Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Gun Control is just....Silly

page: 1
5
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join

posted on Apr, 2 2013 @ 01:22 PM
link   
Gun control is just silly. Government can't control things like this. First we have a second amendment, secondly when Government tries to CONTROL things like this they just create more criminals that get filthy rich because of this control.

The Government can't control guns just like they can't control drugs or prostitution. Women get abused, enslaved and forced into prostitution because Government has prostitution under control. Drug Cartels and Kingpins make tons of money because Government has drugs under control.

Government controlled Booze during Prohibition and guess what, people like Al Capone and Joe Kennedy made a mint because Government CONTROLLED alcohol.

So Gun Control will just create more criminals getting rich from selling guns that Government "controls."

We know where guns do the most violence. That's with gangs, ex criminals and the mentally disturbed. The goal should be reducing gun violence in these areas.

How will taking guns away from law abiding citizens stop gang members from having shoot outs?

Gun Control is just a liberal agenda. So it doesn't matter if it makes sense. It's something liberals are supposed to be for.

On a side note, liberal doesn't mean just Democrat. There are liberal Republicans who will probably suppor Gun "Control,"
edit on 2-4-2013 by neoholographic because: (no reason given)




posted on Apr, 2 2013 @ 01:35 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Apr, 2 2013 @ 01:40 PM
link   
reply to post by neoholographic
 


Wait until you can pull up anyone's psychological records on the internet....whether they purchased a gun or not.

Yes, some day with Universal Background Checks, you and I will be sharing our most intimate secrets of mind without ever having met.

You think it's tough for some people to find jobs now? Wait until anonymous tipsters start emailing people's psychological records to employers.

Oh....and you think you won't have a psychological record on internet file just because you didn't buy a gun? Have no fear. Once Gubbmint starts putting one person's psychological record on file....there's no end in sight to the future listings.



posted on Apr, 2 2013 @ 01:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by neoholographic
We know where guns do the most violence. That's with gangs, ex criminals and the mentally disturbed. The goal should be reducing gun violence in these areas.


And how do we do that? By the gov't controlling the guns - more specifically enacting and enforcing laws that prevent those groups from getting guns. There has to be some form of gun control.



posted on Apr, 2 2013 @ 02:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by redtic

Originally posted by neoholographic
We know where guns do the most violence. That's with gangs, ex criminals and the mentally disturbed. The goal should be reducing gun violence in these areas.


And how do we do that? By the gov't controlling the guns - more specifically enacting and enforcing laws that prevent those groups from getting guns. There has to be some form of gun control.


Hey genius, yes or no, it is already against the law to murder folks with a gun?
Is.it already against the law for me to have a gun in a school?
Is it already illegal for mentaly I'll to possess a gun?

They already have gun laws. They didn't help. It is impossible.to legislate human behavior. Criminals.don't follow the law, so how is.making more.laws against crime going to.stop.it?

What was it eisntein said about insanity? Oh ya he said "insanity is trying the same thing over and over and expecting a different result."

Are you insane then?



posted on Apr, 2 2013 @ 02:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by inverslyproportional
Hey genius


Thanks for the compliment.



They already have gun laws. They didn't help. It is impossible.to legislate human behavior. Criminals.don't follow the law, so how is.making more.laws against crime going to.stop.it?


That's one of the least intelligent things I've seen posted on here in a while. With that logic - we shouldn't have any laws and everyone should self-police themselves. Yeah, that should work out well.



posted on Apr, 2 2013 @ 03:22 PM
link   
reply to post by redtic
 


The law cannot protect you from being victimized. You have the responsibility to defend you and yours.

Criminals don't follow laws. So, therefore, you must protect yourself.

I don't understand how some people can believe that if you prohibit something physical with legislation it will just go away. Also, you cannot legislate evil. It exists no matter what laws you create.

You have to protect yourself from that. Firepower is a logical means as even the most brutally evil human being is not bulletproof.



posted on Apr, 2 2013 @ 03:27 PM
link   
Two things:

Don't tread on me.

