It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Here for those of you who want a 'civil' and 'rational debate' on gun control

page: 5
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in


posted on Jan, 31 2013 @ 12:33 PM
Well Honor93 It appears you are convinced of two things., First that among the absolutes, those things that have undeniable correctness to them, front and center is the belief that Americans have the certainty of being allowed to accumulate any and all "arms", their conscience tells them. Not being a scholar of history, I am assuming that the identification of this right and the proclamation of it, dates from the tortured process of creating the United States Constitution. Not wanting to be totally obtuse I can understand how wanting to acquire any and all things that would defend one against the aggression of others is a natural human instinct. And second, that any argument or reasoned consideration that would negate the absolute nature of your first belief has no legitimacy.

Congratulations. You have just stumbled upon the one immutable founding principle of the universe. I'm not sure that another one exist.

I am a bit surprised that you believe that there have been no advances in the development of guns over the last 100 years. I guess the basic concept is the same. Use powder to propel a projectile down a barrel to strike a distant target. But the speed and efficiency with which this is done has made some giant leaps.

The call for debate and compromise, the most recent being the result of the many demonstrations of these efficiencies, is not the first. The problem this time,it appears, and again I'm not a real student of history as you so aptly pointed out about my retelling of the American driving experience, is the intractable nature of positions we have taken in these times.

My fear is that those, who cry the loudest for the protection of the Constitution and the liberties it affords the citizens of this great country, in their zeal, may be the ones who destroy it. I'm not sure, maybe you could be the one to lead me in the right direction for the answer, but is there in all the discussion, surrounding the framing of the constitution, that concerns the diligent citizenry and an oppressive government, is there any mention of what comes after the overthrow?

It is my opinion that the constitution was written as a living or evolving document, and not written in stone like the ten commandments. It is quite a remarkable piece of work. I believe it has within it the procedures to dissolve the union of states and to make it's own assumptions and truths not only not evident, but not recognized.The absolute rejection of compromise is a mindset that is not conducive to a democracy.

Are we finished with this experiment? Are we ready to take a stand against this intrusion, and like the guy on YouTube says, "going to start shooting people.", I doubt it and I hope not. But I will say that this position of intractability is starting to wear a little with the reasonable people in this country.

posted on Jan, 31 2013 @ 06:44 PM
reply to post by JuniorDisco

Not all European Cops carry Firearms and I have seen German Police armed with only Trudgeons do battle with protestors.

Greece is also notorious for large Riots and the Police do very little to anythin about it.

Split Infinity

posted on Jan, 31 2013 @ 07:13 PM

Originally posted by SplitInfinity
reply to post by JuniorDisco

Not all European Cops carry Firearms and I have seen German Police armed with only Trudgeons do battle with protestors.

Greece is also notorious for large Riots and the Police do very little to anythin about it.

Split Infinity

The police know that at some point they wont be able to handle a riot anyway other than start shooting folks down. Guns could be taken from them in a full out total riot anyway.

posted on Jan, 31 2013 @ 07:53 PM

Originally posted by JuniorDisco

Originally posted by Honor93
reply to post by JuniorDisco

But a nuclear warhead or a biological weapon are just objects
yes, and a nulear warhead is NOT a defensive weapon.
nor are the oleanders in my yard outlawed. (biological weapon)

semantics seldom sway any logical debate.

It's irrelevant whether it's a defensive weapon or not. I was responding to the assertion that these are just "objects" and what matters is the person handling them.

In that sense a nuclear warhead is just an object. And logically we should all be allowed one.
logically and as previously stated, i agree.

however, we aren't discussing or trying to obtain personal nukes.
and, imho, it would be preferred that no weapons of MAD capability existed anywhere as they are not defensive in any manner.
also, to some of us, it does matter.

most Americans would not support having ppl wander about with briefcase nukes

and personally, i just cannot accept that as a relative possibility.

although on the basis of "arms" and "shall not be infringed", i totally agree that if the oppressor has it, so should we and that alone should have pre-empted any such developments.

however, that should also give you a clue as to how long the US government has been working around the ppl rather with them.

i wonder, have you ever listened to Eisenhower's farewell speech ??
if not, you should.

posted on Jan, 31 2013 @ 08:11 PM
reply to post by Logarock

The thing is that the Mindset of people determines their Actions.

