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.

 

5-year-old Kentucky boy fatally shoots 2-year-old sister with gift rifle

page: 17
22
<< 14  15  16    18  19  20 >>

log in

join
share:

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

Originally posted by seamus
reply to post by Cabin
 


Really? You think the parents NEED more punishment than losing their daughter? You think that by shuttling them into the prison system to make money for the private corporations that run prisons, taking them away from their remaining child, you will be rehabilitating them and providing a better life for the boy?

You people (punitive, vengeful, self-righteous super-monkeys) make me sick. Seriously.


And what is the just course when the child shoots the child next door?




posted on May, 2 2013 @ 02:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by thisguyrighthere

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07

I am quite sick and tired of the slippery slope bs conservatives spew.


You mean like 10 round mag limits one day and 7 round limits the next day? No, no slope there.


I guess it falls down to what people consider dangerous. I personally do not find much difference between 7 round or 10 round mag limits....or even 100 round drums. I find no difference between semi-automatic sport rifles and semi-automatic hunting rifles(they are not assualt weapons). Even automatic weapons should be legal on the condition people are properly trained to handle them via completing an NRA course and getting certified.

Gun racks and gun safes I think are absolutely necessary to prevent unauthorised use. Background checks such as NICS I find absolutely necessary. Registering guns should be pushed as well.

What I don't like are short barreled shotguns and armor piercing rounds. I ALSO think people should NOT NEED concealed carry permits if they qualify to own firearms. I consider it an unnecessary/abusive tax based on hot air alone.

It all comes down to perception and whom we trust. I went over this over the previous months. I think the brady laws were a bunch of bull#.



posted on May, 2 2013 @ 02:13 PM
link   
reply to post by eriktheawful
 


cant think for the life of me why the amount of kids i have is relevant to this topic..and i think that is none of your business anyway... on another post you say


When you "get a gun" for your child, it's normally purchased by you the adult. YOU the adult are responsible for it and the safety of your child. That means that while the child can take a look at and start learning how to operate it (if you feel that they are old enough to do so), they can under your supervision which means you are siting/standing right there with them with absolutely NO ammo near by.


When i get a gun for my child? - Over my dead body will i hand my child a weapon of death.
YOU the adult are responsible for it. - Yep exactly why i would not buy it for a child in the first place.
You are right there with them with absolutlely NO ammo nearby. - So why is it real in the first place, cant they make pretend ones for learning with once the become a teenager?



posted on May, 2 2013 @ 02:15 PM
link   
reply to post by EarthCitizen07
 


The rational, well thought out middle ground won't get you far in these debates.

The NRA needs you to be a communist oppressor and will define any perfectly reasonable suggestions as such.

Even Wayne Lapierre's former self...he now derides as facist...

Wayne Lapierre


"We think it's reasonable to provide mandatory instant criminal background checks for every sale at every gun show. No loopholes anywhere for anyone," he said. "That means closing the Hinckley loophole so the records of those adjudicated mentally ill are in the system. This isn't new, or a change of position, or a concession. I've been on record on this point consistently, from our national meeting in Denver, to paid national ads and position papers, to news interviews and press appearances."

judiciary.house.gov...



posted on May, 2 2013 @ 02:23 PM
link   
reply to post by Indigo5
 


Yes, its frustrating trying to debate with the extremists because there is too much emotion involved.

The whole idea is cutting down on gun violence and crime while not infringing on the second amendment. The second amendment includes *a well regulated militia* which is composed of ordinary folks as a whole.

Something needs to be done about straw purchases but I am not expert in the field so will avoid discussing it.



posted on May, 2 2013 @ 02:24 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on May, 2 2013 @ 02:29 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on May, 2 2013 @ 02:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by neo96
reply to post by Indigo5
 





How many dead kids before it is too many?


Dunno how many kids have to die from abortion?

Oh you meant guns.


Red Herring much Neo?

You are so consumed by the gun debate you have to drag in another convoluted and equally controversial topic to counter someones point..

Trying to stick with one absurdly biased comment at a time.

