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.

 

Liberals (Progresives) that are anti-gun have a mental illness

page: 4
18
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 14 2014 @ 12:48 PM
link   
reply to post by SWCCFAN
 


Ya I really don't care for your graphs as i said few post ago there are graphs for both side of the debate .




posted on Feb, 14 2014 @ 12:49 PM
link   
reply to post by freedomSlave
 


You see that where you are wrong. I told a teacher she did nothing I told the principle he did nothing. I told my mom she called the police. They took a report and did nothing. I skipped school for a week and went back only when the police picked me up an took me to school. The shooting happen on my way home a block from my house.

The cops showed up and did NOTHING!



posted on Feb, 14 2014 @ 12:51 PM
link   
reply to post by freedomSlave
 


What matters is the sources and the facts. You can skew the facts and make a graph look anyway you want. But when you get the raw facts then you can find the truth.



posted on Feb, 14 2014 @ 12:57 PM
link   
reply to post by SWCCFAN
 


I'm going to nit-pick this one. Not an attack as I am not in your situation.

Who in their right mind would consider using birdshot to defend their home?

I do have birdshot, and the only thing I shoot at with are birds. Not people.

If some idiot were to break into my house, chances are that he would find all sorts of deadly things thrown or swung at him/her.

And if I make to my .12 guage, it's game over. Double Aught Buck.



posted on Feb, 14 2014 @ 01:01 PM
link   

freedomSlave
reply to post by SWCCFAN
 


Ok so this game lol



Look i can find graphs and charts too

What was your point now brother

link to graph
edit on 14/2/14 by freedomSlave because: (no reason given)


link doesn't seem to be working here is site if u care to cut and paste it

www.whichcountry.co...
edit on 14/2/14 by freedomSlave because: (no reason given)


Bur your chart is not based off a percentage of population as it states, as the crime rate is a percentage, not a total number.

For example, Brittain is for more dangerous than America by the numbers, as the US population is many times larger, but only has less than twice the number of crimes.

Just saying man, at least post stats that actually matter.



posted on Feb, 14 2014 @ 01:04 PM
link   
reply to post by TDawgRex
 


The first 2 are #6 bird shot the rest are 3" magnum 000 buckshot. I have done testing on #6 birdshot and at 20' in balistic gell it penatrates about 6" with 4 layers of denim.

Here is a video of various rounds:



Added a better video:


edit on 1852014-02-14T13:13:18-06:002014-02-14T13:13:18-06:00fpm2 by SWCCFAN because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 14 2014 @ 01:08 PM
link   
reply to post by SWCCFAN
 


I won't say you are racist. That is totally and easily wrong. Were you attacked by two black kids (Gangbangers?), yes.

Are the most hard struck cities ran by democrats with a democratic voter base? Again, yes.

Stop taking it personal. Don't let other define you. Stand up for your 2d amendment rights, and 1st and so forth. They are all interlinked together. Without one. They all fall.

Most people are just that. People. If the local police here in East Cleveland would deputize some of the locals, I guar,,,an…damn…tee you would see a different town within a year.

And it would probably be for the better.



posted on Feb, 14 2014 @ 01:12 PM
link   

SWCCFAN
reply to post by TDawgRex
 


The first 2 are #6 bird shot the rest are 3" magnum 000 buckshot. I have done testing on #6 birdshot and at 20' in balistic gell it penatrates about 6" with 4 layers of denim.

Here is a video of various rounds:



Kinetic shock and the various damage done...

I would say my argument holds. It's game over for the perp.



posted on Feb, 14 2014 @ 01:13 PM
link   
I consider myself a a moderate liberal on social issues and labeling a segment of the US population as insane does the conservative cause no favors.

I am also a gun owner and member of the NRA, enjoy shooting sports and have a very dangerous self defense weapon.

However I favor anyone that is an alcohol, drug abuser [and that includes prescription meds] or convicted of domestic abuse, be stripped of their right to own a firearm. Im sick of all the drunks on New Years and July 4th firing their guns into the air.

