeway....


Which is why using a cell phone in such a manner whilst driving is a criminal offence in the UK.

To be honest that seems perfectly fair to me, don't know if it's the same in The States?


Each state has different laws governing cell phone use while driving. There are laws that determine the proper use of firearms in each state as well. Some states allow unlimited open carry, some allow restricted concealed carry, some have pretty inclusive bans. Many cities, churches, companies, schools, etc have rules governing firearms on their private property. You must keep in mind that criminals do not follow rules very well. Only the law abiding, well, abide the law.

My point is that car deaths FAR outstrip firearm deaths, even when used as directed. My dad handed me the keys for the first time and said "you are now controlling a two ton bullet, remember that". It stuck.

I was raised with firearms and took the requisite firearms safety courses as a kid. My dad was fastidious about gun safety and we know the rules by heart. We never considered them toys and handled them with discipline and great care. I have never accidentally discharged one. I have had a couple of fender benders, though.



posted on Apr, 9 2012 @ 03:39 PM
link   
reply to post by AGWskeptic
 


Yeah, it was a stupid answer to a stupid comparison in the first place.

The number of deaths or injuries directly attributable to incorrect and irresponsible use of a cell phone pales into insignificance when compared to the number caused by guns.

To use it as some sort of defence of your second amendment is pretty lame really.

I'm sure there must be better defence's?



posted on Apr, 9 2012 @ 03:49 PM
link   
reply to post by PapaKrok
 


You're right there, cars are dangerous things and I'm sure are responsible for more deaths than guns.
But how many of them deaths are down to the deliberate mis-use of cars?
Not many really I guess.

I have no problem with the US Second Amendment - it's entirely up to you what you do in the US and I recognise that US culture is very different to the UK's and the vast majority of Europe etc in this respect.
As such I do understand why you wish to keep it.
That's entirely up to you.
But just stop thinking that it's the same for everyone else.
We don't need or want it.
End of story.



posted on Apr, 9 2012 @ 04:31 PM
link   
Being from the UK I don't get the US obsession with firearms, however I'm not about to tell you to change your constitution. What I always hear in these arguements is from Pro Gun people is things like 'If people were allowed to carry guns, they would be able to defend themselves from the crimminals or madmen who are randomly shooting people' etc etc. Well, perhaps, or it could cause more death, say a gunmen enters a college campus and starts randomly killing people, and the people in the campus are carrying their own weapons and start opening fire, back, don't you think this would lead to more bloodshed. I'll wager a lot of gun owners, are not trained to the same standard as a Police Officer or Soldier with their firearm, and 20 or more so people panic firing into a crowd at a gunmen can only end badly. I fail to see how arming more people with firearms will keep the death toll down. Another point is that you are 'protecting yourselves'???? From What???? You've got all the bombs, who the eff is going to mess with you. I know survivalists and Gun lover don't like the Government in the US and many fear that they are going to somehow declare Martial Law and take away your Freedom, it's parnanioa on a national scale, Hollywood has helped gloryfy the gun and make it an essential item for any patriotic American. Your media doesn't help, US media is run on generating ratings, so it glorifies, distorts facts, lies, and sensationalises stories in order to keep you fearful from everything and everyone, but in turn tuned in, reinforcing the idea that you need a gun to defend yourself, because everyone is out to get you. I'm not against guns, before you all pick on me and say 'out of my cold dead hand' (I don't particularily want to own a gun, but I don't see why people who use them responsibly should be punished) and I know guns don't kill people, People do, but it's a damn site easier to kill people, if you have a gun, and allow crazy people to own them and make them as easily available as they are. There is another thread about taking cars away from the American public as so many people die in cars accidents, this is true, however the motor car was not oringinally invented as a weapon, neither was the baseball bat, or the bread knife, but the firearm was. For safety obviously we all have to take driving tests, well perhaps, there should gun owner tests, training on how to be a responsible owner, if the gun lovers truely care about the Right to Bare Arms, then surely you should do all you can to ensure that the people who own them do so properly. That when you pass this test you get your licence to own a firearm. I know there are a lot of responsible gun owners, and they should not be penalised because som basket case decides to go postal, but as responsible gun owners you must agree surely that not everyone is capable of owning a gun responsibly, perhaps certian people should not be allowed to own guns, ie people with mental problems. . Illegal firearms are a matter for the Police, if you take the Law into your hands then you will become the Criminal.

Peace



posted on Apr, 9 2012 @ 06:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by Freeborn
reply to post by AGWskeptic
 


Yeah, it was a stupid answer to a stupid comparison in the first place.

The number of deaths or injuries directly attributable to incorrect and irresponsible use of a cell phone pales into insignificance when compared to the number caused by guns.

