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.

 

And yet another Unconstitutional Push against the 2nd Amendment

page: 13
27
<< 10  11  12   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 4 2013 @ 11:03 AM
link   

nixie_nox

Because what gun lobbyists fail to understand is that there is a difference between violence conducted with a weapon designed to kill, and violence conducted by an everyday item.

By 2015, gun deaths will exceed traffic deaths. Now what does that tell you?

It is because of laws requiring vehicles to have safer standards, safety equipment, seat belt laws, speed limit laws, that death by vehicle continues to drop. While gun violence hasn't.


I'm pretty sure that gun lobbyists understand that difference. You do realize that whether you like it or not gun lobbyists are on your side right? Whether or not you agree with them or actively try to undermine them, they are fighting for your constitution regardless. You may or may not be on their side, but they are by default of their actions always on yours.

The stuff about traffic deaths is bogus and pulled out of thin air, there are no stats to back up either clam whatsoever, not even close. You are now in my mind prone to lying and embellishing. It is now impossible for me to have a rational discussion with you because every post of yours from now own will be tainted by your post above.




posted on Dec, 4 2013 @ 11:05 AM
link   

macman
reply to post by nixie_nox
 



How crazy who is again???


People who think their right to own a killing appliance exceeds the rights of the rest of the country.


I'm not the one suggesting that a blanket law be laid out, since a percentage of a percentage of incidents occur.


This doesn't even make sense. Percentage of what incidents?


SO, because several people have had their foot run over by a car, we must institute a law banned tires.


Yet another non sequitur argument.
Get away from these. Are you going to bring up every object you see around you as an argument?
Tires are not designed to kill people. Quite the opposite. Many snow tires have probably saved people. Now if a person deliberately ran over someone's foot, they would be arrested, probably for assault. Though tires are an environmental nightmare so maybe they should be banned.


And let's not even touch upon the idea of this being your "ex" and just how feelings are held in those situations.


Who is actually one of my best friends.

But since you can't find a valid argument for why mentally ill people shouldn't own guns, you resort to a personal attack.
But that doesn't change the fact that a person with a documented mental illness with impaired ability to judge situations, has purchased a gun, LEGALLY.


But, since you state your ex, who committed a crime, and seems to disregard the laws anyways, we should all be subjected to punishment. Yeah, sounds about right.


This is a knee jerk emotional argument that my 7 yo would use. And this is exactly why I went from a pro gun stance to a gun control stance because of arguments like these. The very nutjobs who scream about gun rights are the exact people I don't want owning guns.

It is not a punishment, it is public safety. Because what gun nuts forget is that people have a right to life. The Constitution is a pro life document.
Why are states banning texting and driving? Because it kills people. And phones are a benign object, unlike guns. Yet they are causing death and injury all over the place.
Same reason 12 year olds aren't allowed to drive. Why aren't you screaming about their rights to drive?

And before you go on screaming about Constitutional rights, there are a few things that you forget:

For one, the Constitution, by its very nature, was designed to be changed. It wasn't designed to be adhered to the day it was written. The Founding Fathers knew that society changes, and the Constitution is designed to amended with it.

Thomas Jefferson himself said:


Every constitution, then, and every law, naturally expires at the end of nineteen years. If it be enforced longer, it is an act of force, and not of right."


One right of the Constitution doesn't exceed the rights of all others. There is also the freedom of religion, y et you are not allowed to sacrifice people or animals. You don't hear the FOR people screaming how they can't sacrifice a virgin every month. Just like polygamist communities are prosecuted. Because their rights are impeding the rights of others.

Yet those who boohoo about second amendment rights, and think felons, 12 yo, mentally ill people, should be allowed to own guns, is akin to someone thinking that it is their religious freedom to be allowed to sacrifice a virgin every month.


edit on 4-12-2013 by nixie_nox because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 4 2013 @ 11:11 AM
link   

nixie_nox

People who think their right to own a killing appliance exceeds the rights of the rest of the country.



I have a specific rifle (regrettably I don't use it nearly as much as I'd like) that was designed and assembled expressly for making holes in paper for competition. I'd like to consider it a glorified and rather loud laser pointer.

