Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Gun-Control Battle Spills Over To Super Bowl Ads

page: 3
12
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join

posted on Feb, 3 2013 @ 03:41 PM
link   
reply to post by ResistTreason
 



Originally posted by ResistTreason
SIGH.

Every time I hear gun haters talking about firearms, on here or in the media, it is so abundantly clear that they have NO idea what the hell they are talking about.


SIGH. I hear you. I get tired of people ASSUMING that a member challenging ANYTHING a "gun-lover" said is automatically a "gun-hater". It's frustrating, isn't it?




posted on Feb, 3 2013 @ 03:44 PM
link   
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
 


I'm sorry to hear you write that. I hope that you are not burned out. Everyone has their views which I would not deny.

Sometimes Neo says things that I disagree with, and sometimes you do too.

But it is always fairly civil. That's the part I like and try to emulate.

Kudos to you both as far as I am concerned. You are teaching this 'ol Dawg new tricks.



posted on Feb, 3 2013 @ 04:31 PM
link   
reply to post by TDawgRex
 


It's not my disagreement with Neo that's bothering me.
It's that I'm not sure what his point is and I can't seem to get it out of him.
I want to hold the FFLs responsible for not checking backgrounds and Neo wants to blame the federal government for issuing the licenses. Or that's what I thought we were saying. Now, I'm not really sure what his point was and it's not worth taking this thread further off-topic to find out.

I have MANY discussions that last for pages with people I disagree with. The other kind isn't very fun.



posted on Feb, 3 2013 @ 05:18 PM
link   
NYC plans to cut its budget by $1.7 billion, cut 2000 city workers, and it will still be $1.15 billion in the hole. Yet they can contribute to a $3.8 million, 30 second Superbowl ad. I'm guessing the other cities that contributed to this probably aren't doing too well financially either.

Smells like a big, steaming pile of leadership to me.



posted on Feb, 3 2013 @ 08:05 PM
link   
Screw the politicians, screw the superball, and screw all the fat beer guzzling idiots who watch it.



posted on Feb, 3 2013 @ 08:57 PM
link   
Background checks seem like a good idea, but most criminals dont buy firearms the legal way, so it doesnt matter. The politicians know this. Its all a game of money. Everytime a background check is run, everytime a gun is registered, it can be taxed, and taxed multiple times. Just a quick way to make a buck, in my opinion



posted on Feb, 3 2013 @ 09:06 PM
link   
Background checks for the sale of guns, especially high caliber guns, sounds reasonable to me.



posted on Feb, 3 2013 @ 10:26 PM
link   
reply to post by dothedew
 


By that token we should just disregard driver's licenses, social security cards, birth certificates, and every other form of registration or documentation. Ticket stubs for movies are unnecessary. Those sneaking in wouldn't have one anyway, so why use them.

Weapon registration doesn't entirely end the problem, but it does provide structure for controlling it. It is a waste of time to track ANY form of gun sale if ALL form of gun sale will not be tracked, so I see no problem with this. There should be stricter regulation on the obtaining of firearms, even though it will not prevent the misuse. I am not anti-gun, but I don't see any reason there should not be record of them.



posted on Feb, 3 2013 @ 11:52 PM
link   
One thing is for certain; this ad was clearly the best of the day:




posted on Feb, 4 2013 @ 12:05 AM
link   
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
 






While I'm sure SOME bad guys are willing to take the time and take the chance on breaking and entering (and getting caught or killed) to steal a gun, I'm quite sure that many more get their weapons at gun shows and other places that don't perform background checks. In fact, only 10%-15% steal their guns.


Geeze how stupid can people be... Sigh! Yeah of course every bad guy doesn't break and enter to get his weapon he buys it from the guys who do, Your quotes are BS! How do those people know where bad guys get their weapons since bad guys tend to no tell anyone how they got them.,..

Let all this idiots claiming background checks are reasonable prove they have stopped a single criminal from getting any weapon he wants and while their at it maybe they can show us how drug laws have prevented anyone from getting any drug they want... Oh wait... Geeze people use your frigging brains and quite repeating BS!


edit on 4-2-2013 by hawkiye because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 4 2013 @ 12:35 AM
link   
The problem with "background checks" is this.

