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: 23
22
<< 20  21  22    24  25  26 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 3 2013 @ 11:52 AM
link   
reply to post by JuniorDisco
 



Perhaps not. Like I say, I don't have the answer. But you will have to deal with the fact that since there will always be idiots and nutters out there, the correlative of your current stance is that kids will be shot.

This is true. It’s always been that way and always will be. Murder has been around for thousands of years prior to the invention of guns, friend.



I just have no problem not fetishising a document written by people that long ago.Their priorities were naturally different. And they weren't prophets or deities.

It’s not a fetish it’s the document that our Constitutional Republic was based on. America’s rise to the top of the economic and military food chain can be attributed to our form of government. We take it seriously (well, those of us with any sense and aren’t corrupt)!




Take the situation with widespread ownership of rifles. You can see why that might be a good thing if you risked being invaded by an army of foreign riflemen. Not so effective now.

It’s absolutely effective for self defense. There is a reason why swords are obsolete on the battlefield!


If they are so ineffective then what’s your problem with me having a bunch of them?? My children have never accidently discharged a firearm. Why should I take a safety course??




No. You need IEDs and RPGs and suchlike. Perhaps you should make those legal as well? After all, they are just objects that can be handled with common sense also.

Yes, perhaps we should ONCE AGAIN make them legal. Before 1934 they were legal! Thanks for pointing out another example of my rights being infringed upon!





In fact unbridled gun freedom advocates are in a minority. Add to that the collateral fallout of needless child deaths and perhaps you should ask yourself the same question.

Guns have been legal to own since their invention and no such ownership requirements have ever been in place. Why do we need them now? Is it because you believe the media hype?? I think so. Violent gun crimes are at historic lows, friend.


Stop drinking the MSM kool aid before I lose more of my RIGHTS!


edit on 3-5-2013 by seabag because: (no reason given)




posted on May, 3 2013 @ 11:55 AM
link   
reply to post by JuniorDisco
 


Come on now, I am fairly certain that you can read.



So you're just going to rely on the difficulty of procuring a weapon of mass destruction to protect you?


My point was pretty clear. The jihadists don't follow our laws..... they follow theirs.
We can have a whole boatload of laws against bombs and they will still make and use them. (they just did... up there in Boston)
Yes, right now, all we have is difficulty of procurement protecting us, because the terrorists do not abide by our laws when they are practicing jihad.... or hadn't you noticed???



posted on May, 3 2013 @ 12:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by seabag
[
By acquiescing on mandatory training and licensing to exercise a fundamental RIGHT we would in fact be surrendering liberty!


Why?

As I said some common sense rules have to be enforced or would you like to see people takeing guns into prisons (excluding guards), onto planes and into factorys with volitile material?

If its such a "beloved" right that cant be improved in anyway surely you should be able to take guns everywere!

Hell why not hand Guns out to prisoners getting out of prison?


You see some rules are needed or you get the above. And Im sure 99% of your country when would not want that.



posted on May, 3 2013 @ 12:03 PM
link   
reply to post by crazyewok
 



Why?

As I said some common sense rules have to be enforced or would you like to see people takeing guns into prisons (excluding guards), onto planes and into factorys with volitile material?


All of that is already illegal and not part of this debate.

You can’t seem to muster anything but a weak circular argument.



posted on May, 3 2013 @ 12:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by seabag
reply to post by crazyewok
 



Why?

As I said some common sense rules have to be enforced or would you like to see people takeing guns into prisons (excluding guards), onto planes and into factorys with volitile material?


All of that is already illegal and not part of this debate.

You can’t seem to muster anything but a weak circular argument.



No it is relevent! Cause your saying makeing and enforceing safe storage and handling is infringing on the 2nd amendment. Well if thats the case then the above rules are obviolsy doing that to right? Baning guns on aircraft is obvilosy infringing on that right in a worse way than saying one must store guns unloaded in a locked cupboard if kids are about.......

It your argument that is weak. All I see is someone who wants peeple to have the right to leave guns lying around in any condition without any responsibility.



posted on May, 3 2013 @ 12:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by crazyewok

Cause your saying makeing and enforceing safe storage and handling is infringing on the 2nd amendment.


Infringement or not enforcing safe storage and handling is simply not possible.

You're asking for congress to declare unicorns exist.

