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.

 

At least two, possibly more wounded in Knoxville shootout

page: 2
6
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 16 2013 @ 03:52 AM
link   
reply to post by dave_welch
 



You realize that when people say that. They're talking about the majority of us who have never done anything to warrant loss of a right. People who've committed violent crimes have lost their right to bear arms, it's one of the deterrents to crime.


The NRA is the nations largest firearm advocacy lobby. They actively assist violent felons in getting their guns back. So this argument of yours is invalid. They actually claim that not having a gun is a disability.

I'm actually fine with people having firearms. But don't lie to me and tell me that "law abiding gun owners" never commit crimes with their firearms. Because according to the NRA, violent felons are "disabled" law abiding gun owners. (this includes people who were convicted of homicide)


For someone who claims to be an independent voter, you seem awfully far left.


Read my signature.




posted on Jul, 16 2013 @ 04:00 AM
link   
reply to post by HauntWok
 


Just because the NRA is the biggest lobby doesn't mean that the views that they push are the ones shared by all gun owners, in fact, then NRA rarely shares the same views as it's members. Making snide comments about gun ownership because you disagree with the NRA is an exorcise in futility. All I'm saying is think before you speak (or type).



posted on Jul, 16 2013 @ 04:08 AM
link   
reply to post by dave_welch
 


The NRA is the main gun lobby, which means they are the ones that bribe your congressmen to defeat any and all gun control legislation. (do you really think that politicians listen to constituents anymore?)

Without their massive amounts of cash (thanks to members) there would be a lot more gun control legislation on the books.

And maybe we wouldn't have the shootouts like the one described in the op perpetrated by "law abiding gun owners".

Personally I would like to see a psychological examination requirement before legal gun ownership. Just an MMPI or a short essay. Just to determine if the potential gun owner is likely to snap someday and shoot up a residence or themselves, or an office building. Or a school, or a theatre, (how many more mass shootings?)

But no, can't have any sort of gun control legislation because the NRA has you all brainwashed into thinking that if they pass ANY gun control measures that only criminals will have guns, (except they advocate for those same criminals to get their guns back)



posted on Jul, 16 2013 @ 04:20 AM
link   
reply to post by HauntWok
 


The problem everybody has with that sort of legislation is that it's made out of emotion instead of reason.

As far as psychiatric evaluations go, I'd be onboard, if you could get an unbiased evaluation made. But, the problem is, that most people who propose the gun control legislation are staunchly anti-gun, when that happens, those people will do what it takes to push they're agenda. It sucks, but it's just the way things are.

If it were up to me there'd be no lobbyists, unfortunately, it's not up to me. Either way, grouping all gun owners in with the NRA is wrong, and there's no way you can justify it.

However, more legislation would not stop shoot outs, considering that there are already over 300,000,000 guns in the United States, and that's just the legal ones.
edit on 16-7-2013 by dave_welch because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 16 2013 @ 04:56 AM
link   
reply to post by dave_welch
 



The problem everybody has with that sort of legislation is that it's made out of emotion instead of reason.


I'll have to concede that a lot of gun control legislation is made possible by knee jerk reactions.


As far as psychiatric evaluations go, I'd be onboard, if you could get an unbiased evaluation made. But, the problem is, that most people who propose the gun control legislation are staunchly anti-gun, when that happens, those people will do what it takes to push they're agenda. It sucks, but it's just the way things are.


A MMPI would be a good standard model to go by. It would be fair, impartial, and virtually impossible to grade with bias.


If it were up to me there'd be no lobbyists, unfortunately, it's not up to me. Either way, grouping all gun owners in with the NRA is wrong, and there's no way you can justify it.


It is up to you. This is what frustrates me most about the American public today. This sense of, "I can't do anything about changing the government for the better, I'm only one person." It's defeatist bull [snip].


However, more legislation would not stop shoot outs, considering that there are already over 300,000,000 guns in the United States, and that's just the legal ones.


More education would stop more shootouts however. Unfortunately, many who support gun rights, also are the same people who vote against education. There have been many studies that show that higher education reduces crime. Unfortunately (for the far right wing), at the same time, the higher the person's education the more likely they were to vote Democrat. (Which is probably why you see the political right vote against education at every opportunity, it lowers their political base.)



posted on Jul, 16 2013 @ 05:42 AM
link   
Nothing to see here people. Move along.

Probably just a pink teddy bear channeling Dick Cheney or Dick Trickle.
edit on 16-7-2013 by Miracula because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 16 2013 @ 06:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by HauntWok
reply to post by goou111
 


Guns for Felons

NRA to the rescue.


