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: 21
21
<< 18  19  20    22  23  24 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 29 2014 @ 08:04 AM
link   

SuperFrog


I never asked for ban of guns, but better control,


SO, more violations of the 2nd Amendment.

You Progressives will never get it. Nor will you ever go the correct route to do such things.

You and every other person frightened of an inanimate object will never push to do the change the right way. Much like 0bama, you will have rules pushed through via EO and the like, because we all know it would fail oh so spectacularly.




posted on Jan, 29 2014 @ 08:14 AM
link   
In 2011, there were more people killed with hammers, clubs and other blunt instruments than rifles.

So far, the anti-gun folks have concentrated on one specific type to rifle to control, the 'assault rifle'.
Shouldn't they start where they could do more good and control hammers and clubs. You know, not ban them.... just control them.

Do you people realize that anyone off the street can just walk into a hardware store and buy a hammer??? No background checks, no ID required... just money in hand is enough to get an instrument that is proven by the FBI to kill more Americans than rifles?

Please.... think of the children!

FBI Stats

edit on bu312014-01-29T10:11:27-06:0010America/ChicagoWed, 29 Jan 2014 10:11:27 -060010u14 by butcherguy because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 29 2014 @ 08:46 AM
link   

SuperFrog

Quite often some of those in danger act proactively and start shooting at us, rest of people. Just this morning was hearing about this case. He shot only 2 dozens cars on highway, and his reasoning - "He says he fired a gun at drivers because he believed they were part of a government conspiracy against him. "


You ask if it is worth discussing gun control with gun advocates. Then you cite an example of a mentally ill person utilizig a firearm as part of his psychosis? That supports my position. Since you seem to have ignored it thus far, I am unsurprised that you made that step.

But yes, we need better mental health care in this country.



As you can see, this is exactly what study shows - more guns = more gun related deaths. More deaths = less security. It is just simple mathematics here, not too complicated, I hope.


I see what you did there. At first you start your equation with "more guns = more gun related deaths". Then the goal posts moved, and it became "more deaths = less security".

Are you telling me that I have a higher risk of being murdered in the southwestern US than a guy in England? I would be interested in seeing stats on that.

Remember, your final assertion had nothing to do with "gun deaths". That was your initial assertion. Your final assertion is just deaths in general. Because it would be stupid to be picky over which methodology was used to murder you. And I assure you a gun hurts less than a knife.



I never asked for ban of guns, but better control, but if you like to go to that extent (which in USA really IS utopia, at least at the moment) and compare it with ban of airport to prevent crashes, this is another FAIL comparison. We already had comparison with cars and people willing to part with life as we know it rather then give up some gun control, but let me tell you, having gun regulated is like having air traffic regulated - more control - less crashes.

So, yeah - this discussion is not leading anywhere. We all know what 'well regulated' militia means in 2nd amendment and if this ever get to supreme court, you would see that gun advocates would loose by large just because of that part of wording. If our founding fathers were thinking differently, they would write it differently, and exclude this 'now confusing' words.


People keep making analogies for you, that you call "fail". Perhaps you should extend that same assertion to the notion of gun control.


edit on 29-1-2014 by SuperFrog because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 29 2014 @ 09:14 AM
link   

FyreByrd

Does the right to bear arms outweight the right to life, liberty, and happiness that the constitution lays out as the supreme right of citizen.



Okay, first off, it's not "the right to life, liberty and happiness," it's the "pursuit of happiness." See, personal happiness is not a guarantee here in America, so let's not pretend it is.

Second, no right outweighs another, so that's a red-herring question the detracts from any logical discussion. What does my ownership of firearms have to do with your life, liberty or pursuit of happiness? Unless you directly attack my life, I will not take yours. Your liberty has nothing to do with me owning a firearm, and your pursuit of happiness is your business and has nothing to do with me owning a firearm--and if it does, so be it, because my firearm ownership makes me happy in the security and sport that it provides my family and me.

*Edit: I see someone already beat me to this point, but it's valid nonetheless.
edit on 29-1-2014 by SlapMonkey because: update



posted on Jan, 29 2014 @ 11:28 AM
link   
Slap yeah it's like how a supposed constitutional law "expert" aka our current sitting president gets up to the podium and flat out LIES to people and tells them they have a "right to feel safe"!

Not only do you not have a right to feel safe but you don't have a right to feel ANYTHING. There's also a good reason why you don't have a right to feel anything. Feelings are subjective and can have no bearing on your actual physical situation. Then again we also have a group of people in the white house right now that want to use subversion and propaganda tactics to "steer" conspiracy theorists to their way of thinking. And who have FREELY admitted that to their mind conspiracy theorists are MENTALLY ILL, and more dangerous than radical islam to homeland security. All while at the same point in time actively touting the "successes" their law enforcement personnel have in prosecuting crime at the federal level. Interestingly enough do you know what the most prosecuted federal felony is?


