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.

 

The Shameless Opportunism of Gun Control Advocates

page: 16
48
<< 13  14  15    17  18  19 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 24 2012 @ 01:28 AM
link   
Can you please explain to me why ANYONE other then the military needs assault weapons?? Honestly. You don't need to hunt with them. You don't need them for protection. A hand gun is just fine. I GUARANTEE if the shooter didn't have an assault rifle and only a hand gun, 70 plus people wouldn't have got injured. Do we need all of our guns taking away? Hell no but we damn sure don't need assault weapons in civilian hands. There is absolutely no rational logic behind carrying those kind of weapons unless you're fighting in a war. There's always going to be nut bags and as long as those kind of weapons are available, these types of tragedy's will happen again and again and again. Gun Nazi's need to stop using the 2nd amendment excuse.I'm tired of hearing that one. If you want to bitch about our constitution being raped then go read the Patriot Act. THAT is a real threat to us. Having gun control, especially on Assault weapons and having all your guns taking away are two different things. No one in power is talking about taking ALL guns away.




posted on Jul, 24 2012 @ 01:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by pluginkid
Can you please explain to me why ANYONE other then the military needs assault weapons?? Honestly. You don't need to hunt with them. You don't need them for protection. A hand gun is just fine. I GUARANTEE if the shooter didn't have an assault rifle and only a hand gun, 70 plus people wouldn't have got injured. Do we need all of our guns taking away? Hell no but we damn sure don't need assault weapons in civilian hands. There is absolutely no rational logic behind carrying those kind of weapons unless you're fighting in a war. There's always going to be nut bags and as long as those kind of weapons are available, these types of tragedy's will happen again and again and again. Gun Nazi's need to stop using the 2nd amendment excuse.I'm tired of hearing that one. If you want to bitch about our constitution being raped then go read the Patriot Act. THAT is a real threat to us. Having gun control, especially on Assault weapons and having all your guns taking away are two different things. No one in power is talking about taking ALL guns away.


That's what I've been saying all along but the gun zealots refuse to listen.

We're talking about GUN CONTROL. What's so bad about implementing more laws, background checks and overall more CONTROL over high powered assault rifles?

Everyone has a right to own a weapon, to defend themselves and their family and I think every household should have at least 1 hand gun for self defense.
edit on 7/24/2012 by muse7 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 24 2012 @ 01:59 AM
link   
reply to post by pluginkid
 

I GUARANTEE if the shooter didn't have an assault rifle and only a hand gun, 70 plus people wouldn't have got injured.

that'd be a FALSE guarantee because this shooter did the most damage with a handgun.
see witness interviews for confirmation.

he entered with a shotgun ... you know, originating long ago and not specifically for military purposes.
he then used his handgun for 40 shots (per the PD), then used the gun that concerns you so deeply and it jammed, remember?
if you look at the scene shots, it's the gun lying near the door.

such a strawman argument is not only disingenuous, it's downright disturbing.
if THEY have assault rifles, then so should we.

no disagreement with ya on the PA, however, it isn't the topic here, is it ?



posted on Jul, 24 2012 @ 02:02 AM
link   
reply to post by muse7
 

and what happens when an agent of the government shows up at your door with an assault rifle and harmful intent ?? are you going to be capable of defending yourself and family ??
or does surrender become your 'fate' ??



posted on Jul, 24 2012 @ 02:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher

Do you think people should be allowed to own a knife?

Do you think people should be allowed to own a sword?

Do you think people should be allowed to own a bow and arrow?

Do you think people should be allowed to own a single shot musket?

Do you think people should be allowed to own a handgun?

Do you think people should be allowed to own a hunting rifle?

Do you think people should be allowed to own a semi-auto assault rifle?

Do you think people should be allowed to own a high powered/long range rifle?

Do you think people should be allowed to own a full auto assault rifle?

Do you think people should be allowed to own a machine gun?

