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.


Obama's Gun Control is NOT ABOUT GUN CONTROL. Read this.

page: 6
<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in


posted on Jan, 19 2013 @ 02:07 AM
reply to post by XXX777

I'm shocked no one has discussed the OBAMACARE COMPLIANCE Officers that will be set loose on the U.S. during the very same time the gun confisaction meetings in NY are over.

posted on Jan, 19 2013 @ 09:47 AM
reply to post by uSNUUZuLUUz
You say guns give a false sense of POWER, and those that own guns are WEAK and live in fear. Ibeg to differ. I own several guns and they are for the protection of my home and family.
Have you ever heard of home invasions? This form of crime is increasing rapidly, and homeowners who don't have access to a firearm are frequently injured or killed.
I live in an area where drug use, especially meth, is high. My wife and I have weapons within arms reach. Besides firearms, I have a K-BAR which is kept razor sharp. My home is protected. Is yours.

posted on Jan, 19 2013 @ 02:43 PM
reply to post by kettlebellysmith

Good point but the sense of power is not fake it is real. That is why it is a threat to anyone who wishes to impose their will on you be it common thug or political thug.

"Might makes right"

The idea, though not the wording, has been attributed to the History of the Peloponnesian War by the ancient Greek historian Thucydides, who stated that "since you know as well as we do that right, as the world goes, is only in question between equals in power, while the strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must." [1]

This is the problem with socialism/communism they believe that man is good and corrupted by his environment but throughout history we see that people will be opportunist and exploiters. They try to create laws and institutions to change the very nature of man but it always fails from an ideological point of view never mind the fact that it strips everyone of any individuality and freedom for "the greater good". This is idealism meets materialism. Kind of like if everyone won the lottery. It wouldn't make everyone rich it would just inflate everything and screw up the economies workforce etc. Creating more strife because the idea of MAKING everyone happy and peaceful has to coalesce with the material aspect of money expansion and a number of other financial realities.
edit on 19-1-2013 by NihilistSanta because: (no reason given)

posted on Jan, 19 2013 @ 04:37 PM
reply to post by blamethegreys

See that's where the paranoid part comes in. What has 'luck' got to do with it? Do I really have to show you statistics of actually needing a gun for home protection? I mean you do realize you have a better chance of being eaten alive by a shark or struck by lightning. So I suppose you also avoid the beach and never go outdoors. This is the problem with the argument, again take a look at statistics because guns, in the long run, never get used and it has nothing to do with luck.

posted on Jan, 19 2013 @ 04:41 PM
reply to post by ladyoutlaw

Again the American population already has enough guns to do that, in fact i'm positive in the last month enough automatic weapons were bought up to arm the entire US population against the government. So you keep drinking that red stuff, I'll keep surrendering to reason. Never mind the fact that they aren't going after guns already owned.
edit on 19-1-2013 by NoJoker13 because: (no reason given)

posted on Jan, 19 2013 @ 04:43 PM
reply to post by CaptAmerika

Well when then don't come take your guns or change much of anything come talk to me. I live in MA where much of these laws are already in place, no worries for me, boo ho to you.

posted on Jan, 19 2013 @ 04:46 PM
reply to post by BrianFlanders

O really nice of you to side step the point, doesn't take away from the fact that guns and AMMUNITION are not on the shelves and at this point gun enthusiasts must be armed for the next 20+ years. An ready for that apocalypse and civil war they wan't so much.

posted on Jan, 19 2013 @ 04:48 PM
reply to post by uSNUUZuLUUz

Great post I enjoyed it, I suppose the people arming themselves don't realize they aren't helping the problem. Hey all I've said here is to come up with a better argument and I've been labeled as the same liberal class trying to disarm the population. Goes to show the rational of folks here and the overall IQ of the normal gun enthusiast.

posted on Jan, 19 2013 @ 06:22 PM

Originally posted by NoJoker13
reply to post by blamethegreys

See that's where the paranoid part comes in. What has 'luck' got to do with it? Do I really have to show you statistics of actually needing a gun for home protection? I mean you do realize you have a better chance of being eaten alive by a shark or struck by lightning. So I suppose you also avoid the beach and never go outdoors. This is the problem with the argument, again take a look at statistics because guns, in the long run, never get used and it has nothing to do with luck.