They dont, they wont but apparently a bunch of lawyers saying they do would make you happy.
edit on 3-5-2013 by thisguyrighthere because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 3 2013 @ 12:12 PM
link   
reply to post by crazyewok
 



No it is relevent! Cause your saying makeing and enforceing safe storage and handling is infringing on the 2nd amendment. Well if thats the case then the above rules are obviolsy doing that to right? Baning guns on aircraft is obvilosy infringing on that right in a worse way than saying one must store guns unloaded in a locked cupboard if kids are about.......

It your argument that is weak. All I see is someone who wants peeple to have the right to leave guns lying around in any condition without any responsibility.


You go from suggesting everyone take certain training before being ALLOWED to exercise a fundamental right. When that argument fails you make a huge leap in logic and act as though I don’t want any gun laws!!


Nobody is advocating removing any existing law (though I wouldn’t cry if some of them disappeared). The argument is against NEW LAWS such as the training you suggest.



posted on May, 3 2013 @ 12:19 PM
link   
reply to post by danneu89
 


Not sure where you are from but we 6 children grew up with a gun in almost every room, closet in the house.

Even my Dads Bathroom... Under his pillow, next to his night stand, up in his closet, behind his door...

He taught us where they were, to NEVER touch them. I still recall where they all were 40 years later, once we were shown where and told to never touch, we forgot about it and went on to play as children do in a safe and healthy environment.

Maybe it is all the TV, Junk food, craziness, fluoride, GMOS, that are causing the trouble.

You have the right to think as you do, and so do I thank God and the US Constitution.

We did not need the Government to control the safety within our home. That was something my Parents were happy to do.



posted on May, 3 2013 @ 12:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by thisguyrighthere
reply to post by EarthCitizen07
 


I'm not working under the assumption that the 2nd is some holy word of god.

I say shred the BOR altogether. Private property is private property without some ancient document saying so.

Faith in the 2nd is foolish and itself liberty restricting.


Either the constitution is important or it isn't important. You can't have it both ways.

I think the second amendment is pretty clear in what it implies. *well regulated militias* meaning the people as a whole and influenced by government regulation AND shall not be infringed...in other words deprived of firearms.



posted on May, 3 2013 @ 12:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by seabag


You go from suggesting everyone take certain training before being ALLOWED to exercise a fundamental right. When that argument fails you make a huge leap in logic and act as though I don’t want any gun laws!!


Nobody is advocating removing any existing law (though I wouldn’t cry if some of them disappeared). The argument is against NEW LAWS such as the training you suggest.



But everyone who is responsibe would still get a gun right? So what the problem?

In my world It would be a 2 hour class on safe handling and what could go wrong and thats all.

If it saves just one child from the mistakes of dumbass parents its worth it.

It wont take any liberty away. You still get your gun or guns and you still get to protect yourself form "tyranny" (though that ball seems to have past now in most states ).

Obvioulsy you will disagree. You are obviolsy set in your ways. But it seem the majority disagree with you.

If you dont watch out instead of reasonble people like me wanting to makeing new gun owners sit in a class for 2 hours you will have fascists that will try and take all your guns.



posted on May, 3 2013 @ 12:21 PM
link   
reply to post by EarthCitizen07
 


Who's trying to have it both ways? I said it's not. Shred it. My rights arent dependent on that "goddamn piece of paper."



posted on May, 3 2013 @ 12:21 PM
link   
reply to post by seabag
 


LOL read my post below you, I think you'll snicker... Just how it was done in the 60's 70's...



posted on May, 3 2013 @ 12:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by antar
reply to post by danneu89
 


Not sure where you are from but we 6 children grew up with a gun in almost every room, closet in the house.

Even my Dads Bathroom... Under his pillow, next to his night stand, up in his closet, behind his door...

He taught us where they were, to NEVER touch them. I still recall where they all were 40 years later, once we were shown where and told to never touch, we forgot about it and went on to play as children do in a safe and healthy environment.

Maybe it is all the TV, Junk food, craziness, fluoride, GMOS, that are causing the trouble.

You have the right to think as you do, and so do I thank God and the US Constitution.

We did not need the Government to control the safety within our home. That was something my Parents were happy to do.


And good for YOUR parents they got lucky but there are alot of dumbasses out there.