Its statements like this that lead to the never ending debate on these issues, or at the very least, never allow for civil discussion.

Perhaps an examination of the parents and their cultural nuances would be more productive then dragging in another debate entirely.



posted on May, 2 2013 @ 02:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by neo96
reply to post by Indigo5
 





How many dead kids before it is too many?


Dunno how many kids have to die from abortion?

Oh you meant guns.


Are you totally against abortion or partially against it? If someone gets raped they should not be allowed to get an abortion? I think they should. But generally speaking I am conservative on social issues and abortion should be discouraged.



posted on May, 2 2013 @ 02:43 PM
link   
reply to post by MDDoxs
 





Red Herring much Neo?


Nope




You are so consumed by the gun debate you have to drag in another convoluted and equally controversial topic to counter someones point..


Actually they are one in the same the issue is senseless death, and yet don't like people die from guns.

When there are millions that have died by that 'red herring'.

If some have a problem being held to the same standards for one issue they are accountable for other issues.

Gun control laws in the name of saving the children open that debate up to it.
edit on 2-5-2013 by neo96 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 2 2013 @ 02:45 PM
link   
reply to post by EarthCitizen07
 





Are you totally against abortion or partially against it? If someone gets raped they should not be allowed to get an abortion? I think they should. But generally speaking I am conservative on social issues and abortion should be discouraged.


The go to argument to justify murder if life is so precious do people really have the right to move that line?

It's called consistency.



posted on May, 2 2013 @ 02:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by neo96

Actually they are one in the same the issue is senseless death, and yet don't like people die from guns.

When there are millions that have died by that 'red herring'.


Not at all....It was a complete Bait/Derailment/Distraction...I assume because you had nothing to contribute to the substance of the debate?

No one is for abortion, only the right to choose...and while the abortion debate is centered on whether or not a fetus of 6 weeks constitutes a child, no one is debating whether or not the little girl who died here was.

Different issues, different debate...different arguments.
edit on 2-5-2013 by Indigo5 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 2 2013 @ 02:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by Indigo5

Originally posted by crazylexxi

SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED?? Have you??


I sometimes think that folks should plaster bumper stickers to thier forehead in lieu of actual thought.

The 2nd Amendment also says "Militia" and "Well regulated"...and a "right" within the context of the constitution has limits. We regulate those rights all the time and for good reason. We also deprive people of those rights when they break the law.

This doesn't mean that there is not legitimacy in the 2nd Amendment. It is a sound constitutional right that should be preserved, but you should have a deeper understanding of the context of "rights' in the constitution if you sincerely intend to defend them...and I see very little of that amongst the "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED" crew who appear to know as much about constitional rights as Wayne Lapierre tells them.
edit on 2-5-2013 by Indigo5 because: (no reason given)


Uhmm they werent speaking modern english. Regulate meant well trained. Referred to the militia not the guns. Read the federalist papers for more insight on what the authors meant

Infringe means to take the edges off.



posted on May, 2 2013 @ 02:52 PM
link   
reply to post by thisguyrighthere
 



You mean like 10 round mag limits one day and 7 round limits the next day? No, no slope there.


You realize that most in this discussion probably won't even know what you meant there, right?

To clarify (for others), many states have recently passed knee-jerk legislation (to Sandy Hook) that basically bans the average handgun even carried by most cops, making it, in effect, illegal. Seems like the limit is further decreasing, until soon, all we may able to keep in our homes is a one shell shotgun, or bolt action rifle. A slippery slope indeed.



posted on May, 2 2013 @ 02:56 PM
link   
reply to post by neo96
 



Actually they are one in the same the issue is senseless death, and yet don't like people die from guns.

When there are millions that have died by that 'red herring'.

If some have a problem being held to the same standards for one issue they are accountable for other issues.


By that logic we would have to drag in several other hundreds means of death that kills far to many into this one tiny debate....Lets start with drunk driving, drugs, speeding, etc etc.

You are attempting to water down the discussion at hand by drawing in more and more. A effective tactic if people allow it.