Statistics? Sure, here's a mess of em:
Most notable to this particular discussion you and I are having:

A U.S. Justice Department study based on crime data from 1974-1985 found:

• 42% of Americans will be the victim of a completed violent crime (assault, robbery, rape) in the course of their lives
• 83% of Americans will be the victim of an attempted or completed violent crime

• 52% of Americans will be the victim of an attempted or completed violent crime more than once[24]

So as I mentioned before, I own guns as a longterm investment. Over my life, I'm more likely than not be put in that situation once or twice.
And to be clear, when the time comes, I sincerely hope that just having a weapon out will end the problem. I don't have the exact number in front of me, but a huge amount (98% or something) of gun related "saves" are from simply brandishing the weapon.

So really, it isn't paranoia.

I live my life, I have guns, if something happens, maybe I can get one out, threaten off some bad guys and then call the cops. I wouldn't even threaten with a gun unless I had reason to fear for my or my family's life. Honestly, I wouldn't pull a gun on some fool rummaging my garage (detached), or skulking in my yard. For me, it would take clear and present danger.

posted on Jan, 19 2013 @ 07:05 PM

Originally posted by uSNUUZuLUUz
What are you so scared of? Or you so messed up that you think everyone is a Criminal?, because of all the dirt you did, and how you separate yourself from society, and be a lone person in big world? Question, do even you know your neighbors?

1) Nothing in particular.
2)Not a bit, I am highly non-judgemental.
3) I haven't done anything "hardcore", nor do I feel like some badass with a gun. TBH, I am still not 100% comfortable with my handgun in my house, even though it's fully locked open.
4) Yes, I know my immediate neighbors all around (except behind), and know and regularly visit probably 15-20 different families in the neighborhood.

In regards to protection, where do you draw the line? Do you need semi-automatics to shoot at Criminals? Do you need NUKES to defend yourself? Where would that leave the country or the world?

1) I draw the line exactly where the Supreme Court of the United States has decided the line exists.
2) I do not need them, but I have the right to have semi-automatics if I feel so inclined, to yes, maim or kill in defense of my own life. Nukes? please don't drag that sophomoric argument into this.
3) Probably alot like WY, ID, MT, UT...very low violent crime rates cause damn near all of us have guns. Nobody wants to bust into a house in these parts if there's ANY chance a person is home.

Why do you feel, that every crime warrants DEATH!? You sound like the old salem witch trials.. Burn her, she is a witch! Kill the criminal that busted down your door, for wanting to have bread and food and money like you do.

1) I don't feel that every crime warrants death, and neither do most. This point truly shows where you are at. You have dehumanized the group which you disagree with, and turned us into a caricature of some evil sub-human. And sadly, history has proven that really large scale mass murder begins with just that thought process.

Some huge amount of the time, like (98% or something), Guns stop criminal acts simply by being present in the hand of the victim/bystander. I'll give you the same link I gave the last guy I responded to: (but I doubt you'll read it).

FEAR is the key. Nothing says your are so SCARED then by having a gun. you FEAR the criminal is going to take your life. You FEAR Death. You FEAR that the criminal will take your FOOD or your PROPERTY. You are SCARED of starving, and scared of having NO possessions.

Interesting how your reflection of my last post, where I emphasized the fact that wanted to be prepared to defend my family, is all about you accusing ME of all this.
Well, lemme see: I don't have much in the way of stuff, never have, never placed much value in it. Hell, before I got married my life would fit in the back of a pickup truck. So I am sure I don't fear the loss of stuff.
I don't fear death, okay maybe a little, but I'd say less than the average guy. I have always had a strong conviction about life and the hereafter, and even close personal losses have never tore me up becuase I am so certain that this is not the end.
Scared of starving? Okay, yeah, you got me there. I don't want to literally starve to death. But you know what? I'd rather starve to death than watch my wife or kids do the same. But that being said, you list fear of a criminal taking my food...Nope, sorry. That's not me.

Did Jesus have a stash of weapons to unload and protect his family? Did Martin Luther King, march down and shoot up as many people as he could?? No, do you know what they did, they went RIGHT INTO the face of danger with NO WEAPONS. They spoke. They realized that you don't fight fire with fire, you fight it with water. They knew you don't fight hatred with more hate, you fight it with love. That is true strength.

1) Then said He unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one.[Luke 22:36]

You know, my kids are fighting, my wife's out of town, and I am tired of trying to write this post at the moment.
So lemme just Clif's Note the rest:

I give 10% of income to charity
I regularly give donations to Charities which help homeless, under-educated families, and single mothers and children.
I occasionally work in the neighborhood soup kitchen when I have the time.
And I would give food to anyone who came to my door hungry. And I have. Repeatedly.

I don't carry a gun around with me. I own guns, which are kept locked at home.
I'm not scared of life. I am prepared better than you is all.

Fight if you must, and use your hand strength, but at the point of death, you should restrain. Everyone, including criminals have a right to live, no matter how messed up they are.

