Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

47 States Revolt Against Obama Gun Control

page: 11
245
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 18 2013 @ 02:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by twitchy

Originally posted by bknapple32
Did he say that? He just said he doesnt want lunatics to have a gun. IF you arent a lunatic, and pas a background test, then by all means, arm up.


Well see the problem with that is, who the hell is going to define the word Lunatic?
Obama?
Pharmaceutical Reps?
Psychologists on a fancy new federal budget they need to justify?
Your neighbor?
Your doctor?
Some vague clause in an exectuive order?
Rush Limbaugh?


Just like how having 7 days worth of food storage can mean you're a terrorist/domestic terrorist/terrorist sympathizer and they can detain you indefinitely.

Careful when treading down the slippery slope.

edit on 18-1-2013 by eLPresidente because: (no reason given)




posted on Jan, 18 2013 @ 02:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by twitchy

Originally posted by bknapple32
Did he say that? He just said he doesnt want lunatics to have a gun. IF you arent a lunatic, and pas a background test, then by all means, arm up.


Well see the problem with that is, who the hell is going to define the word Lunatic?
Obama?
Pharmaceutical Reps?
Psychologists on a fancy new federal budget they need to justify?
Your neighbor?
Your doctor?
Some vague clause in an exectuive order?
Rush Limbaugh?


Different debate entirely and one that would need to be had. Im asking for that debate and some kind of compromise. Not free reign ,everyone gets a gun, and not abolish the second amendment.

I would see it as, mental health would only be an issue for a gun purchase if there were some kind of red flags in your history. Other wise its just not realistic to give everyone a MMPI to buy a gun



posted on Jan, 18 2013 @ 02:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by queenofswords

Originally posted by Ghost375
What's wrong with those people?

He didn't actually pass any gun "control" legislation.
He just passed orders for some studies on gun issues or strengthened laws already on the books.
edit on 17-1-2013 by Ghost375 because: (no reason given)


Obama is a big believer in The Nudge Theory. Look it up. It's real.

Some of us really don't trust the motives behind his 23 little nudges, and we understand the potential of further nudges that will build on the groundwork he is setting today. And, since we have read, studied, and listened to the man for quite a long time now, we feel we have very good reasons to pay close attention to anything he promotes. It's just good common sense to watch people with an Agenda that is contrary to what our Constitution lays out.


I like that, the nudge theory



posted on Jan, 18 2013 @ 02:47 AM
link   
reply to post by bknapple32
 

same answer as before, wrong thread.
dig a little deeper mr archeology



posted on Jan, 18 2013 @ 02:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by twitchy
What about people who aren't lunatics?
What if you're in a disaster of some sort, let's say a hurricane like Katrina... the local cops and emergency responders a dealing with a couple hundred thousand hungry desperate other people for weeks... wouldn't it be nice to be armed so we could deal with those lunatics?
Should I shout angrily about morality and peaceful disarmament at the armed thugs while they loot my store or rape my wife?
Hell no.


In nearly every other country in the world, people don't carry weapons.

In nearly all of those countries, there is less crime than in the US.

If you don't want your kid to burn his fingers, do not give him matches.

The excuse of the second amendment is pathetic. Not only because its real purpose is totally out of date and out of place now, but also because it is the ultimate proof that people will not accept a change, whatever it is. That is not conservatism. It is idiotism.



posted on Jan, 18 2013 @ 02:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by Honor93
reply to post by bknapple32
 


Certainly doesnt prove that with age, wisdom doesnt follow
not that you'd know but i can assure you, with wisdom always comes experience so when you have some, we'll talk.

would you prefer Jethro ?

still looking for that on-topic point.
is it in here somewhere ?

no one claims this stand is a 'revolution', where'd you get that idea??


So now I am not on your level simply because you are older than I am. Ignorance at its finest.

Whats this Jethro line? Another lame attempt at some veiled insult?

And the TITLE of this thread claims its a revolution, um thats where I got that idea.



posted on Jan, 18 2013 @ 02:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by bknapple32

Originally posted by twitchy

Originally posted by bknapple32
Did he say that? He just said he doesnt want lunatics to have a gun. IF you arent a lunatic, and pas a background test, then by all means, arm up.


Well see the problem with that is, who the hell is going to define the word Lunatic?
Obama?
Pharmaceutical Reps?
Psychologists on a fancy new federal budget they need to justify?
Your neighbor?
Your doctor?
Some vague clause in an exectuive order?
Rush Limbaugh?


Different debate entirely and one that would need to be had. Im asking for that debate and some kind of compromise. Not free reign ,everyone gets a gun, and not abolish the second amendment.

