Citizens Against Senseless Violence: “Join Us! Tell Everyone Your House Is Completely Unprotected!

page: 4
39
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 19 2013 @ 10:19 PM
link   
haha, that video is hilarious.
a bunch of hypocrites.




posted on Jan, 20 2013 @ 07:11 AM
link   



posted on Jan, 20 2013 @ 07:19 AM
link   
reply to post by whatsecret
 

I would advocate this project for Diane Feinstein's district....and then progressively move to Chuck Schumer's district and then Bloomberg and Biden's neighborhoods.



posted on Jan, 20 2013 @ 10:44 AM
link   
No Guns Know violence
No Guns Know crime
No Guns Know murder



posted on Jan, 20 2013 @ 10:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by whatsecret

Originally posted by Wertdagf
reply to post by whatsecret
 


I want exactly what obama is suggesting... i want exactly what new york has already passed.

There is nothing contradictory there.... Do you see anything wrong with that?



I disagree with starting a crazy people list, and I'm confused about what to do with my Beretta Px4 because it hold 14 bullets. Can I promise to only have 10 bullets in it or do I have to get rid of it now?


They already have a crazy person/terrorist list, and theres been threads about it. X military and constitutionalists are on it.



posted on Jan, 20 2013 @ 12:13 PM
link   
So they belive If good people hold a gun,
they kill go kill children??? THEY worry me!



posted on Jan, 20 2013 @ 01:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by Unity_99

Originally posted by whatsecret

Originally posted by Wertdagf
reply to post by whatsecret
 


I want exactly what obama is suggesting... i want exactly what new york has already passed.

There is nothing contradictory there.... Do you see anything wrong with that?



I disagree with starting a crazy people list, and I'm confused about what to do with my Beretta Px4 because it hold 14 bullets. Can I promise to only have 10 bullets in it or do I have to get rid of it now?


They already have a crazy person/terrorist list, and theres been threads about it. X military and constitutionalists are on it.


Now they will be adding anybody who go to a psychiatrist or a psychologist for any reason.



posted on Jan, 20 2013 @ 03:11 PM
link   
Everything in my home is a weapon-didn't everyone watch MacGuyver?

This is too awesome-well wait until everyone knows where everyone lives without weapons-robberies are going to spike. Then-haha old white hair bastards that make these stupid laws for money-Who are they going to rob when guns are gone? Poor people-hahaha they will come for you rich bastages!

Awesome Video!



posted on Jan, 20 2013 @ 03:44 PM
link   
reply to post by whatsecret
 


First thing. There is no Citizens Against Senseless Violence. This was a project Veritas scam to be truthful. The whole is based on deception. If the sign had read "We stand for stronger gun ownership regulation" I'd bet there would have been quite a few takers. Why is it that to prove your point you have to indulge in a lie? That I don't understand.

I want you to know that I am not against gun ownership. I think it is not only a right, but in a lot cases a necessity. I don't think it would be of benefit us any to attempt to remove all guns from private owners. This is an extreme view. The demand to have no regulation or oversight of gun ownership is the opposite extreme view. Both are false choices, and if I were to believe in conspiracies I would say to promote these extremes is an attempt to divide. At minimum there needs to be a complete vetting of individuals who want to own guns. I think we all know there are certain devices gunwise that allow for a rapid extermination of human life. A discussion of, and some restriction on these devices is not an unreasonable point of negotiation.

Guns are only tools. Unfortunately one of the efficient uses of this tool is the extinguishing of human life, and the recent increasing examples of this efficiency, I believe calls for thoughtful debate and action.



posted on Jan, 20 2013 @ 03:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by Screwed

Originally posted by Wertdagf
reply to post by whatsecret
 


I want exactly what obama is suggesting... i want exactly what new york has already passed.

There is nothing contradictory there.... Do you see anything wrong with that?




The only answer is to let people have their freedom and do what they will as long as they do not hurt anyone else in the process.

If they do, then there are laws to deal with that, and there is appropriate punishment.
Period.