If you can't be trusted to use substances responsibility then how can you be trusted with a firearm?
edit on 14-2-2014 by olaru12 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 14 2014 @ 01:29 PM
link   
reply to post by olaru12
 


Let me clarify.

Anti-gun position = insanity

Many progressive liberals hold that view point. My father in law holds this view point and when shown facts he becomes agitated and yells curses and claims I am using a fox news source.

This man has a Masters degree in psychology and a BS in computer science I would call him very intelligent.

But he has been brainwashed by the MSM.

After 2 years of showing him empirical evidence to support my point of view he still attacks the source.

Kinda hard to argue with FBI stats ....



posted on Feb, 14 2014 @ 01:43 PM
link   
reply to post by SWCCFAN
 


Double Aught Buck still rules! In all your video tests.

Sorry. It just is what it is. Kinetic shock, plus penetration. Yowza!

I would worry about my nieghbors though.



posted on Feb, 14 2014 @ 02:18 PM
link   
reply to post by TDawgRex
 


Yes 00 buck is far superior to bird shot in every way In 2 3/4" you have 9 .30 cal pellets. If one were to miss it could severely injure or even kill a person in the next room. That is why I avoid using for home defense. Bird shot has far less mass per pellet vs 00 buck thus after going through a wall it is not likely to kill should some pellets miss.

However there is a chance that bird shot will not stop or knock down with the first shot. My first firearms instructor told me anything worth shooting once was worth shooting again. So if 2 rounds of bird shot do not stop the threat I up the power and risk to others but using 000 Buck which is 12 .36 cal pellets. 1 shot center mass will do the job but I am worried about what is behind my target as well as any good firearms owner should be.

Cops seem to get away with having stray bullets hit un-intended targets, however a normal person is not so lucky.

The anti-gun argument is not really anti-gun it is about who can own and possess guns. Unfortunately there are no national stats that show how many people are killed or injured by Law Enforcement.



2 bystanders were shot by NYPD. Nothing happen to the officers.



posted on Feb, 14 2014 @ 02:47 PM
link   
reply to post by SWCCFAN
 





I'm Not being funny.... but you're not citing your sources and your you're using tabloid gutter press to back up your argument.
I know that graph is the Daily Mail, it has their stink all over it.
Pasting meaningless graphs from the gutter press to try and prove the most ridiculous concept possible.

More guns means less violence.

That is literally what you believe.

And you're willing to use the Tabloid press and scaremongering red-tops to prove your point.

It's just pathetic.


This is how you're viewed.

Probably the funniest take on the situation out there....but still fairly serious.




You should be ashamed of yourselves.
edit on 14/2/14 by blupblup because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 14 2014 @ 03:05 PM
link   
reply to post by SWCCFAN
 


Why exactly is it difficult to argue with FBI statistics? Because they see and solve all crimes in full detail, are completely disconnected from politics, and compulsively tell the truth in full even when it's not in their interest?

Everyone thinks they know exactly how the world works and could easily cut through other people's BS and get good results if only they had the power, but as many conservatives will tell you we haven't made much progress since we tried and failed to end violence with the ten commandments.

Violence, predation, and death are immutable consequences of life and any conflict between two sides claiming the power to solve the problem is merely a self-interested exercise in fuzzy accounting.

You can clearly see this in the fact that the homicide rate in Iraq had been depicted on a map in this thread as comparable to that in Canada. Clearly what counts as a homicide depends on who does the killing and who does the counting.

Have the guns, don't have the guns, have any laws or system of government you want, and the total amount of will being imposed by force will not change, only the manifestation will.

At the end of the day, neither side has an answer, rather each has chosen a different imperfect strategy for how to make it someone other than them who is imposed upon.

Why not stop trying to outsmart eachother with different data sets and interpretations thereof as if it was going to bring change on the superficial legal issue, and just play the hand you've been dealt according to your own strategy without bickering?

Do you not see how absurd it is on both sides that people who swear that legal guns in the hands of lawful citizens are harmless are afraid that legal guns in the hands of law enforcement will be used against them by order of people who are against all guns?

