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.

 

Man shopping with Assault Rifle Strapped to his Back at Utah J.C. Penney

page: 23
41
<< 20  21  22    24  25  26 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 19 2013 @ 06:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by hawkiye
If cars aren't made to kill then why dop they kill millions of times more people and are hundreds of times more dangerous. Guns are needed more then cars they win and preserve freedom and save lives. Cars do not save lives they only take lives.


The next time that you have a medical emergency, call a horse and buggy to take you to the emergency room, or ride a bike, or walk -- because by your own validation, an ambulance won't save your life.

reply to post by Grimpachi
 


I think you need to actually look at the figures before making claims that aren't true.

www.nationmaster.com...

The only thing that Aus has more of is assault crimes, but frankly - I would rather live in a society where being beaten up has a higher chance of happening then being shot and killed.


Originally posted by woodwardjnr
How would people have responded if that had been a Muslim looking fella with an ak 47 strapped around him?


I've wondered the same thing, and am considering running that as a social experiment with an airsoft gun. Just let my beard grow out for a month, get a turban and time to take a stroll at the mall.

reply to post by Grimpachi
 


That guy was murdered because he can't read the sign at the entrance of the store which states "Firearms are not allowed on premise". He was going on to private property, where the owners had states a rule to follow while on that property, and he chose to ignore said rule.




posted on Jan, 19 2013 @ 06:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by winofiend
reply to post by JonPrice
 


I guess if someone wants to be treated like a social leper, that's up to them.

But I wonder.. how many lives he would have saved if things had gone bad. I mean, he's obviously taking on that responsibility. He is out there acting like a police officer by deterrent. So had someone come in to rob the bank, he is obliged to take action.

And if he fails to take action, or does not secure a situation, then I would hope he is charged.

If you want to be a pseudo police officer, and that is what the right to bear arms is, isn't it? Protection of you and yours, and to take down the criminal with a gun? then that responsibility should not be one that can be just cast off if the mood suits.

I wonder if he wonders why so many people appears wary of him.

Or if he thinks he's just making them aware that you can walk down the street rambo style and it's perfectly legal.

... my point being, are you rambo patriots, willing to really be 'that guy' ?






It's not about becoming a "pseudo Police officer'.

There was a landmark ruling years ago in which the Supreme Court ruled that it is not the duty of the police officer to protect you. The police officer is not required by law to protect your life in a dangerous situation (although I know most do protect citizens from danger when able). My point is that it is not the police's job to protect you, they have no requirement to do so. For the most part they are law enforcement officers first and foremost. But that is irrelevent anyway when it comes down to it.

It is your damn right to protect yourself and those you love whether they are family or strangers, you have that right. It's not a right you earn or ask for, it is your human right to life.

Responsibility and safety are the highest of importance when owning and/or carrying a firearm. Regulations preventing someone from possessing a firearm because they have a history of some sort of violence towards people or animals (I dont mean hunting) is definitely in best interests of all. Preventing someone from owning a firearm either temporarily or permanently based upon certain pharmaceutical intake is a necessary address as well.

More then half of all legal aged Americans own guns and have a damn right to, not because someone said so but just because they do and that is that. We also need to respect the thousands or millions of gallons of blood spilled by our forefathers to live on a land that was free from unjust laws.

I personally do not currently own any firearms but have at times considered owning one and would never rule it out and I do believe it is my right. I haven`t had any real need for one, I`ve also had the luxury of knowing others that have that all under control, but I`ve always thought target practice may be a fun sport and may like to try one day. If I ever thought my safety or that of a family member or friend was an issue I wouldn`t hesitate to buy one, learn how to use one accurately and carry one, if I really thought I needed to. I could see a few reasons I could want to own one one day and knowing I can go out and purchase one whenever I`m ready is important to our free country to remain free. I don`t know how else to put it. You have heard all the analogies, you have seen all the comparisons to other times that citizens were disarmed and yet a lot of people still just don`t get it. I feel like now if I ever want to own a gun I better go buy one now. Stores are all sold out of big guns and ammo too. Everyone is stockpiling because they fear shortages and laws, etc.