Do you think people ought to have the right to own crossbows, regular bows, knives, spears, swords? They are all appliances designed for killing right?

Edit: You're making a huge leap in some of those analogies. Owning a firearm to protect my gift of life has nothing to do with the intent of killing people (virgins for religious reasons). That's one heck of a jump. I don't own a firearm fantasizing abut using it for social work. That's a nightmare. Something like that represents a catastrophic event in anyone's life. I own one because I own a home and live in society. Much like I wear a seat belt when driving a car. I don't expect to or look forward to getting in a car accident, but I definitely know it may happen despite my best efforts. i own a firearm because I don't expect to get mugged or car jacked or robbed at my home, but I understand that it may happen despite my best efforts. It's a mature sense of risk management more than anything else.
edit on 4-12-2013 by Galvatron because: (no reason given)


Edit 2: No one is saying the 2nd amendment trumps any other rights. Can you explain to me how you think it does?
edit on 4-12-2013 by Galvatron because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 4 2013 @ 11:19 AM
link   

Galvatron



Nice try. Just shows how crazy the gun nuts are, with no concern for the rights of other people, just their ability to own weapons that kill.

Threatening someone with a gun is a felony. Threatening someone with bodily harm is a criminal offense.

I saw someone go to jail for hitting someone with a pepper shaker.

Using the baseball bat is nothing but a non sequitur of the desperate.
edit on 4-12-2013 by nixie_nox because: (no reason given)



Actually It's out of the utmost concern for the rights of other people that 2nd amendment proponents take the stance that they do.


Please tell me how you are concerned about the rights of other people?


The baseball bat isn't a non sequitur. It's quite relevant, just like "hitting someone with a pepper shaker". Just because you don't see the relevance doesn't make it a naff argument. The 2nd amendment covers baseball bats, pepper shakers, they are both legally considered arms.


Ok, that is just funny. It is a non sequitur. It is the most basic argument that NRA automatons (which is one of the most corrupt lobbies yet conspiracy theorists bow to them) use.

This argument goes for any object that is not a gun. A bat is used to hit balls on a field. If used incorrectly, it can be used to beat a person.

Guns are just the opposite. They are designed to shoot and kill. Nothing more. Nothing less. They don't prop open doors, hit balls, mow the lawn. In fact, if a gun is used incorrectly, it WON'T kill anybody. How about them apples?

These arguments about bats, pepper shakers are nothing more than smoke and mirrors, and are disingenuous ,and is nothing but propaganda to try to deter from the thought that guns are nothing more than murder devices.


Define for me "weapons that kill". Please.


If I have to define this for you, we shouldn't be having this discussion.


Explain to me what a gun nut is to you. Please.


Someone who thinks their right to a gun is a right that exceeds all else, beyond reason.


edit on 4-12-2013 by nixie_nox because: ACK! I suck at quoting quotes.



posted on Dec, 4 2013 @ 11:21 AM
link   

nixie_nox
But since you can't find a valid argument for why mentally ill people shouldn't own guns, you resort to a personal attack.

I won't. You and I both know the mentally challenged should not have access to firearms. And, we both know why.



posted on Dec, 4 2013 @ 11:30 AM
link   
reply to post by nixie_nox
 


Just as I thought. You present your own opinion again. But I haven't seen anything breaking the logic or facts that others including myself have presented, you are merely repeating yourself as though it must be so. I honestly wanted to know how you thought of "weapons that kill people" You can't answer and only give an ad hominem in reply.

Proponents of the 2nd amendment are concerned with your right to protect your own life and the life of others.

So you think the only reason a gun exists is to kill people and if it isn't being used that way it is incorrectly being used? Seriously? So you think the only reason nuclear weapons exist is to destroy the world, and if they don't destroy the world then they aren't being used correctly? Firearms provide a credible threat of force that very few people are willing to dismiss. I love being called incompetent with firearms (you said I'm not using them correctly) by someone who either hasn't used one or is a complete novice. Half of my job is providing a credible threat of force. Do you have any idea how seldom I actually use my rifle? The rifle, as an extension of me is merely a barrier, only when the trigger is pulled does it become the weapon. Yes, firearms were originally designed for hunting and war. But to say that a gun that isn't killing isn't being used correctly is the exact opposite of correct firearm usage. If you said a gun that doesn't kill isn't fulfilling the nature of the original design and reason they exist, then fine, fair enough. But a gun that isn't used to kill is the one that is being used correctly, not incorrectly.

