It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


CNN: "Is Gun Control The Answer?" Here We Go Again.

page: 12
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in


posted on Jul, 22 2012 @ 04:00 AM
reply to post by TKDRL

People do not NEED guns.

Humanity does not need guns anymore.

I say we get rid of them all. And any other killing machine. Just scrap them and use all the metal to build a spaceboat to get us the hell off this rock. Then you could hunt snargles.

posted on Jul, 22 2012 @ 04:01 AM
reply to post by AtcGod

You first. You go ahead and convince isreal to give up their arms, then I will disarm. Good luck bro.

posted on Jul, 22 2012 @ 04:02 AM
reply to post by AtcGod

In theory, I agree. Implementation I would love to see it. We would all, the world have to disarm at the same time. I am all for it if it happened.

We would all, as in the world, have to agree to destroy a whole lot of records, and trust each other. I can build a gun, a bomb from scratch. That kind of knowledge would have to be purged from the earth.
edit on Sun, 22 Jul 2012 04:05:39 -0500 by TKDRL because: (no reason given)

posted on Jul, 22 2012 @ 04:03 AM
reply to post by AtcGod

how about you stay on topic and respond to the facts? You cant. Im quoting actual studies here and you are trying to use crack pot emotional arguments that are clearly not based in reality.

With that being said, You may have grown up hunting, but you obviously didnt learn anything. All it takes is a .270 with a scope, a a vehicle, and 1 bullet to easily kill a deer that will last 1 person for 3 months. So yeah, quit trying to dance around the points because you know you have nothing for them.

posted on Jul, 22 2012 @ 04:06 AM
reply to post by theroguelion

so all you eat is deer then?

That sucks.

All it takes is your feet and a tree and a bow and arrow to do the same thing.

WHat is your point?
edit on 22-7-2012 by AtcGod because: (no reason given)

posted on Jul, 22 2012 @ 04:11 AM
reply to post by TKDRL

So we agree. I am so glad we cleared that up.

Lets go hunting sometime. I will bring my 20 gauge.

posted on Jul, 22 2012 @ 04:15 AM
reply to post by AtcGod

If we can get the whole world to disarm, and not kill me for my forbidden knowledge, then sure. As smart as I am, I don't comaper in knowledge to the scientists that would have to be silenced. I can build some traps, guns and bombs, but I couldn't for a second pretend to know how to make an atom bomb, or biological weapons. Those scare me more that guns anyday of the week.

posted on Jul, 22 2012 @ 04:17 AM
reply to post by TKDRL

I cant build bombs but I am a heck of an Air Traffic Controller.

If everyone actually took that attitude of lets disarm the world. That would be quite amazing!

Good talk.

posted on Jul, 22 2012 @ 04:24 AM

Originally posted by AtcGod
reply to post by TKDRL

People do not NEED guns.

Humanity does not need guns anymore.

I say we get rid of them all. And any other killing machine. Just scrap them and use all the metal to build a spaceboat to get us the hell off this rock. Then you could hunt snargles.

People don't need crack coc aine. They don't need weed. Maybe they don't need alcohol (minus medicinal purposes). Maybe they don't need a happy ending. All these things are/were illegal in the US, but I know this masseuse named Amy, hook you right up.

Prohibition of ANYTHING in America always fails. Not just fails, but super epic duper fails. Every time. Even though other countries have banned things like alcohol, doing the same here results in epic failure.

Weed is illegal. The guy in the APT next to me would sell me some. I could literally move to the left 10 feet and get some weed. Guns however? Nope. To get guns I would probably have to go two towns over to my friends house or actually go to a gun store and have to show some ID or something. Alcohol? No I'd actually have to go into town to the liquor store and show my ID. But weed? 10 feet away.

It is LITERALLY easier to get weed than it is a gun and weed is illegal. The war on drugs has been a massive failure. In fact if I want to get screwed up on prescription pain pills I could probably give my own sister a call. Meth or crack? Well I know a guy for that too. And I don't even do drugs. Imagine people that do and the people they know?

Does the guy next door have guns? Maybe. Would he sell them to me? Nope. He's not a gun dealer. But if you ban guns then there will be even more illegal gun dealers than we have now. Totally innocent people will be illegal gun dealers. It happened during prohibition. Many Innocent people became bootleggers during prohibition just to turn a buck, but after prohibition was over, they all just stopped and went back to their normal life. Don't know why people are wired that way, but they are.

