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.

 

Lethal weapon: This is the gun that is killing America

page: 13
26
<< 10  11  12    14  15 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 7 2013 @ 09:29 AM
link   

TKDRL
reply to post by Pejeu
 


It's a great thing people like you will never get your way. Not in the US, not in Canada.

Someone staving off starvation you say? More like trying to support a drug habit, the majority of what people breaking into homes are doing. Not because they are hungry, but because they need their next score. They were hungry, plenty of soup kitchens around. They don't steal food, they steal stuff they can pawn off easy. People that feel they are entitled to help themselves to other people's property are sick.


Sure, tell yourself that. They're just junkies. They don't steal because they have to to feed themselves. They steal to feed their addiction. So it's ok to shoot them dead. Or until they are dead, no matter their age and what not.

It's ok to kill junkies.

You're still killing for property, in the end.
edit on 2013/11/7 by Pejeu because: (no reason given)




posted on Nov, 7 2013 @ 09:30 AM
link   
reply to post by Pejeu
 


Stop putting words into my mouth and projecting your mentality onto me, [self censored, got upset, took the troll bait].

You want to let people take your livelyhood be my guest. The only thing I have of real value for some scumbag to steal is my tools, what puts food on my table. Guns are one of those tools.

If someone thinks they have a right to take food off my table to put onto theirs, they are wrong.
edit on Thu, 07 Nov 2013 10:16:22 -0600 by TKDRL because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 7 2013 @ 09:35 AM
link   

riffraff
You say that like its a bad thing.


Shooting people over property?


P.S. no one in America breaks into houses because they are starving. If you're starving, we have churches. Soup kitchens, and food stamps.
If you're gonna troll effectively you need to be based in reality
edit on 7-11-2013 by riffraff because: (no reason given)


How about breaking into houses to squat, then?

Also, I highly, highly doubt the SNAP provides sufficient sustenance to live off of.

At, like, $133.41 dollars a month, per person.


TKDRL
If someone thinks they have a right to take food off my table to put onto theirs, they are wrong.


They don't have the right. They have the means and the will.

And they're doing it.

But I don't see you doing anything about it. You don't even seem to care.

Because you don't see them physically taking your food as they're only taking the purchasing with which you purchase your food.

So you don't care. You don't even realise.
edit on 2013/11/7 by Pejeu because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 7 2013 @ 09:39 AM
link   
reply to post by Pejeu
 

So mr socialist. What would you have me do then? Move to Cuba?



posted on Nov, 7 2013 @ 09:42 AM
link   

TKDRL
reply to post by Pejeu
 

So mr socialist. What would you have me do then? Move to Cuba?


I would have you answer this question:

Should banking be abolished as outright slavery was?



posted on Nov, 7 2013 @ 09:46 AM
link   
reply to post by Pejeu
 


You are absurd..... What the hell does banks have to do with this topic? You think I support banks? The banks took the house in NY that was about 3/4 paid for, yeah I am a huge bank supporter here. They are my bestest buddies, I totally love them. Get a grip. You think I can wave my magic wand and do something about banks? I am trying to survive here, like everyone else who works for a living.



posted on Nov, 7 2013 @ 09:50 AM
link   

TKDRL
reply to post by Pejeu
 


You are absurd..... What the hell does banks have to do with this topic? You think I support banks? The banks took the house in NY that was about 3/4 paid for, yeah I am a huge bank supporter here. They are my bestest buddies, I totally love them. Get a grip. You think I can wave my magic wand and do something about banks? I am trying to survive here, like everyone else who works for a living.


Ok, so you don't see what banks have to do with the reason why the 2nd amendment affords you the right to own and bear arms.

Fair enough.

So your whole point about how you have guns to oppose tyranny and guard against theft & stuff, it's all bull#, isn't it?
edit on 2013/11/7 by Pejeu because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 7 2013 @ 09:58 AM
link   
reply to post by Pejeu
 


No it isn't. It is working as we speak to guard our republic from the current regime.



posted on Nov, 7 2013 @ 09:58 AM
link   

Pejeu

TKDRL
reply to post by Pejeu
 


You are absurd..... What the hell does banks have to do with this topic? You think I support banks? The banks took the house in NY that was about 3/4 paid for, yeah I am a huge bank supporter here. They are my bestest buddies, I totally love them. Get a grip. You think I can wave my magic wand and do something about banks? I am trying to survive here, like everyone else who works for a living.


Ok, so you don't see what banks have to do with the reason why the 2nd amendment affords you the right to own and bear arms.

Fair enough.

So your whole point about how you have guns to oppose tyranny and guard against theft & stuff, it's all bull#, isn't it?
edit on 2013/11/7 by Pejeu because: (no reason given)


I'm not sure if you're just that much of a troll or if you're really that idiotic.. The banks have ZERO to do with the 2nd amendment right as guaranteed under the bill of rights. You have yet to give any good explanation to your reasoning, and it seems you're just trying to bash on anyone who either owns guns or believes that they have power. Thats entirely your opinion.

