Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

The shooters have all been Democrats!!!

page: 4
71
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join

posted on Mar, 16 2013 @ 05:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by newpopeislast
All the shooters were gun owners..


Negative - nice try though. Here is a clue...

Connecticut shooter never purchased or legally owned a firearm, same for Columbine shooters they were minors. Proving even with background checks and AWB (I think in effect at the time of Columbine) # heads still kill people.

You cannot show a correlation between an inanimate object and an act.

The action comes from the person. Absent an "assault rifle" they will use a handgun or shotgun, absent 30 round magazines they will use multiple 10 rounders like the Columbine shooters did.

Absent guns assholes will use knives, bats (the most common murder weapon in the US BTW) and fertilizer, or stones and their bare hands. More people are killed in the US with bare hands than with an "assault rifle" each year.

Banning weapon types doesn't stop anything....
edit on 16/3/2013 by Golf66 because: (no reason given)



+1 more 
posted on Mar, 16 2013 @ 05:58 PM
link   
While dems tend to lead the anti second amendment charge, to point accusatory fingers at any politically affiliated group of people, like when tea parties were accused when Gabby Giffords was shot, is simply disgusting politics that I cannot get behind.



posted on Mar, 16 2013 @ 06:24 PM
link   
reply to post by MsAphrodite
 


Most if not all of the mass murderers in the USA have been white males, let's just revoke the right to bear arms of white males. Using your logic of course.



posted on Mar, 16 2013 @ 06:27 PM
link   
well, it looks like with the "evil democrats" doing all this damage and going out killing people like you say, you'd stop trying to peeve them off doesn't it?



posted on Mar, 16 2013 @ 07:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by buster2010

Originally posted by neo96
reply to post by buster2010
 





What do you think was in the day care center of the building McVeigh blew up? You may want to brush up on him a little.


What the hell does McVeigh have to do with this topic?

Absolutely nothing Mceviegh used explosives that were banned still found a way to murder people.


When a thread is attempting to link killers to a certain party it has a lot to do with it. I could also point out the nearly 80% of all serial killers vote GOP.



Interesting if true..

Serial killers like to work individually while mass murderers like to kill large groups... all in it together as they say.



posted on Mar, 16 2013 @ 09:56 PM
link   



And just what groups did these Dems belong to?



posted on Mar, 16 2013 @ 10:37 PM
link   
PLEASE stop fighting...

www.youtube.com...

We are all a lot more similar than you might think...I dont think issues like these are so black and white (or in this case red and blue)

Mayeb we should all meet in the middle of the country and have one huge wrestling match



posted on Mar, 16 2013 @ 10:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by infolurker
Really? I would not call that an exaggeration. Who is leading the usual anti-gun charge, sure isn't the Republican, Constitution or Libertarian Parties.

There is no evidence that Federal democrats are considering any legislation that would "make gun ownership illegal."

Period. Saying so is a lie.



posted on Mar, 16 2013 @ 11:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by SkepticOverlord

Originally posted by infolurker
Really? I would not call that an exaggeration. Who is leading the usual anti-gun charge, sure isn't the Republican, Constitution or Libertarian Parties.

There is no evidence that Federal democrats are considering any legislation that would "make gun ownership illegal."

Period. Saying so is a lie.


I humbly disagree. Feinsteins' bill is extremely restrictive and it has many linguistic facets that could be used to ban commonly owned firearms. Not just so called assault weapons. My fear is the unintended consequences of legislation that is being considered.

I am wholeheartedly against legislation that continues to chip away at Americans individual right to arms. You may not agree and that is fine, but there must be a way we can deal with the true root causes of violence without violating the ability of Americans to be well armed and equipped legally and within the spirit and letter of the Constitution.



posted on Mar, 16 2013 @ 11:00 PM
link   
I really can't believe the level of ignorance I have seen on this thread...."It was printed in a newspaper, it has to be accurate right??"

The Virginia Tech shooter couldn't vote in this country and Virginia has no voter registration....how the hell does he register as a Democrat?

You can make similar arguments for the Fort Hood shooter who lived in places without partisan registration.

I mean that took me about 2 minutes to find out...but I guess I wouldn't want to know the truth if I had an excuse to blame a group of people who believe something different from me.

Instead of blaming Democrats (or Republicans), lets try to get to the real root causes of the violence problem, like poverty, mental illness, and a culture of acceptance.



posted on Mar, 16 2013 @ 11:04 PM
link   
reply to post by SkepticOverlord
 





There is no evidence that Federal democrats are considering any legislation that would "make gun ownership illegal."


Technically speaking "gun ownership" has already been made illegal no gun currently sold at any brick and mortar store can be sold without a federal background check which has made every citizen in this country guilty of crimes they did not commit, and have to prove they are worthy to be able to own a firearm by passing their "rules".

Atf form 4 13a,14a Any crimes that could have been punishable by a year or more effectively bans people for life from ever owning a gun.

Doesn't matter what they were ultimately convicted of the mere charge.

