Listen to this argument for more gun control and please tell me how you can be against it..

page: 3
4
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on Dec, 18 2012 @ 01:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by bjax9er
The right of the people to keep and bear arms, SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.

What part of that do you commies not understand?


So then as a pilot I can have my fully amed F-16 on the rwy behind my cottage? With pocket nukes if possible?




posted on Dec, 18 2012 @ 01:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by kaylaluv

Originally posted by NavyDoc

Think of what you are saying. Logically, if that was true, then the first amendment would only apply to quill pens, voice, and manual printing presses and would not apply to TV, radio, internet, e-books, computers, telegraph, and telephone.


We have to interpret how it would apply, as the founding fathers had no knowledge of mass media.

My point is, you can't take what the founding fathers said literally, because our world and everything in it has changed so much. It requires interpretation. And we can interpret that some weapons are just too dangerous to be in the hands of the public, because they cause more harm than good.


You see, the world hasn't changed that much. Technology changes, but not human nature. The FF predicted tyrannical governments and the 20th Century, in spite of being a more "enlightened" time, showed us through Nazism and Communism that not much had changed. Dictators still first disarm those who they would enslave and murder.

I agree, the world is a very dangerous place: too dangerous for the law abiding to disarm themselves.

Any politician who votes for gun bans, while protected by machine gun toting security, is a hypocrite.



posted on Dec, 18 2012 @ 01:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by kaylaluv
We have to interpret how it would apply, as the founding fathers had no knowledge of mass media.

My point is, you can't take what the founding fathers said literally, because our world and everything in it has changed so much. It requires interpretation. And we can interpret that some weapons are just too dangerous to be in the hands of the public, because they cause more harm than good.


I agree with you. But there must be a line drawn upon what would be 'interpretated' by you as dangerous weapons.

Weapons such as nukes are certainly not good in the hand of civilians, as it is capable of MASS extermination.

But are rifles as capable a nukes?

Look at the evidence - for all the hundreds of bullets Lanza carried, he could only fire a few, before being brought down.

However, 'few' is still one too many, for each life is precious. Are we to blame guns, when there are many more other destructive weapons around, such as knives, poison, fertalizer based IEDs, even fish bones.?

There is no end to the possibilities if we are to fight on the angle of tools.

IT is better and productive if we FOCUS instead on a killer's motivation, and find ways to eradicate such would be better, for example, through definitive education upon sanctity of life by both religious and secular authorities, more reach out programmes to the mentally ill and depress such as research and affordable treatment.

Not all mentally ill would become mass murderers, but no sane being would commit mass murdering, worse if he plans it out seemingly 'rationally and logically'. Such 'rationality' are only capable by the insane and inhuman.



posted on Dec, 18 2012 @ 01:44 PM
link   
reply to post by NavyDoc
 


Well said NavyDoc. Thank you. You are correct. Just because times have changed does not mean people have. In fact the larger the population the more protection law abiding citizens need and the bigger the government gets the more kooks we have governing us.



posted on Dec, 18 2012 @ 01:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by humphreysjim

Originally posted by Asktheanimals
How can I be against it?
Simple - it's infringing on my God given rights.
Those who want a New Constitution are welcome to secede and try a new Confederacy.


You can't prove God exists, let alone gave you any rights.


My AK is what gives me the power to say that I can believe in both.
Can you prove my AK is wrong?



posted on Dec, 18 2012 @ 01:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by Asktheanimals

Originally posted by humphreysjim

Originally posted by Asktheanimals
How can I be against it?
Simple - it's infringing on my God given rights.
Those who want a New Constitution are welcome to secede and try a new Confederacy.


You can't prove God exists, let alone gave you any rights.


My AK is what gives me the power to say that I can believe in both.
Can you prove my AK is wrong?


