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: 26
21
<< 23  24  25    27  28  29 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 31 2014 @ 08:27 PM
link   
reply to post by SuperFrog
 


If the sciences would be able to differentiate a good killer from a bad one with 100% accurracy I would of course concur. I saw where they had isolated the "consience" portion of the mind ,my guess is science would rather produce sociopaths than identify those who intend wrong .That's because of who pays them the most ,the military.
A database would be the basis for a unified effort of disarmament once another raving liberal gets in power in order to quite spacificly oppress those who are armed,Witness the tea party and the IRS.It is also a historic method of operation we all know only so well.
We feel it's far better to counter it NOW before it becomes a fact. We are not at all political,paranoid or seeking to belittle or harm you needlessly,we just recognize the threat when we see one.
edit on 31-1-2014 by cavtrooper7 because: (no reason given)




posted on Feb, 1 2014 @ 12:51 AM
link   
reply to post by cavtrooper7
 


I agree to some degree, but question is - what will you do with your gun?

I have a feeling that many here are under impression that with possession of their gun they are somehow protected?!

Another issue is what people call 'freedom' here. Calling freedom that you enjoy while guarding it with guns and while many innocent get killed with the same guns is absurd idea equal to Bush freeing Iraq with bombs. We all know how did that went...

As for gun laws, there is nothing you would be able to do more now then what NRA has already done. We will see where future will get us...




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

It should be in his interest to have him under surveillance, wouldn't be - unless he really likes to kill - in that case I don't have nothing against him being in jail....

Don't forget, main idea in science is that they might be able to help him... who know what future brings...



bigfatfurrytexan
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?


I strongly disagree - current organization that is supposed to take control of it is FORBIDDEN to use computers?! Also there are laws that make gun registry check slow and almost impossible. There was really good documentary about it on NPR about year ago....


In launched Tuesday by the group Mayors Against Illegal Guns, Roxanna Green, whose child was killed two years ago, appeals directly to the camera: "My 9-year-old daughter was murdered in the Tucson shooting. I have one question for our political leaders: When will you find the courage to stand up to the gun lobby?"

Standing up to the gun lobby is seen by gun control advocates to mean not only banning assault-style weapons and high-capacity magazines, but restoring some teeth to the ATF.

"The restrictions on ATF are absurd," says Jon Lowy of the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence. "They're not allowed to use computers in doing their trace work. They're not allowed to do more than one spot inspection on a gun dealer."

When looking at the problems facing the ATF, it's instructive to start at the top. The current acting director of the Washington agency is B. Todd Jones, who is juggling the ATF post with his other job, that of U.S. attorney in Minneapolis.


* Source: www.npr.org...


beezzer
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.


Irony is that you don't see how inaccurate your comparison is - removing guns from people who like to do harm - make it imposible to do mass shooting - and you compare it with nothing else - hunger and food?! Really? Proper connection would be - remove it from people who are killing them selves (or others) with their food - that is why we have for example new regulation on what OIL companies can use to make cookies (just recently changed law) that protects them from killing you or me. Or even better - make fast food stop feeding junk food to people...


Sorry to say, but you got it all wrong, and yes - make it hard for those willing to shoot people and criminals to get to gun. Just year ago you could get gun on gun show without any background checks. Gun seller could 'write off' gun as stolen once he sold it to questionable customer. There was really good radio show that covers this, while ATF is unable to use even computers for control.

Now telling that you need guns to protect your self from guns that SAME COMPANY that sells guns to you made - and made it possible for bad people to get a hold off - that is what REAL IRONY is in this situation... Or even better - your false feeling that you are 'free' or somehow 'safe', but only as long as you carry gun.
This is not irony any more... this is our reality...



edit on 1-2-2014 by SuperFrog because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 1 2014 @ 12:59 AM
link   
reply to post by SuperFrog
 


I would love to know how you remove guns from those who like to do harm when you have Obama and Eric Holder, and the DEA helping to put weapons into the hands of those who love doing harm, and even killing border patrol agents? This is only one example, but I am sure that these same folks that are supposed to be on our side are thinking up ways to get more guns into the bad people's hands so if they kill people, then it might help our traitor president disarm us, right?