To use it as some sort of defence of your second amendment is pretty lame really.

I'm sure there must be better defence's?


Can you back that up?

My nephew had 2 car accidents in a month texting while driving, yet he never accidentally shot anyone.

I don't think the 2 numbers are even close. Texting kills way more than gun accidents.



posted on Apr, 9 2012 @ 06:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by AGWskeptic
The big massacre in Australia could have been stopped too. The shooter stopped at a house and stole a car after shooting the people, then drove on to the marina where most of his victims were killed.

At the first house was a gun, and a guy who knew how to use it.

But he was being a good citizen and storing the ammunition in a locked case seperate from the gun, just like the feds told him to. So even though he could get to the gun, he couldn't get to the ammo.



Thats pretty much my argument. Guns are not going away anytime soon and personally speaking I feel better knowing people other than law enforcement / military have weapons. I do not trust the government enough to stae as fact they won't ever try and screw the people over.

Secondly I dont think any citizen should ever be required to rely on a government agency for personal / property protection in an emergency situation. If its possible to be a good witness and observe then im all for it but when push comes to shove, the civilians and criminals are present and law enforcement is usually minutes away. Anyone who has been involved in an emergency situation knows that while 2-3 minutes seems like a short time, in reality it can be an eternity and can mean the difference between life and death.



posted on Apr, 9 2012 @ 07:13 PM
link   
reply to post by Freeborn
 


A lot of places do have laws against using any handheld phone while driving. People do it anyways though. Can't count how many times I almost got hit by a car/truck on my motorcycle, and when I get out of the situation, and pass them to see wtf is wrong with them, I see them holding a damn cellphone.

The same way there are plenty of people that have guns tucked into their wasteband, even though it is not only illegal to carry a gun there, they are felons and not even allowed to own one.
edit on Mon, 09 Apr 2012 19:15:40 -0500 by TKDRL because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 9 2012 @ 07:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by Freeborn
reply to post by EarthCitizen07
 




......their god given right to bear arms.


I acknowledge that The Right To Bear Arms is very much a part of the American way of life and culture and that it is protected within the US Constitution etc, but that really did cause me to raise an eyebrow.
'God' given right?
I thought it was a man made amendment to your Constitution?

Is the whole Constitution divinely inspired?

If so then I really struggle with the specific seperation of State and religion as defined in the US Constitution.


God given rights trump a constitution written by masons or anyone else. Those rights being the right to free speech, the right to shelter, the right to food and water, the right to have sex and bear children, the right to breath clean air, the right to protect yourself and your property, the right to an education, the right to be happy and sad, etc.

Do you see where I am going with this? If you don't like calling them god-given rights then simply call it common sense or universal rights.



posted on Apr, 9 2012 @ 07:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by Freeborn
Yeah, it was a stupid answer to a stupid comparison in the first place.

The number of deaths or injuries directly attributable to incorrect and irresponsible use of a cell phone pales into insignificance when compared to the number caused by guns.


Not really... Read our Constitution and then apply it to our nations history.

The 2nd amendment is present for a very important reason, and its placement in the list is intentional.

The 1st amendment protects the freedom of religion, speech, and the press, as well as the right to assemble and petition the government. Its what allows the people to speak our mind and criticise our government and representatives, our judges and their rulings, complain about laws and the police.

The very first thing that comes up in any type of disagreement is trying to work out the differences with talk. In the greater scheme the government has been known to ignore the peoples will and treat them as subjects instead of citizens. If the government opts to ignore the 1st and most fundamental amendment, then logic states they are not going to stop there.

The 2nd amendment is the line in the sand. Its saying that if you can't respect the 1st amendment, then there is reason to beleive the government won't respect the other amendments either.

The 2nd amendment is the line in the sand. It is stating that the government either respects the constitution and the law, or the people have the right to defend themselves and their rights.

The 2nd amendment is present to ensure the protection of the remaining amendments and the Constitution as a whole.

To solely look at the 2nd amendment in terms of death rate without proper context is about as intelligent as looking at the number of auto related deaths without proper context.

We fought our way out as subjects to the crown to become citizens of a Republic. The founding fathers made damn sure it would not happen again and God forbid it does, had the presence of mind to allow the people to protect themselves from that course of action.

As I stated - talks / discussion comes first to resovles difference. The 2nd is present when talking fails and their is a need to protect the remainder of the document.

If you do not understand that thats fine. As an American I do understand it. As a member of Law Enforcement I understand it. To be honest in the end, thats all that matters.
edit on 9-4-2012 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)

edit on 9-4-2012 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
48
<< 47  48  49    51  52  53 >>

log in

join