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.
Originally posted by Mr Tranny
Originally posted by newcovenant
This isn't true. None of it.
Nice concise retort. You just disproved it all with that well written statement.
How can you balance the death of children with the fear of government takeover?
There is no way to balance two mutually exclusive things.
About 40% of gun sales are made without a background check to see if the purchaser is a criminal or otherwise prohibited from buying guns.
In 1993, Congress passed the Brady Bill, named for President Reagan’s press secretary James Brady, who had been critically wounded in the assassination attempt on President Reagan.
The Brady Bill created a system of background checks that helped to make real the purpose of the 1968 law.
Unfortunately, incomplete records and loopholes in the law have stopped background checks from doing their job:
• The Columbine killers got around the system by using guns bought at a gun show from an unlicensed seller: no paperwork, no questions asked.
• At Virginia Tech, a killer got a gun he should have been prohibited from buying because his records were never reported to the FBI’s gun background check system.
• The shooter in Tucson also got a gun he should have been prohibited from buying because his records weren’t in the database – and then got a second gun because lax federal regulations frustrated the intent of the law.
Most murders that take place with illegal guns do not make the headlines.
Every day, 34 Americans are murdered with guns, and most of them are possessed illegally.
Originally posted by newcovenant
Originally posted by Mr Tranny
Originally posted by newcovenant
This isn't true. None of it.
Nice concise retort. You just disproved it all with that well written statement.
I said>
How can you balance the death of children with the fear of government takeover?
You said>
There is no way to balance two mutually exclusive things.
Huh? wt..?
What is mutually exclusive?
What cancels the other out?
and it just gets worse from there. Besides...
It's all your opinion. You are entitled to it. I am not going to change your mind and facts don't seem to matter. You could have looked up this yourself instead of whining...."why don't you tell him...?" Why don't you try a simple search? Because it is easier to call someone a liar first... right? What great character you show. Cartoon.
www.bradycenter.org...
About 40% of gun sales are made without a background check to see if the purchaser is a criminal or otherwise prohibited from buying guns.
reply to post by newcovenant
And if you...
Originally posted by Propulsion
reply to post by newcovenant
And if you...
Yeah, I can say that until hell freezes over, and even then, it will probably never happen...edit on 31-12-2012 by Propulsion because: (no reason given)
reply to post by Mr Tranny
Lets take a look at one portion of my post you say “is not true”. “The trampling of the 4th that you so decry is one of the very thing that helps the government to stop things like this from happening.” The forth is the amendment against unreasonable search and seizure. Is it safe to say …. A government that does not respect the law against unreasonable search and seizure will find it a lot easier to find “items designed to hurt people” that people are hiding in their homes. For, if they can search the place on a whim that he may be hiding something, then they will be more likely to search a place, and thusly, be a lot more likely to find something that someone may be building to kill people with. Thusly, if the government tramples the fourth amendment, it will be easier for them to catch people that want to hurt people with things they are hiding. If those statements are false, please tell me where that logic breaks down.
Originally posted by newcovenant
Are you for or against government being able to come in and search peoples homes? I mean...I can't tell. This is a portion of the communication problem here. Maybe its me?
You was saying that restricting the second amendment would help stop things like these mass shootings from happening.
Originally posted by newcovenant
reply to post by Mr Tranny
You were good up until this sentence but this is a lie. I never proposed restricting the 2nd amendment. It allows for regulation. That alone will not stop shootings from happening but enforcing the requirements already on the books will be one in a number of steps to help. I just don't understand people who are against that.
You was saying that restricting the second amendment would help stop things like these mass shootings from happening.
edit on 2-1-2013 by newcovenant because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by newcovenant
8 kids a day killed in a gun related death. I wonder what other freedoms cost that much to maintain? I am not saying it isn't worth it...or on second thought...maybe I am.
Originally posted by newcovenant
Before you all jump on me I DON'T THINK THE PEOPLE OF THE US who own guns should be disarmed.
I think people NEED GUNS TO PROTECT THEMSELVES in many situations, and whether or not they do should be up to them but I think you can own a gun and still recognize a problem, and come together and help with solutions.