Do you think people should be allowed to own a 50-cal machine gun?

Do you think people should be allowed to own a car mounted gatling gun?

Do you think people should be allowed to own a cannon?

Do you think people should be allowed to own a anti aircraft gun?

Do you think people should be allowed to own gernades?

Do you think people should be allowed to own RPGs?

Do you think people should be allowed to own tanks?

Do you think people should be allowed to own stealth bombers?

Do you think people should be allowed to own surface to air missles?

Do you think people should be allowed to own ICBMs?

Do you think people should be allowed to own chemical weapons?

and finally...

Do you think people should be allowed to own nukes?


My answer to all the above questions: No. What I think is that governments, political organizations, etc. should not be allowed to infringe, deny, or otherwise impede, in any fashion or for any reason, people's rights to build, purchase, or own any of those things.
You continue to want to frame the argument from the perspective that this or that should or should not be 'allowed.' This shows a fundamental lack of understanding on your part, because the Bill of Rights is not a list of things people are 'allowed' by the government. It is a list telling the government what it is not allowed to do.

This may seem like a nitpicking point, but it is not. We are not talking about a privilege being granted by the government; we are talking about the government and its constant attempts to overstep its bounds and take, by force or threat of force, rights that are inalienable and are the province of all humans.

So let me throw that nice long list of questions back at you, except replace "Do you think people should be allowed" with "Do you think the Government should be allowed take away peoples' right". So the first question would be:

Do you think the Government should be allowed take away peoples' right to own a knife?

...and so on.

I look forward to your answers. You asked "where do you draw the line?" in the context of how much the government should allow; I am very interested to find out where you draw the line in the context--the correct context--of how much you're willing to let the government take.



posted on Jul, 24 2012 @ 02:09 AM
link   
reply to post by Honor93
 


Lol why don't you take off your tin-foil hat for a second and come back to reality? 12 people are dead after a nutjob was able to buy an assault rifle, a handgun and a shotgun along with bullet proof vests and tear gas without being investigated.

12 people are dead and 50+ injured as a result of it. And you're still are able to sit there and parrot what every other gun zealot has been parroting since the incident happened. This also happened in 2007 too, 30 dead after another nut job was able to buy weapons with no hassle.

Our current gun laws are not the problem? lol

Get your head out your ass dude.



posted on Jul, 24 2012 @ 02:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by muse7
reply to post by Honor93
 


Lol why don't you take off your tin-foil hat for a second and come back to reality? 12 people are dead after a nutjob was able to buy an assault rifle, a handgun and a shotgun along with bullet proof vests and tear gas without being investigated.

12 people are dead and 50+ injured as a result of it. And you're still are able to sit there and parrot what every other gun zealot has been parroting since the incident happened. This also happened in 2007 too, 30 dead after another nut job was able to buy weapons with no hassle.

Our current gun laws are not the problem? lol


Yep. And as many have pointed out in this thread and elsewhere, it happened in a place where guns are 100% banned. As do almost all mass shootings. The killers go straight to places where they can be sure the law-abiding citizens are defenseless, places thoughtfully provided by Gun Control.

Many in this thread have also pointed out that the killer could have simply plowed a vehicle into the crowd outside the box and killed far more than he did with his guns.

You say the problem is that "another nut job was able to buy weapons with no hassle." I disagree, as the history of nut jobs shows that they will single-mindedly persevere through incredible amounts of "hassle" to achieve their goals, so adding "hassle" to procuring guns will not stop them.

I say the problem is that, once again, a crazed killer was able to go to a place where he could murder people with no hassle. Gun control ensured no lawful citizens would be able to shoot back.



posted on Jul, 24 2012 @ 02:58 AM
link   
reply to post by Tsurugi
 


If he could have killed more people with plowing a truck into the crowd then why didn't he do that?

Heck if this guy is as smart as people say he is, then he could have very well parked a truck full of explosives outside near the entrance.