Yeah, bro, sorry. There's no way I will trade my wife or kids' lives in for the life of a person who would want to kill them.

posted on Jan, 19 2013 @ 08:04 PM

Originally posted by NoJoker13
reply to post by blamethegreys

See that's where the paranoid part comes in. What has 'luck' got to do with it? Do I really have to show you statistics of actually needing a gun for home protection? I mean you do realize you have a better chance of being eaten alive by a shark or struck by lightning. So I suppose you also avoid the beach and never go outdoors. This is the problem with the argument, again take a look at statistics because guns, in the long run, never get used and it has nothing to do with luck.

1. You're not very likely to ever actually need a smoke detector or a carbon monoxide detector either but most people would say you're a fool if you don't at least have one smoke detector in your residence. And if you have anything in your home that burns any kind of fuel, you really should have a carbon monoxide detector too. And again, in 40 years of living in homes "protected by" smoke alarms and carbon monoxide detectors, I've never once had a fire or a carbon monoxide event. So you could say I have just been pointlessly feeding these things batteries because it makes me feel better to know they're there if I need them. You could say I'm paranoid that my house is going to burn down. I don't care what you think.

And we should not be having to explain why it might be a good idea to have a weapon that's capable of defending us and our families if it ever comes to that. If people wanted to own bazookas or something, I could understand the concern. An AR-15 (although it's probably overkill for self defense) is not really something the vast majority of it's owners are going to abuse to the point of going and murdering people with it. THAT is paranoia. The fact that it might have happened a few times in a country of 300 million people does not justify being paranoid that everyone who owns one is the next James Holmes.

2. If you ever actually do need a gun for protection, it's exceedingly unlikely you'll ever regret it actually being there when you needed it.

3. If you like going to the beach, other than staying out of the water, there is really nothing you can do to prevent a shark attack that's as simple as just buying a gun and learning to use it. So that isn't really a fair comparison. If you're alive and you're at home, there's a small chance you could be a victim and would need to use a weapon to defend yourself.

4. If you're an average, intelligent person who takes the time to learn to use, maintain and store a gun safely, there is no reason you shouldn't keep one for protection. The chances are probably well over 90% that it won't hurt a thing to have one anyway.

So. You're probably right that most people who keep guns for protection will never actually need them for that purpose. But most of them will also never regret being prepared.
edit on 19-1-2013 by BrianFlanders because: (no reason given)

posted on Jan, 20 2013 @ 01:40 AM

Originally posted by uSNUUZuLUUz

You mean just like the Civil war and the addition to Slavery??

right now americans are ADDICTED to GUNS, the same way we were ADDICTED to SLAVERY.
Does this sound familiar? You will NOT take our SLAVES!!! Same as "You will NOT take our GUNS."

I see American history is not your strong suit... neither, it appears, is current events. The first Civil War was not about slavery. It was 3 years into the war before the Emancipation Proclamation was signed. One would think that if it had been about slavery, that might have come about a mite sooner. The first Civil War was about State's Rights, and the states lost that one.

NOW, it's not about guns. Guns are just a symptom of the encroachment on Individual Rights. If Individuals lose this one, where will the encroachment end? What other rights are you willing to give up in the course of that? We have yet to plumb the depths of the loss of States Rights - how long will it take to scrape the bottom of the barrel on loss of YOUR rights after they take MINE?

When will everyone realize that guns are not right. Do you believe in Jesus or Buddha, etc? If so, would they carry guns or weapons?? Would they fight and KILL for protection?? NO.

Yes, I believe in Jesus, and Buddha too, for that matter. I'm convinced they both existed. That does not mean that I AM them. There is no particular reason I should be expected to react in the same way as either of them would.

I DO note, however, that Jesus in particular advised his disciples to sell their coats in order to buy swords. I'll take my cue from that hint, thanks.

Honestly Nobody life is worth more than another person's life. We are all equal. No matter how bad or messed up, or criminal you are, we are all the same. No one deserves to die. Everyone needs help, and some need help more than others.

I take issue with that, and maintain that there are DEFINITELY some lives worth less than the lives of my wife or son. Luckily, that is not yet the issue here. The issue, as I said above, is just how much freedom you are willing to give up. Understand that the more you give, the more they will be emboldened to TAKE.

That person that tries to rob you. Perhaps they are poor and hungry and that's all they know (Go see the movie Les Miserables, and about forgiveness with the criminal Jean Valjean). Perhaps they need whatever they stole from you, more than what you do. Perhaps you give it to them, and ask if they need more.

