Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Dennis Kucinich: The Constitution Guarantees the Right To Bear Arms

page: 6
14
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 26 2013 @ 02:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by kaylaluv

Originally posted by Honor93
reply to post by kaylaluv
 


Only in the sci-fi book "Dune" can you kill with a word
when you get back to reality, check up on some current events, k ??


Well, if words could kill, there'd be a lot of dead people on ATS.


The word (acronym) WMD killed over a million Iraqis and a bunch of American soldiers. And it was a lie.

Another word, Gulf of Tonkin, killed something like 58,000 American soldiers and god knows how many Vietnamese people. That was also a lie.

And keep in mind, other words like safety, security and protection were used as cover to get people to believe the lies. They're still flinging those words around to scare people. Don't fall for it again.




posted on Jan, 26 2013 @ 03:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by Lucid Lunacy

I'm glad he said that, it's a little self-contradictory coming from a socialist but hey it's better than nothing!


Socialist? Is it because he said we need a society that cares for people?


I'm liberal and pro-gun. Mark me as the 2nd to your list


[begin rant]
Sigh

As someone who's lived under a socialist government (1970s and 80sLabour party in New Zealand), the US has virtually NO socialists in power. The US "left" is centerist by most world standards.

So yeah, not a socialist as you imply


[/rant]



posted on Jan, 26 2013 @ 03:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by Honor93
reply to post by kaylaluv
 

hahahaha, and if they didn't, these children would likely still be alive today.
children verbally bullied to death
and so many more.

yet, how many of the abusers were prosecuted for exercising their 1st amendment right to say or do such abusive things ??


I didn't say that words couldn't hurt. And there are statements that you cannot make without consequences. But a word does not tear into flesh. The original argument was for the government requiring a background check to speak. Not the same as requiring a background check for a gun.



posted on Jan, 26 2013 @ 03:06 PM
link   
reply to post by kaylaluv
 



I just think we need to be reasonable about what those arms are for. I am in favor of weapons for hunting and personal protection - NOT the ability to kill a large number of people in a matter of minutes.


The issue is homicide right?

Handgun deaths by far surpass civilian deaths caused by fully-automatic guns.

Isn't the most reasonable approach to target handguns?

I think we have lost perspective because of these particular shootings. Of course they are horrible, but all murder is, and we need to look at the numbers. The majority of the time it's a handgun. Total the numbers and you have effectual a mass killing. One that trumps the "assault weapons" Does it not? Here is some Wiki:


In 2005, 75% of the 10,100 homicides committed using firearms in the United States were committed using handguns, compared to 4% with rifles, 5% with shotguns, and the rest with unspecified firearms


Personally I am against the majority of the anti-gun propositions because they either infringe on the innocent until proven guilty principle, or they are only applicable to law-abiding citizens. Ideally I would want guns to be ridden of entirely. Since that's not happening anytime soon I strongly feel people have the right, and need, to have arms to 'level the playing field' against armed criminals. I don't see strong reason to target full-automatics, unless we were addressing deaths caused in war.



posted on Jan, 26 2013 @ 03:06 PM
link   


i don't give a rats patutti what the 'majority' wants ... this Republic protects the right and liberty of all, including the minority ... at least it was designed that way.


Lets ask people of color, homosexuals, and women how well this Republic has protected those rights for them.

I am not anti gun or particularly in favor of more regulation. I would like to see those that are responsible owners more involved in stepping forward and help see that the laws that we have in place are enforced. Most gun owners are responsible, however there are many that are not. Two of the most recent incidents that have made the news have involved irresponsible gun owners, yet I am not seeing much from the gun lobby that points that out. The responsible gun owners need to start rationally voicing their thoughts instead of screaming at the top of their lungs about a gun grab that is non-existent. No where in Obama's 23 executive orders is there anything demanding that guns and ammo be turned in or confiscated. It is time for rational thought and discussion, as opposed to this "I wanna own whatever I want" and the hell with any reasonable or rational discussion. The gun lobby just keeps screaming louder and the anti gun lobby just keeps pointing those out that make ridiculous and irrational comments.



posted on Jan, 26 2013 @ 03:08 PM
link   
It is because some on the left are trying to go so far left with restrictions and weapons bans that I have taken the stance of not budging an inch on the issue.