Here is my admittedly unrealistic comprise proposal, which I maintain makes at least as much sense as the two mainstream views.
Automatic death penalty for owning or using a gun under even the most justified circumstances, but the government can never investigate anyone for it in any way no matter how justified (but can investigate homicides). Keeping your gun for contingencies is then a wash- roughly equal in its chance to save or kill you. Using it becomes a big risk, but one preferable to certain death. In a sense both sides get what they want when they want it most- the ugliness of reality swept under the rug for the left, and a security blanket for the right. When it actually comes to violence things will be basically the same but everyone will be happier with the normal veneer of order.



posted on Feb, 14 2014 @ 03:08 PM
link   

SWCCFAN
reply to post by RedShirt73
 


They can say that but the facts oppose that viewpoint.


How so? And which facts would you be referring to?



posted on Feb, 14 2014 @ 03:40 PM
link   
reply to post by SWCCFAN
 


Now you know how i feel about abortion clinic nuts.

really you value life so much you want to blow someone up?

smh



posted on Feb, 14 2014 @ 03:41 PM
link   
This is America where the US Constitution is the supreme law of the land.

The second amendment clearly states:

"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"

let me break this down for you.

The well regulated militia is not the ARMY or the National Guard. They are not mentioned once in the constitution. So what is this Militia that is talked about in the Constitution? It is the people who have arms exactly the same as the military has ( in 1789 anyways). They are subject to the states if organized. As today's militia (normal citizens) they are not organized but can choose to equip themselves should the need to be organized by the state arises. The Militia (dick) act of 1903 outlines this.

Why do the states and thus the citizens need a militia?

Because the founders saw it necessary to ensure the security of living in a free state. They were in fear of a strong centralized power like the English crown gaining overall control.

That fear in my opinion is starting to become a reality thanks to the brainwashed progressive anti-gun lobby.

The supreme court of the US has ruled twice in recent history that keeping (owning) and bearing (to carry) arms is an individual right.

These people that push the anti-gun arguments are un-American and should be tried for treason.

TO SEEK TO DISARM AMERICAN CITIZENS GIVES AID AND COMFORT TO AMERICA'S ENEMIES.

However the 1st amendment protects that speech so they have that right and I would not try to take that away.

If gun owners were as crazy and the anti-gun lobby believes they are why are they still drawing breath?

Because their argument is invalid and since they keep making it over and over again they are insane!



posted on Feb, 14 2014 @ 03:44 PM
link   
reply to post by blupblup
 


Your view is kind of hypocritical with Walter White as your avatar. But the left is rife with hypocrisy. You should be ashamed of yourselves.



posted on Feb, 14 2014 @ 03:49 PM
link   

grey580
reply to post by SWCCFAN
 


Now you know how i feel about abortion clinic nuts.

really you value life so much you want to blow someone up?

smh


Lets talk about abortion.

Life begins at conception.

If a person shoots a pregnant woman its a double homicide in all 50 states
Drink and drive and accidental Kill a pregnant woman in a car crash double vehicular manslaughter
Assault a pregnant woman and it lead to miscarriage the person can be charged with murder.

However when a woman decides that being pregnant is inconvenient she can kill the fetus with the help of a doctor who is violating their Hippocratic Oath, it is all ok .... just a medical procedure ...

Taking another persons life for no good reason is wrong. period end of story.

If you are pro abortion what about killing a 1 week old because its inconvenient? By your logic it should be ok right?




posted on Feb, 14 2014 @ 03:55 PM
link   

SWCCFAN
reply to post by freedomSlave
 


It's actually quite simple. Lets take Chicago, IL for example:

1. Controlled by anti-gun liberals
2. Strong anti-gun laws
3. High rates of violent and non-violent crime.



Can you find a pro-gun area of the country that can match the crime stats?


Time for a straw man argument. Might as well call up Al Gore and the Prince Charles global warming is real too didn't you know? LoL wait they have no facts to support either argument. GET READY FOR THE MAH FEELINGS TRUMP YOUR RIGHTS.

Silly progressive liberals.




top topics



 
18
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join