The US allowed and preferred guns to be kept in public hands to oppose tyranny and guard against theft, and in the case of militia needs from the beginning of the united states... Thtas why its second only to our right of free speech in the bill of rights. I'm surprised as hell that TKDRL has continued to argue with you over your idiocy for as long as he has. I guess the fact that you dont live here in our society and under our pressures is the reason you dont see the needs that we do.



posted on Nov, 7 2013 @ 09:59 AM
link   
reply to post by Pejeu
 


So what, you want me to go to town and shoot up the local credit union? My guns are for putting food on my table, and defending myself, my family, and property against any wouldbe invaders. It isn't my fault the generations before me were complacent idiots. I had no hand in creating the situation I was born into. Again, what is your solution? Besides us all giving up an important tool that is?



posted on Nov, 7 2013 @ 10:00 AM
link   

cavtrooper7
reply to post by Pejeu
 


No it isn't. It is working as we speak to guard our republic from the current regime.


Oh, really now?

Is it also working to guard you against the legalised fraud that is (fractional reserve) banking (all banking is FRB)?

How has it been faring against the money power over the last hundred years or so?

reply to post by kingofyo1
 


All I'm trying to get to the bottom of is the hypocrisy and outright falsehood of the favourite talking points of pro-gun rhetoric.

Namely that 2nd amendment supposedly empowers the individual to guard themselves against tyranny, theft etc.
edit on 2013/11/7 by Pejeu because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 7 2013 @ 10:06 AM
link   
[Redacted]
edit on 7-11-2013 by Galvatron because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 7 2013 @ 10:06 AM
link   
reply to post by Pejeu
 


Most people dont know what the problem is so guns wont help them much. This much I agree with you.

But if the population was completly unarmed as you would like them to be, the oppression would have been even more severe and much quicker in finalising.



posted on Nov, 7 2013 @ 10:19 AM
link   

EarthCitizen07
reply to post by Pejeu
 


Most people dont know what the problem is so guns wont help them much. This much I agree with you.

But if the population was completly unarmed as you would like them to be, the oppression would have been even more severe and much quicker in finalising.


Hmmm. That might be true.

But still, you can't keep claiming that more guns = less crime (of the prosecutable kind) and fewer gun shot deaths.

Or implying nuts that go on shooting sprees are gubmint manchurian candidates.
edit on 2013/11/7 by Pejeu because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 7 2013 @ 10:23 AM
link   
reply to post by Pejeu
 


Towns like mine prove it. More guns than people, absolute zero violent crime, certainly no violent gun crimes. None. Big cities, not many lawfully owned guns, accounts for a majority of the gun crimes in the whole country. Can't argue with reality.
edit on Thu, 07 Nov 2013 10:23:42 -0600 by TKDRL because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 7 2013 @ 10:25 AM
link   
Pejeu, please read the whole thread, I think a lot of your questions have already been answered.

You are debating morality which is almost entirely subjective, so lets move the discussion past that.

Objectively, an armed society presents a credible projection of force on any perceived tyranny. History has shown this time and again. Lets look at the modern day for examples. Afghanistan is a good one. The people of Afghanistan, country farmer, Taliban, Hezbi-Islami, formal afghan government, whatever, most people in Afghanistan own small arms, rifle or pistol of some kind. With small arms only and extensive guerrilla warfare, Afghanistan has effectively repelled two of the world's mightiest superpowers in the last 30 years. Whether or not the Afghans are in the right, their ability to credibly project force in order to fight a perceived or real tyranny is without question.

What about the Libyian revolution? Later in the conflict, UN forces provided aid with air power, but for the first year and a bit of conflict, it was people on the ground with small arms. Any ordnance they used was captured because they were armed in the first place to make the capture. The revolution would have been extremely difficult to impossible with a completely disarmed populace, to the point that support for such an overthrow would likely have never germinated.

Lets look at where the opposite is true. Where civilians are completely disarmed. I think Tibet is a good case. China has Tibet well under their boot heel. Tibetans try to protest and for the most part hate falling under Chinese sovereignty, but they really can't do much about it except for low-level terrorism.

I could go on and on and on.

The people in the US who own firearms and recognize this effect, don't own firearms with the fantasy of using them to defend themselves, their property, or their country. All scenarios that would could deem "social work" are complete nightmares. They represent a catastrophic event in anyone's life. To suggest otherwise is to insinuate gross psychological problems as well as dismiss your fellow citizen.