Perhaps, perhaps not. I'm not going to ask them when they kick my door in. I don't know how much you know about hunger, but I am intimately acquainted to it. I have gone for up to 5 days at a time without eating, because I couldn't afford to. At no point during that period did I say "ah hell, let's just rob someone else".

Guns only begat more violence. All it takes is for someone with an anger problem to then feel that they can take another's life, and then they can do it easily.

Guns beget nothing. They are inanimate chunks of steel with a light oil coating, and are entirely incapable of reproduction. Violence begets violence, and that requires an animate agent - in this case humans. That violent human can take a life in any of a number of non-firearms ways. The history of humanity is replete with violent people taking life, long before the advent of firearms, and continuing to this day even in their absence.

We as americans are addicted to POWER. Having a gun provides a false sense of POWER. Which means those who own guns are WEAK. You can't solve your problems with words, or your hands, that you must take a weapon. WEAK. We as americans are FEARFUL. Why are you so scared of your fellow man, that you need to own a killing machine? Do you need to own NUKES as well? for proection? At what point, do you stop being SCARED, and face the truth of reality, and help your fellow human.

Guns are a great equalizer for otherwise powerless people, it's true. Call them "weak" if you must, but I call them "survivors". Using a gun, a 100 pound "weak" woman can turn a 220 pound potential rapist into a near miss. If it was YOUR mother, wife, or daughter, would you really prefer they just lay there and take it?

The crack about nukes is not worthy or response. it's just an adventure into the absurd.

We all need help. We must all choose NOT to be SCARED. Be strong, without a weapon. Help those that transgress against you. Solve your problems with your fellow man. Stop trying to be BETTER than anyone else. We are all the same.

I don't care how "strong" you think you are. There are much easier way to deal with multiple assailants than getting in a wrestling match with them. YOU can try to talk sense to a crack head if you want to. I don't want to. I'm not their social worker. You can tell 'em that you're as good as they are with your last breath. It's not a matter of being "scared", it's a matter of being prudent, and living through it.

Just like Slavery was WRONG. Gun ownership is wrong as well. Yes in the 1600's and 1700's and 1800's, slavery was OK, and so was guns. Because we hadn't EVOLVED far enough consciously yet. Hopefully by now, in the year 2013, we will WAKE UP and expand our consciousness to know that slavery is bad, as well as having an easy killling machine such as a gun is wrong. Not one life should be taken no matter how bad they are. enlighten one another, and realize you are only as strong as your weakest link. Think about the homeless and the less fortunate than your self.

You can enlighten yourself all you please. I'll continue to enlighten others in terms they can comprehend. Again, the slavery analogy is way off base. I help the homeless and unfortunate already - I DEAL with predators. That's the only "help" predators understand.

Start with your government. Convince THEM to give up their weapons and live in peace with all. When they disband the military, do away with police, THEN I will consider that all the bad men are gone from this world, have been "enlightened". Until then, as long as the government thinks there is a need for defense, then I will continue to believe defense is a necessity also in a world that contains predators. When your government puts on their rose-colored glasses - or takes yours to put on - I will put mine on as well.

edit on 2013/1/20 by nenothtu because: (no reason given)

posted on Jan, 20 2013 @ 02:10 AM

Originally posted by DCPatriot

Originally posted by nenothtu

2) The Second Amendment is specifically written to provide PARITY between the people and any potential governmental aggressor, specifically TO make those potential aggressors think twice before tackling. Why then are police and military exempt from a ban on "cop killer" bullets? WHY, specifically, would COPS need "cop killer" bullets more than non-police?

edit on 2013/1/17 by nenothtu because: (no reason given)

The term "cop-killer" bullet was initiated at a time there were calls for more safety of our police officers.

"Hollow-point" buillets inflict much more damage to human tissue than unaltered ones.

Precisely. Armor piercing ammo has a tendency to punch right through, leaving a clean, bullet-sized hole. Hollow points make a mess of things. That was part of the problem in Mogadishu - the opposition was getting drilled straight through by over-stabilized, steel jacketed bullets, failing to realize that they were dead, and so coming right onward.

posted on Jan, 20 2013 @ 10:36 AM
reply to post by blamethegreys

LOL get me the yearly statistics today, I love that your study is based from 1974-1985!!!! Also I'm talking DEATH here not a crime you would survive from. I'm sure in the case of rape etc. a knife would be enough.

posted on Jan, 20 2013 @ 10:37 AM
reply to post by BrianFlanders

Great rational, really...

