Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

The Gun Debate

page: 1
7
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on Apr, 4 2014 @ 12:20 AM
link   
This is my first thread and it is bound to be a controversial one.

Here we go again, another shooting, another debate about gun control. Something needs to change, is it more guns, or less. Either way something needs to happen. Yet guns are so deeply entwined into American culture that such change is hard


I hereby open the Debate about gun control


I believe that owning a gun should be earned. Earned in such a way as to show you are mature enough to own one. There are far, far to many immature and reckless people who should not own one yet still do. And it is getting worse, with the new "Smart Rifle" out that is so easy a 12 year old girl can hit a 3 inch disc at 500 yards


If a 12 year old can do that what could a insane person do?. tag a victim, kill him and record it, post instantly to facebook. They say the gun is smart but i look forward to a gun smart enough to turn off when confronted with a class full of kids. There's really no skill involved in shooting these. No training, just matching colors and pulling a trigger

And the second amendment argument is null and void. they said you could own muskets to defend your state, not self aiming snipers that can kill you from 1000 plus yards

I think restrictions on people are in place. A crazy person should have no place around guns, yet it keeps happening Something needs to change. But it likely never will, the NRA and gun nuts wont budge, they bully people into making decisions and it needs to stop.

We need change

Edit: Video is broken, here is link. www.youtube.com...
edit on 4-4-2014 by Idiosonic because: Broken video



+1 more 
posted on Apr, 4 2014 @ 12:30 AM
link   
reply to post by Idiosonic
 


I think the only "nuts with guns" are the criminals that don't need a license or permit or registration or ID to get a weapon.

There needs to be a law against that



The 12 year old girl in the video is not a criminal.

It looked more like sport shooting in a controlled environment.

Not the best example of criminals on the loose with guns.



here's the vid.....



posted on Apr, 4 2014 @ 12:33 AM
link   
I always think that the idea of the constitution was correct in it's day but now, to throw the government you'd need some pretty exotic hardware and software, muskets just wouldn't cut it. Bottom line....If Americans are using the constitution as an argument to own firearms to oust a malformed government, a serious amendment is in order!



posted on Apr, 4 2014 @ 12:38 AM
link   
reply to post by Idiosonic
 


The best part of the gun debate is knowing all that stands between myself and my guns is a liberal.

You cant pay for your own healthcare but think youre going to take my guns??




posted on Apr, 4 2014 @ 12:40 AM
link   
And who among us will decide who is crazy, who is sane, who is mature, who is immature? You?

No, the Constitution of the United States and its Second Amendment is NOT null and void because you think so. The rights afforded by this constitution are inherent, not to be earned.

Can I call you an anti-gun nut? Thanks in advance.





posted on Apr, 4 2014 @ 12:40 AM
link   
Umm i am a gun owner , and i live in CA ,i don't know about other states but CA is one of the hardest states to get a gun..

Firstly Any domestic charges or violent charges .. Be it felonious or misdemeanor .
YOUR NOT GETTING A GUN.
also if you have ANY psychological issues YOUR NOT GETTING A GUN ..

It's not about restricting guns , a psycho is going to kill regardless , many options kife,gun,bomb, Poison.. Ect ect ..

But guess what i would feel safer knowing that teacher or store owner ,or my neighbor was packing heat!

ETA: any" Responsible " person could SNAP
At any time ... Just saying.

On the contrary we need lessor restriction !


Humbly

LSH
edit on 047121230447412th by LightningStrikesHere because: (no reason given)
edit on 054121230454412th by LightningStrikesHere because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 4 2014 @ 12:42 AM
link   
reply to post by xuenchen
 


I was not perpetuating she was a criminal, just showing how easy to operate this gun is. " if a 12 year old girl can hit a 3 inch target from 500 yards what could a real criminal with bad intentions do



posted on Apr, 4 2014 @ 12:47 AM
link   
Amendment II

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.



The "well regulated militia" is a separate statement from "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms"

Both however, "shall not be infringed".




posted on Apr, 4 2014 @ 12:49 AM
link   

Idiosonic
reply to post by xuenchen
 


I was not perpetuating she was a criminal, just showing how easy to operate this gun is. " if a 12 year old girl can hit a 3 inch target from 500 yards what could a real criminal with bad intentions do


I understand.

But the criminal will get that anyway.

Are you suggesting they somehow "outlaw" those types of weapons globally?

If so, how would you propose to enforce that?

And how does the 2nd Amendment affect your answers or views?



posted on Apr, 4 2014 @ 12:54 AM
link   
reply to post by Idiosonic
 




I was not perpetuating she was a criminal, just showing how easy to operate this gun is. " if a 12 year old girl can hit a 3 inch target from 500 yards what could a real criminal with bad intentions do


So we should only be allowed to protect ourselves if the weapons are difficult to use?

The easier the gun is to operate, the better, in my opinion. People - yes, even 12 year-old-girls - are not as stupid as you think they are.