Even if I was a left wing tree hugging Nazi, I would still deeply resent that they are doing anything they can to only get guns from good people. Because the bad ones will still have GUNS!

What will you do when only the people who love to harm you and others come for you with a loaded gun to take your property, your spouse, or whatever? Yell at them?

You and others could really use the help of deprogramming the cult mind that has been shoved into your brain, because you will be helpless if the gun banners succeed. I sure would not like to see you get hurt by those you think you should support. They will come for everyone if they are able, and they won't be checking political affiliations when they do.
edit on 1-2-2014 by alienreality because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 1 2014 @ 01:42 AM
link   
reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan
 


You are deliberatly misinterpreting my words.

1) These folks you know, a hand full at best, aren't representative of US society as a whole.

2) Again snipers are only a very small subset of gun violence perpertrators. The stand off argument stands. Six feet or fifty.

3) If the big bad government wants you dead, you are dead regardless of your person prowess or arsenal.

Discussion requires listening and - and understanding. You are trying to force your 'points'.



posted on Feb, 1 2014 @ 01:44 AM
link   

8675309jenny

You are either deliberately misinterpreting every damn thing you read about guns, or you are obnoxiously ignorant.

Either is detestable.

You still never replied with your age or first language.

If English is your first language, your mastery of it (or lack thereof) is sufficient to tell me everything I need to know about your intelligence level.


Belittling a person does not reason make.



posted on Feb, 1 2014 @ 01:55 AM
link   
This thread is so far off-topic. That I want to offer a solution that should make our, how to say this, gun owning friends happy.

Any gun owner should be required to purchase firearm insurance in order to be responsible and pay the costs of damage to people or property due to discharge of said firearm. The policies would have to include coverage for uninsured users (those not specifically cited as insured users). Proof of insurance required to purchase ammunition.

I wonder if any insurance company would carry such coverage. They don't and will never insure nuclear plants becaue the risk and number associated are way too high. Do we have any actuaries around?



posted on Feb, 1 2014 @ 02:27 AM
link   
The most dangerous,
value appreciated
weapon of USA
is the lever
action

For the
avid gun owning American, The anti
automatic rifle laws have a very
significant cut off date.

One that leaves the Winchester
lever action repeating riffle as the
single best remaining non-banned
high rate of fire military weapon
available in the US.



Winchester 1873 in .38

$2,199.99 2012

And it's a very decent resell investment.





Which one of the current monstrosities of
so-called gun laws, are negatively affecting
this nations economy, or potentially have
the forecasted chance to detrimentally hit
the economy, inhibiting production, and
casting aspersion upon the culture instead
of educating the public.













If the pundits want to keep playing
this game, raise the stakes on them.
They lost the last round, and have
yet to admit it. Pushing forward
from a failed position should cost
more.

Perhaps we could defund the dept
of homeland defense and just put
Bazookas on the market. A surface
to air missile in the possession of
the NYFD would have changed the
course of history.

Or the TSA can just admit that
they are here to grab my junk and
not for anyone's safety at all.




See, I think the big misunderstanding is that
the spate of arms sales in this country
have been more of a financial counter
move to the markets, than an open
rebellion type move.

In 2008 people who though about
going off-the-grid and purchased a
firearm, found in 2010 it had
appreciated better than anything
else except gold.

From 2010 to 2012 it moved to
lead. Bullets, became a secondary
market almost like the old silver
economy that used to exist below
and separate from the markets.



It's not personal,
it's just business.









And speaking of business...

Who has the moral authority to issue a credit rating,
in this country.