I agree entirely with your take on this. I have had several discussions with pro-gun members and they always make it a simplistic issue. I remember the nonsense around the Sandy Hook shooting, and people talking about guns traveling over state lines, there were plenty of people refusing ANY restrictions on gun ownership.

I can guarantee you that if Obama pushed for a new level of gun control to try to prevent criminals from getting access to them, there would be a thousand pro-gun members screaming about it and saying it's unconstitutional. There are plenty here on ATS who mouth off about ANY type of gun control, and they don't give a damn who is being restricted.

They view it as "any restriction on one is a restriction on all", and I have actually seen people saying that too.

Of course, when you have things like this happening, where criminals are accessing guns and killing people, they suddenly shut up about it and pretend that's not been their irrational view all along



posted on Jul, 16 2013 @ 06:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by HauntWok
reply to post by goou111
 



I challenge you to show me one instance that a gun rights advocate said they thought convicted felons should be allowed to have guns.


just every single time they type in all caps "WHAT PART OF SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED DON'T YOU UNDERSTAND?"


Loss of my second amendment right means loss of your first amendment right......which might not be a bad thing.



posted on Jul, 16 2013 @ 06:37 AM
link   
reply to post by smokenmirrors
 



Loss of my second amendment right means loss of your first amendment right......which might not be a bad thing.


Actually no it doesn't.

See, the 2nd Amendment isn't designed so that you can violently overthrow the federal government as many gun rights advocates believe.

The reason for the 2nd Amendment is actually defined in Article I Section 8 of the United States Constitution.


To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;


As a gun owner, it is your civic duty to stop any insurrection that may occur, and execute the Laws of the Union. If you subscribe to the 2nd Amendment at all that is. Otherwise, to violently overthrow the federal government is actually defined as Treason as outlined in Article III Section 3 of the United States Constitution.


Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.


So far gone is the old saying "I may not agree with what you say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it."
edit on 16-7-2013 by HauntWok because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 16 2013 @ 09:07 AM
link   
reply to post by HauntWok
 


Oh how quickly shootouts turn into Second Ammendment privilege debates.

Maybe these gunfights, at least half of them should turn into pink teddy bear and silver privilege debates.



posted on Jul, 16 2013 @ 10:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by HauntWok
Just "Law abiding gun owners" exercising their constitutional rights to bear arms.

Guns are good, guns are safe, everyone should have several guns on them at all times. An armed society is a polite society.



These are not, "law abiding gun owners.".

These are criminals fighting over black market drug profits in the unconstitutional "war on some drugs".



posted on Jul, 16 2013 @ 10:19 AM
link   
reply to post by merkaba93
 



These are not, "law abiding gun owners.".


Sure they are, according to gun rights advocates, they are perfectly within their Constitutional rights to keep and bear arms.

Remember, according to gun rights advocates, anything prior to the second part of the 2nd Amendment doesn't exist. And no other text at all exists in the United States Constitution.


These are criminals fighting over black market drug profits in the unconstitutional "war on some drugs".


See, as you point out, the laws against those substances are unconstitutional so these people are well within their rights as gun owners to take matters into their own hands.



posted on Jul, 16 2013 @ 10:47 AM
link   
reply to post by HauntWok

Because according to the NRA, violent felons are "disabled" law abiding gun owners.

They are. Every citizen has the inalienable right to keep and bear arms. Only upon conviction of a felony can rights be suspended. When the felon in question made the decision to commit a felony, he/she also made the decision to accept the consequences of that commission of a felony: imprisonment, fines, and loss of rights.

We have the right to freedom of movement as well, but felons are also denied that right because of their actions. No difference.

I am one of those who does have an issue with the complete removal of gun ownership rights based on a felony conviction... not because I believe convicted violent criminals should own guns, but because I believe the definition of "felony" has shifted in a specific and targeted attempt to lessen the number of people who are able to own firearms.

Ironically, it is the opposition to firearms ownership who I feel are most responsible for the problem the OP is describing. Firearms are like any dangerous tool; the proper use of them requires some education. Once this education was practically automatic; I learned what a gun was at a very early age, and learned how to properly use and control a gun before I was allowed by my Dad to carry one. But the more gun violence is harped upon by those who are essentially afraid of them, the more others begin to feel guns are too dangerous to be used, and the less likely children are to have early exposure to them and the chance to learn about them. The less education there is about firearms, the more firearms become dangerous.

I could do much more damage at close range with a good chainsaw... but no one is talking about making more laws against chainsaws. Firearms are a tool that is used commonly by those who wish to subjugate others, and to ask a people to endure authority without the means to protect themselves against the abuse of authority is sadistic in the extreme. All citizens have the right to protect themselves, and this natural right implies that they must have free and unfettered access to the same tools of warfare as those they may be facing.