A real criminal with bad intentions could do a lot of damage, but a 12 year-old-girl with a gun can stop him every time.



posted on Apr, 4 2014 @ 12:56 AM
link   
What gives you the right to tell me that I can't defend myself from bad guys with a gun?
You can depend on others for defense if you wish. That is your right. Nobody will force you to buy weapons.
I don't own a gun to protect myself from a tyrannical government---I own guns to protect myself from criminals and you have no right to take away my best defense. The government didn't give me that right---my Creator gave me that right---that's why the Declaration states: "We hold these Truths to be self-evident (meaning that anyone who is sentient can understand) that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights (not something that can be sold or transferred), that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness..."
If you don't believe in the precepts expressed in that document, I cordially invite you to find a country where your philosophy is embraced.



posted on Apr, 4 2014 @ 01:01 AM
link   
reply to post by Idiosonic
 

This is my rifle. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
My rifle is my best friend. It is my life. I must master it as I must master my life.
My rifle, without me, is useless. Without my rifle, I am useless. I must fire my rifle true. I must shoot straighter than my enemy who is trying to kill me. I must shoot him before he shoots me. I will...
My rifle and I know that what counts in this war is not the rounds we fire, the noise of our burst, nor the smoke we make. We know that it is the hits that count. We will hit...
My rifle is human, even as I, because it is my life. Thus, I will learn it as a brother. I will learn its weaknesses, its strength, its parts, its accessories, its sights and its barrel. I will keep my rifle clean and ready, even as I am clean and ready. We will become part of each other. We will...
Before God, I swear this creed. My rifle and I are the defenders of my country. We are the masters of our enemy. We are the saviors of my life.
So be it, until victory is America's and there is no enemy, but peace!

en.m.wikipedia.org...'s_Creed

Simply put...





posted on Apr, 4 2014 @ 01:01 AM
link   

Idiosonic

And the second amendment argument is null and void. they said you could own muskets to defend your state, not self aiming snipers that can kill you from 1000 plus yards



Sorry to burst your bubble, Caesar, but if rights only mean what you personally think they should mean, and not what is explicitly written, they are worthless. The constitution protects the rights of the individual from the tyranny of the collective will. It's very purpose is to specifically withdraw and protect rights from your personal political opinion.

A portion of society cannot just haphazardly eliminate portions of the constitution they don't like. Read article 5 of the US constitution. I think it's still the law.



The framers of the Constitution employed words in their natural sense; and where they are plain and clear, resort to collateral aids to interpretation is unnecessary and cannot be indulged in to narrow or enlarge the text. -U.S. Supreme Court, McPherson v. Blacker



When a legislature undertakes to proscribe the exercise of a citizen's constitutional rights it acts lawlessly and the citizen can take matters into his own hands and proceed on the basis that such a law is no law at all. – Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas



All laws which are repugnant to the Constitution are null and void. – U.S. Supreme Court, Marbury vs Madison
edit on 04America/Chicago30am2014-04-04T01:27:40-05:00201404America/Chicago30 by METACOMET because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 4 2014 @ 01:11 AM
link   
There's not much to debate IMO.

"Gun Control" as it stands negates the statement "shall not be infringed" as a whole. ANY legislatation or legislators that prevents, convicts and or prosecutes otherwise innocent american civilians should be deemed treasonous.

I do believe these rights not privileges to be inherent and God given...as did those before me.



posted on Apr, 4 2014 @ 01:14 AM
link   
First less then 50% would turn there guns in.

I would not take less then full value for my guns.

The US government could not afford to buy back every ones guns at full value.

That means they have the only resort of force or threatening people to turn in there guns for no monitory return.

I spent over $10,000 on my guns and everything that went with them.(worth more then that now that is what i payed for many of them years ago.)

I would drop them in a deep lake before i would GIVE them to the government



posted on Apr, 4 2014 @ 01:31 AM
link   
She is adorable, reminds me of "hit girl" from the kickass movies.

So what if shes a good shooter? Any insane madman can buy a gun, shooting it accurately as per the video, is a taught skill, i cant shoot as good as her and ive handled weapons my whole life.

That girl is one in a million, i dont think people need to leap to this threads thoughts.

ALSO [edit] i should add its her father that put the gun in her hands and showed her how to shoot, if she didnt have that gun she would be playing with my little ponys and barbies.
edit on b3333119 by Biigs because: (no reason given)


(post by Idiosonic removed for a manners violation)

posted on Apr, 4 2014 @ 01:44 AM
link   
Question for the gun grabbers: When an unforeseen emergency arises, what do you do for protection? You call the police, right? Why? BECAUSE THEY HAVE GUNS.

This is not an ownership issue, it's an issue of personal responsibiity. Give up your guns if you wish. I'll consider following after all the criminals turn theirs in too.



posted on Apr, 4 2014 @ 01:44 AM
link   
reply to post by TiedDestructor
 


NO infringements? Would you be ok with someone who is depressed, suicidal, and openly wants to "go out with a bang" (killing lots of kids) have a gun? you cant infringe on his rights so say goodbye to 20 odd 5 year olds



posted on Apr, 4 2014 @ 01:45 AM
link   
reply to post by WatchingFromtheShadows
 


I am not talking about a gun grab, i am talking about grabbing some people from owning guns





new topics

top topics



 
7
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join