Guns exist, that is why it is your human right to own one. It is not as if someone couldn`t produce one even if the businesses of all major gun manufactures were ordered closed down. They exist and can be used against you and therefore it is your right to decide if you think you need to own one. It is not as if they can be outlawed and all destroyed and planet Earth goes completely gun free. Like I said above you can put the businesses out but people will still build them,they have been doing it for hundreds of years. They are also important and can save your life if you have one and a viscious animal tries to attack you or someone else. You may also like to hunt. Maybe you enjoy the sport of target practice. So the fact that they exist and can never be completely removed then all have a right to own them.

I like what the states Texas, Wyoming an Missouri did. I`m not proud of what the NY govenor did.

It seems logic and rationale went out the window a long time ago. We should not even be debating this. Instead, what we should be doing is finding out for sure every detail of what, how, why did a *monster do what the monster did.

* monster = recent school shooter

Don` want guns, don`t get any, want some get some. Just let sane people make up their own minds.



posted on Jan, 19 2013 @ 06:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by Chadwickus
reply to post by eriktheawful
 


Seriously, the experience and common sense argument is a poor one when muppets like this ruin it for the rest of the actual respectful gun owners.

Happy?

You can take offence or you can realise that there are too many people with guns that shouldn't have guns.

Remember that kid that got given an automatic weapon to hold at a gun show a while back (think it was an Uzi)?

He blew his head off when he pulled the trigger.

Seen the video of the guy (may not be American though) who gave his loaded handgun to a toddler to...hold...or to play with..? Imagine the shock of those around when it goes off in the toddlers hands.



It is NOT for me, you or anyone else that is not writing laws or judging if someone is competent or not to decide that.

It is VERY arrogant to think other wise.

Sure, you can have that opinion if you want. But that is ALL it is: your opinion.

Take ALL the firearms away, and there will STILL be horrific things that happen. Things that could have been prevented or stopped.

You can't fix the world by taking away firearms. Period. People will still die. Kids will still die.

That my friend is life.

A person can be very smart. Very responsible.

People in general on the other hand, can be very stupid. Sure. That is how things work.

At the same time, I could sit here and go on and on about how if certain things had never been invented, so many people would still be alive today:

The atomic bomb.
Chemical Weapons.
Biological Weapons.
Dynamite.
Gun Powder.
Even bows and arrows.

Some people can have, some can't. But it still stands: if those things had never been invented, one could say that there would have been a lot less people killed........maybe.

I could also say that if the following things had never been developed, they would not have been around to kill people:

Cars.
Heavy Machinery.
Boats and Ships (people drown, storms sink them).
Airplanes.

I could also point out how there are several things that people use that can destroy lives, or even end them:

Alcohol.
Tobacco.
Recreational Drugs.

All these things exist however. Many continue to kill today. That's life.

Taking away guns will not stop a parent from shaking their baby to death.
Taking away guns will not stop some kid from getting into something else that can seriously hurt them or kill them.
Taking away guns will not stop some parents from being irresponsible and letting their child have something that can hurt or kill them.

Kids die. It's horrible, but it happens. Taking guns away from people will not stop that. Ever.

I hand my child a loaded weapon all the time. But only AFTER he learned gun safety to my satisfaction, and ONLY while I'm standing right there watching his every move. And NEVER if I've had even one beer (we don't touch firearms in my house if ANY alcohol has been consumed. Ever.).
He knows enough about gun safety, he even lectured his mom one day when he thought she was not holding her gun correctly.

He has friends that come over to shoot his BB gun with him. He lectures them all the time about gun safety because he's been taught to treat even a BB gun like it's an actual live firearm!

I'm sorry that some idiot didn't teach his child how to handle a firearm correctly (like making sure that the magazine is out, the bolt is back, and the breach is clear, AND the safety is on before you ever, ever, accept the gun from someone).