And what does god have anything to do with the constitution I dont think he really cares anymore about the USA than he does canada, UK or France



posted on May, 3 2013 @ 12:26 PM
link   
reply to post by crazyewok
 


My kids middle school offers gun safety classes 2wice per year. All of them have or will take the course. They come out with a certificate, but I wouldnt trust that class to teach them what the men in our family have taken time to teach them. heck my sons are more dangerous with a potato shooter than any gun. Do you think there should be Nerf training? Potato shooter Safety? Where does it end? A responsible family, traditionally teaches with full honor and responsibility and that never came with a certificate, never could. Common sense safety course before having a child? Yeah, the list would never end.



posted on May, 3 2013 @ 12:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by seabag
reply to post by crazyewok
 



No it is relevent! Cause your saying makeing and enforceing safe storage and handling is infringing on the 2nd amendment. Well if thats the case then the above rules are obviolsy doing that to right? Baning guns on aircraft is obvilosy infringing on that right in a worse way than saying one must store guns unloaded in a locked cupboard if kids are about.......

It your argument that is weak. All I see is someone who wants peeple to have the right to leave guns lying around in any condition without any responsibility.


You go from suggesting everyone take certain training before being ALLOWED to exercise a fundamental right. When that argument fails you make a huge leap in logic and act as though I don’t want any gun laws!!


Nobody is advocating removing any existing law (though I wouldn’t cry if some of them disappeared). The argument is against NEW LAWS such as the training you suggest.


I actually WOULD LIKE to see some laws REMOVED such paying $200 for a silencer and short barralled rifle, but keeping short barralled shotguns illegal, then making armor piercing rounds illegal, etc...etc.

Some laws should be removed imo and new ones inserted. What ever makes sense keep it, whatever does not make sense remove it.

The second amendment allows this. The "shall not infringe" crowd aka the "black helicopter" crowd seems a bit confused?



posted on May, 3 2013 @ 12:42 PM
link   
The republicans say a 15 year old cant buy the morning after pill, but a 5 year old can have a gun...



posted on May, 3 2013 @ 12:46 PM
link   
reply to post by EarthCitizen07
 




then making armor piercing rounds illegal,

Very slippery slope there!

The definition of armor piercing rounds would depend on the definition of the armor. If a full metal jacket rifle bullet can defeat a ballistic vest, then a FMJ bullet would be illegal. If the government could show that a pointed soft point round fired by an ultra high velocity rifle could defeat a ballistic vest, then we would have to ban most hunting ammo. Let's say a typical rifle firing a PSP bullet into the same spot an a vest defeats it after the second round.... does it qualify as armor piercing?



posted on May, 3 2013 @ 12:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by butcherguy
reply to post by EarthCitizen07
 




then making armor piercing rounds illegal,

Very slippery slope there!

The definition of armor piercing rounds would depend on the definition of the armor. If a full metal jacket rifle bullet can defeat a ballistic vest, then a FMJ bullet would be illegal. If the government could show that a pointed soft point round fired by an ultra high velocity rifle could defeat a ballistic vest, then we would have to ban most hunting ammo. Let's say a typical rifle firing a PSP bullet into the same spot an a vest defeats it after the second round.... does it qualify as armor piercing?


There are several/many levels of ballistic armor and I think it goes from level 1 to level 5. The police tend to have level 3a which stops up to 9mm fmj. With AP rounds they would probably need level 4 or level 5 protection. Not that I care about cops a whole lot but civilians can buy vests as well I think up to level 3 which means no one would be safe. I just don't see why AP rounds are a good idea for civilians and are a bit too dangerous imo. Military grade equipment should belong to the military.



posted on May, 3 2013 @ 12:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by seabag
reply to post by JuniorDisco
 


Violent gun crimes are at historic lows, friend.


And so is gun ownership, friend





posted on May, 3 2013 @ 12:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07

I just don't see why AP rounds are a good idea for civilians and are a bit too dangerous imo.


You still havent defined armor piercing. Steel core handgun ammo? Any rifle caliber? .50 BMG's?

These two items, AP ammo and the armor of which is only so far defined in your head, are dynamic meaning that virtually any ammo is or is not armor piercing.

Loose definitions and vague notions are what are wrong with nearly every law on the books.
edit on 3-5-2013 by thisguyrighthere because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
22
<< 20  21  22    24  25  26 >>

log in

join