In that case I should own a chain mail suit for swimming. I'm running to the store now.
edit on 20-1-2013 by NoJoker13 because: (no reason given)

posted on Jan, 20 2013 @ 03:04 PM

Originally posted by NoJoker13
reply to post by BrianFlanders

In that case I should own a chain mail suit for swimming. I'm running to the store now.
edit on 20-1-2013 by NoJoker13 because: (no reason given)

Good. Let me know when you've thrown out all your smoke detectors.

posted on Jan, 20 2013 @ 05:38 PM
Question for those who are anti-gun. I understand your views on enforcing gun restrictions but what is your answer to violence? The problem is violence, guns are just a hedge for the non-violent to defend themselves. For me to be convinced that guns are unnecessary you need to supply an answer to crime and violence both civil and political. The solutions offered thus far do nothing but strengthen the criminals and weaken the innocent. This to me just proves it is a calculated emotional response that is being used to by pass sound logic.

posted on Jan, 20 2013 @ 10:31 PM
reply to post by NihilistSanta

Well said

posted on Jan, 21 2013 @ 12:41 AM
From the White House fact sheet:

School psychologists, social workers, and counselors can help create a safe and nurturing school climate by providing mental health services to students who need help.

We need to train teachers and other adults who regularly interact with students to recognize young people who need help and ensure they are referred to mental health services.

I'm disgusted. Not only by this but by a lot of the things I've been reading here the past few days concerning the "mental illness" factor in this gun control madness.

Wake up people. Just because they are "teachers" or "adults" or "school psychologists" doesn't make them magically immune from being "mentally ill."

I personally know a person who was (and might still be, I don't know but could find out) a female elementary school psychologist. She molested my younger brother in the guise of "helping" him.

We were children without any guidance or direction when this was occurring. That's one of the reasons we didn't report her. Plus there were many other factors happening at the time so don't ask me why I didn't report her. It happened and it sucked and I'm here to tell you it did.

This mixing of the gun control and mental health is a very scary proposition. There are dangerous, mentally ill people in our schools already. This is a fact.

And if I personally know one, I'm sure there are many more.

This is way more than gun control.

posted on Jan, 21 2013 @ 01:23 AM

Originally posted by NoJoker13
reply to post by blamethegreys

LOL get me the yearly statistics today, I love that your study is based from 1974-1985!!!! Also I'm talking DEATH here not a crime you would survive from. I'm sure in the case of rape etc. a knife would be enough.

So in order to continue your anti-gun tirade, you dismiss tangible, relevant data to the argument that samples data from 20 years ago? Your resolve boggles my mind. You know good and well that today's number's haven't magically dropped off to nil. Odds are they're similar to what I presented. So I give you pertinent facts, you 'move the goal post', rejecting my evidence outright. That's special pleading.

I'd like to discuss the whole "I'm talking DEATH here not a crime you would survive from..." comment. You are walking home from whatever pub you frequent, because you're drunk and don't want to drive. (Good on you mate, that's responsible!) On a deserted street, 2 or 3 young men step out of a doorway and stop you. At this point this is gonna play out in one of a few different ways.
Hopefully, they are lost and need directions to the church they are supposed to be singing at. But they're not. They posture threateningly and begin to speak...
1) They threaten you, take your junk, and leave.
2) They beat you (maybe rape, IDK what part of town you drink in) and take your stuff.
3) They kill you and take your stuff. Or Beat/Rape you, kill you, take your stuff.

You have NO WAY of knowing in those seconds right after they stop you what the end result of their crime will be. You don't know if they're jacked up on meth, if they think your red shirt is a gang indicator, if they are just punks out to thrill kill, or maybe they are just looking for a couple easy bucks.

Would you not pull out a gun to scare them off at the onset of the crime? If you had to fire, it would mean they attacked you in spite of the threat of the gun, which means their resolve from the onset was alot higher than you might expect from an average mugger.

And one more thing. Knife? Really? An average woman, say 5'5" / 130 lbs, walking to her car in a garage is confronted by a average US male, 5'9" / 180 lb. She pulls a knife out a threatens the guy. He's got 50 pounds on her, 4" in height and probably close to that in reach. He's more than likely an experienced aggressor. She more than likely has never been in a knife fight. How is that gonna end exactly? John Q. Raper runs off into the night, scared by a 2-3" bit of shiny steel?

You see with a gun, she has been to the range, she knows how to shoot, she can practice that. He may be an experienced aggressor, but she is an experienced shooter. Also, he knows that a gunshot is much more likely to end him than a cut. He respects the power that the gun gives the victim...and he runs.

If you actually believe what you're typing, you A) haven't been around the block, and B) Will have quite a wake up call when you come face to face with a bona fide thug.
edit on 21-1-2013 by blamethegreys because: (no reason given)

top topics

<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in