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.
Originally posted by NavyDoc
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.
Paul Harvey on Gun Control:
> >
> > Are you considering backing gun control laws? Do you think that because
> you may not own a gun, the rights guaranteed by the Second Amendment don't
> matter?
> >
> > CONSIDER THIS...
> >
> > In 1929 the Soviet Union established gun control. From 1929 to 1953,
> approximately 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were
> rounded up and exterminated.
> >
> > In 1911, Turkey established gun control. From 1915-1917, 1.5 million
> > Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and
> exterminated.
> >
> > Germany established gun control in 1938 and from 1939 to 1945,13 million
> Jews, gypsies, homosexuals, the mentally ill, and others, who
> were unable to
> defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
> >
> > China established gun control in 1935. From 1948 to 1952, 20 million
> political dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and
> exterminated.
> >
> > Guatemala established gun control in 1964. From 1964 to 1981,
> > 100,000 Mayan Indians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and
> exterminated.
> >
> > Uganda established gun control in 1970. From 1971 to 1979, 300,000
> > Christians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and
> exterminated.
> >
> > Cambodia established gun control in 1956. From 1975 to 1977, one million
> "educated" people, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and
> exterminated.
> >
> > That places total victims who lost their lives because of gun control at
> approximately 56 million in the last century.
> >
> > Since we should learn from the mistakes of history, the next
> time someone
> talks in favor of gun control, find out which group of citizens
> they wish to
> have exterminated.
> >
> > It has now been 12 months since gun owners in Australia were forced to
> surrender 640,381 personal firearms to be destroyed, a program costing the
> government more than $500 million dollars. The results
> > Australia-wide; Homicides are up 3.2%, assaults are up 8%, and armed
> robberies are up 44%.
> >
> > In that country's state of Victoria, homicides with firearms are up
> > 300%. Over the previous 25 years, figures show a steady
> decrease in armed
> robberies and Australian politicians are on the spot and at a loss to
> explain how no improvement in "safety" has been observed after such
> monumental effort and expense was successfully expended in
> "ridding society
> of guns."
> >
> > It's time to state it plainly; guns in the hands of honest citizens save
> lives and property and, yes, gun-control laws only affect the law-abiding
> citizens. Take action before it's too late, write or call your delegation.
> >
Paul Harvey, good day.
Paul Harvey on Gun Control:
Originally posted by CosmicCitizen
One reason that the Japanese dropped the idea of attacking the mainland USA in WW2 was because Admiral Yamamoto said that there was an armed American "behind every blade of grass." He wasnt talking about the Army or Marine Corps but about the citizens at large. That deterrent alone ("to ensure the security of a free state") should be good enough for you.
Originally posted by zonetripper2065
Instead of trying to change the laws of the land try moving to a land with laws you can agree with.
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.
. www.archives.gov...
We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,
Originally posted by FlySolo
Originally posted by NavyDoc
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.
Sounds like your blaming the mother for the school shooting. Anyway, what about all the other negligent mothers out there with guns and loony kids? How do you enforce common sense? And how do you know for sure they weren't secured in the first place and he manged to find the key?