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.

 

Talk Already Starting About Gun Control

page: 7
17
<< 4  5  6    8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 2 2013 @ 05:37 PM
link   
reply to post by beezzer
 


do you remember this post from a little while ago?

There should be no "limits" on who should have a firearm.

that was you

that means you want zero limitations on who owns guns.


and when does someone stop being a law abiding citizen? when they decide to shoot someone? when they buy a gun to do it? or when they pull the trigger?




posted on Dec, 2 2013 @ 05:46 PM
link   

rickm
reply to post by beezzer
 


do you remember this post from a little while ago?

There should be no "limits" on who should have a firearm.

that was you


Yes. I remember that.


that means you want zero limitations on who owns guns.


Yes. I didn't stutter.



and when does someone stop being a law abiding citizen?


When they break the law. Really. Are you just being silly now?



when they decide to shoot someone?


Nope.


when they buy a gun to do it?



Nope.


or when they pull the trigger?


All depends on who or what the target is.

Now I've answered your questions.

ANSWER MINE!

Why do you want criminals to have weapons? WHYWHYWHY?



posted on Dec, 2 2013 @ 06:18 PM
link   
reply to post by hounddoghowlie
 


I'm to the place that I think we all need to call out any clueless traitorous idiot who doesn't realize that gun control is a greased slide to utter tyranny of the government and the crime lords.

Sheesh what stupidity.

I'm for bluntly telling it like it is. No more Dr nice guy.

Treason and idiocy have gone way to far already and they are just getting started.

I no longer have much patience for such cluelessness--such utter brainless cluelessness.



posted on Dec, 2 2013 @ 06:32 PM
link   
reply to post by rickm
 


Honestly??
You really are not a very good liar within this.

When did I say it was okay to limit such people?

I have stated in several posts about this.

Your foot, it's in your mouth.



posted on Dec, 2 2013 @ 07:18 PM
link   

rickm
reply to post by macman
 


inanimate object?

so that means you are for making uranium 235 or opium legal? they are inanimate objects aren't they?







Rick
If you are actually curious about this subject , you may care to consider the link offered by MACMAN. You will surely find answers to many of your oddly worded posts within the " Federalist Papers ."
Said Papers are frequently referenced when one needs to clarify the principals enshrined in Our Constitution. Give them a read Rick. They certainly will not support your sophomoric point of view, but will at the very least offer some insight on the intent of the Second Amendment. Of course it's just a suggestion.



posted on Dec, 3 2013 @ 05:53 AM
link   
reply to post by beezzer
 


are you daft? i already replied. i have never said i want criminals to have guns.

but you have stated multiple times you could care less if they have them



posted on Dec, 3 2013 @ 05:55 AM
link   
reply to post by dazbog
 


sorry, but the federalist papers are a series of essays.
they are beliefs used in forming the this country...but not ratified by the first congress.



posted on Dec, 3 2013 @ 06:50 AM
link   
reply to post by rickm
 


Yes, a series of essays, from the same people that worked on the constitution. It's a good way to get a bearing on their mentality and the feelings of the time.
edit on Tue, 03 Dec 2013 07:25:33 -0600 by TKDRL because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 3 2013 @ 07:32 AM
link   

TKDRL
reply to post by rickm
 


Yes, a series of essays, from the same people that worked on the constitution. It's a good way to get a bearing on their mentality and the feelings of the time.
edit on Tue, 03 Dec 2013 07:25:33 -0600 by TKDRL because: (no reason given)


Exactly. There is no reason to try to "interpret" what they meant when they said so quite clearly what they meant and wrote this down so future generations would understand exactly what they meant.



posted on Dec, 3 2013 @ 07:34 AM
link   
reply to post by rickm
 


But what you're proposing is exactly that, even if you didn't "say" it. Logic dictates only criminals having firearms is the end result of your argument.



posted on Dec, 3 2013 @ 08:42 AM
link   
reply to post by TKDRL
 


so why not go by Jeffersons personal letters to his wife?
are not his feelings put in those letters?

they would be the same exact thing



posted on Dec, 3 2013 @ 08:43 AM
link   
reply to post by Galvatron
 


wow. you are dense. i have stated more than once i don't want criminals to have guns

i want to make sure people who can't handle guns or are not legally able to possess them from getting them

unlike you who wants zero limits on who owns guns.

can you understand that or do you need to go back to 3rd grade reading comprehension?



posted on Dec, 3 2013 @ 09:13 AM
link   

rickm


i want to make sure people who can't handle guns or are not legally able to possess them from getting them


Oh, so your king of he world now. Who exactly are those that "can't handle guns"?

This should be a good retort.



posted on Dec, 3 2013 @ 09:32 AM
link   
reply to post by macman
 


felons, the mentally unstable, and those not mature enough to handle them.

easy



posted on Dec, 3 2013 @ 10:12 AM
link   
reply to post by rickm
 


Your ad hominem attack says to me you've got nothing. You're just repeating yourself over and over at this point and haven't added anything to this thread in a while. Every single one of your positions has been refuted to the ground with facts, logical explanation as to why things are, and definitions. I know you've stated that you don't want criminals or mentally unstable people to have guns. Over and over. What that means, however, is for you to stop supporting your previous positions, because that is the logical extended conclusion, only criminals will have guns.

