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.

 

An Open Letter to Lovers of the Gun

page: 17
21
<< 14  15  16    18  19  20 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 28 2014 @ 11:28 AM
link   
reply to post by SuperFrog
 


Again, more contradiction.

You respect this right, so long as people follow the rules you think should be implemented.

So, no....you don't respect the right.




posted on Jan, 28 2014 @ 11:30 AM
link   
reply to post by SuperFrog
 


So, others can't use ordinary daily use items in comparisons, but you get to???

There is no right to drive a car.
There is a right to bear arms.



posted on Jan, 28 2014 @ 11:31 AM
link   
reply to post by SuperFrog
 


So you are a Progressive then.


If you want to law changed, lawfully, go about it the correct way.

I and everyone else here knows why you and other Anti-Gun rights people never will. Because you know it will be a beautiful disaster.



posted on Jan, 28 2014 @ 11:32 AM
link   

SuperFrog

NavyDoc
So if you had to get permission and a background check to own a book and newspapers had to be registered, would your right to free speech be infringed upon or not?


Further radicalization of your argument is unnecessary. After fail car example, now books and newspaper are danger...

How would your right to own a gun change if there is background check and you are required to register your gun?

Or you think that everyone should be able to get one, no matter of mental state and/or criminal record - because that is what 2nd amendment said?!






I actually think so but once you break the laws with a gun then that right should be taken away.



posted on Jan, 28 2014 @ 11:34 AM
link   

SuperFrog


Or you think that everyone should be able to get one, no matter of mental state and/or criminal record - because that is what 2nd amendment said?!


That is what the law plainly and clearly states.



posted on Jan, 28 2014 @ 11:41 AM
link   
Let me know when you figure out how to remove all guns from the Earth. Until then don't be naive to think we'd be better off with haves and have-nots.



posted on Jan, 28 2014 @ 11:44 AM
link   

SuperFrog

NavyDoc
So if you had to get permission and a background check to own a book and newspapers had to be registered, would your right to free speech be infringed upon or not?


Further radicalization of your argument is unnecessary. After fail car example, now books and newspaper are danger...

How would your right to own a gun change if there is background check and you are required to register your gun?


"Shall not be infringed"

How many folks has the government had committed as "crazy"? Of course, nowadays the lunatic asylum is the second choice. Their first choice is to have you labeled as some kind of sexual predator (since mental illness is becoming more accepted).



Or you think that everyone should be able to get one, no matter of mental state and/or criminal record - because that is what 2nd amendment said?!


Now you understand, it seems.

Shall not be infringed. You like simple law so much....those 4 words are pretty darned simple.



posted on Jan, 28 2014 @ 11:58 AM
link   
reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan
 




Shall not be infringed. You like simple law so much....those 4 words are pretty darned simple.

It has always astounded me how the anti-gun people can read so much into the Second Amendment.... those four words, staring them in the face, don't seem to mean anything to them though.



posted on Jan, 28 2014 @ 12:02 PM
link   

butcherguy
reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan
 




Shall not be infringed. You like simple law so much....those 4 words are pretty darned simple.

It has always astounded me how the anti-gun people can read so much into the Second Amendment.... those four words, staring them in the face, don't seem to mean anything to them though.


You guys are delusional - as if you think that those words should be followed literally, criminals in jail should have 'right' to carry guns.

Did slaves of the time that amendment was written have the same right to carry weapons? If not - why not?? Why people in jail have no constitutional right to carry gun, as that is what law said?!
edit on 28-1-2014 by SuperFrog because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 28 2014 @ 12:07 PM
link   


Sure, some people do need gun and this is not in any case about abolishing guns, but controlling them. NRA managed to make it impossible for guns to get regulated and controlled. I have nothing against people owning guns, but would prefer that if your neighbor happens to have break down, someone can see that he has gun registered under his name and police is able to take those away from him, as he might not be suitable to own gun any more and might decide to hunt more then hyenas. Do we agree?


Unfortunately no.
I can see, what is already in place, at least in my state. Having to register a pistol, that you are going to carry out in public everyday. (although I do NOT agree that they shouldn't be carried EVERYWHERE) Just my opinion.


But as far as having to register my rifles and every other gun that I have in my home, that is currently not required? No, I don't believe in that.
As another poster wrote, I do not trust that someone can just "say" that I am having a breakdown, so my guns can be taken.
But I am also the first to say, that if I do have a breakdown, and am shooting people, I deserve to be shot. I would hope that they might try to stop me another way, if it is possible. But if not, I deserve what I get.

Well, after re-reading, to an extent. Because as I think I stated, way back at the beginning of this thread, I do believe that prescription drugs may, in some cases, be "causing" people to go crazy.
edit on 28-1-2014 by chiefsmom because: afterthought



posted on Jan, 28 2014 @ 12:08 PM
link   
reply to post by SuperFrog
 


We as a society agreed on laws that restrict gun ownership by convicted felons. It's one of those "common sense laws".
Your original position is that since there is more guns, there is more school shootings.

That is flawed logic.

One gun. One bullet. That's all it takes to kill. Oh, and one person to pull the trigger. I keep forgetting about that part.

Again, if Adam Lanza only had one or two guns instead of the collection he had, would he have not killed all those people?



posted on Jan, 28 2014 @ 12:09 PM
link   

SuperFrog


You guys are delusional - as if you think that those words should be followed literally, criminals in jail should have 'right' to carry guns.