If you give an inch they will take a mile so they lost any support or cooperation they would have had from those like myself. The evidence of their agenda is easy to see with the laws they are trying to enact.

Their idea of an inch is miles apart from mine.



posted on Jan, 26 2013 @ 03:09 PM
link   
Although it makes me happy to hear him speaking the truth, this is no surprise.

Dennis Kucinich has always been a staunch supporter of 'the people'. He doesn't take tragedies (like Sandy Hook) and try to turn them into political capital by playing on emotions of millions of Americans.

If a Democrat like Dennis Kucinich understands that the second amendment, along with the other NINE are unalienable rights, why is it so hard for some others to figure it out? Could it be they already know and the only difference is that they simply don't give a hoot?

Bless Dennis Kucinich, the guy is a hero in my book.

Here is a great floor speech by him on auditing the fed, he did this when LITTLE Democrats supported it because the Obama machine has already sold out to the banking interests (blatantly pointed out by the recent tax 'incentives' given to big banks in the recent spending bill).




posted on Jan, 26 2013 @ 03:09 PM
link   
reply to post by Noinden
 


Was that a response to me?

I am not the one that called him a socialist. The OP did...

I was musing on the OP accusing Dennis of being one. Although you and I probably disagree greatly in terms of political theory.... I wasn't calling Dennis a socialist.



posted on Jan, 26 2013 @ 03:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by BubbaJoe

Originally posted by beezzer
reply to post by kaylaluv
 


While I do agree that people who violate other peoples rights forfeit theirs, I don't agree with background checks. Again, just trying to differentiate.


Beez, here is one of those absolutes I was talking about in another thread. Background checks can potentially keep guns out of the hands of those that have violated other peoples rights, or even those who are not mentally balanced enough to own firearms. While I have no issue with people owning guns, possibly even assault rifles, I do not want my drunk ass, psychotic, idiot neighbor owning an M16 and 20 thirty round clips, hand grenades, and a rocket launcher. I realize I am painting an extreme picture here, but just trying to make a point.
Something like 75-80% of the public polled supported universal background checks, your absolutist opinion on this is what drives many in the middle to not back your agenda.


Yea and you are doing more here than painting an extreme picture. You are trying to piant a picture all right....assault weapons owners are psychotic drunks ect.

How about you are buying into the fear.



posted on Jan, 26 2013 @ 03:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by kaylaluv

Originally posted by Honor93
reply to post by kaylaluv
 

hahahaha, and if they didn't, these children would likely still be alive today.
children verbally bullied to death
and so many more.

yet, how many of the abusers were prosecuted for exercising their 1st amendment right to say or do such abusive things ??


I didn't say that words couldn't hurt. And there are statements that you cannot make without consequences. But a word does not tear into flesh. The original argument was for the government requiring a background check to speak. Not the same as requiring a background check for a gun.


Words keep far more people in boundage than weapons. But dont worry, when they get the guns they will go after words next.



posted on Jan, 26 2013 @ 03:17 PM
link   
reply to post by frazzle
 


Please do not cite an opinon poll as fact as per the 1 million figure comes from ORB.



On Friday, 14 September 2007, ORB (Opinion Research Business), an independent polling agency located in London, published estimates of the total war casualties in Iraq since the US-led invasion of Iraq in 2003.[1] At over 1.2 million deaths (1,220,580), this estimate is the highest number published so far. From the poll margin of error of +/-2.5% ORB calculated a range of 733,158 to 1,446,063 deaths. The ORB estimate was performed by a random survey of 1,720 adults aged 18+, out of which 1,499 responded, in fifteen of the eighteen governorates within Iraq, between August 12 and August 19, 2007.[2][3] In comparison, the 2006 Lancet survey suggested almost half this number (654,965 deaths) through the end of June 2006. The Lancet authors calculated a range of 392,979 to 942,636 deaths.


en.wikipedia.org...

en.wikipedia.org...