Is it the Banks?
The banks that went default.
The banks that had to steal trillions from the public to pay their bills.
are THEY the ones' who have the moral authority to issue credit ratings.

Or is it the omg-they-have-too-many-guns conspiracy thinkers.







Who has the moral authority ... in this Country?

Is it the nexus of insurance companies and Government who have destroyed our doctors,
over the past forty years,
so that now they can sell us a universal medical solution,
all in the shadow of pillaging our pensions,
and veteran benefits.

Is it the credit card companies and their so-called credit ratings?
Who received trillions in bail out money,
because they over gambled with their financial investments.





Or is it the person vilified on TV every day.
The lone ex-military male.
The one with weapon training,
a bad credit rating,
no family doctor.


Mike Grouchy





edit on 1-2-2014 by mikegrouchy because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 1 2014 @ 04:02 AM
link   
reply to post by FyreByrd
 


Why single out gun owners when you want to mandate insurance for possible damages from crimes that may be possibly committed in the future?
Everyone has the capability of committing a crime... whether it is a crime that doesn't involve a gun, or......
a crime committed by a criminal that possesses a stolen gun.
How would your insurance mandate affect the criminal that has a gun that isn't insured? Will the criminals buy the insurance shortly after they STEAL a firearm?



posted on Feb, 1 2014 @ 06:04 AM
link   

FyreByrd
reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan
 


You are deliberatly misinterpreting my words.


No, i am not. I think you don't understand the person you are engaged with in conversation here.




1) These folks you know, a hand full at best, aren't representative of US society as a whole.


So what? "US society as a whole" should never be allowed to utilize mob rule to curtail individual liberty. That is the basis of the American Constitution: protect individual freedoms. If just 1 single person is having their rights trampled for the benefits of a billion people, it is wrong and unjust. And I will argue against it every single time. Every. Single. Time.



2) Again snipers are only a very small subset of gun violence perpertrators. The stand off argument stands. Six feet or fifty.


I made light of your sniper comment, because it is asinine. Gun deaths are not typically something that occurs with a shot outside of a close range. Rifles are not your typical human killing weapon. Statistically speaking. And it seems silly to really focus on that when we could talk about low hanging fruit.




3) If the big bad government wants you dead, you are dead regardless of your person prowess or arsenal.


Maybe. But i would rather die like a man on my feet, then like a subject on my knees.



Discussion requires listening and - and understanding. You are trying to force your 'points'.


No, I think you don't understand the beginning point of where I am coming from. Individual freedom. For the longest time, I had the by-line of "Freedom Fundaentalist" on my profile here. My political views are summarized best by Thoreau:

"I HEARTILY ACCEPT the motto, — "That government is best which governs least";(1) and I should like to see it acted up to more rapidly and systematically. Carried out, it finally amounts to this, which also I believe, — "That government is best which governs not at all"; and when men are prepared for it, that will be the kind of government which they will have. Government is at best but an expedient; but most governments are usually, and all governments are sometimes, inexpedient"



posted on Feb, 1 2014 @ 08:35 PM
link   

butcherguy
reply to post by FyreByrd
 


Why single out gun owners when you want to mandate insurance for possible damages from crimes that may be possibly committed in the future?
Everyone has the capability of committing a crime... whether it is a crime that doesn't involve a gun, or......
a crime committed by a criminal that possesses a stolen gun.
How would your insurance mandate affect the criminal that has a gun that isn't insured? Will the criminals buy the insurance shortly after they STEAL a firearm?


You bring up an excellent, insurance companies will be thrilled. We should all be required to carry personal liability insurance from birth (one could break a neck on baby spit-up).

I wonder what 'items' will be excluded.



posted on Feb, 1 2014 @ 08:45 PM
link   

bigfatfurrytexan

No, i am not. I think you don't understand the person you are engaged with in conversation here.




No, I obviously don't know how special you are. Shall I tremble before your 'manliness'?