Do you mean incarcerated persons to be armed? Or those that have served their time, as handed out by a court, who is returend to society having paid their debt back, should continued to be punished by not being allowed to own a firearm?

What does the 2nd Amendment state? Just wondering.



posted on Jan, 28 2014 @ 12:11 PM
link   

SuperFrog

Why people in jail have no constitutional right to carry gun, as that is what law said?!

Incarceration means they are removed from society and their rights are removed.

You really are just grasping now.



posted on Jan, 28 2014 @ 12:14 PM
link   

ImpossibilityOfReason
Well you certainly sound like an easily impressionable sap. How would
Me deciding to do away with guns stop some other guy who is a psycho-path who won't do the same? Nah I'll keep my guns. also, The letter is just propaganda..


People can use box cutters and airplanes to kill thousands

We need to ban those as well rolleyes



posted on Jan, 28 2014 @ 12:17 PM
link   

chiefsmom
Unfortunately no.
I can see, what is already in place, at least in my state. Having to register a pistol, that you are going to carry out in public everyday. (although I do NOT agree that they shouldn't be carried EVERYWHERE) Just my opinion.


But as far as having to register my rifles and every other gun that I have in my home, that is currently not required? No, I don't believe in that.
As another poster wrote, I do not trust that someone can just "say" that I am having a breakdown, so my guns can be taken.
But I am also the first to say, that if I do have a breakdown, and am shooting people, I deserve to be shot. I would hope that they might try to stop me another way, if it is possible. But if not, I deserve what I get.


I believe that you and I would find common ground, and only difference is that I believe it would be far better to prevent you shooting people in case of break down.

Why not trust the same doctors that can tell you if you are not able to drive for example?




network dude
reply to post by SuperFrog
 


We as a society agreed on laws that restrict gun ownership by convicted felons. It's one of those "common sense laws".
Your original position is that since there is more guns, there is more school shootings.

That is flawed logic.

One gun. One bullet. That's all it takes to kill. Oh, and one person to pull the trigger. I keep forgetting about that part.

Again, if Adam Lanza only had one or two guns instead of the collection he had, would he have not killed all those people?


Just give it enough time. You will be surprised how we will come to new 'common sense laws'. Just look at same sex marriage and many other things of today that just seemed as impossible 20 years ago. IMHO NRA is loosing ground, and with every new incident there is more people supporting stricter gun controlled laws. NRA had lots of time to work on this, but as I said, it appears that first time they are loosing grounds.

Will you support changes of 2nd amendment, if supreme court make amendment to it the same way you support 2nd amendment?



posted on Jan, 28 2014 @ 12:19 PM
link   

BrianG
People can use box cutters and airplanes to kill thousands

We need to ban those as well rolleyes


Sure, and that is why we should be able to buy army arsenal...

You should note by now that this is fail logic...
edit on 28-1-2014 by SuperFrog because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 28 2014 @ 12:26 PM
link   
reply to post by SuperFrog
 


We all know that words can lead to fights that can end with someone getting beaten to death with someones hands so should we change the 1st.a? Would you be fine with that?



posted on Jan, 28 2014 @ 12:30 PM
link   


I believe that you and I would find common ground, and only difference is that I believe it would be far better to prevent you shooting people in case of break down. Why not trust the same doctors that can tell you if you are not able to drive for example?


I hope you will re-read what I wrote. I wish I would have added it originally, but I did have an afterthought about my statement.

I'm not exactly sure that we would find a common ground, maybe just because of the state I live in, and the way I was raised. In your response, you also responded to another about thinking that beliefs are changing.
Well, here in MI, we have the more militia groups than any other state, at last check, and they are continually growing. Other individual states may change, but I really don't see it happening here, and I'm glad of that.

I'm not even a huge fan of the NRA on some of their agendas, except when they are defending the constitution.

Let's face it, I'm old, I'm set in my ways on this issue in particular. But that "oldness" gives me the wisdom to realize I'm not going to change your mind. And that is ok. Until you (meaning anyone) tries to take away the rights I currently have. Then I have nothing better to do, than fight you (again anyone, not necessarily you SF) until I can fight no more.

So, nothing personal, and I appreciate the "friendly" arguing
.
edit on 28-1-2014 by chiefsmom because: I can't spell today!!!!!!!



posted on Jan, 28 2014 @ 12:53 PM
link   
reply to post by SuperFrog
 


Slaves were considered to be less than a man, and thus were exempted (wrongly) from the rights given us by our Creator. That was wrong headed....please don't use a wrong headed viewpoint to support your viewpoint. It will make it, by virtue, wrong.

"Fail logic" is that you have yet to explain how people will somehow miraculously start obeying laws passed to restrict freedom.

More "fail logic" is asking why grown people are not allowed to do things due to the actions of another. We are talking about grown ups, not children.



posted on Jan, 28 2014 @ 01:05 PM
link   

SuperFrog
IMHO NRA is loosing ground, and with every new incident there is more people supporting stricter gun controlled laws. NRA had lots of time to work on this, but as I said, it appears that first time they are loosing


Most of the polling data I've seen shows just the opposite, with support for more strict gun laws gradually eroding over the last few decades. Yes, you do see a spike when an incident happens, but it tends to be temporary. The long-term trend is downward and will likely continue. Consider that gun sales have been increasing in recent years and that gun ownership is becoming more prevalent among women. Simply put, gun ownership is on the rise, and given that, I think its highly unlikely that you'll see a reversal of the longer-term trend in regards to support for gun control laws.



new topics




 
21
<< 14  15  16    18  19  20 >>

log in

join