Your posts are truly depressing. If there is a deity do you really think he/she/it would be more concerned about your right to an AK or childrens right to life ?



posted on Dec, 18 2012 @ 02:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by Alfie1

Originally posted by Asktheanimals

Originally posted by humphreysjim

Originally posted by Asktheanimals
How can I be against it?
Simple - it's infringing on my God given rights.
Those who want a New Constitution are welcome to secede and try a new Confederacy.


You can't prove God exists, let alone gave you any rights.


My AK is what gives me the power to say that I can believe in both.
Can you prove my AK is wrong?


Your posts are truly depressing. If there is a deity do you really think he/she/it would be more concerned about your right to an AK or childrens right to life ?


How about both? A weapon can be a tool to protect innocent life as well.



He said to them, "But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don't have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one. Luke 22:36


I own weapons because I want the means to protect my children. I teach my daughters to protect themselves, including shooting, so they will not be helpless victims in the future.



posted on Dec, 18 2012 @ 02:14 PM
link   
reply to post by Alfie1
 


I have 4 children and 2 grandchildren whose rights I fully intend to preserve.
Gun rights have nothing to do with the deaths of these children and I find using their deaths in such a blatantly politically way nothing short of disgusting.
Without gun rights we would have never been preserved as a free Republic.
How many dead people did it take to create that?



posted on Dec, 18 2012 @ 02:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by Asktheanimals
reply to post by Alfie1
 


I have 4 children and 2 grandchildren whose rights I fully intend to preserve.
Gun rights have nothing to do with the deaths of these children and I find using their deaths in such a blatantly politically way nothing short of disgusting.
Without gun rights we would have never been preserved as a free Republic.
How many dead people did it take to create that?


Of course so-called "gun rights " had everything to do with it. With so many on here it is like talking to an alcoholic who just keeps insisting he is a social drinker.

What on earth was a middle-aged mother doing with an armoury in her home which enabled her nutty son to go off on this spree with multiple weapons and hundreds of rounds of ammunition ? Is that normal ?



posted on Dec, 18 2012 @ 02:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by Asktheanimals

My AK is what gives me the power to say that I can believe in both.
Can you prove my AK is wrong?


Now that's the Christianity we all know.

It's a shame you didn't have AKs during the crusades.



posted on Dec, 18 2012 @ 02:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by nixie_nox
reply to post by NavyDoc
 


You made absolutely no sense.

Only republicans supported voter ID.






this makes me kind of angry, I'm neither a republican or a democrat I'm somewhere in between pretty much a democrat socially and a republican fiscally this being said I totally agree with the idea of voter ID laws, and your statement does the exact opposite of what this site is supposed to be all about "deny ignorance" by saying something like that it comes off as judgmental and seems like an almost racial statement. BOOOOO to you



posted on Dec, 18 2012 @ 02:32 PM
link   
you know for a group of people who are supposed skeptics, the vast majority fall rank and file with whatever crapola the MSM pushes.

Turns out the real skeptics don't tell others what to do and never insist on pushing a government agenda.

You can buy into all the crap about the end of the world, UFO´s, blue beam, false religions, ect. but give people a hassle when the government asks you to. Then go and say that the CIA is trying to hurt us somehow, and that the government and bankers cabal can not be trusted because of elaborate and far fetched plots. But hey if they want you to surrender your F-ing weapons you say it is because they care and are concerned for us

I swear some people are no worse than the supposed sheep they mock.

edit on 18-12-2012 by zedVSzardoz because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 18 2012 @ 02:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by Alfie1

Originally posted by Asktheanimals
reply to post by Alfie1
 


I have 4 children and 2 grandchildren whose rights I fully intend to preserve.
Gun rights have nothing to do with the deaths of these children and I find using their deaths in such a blatantly politically way nothing short of disgusting.
Without gun rights we would have never been preserved as a free Republic.
How many dead people did it take to create that?


Of course so-called "gun rights " had everything to do with it. With so many on here it is like talking to an alcoholic who just keeps insisting he is a social drinker.