I live in Massachusetts and it is perfectly Legal to own a weapon as well as a Hand Gun as long as you get a License. I have one and I can carry a Concealed Weapon Legally. The VAST majority of people where I Western Mass....own a Gun and many have a variety of weapons.

In my town you do not have to lock your doors to your house at night and it is also PERFECTLY LEGAL to shoot and KILL an intruder who has broken into your home. You don't have to tell them you are don't have to run to the farthest corner of your house in some hope they will leave you alone. It is YOUR HOME and in my State a persons Home is a Sacred thing.

Because of this we do not have many Home Break In's and the people who do are those in or close to Boston where there are less armed citizens as well as a large minority of Irish who have been imigrating from Ireland for Generations. The New Irish Imigrants...many of whom I have talked to...find it alarming that Americans have Guns and these people after a while tend to buy one.

Point is...Cops in the U.S. do not screw around. The people KNOW THIS. Thus we do not have anywhere near the number or level of riots that Europe has. As well...the American People KNOW that many of us are WELL ARMED thus a person who desires to perform a Criminal Act tends to think hard and long before doing so.

Split Infinity

posted on Jan, 31 2013 @ 08:59 PM
reply to post by Bluesma

Everyone here knows how babies are made whether that be through the physical act of sex or in a lab.
then why did you find it necessary to bring it up ??

nope, no confusion on my part.

If he has the capability to kill a person with his hands he has the right
given the need, yes, he has that right.

yes, birth = a 'right' to life
why is that so difficult to comprehend ?

do you believe someone or something else GIVES you rights or determines what they are ??
if so, it really isn't me who is confused.

this has to be one of the best strawman arguments ever

If one is born with the desire to go into a school and shoot 25 young children, then does it mean they were born with the right to do it?
not sure if i should just laugh or actually respond ...

ok, i'll give ya this much ... "desires" are not "rights", k?
nor do they equal 'rights', ever.

that's the problem, you and others are of the opinion that your desires are more important than our right to life.
now that's absurd.

wow, a document to permit those inside to breathe fresh air ??
are you serious ??????????

see, that's the conundrum.
we all have a right to breathe ... however, considering places like LA and China and their smog, the question then becomes, do they have a 'right' to breathe fresh air ??
there really should be no question whatsoever, yet there is ... why ??

acutally dear, i chose the stinkiest fart analogy because that is behavior that is within 'social norms' (no contract needed, remember?)
point is, i might be embarrassed that everyone left the room, however, it is still their right to breathe air of their choosing ... whether pungent or fresh, regardless how their behavior makes me 'feel'.

wow, what kind of litigious utopia do you foresee ??
if ever there is 'punishment' associated with farts, it won't be happening in a Republic.

what makes you think i missed it ??
and what makes you think i'm here all the time ??
just because the moniker is signed-in, doesn't mean i'm even on property

i think you are being a wee bit too presumptuous.

any one of several could be posting ... nice try though

(do you even know which of us you are currently addressing?)

the only realistic element of this 'issue' is the unwillingness of the opposition to offer ANY compromise of value.

natural rights are always above and beyond the laws of tyrants, why wouldn't they be ??
and what makes you think i've contradicted myself in any manner ??

huh ???? foreigners and psychopaths ?? where did that come from?

are you attacking the truth with rhetoric ??
i don't understand your statement.

please, if you don't believe the truth, show me any exmaple of some other method used ... when you break it down to the realistic and basic components, you have either persuasion or force.

with equal force at my side, persuasion is the only option you or any other has, isn't it ??
who said the interaction was ever an oppositional nature ??

we can agree amicably if your method of 'persuasion' is good enough.
what do you think 'bribery' depends on ???
the method or manner of persuasion.

ever heard of anyone taking a bride under force ??
[yeah, i can see it now ... "you'll take this million or i'll blow your dang head off"