Then I'm not a gun nut and the vast vast vast majority of gun owners aren't gun nuts. My right to own a firearm is purely for vocational and personal purposes. The moment I infringe on anther's rights using my firearm I become a criminal, not until then.
edit on 4-12-2013 by Galvatron because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 4 2013 @ 11:31 AM
link   

nixie_nox

macman
reply to post by nixie_nox
 



How crazy who is again???


People who think their right to own a killing appliance exceeds the rights of the rest of the country.




edit on 4-12-2013 by nixie_nox because: (no reason given)


LOL. I see how you use emotion, rather than intellect to come up with a position. Okay, I'll bite. How is simply owning this "killing appliance" adversely affect anyone else's right to do anything?
edit on 4-12-2013 by NavyDoc because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 4 2013 @ 12:02 PM
link   

rickm
reply to post by BrianFlanders
 


insignificant?

these are happening at a rate of 2 or 3 a year. multiple people killed in public spots with (mostly) legally purchased guns by people who shouldn't have them.

2 or 3 a year is not insignificant.



Yes. Despite your attempt to make it sound more significant than it is, in a country with 313 million people and an estimated 270 million guns, it's statistically insignificant.

Sorry to burst your bubble but more people are dying in bathtubs than mass shootings.

Once again, going back to the "can't make an omelet without breaking some eggs" quote. If we let them water the 2nd Amendment down with a mental health clause, all they have to do is have their "experts" start inventing new mental disorders and before you know it, there will be tens of millions of people who "shouldn't have them".

These people are not interested in saving civilian lives (which would be misguided even if they were). They are interested in control and power. They clearly want to ban guns. They aren't going to get me to turn off my brain with sad stories about mass shootings.
edit on 4-12-2013 by BrianFlanders because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 4 2013 @ 12:24 PM
link   

nixie_nox


People who think their right to own a killing appliance exceeds the rights of the rest of the country.

Oh really. Do please explain. How does my owning a firearm take away your rights again???
Oh, don't forget about being guaranteed the right to do so, as per that darn Constitution.


nixie_nox
This doesn't even make sense. Percentage of what incidents?

Very simple. Due to a small incident of say, mass shootings, you want blanket laws applied to everyone.


nixie_nox

Yet another non sequitur argument.
Get away from these.

Why, because you said so? Or because when applied, it takes apart your argument.


nixie_nox

Are you going to bring up every object you see around you as an argument?

If it saves just one life, I thought it was worth it.


nixie_nox
Tires are not designed to kill people. Quite the opposite. Many snow tires have probably saved people. Now if a person deliberately ran over someone's foot, they would be arrested, probably for assault. Though tires are an environmental nightmare so maybe they should be banned.

But, they can be used to kill, just like a Bat or a car. It is all in the hands of the person using it.
You refuse to accept this, which allows you to buy into your own crap belief.


nixie_nox

Who is actually one of my best friends.

Let's apply your same arguing tactic. Without proof, it is not relevant.



nixie_nox
But since you can't find a valid argument for why mentally ill people shouldn't own guns, you resort to a personal attack.

So, all mentally ill people should not own a firearm because why??
Not all mentally ill people are violent in nature. Or are you suggesting that because one has a mental illness, they will act like a handful of mentally ill do?
Wow, talk about applying a discriminatory bias to a group of people.


nixie_nox
But that doesn't change the fact that a person with a documented mental illness with impaired ability to judge situations, has purchased a gun, LEGALLY.
Um, what again?


nixie_nox

This is a knee jerk emotional argument that my 7 yo would use. And this is exactly why I went from a pro gun stance to a gun control stance because of arguments like these. The very nutjobs who scream about gun rights are the exact people I don't want owning guns.

Oh, so because you think certain people shouldn't own guns, we must be subjected to your beliefs. Talk about acceptance and all.
And the statement still stands then. Because you had a personal situation, we must all then be punished to make you feel safe in the world. Now that sounds more like the actions of a 7 year old.


nixie_nox
It is not a punishment, it is public safety.