To clarify. I own a car, whenever I drive I wear a seat belt. I don't wear a seat belt expecting to get into a car accident, but I wear one knowing that it may happen despite my best efforts. I own a home. I own firearms to protect myself against home invasion, robbery, and death. I don't own them expecting to have this happen to me, but I own them knowing that it may happen despite my best efforts.

Explain to me who is a "gun nut". It's such a dismissive word.

edit on 7-11-2013 by Galvatron because: (no reason given)

edit on 7-11-2013 by Galvatron because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 7 2013 @ 10:40 AM
link   
reply to post by Pejeu
 


You can't argue more guns = less violent crime to a certain point. But you can't argue less guns = less violent crime. There are very few statistics to support it.

The census bureau says there are about 800,000 violent crimes (Murder, Rape, Assault, Robbery, etc.) deterred by the mere brandishing and not firing of a firearm. That number only includes incidents reported to police. That's 1.5 a minute. 44 per state per day. The upper estimate is about 2.5 million crimes total that are deterred by the brandishing and not firing of a weapon. That includes preventing things like trespassing, breaking and entering, larsony, etc and incidents unreported to police.

That's a lot of crime deterred by firearms. I think Kennesaw Georgia is an excellent example. Leading up to 1982 if I recall correctly, Kennsaw (a suburb of atlanta) had a surge of break-ins, burglary, robbery, home invasions, and violent crime. In 1982, the municipality passed a local ordinance that made it mandatory for home owners to posses a firearm and be practiced in its use. The crime rate in the next 2 years dropped to almost zero.



posted on Nov, 7 2013 @ 10:41 AM
link   

TKDRL
reply to post by Pejeu
 


Towns like mine prove it. More guns than people, absolute zero violent crime, certainly no violent gun crimes. None. Big cities, not many lawfully owned guns, accounts for a majority of the gun crimes in the whole country. Can't argue with reality.


Does it matter if a gun is owned lawfully prior to the commission of a crime with it?

Does it not count if the gun is owned unlawfully?

Unlawful ownership of guns is lower in countries were lawful possession is also lower.

What about people who begin their criminal career committing murder or multiple murders, using firearms?

Again, I'm not saying the worms, so to speak, can be put back in the can in the US. Firearm proliferation and possession is just ubiquitous.

It's no longer possible for you to revert to a gun free society. Or, at the very least, it would take many, many decades after the public is no longer legally allowed to own guns.

On that much we can agree.

What we don't agree on is your claim that your society is safer, less corrupt or less tyrannical or that you have lower crime than countries were firearm ownership is severely restricted and heavily regulated.



posted on Nov, 7 2013 @ 10:45 AM
link   

Pejeu
What we don't agree on is your claim that your society is safer, less corrupt or less tyrannical or that you have lower crime than countries were firearm ownership is severely restricted and heavily regulated.


The level of tyranny isn't affected by gun ownership until the citizenry are dissatisfied enough to take action. Until that point is reached, typically tyrants have relatively free reign. The important aspect is the ability to take action after that level of dissatisfaction has been reached. Disarmed societies literally don't have the means to take action.

It's not a scenario where a government official is constantly thinking oh, my constituents, district, city, county, state, nation, are armed, I better watch how I vote and who I associate with.

It's more of a scenario that regardless of how corrupt or benign a societal system is, the citizens have the ultimate say with the ultimate form of coercion... through force.

Edit: So even if the societal system is benign and uncorrupted, but lets say slow to react to international crisis that may affect the citizenry, then those citizens have the ultimate authority to change that societal system by force. People in positions of power almost never give their power away. And force may indeed be required even if the system is overall "good". That is why the US revolution was so important. The winners literally stripped themselves of the power they won and gave it to the people. Look it up, that almost never happens.
edit on 7-11-2013 by Galvatron because: (no reason given)

edit on 7-11-2013 by Galvatron because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 7 2013 @ 10:45 AM
link   

Pejeu

Hmmm. That might be true.

But still, you can't keep claiming that more guns = less crime (of the prosecutable kind) and fewer gun shot deaths.


All the liberal strongholds, which includes most big cities in america, have staggeringly higher crime rates. Illegal guns are easy to acquire if you know the right people in those places, while the tough gun laws in relation to concealed carry make it incredibly easy for law abiding people to fall victim to people who both bought and carry illegally.


Or implying nuts that go on shooting sprees are gubmint manchurian candidates.
edit on 2013/11/7 by Pejeu because: (no reason given)


I think a lot or most of the high profile cases are indeed orchestrated events done for the sole purpose of scaring people into submitting to increasingly tougher gun laws, when the second amendment makes it clear there should be no regulation for firearms(any gun that is an extension of your arm). Pistol, shotguns, submachine guns, semi-auto rifle. All of the current gun laws are illegal but never challenged by anyone, thus they get away with it.



new topics

top topics



 
26
<< 10  11  12    14  15 >>

log in

join