Once it is in place, they will expand their definition of who isn't allowed to have a gun.



posted on Feb, 4 2013 @ 12:39 AM
link   
reply to post by hawkiye
 


It is unreasonable to ask someone to prove a negative.



posted on Feb, 4 2013 @ 01:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by TsukiLunar
reply to post by hawkiye
 


It is unreasonable to ask someone to prove a negative.


A negative would be them saying prove it doesn't stop criminals. These idiots claim background checks stop criminals from getting guns. That's not a negative that is a claim they need to back up. They can prove it or shut up.



posted on Feb, 4 2013 @ 01:32 AM
link   
reply to post by hawkiye
 





A negative would be them saying prove it doesn't stop criminals. These idiots claim background checks stop criminals from getting guns. That's not a negative that is a claim they need to back up. They can prove it or shut up.


No, they dont stop them because there are too many loop holes for criminals to purchase weapons legally. Thats the point of expanding it. Learn to understand what you read or dont post at all.

Also, there are no statistics for something that didn't happen. Still a negative



posted on Feb, 4 2013 @ 01:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by TsukiLunar
reply to post by hawkiye
 





A negative would be them saying prove it doesn't stop criminals. These idiots claim background checks stop criminals from getting guns. That's not a negative that is a claim they need to back up. They can prove it or shut up.


No, they dont stop them because there are too many loop holes for criminals to purchase weapons legally. Thats the point of expanding it. Learn to understand what you read or dont post at all.

Also, there are no statistics for something that didn't happen. Still a negative


But they are claiming it did happen and that background checks prevent criminals from getting guns. I am sorry if this is to complicated for you . Criminals can get guns anytime they want and have no need to go anywhere near a gun show or dealer. Idiots that believe background checks will work are completely oblivious of the decades of proof available via the drug trade and the fact that strict regulation and out right bans have never prevented anyone from getting any drug they want. So it seems the feeble minded just keep repeating anti-gun BS over and over like a mantra with nothing to back it up...



posted on Feb, 4 2013 @ 02:01 AM
link   
reply to post by hawkiye
 


Obviously if there is a background check, then the criminal is not purchasing a gun at that time. Its only pointless now because there are so many other ways to legally purchase weapons. Thats why we close the loopholes, so criminals have a harder time purchasing weapons. Sorry if the concept goes over your head.



posted on Feb, 4 2013 @ 02:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by TsukiLunar
reply to post by hawkiye
 


Obviously if there is a background check, then the criminal is not purchasing a gun at that time. Its only pointless now because there are so many other ways to legally purchase weapons. Thats why we close the loopholes, so criminals have a harder time purchasing weapons. Sorry if the concept goes over your head.


Geeze I think my IQ dropped reading that stupidity. What part of; "criminals don't bother with dealers guns shows or background checks" do you not understand? They can get a gun faster then law abiding citizens can and have no need for any of that nonsense. Hey maybe we should require prescriptions for drugs too and that would prevent criminals from getting drugs... Oh wait... Sigh!


These gun grabbing a-holes are not getting another damn inch no matter how many stupid people believe their BS propaganda!
edit on 4-2-2013 by hawkiye because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 4 2013 @ 02:31 AM
link   
reply to post by hawkiye
 


You are not making any sense.




What part of; "criminals don't bother with dealers guns shows or background checks" do you not understand?


They don't have to deal with background checks because there are none! Why is this concept so hard for you to grasp?




They can get a gun faster then law abiding citizens can and have no need for any of that nonsense.


How so?



You are not understanding the point of laws. It is not to stop behavior, its to prosecute it!
edit on 4-2-2013 by TsukiLunar because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 4 2013 @ 04:06 AM
link   
On anti depressants ? cant have a gun sorry



posted on Feb, 4 2013 @ 07:28 AM
link   
reply to post by TsukiLunar
 





They don't have to deal with background checks because there are none! Why is this concept so hard for you to grasp?


Every gun I have bought from a gun show required the same checks that buying from a gun store did. I am not sure where you are getting your info.

BTW I didnt see any anti gun comercial last night did I miss it?






top topics



 
12
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join


Help ATS Recover with your Donation.
read more: Help ATS Recover With Your Contribution