I would see it as, mental health would only be an issue for a gun purchase if there were some kind of red flags in your history. Other wise its just not realistic to give everyone a MMPI to buy a gun


I don't understand why we NOW need medical/psychiatric checks to buy guns? Why did nobody bring this up in the past when the most common link between most of these mass shootings were anti-psychotic drugs? Shouldn't Obama or whatever other president first have his administration clean out the corruption of big pharma in the FDA to stop rigging studies or accepting rigged studies so whack ass drugs like FANAPT with side-effects like 'suicidal thoughts' and 'depression' aren't being handed out like candy?



posted on Jan, 18 2013 @ 02:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by Honor93
reply to post by bknapple32
 

same answer as before, wrong thread.
dig a little deeper mr archeology



You're a very rude an condescending person. I feel sorry for you. Since its apparent you only want to disguise insulting me instead of any modicum of a cordial debate, Im done responding to your ignorance.



posted on Jan, 18 2013 @ 02:54 AM
link   
reply to post by eLPresidente
 


I agree, but I cant control the past. I have been wondering why there wasnt some kind of mental flag system on all gun purchases ever since I knew of the topic.

But we can control the future and certainly attacking the root of the problem, including coping up our kids, should be at the crux of this. Medical flagging, imo, is only a part of this.



posted on Jan, 18 2013 @ 02:56 AM
link   
reply to post by bknapple32
 

who said anything about age ???
oh yeah, you did.

who says i'm older ?? oh yeah, you did

i did say i was more experienced and that's obvious but where do you get this other nonsense ?

Jethro fits ... John Locke of ATS ??? ... not so much.

no it doesn't, it says REVOLT ... get your dictionary out and learn the difference.



posted on Jan, 18 2013 @ 02:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by SpookyVince

Originally posted by twitchy
What about people who aren't lunatics?
What if you're in a disaster of some sort, let's say a hurricane like Katrina... the local cops and emergency responders a dealing with a couple hundred thousand hungry desperate other people for weeks... wouldn't it be nice to be armed so we could deal with those lunatics?
Should I shout angrily about morality and peaceful disarmament at the armed thugs while they loot my store or rape my wife?
Hell no.


In nearly every other country in the world, people don't carry weapons.

In nearly all of those countries, there is less crime than in the US.

If you don't want your kid to burn his fingers, do not give him matches.

The excuse of the second amendment is pathetic. Not only because its real purpose is totally out of date and out of place now, but also because it is the ultimate proof that people will not accept a change, whatever it is. That is not conservatism. It is idiotism.


Most Americans don't CARRY weapons either, they do however, have them at home.

Over 70% of gun crimes are gang related, do you suppose these criminals attained their guns legally?

No, the reason of the second amendment is logical when given the historial nature of governments, especially when they exhibit never-ending growth and systematically strip down your rights. Looking at the bill of rights, 9 out of 10 of them have been violated and we're talking about THE BILL OF RIGHTS, which is unalienable in every sense of the word.

Take a look at this image and you tell me how this cycle does not apply to history and the future.



posted on Jan, 18 2013 @ 03:01 AM
link   
reply to post by bknapple32
 

this post of yours is ON TOPIC, how exactly ?

won't answer any of the questions related to the topic yet you are bailing without so much as an apology ... now that sounds like something Obama would do.

either way, 47 states revolting is only the beginning.
there is one common thread between all Americans and you anti folks have been tugging at it for far tooooo long.



posted on Jan, 18 2013 @ 03:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by SpookyVince

Originally posted by twitchy
What about people who aren't lunatics?
What if you're in a disaster of some sort, let's say a hurricane like Katrina... the local cops and emergency responders a dealing with a couple hundred thousand hungry desperate other people for weeks... wouldn't it be nice to be armed so we could deal with those lunatics?
Should I shout angrily about morality and peaceful disarmament at the armed thugs while they loot my store or rape my wife?
Hell no.


In nearly every other country in the world, people don't carry weapons.

In nearly all of those countries, there is less crime than in the US.

If you don't want your kid to burn his fingers, do not give him matches.

The excuse of the second amendment is pathetic. Not only because its real purpose is totally out of date and out of place now, but also because it is the ultimate proof that people will not accept a change, whatever it is. That is not conservatism. It is idiotism.


Yeah because no government in recent history has ever disarmed its people and murdered them... Oh wait just last century governments disarmed and murdered 250 million of their own people... Yeah I think we'll keep the guns especially since they are only related to 1.5% of deaths pretty minuscule. But nice try at trolling...

Maybe North Korea would suit you better they have strict no guns policies there?...



posted on Jan, 18 2013 @ 03:05 AM
link   
I hope his successful and your lovely weapons get banned!



posted on Jan, 18 2013 @ 03:08 AM
link   
reply to post by ototheb85
 
If you're gonna support tyranny you could at least proof read your sentiment.




posted on Jan, 18 2013 @ 03:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by ototheb85
I hope his successful and your lovely weapons get banned!