But that does not make for the rest of us. Quit insulting us, and lumping us together.

Doing so makes you no better than someone who thinks all middle eastern people are terrorists. Or that all Germans must be Nazis. Or that all British people must be stuck up, snobbish twits. Or that all Aussies are just like Crocodile Dundee (their not, I know, my good friend Jamie from Cairns in Queensland is nothing like that.)

Judge the individual. Not groups of people.
edit on 19-1-2013 by eriktheawful because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 19 2013 @ 06:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by eriktheawful
You can't fix the world by taking away firearms. Period. People will still die. Kids will still die.

That my friend is life.


Prevention is the key word, of course people die, its the people that die before their "time" at the hands of another that sucks.



posted on Jan, 19 2013 @ 06:52 PM
link   
reply to post by Xtrozero
 


The intended purpose of a hammer is as a tool, not to harm another human being. It can, but that's not the purpose. I could kill someone with a Big Mac too if I tried hard enough, so the argument is silly and specious.

Anyway...really what we have in this thread is opposing view points that will never, ever agree. The fact is, gun enthusiasts will never get it because they are deeply indoctrinated, if not out-right brain-washed. They are driven by fear and emotion, not logic or reason.

Indeed, they are tipping toward extremism, as evidenced by this man at JCP. There is no point in going around in circles with them, you would have about as much luck arguing with someone from Westboro Baptist Church.

They will not be convinced that no one is trying to deny them their 2nd Amendment rights, just simply looking for common sense measures to manage their rights along side public safety.



posted on Jan, 19 2013 @ 06:56 PM
link   
reply to post by JonPrice
 


That was not only a stupid move, but it could have went south and became a very dangerous situation!



posted on Jan, 19 2013 @ 07:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by kosmicjack
reply to post by Xtrozero
 


The intended purpose of a hammer is as a tool, not to harm another human being. It can, but that's not the purpose. I could kill someone with a Big Mac too if I tried hard enough, so the argument is silly and specious.

Anyway...really what we have in this thread is opposing view points that will never, ever agree. The fact is, gun enthusiasts will never get it because they are deeply indoctrinated, if not out-right brain-washed. They are driven by fear and emotion, not logic or reason.

Indeed, they are tipping toward extremism, as evidenced by this man at JCP. There is no point in going around in circles with them, you would have about as much luck arguing with someone from Westboro Baptist Church.

They will not be convinced that no one is trying to deny them their 2nd Amendment rights, just simply looking for common sense measures to manage their rights along side public safety.


I could completely turn this around and say the same thing about anti-gun people:

That they are the ones that have been brainwashed into having an irrational fear of guns or people that own guns.

That they are driven by fear and emotion, especially by the main stream media whenever a horrific event happens.

That there have been many, many, many politicians that have done much more than try to make "common sense" measures about people owing guns, but to actually do what you are saying won't happen: the removal of the 2nd amendment.

But again, I'm afraid you are showing your bias and emotions in the mater. You are using a collective "They" to label a group of people (more than once in this thread), in several ways that are insulting, belittling and just out right rude.

But that is okay. I spent 10 years of my life in service to my country to ensure you have a right to speak your mind any way you want (and to also safe guard that 2nd amendment too). If you're not from my country, that's great as I'm still glad to see that you're able to speak your mind freely.

Just too bad that what you've spoken freely is insult, innuendo and branding of a whole group of people.



posted on Jan, 19 2013 @ 07:08 PM
link   
reply to post by kosmicjack
 


I am just curious to how you characterize the gun haters. You seem very opinionated about gun enthusiasts and have a very colorful description of them.