And, come and take it.

I hope to never find myself in the situation of waiting for the police to come and save me, or my family, or my property.

They cannot enforce the laws that they have on the books now, why would more laws be the answer?



posted on Apr, 2 2013 @ 03:27 PM
link   
reply to post by redtic
 


I meant it when I said genius, as I usually see a lot of intelligence in your replies, even the ones I disagree with.

This was not one of those times, which is why I quoted the definition of insanity, since that is exactly what your proposing.

Making more restrictive laws for that only effect law abiding citizens is not ever gonna stop a single criminal from breaking those same laws, thinking it will is mental fallacy of the highest order.

BTW your welcome for the complement, now please use your usually higher brained logic, and reassess your response to the op please. As it is quite easy to see the failure of logic your response was founded in.


That's one of the least intelligent things I've seen posted on here in a while. With that logic - we shouldn't have any laws and everyone should self-police themselves. Yeah, that should work out well.


I never implied we should have no laws, I stated we already have plenty of laws for this type of situation, they were in place, they were enforced, a criminal doing as criminals do, simply ignored them. So how would more laws have stopped anything about any of these situations?

We obviously need laws, we just don't need to keep making more laws simply because of the laws failure to stop criminals from breaking it.

No amount of law will ever make anyone intent on breaking it follow, this is idiocy, and if you cant see that, well I would take a long hard look at my world perspective.
edit on 2-4-2013 by inverslyproportional because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 2 2013 @ 03:36 PM
link   
An example:

Failed gang robbery/rape/murder attempt caught on CCTV

I don't know if it's possible to embed from LiveLeak here or not.
edit on 2/4/13 by Darce because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 2 2013 @ 03:40 PM
link   
reply to post by Darce
 


I love how they scatter and run away like scared little girly men.
Totally worth a watch!

Thanks for sharing. Star for you.

Maybe try to find a copy on youtube and embed from there?
edit on 2-4-2013 by daryllyn because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 2 2013 @ 03:43 PM
link   
reply to post by neoholographic
 


The only kind of control that isn't silly is SELF control. If we had more of that WE would be the powers that be and no one would dare threaten us with restrictions and regulations other than those of our own making.

Gun control is the final step of the oligarchs in removing all semblance of self control. After that, its an open air prison. And then its too late to say "sorry, I was wrong".



posted on Apr, 2 2013 @ 04:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by inverslyproportional
I meant it when I said genius, as I usually see a lot of intelligence in your replies, even the ones I disagree with.


That seems a bit dubious, but if you're being sincere, then it's appreciated..



This was not one of those times, which is why I quoted the definition of insanity, since that is exactly what your proposing.

Making more restrictive laws for that only effect law abiding citizens is not ever gonna stop a single criminal from breaking those same laws, thinking it will is mental fallacy of the highest order.

BTW your welcome for the complement, now please use your usually higher brained logic, and reassess your response to the op please. As it is quite easy to see the failure of logic your response was founded in.


That's one of the least intelligent things I've seen posted on here in a while. With that logic - we shouldn't have any laws and everyone should self-police themselves. Yeah, that should work out well.


I never implied we should have no laws, I stated we already have plenty of laws for this type of situation, they were in place, they were enforced, a criminal doing as criminals do, simply ignored them. So how would more laws have stopped anything about any of these situations?

We obviously need laws, we just don't need to keep making more laws simply because of the laws failure to stop criminals from breaking it.

No amount of law will ever make anyone intent on breaking it follow, this is idiocy, and if you cant see that, well I would take a long hard look at my world perspective.
edit on 2-4-2013 by inverslyproportional because: (no reason given)


I guess my point is that a) we have a gun problem in the US, with the vast majority of that problem founded in people having access to guns who shouldn't have them (gangs, mentally ill, etc) and b) the current laws are somehow not working, either through lack of enforcement or just the wrong laws. As I've stated on other threads, if we admit there's a problem and that what we're doing doesn't seem to be fixing it, doesn't *something* need to change? Or is the answer to keep things as they are, let the gangs do their thing and the mentally ill do their thing, and infuse the country with more guns so we can protect ourselves from them?



posted on Apr, 2 2013 @ 05:10 PM
link   
Universal background checks are OK.