I made light of your sniper comment, because it is asinine. Gun deaths are not typically something that occurs with a shot outside of a close range. Rifles are not your typical human killing weapon. Statistically speaking. And it seems silly to really focus on that when we could talk about low hanging fruit.



Facts with sources please. Since I don't "know who you are", I can't judge the validity of your 'opinion'. Facts please.

You used the term sniper, with all it's attendant connotations. I used the phrase "stand-off" weapon, please don't twist my words to suit your prejudice.




Maybe. But i would rather die like a man on my feet, then like a subject on my knees.



I sincerely hope you are able to die standing up for your rights. Statically, you are more likely to die in a hospital bed.




No, I think you don't understand the beginning point of where I am coming from. Individual freedom. For the longest time, I had the by-line of "Freedom Fundaentalist" on my profile here. My political views are summarized best by Thoreau:



I understand the point of view, agree you are fully entitled to it; but find it inflexible and self-centered. Just my opinion mind you. I won't want to appear to infringe on your rights, you might kill me. Poor me, not knowing who you are and all.



posted on Feb, 1 2014 @ 09:08 PM
link   

BugOut

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.


People treat each other "very well" in east Texas?? I guess apart from the rampant racism and civil rights violations...



posted on Feb, 1 2014 @ 11:08 PM
link   
reply to post by FyreByrd
 


i have 15,000 posts here. I had presumed that you may have come across my sentiments on this matter, as I am fairly vocal on gun rights and gay rights. It has nothing to do with what you are sarcastically referring to. It has more to do with a presumption that we come from a similar point of view.

Things you and Superfrog have said that to you both have seemed obvious/evident....they are not. Many presumptions are made on what other people may need based on the lifestyles you are familiar with.

That is all that was about.

RE: your "standoff weapon"....you also mentioned range attack. There was no cherry picking. It was referring to what was stated.

Individual liberties are not self centered. Why would you want to force others to do stuff that they don't want to do? Is forced compliance, where your wishes/views get forced on me any less self centered? Why not just let everyone do what makes them happy, deal with people AFTER they commit a crime (rather than screwing with them when they have never committed a crime), and each person just focus on what they feel makes the world a better place?

I have given you serious discussion. You are free to continue sarcasm.
It doesn't hurt me at all. I hope you actually read where my views start...it might help the discussion. Or not. LIke i siad, I'm not the one hurt by your sarcasm.
edit on 2/1/2014 by bigfatfurrytexan because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 2 2014 @ 12:35 AM
link   
reply to post by SuperFrog
 


There is an old Special forces slogan that explains it clearly: Protect the innocent(You ,if you don't attack) Convince the undecided.
Those delude by the Progressive wave now waning.The rest are a threat to the Constitutional Republic.If they attempt to wrest control from us and they refuse to surrender I will attack and kill as many as I can ,before I get appropriatley ventilated.
This is why we have them.If nothing happens then I will just continue to plink annually like I have done since about 5 years old,and probably drown by fluid in my lungs in the next 10 years according to my doctors in the VA.

Other than that I will graduate as a 3d generalist from the Art Institute of Denver next spring.
Does that answer your question?



posted on Feb, 2 2014 @ 07:48 PM
link   

cavtrooper7
reply to post by SuperFrog
 


There is an old Special forces slogan that explains it clearly: Protect the innocent(You ,if you don't attack) Convince the undecided.
Those delude by the Progressive wave now waning.The rest are a threat to the Constitutional Republic.If they attempt to wrest control from us and they refuse to surrender I will attack and kill as many as I can ,before I get appropriatley ventilated.
This is why we have them.If nothing happens then I will just continue to plink annually like I have done since about 5 years old,and probably drown by fluid in my lungs in the next 10 years according to my doctors in the VA.

Other than that I will graduate as a 3d generalist from the Art Institute of Denver next spring.
Does that answer your question?