I am tired of explaining how they come off to me they never seem to listen anyway. What is your views about their nature?



posted on Jan, 19 2013 @ 07:14 PM
link   
reply to post by eriktheawful
 


You make too many assumptions. The thing is, I'm not anti-gun,. I own a hand gun and I know how to shoot it. I learned to shoot in ROTC. I don't, however, own more than one because I only need one to keep myself safe in my home. I don't deny that the 2nd amendment is important but, just as with the 1st, the greater good of society necessitates some common sense limitations. Not all speech is protected, nor should all guns or unlimited guns be protected.



posted on Jan, 19 2013 @ 07:18 PM
link   
reply to post by Evil_Santa
 


OMG everybody duck and cover. You never know if they may start mowing people down. Such a frightening scene.


Look how great it all worked out for Australia.
People must have loved that jump in crime. But it’s worth it right because in the long run it dropped to…..Oh wait.

Sexual Assault after ban


Property crime after ban


Robbery after ban


Murder after ban


Hey I have an idea.


You just have to love our presidents sense oh humor



I feel safer already now that I know the facts. End sarcasm.

edit on 19-1-2013 by Grimpachi because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 19 2013 @ 07:28 PM
link   
reply to post by Grimpachi
 


I think some of the anti-gun rhetoric is politically biased and opportunistic. I also think it is being agitated by influences and agendas outside of the U.S. And I think the internet and social media is exacerbating the rhetoric on all sides of the issue because people say things on the web they would never dare to say IRL, so there is a lot of smack talk and posturing all around with regard to the issue.

However, the majority of the people I know in IRL, who I have discussed the matter with, are like me - they just want common sense measures...they're not trying to up-end the Constitution and they think the answers to ending gun violence and mass shootings are nuanced and should also include a hard look at Hollywood, video games, mental health care, etc.



posted on Jan, 19 2013 @ 07:32 PM
link   
reply to post by kosmicjack
 





the greater good of society necessitates some common sense limitations.


Dissappointed in this comment where was the benefit to society running guns to mexico,Libya,Syria, and arming freedom fighter and dictator alike in the rest of the world.

And then turn around and declare guns are bad in our hands, but there is no problem elsewhere.

For the greater good of society and common sense there is no moral high ground to be taken from the current administration on this topic.

Guns in other peoples hands but not ours speaks nothing but political agendas and the second amendment is apolitical.



posted on Jan, 19 2013 @ 07:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by winofiend

Originally posted by sonnny1
I say the mans prepared for anything.
edit on 18-1-2013 by sonnny1 because: (no reason given)


Yet you know nothing about his mental state of health.


Or yours...Do you really want to invoke the "thought police"?

This is a perfect example of the irrational gun-control argument that is based on fear and little more...People who know better are just wasting their time debating with people who's emotions wont allow for reason.

I reject your fearmongering because it is destructive. The government knows it can't allay people's fears through legislation, but they do know how to capitalize on them to push an agenda. What are you afraid of,? Dying? You're more likely to be killed by a drunk driver or probably lightning than by a public shooter. Hey that guy over there is thinking about having a drink! Go get 'em, Tiger!



posted on Jan, 19 2013 @ 07:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by kosmicjack
reply to post by eriktheawful
 


You make too many assumptions. The thing is, I'm not anti-gun,. I own a hand gun and I know how to shoot it. I learned to shoot in ROTC. I don't, however, own more than one because I only need one to keep myself safe in my home. I don't deny that the 2nd amendment is important but, just as with the 1st, the greater good of society necessitates some common sense limitations. Not all speech is protected, nor should all guns or unlimited guns be protected.


Now see? Thank you.

You came off with a reply that I can take seriously because you're not insulting any one, calling them "brain washed" or "extreme", and I appriciate that very much.