It doesn't make sense that you have to do a NICS at a gun shop, but a previously convicted violent felon can get one in a gun show, right?

But there's a problem.

What recent shooting has been performed with a gun purchased at a gun show by someone that wouldn't have passed a NICS check?

Can anyone give me an example?



posted on Apr, 2 2013 @ 05:16 PM
link   
Its not about controlling human behavior its about removing something or extremely limiting its public access. Sure most of us could own bazooka's and never fire them off but those who are criminals probably would.

The issue here is that it is very hard for a criminal to get hold of a bazooka. If you want to limit gun violence from a certain type of gun you need to focus on removing that weapon, over time, from society.

It has nothing to do with whether or not a criminal will use it. We already know they will.



posted on Apr, 2 2013 @ 05:29 PM
link   
reply to post by Hopechest
 


Hello, might I suggest that you watch the video I posted and my comment.

How would you regulate the possession if machetes? You can make one out of a lawnmower blade?

No mercy for the wicked.... that's the only way to discourage the evil doers.



posted on Apr, 2 2013 @ 05:29 PM
link   
reply to post by Hopechest
 



Its not about controlling human behavior


Of course it is. Humans are controlled from the moment they enter a public school room. Sit down, stand up, raise your hand, put your hand down, get in line, read this book, don't read that book ... your parents are always wrong ...

and for GODS sake, don't EVER point your finger.

Its just that a lot of people can't control themselves OR their children and therefore need someone to do it for them.



posted on Apr, 2 2013 @ 05:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by Darce
reply to post by Hopechest
 


Hello, might I suggest that you watch the video I posted and my comment.

How would you regulate the possession if machetes? You can make one out of a lawnmower blade?

No mercy for the wicked.... that's the only way to discourage the evil doers.


I wasn't aware anyone wanted to regulate machetes.

And what does that have to do with gun control? I did watch the video by the way.



posted on Apr, 2 2013 @ 05:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by frazzle
reply to post by Hopechest
 



Its not about controlling human behavior


Of course it is. Humans are controlled from the moment they enter a public school room. Sit down, stand up, raise your hand, put your hand down, get in line, read this book, don't read that book ... your parents are always wrong ...

and for GODS sake, don't EVER point your finger.

Its just that a lot of people can't control themselves OR their children and therefore need someone to do it for them.


That's not controlling behavior it is asking people to follow rules. You cannot have a society without some form of rules but that has nothing to do with human behavior. People are allowed not to follow rules if they so choose.



posted on Apr, 2 2013 @ 05:41 PM
link   



I guess my point is that a) we have a gun problem in the US, with the vast majority of that problem founded in people having access to guns who shouldn't have them (gangs, mentally ill, etc) and b) the current laws are somehow not working, either through lack of enforcement or just the wrong laws. As I've stated on other threads, if we admit there's a problem and that what we're doing doesn't seem to be fixing it, doesn't *something* need to change? Or is the answer to keep things as they are, let the gangs do their thing and the mentally ill do their thing, and infuse the country with more guns so we can protect ourselves from them?



New Gun laws wont make existing Firearms go poof. So really what you're advocating is that you do not want law abiding citizens to own Firearms or certain Firearms, leaving them at a disadvantage compared to the Crazies,Gang Bangers,and the Government. Yeah no thanks, im not down with that.


"The police can't stop an intruder, mugger, or stalker from hurting you. They can pursue him only after he has hurt or killed you. Protecting yourself from harm is your responsibility, and you are far less likely to be hurt in a neighborhood of gun-owners than in one of disarmed citizens - even if you don't own a gun yourself. "

-Harry Browne

Am to be honest, I dont want to be this guy. Helpless






new topics

top topics



 
5
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join