... thanks for the chuckle]

i'm curious, what makes you think any form of persuasion is confrontational ??
ppl are persuaded every hour of every day.
[even in their sleep]

marketing capitalizes on persuasion.
politicians maximize profits via persuasion.
police even operate on a foundation of persuasion.
and please don't get me started on church and their methods of persuasion ... so, how are any of these interactions confrontational? (well ok, with those except the police)

cooperation and empathy are not 'rights' either, nor can they be legislated.
why can't you stay on topic ??

btw, how does cooperation occur without persuasion ??

oh, so you're ok with casting out those who don't fit your model ??

what does France have to do with the US ??
well, even with all that improvement, it sure didn't help Princess Diana at all, did it ?

whenever did i ask such a question ??

"how were you conceived?"

ya know, most parents don't tell a lie and then run away but hey, if that's your style, enjoy.
and here i thought this was supposed to be a civil conversation
... silly me.

posted on Jan, 31 2013 @ 09:37 PM
I wonder how ''civil'' the debate would be if we were talking about repealing the XIIIth Amendment which forbid slavery and involuntary servitude.

posted on Jan, 31 2013 @ 10:28 PM
reply to post by Bluesma

look, i'm not pointing fingers, i have my own stories

point is, we tend to choose which laws we'll follow, don't we ?
whether right or wrong, we make a conscious choice to follow or stray and that's the point.

i would never say you were a 'bad' parent but i could reasonably say that you are a 'bad citizen' who should't be allowed to reasonably protect your family.

how is that fair to you or them ??
[yes, i understand you wouldn't use a gun but there are plenty of other methods available]

FOMHL ??? please spell it out, i'm old and don't recognize that.

as for blaming the authorities for failing to perform their duties, it happens every day 'round here.

so if i'm reading you right ... the safety of others concerns you but laws don't matter, correct ??

well given your own admission, what makes you think any reasonable gun owner would choose to follow whatever laws were introduced ??

since the point of having a gun is to preserve life, how is that any less of a 'concern for the safety of others'?

so, what makes your methods acceptable while ours are not ?
isn't tolerance supposed to figure in there somewhere ??

FOMHL - falling off my horse laughing

if so, thanks that was cute

French police ?? -- only on video, so no.

hey now, i didn't say France had a generation of bullies but we sure do.
(and a bit too much selective enforcement too)

i could agree with this whole-heartedly

Bullies use laws as an excuse to attack and abuse people because they found a legal way to justify it
but i have to ask, if you agree with this sentiment, why would you support more laws ??

you don't who Holder is ????
sorry to sound stunned, but i am

without totally derailing the topic, he is the US Attorney General (biggest bully on the block so to speak) who headed, operated and then skated away from charges implicating him in the infamous Fast and Furious gun scandal where illegal weapons were sold to Mexican cartels in exchange for 'information'.
this series of events culminated in the death of a border agent and several others from the guns Holder's group provided.

to this day, even with their 'primo' tracking ... NONE Of those weapons have been located or recovered. (except for a couple found at murder scenes in Mexico)

now, can you see why a National Registration is BS ??
and nothing more than a confiscation marketing scheme.
this is the same group/guy that would be in charge of it

more if interested.

ok, how is what i said about derailing the topic equal to 'refusing to discuss it' ??
it would appear that neither of us stopped talking about it so how is what you said even appropriate, let alone correct ??

posted on Jan, 31 2013 @ 11:32 PM
reply to post by JuniorDisco

if that's how you view it, fine, however, i see it differently and here's why ...

#1 asks a question based on a hypthetical (no laws)
not only is an answer unavailable (hypothetical) but it is impossible to surmise since the laws have been around almost as long as the cars have been. laws punishing murder have been around forever.

whereas with #2 ...
it is proven that that those particular laws and enforcing them have had little to no effect on reducing either. (in the US)

also, the prior AWB has proven to have no impact on reducing said crime or violence.
yes, the efforts of MADD have reduced alcohol-related fatalities but it certainly hasn't reduced the crime of 'drinking and driving' ... and that's the point.

i don't have a problem discussing this off-topic nonsense, but i'd really appreciate it if you folks could respect the OP and stick to the topic at hand, which isn't drinking, driving or murder

intentional derailment isn't exactly welcomed here, ya know ?