You are NEVER going to stop crazy people from being crazy and you are NEVER going to CONTROL people the way you are wanting to control them.

What would you want done with all of the people inn NY right now who refuse to turn in their glocks which hold 17 rounds?

What do YOU want to do with these people?
These otherwise law abiding citizens who work and pay their taxes.
What should we now do with them according to you?????
edit on 18-1-2013 by Screwed because: (no reason given)


Well Screwed, I think a logical approach would be to buy those guns back and allow the owner to purchase a more acceptable weapon.

As for letting people do what they want as long as they don't hurt anyone else, I'm all with you on that. However people are prone to do some pretty risky things, and the reality is that often that risk extends beyond their own person and innocent people are also exposed to that risk. I guess the question is, "Do individuals have the right to impose that risk onto others?"



posted on Jan, 20 2013 @ 05:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by MsAphrodite

Originally posted by roughycannon

Originally posted by Ireminisce
reply to post by roughycannon
 


So you can understand why I'm pro gun, because the guns will NEVER be gone. Criminals would still have them. Until we die and go to Heaven we will never live in a gun free society. If all legal guns were magically gone, we wouldn't need these signs. Every rapist and murderer would know that my kids and I are home alone with no protection. I think this video worked worked like a charm on you. It got you to admit that not having a gun is an open invitation.


Criminal's will always have guns yes, they have them here in the UK but their not the ones going around killing school children.


Killing children is not a criminal act? Who knew...???
Ummm....No, Obama and friends does it all the time...a little cruise missile here, a little cruise missile there, bada-bing badda-BOOM......Just some collateral damage...right? The best thing is that it's so easy, just flip up the cover on the joystick switch and away it goes just like a video game. I even heard that Obama likes to sit in on these little "games" and when it gets to the really good part claim's executive privelidge and flip's that little switch his good ole self......Who knew?

YouSir



posted on Jan, 20 2013 @ 07:03 PM
link   
reply to post by okyouwin
 




First thing. There is no Citizens Against Senseless Violence. This was a project Veritas scam to be truthful. The whole is based on deception. If the sign had read "We stand for stronger gun ownership regulation" I'd bet there would have been quite a few takers. Why is it that to prove your point you have to indulge in a lie? That I don't understand.


First thing. In the OP I clearly stated that it was Project Veritas, and quoted that they were Posing as Citizens Against Senseless Violence. See?



Project Veritas went door to door asking pro gun control journalists to put a sign saying "this home is proudly gun free" in front of their houses. For some strange reason every single one of them refused. This is a really funny video exposing the gun control hypocrisy.

Posing as "Citizens Against Senseless Violence," we visit the homes of journalists working for Westchester Journal News, MSNBC, and the Star-Ledger. We also visited the home of Eric Holder. None will take our signs that say "THIS HOME IS PROUDLY GUN FREE." Since these reporters and editors did not consider it a violation of the privacy and safety of others to reveal which homes have guns and which homes don't, we went to see which of them would be willing to put a sign up publicly declaring their homes to be gun-free zones. While we didn't find any members of the media with the strength of their convictions, we did find quite a few guns, and some good explanations for why they might be necessary..... Guns for Me, but not for Thee.





At minimum there needs to be a complete vetting of individuals who want to own guns. I think we all know there are certain devices gunwise that allow for a rapid extermination of human life. A discussion of, and some restriction on these devices is not an unreasonable point of negotiation.


I totally agree, bombs, biological/chemical/nuclear weapon ownership should be heavily regulated by the authorities.



Guns are only tools. Unfortunately one of the efficient uses of this tool is the extinguishing of human life, and the recent increasing examples of this efficiency, I believe calls for thoughtful debate and action.