We have several guns in our house, but there are good reasons for that:

1) we live over 15 miles away from the nearest city, in the woods, on a very large, wooded amount of land.
2) first responders take a minimum of 20 minutes to get here. I know, as we've had to have an ambulance come here, and at one time we had to have the county deputies get here.
3) My youngest son is learning about firearms and has since he was a lot smaller. As he's gotten older, he can handle larger caliber weapons.
4) We target shoot. A lot. We have a lot of fun doing it (I know some people just don't see the fun it it, but that is them, not us). Even taking very good care of our rifles here, they can (and have) break. Parts have to be ordered so I can fix them, or if the damage is more serious, they have to go to a gunsmith. Even if that happens, there are still weapons here.
5) .22 cal weapons are normally what we target shoot with (the ammo for them is a lot cheaper) to practice and have fun. However, they don't work so well when I go hunting deer (deer meat is the best), nor do they work well against some feral pit bull that has decided to come on to the land and be aggressive to my family. I've had to drop a few of them (I hate doing it, but animal control out here is a joke).

But then my situation is different from yours.



posted on Jan, 19 2013 @ 07:43 PM
link   
reply to post by kosmicjack
 

the intended purpose of a gun is to defend life.
not to specifically injure/kill another human.
it can, but that's not the purpose.

a person could defend themselves with a rock if they tried hard enough, so the argument is silly and specious.


Anyway...really what we have in this thread is opposing view points that will never, ever agree
actually, i absolutely agree with this point


The fact is, anti-gun activists will never get it because they are deeply indoctrinated, if not out-right brain-washed. They are driven by fear and emotion, not logic or reason.

Indeed, they are tipping toward extremism, as evidenced by this man at JCP. There is no point in going around in circles with them, you would have about as much luck arguing with someone from Westboro Baptist Church.

They will not be convinced that to try to deny Americans their 2nd Amendment rights is futile and they are likely just looking for common sense measures to manage their rights along side public safety.

fixed that for ya



posted on Jan, 19 2013 @ 07:50 PM
link   
reply to post by neo96
 


I agree, there is hypocrisy in the Government's actions vs. words.

That doesn't mean we should allow a Wild West mentality to prevail in our streets, such as this yahoo at JCP.

I'd like to think (hope?) that the citizens of the U.S. can come together and demand consistency and reason in all of our endeavors both foreign and domestic..



posted on Jan, 19 2013 @ 07:55 PM
link   
reply to post by Honor93
 


I'll just assume you cherry-picked and have not read the entirety of my posts. I'm not suggesting, nor do I think the majority of Americans would suggest, that your 2nd Amendment rights be denied. Nice try though.



posted on Jan, 19 2013 @ 07:59 PM
link   
reply to post by kosmicjack
 





That doesn't mean we should allow a Wild West mentality to prevail in our streets, such as this yahoo at JCP.


The wild west was not the wild west that dime novels made them out to be just like the current debate on banning things that are used to kill people. bout the only thing the wild west and current events have in common is the hype.

Pundits hype it to sell more laws that they already know do not work politicians can make all the laws they want and try to legislate human behavior- fact is the only thing laws do is punish after the fact.


Fact is people kill one another which is why they made a law against it not that is has worked out very well.

Then they made more laws banning 1 thing out of all the other things people uses to kill others.

They are definately consistent about it,,



posted on Jan, 19 2013 @ 08:06 PM
link   
reply to post by kosmicjack
 


You said what I should of said at the start, before engaging in the arguments that have been borne from this incident.



posted on Jan, 19 2013 @ 08:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by neo96
Then they made more laws banning 1 thing out of all the other things people uses to kill others.


You must concede though that the "1 thing" to which you are referring is a highly efficient and deadly killer, above all other things the average human may use. Therein lies the difference.

I was deeply struck by something that one of the smartest people on ATS said once...to paraphrase, because I don't have permission to quote the conversation...the 2nd Amendment was meant to allow citizens to protect themselves from the tyranny of the Government. All of the guns in the world won't do that now...all that's left is the "right" to kill each other. So it's all for nothing...what's the real point of it?

It's just a tool to divide and subjugate further.

If the government wants to act against us - it will. We have allowed it to become bigger than us. We have done it to ourselves.




top topics



 
41
<< 20  21  22    24  25  26 >>

log in

join