My point is to take issue with your extraordinary idea that laws don't circumscribe behaviour at all.
fine, then start a thread of your own and i'd be happy to participate

wow what a reach ... did that hurt ?
please, detail that for us, eh ?
show us how these two statements are identical ...

1. Your claim is that if murder wasn't against the law it would still have the same prevalence

2. laws do not deter, prevent or restrict bad behavior ... that is and was my assertion.

If laws don't deter, prevent or restrict behaviour then that behaviour must have the same prevalence as in a case where no law existed to punish it.
how you arrive at results from either statement must be a statisticians dream come true.

hmmmm, laws restricting firearm ownership ISN'T what this topic concerns ??
then i must be mistaken

plus, stating an assertion has been denied isn't the same as debunking it ... so please, if you can, have at it.

assertion -- during the period of AWB (1994-2008), incidents of violent crime increased.
since the expiration of AWB, violent crime has been steadily decreasing.
please, prove me wrong.

all the years preceding the 1934 Firearms Act and for several more decades after.
i existed back then, did you ?

first, i never said or implied "only" but, it sure seems to be what works best, always has. nothing new there.

no, i said laws don't deter criminals, not crime.
criminals don't care if laws exist or not.
hence, laws do not deter criminals ... criminals will commit crime with or without laws or punishment.

let me put it to you this way ... as a rape survivor several times over, the laws and prescribed punishments did NOTHING to deter the attackers/criminals.
however, currently, if i am even at risk, i have an equalizer close by that can and should deter said criminal from committing the crime ... what law can do that ??

now, knowing the mechanics of sexual crime, IF men in general (not just criminals) thought that there would be no punishment for such actions, yes, that specific act would increase.

point being ... laws and punishment deter law-abiding ppl from becoming criminals ... they do nothing to impede the existing criminals.

that you would even entertain this subject as some valid excuse for laws is laughable at best.

then I just can't see where your logic has fled to.
then you aren't trying very hard.

So in order to deter any crime we must have more guns?
it could certainly help more than hinder.

Laws are useless, guns are not.
too extreme to agree.

hmmmm, how to prevent fraud with gun ownership ???
never really gave it much thought.

then again ... wouldn't it be more prudent to put a dent in fraudulent gun ownership ??
if so, how do we achieve that ?

edit on 1-2-2013 by Honor93 because: typos

posted on Jan, 31 2013 @ 11:40 PM
reply to post by JuniorDisco

the notion that all things are just "inanimate" and therefore anyone can own anything, is juvenile
actually, the notion that any one nation can 'command' another to be victimized is what is juvenile. (nothing more than a bully on the playground)

do i want Iran to have a nuke ??
of course not but, in that same breath, the US has no need for them either.

i'd like ALL nukes to be disarmed, dismantled and shelved like Tesla's theories have been for decades.

however, in the sense of self-presevation, self-defense and equal force ... so long as any nation has nukes, so should Iran.

posted on Feb, 1 2013 @ 12:16 AM
reply to post by okyouwin

thank you for a well presented opinion minus rampant accusations and childish bewilderment.

your observations seem on target and direct.
however, before i respond to your commentary, we should agree to disagree that we are operating within a democracy.

this republic was designed during a rather oppressive environment and has never had much respite since.

as this republic stands, so does its opposition, which you make abundantly clear that you support.

given the above, why should any American agree to negotiate our natural rights for nothing more than the appeasement of our oppressors ??

to address the sum of your first paragraph.
No, it comes from generations of abuses, dating all the way back to a time long before America was discovered by foreigners.

at least i can agree with the necessity of the 1st point and acceptance of the 2nd.
(in more ways than one)

thank you and i am sure that others do exist but we could discuss that on another thread.

it's not a belief, it's a fact ... need a link ?
if you believe diffently, please source the basis of your opinion.

not sure i follow your statement regarding debate and compromise.
yes, lines in the sand are being drawn but that is merely the result of no compromise being offered.

honestly, imho, personal firearms should be a secondary concern given the advancement of Agenda 21.

