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.
Originally posted by kaylaluv
Originally posted by Honor93
reply to post by kaylaluv
when you get back to reality, check up on some current events, k ??
Only in the sci-fi book "Dune" can you kill with a word
Well, if words could kill, there'd be a lot of dead people on ATS.
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
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 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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 ?
If bombs,rpgs,tanks,grenades,machines guns are bad in our hands why is ok in their hands?
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.
So you don't have a problem with guns that can kill lots of people in minutes? Like revolvers and shotguns?
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.