CONSPIRACY!!!

Do you know why they tout it as a success? Because most years they have a better than 90% conviction rate on this "crime". Do you know why they do so well prosecuting this crime? Because you cannot prove or disprove intent and therefore if the government says you are conspiring... you are.

So let's sum this up.

We have a "constitutional law expert" for a president who blatantly LIES about what rights you have, and what rights you do not have.

We have a government who wants to lock you up in a mental hospital or federal prison as a threat to yourself and others if YOU believe in conspiracies, yet spends truly astounding amounts of your tax dollars prosecuting people for conspiracy.

I mean really? How much more blatant does this need to be?


OH and fun fact.... The LIFE in life liberty and the PURSUIT of happiness is actually specifically aimed at a universal right to self defense by any and every means no matter WHO the assailant! Do you know why?

Because much like today, the crown had passed laws that forced the citizenry to submit in the face of egregious overstepping by crown representatives be they soldiers, tax collectors, or even the aristocracy. If you dared to fight back and god forbid killed one of these people in the process of keeping yourself from being brutalized you would be punished not the evildoer.

Sound familiar? Can you say no knock warrants at the wrong house? Can you say the felony charges that have resulted from occupants of said wrong houses fighting back?

The reality is anti gun supporters would do well to just come out and say they are against the constitution because quite literally EVERYTHING in that document and the DOCUMENTED intent behind it (which can easily be determined by reading the freely available and in no way secret writings of the founding fathers, which directly contradict many of the "interpretations" the left swears are what the founding fathers really meant to say.) directly contradict the message and goals of the anti gun left.




edit on 29-1-2014 by roguetechie because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 29 2014 @ 12:22 PM
link   
reply to post by SuperFrog
 


One big reason why people in the USA are so against gun control is the very fact that officials, federal and state, intent is not to actually curb any gun crimes or accidents, but they are instigating gun control to try and control people that could some day seek revenge upon them for their corruption of our government. Just look at Obama and how his change just happens to resemble a "how to" guide on Marxism, socialization of a nation, fascism, communism, and Maoism, lightly salted with a dash of Stalinism.

When people corrupt, they become fearful of retribution and begin trying to prevent public retribution, (or protect others) by doing what Obama and others in the country are doing on an unprecedented level with the schemes on gun control.

I have seen Superior court Judges do the same thing the day after they changed the laws in order to get far more guilty verdicts for traffic offenses so the county can make way more money. The next day, they installed metal detectors in the courthouse building. Why? they are worried someone might bring a gun in to court and kill the judge for their corruption. Metal detectors were not in any courthouse where I live, not ever, that is until the day after those traffic fine laws were changed to favor getting far more guilty verdicts by removing some of the due process that would normally balance the scales of innocent versus guilty verdicts given. Coincidence? Not a chance.. No one would have shot a judge probably, but they are fearful of it happening when they do naughty things to the people.

Just look at the politicians that are the most extreme gun control advocates in the USA and what they have supported besides gun control legislation. You will find that they support all kinds of things that are unconstitutional, removing protections that citizens have/had against intrusion by government, changing laws to stay in power or build an infrastructure in government that guarantees them a lucrative future whether or not they get reelected, etc.. The list is quite long on what else the gun control advocates have done by way of damage to Americans rights and protections.

One of the most outspoken politicians promoting gun control (but carries a gun herself), is Dianne Feinstein, who has used her official position and resources to make billions of dollars, She influenced corporate execs to only give contract business to her husband and not take bids from anyone else, securing billions in contractual value for husband's corporation. This level of corruption virtually guarantees that the person will be quite paranoid of getting punished for their subversive use of their actual authority.

The guilty become fearful when no one is after them (yet), thus they want to protect themselves from "we the people" so we can't "get them" anymore.. I'm not saying anyone is going to get them, I am saying they fear that someone might get them.
One thing else that is for certain, they don't want, or care to stop gun crimes at all. If they did, they wouldn't be scheming for sneaky ways of getting gun control things in place and trying to hide it from the public. Like Obama doing end runs around the constitution and congress using executive orders to try to legislate gun control, when he is not legally authorized to legislate AT ALL. He is running so scared, just look at how much more he spends on security than any president in the past, it is because of fear of what he is doing to his own countrymen.

For absolute proof of this, look at "Fast and Furious" It was 100% staged for the purpose of trying to gain a superior position to invoke much stronger gun control on thee entire country. And Obama and Bush, and Eric Holder were even willing to let federal officials be killed as a direct result of their exposed and illegal schemes. Is this really about curbing gun crimes? They were Hoping for it!![

Every dictator has invoked gun control to protect themselves against their own populace because of the fear they have for everything they are doing against their own country. And after they get all the guns, they begin slaughtering hundreds of thousands of people, and even millions of people. It has happened already, and it has happened every single time.

