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.
Originally posted by neo96
reply to post by Ghost375
Background checks would only target those already found guilty in a court of law.
No they don't they target everyone the entire population of the US that violates their civil liberties, and invasion of privacy.
A background check is nothing, but proving to the state that they are worthy of gun ownership, based off a predetermined set of rules of perfection.
People are not perfect.
I will never support that fascism.
Originally posted by Ghost375
The second part is offensive, and kind of surprised a mod would say that.
Plus you guys do require email verification! there already is a delay! and you guys censor people ALL the time for saying things you deem offensive. Pretty rich coming from a mod on this site.
So answer me this, you are okay with repeat violent offenders to have easy access to gun? You think a guy who just got out of jail should be allowed to go straight to the store and pick up a semi-automatic rifle?
It's so fascist to limit people with a history of violence access to guns..../sarcasm.
Three-quarters of the sample said they had owned one or more firearms at some time in their lives. Seventy-nine percent of these -- more than 1,000 -- said they owned at least one handgun. The handgun owners responded to a number of detailed questions about the methods and sources they used to acquire their most recent handguns. Their answers provide previously unavailable details describing the nature of the criminal gun market. The principal results:
(1) Legitimate firearms retailers play only a minor role as direct sources of handguns for adult felony offenders.
Only about one-sixth of the gun-owning felons obtained their most recent handguns through a customary retail transaction involving a licensed firearms dealer. The remainder -- five out of six -- obtained them via informal, off-the-record transactions involving friends and associates, family members, and various black market outlets. The means of acquisition from these informal sources included cash purchase, swaps and trades, borrowing and renting, and often theft. The criminal handgun market is overwhelmingly dominated by informal transactions and theft as mechanisms of supply.
The off-the-record nature of the market is further illustrated in the responses to a series of questions concerning the ease with which these men felt they could arm themselves upon release from prison. (As convicted felons, of course, all these men are legally prohibited from acquiring guns upon release, under provisions of the Gun Control Act of 1968 and the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968.) Most of the sample (gun owners and nonowners alike) thought it would be "no trouble at all" to acquire a gun upon release; about 80 percent felt they could obtain a suitable handgun in a few days or less. When asked where they would go for guns, their sources were friends, the street, and various black market sources.
Half the men in the total sample had stolen at least one gun at some time in their lives (as shown in Figure 1). Many had stolen more than one. A few, particularly the more predatory felons, had stolen guns in extremely large numbers. At least 40 percent and perhaps has many as 70 percent of the most recent handguns owned by this sample were stolen weapons. These percentages include not only the guns that the felons stole themselves (32 percent), but also guns that the felons knew or believed to have been stolen prior to their acquisition of them.
But I see no reason why a repeat violent offender should have easy access to guns
Originally posted by Ghost375
So answer me this, you are okay with repeat violent offenders to have easy access to gun? You think a guy who just got out of jail should be allowed to go straight to the store and pick up a semi-automatic rifle?
Massive corruption in the Mexican government is the reason they don't eliminate the cartels.
Course you are so hell bent on blaming everything including your own flatulence on Obama that you are so blinded to see what REALLY is going on.
Course you don't CARE what's really going on neo, you just want to blame it all on Obama, talk about personal responsibility, how can one be a proponent of personal responsibility when they shift blame on a figurehead?
Is Obama responsible? In the immortal words of Reagan ("I don't recall")
But keep just blaming Obama for everything including your cereal getting soggy in milk, I'm sure that if you throw enough mud at the wall, SOMETHING will stick, and you will feel justified in some petty way.
But god forbid, don't lay the blame where it really belongs, on the customers buying the product. Ya think maybe, if no one bought the cartel's products, the cartels would have any money for weaponry?
But of course, again, it appears your under the delusion that the drug cartels had no weaponry at all until Fast and Furious, if that's your opinion, I have little more to add to this topic.
But I see no reason why a repeat violent offender should have easy access to guns. I see no reason why a person should be able to get right out of jail and pick up a gun.
Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
reply to post by neo96
maybe he was partly right, after all isn't that what Fast and Furious was about? He just forgot to mention it was his DOJ that did the gunrunning.
Originally posted by captaintyinknots
Like the others have said, the first step is to stop selling them guns.
the second step is to remove american corporate influence. Anyone think it is a coincidence that Coca-cola has a headquarters in Juarez, which just happens to have become one of the murder capitals of the world?
Originally posted by sonnny1
How about someone who is a Rapist?
Should he have access to women if he gets out of jail? Since we are talking hypothetically of course. Should he be allowed to go right to a store and pick out his next victim? How far does one play into this way of thinking?
Originally posted by Ghost375
Originally posted by sonnny1
How about someone who is a Rapist?
Should he have access to women if he gets out of jail? Since we are talking hypothetically of course. Should he be allowed to go right to a store and pick out his next victim? How far does one play into this way of thinking?
You buy women at stores? I've heard of objectifying women, but that's a little far.
Originally posted by NOTurTypical
Originally posted by Covertblack
What about if we secured the bor................. never mind.
RACIST!!!!!!!!!!
Originally posted by HauntWok
Course you are so hell bent on blaming everything including your own flatulence on Obama that you are so blinded to see what REALLY is going on.
Originally posted by MDDoxs
reply to post by NOTurTypical
I will not banter on the definition of capitalism with you as their is always a disconnect between theoretical definitions and pragmatic realities.
But the America, or the west/industrialized countries, would be considered to have adopted capitalist practices.
Cartels live and die by the demand for their product, nuff said.