It’s Time for Gun Confiscation in America

page: 2
159
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 13 2013 @ 01:41 PM
link   
reply to post by groingrinder
 



I am old enough to remember taking my 22 rifle to school and keeping it in my locker so I could hunt rabbits on the way home from school. Nobody ran in fear when they saw me coming (not even the rabbits) and nobody raised a stink about it. We have had semi auto assault weapons for quite a while now, but in the past 30 years or so something has changed. It is not the weapons.


Times have certainly changed….by design….by programming….by the constant progressive drumbeat.



The biggest mistake we have made is to hand out stiffer judicial penalties for drug dealers than we do for murderers. We need to make the death penalty mandatory for people who have a gun in their possession during the commission of a crime or those who are guilty of murdering someone.


How do you explain the fact that the people pushing for stricter gun control are the same people who argue against the death penalty for murderers and advocate for the parole of felons.

They want us to give up our means of self-protection yet they work their tails off to put criminals back on the streets.

(BTW – thanks for the kind words…much appreciated.)




posted on Jan, 13 2013 @ 01:49 PM
link   
reply to post by MrUncreated
 



That's a good idea. Let's arm ourselves with keyboards and bash some friggin' heads in!


If Obama and his ilk have their way we may have to resort to that!! Well….at least those of you who are left will have to do that.



Unlike the Brits and most Europeans, Americans don't have to resort to keyboard attacks just yet. We still have the power of armed defense and haven't allowed ourselves to be neutered.


edit on 13-1-2013 by seabag because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 13 2013 @ 01:50 PM
link   
reply to post by seabag
 


That age group increasingly looks to be the age group that snaps and commits these mass murders. I was actually generalizing but there is some underlying problem that causes them to kill when things go badly for them. I don't know what that is, i have my suspicions but the age group that is committing these horrendous acts is more and more evident. I don't really think raising the age limit would have any effect. It was more a statement to identify the age group that seems to be snapping in violent ways.



posted on Jan, 13 2013 @ 02:00 PM
link   
reply to post by jimmiec
 



That age group increasingly looks to be the age group that snaps and commits these mass murders. I was actually generalizing but there is some underlying problem that causes them to kill when things go badly for them. I don't know what that is, i have my suspicions but the age group that is committing these horrendous acts is more and more evident.


I have an opinion about what that underlying problem is but that’s another thread…in fact, many of my previous threads touch on that.

What’s sad is that Biden’s gun conference was purely a 2nd amendment attack. At no time did he or anyone else make any suggestions about how to address the root causes or how to keep our people (particularly our kids) safe.

The NRA had this to say:


"We were disappointed with how little this meeting had to do with keeping our children safe and how much it had to do with an agenda to attack the Second Amendment," the group said in a written statement. "While claiming that no policy proposals would be 'prejudged,' this Task Force spent most of its time on proposed restrictions on lawful firearms owners -- honest, taxpaying, hardworking Americans.
link





I don't really think raising the age limit would have any effect. It was more a statement to identify the age group that seems to be snapping in violent ways.


Nor do I…

I get where you’re coming from now.



posted on Jan, 13 2013 @ 02:04 PM
link   
reply to post by groingrinder
 


The only people who would respond to stiffer penalties are the law abiding gun owners. Look at the people who have perpetrated the incidents that have created this firestorm. They couldn't have cared less about penalties. Most were not lawful gun owners. Virtully all were mentally ill and suicidal. What possible effect would stiffer penalties have on them? Those of us from the older generation have grown up around guns all our lives. All kinds of guns. Back when they were kept in closets, on shelves, in living room display cases, in racks in our trucks, and plain old out-in-the-open. Long before 'gun safes' were commonplace. And these kinds of incidents rarely if ever happened.

If we know --- as we do --- that mental health and related social disorders (e.g., bullying) are central to these incidents shouldn't THAT be our focus? Even IF stricter gun regulations were to impede access to guns (and based on empirical data that is a MASSIVE if) will that in any way defuse these rage-filled, mentally ill people? Will they simply give up and become 'normal'? Or like that kid recently arrested in the process of making fragmentation bombs, will they simply vent their rage another way? Instead of shooting-up a classroom will they instead start dragging kids one by one into the woods? Will they firebomb a school bus or a group of kids leaving school?

The real problem here, the real danger, is the mindset of 'well we have to do SOMETHING'. That's a critically dangerous trap. Because by doing something you can then move on without ever having addessed the real issues. And they don't change. And then more tragedy and shocked disbelief. 'But how could this possibly happen again?' Duh!



posted on Jan, 13 2013 @ 02:05 PM
link   
reply to post by seabag
 


I also have numerous threads on the root causes (which are many) Looks like we think a lot alike.



posted on Jan, 13 2013 @ 02:19 PM
link   
reply to post by groingrinder
 





We need to make the death penalty mandatory for people who have a gun in their possession during the commission of a crime or those who are guilty of murdering someone. Furthermore we should make sure that penalty is carried out within 60 days of sentencing.


