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.

 

Why Do People Think They Need A Gun?

page: 21
70
<< 18  19  20    22  23 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 6 2015 @ 11:38 AM
link   
At first I was thinking I might go through and tally up everyone who clearly didn't read the post before responding.

Then I read every single comment, and I've concluded (once again) that there are anti-gun people and pro-gun people and they will never agree.

I guess the real question I've got is this-
Why Do People Think I Shouldn't Have A ?

Come into my home and tell me what I can't have, and give me a good reason.
Should I not have a welder?
Should I not have a cutting torch?
Should I not have a soldering iron?
Should I not have a lawnmower?
Should I not have a hatchet?
Should I not have a home foundry?
Should I not have a small forge?
Should I not have a remote controlled flying toy?
Should I not have a razor sharp chefs knife?
Should I not have several hundred gallons of fuel oil?
Should I not have Propane? Diesel fuel? Gasoline?
Should I not have more than a few days worth of food?
Get out of my life, seriously. Go live your own.

They called this place the land of the free, and they set it up intentionally so that the people- the U.S. Citizens, would make the final call on what is right and what is wrong. If we are being told at every turn what we can and can not do, we are not free. We gave it away, and put in place
I'm not harming anyone, why am I being told what I can and cannot have?


There are too many laws and restrictions on what I can and cannot do. Several of those things I've listed I already technically cannot legally use where I live- These are restrictions on my freedom that make no sense, as I am not using any of these things to do anything wrong.

Laws do not determine right and wrong, only legal and illegal.




posted on May, 6 2015 @ 11:43 AM
link   
a reply to: ispyed

Too slow to respond lousy marksmanship compared to me and I ALREADY am prepared for the tresspaser.



posted on May, 6 2015 @ 12:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: Leonidas


Nobody is going to take guns away from Americans, it just wont happen. But the paranoia surrounding the 2nd Amendment continues in spite of that fact.



Certain political groups attempt to chip away at gun rights in every single legislative session. Bills are introduced every year that would enact sweeping restrictions on lawful gun owners.

It is because of the vigilance of gun owners and 2nd Amendment support groups that those bills never make it out of committee. If the day came that gun owners stopped paying attention, the majority of firearms would be banned at the first opportunity.

The "paranoia surrounding the 2nd Amendment" is well founded, trust me. I've been following the situation for 20 years and attempts have been made CONSTANTLY to slip anti-gun legislation through Congress and the ATF has attempted many rule changes that would have drastic effects on gun owners. Politicians are slimy bastards and some of the worst gun laws in place today were passed using dishonest and despicable methods.

I've heard the line many times from ignorant folks: "nobody is coming for your guns... gun nuts are so paranoid" but those folks simply don't pay attention like we do.
edit on 5/6/2015 by Answer because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 6 2015 @ 01:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: NavyDoc

originally posted by: Leonidas
a reply to: smirkley

Except that isn't true everywhere else where Free Speech is a right, but gun owning is not.

Nobody is going to take guns away from Americans, it just wont happen. But the paranoia surrounding the 2nd Amendment continues in spite of that fact.

By the way, many would argue that the rest of the Rights enshrined in the Constitution exist under the protection of the 1st Amendment, not the 2nd.

Heck, they even put them in that order!


Right, they thought freedom of speech was paramount, but they thought the right to keep and bear arms was jsut as important--that's why they put it just after.


That is a common misconception about the American constitution. It doesn't in fact provide any rights. That is not how it is set up.



posted on May, 6 2015 @ 02:10 PM
link   
a reply to: TKDRL



Plenty of guns in canada outside the metro areas. It's way easier to get a long gun in NB, than it was in NY, and I don't gotta register them here. I like the government not knowing what kind of arsenal I have.


Very true, but how many murders or crimes committed using guns take place in Canada...? Shucks, Toronto has a population of 7 million; how many murders take place in Toronto with a population of 7 million overall, with or without guns?

The population of Chicago is 3 million (half the size of Toronto) with currently 119 murders to date for 2015.

www.dnainfo.com...

Toronto's 2015 murders so far to date is: 13

Four of those murders were stabbings. Six were shootings. And three were listed as: other.

The point of my initial post was this: The environment clearly dictates the gun culture (it's use) and not how accessible guns are.

From official Toronto Police Services website: www.torontopolice.on.ca...

*It has right there the 2012,13,14 totals as well:

Murders 2012: 14
Murders 2013: 18
Murders 2014: 18

That is a grand total of 50 murders with only 20% being attributed to guns in a city twice the population as Chicago.



It's way easier to get a long gun in NB, than it was in NY, and I don't gotta register them here. I like the government not knowing what kind of arsenal I have.


I know and the reason (as stats show) is quite simple as to why it so: We are not violent society that needs such guardianship or governance.

"I like the government not knowing what kind of arsenal I have."

You do understand that thought speaks volumes...?

Can you expound on that statement, please?



posted on May, 6 2015 @ 02:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: moniker

originally posted by: NavyDoc

originally posted by: Leonidas
a reply to: smirkley

Except that isn't true everywhere else where Free Speech is a right, but gun owning is not.

Nobody is going to take guns away from Americans, it just wont happen. But the paranoia surrounding the 2nd Amendment continues in spite of that fact.

By the way, many would argue that the rest of the Rights enshrined in the Constitution exist under the protection of the 1st Amendment, not the 2nd.

Heck, they even put them in that order!


Right, they thought freedom of speech was paramount, but they thought the right to keep and bear arms was jsut as important--that's why they put it just after.


That is a common misconception about the American constitution. It doesn't in fact provide any rights. That is not how it is set up.


Provide? No

Protect? Yes



posted on May, 6 2015 @ 02:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: Involutionist
"I like the government not knowing what kind of arsenal I have."