But maybe he thought it was easier to just get some rifles a shotgun and just walk in and start spraying bullets into the crowd?



posted on Jul, 24 2012 @ 03:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by muse7

That's what I've been saying all along but the gun zealots refuse to listen.

We're talking about GUN CONTROL. What's so bad about implementing more laws, background checks and overall more CONTROL over high powered assault rifles?

Everyone has a right to own a weapon, to defend themselves and their family and I think every household should have at least 1 hand gun for self defense.
edit on 7/24/2012 by muse7 because: (no reason given)


An old joke;
A man asks a woman if she'll sleep with him for a million dollars.
She says yes.
Then he asks if she'd sleep with him for ten dollars.
She replies, "No! What kind of woman do you think I am?"

He replies, "We already know what kind of woman you are. Now we're just negotiating price."

The minute, the very second, that we (pro 2nd Amendment) start "negotiating" what kind of weapons, what calibre, type of bullet, is to be restricted, then the fight is lost.



posted on Jul, 24 2012 @ 03:08 AM
link   
reply to post by beezzer
 


So you don't want any type of control over who gets their hands on automatic rifles?

You don't care if people are massacred by mentally unstable persons that were able to fool the system in order to get their hands on high powered weapons?

Just as long as your "freedoms" go untouched huh?

Give me a break.



posted on Jul, 24 2012 @ 03:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by muse7
reply to post by beezzer
 


So you don't want any type of control over who gets their hands on automatic rifles?

You don't care if people are massacred by mentally unstable persons that were able to fool the system in order to get their hands on high powered weapons?

Just as long as your "freedoms" go untouched huh?

Give me a break.


So you'd rather classify everyone as potentially unstable and deny them their rights?



posted on Jul, 24 2012 @ 03:39 AM
link   
I find it amusing that so many state that they have a "right" to healthcare, yet deny "rights" to defend against ones health and safety.



posted on Jul, 24 2012 @ 05:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by pluginkid
Can you please explain to me why ANYONE other then the military needs assault weapons?? Honestly. You don't need to hunt with them. You don't need them for protection. A hand gun is just fine.


Yet interestingly enough, about 80% of all homicides in the United States occur when the perpetrator used a handgun. Those scary 'assault rifles' get all the publicity, especially when something like this happens, but are only used in a small percentage of crimes. The reason for that is obviously because the handgun is easily concealed. Cost is another factor, with low end handguns being significantly cheaper and more accessible to the criminal element.

Need doesn't play a factor to me. A person can own a lot of things that they don't necessarily need.



posted on Jul, 24 2012 @ 05:32 AM
link   
See... people keep saying... "Guns don't kill people, people do".... This is not really correct.... it is a combination of the two that makes the action happen.... but that's beside the point really...

I understand what people are saying... that lots of sane people own guns, and that if someone wants to kill you they will, whether guns are controlled or not...

but my argument is this.... you are right, it is the person in control of the gun that initiates the action and makes the deed happen, however, some people are just not responsible or intelligent enough to be given such immense power... the power of life and death.

All these people arguing that we should control cars, because they also kill people are missing the point.... a car is not designed to kill, it is not it's prime reason for being made.... therefore the argument is foolish....

I have no real problem with people owning Hand guns... albeit I am from the UK.... but please.. can you give me some valid reasons for a normal everyday person to own an assault rifle such as an AK47... I cannot think of any.. and it is the proliferation of these type of weapons that makes these mass shootings easier to perpetrate.

You are quite right, it is the person the commits the act...... so, by that logic, gun control is a good thing, because some people just should not be given the option of owning weapons of any kind... they are not intelligent or responsbile enough...we all know people like this.....

So really, while arguing against gun control, you are really confirming it is needed... although you could call it "Muppet Control".... just got to stop the muppets from getting their hands on them...... In a society where ANYONE can get their hands on large ammounts of military grade weapons and ammunition... a proliferation of mass shootings is inevitable....