But, if you want alcohol you have to be 21 and show ID. But weed? Well the guy downstairs will sell his weed to a 16 year old just the same as a 21 year old. And if she doesn't have any money, he'll probably take a BJ for payment. Wouldn't it be better if your 16 year old kid actually had to go to the gas station and show ID to purchase weed legally? They would say nope, you're not old enough kid and also, we don't take BJs for payment. That would seem more logical to me. And the same logic applies to guns.

The only way to ban guns would basically be through totalitarianism. You'd have to have swat bust into every home in America and totally violate every single person's rights to make sure they didn't have guns. You'd have to bust open every single car.

It's not gonna happen without a complete police state. The very thing we don't want. Anyone that doesn't have a well thought out plan as to how they'd actually get rid of guns once they're banned simply does not have the intelligence or the foresight to see there's no logical safe way to actually carry the plan out.
edit on 22-7-2012 by tinfoilman because: (no reason given)

posted on Jul, 22 2012 @ 04:31 AM

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
reply to post by jude11

Gun control and carry permits won't stop murder, but it'll sure as hell make it more difficult. Plus, more consequences should you be caught with one. With a nation-wide ban on firearms using projectiles, how easy do you think it will be to use a gun without having every cop in the state looking for you?

Guns will be like leaving a fingerprint at a crime scene. I'm all for this gun control thing. I hate guns. Guns used to be a good thing, but now, there's too much temptation. We're too out of control. And when a cat gets too wild...

You take its claws away.

So you hate an inanimate object?

As for your cat analogy.....wrong.

When a cat gets out of control, you dont declaw the cat, you put the cat down.

posted on Jul, 22 2012 @ 04:48 AM
If governments have guns, then citizens should have guns...

History teaches us that when citizens are disarmed, tyrants will kill millions....not a few, not a hundred,
but millions of innocent men, women, and children--slaughtered and buried....

All of these people that have died should be an example and a lesson for those of us lucky
enough to be alive...if it were possible they would be shouting from their graves at us to keep
our weapons at all costs....but sadly they are dead

edit on 22-7-2012 by rival because: (no reason given)

posted on Jul, 22 2012 @ 05:45 AM
reply to post by AfterInfinity

Like always you have to try to impose your ideas on others...

Like I said in another post, weapons have purpose in this world, which is not always to do evil things, and whether you want to admit it or not you are part of this world.

We are not living in some "spiritual paradise where there is no need for weapons", we are living in a world where there are really evil people, and praying, meditating, or thinking that you are highly spiritual, or a pacifist, and offering to talk over your differences with a criminal is not going to stop them from causing harm to your family or to you...

A much greater pacifist than you, Mahatma Gandhi, knew that firearms are needed in this world.

"Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the act of depriving a whole nation of arms, as the blackest. - Mahatma Gandhi"

You will find the above quote in Ghandi's autobiography.

A lot of gun-grabbers, like you, like to claim that this happened at a time when Gandhi was still young, and later on he changed his views, but his autobiography he wrote himself when he was already a pacifist.

In that same autobiography Gandhi repudiates every error he ever made when he was younger, but he never repudiates his view on firearms, and even later on on that same autobiography you find references by him of when it is time to stop being a pacifist and put up a fight.

On page 477 he states;

As I proceeded further and further with my inquiry into the atrocities that had been committed on the people, I came across tales of Government’s tyranny and the arbitrary despotism of it’s officers such as I was hardly prepared for, and they filled me with deep pain. What surprised me then, and what still continues to fill me with surprise, was the fact that a province that had furnished the largest number of soldiers to the British Government during the war, should have taken all these brutal excesses lying down.

When you are confronting a criminal you go ahead and try to bore to death with your pacifism the criminal trying to kill you and, or your family, I would rather keep my firearms, they do a much better job of keeping my family and I alive...

edit on 22-7-2012 by ElectricUniverse because: (no reason given)

posted on Jul, 22 2012 @ 05:51 AM
Even though I support guns it might have been worse if everyone in that theater had a gun, because as soon as one person shoots the killer, someone else might think they're the killer, and someone else would think they are, and so on, and at that point nobody knows who the real killer is, so everybody is just shooting each other trying to defend themselves because everybody else is shooting.

posted on Jul, 22 2012 @ 05:53 AM

Originally posted by nighthawk1954

Originally posted by TKDRL
reply to post by nighthawk1954

Soooooo....... How does making it harder for law abiding citizens to get guns supposed to help then?