If they start trying to confiscate all guns nationwide, they are very afraid of getting shot and killed, so they are doing it slowly by compromise and more compromise, as the poster above has very nicely illustrated with the comic example. Sooner or later, there wont be enough armed people (so they hope), to stop them.

edit on 29-1-2014 by alienreality because: add



posted on Jan, 29 2014 @ 12:56 PM
link   
reply to post by SuperFrog
 


Please read my post. Your focus is on the wrong driver. The Demographics of the US are very different than the UK. UK gun crime and homicide is on a distinct rise, and it has to do with their demographics changing to be more like the US. Remember, it's the societal mix, not just one thing. Focusing on guns to stop gun crime would be like focusing on a sore throat to stop the flu. It won't make a big difference to the system or the nature of the problem.

Your mention about the regulated militia was addressed in my post. Please read it. To Paraphrase, well regulated doesn't mean what you think it means.



For those of us who are actually concerned with making our society better through rational thought and considered action and looking at our society like a good doctor, as a complete and complicated system, can we start calling these people who would make our society turn it's back on the parts of the formula that make it successful anti-bill-of-rights... ABOR instead of gun grabber or anti-gun?

Because that's what they are. If one portion of the constitution ought to be ignored by the federal government, then what makes the other guarantees safe? Lets not even get into the details of it. What they want is a dismantlement of a portion of our bill of rights so the rest can come into question. Hate speech and criminal expression would probably be next. Restricted travel and personal business would probably come after that... to what goal? Control for the sake of control with little concern for their fellow citizens.

Edit: Every ABOR person I have ever met is more concerned with altering society so perceptions are better rather than altering society so it actually is better. They have no concern for you or me so long as society seems better to them. It's one of the most destructive and inharmonious behaviors one can have.
edit on 29-1-2014 by Galvatron because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 29 2014 @ 01:37 PM
link   

On tonight, live from 10PM Eastern time!

Show thread with listening information



posted on Jan, 29 2014 @ 03:20 PM
link   
Here is interesting video about Gun Control - from Jon Stewart.

www.thedailyshow.com...

I think that he makes a lot of sense... at least to me.

No wonder there are reference to hammers, cars... at least we all know where many of our gun addict members got their resources...


This also mirrors the same debate we have here... and paranoid reaction by many, star marking etc... only in 'merica...

Also previous video made by daily show...


edit on 29-1-2014 by SuperFrog because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 29 2014 @ 03:36 PM
link   
reply to post by SuperFrog
 


Well, there is your problem.

You and many other Generation Y people are getting your news from Comedy Central.

From the Google search. This is in the URL "The Daily Show with Jon Stewart - Political Comedy - Fake News ..."


The Daily Show with Jon Stewart - Political Comedy - Fake News ...



posted on Jan, 29 2014 @ 03:38 PM
link   
reply to post by SuperFrog
 


I used to like Jon Stewart. What happened was that I realized that despite presenting very important news stories, he trivializes every serious thing he brings up through comedy. If it were a serious program that didn't have the intent on making the audience laugh, then I would like the show very much. He himself has stated in no uncertain terms that his show is a comedy show.

So what does this do? It blunts the seriousness of the situation fairly effectively. Instead of getting people perturbed enough to actually act, they get a laugh out of it and the effect is reduced, even if in some cases only somewhat. The whole nature of that program is subversive. It disempowers people.

It goes something like this:
1. Present news stories fairly unbiasedly with a hint of comedy.
2. Get the audience's trust by having a notable lack of spin in the content. (The Daily Show is one of the most trusted news sources on television).
3. The audience is now used to having very serious news without spin as a source of comedic relief in their lives when in fact many of the stories should have people assembling and making good on their position as citizen.

I am firmly convinced that The Daily Show is a piece of controlled opposition of sorts. Jon Stewart Liebowitz is a pusher of apathy. I used to really enjoy that program. But it trivializes some of the most important news and issues with laughter. I think it's an incredible disservice to the audience.

In that video, notice how serious the news is that he presents then finishes by making the audience laugh. He also doesn't address the major driver of gun crime, and that is violent crime and the situations that cause violent crime.

I think the current state of mess is the mark of both parties. Based on your writings I would bet you are a democrat, or at least vote that way. Understand this now, voting for a democrat is the same as voting for a republican. Neither party has the interests of the people or the country at its heart. It is the party and their monetary backers.

I am NOT a republican and I am NOT a democrat. Both parties disgust me.


Wanna see real news? NHK. www3.nhk.or.jp...