You see, it is these people that have a bad day, that have an argument with their spouse, the crimes that are committed on a whim... these are the crimes that turn into murders in America, these are the crimes that are spontaneous... now, with the proliferation of guns, it's easy to grab one to sort out any small grievance... if these people really had to work to source a firearm, you could guarantee that these petty disputes would not turn into murders.... by the time they got hold of one it would seem like just what it was.. a petty argument.

Saying all that though.... Canada has a higher percentage of firearm possession than the USA... but significantly less shootings..... so we could argue that is something to do with the American culture....something inherently wrong with the people of the nation themselves....

I am sorry America... but it is not a "right" to own a firearm..... it is a right be speak freely, it is a right to have children, (although that's also up for debate!) it is a right to be able to beleive what you wish..... it is not, and should not, be a "right" to own firearms.... you're just asking for trouble....

Look at this very recent shooting also mentioned here on ATS... the man that accidently shot his son thinking he was an intruder.... a perfect example to prove my point... if he did not have a handgun in the house...he would more than likely either shout to the intruder "who is it", at which point his son would answer and still be alive, or he would have jumped on him, wrestled a bit, and realised his mistake, and his son would still be alive. This man now has to live with this for the rest of his life...... all thanks to the "shoot first, ask questions later" attitude of American citizens... This has to change... and I feel sorry for you if you cannot see this....

Anyway.. just my 2 cents....

PA



posted on Jul, 24 2012 @ 05:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by muse7

We're talking about GUN CONTROL. What's so bad about implementing more laws, background checks and overall more CONTROL over high powered assault rifles?

Everyone has a right to own a weapon, to defend themselves and their family and I think every household should have at least 1 hand gun for self defense.
edit on 7/24/2012 by muse7 because: (no reason given)


No offense, but this is the reason why I don't listen to you guys on the pro-ban side anymore. You don't understand the gun violence problem at all. You're more than willing to pass out handguns like candy, when the statistics show that you're about 20 times more likely to be killed by a perpetrator with a handgun than one with a rifle of any type. They're also used in about 80% of all firearm related homicides.



posted on Jul, 24 2012 @ 05:39 AM
link   
People stating that guns don't kill people and anything can be used as a weapon to justify keeping guns clearly are the sort of morons that should be kept away from firearms.
Using a pencil or a television as a weapon to attack someone is quite different from a gun.


SM2

posted on Jul, 24 2012 @ 07:14 AM
link   
One thing that would help in this debate is for people to use the correct terminology. When you say that the shooter had an assault rifle, you are in fact distorting the truth the help win your argument. The average citizen can not own an assault weapon. The National Firearms Act and the Gun Control Act of 1968 have limited and in most cases banned the sale, transfer and ownership of such weapons.

"An assault rifle is an automatic rifle that uses an intermediate cartridge and a detachable magazine.[1] Assault rifles are the standard infantry weapons in most modern armies. Assault rifles are categorized in between light machine guns, which are intended more for sustained automatic fire in a light support role, and submachine guns, which fire a pistol cartridge rather than a rifle cartridge.

Examples of assault rifles include the StG 44, AK-47,[2] M16 rifle, QBZ-95, Heckler & Koch G36, and Enfield SA80"

There are civilian versions of these weapons available in most cases, that are less functional. The civilian version of the AK-47 or M4 for example, appears to be identical cosmetically, but in fact is a different weapon all together. They are not capable of automatic fire, internal components are not the same. Bolts, trigger groups, fire control groups, and usually the receiver, which is the part that houses all of the parts is different. So, until you use the truth to argue the points, there can not be an honest debate, just propaganda and political talking points being used by a minority group of the population wanting to infringe on the majority what they deem as " reasonable" Just so you know, there have been compromises. Compromise after compromise on the issue of gun ownership. We now have background checks, certain weapons types are banned, certain ammo types are banned, guns can not be carried in certain areas, in some places they must be locked up. You can not carry one unless you ask for government permission.

