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: 25
21
<< 22  23  24    26  27  28 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 31 2014 @ 12:54 PM
link   

SuperFrog

Even I said I will try not to answer to provocative troll posts, this deserves small address.

Ahhhh, that is cute.

Get called out on the floor many times over and retort with the "Well, your just a troll" statement.


SuperFrog
Please show me where I said that cops are ONLY one that should carry gun.



*Ahem*

SuperFrog


Cops don't carry guns just to look cool or to add additional weight and make it harder to move. Of course if they carry gun, they have intent to use it. Only difference is that they supposed to use it to protect public and/or them selves. So, yes - I do believe that. Otherwise - why would you carry gun? What is reason?






SuperFrog
To me you have not read discussion, are replying to post that you clearly have not read completely or should I say you have read what you like to hear.

Ah ha. That's nice.
I like it when people like yourself refuse to address statements and answer questions. And then state the reason is due to one BS load or another.


SuperFrog
By now should be established that forum is not your personal tool to limit discussion to what you like to hear. We are all entitled to our opinions, and I am really not surprised that those opposed of gun control have tendency to bully and try to bring end discussion that they find disturbing.

Funny, as the only one limiting discussion is you. With your pretty weak attempt to ignore certain people or address items that you have cherry picked from.


SuperFrog
Who has no clue, is having difficulties to follow discussion and who is not willing ti hide his head in send - that is more or less easy to see in this discussion.

I have no idea what this means.


SuperFrog
As your post has nothing new except attack to me - that is what is considered troll, so please, if you don't mind - let us (we who are willing to discuss) carry out conversation without your evaluation of myself or anyone else.

Thank you!


Oh, and now the Elitist gnashes his/her teeth.

Oh, and as pointed out by many others, this is a free to all forum. I shall evaluate what ever my little heart desires.

Typical Progressive.
Don't like how the conversations is going, because you are fatally incorrect, call foul and see if that wins the argument.




posted on Jan, 31 2014 @ 01:05 PM
link   

macman
reply to post by SuperFrog
 


So, you don't believe in a person defending themselves. They then, must wait for LE.



In an crisis that takes a mere seconds….police are minutes away, maybe hours if you're rural. I cannot fathom the mentality on display in this thread. I am just dumbfounded.



posted on Jan, 31 2014 @ 01:13 PM
link   
reply to post by macman
 


You do notice that 'only difference' and 'only cops' have to different meaning, do you?

Please read again, it might take couple tries for you to get it.

Consider this last reply to your posts.




SlapMonkey
Your arguments are tired and constantly proven to be based on illogical, emotional ideology. That's fine for philosophical debates, but if both our cars break down in the middle of a bad neighborhood at 11pm, I and my family will be happy in the security that we don't have to rely on hope if something were to happen. You can't hope your way out of a criminal encounter, but keep on dreaming, sir. I'll keep my feet firmly planted in reality.

It is only OP and I that posted statistics that backs our claims, where everyone else is more focused to discredit or attacked me. I am glad that some take seriously their right to carry gun, but from reaction of many, I am a bit worry... Some show very bully-like characteristics, and as I said - would love to close this discussion as soon as possible...

Just as I said, no worries until our President say that you guys can keep your gunz.


edit on 31-1-2014 by SuperFrog because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 31 2014 @ 01:19 PM
link   
reply to post by howmuch4another
 


Superfrog is more than likely, I would say 99% sure, a foreigner.

His/Her opinion on US matters means about as much to us as knowing what they had for breakfast.

The idea that this is a free for all forum, brings in people that really have no clue as to US laws, culture or the people here. He/She is basically spinning their wheels, and arguing for the sake of arguing.
I will withhold the use of "troll", as a Troll is basically a crap disturber. He/She seems to stay focused on the one side, so by elimination of a possibility, a 50/50 choice, we have what's left.
An ignorant foreigner, with a basis of US law coming from The Daily Show, quotes from Movie Stars, stats from hack websites and a generous helping of Hollywood BS.
A basic Progressive.



posted on Jan, 31 2014 @ 01:22 PM
link   

SuperFrog

You do notice that 'only difference' and 'only cops' have to different meaning, do you?

Please read again, it might take couple tries for you to get it.

So, please clarify.
Should cops be the only ones to have and carry firearms?



SuperFrog
Consider this last reply to your posts.



So, I guess you will take your ball and go home then because you are not winning the game???

My 6 year old neighbor does that.



posted on Jan, 31 2014 @ 01:27 PM
link   

howmuch4another

macman
reply to post by SuperFrog
 


So, you don't believe in a person defending themselves. They then, must wait for LE.