That's sounds like great idea, let's give the government even more power to murder people.



posted on Jan, 13 2013 @ 02:24 PM
link   
Why not leave Left/Right out of it when it clearly is a pro-gun/anti-gun issue? There are people on all sides of every aisle occupying every position in the debate. Most Americans are supportive of the 2nd Amendment of which only a portion are advocates of strict control... sure there's a basis for stating that a majority of those would be Liberals or Progressives but why state it? Why alienate the minority of those groups that support no or little gun control and what about the Libertarian Left that agree with common sense back ground checks and nothing more?

Furthermore as another poster pointed out, if resistance to tyranny is the main issue for those of you screaming that they're coming for your guns as opposed to engaging in intelligent debate and taking every opportunity along the way to bash the Left, where have you been with your guns? Where was the armed protest against the shredding of habeas corpus? Police state? Surveillance state? Are those not tyrannical? It seems like mouthing words to me. If that were the case you're most certainly advocating for the wrong types of arms in which to defend against tyranny with.

There's nothing wrong with saying you're against gun control because you want to be able to buy whatever kind of gun you want, you don't have to falsely play hero to the Republic... so kindly stop insulting our collective intelligence.

You as a free people should be able to buy whatever guns you choose and we as a free people should be able to debate common sense conditions so that my right to walk down my street isn't infringed by my neighbors 12 year old that got a hold of his parents AR-15.



posted on Jan, 13 2013 @ 02:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by DirtyD
reply to post by groingrinder
 





We need to make the death penalty mandatory for people who have a gun in their possession during the commission of a crime or those who are guilty of murdering someone. Furthermore we should make sure that penalty is carried out within 60 days of sentencing.


That's sounds like great idea, let's give the government even more power to murder people.


The government doesn’t pass sentence in trial….a jury of your peers does.

Do you want to deter more crime? Harsher penalties work! If you think harsh punishments are not a deterrent then please explain what sense there is in enacting stricter gun laws?



posted on Jan, 13 2013 @ 02:41 PM
link   


You as a free people should be able to buy whatever guns you choose and we as a free people should be able to debate common sense conditions so that my right to walk down my street isn't infringed by my neighbors 12 year old that got a hold of his parents AR-15.


What if your neighbor's 12 year old had a .357 Magnum? You'd be dead either way if he shot you, so what difference does it make? The problem isn't the gun, it's your neighbors.
edit on 13-1-2013 by DirtyD because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 13 2013 @ 02:50 PM
link   
When our government cleans up the mess they have made of society and stops breeding thugs and gangs and secures our borders Americans can let their guns collect dust in a closet. America will never give up their guns in any case. There is no move to address the real issue of why Americans feel the need to own guns so there will be no willingness to give them up. Hollywood stars,the wealthy,thugs and government officials will most assuredly be armed to the teeth if a gun ban did happen. That is not equality, that is not just, that goes against the very heart of Americas foundation.



posted on Jan, 13 2013 @ 02:51 PM
link   


Do you want to deter more crime? Harsher penalties work! If you think harsh punishments are not a deterrent then please explain what sense there is in enacting stricter gun laws?
reply to post by seabag
 


I'm not for stricter gun control, and I don't think the death penalty deters squat. I hardly think criminals stop to think about the consequences of their actions.



posted on Jan, 13 2013 @ 02:53 PM
link   
reply to post by Kali74
 



Why not leave Left/Right out of it when it clearly is a pro-gun/anti-gun issue? There are people on all sides of every aisle occupying every position in the debate. Most Americans are supportive of the 2nd Amendment of which only a portion are advocates of strict control... sure there's a basis for stating that a majority of those would be Liberals or Progressives but why state it? Why alienate the minority of those groups that support no or little gun control and what about the Libertarian Left that agree with common sense back ground checks and nothing more?


Most Americans are supportive of the 2nd amendment?




Let’s compare that to the types of poll results we saw throughout the last presidential election….



Looks like a country divided along political ideology. I'm not going to sugarcoat it for your consumption.




Furthermore as another poster pointed out, if resistance to tyranny is the main issue for those of you screaming that they're coming for your guns as opposed to engaging in intelligent debate and taking every opportunity along the way to bash the Left, where have you been with your guns? Where was the armed protest against the shredding of habeas corpus? Police state? Surveillance state? Are those not tyrannical? It seems like mouthing words to me. If that were the case you're most certainly advocating for the wrong types of arms in which to defend against tyranny with.


So are people not to share their position on these topics here on ATS? Are we all supposed to stop logging in and instead run for political office?