So, what other compromises would you ask for? Banning guns is not a compromise. Why should anyone be asked to compromise on their constitutionally guaranteed unalienable rights? No one is asking for your right to freely associate or speak your mind to be diminished in a compromise are they? Is your right to vote being limited due to a compromise? Maybe you can have just a little slavery, just a little, one day every month or so, just to help put the community back together? You know, all in the spirit of compromise? How about you surrender your 4th and 5th amendment rights occasionally, in the spirit of compromise? No, that is not reasonable, so why is the second amendment exclusive? Yeah I know, people will claim the usual guns kill blah blah. Well, ya know, a gun is an inanimate object, it takes an idiot holding the gun to cause a problem. Pencils do not misspell words after all



posted on Jul, 24 2012 @ 08:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by muse7
reply to post by Tsurugi
 


If he could have killed more people with plowing a truck into the crowd then why didn't he do that?

Heck if this guy is as smart as people say he is, then he could have very well parked a truck full of explosives outside near the entrance.

But maybe he thought it was easier to just get some rifles a shotgun and just walk in and start spraying bullets into the crowd?


The first thing you have to do is stop trying to make any sense of what happened there. The guy is crazy. Absolutely freaking nuts. I couldn't begin to tell you how many people I saw in his exact same condition, showing those exact same behaviors, in my tenure working as an orderly in a state run mental hospital's admission unit back in my early 20's. That guy is insane.

He had this delusion that, for whatever reason, was fulfilled by him emulating The Joker, as played by Heath Ledger.

This morning I saw victims families calling him "The Monster", etc, etc. My heart goes out to them for their losses. It would literally kill me were it my son/wife/other family member. But we have to remember, this "Monster" is not himself. He is insane. This makes me feel even more pity, because these people want to have a target for their anger. And that pathetic, broken young man sitting in the court room, with his ridiculous hair and psychotic behaviors, is no worthy target. As humans we want a single source. We want to believe that things happen for a reason, that there is logic to our world. It is extremely disillusioning, and a source of cognitive dissonance, when we discover otherwise.



posted on Jul, 24 2012 @ 08:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher
reply to post by macman
 



Don't need the Constitution to state as such. Anyone with any background in Firearms knows such things. A Nuclear Missile is not a firearm. Nor is it "arms".


By who's definition???

webster-dictionary.net...


Definition of Arms

1. Instruments or weapons of offense or defense.


And I swear nukes were part of the "arms" race...were they not???

You keep saying "firearms"...and yet that isn't in the Constitution anywhere.


I don't recall Nukes being around during the draft of said documents.
I do recall that small arms were around.
And it is only Progressive Liberals that use the Nukes as a talking point in retorts. No one else in this thread is suggesting that Nukes are included or fall under the 2nd amendment.

You are really just grasping at straws.



posted on Jul, 24 2012 @ 08:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher
reply to post by neo96
 



Yeah there is denial in this thread that in the last 40 years of gun control there is more crime and violence than ever in this country that where the average law abiding citizen is punished where the criminals,and the cops, and the military is better armed.

Go on Anti-gun zealots pat themselves on the back for "saving anyone" no wait they didn't.


What gun control in teh past 40 years?

Do you think there are more or less guns in the hands of the public than there were 40 years ago???

It's insane that you think that people think guns are controlled in this country...James Holmes got an AR-15, a shotgun, 2 hand guns, and 6000 rounds of ammo in under a month...we do not have effective gun control in this country.

And look at that...having a more armed populace has not reduced gun crimes either...hmmmm.


Yep, punish the all for the actions of one. Only Progressive Liberals think this is acceptable.

You are so frightened by inanimate objects. Wonder how you would react if confronted by someone with more skill and less armament?



new topics

top topics



 
48
<< 13  14  15    17  18  19 >>

log in

join