In an crisis that takes a mere seconds….police are minutes away, maybe hours if you're rural. I cannot fathom the mentality on display in this thread. I am just dumbfounded.



This is my point. We have thousands of square miles out here with only a few deputies and state troopers patrolling. Ambulance? LOL...you mean volunteer fire department. Great, brave men who are not as well versed at keeping you alive on the 1 hour drive to the hospital.

I asked Superfrog if they were a city dweller. i didn't get a response.



posted on Jan, 31 2014 @ 01:36 PM
link   

bigfatfurrytexan

I asked Superfrog if they were a city dweller. i didn't get a response.


And you won't.

It is a question that he/she will avoid.



posted on Jan, 31 2014 @ 01:37 PM
link   

bigfatfurrytexan
This is my point. We have thousands of square miles out here with only a few deputies and state troopers patrolling. Ambulance? LOL...you mean volunteer fire department. Great, brave men who are not as well versed at keeping you alive on the 1 hour drive to the hospital.

I asked Superfrog if they were a city dweller. i didn't get a response.


I live in well populated area, I was under impression that this is already known. Sorry. About 20 years ago I lived in Detroit area, something one should consider war zone.


In my life I traveled a lot and I visited many countries. I should say that people who do not know better - would be happy with what they have. Ignorance is not to want to see that there are different ways, probably better ways as well.

I consider your and mine situation are very different, as I live in low-crime rate place atm, not like OP.



posted on Jan, 31 2014 @ 01:51 PM
link   
reply to post by SuperFrog
 


I live in a low violent crime area. Sure, there is some violent crime. Its the roughnecks fighting, or the gang bangers/cartel mafiosos shooting it out. "Normal people" are not really affected by any of this.

So you live near emergency services? Yeah, that is a major difference from a large portion of this nation.

Have you ever heard the term "mob rule" and "individual rights"? The gist of it is this: the city folk may out number the country folk, and they certainly are more engaged in the regulatory rigamorole in the US. But even if everyone but 1 person lived in the cities, the rights of that 1 person would still supercede any desire for safety/security in the cities. Everyone in the country but 1 person can think a certain way, and it doesn't make it right. The right of the individual...that is what our Constitution is meant to protect.

Us folks in the country....this is our nation too. No, you may not understand it....but it is our culture. It is no less valuable than any of the others you have travelled the world to see. If you have a problem in your city, deal with it. But do so without screwing with the way we live life int he country. We don't share your problems, and we don't want to share in your solutions.



posted on Jan, 31 2014 @ 02:00 PM
link   

bigfatfurrytexan
reply to post by SuperFrog
 


I live in a low violent crime area. Sure, there is some violent crime. Its the roughnecks fighting, or the gang bangers/cartel mafiosos shooting it out. "Normal people" are not really affected by any of this.

So you live near emergency services? Yeah, that is a major difference from a large portion of this nation.

Have you ever heard the term "mob rule" and "individual rights"? The gist of it is this: the city folk may out number the country folk, and they certainly are more engaged in the regulatory rigamorole in the US. But even if everyone but 1 person lived in the cities, the rights of that 1 person would still supercede any desire for safety/security in the cities. Everyone in the country but 1 person can think a certain way, and it doesn't make it right. The right of the individual...that is what our Constitution is meant to protect.

Us folks in the country....this is our nation too. No, you may not understand it....but it is our culture. It is no less valuable than any of the others you have travelled the world to see. If you have a problem in your city, deal with it. But do so without screwing with the way we live life int he country. We don't share your problems, and we don't want to share in your solutions.


Well said for a country boy! I share your feelings 100% over here in East Texas. We are doing just fine over here without interference from the guvment. People treat each other very well out here where I am and I like it just fine. Carry my handgun everyday like a "gun nut" as some call it and I really could care less what anyone else thinks about it. If I get home to my wife and kids at the end of the day its been a good day.



posted on Jan, 31 2014 @ 02:36 PM
link   

bigfatfurrytexan
reply to post by SuperFrog
 


I live in a low violent crime area. Sure, there is some violent crime. Its the roughnecks fighting, or the gang bangers/cartel mafiosos shooting it out. "Normal people" are not really affected by any of this.

So you live near emergency services? Yeah, that is a major difference from a large portion of this nation.

Have you ever heard the term "mob rule" and "individual rights"? The gist of it is this: the city folk may out number the country folk, and they certainly are more engaged in the regulatory rigamorole in the US. But even if everyone but 1 person lived in the cities, the rights of that 1 person would still supercede any desire for safety/security in the cities. Everyone in the country but 1 person can think a certain way, and it doesn't make it right. The right of the individual...that is what our Constitution is meant to protect.