Indeed, guns are only tools. Unfortunately for the criminals one of the efficient uses of this tool is extinguishing of homicidal lunatics lives, and the recent increasing examples of homicidal lunatics having easy access to gun-free zones full of people, I believe calls for thoughtful debate and action about enabling law abiding citizens to defend themselves and others and eliminate easy access to gun-free zones everywhere.



posted on Jan, 20 2013 @ 07:14 PM
link   
reply to post by okyouwin
 





Well Screwed, I think a logical approach would be to buy those guns back and allow the owner to purchase a more acceptable weapon.


What is a more acceptable weapon and why?



As for letting people do what they want as long as they don't hurt anyone else, I'm all with you on that. However people are prone to do some pretty risky things, and the reality is that often that risk extends beyond their own person and innocent people are also exposed to that risk. I guess the question is, "Do individuals have the right to impose that risk onto others?"


Risky things? Do you mean like running across a busy highway? Personally I hate it when individuals put me at risk of getting into a high speed accident.

Oh and I think that's already against the law and most highways even put up barriers to prevent people from crossing, but some how people still do it all the time.. Why do you think that is?
edit on 20-1-2013 by whatsecret because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 21 2013 @ 05:21 PM
link   
reply to post by whatsecret
 


OK I got to be quick because the wife is waiting.

I apologize if you thought i was saying that you were lying. I was saying the premise of the video was a lie. Based on deception. Now I think this is a serious error.

We agree on limitations, I see you don't need biological weapons, and that's a start. Just powder driven projectiles you want. I can see you'er a reasonable man.

On that final thing I'm starting to agree with you more See your perspective. "Damn those nut balls are out there an if I ever see one in action, I'd want an weapon."

Hey. There's no right side here. But you agree there is a negotiation in progress and it does need to be resolved. A settlement.

And lastly I'd like to say, I think tactics are important. In the end you will find good will is a strong ally.



posted on Jan, 21 2013 @ 06:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by whatsecret
reply to post by okyouwin
 





Well Screwed, I think a logical approach would be to buy those guns back and allow the owner to purchase a more acceptable weapon.


What is a more acceptable weapon and why?



As for letting people do what they want as long as they don't hurt anyone else, I'm all with you on that. However people are prone to do some pretty risky things, and the reality is that often that risk extends beyond their own person and innocent people are also exposed to that risk. I guess the question is, "Do individuals have the right to impose that risk onto others?"


Risky things? Do you mean like running across a busy highway? Personally I hate it when individuals put me at risk of getting into a high speed accident.

Oh and I think that's already against the law and most highways even put up barriers to prevent people from crossing, but some how people still do it all the time.. Why do you think that is?
edit on 20-1-2013 by whatsecret because: (no reason given)


I think what Screwed was saying was, that if there were restrictions on round capacity the guy with a 17 round capacity, would have a dilemma. My meaning by a more acceptable weapon would be one that meets the new regulatory limits. Say ten. Glock would take a hit on the market. that weapon is obsolete and they would need to retool. Easy enough. Government would buy the gun put cash out there. Buy a new gun.Or not.

As to the risk part. Risk can take many forms. Running into traffic on a busy highway was not one of my first thoughts.But sure that's risky. I'm thinking drinking a six pack and driving at 100 mph on the expressway. But leap into the future. Everybody at the mall, has their Ar strapped on. Polished up and all. . Bull sh##t flying like it do. Stepping front of my girls won't do. Now everybody got something to shoot at. I don't like that picture. And personally I know from my self there have been times in traffic that had there been a ready gun I would have been tempted.I saw guys going at it with a framing hammer at a stoplight one time. The light turned green they both got back in their cars. I found this interesting. I believe I would have found it more than interesting had they had automatic weapons.



posted on Jan, 21 2013 @ 06:59 PM
link   
Well I could tell you my house is unprotected but my dog would not agree with that at all. In fact all I have to do is say the word loving and she goes into attack mode.
I still can't figure out why she hates that word so much. Oh well it works great when someone comes to the door that I don't want, just tell them Lady wants to give them some loving.

Is my home a gun free zone? Nope, I have a shot gun that we use to go hunting with every fall. However I don't use it for protection. The dog is enough for that.





new topics

top topics



 
39
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join