The background check already on the books in the works is the universal background checks in Feinsteins bill, and already a reality in New York,Colorado, and California both state and federal democrats.



posted on Mar, 16 2013 @ 11:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by buster2010
So the Dems use guns. At least they don't cause the property damage like the Republican killers like Timothy McVeigh when they go on a killing spree.


Dear god...

So thats a game?

Ok then... Patsies who work for both dems and reps use magic bullets! There. I win.



posted on Mar, 16 2013 @ 11:11 PM
link   
reply to post by neo96
 



Really propaganda and misinformation?


Yes "really", the source from the OP is propaganda and misinformation, but you already knew this right? As did the OP. Considering that the only source came from an image of an article sourced from a rightwing source and nothing else, it's pretty evident that we're dealing with misinformation and propaganda here. Did any of you actually bother to research this objectively?? Or are you people so hung up about Obama and the Democrats that you'd desperately cling to anything?


There is no proof of Fort Hood suspect Nidal Hasan’s political affiliation. He registered to vote in Roanoke County, Va., where he lived before being sent to Fort Hood, according to a Nov. 9, 2009, story in the Roanoke Times. Virginia does not allow registration by party, so he wouldn’t have been registered as a Democrat.



Hedgecock’s allegation that Colorado theater shooting suspect James Holmes was a registered Democrat was based on Breitbart blogger Joel B. Pollack, who said he found Holmes’ voter registration records. But it was later determined that those records — though of a Holmes of a similar age — were not those of the suspect.



Since Virginia does not have partisan registration, it would have been impossible for Virginia Tech shooter Seung-Hui Cho to register as a Democrat there. Cho and his family were permanent residents of the U.S. as South Korean nationals, according to a Washington Post article that quoted the Department of Homeland Security.


Read more at Jacksonville.com: jacksonville.com...

There is no evidence that Klebold and Harris of the Columbine were registered Democrats, it's questionable whether they were even old enough let alone whether they actually gave a damn either. Are you going to man up and admit that the OP and the source is false? Or are you going to resort to strawman arguments again?



posted on Mar, 16 2013 @ 11:13 PM
link   
reply to post by Southern Guardian
 


So?

The left wing media didn't have a problem during those events labeling them as right wingers.

Then of course there is the propaganda behind all the gun control laws, and soon to be laws in the works, but guess that doesn't matter.

just this thread.



posted on Mar, 16 2013 @ 11:15 PM
link   
reply to post by projectvxn
 



I humbly disagree. Feinsteins' bill is extremely restrictive


Where is Feinsteins bill does it outlaw gun ownership? Any sources? References from her bill? Whether you feel that these bills are "chipping" away at your rights is irrelevant, you're welcome to your own opinions but not your own facts. Please show us where in her bill does it strip any ability to legally own a gun.
edit on 16-3-2013 by Southern Guardian because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 16 2013 @ 11:16 PM
link   
reply to post by Southern Guardian
 


I have no idea why this is even a discussion.

The fact that reps and dems are so at each others' throats that they'd be willing to mash the crimes of the criminally insane to one another is simply disgusting and another reason to write such people off.



posted on Mar, 16 2013 @ 11:19 PM
link   
reply to post by neo96
 



The left wing media didn't have a problem during those events labeling them as right wingers.


Oh now, so it makes it right huh? Because some on the leftwing labelled these shooters, this justifies the fact the the OP spread more misinformation right? How does this go towards denying ignorance huh?

Are you going to man up and admit the OP was wrong? Or are you going to continue making excuses?



posted on Mar, 16 2013 @ 11:21 PM
link   
reply to post by projectvxn
 


That's right projectvxn, in no part of feinstein's bill does it outlaw legal ownership of guns. Feel free to come back to me here if you find something though to the contrary.



posted on Mar, 16 2013 @ 11:22 PM
link   
reply to post by Southern Guardian
 





Where is Feinsteins bill does it outlaw gun ownership? Any sources?


Here:

www.feinstein.senate.gov...



Mass shootings in Newtown, Aurora, and Tucson have demonstrated all too clearly the need to regulate military-style assault weapons and high capacity ammunition magazines. These weapons allow a gunman to fire a large number of rounds quickly and without having to reload.


Since the Newtown shooter did not use an "assualt weapon" that is a lie which brings us to high capacity magazines of which the majority of guns in this country are.


The legislation bans the sale, transfer, manufacturing and importation of


Effectively means the majority of guns in our hands with the exception of hunting rifles and shotguns since most people don't hunt.

And that was passed by the Senate vote via the Democrat majority,



posted on Mar, 16 2013 @ 11:24 PM
link   
reply to post by Southern Guardian
 





Oh now, so it makes it right huh? Because some on the leftwing labelled these shooters, this justifies the fact the the OP spread more misinformation right? How does this go towards denying ignorance huh?


Like lying about guns and calling them "assault weapons" does that make it right?

Like lying about assault weapons were used in the Newton shooting does that make it right?

Lying about gun control and banning things when the history behind those people is clear for anyone who has been paying attention.

What justifies the left lying about passing more laws that haven't worked and will never work?
edit on 16-3-2013 by neo96 because: (no reason given)





new topics

top topics



 
71
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join