Says you.
It is a punishment, as everyone else would be forced to adhere to YOUR belief.
And public safety??? Oh yeah, because those that commit crimes are beholden to public safety concerns and laws.


nixie_nox

Because what gun nuts forget is that people have a right to life.

Oh, so your life trumps mine then. I get it. You have more value then I do.
My firearms have yet to get up and kill anyone. Has yours? Oh, I forgot, you wouldn't have any now, because you magically went from being for Gun-Rights to Anti-Gun Rights because owning a firearm equates to killing someone.



nixie_nox
The Constitution is a pro life document.

And the 2nd is Pro life, defense of.


nixie_nox
Why are states banning texting and driving? Because it kills people. And phones are a benign object, unlike guns. Yet they are causing death and injury all over the place.
Same reason 12 year olds aren't allowed to drive. Why aren't you screaming about their rights to drive?

And which Amendment protects the right to drive and text again????



nixie_nox
And before you go on screaming about Constitutional rights, there are a few things that you forget:

For one, the Constitution, by its very nature, was designed to be changed. It wasn't designed to be adhered to the day it was written. The Founding Fathers knew that society changes, and the Constitution is designed to amended with it.

I would love to see firearms issues be brought force in a Constitutional manner. That would be fantastic.
You see, there is a reason why you and Progressives like you won't do it, and resort to policy instead. Because it would fail miserably.
So, I say bring it on.


nixie_nox

One right of the Constitution doesn't exceed the rights of all others. There is also the freedom of religion, y et you are not allowed to sacrifice people or animals. You don't hear the FOR people screaming how they can't sacrifice a virgin every month. Just like polygamist communities are prosecuted. Because their rights are impeding the rights of others.

You truly have a warped understanding of the Documents.


nixie_nox
Yet those who boohoo about second amendment rights, and think felons, 12 yo, mentally ill people, should be allowed to own guns, is akin to someone thinking that it is their religious freedom to be allowed to sacrifice a virgin every month.

Oh good lord. I like that in order for you to try to prove false ideals and takes of it, you must resort to the absolute absurd. Please show me within the 2nd, where it states certain people are exempt from this guaranteed right?


edit on 4-12-2013 by macman because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 4 2013 @ 05:56 PM
link   
reply to post by Galvatron
 


nice to know you do not want to stop murder or mass shootings.

doesn't surprise me



posted on Dec, 4 2013 @ 05:58 PM
link   
reply to post by rickm
 


Hah, nice timing! I just ended my day here and checked up on the threads.

Where exactly did I say that I didn't want to stop them?



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

rickm
reply to post by Galvatron
 


nice to know you do not want to stop murder or mass shootings.

doesn't surprise me


You can't stop murder or mass shooting with harsh words.

You have to be armed. Sadly, folks like yourself want to disarm law-abiding folks and just keep criminals with weapons.

Why do you want so much death?

Look at Chicago. Tough, restrictive gun laws. thousands of gun-related deaths every year.

IS THIS WHAT YOU WANT?


ALL OF AMERICA LOOKING LIKE CHICAGO???



posted on Dec, 5 2013 @ 09:32 AM
link   
reply to post by rickm
 


Why do you want the mass killings of cute little kittens?

Little kittens can be slaughtered with swords, which are just killing machines. These horrific pieces of metal were only designed to kill. And everyone knows that since you don't want the banning of swords, you in turn support the mass killing of cute little adorable kittens.

Why can't you just love the kittens? Why do you not want to stop mass killings of kittens??



Please stop your march to killing these adorable gifts from mother nature.

See how stupid this sounds???

Sounds just as stupid when you use the same argument.



posted on Dec, 5 2013 @ 09:47 AM
link   
reply to post by macman
 


OH NOOOS, WHAT ABOUT THE KITTENS???

Wait a second, I have a sword, am I gonna go on a kitten killin' spree?



posted on Dec, 5 2013 @ 09:50 AM
link   
reply to post by KawRider9
 


You must, since you own an object that was created solely for killing.




top topics



 
27
<< 10  11  12   >>

log in

join