States rights to defend against the progression of Agenda 21 ... now that's worthy a debate about 'arms' and who controls them.

is there any mention of what comes after the overthrow
?? not sure i follow your question.
however, if you are hinting at a prescribed plan of action ... no, not that i've read.
i can link you to some of what Jefferson wrote regarding the needs of the people guiding how and when to make changes. would that help?

have you ever listened to Clay Jenkinson's "Jefferson" podcasts ?
if not, you should ...

many share your opinion these days but i assure you, it wasn't.
it was actually constructed with the intent being for a 'generation', did you know that ?

it was thought and discussed that each generation would dissolve and/or renew the bonds that created and sustain this union.

use of manipulations like 'The Nudge Theory" that forces the acceptance of a demand under the guise of compromise is exactly why we don't want a democracy.

i would firmly disagree with your final opinion.
the majority of the ppl comprising this nation will prove your theory sadly devoid of substance.

posted on Feb, 1 2013 @ 06:14 AM

Originally posted by SplitInfinity
reply to post by JuniorDisco

Not all European Cops carry Firearms and I have seen German Police armed with only Trudgeons do battle with protestors.

Greece is also notorious for large Riots and the Police do very little to anythin about it.

Split Infinity

If you mean that not all European cops shoot protestors then you're correct. But all European patrol police do in fact carry firearms, same as in the USA. The only exception is the UK.

I assume you would prefer police to routinely open fire on protests?

posted on Feb, 1 2013 @ 06:27 AM
reply to post by Honor93

I'm sorry, I can't follow your logic at all. I think it's best we leave it.

One question more though. If you think that laws don't prevent anything then why are you worried about laws against firearm ownership?

posted on Feb, 1 2013 @ 12:07 PM
reply to post by JuniorDisco

where is the logic in this question ?
ah, forget logic, where's the TRUTH ???

If you think that laws don't prevent anything then why are you worried about laws against firearm ownership?
who says laws don't prevent anything ??
not i.

posted on Feb, 2 2013 @ 03:46 PM
reply to post by JuniorDisco

See...inflamitory statements such as the one you just made show how little some people understand the Right to Bear Arms issue as well as the Psychological impact that armed Police have upon a rioting croud.

I have been all over Europe many times over many years and even though some can carry weapons I have NEVER seen European Cops carry duing a Riot.

I once saw a small riot occur after a Bruins game in Boston as the Montreal Canadians won a Playoff game because of several bad calls by refs before instant replay as replay would have shown the puck breaking the plane of the goal line.

The riot lasted all of about 3 minutes as a force of Boston Police were armed and ready as they were deployed beforehand as the Police knew there could be trouble.

I have seen MANY riots in Europe and particularily in the U.K....Portugal shortly after the Revolution in the seventies...and Germany. These riots were caused by Sports, Political issues such as Communism...and G-7 Protests.

The cops in all cases NEVER had Firearms and the riots COMPLETELY SPUN OUT OF CONTROL. Such things NEVER happened in the states to such magnitude when there are armed Police at the ready.

The only time riots of this level DO happen in the states...if Police are there at the ready such riots are quickly disbanded. The only time they are not is if the Riot has a just cause such as the Civil Rights protests that were PEACEFUL but the Southern States Police took violent action agaist PEACEFUL PROTESTERS WITH A PERMIT. why it is so important for the Right to Bear Arms never to be allowed to be removed from the Bill of Rights as if a State or Government was to break it's own Laws violently....then the American People have not only a RIGHT...BUT A remove such a Government as is detailed in our Constitution.

Split Infinity

posted on Feb, 4 2013 @ 09:38 AM
reply to post by Honor93

"laws do not deter, prevent or restrict bad behavior"

That's what you said above. If they don't restrict bad behaviour why would they logically restrict people owning guns if they really felt it was their right?

top topics

<< 2  3  4   >>

log in