So yes, convicted felons are ex-law-abiding citizens who have a right to keep and bear arms which has been "disabled" by their own actions.

TheRedneck



posted on Jul, 16 2013 @ 03:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by HauntWok
Just "Law abiding gun owners" exercising their constitutional rights to bear arms.

Guns are good, guns are safe, everyone should have several guns on them at all times. An armed society is a polite society.



Judging by the fact that these are government housing projects...

You are an idiot...


(to the Mods: I'm sorry but what other conclusion am I supposed to draw from such a statement?!)
edit on 16-7-2013 by DaMod because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 16 2013 @ 03:37 PM
link   
@ DaMod...
yea... I think you nailed it there~

@OP, I'd be weary of posting policeman near any government housing complex... They shut down the worst ones in Chicago... Made beautiful condo's where the projects stood... It was a area where... Police go in and don't come out...

In all retrospect, they have fema camps for detention...
right


Unless these are the low budget fema project camps of undisclosed nature....



posted on Jul, 16 2013 @ 03:41 PM
link   
reply to post by HauntWok
 


You don't strike me as a particularly Intelligent or reasonable person.
What you are doing is generalizing to the point where any level headed person would dismiss your writings as the ravings of a lunatic.

Most gun owners simply wish to not be punished in advance.
Every gun I own has gone through a background check, while your pets buy them illegally

While in gun packed Florida the Trayvon Martin protests have been civil, they have become violent in areas where gun control has eliminated the right to self defense and gun ownership.

Maybe they will grow to a point where you will wish you had a gun to defend yourself and it will be sweet poetic justice as one of your pets smashes your face in.

I hope this is not the case but if it is well at least you can take your assault knowing you were the bigger person.



posted on Jul, 16 2013 @ 05:11 PM
link   
reply to post by DaMod
 



Judging by the fact that these are government housing projects...


And? Are you making the assumption that everyone in government housing projects are all felons? Or are you insinuating some other quality of the people living in those places, makes them automatically without any other data, forbidden from owning firearms?

Either way, sounds pretty judgemental to me.

reply to post by samhouston1886
 



You don't strike me as a particularly Intelligent or reasonable person.
What you are doing is generalizing to the point where any level headed person would dismiss your writings as the ravings of a lunatic.


I'm using the exact arguments that gun rights advocates use everyday.


Most gun owners simply wish to not be punished in advance.
Every gun I own has gone through a background check, while your pets buy them illegally


Exactly what do you mean by "your pets"?


Maybe they will grow to a point where you will wish you had a gun to defend yourself and it will be sweet poetic justice as one of your pets smashes your face in.


Really, what do you mean by "your pets"? I'm intrigued.



posted on Jul, 16 2013 @ 05:21 PM
link   
reply to post by HauntWok
 


Well housing projects are generally (almost always) a hub for gang violence and criminal activity.

If you think my previous statement is untrue then you are infinitely naive.

The fact that this sort of thing happened in a housing project... Doesn't surprise or concern me in the slightest...

Either way my previous statement still stands...

Judging by the fact that you are using an act of what is almost certainly gang related violence to push a gun control agenda........

You are still an idiot..
edit on 16-7-2013 by DaMod because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 16 2013 @ 05:26 PM
link   
reply to post by DaMod
 



Judging by the fact that you are using an act of what is almost certainly gang related violence to push a gun control agenda........


Am I? I thought I was using the pro 2nd Amendment advocacy argument throughout this thread. Odd. Is pushing for our 2nd Amendment rights as Americans now considered gun control arguments?



posted on Jul, 16 2013 @ 05:29 PM
link   
It's a gun, not a top secret soviet missile, it's not very hard to get a gun, if you aren't supposed to have one in the 1st place. Not to mention have you looked at a bullet? it's just a primer ( little circular thing in the center ) that needs to be hit in order to fire the round, therefor you can make a single shot firing mechinism at home rather easy.

Banning guns is as laughable as banning drugs and thinking you solved the problem.

guns don't kill people, people kill people
drugs don't kill people, it's suicide if you do it yourself.

Get with the program and stop trying to create a void in which another power tries to grab. how about we regulate people, instead of regulating items and thinking we are doing good. People are causing these issues, so people will need to be regulated.

Well if they put electronics in my truck and claim its how it works, then they will put electronics in my gun and tell me it's how it needs to work.

Then you can just send out a signal and turn all the safetys on.



new topics

top topics



 
6
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join