There's nothing wrong with saying you're against gun control because you want to be able to buy whatever kind of gun you want, you don't have to falsely play hero to the Republic... so kindly stop insulting our collective intelligence.


No playing hero here….just voicing my opinions. Calm down…take a breathe…don’t get your knickers in a pinch.




You as a free people should be able to buy whatever guns you choose and we as a free people should be able to debate common sense conditions so that my right to walk down my street isn't infringed by my neighbors 12 year old that got a hold of his parents AR-15.


What conditions?? I haven’t heard anyone on this thread propose anything new…certainly not you.



posted on Jan, 13 2013 @ 03:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by DirtyD



Do you want to deter more crime? Harsher penalties work! If you think harsh punishments are not a deterrent then please explain what sense there is in enacting stricter gun laws?
reply to post by seabag
 


I'm not for stricter gun control, and I don't think the death penalty deters squat. I hardly think criminals stop to think about the consequences of their actions.


I agree. Criminals will not be affected by any new (or existing) gun legislation....they don't give a spit.

If the real agenda was to fix this problem obviously our efforts should be to find out WHY PEOPLE BECOME CRIMINALS rather than making it harder for law abiding citizens to buy guns. But of course solving the problem IS NOT and WAS NEVER the objective here...disarmament is the objective.



posted on Jan, 13 2013 @ 03:02 PM
link   
We are not filling the streets and waging war against tyranny as it is not occuring yet, for a government to go tyrannical it would require the peoples disarmament. Now I do believe we are heading down that path as we do have indefinate detentions for our citezenry, a fully working propaganda machine and strange weapons/ammunition aquisitions by branches of the government that require neither wepons or ammo.

I truly think that after seeing the arab spring and our own occupy wall street and tea party movements they fear that if a big enough government snafu occurs especialy related to the economy or commodities there will be an american uprising they could not quell unless we are neutered through legislation first. A million starving and poor American citizens armed and desperate is far more threatening than any foreign army.



posted on Jan, 13 2013 @ 03:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by oasisjack
We are not filling the streets and waging war against tyranny as it is not occuring yet, for a government to go tyrannical it would require the peoples disarmament. Now I do believe we are heading down that path as we do have indefinate detentions for our citezenry, a fully working propaganda machine and strange weapons/ammunition aquisitions by branches of the government that require neither wepons or ammo.

I truly think that after seeing the arab spring and our own occupy wall street and tea party movements they fear that if a big enough government snafu occurs especialy related to the economy or commodities there will be an american uprising they could not quell unless we are neutered through legislation first. A million starving and poor American citizens armed and desperate is far more threatening than any foreign army.


Well said....we're not there yet but we're headed that direction.

Just because bullets aren't flying doesn't mean the battle hasn't begun. The battle for power is ongoing....we have it and the government wants it. They are chipping away at our power on every front. NDAA, ACTA, SOPA, Patriot act, second amendment assault, etc.....all attempts to usurp power.

The government poses the greatest threat to our security. If anyone is to be disarmed "for our security" then lets start there.

edit on 13-1-2013 by seabag because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 13 2013 @ 03:11 PM
link   


But of course solving the problem IS NOT and WAS NEVER the objective here...disarmament is the objective.
reply to post by seabag
 


Agreed, because free people own guns, slaves don't. If government really wanted to solve the problem they'd take a long hard look at the consequences of drugging our children with psychiatric drugs.



posted on Jan, 13 2013 @ 03:14 PM
link   
reply to post by seabag
 


Call me emotional but I just crumbled to tears looking at the sign of the heavily armed staff. I just can't believe it's come to this point. Biden is a total reptile. He even has the mannerisms. Snakey looking slithering reptile.
edit on 13-1-2013 by randyvs because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 13 2013 @ 03:15 PM
link   
reply to post by seabag
 





So are people not to share their position on these topics here on ATS? Are we all supposed to stop logging in and instead run for political office?


You're so polarized you can't see straight. You can't actually see that I'm on your side. What I mean by the type of arms is, unless you can take out a predator drone, tank, war jet... your current arms are useless against an overt tyrannical push. So let's, to use your words, stop sugar coating under the guise of defense against tyranny. You want them because you want them... plain and simple... and you should have them.



posted on Jan, 13 2013 @ 03:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by spacedog1973
If tyrannical governments are the ones who's guns should be taken away
If the purpose of civilians possessing firearms is to oppose tyrannical governments....

Why are you sitting there at your computer talking about it?


You my friend throughout all the posts you have posted in this thread have missed the point completely. Its not about going out and culling the politicians because we suspect they are tyrants right now, even oppression right now, the right to bear arms is to protect ones self if those things were to occur and that could happen at any time.






top topics



 
159
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join