The real deal:


Not disputing words kill just the 1 million.
www.iraqbodycount.org...

edit on 26-1-2013 by neo96 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 26 2013 @ 03:18 PM
link   
there are 270 million guns in this country

exactly how has anyone been denied the ability to bear arms ?



posted on Jan, 26 2013 @ 03:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by syrinx high priest
there are 270 million guns in this country

exactly how has anyone been denied the ability to bear arms ?


Do the people have the same arms as criminals,police and military?

Nope because they are denied them that same government who denies us gives them to the rest of the world without a second thought.

If bombs,rpgs,tanks,grenades,machines guns are bad in our hands why is ok in their hands?



posted on Jan, 26 2013 @ 03:26 PM
link   
reply to post by neo96
 


I wasn't citing any opinion poll but you're right, we will probably never get a firm number since nobody's counting and they're still dying in droves, all because of a word that wasn't true.That was the point, that not ONE should die because of a government lie. History is rife with such lies and governments always first aim to disarm the people before the real butchery begins.


edit on 26-1-2013 by frazzle because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 26 2013 @ 03:26 PM
link   
reply to post by neo96
 



If bombs,rpgs,tanks,grenades,machines guns are bad in our hands why is ok in their hands?


I get your point.

But the idea of a largely Christian civilian population in control of a nuclear submarine leaves me slightly on edge.



posted on Jan, 26 2013 @ 03:28 PM
link   
reply to post by Lucid Lunacy
 


Yes all us evil christians want nuclear submarines.

Why anyone brings nukes to a gun fight is beyond ridiculous.



posted on Jan, 26 2013 @ 03:30 PM
link   
reply to post by neo96
 


I'm sorry I thought the point you were illustrating was the idea of being equally armed. Hence mentioning bombs and tanks and what not.

My mistake.
edit on 26-1-2013 by Lucid Lunacy because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 26 2013 @ 03:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by Logarock

Originally posted by BubbaJoe

Originally posted by beezzer
reply to post by kaylaluv
 


While I do agree that people who violate other peoples rights forfeit theirs, I don't agree with background checks. Again, just trying to differentiate.


Beez, here is one of those absolutes I was talking about in another thread. Background checks can potentially keep guns out of the hands of those that have violated other peoples rights, or even those who are not mentally balanced enough to own firearms. While I have no issue with people owning guns, possibly even assault rifles, I do not want my drunk ass, psychotic, idiot neighbor owning an M16 and 20 thirty round clips, hand grenades, and a rocket launcher. I realize I am painting an extreme picture here, but just trying to make a point.
Something like 75-80% of the public polled supported universal background checks, your absolutist opinion on this is what drives many in the middle to not back your agenda.


Yea and you are doing more here than painting an extreme picture. You are trying to piant a picture all right....assault weapons owners are psychotic drunks ect.

How about you are buying into the fear.


You are putting words in my mouth that I didn't speak/type. I didn't even come close to painting all that own "Assault Rifles" with that brush. I don't live in fear of much of anything, I don't hoard food and ammo, and have not spent my life's savings on over priced precious metals, if and when the shtf, I will decide who I will follow, as long as bullets aren't flying, there are an awful lot of brave keyboard warriors in the world.



posted on Jan, 26 2013 @ 03:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by kaylaluv
Again, not talking about banning ALL guns - just the ones that are the easiest to use to kill lots of people in seconds.

So you don't have a problem with guns that can kill lots of people in minutes? Like revolvers and shotguns?



posted on Jan, 26 2013 @ 03:41 PM
link   
reply to post by BubbaJoe
 


You are doing it again. There are many many that own assault weapons that dont hoard, drink, hate the government, or any other tag you would like to put on them.






top topics



 
14
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join