Us folks in the country....this is our nation too. No, you may not understand it....but it is our culture. It is no less valuable than any of the others you have travelled the world to see. If you have a problem in your city, deal with it. But do so without screwing with the way we live life int he country. We don't share your problems, and we don't want to share in your solutions.



too bad only Mods can give applause!!! you nailed it. Oh, and don't think for a second that those that live in the city simply don't understand. They view you with disdain and label you "flyover country" due to your "different values."



posted on Jan, 31 2014 @ 02:49 PM
link   
reply to post by howmuch4another
 


Itll be us country folk that save everyone else's asses if TSHTF.

But if we experience a wine tasting apocalypse, I suppose the urbanites will come in handy.



posted on Jan, 31 2014 @ 02:54 PM
link   
Removing guns from people who want to do harm is akin to removing food from a hungry person so they won't feel hungry anymore.


I know many here want to remove my rights and freedoms. You have every right (ironically) to say that.

But it won't happen. Sorry, but it won't.



posted on Jan, 31 2014 @ 02:56 PM
link   
reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan
 


I agree that there is large difference between our cases, but are you suggesting that one law can't cover everybody and all problems?

Can you explain to me, now that we are this far into discussion, how would you be affected if there is centralized DB with guns and if you like to get new shotgun or any other weapon, someone has to background check you? How will this change your right to carry gun?



On different discussion I was watching Ted Talk by Jim Fallon - Exploring the mind of a killer.



I just wonder what would you think - would be beneficial if scientist can narrow down potential serial killer - should this be placed as required test before issuing license for gun/weapon?
edit on 31-1-2014 by SuperFrog because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 31 2014 @ 03:07 PM
link   

SuperFrog
reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan
 


Can you explain to me, now that we are this far into discussion, how would you be affected if there is centralized DB with guns and if you like to get new shotgun or any other weapon, someone has to background check you? How will this change your right to carry gun?



a centralized DB and background checks are separate issues that could become one but for now they are not.
do you have any idea how the Nazis came to power? do you have any idea how the germans disarmed their citizens? A registry changes my constitutional right because it is the FIRST thing you need to put in place for confiscation.



posted on Jan, 31 2014 @ 03:12 PM
link   
reply to post by SuperFrog
 




Can you explain to me, now that we are this far into discussion, how would you be affected if there is centralized DB with guns and if you like to get new shotgun or any other weapon, someone has to background check you? How will this change your right to carry gun?

I will ask you what a centralized database would accomplish?

We should have a centralized database for drug dealers..... do you think they would sign up?
My point is that keeping track of every legal gun owner and their purchases would have no effect on criminals, therefore no effect on crime.



posted on Jan, 31 2014 @ 03:16 PM
link   
When you have to get permission to own a weapon from a controlling central authority, it is no longer a "right".

It becomes an allowance.



posted on Jan, 31 2014 @ 03:29 PM
link   
reply to post by SuperFrog
 


Where has a database ever stopped crime regarding to firearms?


It is a fake safety blanket you have been sold, and bought into.

It does nothing.

Kind of like this
when your plane hits earth after reaching terminal velocity.

Just like requiring a background check for sales.

I have yet, in all my time on earth, met a criminal that abides by the law.

All these things do, is affect the lawful citizen.



posted on Jan, 31 2014 @ 03:55 PM
link   

SuperFrog
reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan
 


I agree that there is large difference between our cases, but are you suggesting that one law can't cover everybody and all problems?

Can you explain to me, now that we are this far into discussion, how would you be affected if there is centralized DB with guns and if you like to get new shotgun or any other weapon, someone has to background check you? How will this change your right to carry gun?



On different discussion I was watching Ted Talk by Jim Fallon - Exploring the mind of a killer.



I just wonder what would you think - would be beneficial if scientist can narrow down potential serial killer - should this be placed as required test before issuing license for gun/weapon?
edit on 31-1-2014 by SuperFrog because: (no reason given)


One law is all we need. And it is in place. If people break the law, then we also have measures to deal with that.

If i have to register in a database to purchase a firearm, that is undo hardship. Nothing in my history would indicate a need to track me. My tracking will come about due to the actions of others. My right is therefore infringed by placing undo hardship on me.

What would it effect you if no one ever even knew I owned firearms? How would that change your life?



posted on Jan, 31 2014 @ 03:58 PM
link   
reply to post by SuperFrog
 



I just wonder what would you think - would be beneficial if scientist can narrow down potential serial killer - should this be placed as required test before issuing license for gun/weapon?

/ex]
How about Ted Bundy? Since he strangled many of his victims.....
Would you cut off his hands?



new topics

top topics



 
21
<< 22  23  24    26  27  28 >>

log in

join