The logic train goes like this: I shouldn't have to explain it but here we go. You have acknowledged how easy it is for anyone to purchase a firearm "under the table" in a person to person transaction of a privately owned firearm for non-commercial purposes. (If you sell firearms in commercial numbers you get a knock on the door from the BATFE really quickly). You have ignored the various state laws already attributed to these transactions, but we'll let that slide for now. You also haven't refuted how easy it is for criminals to acquire firearms despite the very stiffest of laws. You have stated, however, that despite all of the aforementioned, you think legislation against a constitutional guarantee is in order to prevent or make illegal undesirable individuals from getting firearms, despite acknowledging or at the very least not refuting the fact that would have almost zero effect. Your train crashed.

However, in legislating further against a constitutional guarantee you've added even more precedent to do so in the future, the final outcome of this, and history has shown this over and over and over and over and over again, is revocation of that guarantee either through nullification by legislation or outright amendment. Because of how easy it is to acquire firearms as you've already stated, only criminals will be the ones with guns. But then you've stated you think firearms ought not be illegal for normal citizens...

You must either stop supporting your previous position, or be wholly of the position that there needs to be an amendment that nullifies the 2nd.

Here's another. You deride me for not wanting restrictions, and the ethos of your words suggest you think very highly of yourself for wanting some restrictions. Yet I among others here have proved without a doubt through facts and statistics that legislation has done nothing to curb gun violence in any meaningful way, and in some instances has made it worse. To those you have either agreed or haven't refuted...

Do you see your own cognitive dissonance?

Edit: Do you see how despite not "saying" you want criminals to have guns, your argument logically insinuates it? It's really odd for me and others here because you're contradicting the practical application of your position.

It would be like me saying, "I think cannabis should be constitutional guarantee for normal citizens, but I'm willing to support legislation that would, in the long term, eventually make it illegal for anyone to have it, at which time everyone who has cannabis is now technically illegal and a criminal"
edit on 3-12-2013 by Galvatron because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 4 2013 @ 05:44 AM
link   
reply to post by NavyDoc
 


again, why not use jefferson's letters to his aunt ida
or adam's letters to his crazy uncle mike?

these are not documents that have any real meaning. they were not signed by the firt congress or by the first president.



posted on Dec, 4 2013 @ 05:52 AM
link   
reply to post by Galvatron
 


you have proven nothing
any 'evidence' shown has been by obviously biased sources.

what is odd is the ignorance of people on here who whine that any gun restrictions are an infringement on gun rights, then they turn around and agree that violent felons and mentally disabled should not have guns.
kind of ironic. that is what i call 'talking out of both sides of your mouth"
those are technically infringements, but you and the 'i don't care who has guns' crowd can not see it.

i am still waiting where anywhere in the bill of rights is says a person's rights can be taken away.
actual words. not interpretations.

nobody has shown me that as of yet.


here is one of the most ignorant part of your post.

Because of how easy it is to acquire firearms as you've already stated, only criminals will be the ones with guns. But then you've stated you think firearms ought not be illegal for normal citizens...

i have never ever said i want to outlaw guns for people who can legally have them and use them safely.
i want to keep people with mental problems from getting them. keep criminals from getting them.
there are ways to make sure law abiding citizens can get guns legally and keep those who shouldn't have them from getting them.

but you and your crowd could care less. waiting 2 hours in your book is an infringement and you and your crowd whine.



posted on Dec, 4 2013 @ 06:01 AM
link   
reply to post by Galvatron
 


funny. you have not proven a single thing.
you have given suppositions, wacky theories and any links have been by only pro gun people who were probably paid by manufacturers or the nra.

show me something like a study from harvard, you know, smart people who study things like this for a living.

Here's another. You deride me for not wanting restrictions, and the ethos of your words suggest you think very highly of yourself for wanting some restrictions. Yet I among others here have proved without a doubt through facts and statistics that legislation has done nothing to curb gun violence in any meaningful way, and in some instances has made it worse. To those you have either agreed or haven't refuted...

i have shown real stats and studies on this and other threads, but they have not been refuted with any intelligence.

such as links like this one.

www.deepdyve.com...

in a nutshell it says more guns equal more murders. it is simple math.

here is another. 20% of federal gun dealers in Cali agreed to sell to people are straw buyers.

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

why? the penalties are a slap on the wrist. end of story



posted on Dec, 4 2013 @ 06:02 AM
link   

rickm


i have never ever said i want to outlaw guns for people who can legally have them and use them safely.



A responsible society doesn't need the government to dictate who can use them safely, and there are already enough laws in place to determine legality.



i want to keep people with mental problems from getting them. keep criminals from getting them.



Who defines "mental problems"? And criminals already aren't supposed to have them via current laws.



there are ways to make sure law abiding citizens can get guns legally and keep those who shouldn't have them from getting them.



Yes. There are already enough laws. We don't need more laws, more restrictions. In my opinion, there are too many restrictions already.


but you and your crowd could care less. waiting 2 hours in your book is an infringement and you and your crowd whine.



You just want to dictate who is appropriate to own guns. We've had enough of this elitist crap!



posted on Dec, 4 2013 @ 06:06 AM
link   
reply to post by rickm
 


You have offered nothing but more restrictions to law-abiding people to own weapons.

You have offered NOTHING to address the fact that the criminal element will obtain even more guns in a "gun-free" society, creating more crime and more death.

I can only assume then that you are pro criminal and anti-peace.



new topics

top topics



 
17
<< 4  5  6    8 >>

log in

join