Dude I not getting into Pissing contest with you I am just stating the facts!
I personaly have many guns bought legally.
edit on 21-7-2012 by nighthawk1954 because: (no reason given)

I see, no pissing contest here but just a question.
How many of these guns are ... what was the word? "semi aromatic".?!
You are not making a very convincing argument here Bro.

posted on Jul, 22 2012 @ 06:14 AM

Originally posted by AtcGod
reply to post by theroguelion

You have to do most of those things with a gun when hunting as well.

If you were forced to not have a gun, I am sure your bow and arrow skills would increase to compensate.

Slavery was also a culture in the south at one time. I am so glad that someone decided to change that.

Or should we bring that back as well because it is culture?

If peoples guns get taken away from them you will see slavery, promise.
But it is your right to bow and scrape and feel scared.
I also have a right to protection, funny how I respect your right but you would scrap mine.
When the shooting starts, would you pick up a gun to save your life or that of a loved one?
Or would you just be begging like...well a slave?
Answer please.

posted on Jul, 22 2012 @ 06:31 AM
You are more likely to get more gun control under Romney than you will under Obama.

I know all you Romney people are shaking your heads right now (but you have proven you are dumb more than once).


1994: In his unsuccessful challenge to liberal Democratic Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, Romney sounds moderate on guns, supporting an assault weapons ban and insisting, "I don't line up with the NRA."

2002: Running for governor of Massachusetts, Romney says he supports and will protect the state's "tough gun laws." The NRA gives his Democratic opponent a higher rating on gun-rights issues and makes no endorsement in the race.

2003: As governor, Romney upsets gun owners by signing a law that quadruples the state's gun-licensing fee — from $25 to $100 — as part of a widespread effort to eliminate the budget deficit.

2004: Romney signs a Massachusetts ban on assault weapons. He mollifies many gun rights advocates by coupling it with looser rules on gun licenses and an extension of the duration of licenses, reducing the effect of the earlier fee increase.

2005: Declares May 7 as "Right to Bear Arms Day" in Massachusetts.

2006: As he prepares for his first presidential run, Romney becomes a lifetime NRA member.

2007: While campaigning, Romney declares he sometimes hunts "small varmints" — a comment ridiculed by some as an awkward attempt to pander to pro-gun voters.

2008: In a Republican primary debate, Romney says he would have signed the federal assault weapons ban if it came to his desk as president, but he opposes any new gun legislation.

posted on Jul, 22 2012 @ 07:21 AM
reply to post by jude11

This was such a great thread Jude that I had to re-read it and comment again! I hate to weave 9/11 into this but is that not what we have today..increased intrusive surveillance on the American citizen by big federal agencies. CIA and NSA have a do whatever you want card, we'll deal with the Attorney General and national security issues later. All the while you and I and our neighbors are losing more and more rights, dignity, and privacy. If I recall correctly, that was a mass murder, and not a single firearm was utilized to commit those acts of violence.
The backlash from this cannot be more useless, feel-good legislation that hinders law-abiding citizen rights, while doing nothing to limit access to illegal firearms by criminals. Maybe we could start with not providing hundreds of firearms to criminals in Mexico? It's just a thought!

I stand my ground on this. If the people in power are the only ones that have guns, the citizens will have lost their last tool to fight for liberty. Those in power are slowly taking away every right and freedom from the citizens. Without the ability to protect yourself, family, might as well just put your hands up now. And then we have this. Is this another push towards even more intrusive surveillance from Big Bro? Will people agree to it in order to be 'Safe'? Is this the REAL agenda?

posted on Jul, 22 2012 @ 07:31 AM
reply to post by MrUncreated

Isn't it ironic, all these politicians pushing for increased gun control...all the while they are blessed with foot soldiers escorting them everywhere they go, and guess what? They're armed! The revolution should start with the rounding up of all these supposed public servants and start stripping them back to middle class earnings and wages and similar privileges. The irony is deafening.

posted on Jul, 22 2012 @ 07:33 AM

For this Second Amendment justification to hold water, local militias would have to have the most up to date advances in military weaponry over the years, such as tanks, APCs, surface-to-air missiles, fighter jets, chemical warheads, etc. But I highly doubt that citizens have a legal ''right'' to possess most of these.

Ask the past US soldier in Vietnam or the Russian in Afghanistan. People armed mainly with rifles caused a lot a problems and ultimate exit of the superior force.

posted on Jul, 22 2012 @ 07:38 AM
reply to post by GogoVicMorrow

Romney is much like the kid in the school yard saying what ever he thinks people want or need to hear at the moment so he can be popular. Politicians know that pushing heavy gun legislation is a career killer.

new topics

top topics

<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in