At first I was nor sure what to think about your post - troll or not?! Let's assume you are not trolling - something else than made me wonder:

It would be interesting, just in case, to call Dr. Jim Fallon, from one of my previous posts. I am sure he (as well I) would be very interested in image scan of your brain.


Otherwise, can you tell me all reasons in your opinion - when it is your right to take someone's life. I really would love to hear that.


 



reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan

You forgot to mention that OP and I are only that showed data that supports our claims.





edit on 2-2-2014 by SuperFrog because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 2 2014 @ 09:18 PM
link   

SuperFrog

cavtrooper7
reply to post by SuperFrog
 


There is an old Special forces slogan that explains it clearly: Protect the innocent(You ,if you don't attack) Convince the undecided.
Those delude by the Progressive wave now waning.The rest are a threat to the Constitutional Republic.If they attempt to wrest control from us and they refuse to surrender I will attack and kill as many as I can ,before I get appropriatley ventilated.
This is why we have them.If nothing happens then I will just continue to plink annually like I have done since about 5 years old,and probably drown by fluid in my lungs in the next 10 years according to my doctors in the VA.

Other than that I will graduate as a 3d generalist from the Art Institute of Denver next spring.
Does that answer your question?


At first I was nor sure what to think about your post - troll or not?! Let's assume you are not trolling - something else than made me wonder:

It would be interesting, just in case, to call Dr. Jim Fallon, from one of my previous posts. I am sure he (as well I) would be very interested in image scan of your brain.


Otherwise, can you tell me all reasons in your opinion - when it is your right to take someone's life. I really would love to hear that.


 



reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan

You forgot to mention that OP and I are only that showed data that supports our claims.





edit on 2-2-2014 by SuperFrog because: (no reason given)



Pure self-defense occurs when you or another innocent person
is in imminent unavoidable danger of being raped or receiving
serious bodily injury from a criminal assault.



posted on Feb, 2 2014 @ 09:26 PM
link   

SuperFrog




Otherwise, can you tell me all reasons in your opinion - when it is your right to take someone's life. I really would love to hear that.




When my loved ones lives are threatened with force from any wrong doer that's when.



posted on Feb, 2 2014 @ 11:39 PM
link   

SuperFrog


At first I was nor sure what to think about your post - troll or not?! Let's assume you are not trolling - something else than made me wonder:

It would be interesting, just in case, to call Dr. Jim Fallon, from one of my previous posts. I am sure he (as well I) would be very interested in image scan of your brain.


Otherwise, can you tell me all reasons in your opinion - when it is your right to take someone's life. I really would love to hear that.



You're a real fckin priick aren't you? Now I understand why you're a flaming communist; you just want the ability to sit on your high horse looking down on honest people with no fear of retaliation.




SuperFrog
reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan

You forgot to mention that OP and I are only that showed data that supports our claims.




Hahahaha, nearly every time you posted 'data' here, myself or someone else was able to instantly turn it around on you and reveal you for the fool you are. Have you not noticed the utter decimation you've received in this thread? You're out of your league mate.

The really sad thing here is this: Once people like you reach critical mass in this country then it's all over. The fools and their freedom shall soon part ways...



posted on Feb, 3 2014 @ 12:21 AM
link   
Oh no serious. Factual,I tell the truth MY doctors haven't detected dimensia of any kind just depression and frustration on a scale you wouldn't believe. Then if I have to use NLP to explain it too you what's the point ? We get it what's your hold up?
I guess if you don't know yourself "truth" can be a moving target. I just tell you. As factually and direct as I can.

When was YOUR last check up?
edit on 3-2-2014 by cavtrooper7 because: finished my point.

edit on 3-2-2014 by cavtrooper7 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 3 2014 @ 07:34 AM
link   
reply to post by cavtrooper7
 

Yep.
If we don't think like they do, we are nuts.

They are down to that excuse now.




top topics



 
21
<< 23  24  25    27  28  29 >>

log in

join