That is a horrible thing to say to a nation where over 2.5 million people use firearms in self defense every year. How many rapes, murders, robberies, and kidnappings would occur without guns in America? Who knows but I definitely don't want to find out.

I remember a story of the mom that hid in the attic with a 7 shot revolver .38, they were hiding from a home invader, he eventually crawled his way up to the attic and she was forced to shoot him 6 times, if I can recall correctly. Would you really just sit there behind your computer and state that she should be unarmed in that situation? Because she might've saved herself and her 3 children from possible death.

UK almost doubles the US in comparable violence rates. 403 per 100k to almost 780 per 100k. Maybe you guys need to loosen up your gun laws. I only say that because you're from UK and its just ironic your nation is twice as violent as ours but we got the guns that you want to ban. If I can follow your logic here, it appears that you are suggesting to us that we double our violence rate.

I know..it makes no sense...right?




edit on 18-1-2013 by eLPresidente because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 18 2013 @ 03:16 AM
link   
reply to post by bknapple32
 


Ah but see, they are very publicly equating political dissent with mental illness now, and that's exactly the kind of threats to liberty and representation that nessecitates the 2nd ammendment and causes revolts.
It's a sad fact and probably a tragic statement on the human condition, but all through human history, the only REAL political changes are effected or brought about by violence.



posted on Jan, 18 2013 @ 03:26 AM
link   
Martin Luther King Jr. wanted to carry too but the government DENIED him. Many see him as a beacon of human progress and peace yet he was as gun-totin' as they get. Why? Because he understood the importance of being armed.


I'm going to bet right now that slaves would've LOVED to have guns just like their masters did. Anybody want to take me up on that one?



posted on Jan, 18 2013 @ 03:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by eLPresidente
Most Americans don't CARRY weapons either, they do however, have them at home.

Correct. Lanza had them at home too.

Over 70% of gun crimes are gang related, do you suppose these criminals attained their guns legally?

Likely not. Lanza bought them legally. Or his mother, doesn't matter who anyhow.


No, the reason of the second amendment is logical when given the historial nature of governments, especially when they exhibit never-ending growth and systematically strip down your rights.

I can't see how and why I have less rights than you. I can't see how you would have less liberty and freedom if guns were simply banned.


Looking at the bill of rights, 9 out of 10 of them have been violated and we're talking about THE BILL OF RIGHTS, which is unalienable in every sense of the word.

Correct. But it's irrelevant.


Take a look at this image and you tell me how this cycle does not apply to history and the future.

Abundance times are well over in the US. Selfishness is still true. Complacency is however totally there already.

Apathy will soon follow.

You are looking at the problem from the wrong end.

Basically what gun defenders say is "look, if I'm attacked, how will I respond, I then need a gun to defend myself".

What I see there in this sentence is "look, I am stronger, better knowing, and worth more than the rest around me, therefore no one can beat me because I have a big gun with me, so step back".

See, you're saying that 70% of gun crimes are gang related. You are also stating that they obtained their guns illegally.

First of all, I doubt that a majority of those guns were illegal in the first place. Since you can more easily buy a damn gun than a simple beer in your great country, anyone including those gang members can easily feed those gangs with all the weapons you want. Legal or illegal.

Secondly, if you claim you have the right to carry, or at least to own a gun, I claim that you do NOT have the right to use it. You are not the justice, you are not the police, you are not the military and you have not the right to threaten, wound or kill anyone.

This gun thing in the US is, but you won't admit, an accelerating thing. It is only a growing thing because everybody can buy one. Remember the cold war and the nuclear missiles? It is like this:
- I have a nuke.
- I have a bigger one.
- OK. Look, now I have 2.
- Good. I have now 4.
- Fine. Look at my 10 bigger ones now.
- Pathetic. Look at my 100.
- LOL at you, I have 1000.

Do you guys realise that, in the eyes of the rest of the world, you like like cow boys who spend their time shooting cans of coke in your back garden while comparing the sizes of your ... ?

It's time to wake up guys. Weapons are NOT the solution, they have NEVER been, and they will NEVER be. Your weapon authorising law is ridicule because it is so outdated. And I'm sure that so many of you are talking of europeans as retarded because a lot of our laws date back to Napoleon and the French revolution.

Will you
open your eyes ???



posted on Jan, 18 2013 @ 03:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by eLPresidente
I'm going to bet right now that slaves would've LOVED to have guns just like their masters did. Anybody want to take me up on that one?


Yup. They KNEW they were slaves though.
The instruments of slavery have changed but the principles have not, rather than whips, now it's debt and manufactured dependence. I think you've hit the nail on the head more than you think, the difference of course now is that the 'slaves' ARE armed and the masters aren't liking it.





new topics

top topics



 
245
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join