Why are you opposed to addressing one issue at a time? compared to attempting to address all the worlds problems in a single thread.

To be honest I dont even want to participate in this discussion as it has already spun wildly into many other tangents, but I offer a suggestion to stick with one issue at a time and avoid bogging down the process.

We all know your position on this Neo, just to be accommodating at least once bud



posted on May, 2 2013 @ 02:59 PM
link   
reply to post by Indigo5
 





Different issues, different debate...different arguments.


No they are not.

If some people believed in the sanctity of human life seems to me they know they are the same issue, they just don't want to talk about it.



posted on May, 2 2013 @ 03:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by crazylexxi
Regulate meant well trained.


And this is what I am talking about...educating yourself via idealogical propaganda...

Just refer to a dictionary of the time...

Let's see.. The second amendment written in 1791.

Dictionary of the English Language 1792...


Regulate [regula latin]
1. To adjust by rule or method
2. To direct

books.google.com...



posted on May, 2 2013 @ 03:04 PM
link   
reply to post by MDDoxs
 





By that logic we would have to drag in several other hundreds means of death that kills far to many into this one tiny debate....Lets start with drunk driving, drugs, speeding, etc etc.


Nope because this was said;



How many dead kids before it is too many?





You are attempting to water down the discussion at hand by drawing in more and more. A effective tactic if people allow it.


Nope made one comment that someone had a problem with who is making it an 'issue'.




Why are you opposed to addressing one issue at a time? compared to attempting to address all the worlds problems in a single thread.


Already address this issue way back here: www.abovetopsecret.com...




To be honest I dont even want to participate in this discussion as it has already spun wildly into many other tangents, but I offer a suggestion to stick with one issue at a time and avoid bogging down the process.


Thread conversations do evolve that is why they are called discussions.




We all know your position on this Neo, just to be accommodating at least once bud


Sorry don't do tricks.
edit on 2-5-2013 by neo96 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 2 2013 @ 03:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by neo96
reply to post by Indigo5
 





Different issues, different debate...different arguments.


No they are not.

If some people believed in the sanctity of human life seems to me they know they are the same issue, they just don't want to talk about it.


I believe in the sanctity of human life, I also believe in a womans right to choose...because I don't believe a Zygote is a person. While I do believe the Children of Sandy Hook et al. were..

Debating when life begins is not the topic.

That is why your DERAILMENT/BAIT/RED HERRING is not credible...and indicative of how weakly equipped you are for the actual substance of the debate.
edit on 2-5-2013 by Indigo5 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 2 2013 @ 03:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by crazylexxi

Originally posted by Indigo5

Originally posted by crazylexxi

SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED?? Have you??


I sometimes think that folks should plaster bumper stickers to thier forehead in lieu of actual thought.

The 2nd Amendment also says "Militia" and "Well regulated"...and a "right" within the context of the constitution has limits. We regulate those rights all the time and for good reason. We also deprive people of those rights when they break the law.

This doesn't mean that there is not legitimacy in the 2nd Amendment. It is a sound constitutional right that should be preserved, but you should have a deeper understanding of the context of "rights' in the constitution if you sincerely intend to defend them...and I see very little of that amongst the "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED" crew who appear to know as much about constitional rights as Wayne Lapierre tells them.
edit on 2-5-2013 by Indigo5 because: (no reason given)


Uhmm they werent speaking modern english. Regulate meant well trained. Referred to the militia not the guns. Read the federalist papers for more insight on what the authors meant

Infringe means to take the edges off.


America was a british colony back then so the militia were all those that opposed british rule and wanted to become independant. That is what the war of independence aka revolutionary war was all about.

They wanted to regulate the militia so that it was formidable enough to take on the british and it was.

In todays context well regulated should be taken as citizens defending themselves from possible tyranny in the future. The government is not necessarily the enemy, political parties and despotic leaders usually are. If a dictator would take over for any reason then the people can defend themselves. If a foreign power were to invade then the people would assist the military in fighting them off.



new topics

top topics



 
22
<< 14  15  16    18  19  20 >>

log in

join