What on earth was a middle-aged mother doing with an armoury in her home which enabled her nutty son to go off on this spree with multiple weapons and hundreds of rounds of ammunition ? Is that normal ?


3 guns and a couple of hundred rounds is not an "armory." Considering women are vulnerable to rape and assault, I think the reason why a woman would want to own a few guns is pretty apparent. Her fault lies, not with owning three rather common guns, but not securing them when she realized her son was nuts. Therin lies her negligence.



posted on Dec, 18 2012 @ 03:16 PM
link   
reply to post by kaylaluv
 

Yes, you're right. The Heller case does allow for regulation and doesn't specify what they meant. Ban? No. Regulation? Yes. So, it's a sure thing that whatever is passed is straight into federal court the next day and on it's way for the next hearing at the top. They predicted when the Heller case was decided that as much as it cleared up and settled a few core issues, it opened other new cans of worms.

It's be something to watch this all fought out in the federal courts for the next few years because realistically, that is all we're going to see happen for quite some time.



posted on Dec, 18 2012 @ 05:55 PM
link   
I listened, the majority of his stats and conclusions from them were false.



posted on Dec, 18 2012 @ 06:02 PM
link   
www.justfacts.com... Don't listen to someone elses supposed facts. Research facts for yourself and form your own opinion.



posted on Dec, 18 2012 @ 06:05 PM
link   
banning a knive from charles manson made society safer. or is charles manson the same danger whether he can use a knife or not.

is the knife the problem, or charles manson.

would you rather ban knives and have charles manson walking around free in your neighbourhood, since he isn't a "danger" any more, or would you rather focus on what caused and made charles manson and go from there on what to do with him.

its the same thing with these shooters. something is making them snap. you have to keep an open mind and take it where it goes, even if you find out they are human clones being used by aliens to disrupt and hurt humanity, you have to find the cause and eliminate it.

not the gun, it is an extreme measure of ignorance say "ban" guns, the red herring by the way, and not find out what happened and why.

people are mad and angry. revolutionary angry at that. which you have to consider is what they want.

edit on 18-12-2012 by randomname because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 18 2012 @ 06:09 PM
link   
reply to post by redtic
 


SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.... SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED... SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED


in·fringed in·fring·ing

Definition of INFRINGE

transitive verb

1: to encroach upon in a way that violates law or the rights of another


The Federal Government has absolutley NO AUTHORITY WHATSOEVER in regards to gun laws. They have no authority at all. The Bill of Rights is a charter of restrictions upon the Federal Government, and any action taken to legislate guns in any way, shape or form is by definition INFRINGEMENT. It is left to the individual state governments to decide their own gun laws. This is called incorporation, and it is mis-used in a major way in today's America. For example, the recent decision by a Federal Court to overturn the concealled carry law in Illinois. On the surface it looks like a great win for the pro-gun crowd, but the fact that the Federal Government thinks that it has the authority to tell Illinois how to manage their guin laws is troubling and only opens the door for them to assume authority over other gun matters in the future. You can not legislate insanity. No law will ever stop it. The answer to preventing this in the future is to have trained undercover security work in schools, as Janitors or grounds keepers, or whatever.



posted on Dec, 18 2012 @ 06:10 PM
link   
I have kids in school this whole thing really touched home i know i wouldnt be throwing my guns away if one of them was mine..
i wouldnt give a damn about whats on the media i would be putting my kid in the ground.
i would be blaming that S



posted on Dec, 18 2012 @ 06:29 PM
link   
Me and a friend of mine were talking about this last night. We both enjoy going to the range once a month so obvoisly we support gun owners rights. There is no new gun law that could have stopped this. Even when talking about making changes to waiting periods, banning large magazines, the problem remains, they were his mom's guns. Can't stop crazy.
edit on 18-12-2012 by JMech because: beer





new topics
top topics
 
4
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join