You will not find one adjective, averb, or aggrandizement, embellishment, or anything else that presents the news other than what actually happened. Good or bad, its up to the reader to suss the truth out, rather than having your hand held and being told what to feel about a particular piece of news.

The moment you stop reading news that has strong undertones of opinion is the moment you'll start thinking critically as to what the situation is really about.
edit on 29-1-2014 by Galvatron because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 29 2014 @ 03:45 PM
link   

SuperFrog
Here is interesting video about Gun Control - from Jon Stewart.

www.thedailyshow.com...

I think that he makes a lot of sense... at least to me.

No wonder there are reference to hammers, cars... at least we all know where many of our gun addict members got their resources...


This also mirrors the same debate we have here... and paranoid reaction by many, star marking etc... only in 'merica...

Also previous video made by daily show...


edit on 29-1-2014 by SuperFrog because: (no reason given)


What is there to respond to in this post? It is opinionated insults. "Paranoid", "'merica", "gun addict".

Was there a reasoned response in there? Or are you just a bot?



posted on Jan, 29 2014 @ 03:58 PM
link   
reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan
 


There is not much to reply there... speaking of bot.


@Galvatron - I will reply to you once I get more time. Have to run atm. It is interesting that Daily Show is gaining viewers while fox & friends are at the same time loosing them.. we can talk about that a bit more.



posted on Jan, 29 2014 @ 04:05 PM
link   
reply to post by SuperFrog
 


Sure thing. I absolutely despise Fox news. I'm glad they're losing viewership. I bet most of their viewership is actually dying off, as morbid as it sounds. A power mongering corporatist like Rupert Murdoch won't have my viewership that's for sure.

It troubles me that more people are flocking to the Daily show. I understand why, but man do I wish people would switch off the TV and read their news. Then read the same story from an ideologically opposite source, then find something in between, and think on it to find out what on earth is really going on and why.
edit on 29-1-2014 by Galvatron because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 29 2014 @ 04:18 PM
link   
reply to post by SuperFrog
 



No wonder there are reference to hammers

Yes, hammers. Inanimate objects that humans use to kill others.
You goal is to save lives, no?
Yet one group of inanimate objects that kill more people than another group get no attention from you, even though they are completely unregulated.
You are concentrating on a group of inanimate objects that are already regulated... and taxed, that kill fewer people.
Just giving you pointers if you actually want to save lives.
Blunt objects. Only sell them to people that can prove that they are not... insane, a convicted felon or underage. And make anyone possessing one have a permit to carry them.
edit on bu312014-01-29T16:19:30-06:0004America/ChicagoWed, 29 Jan 2014 16:19:30 -06004u14 by butcherguy because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 29 2014 @ 04:21 PM
link   

SuperFrog
reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan
 


There is not much to reply there... speaking of bot.


@Galvatron - I will reply to you once I get more time. Have to run atm. It is interesting that Daily Show is gaining viewers while fox & friends are at the same time loosing them.. we can talk about that a bit more.


Screw Fox. At least Stewart admits its fake news.

But, alas, its still fake news.

There WAS something in my post that you could respond to. My question of "is there a reasoned response in your prior post somewhere?"

Is this a discussion, or are you going to simply just throw up video's and walls of links. I have seen a handful of valid points in this thread get completely ignored.
edit on 1/29/2014 by bigfatfurrytexan because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 29 2014 @ 04:22 PM
link   
reply to post by butcherguy
 


All superfog is doing is trolling this thread try not to let them get to you, anyone who uses comedy central as a source for there news is not looking for a real debate.



posted on Jan, 29 2014 @ 04:26 PM
link   
reply to post by thesaneone
 

I am on the hammer banning wagon now though. This thread caused me to do the research... now that I have found out how many people die because of them, I want them off our streets.
I am trying to bring this frog aboard.



posted on Jan, 29 2014 @ 05:06 PM
link   

butcherguy
reply to post by thesaneone
 

I am on the hammer banning wagon now though. This thread caused me to do the research... now that I have found out how many people die because of them, I want them off our streets.
I am trying to bring this frog aboard.


for the children….especially "claw" hammers…..they are wicked evil killing machines! is there some kind of test a person should have to take to get hammers?



posted on Jan, 29 2014 @ 07:12 PM
link   
YEs claws on hammers are much worse than shoulder things that go up!

Why would ANYONE need a claw longer than 2 inches? Oh sure there are nails that can't be taken out by 2 inch claws but lets be serious here the only people that NEED that sort of hammer are pofessionals who can be apropriately licensed and scrutinized and such ASSAULT hammers could be kept out of the hands of those who have no real need for them.



new topics

top topics



 
21
<< 18  19  20    22  23  24 >>

log in

join