You do understand that thought speaks volumes...?

Can you expound on that statement, please?


Registration, aka "the government knowing what I have", is always the first step toward confiscation.

Why does the government need to know what someone owns?

The United States doesn't have a firearm registration database, regardless what you hear on every TV show and movie ever made.
edit on 5/6/2015 by Answer because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 6 2015 @ 02:26 PM
link   
a reply to: Answer

+1

Same reason they make us register children- can't very well enslave someone you don't know about, and can't very well confiscate tools you don't know about.

Stay away from my things.



posted on May, 6 2015 @ 02:34 PM
link   
a reply to: Involutionist

The cities with the highest crime rates, and gun related crimes are all run by Democrats and have some of the strictest gun control laws implemented in the US. SO...............


And the statement regarding the Govt not knowing about personal arsenals....this is very simple really. It has no business knowing such things.

I don't think 90% of Canadians can even understand this.



posted on May, 6 2015 @ 02:57 PM
link   
a reply to: Answer



Why does the government need to know what someone owns?



It doesn't need to know. That is why TKDRL stated he prefers to come to Canada to purchase ammunition:



It's way easier to get a long gun in NB, than it was in NY, and I don't gotta register them here. I like the government not knowing what kind of arsenal I have.


But then you go on to state:



The United States doesn't have a firearm registration database, regardless what you hear on every TV show and movie ever made.


So, perhaps, TKDRL is wasting a trip up North if that is the case?

If I was to move to Chicago from Toronto I would contemplate owning a gun because of the environment that exist there atm. Your links in the OP clearly shows that violence stretches across America and that is why some feel compelled to propagate gun culture.

I will never actually go through with owning a gun but, the fact that I would consider owning a gun if I was to live there shows (to me at least) that society's overall behaviour where someone resides can influence how we perceive matters.

Why do YOU feel you need a gun?



posted on May, 6 2015 @ 03:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: moniker

originally posted by: NavyDoc

originally posted by: Leonidas
a reply to: smirkley

Except that isn't true everywhere else where Free Speech is a right, but gun owning is not.

Nobody is going to take guns away from Americans, it just wont happen. But the paranoia surrounding the 2nd Amendment continues in spite of that fact.

By the way, many would argue that the rest of the Rights enshrined in the Constitution exist under the protection of the 1st Amendment, not the 2nd.

Heck, they even put them in that order!


Right, they thought freedom of speech was paramount, but they thought the right to keep and bear arms was jsut as important--that's why they put it just after.


That is a common misconception about the American constitution. It doesn't in fact provide any rights. That is not how it is set up.


Where did I say that it provided any rights? We know that the founders believed that these rights are intrinsic to being a human being, they just set up a framework where they recognized those rights and tasked the government to protect, or at least not infringe upon, those rights.
edit on 6-5-2015 by NavyDoc because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 6 2015 @ 03:10 PM
link   
a reply to: macman




I don't think 90% of Canadians can even understand this.



I can only speak for myself, but as someone who has seen 41 states, spent some time taking some of them in (I didn't just pass through,) I understand quite well.

I remember being 20 years old lost in a neighbourhood in Denver. As we circled around looking for the street, we began to notice each time we drove around that more and more people were coming out of their homes onto their front stoops. Some stepped down and folded their arms, tilted their heads up, and glared at us. That is when it dawned on us young naive Canucks that we were out of our element. We found our way before anything came of it.

In any other country that I have become lost while travelling, people intuitively recognized I was lost and kindly pointed me on the way. In Denver, we almost became an unfortunate statistic because of ignorance...



And the statement regarding the Govt not knowing about personal arsenals....this is very simple really. It has no business knowing such things.



That statement was a quote by your fellow American pointing out why he chooses to go to New Brunswick (N.B) for arsenal. Now, since both you and the Answer are aware of this, perhaps TKDRL should be informed.

Gas is expensive.




edit on 6-5-2015 by Involutionist because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 6 2015 @ 03:13 PM
link   

e vast VAST majority of legal concealed carriers are more polite when carrying and avoid confrontation at all costs. Carrying a gun isn't an excuse to walk around like an invincible badass and I've never known anyone to behave that way. Nobody "messes" with me when I walk around without a gun so I certainly don't feel the need to openly display one as some sort of deterrent.


I don't understand your point here. Why act extra polite when carrying a concealed weapon? Why act differently at all. IF the idea is to have the "just in case" protection, which I do get, why not go about life the same way with or without a gun. Saying nobody messes with you when you don't have a gun so you don't feel the need I openly display one is kind of contradictory if you act differently even though you are treated the same way.
You also said that I display ignorance about laws because they would make it harder for law abiding citizens to get access to guns. To me that's the point of a law. It doesn't discriminate. It would make it more difficult for anyone to get a gun.



a reply to: Answer



posted on May, 6 2015 @ 03:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: TheBolt Wouldn't you want to promote that you have a gun so that no one messes with you? If you were going to the bank to make a sizable deposit would you carry the bills in a clear sack for all the undesirables to take note of?



I'm really having a hard time seeing how that is the same thing.


a reply to: Lipton



posted on May, 6 2015 @ 06:35 PM
link   
a reply to: Involutionist
It's none of the government's business what my arsenal is.



posted on May, 6 2015 @ 06:46 PM
link   
a reply to: Involutionist
I don't cross the border to buy ammo, not sure how you got that lol. I used to live in new york, but moved to NB. If I still lived in new york, a bunch of my "assault rifles" would now be illegal, thanks to NY SAFE Act bull# lol.



posted on May, 6 2015 @ 07:19 PM
link   
a reply to: TKDRL




I don't cross the border to buy ammo, not sure how you got that lol.I used to live in new york, but moved to NB. If I still lived in new york, a bunch of my "assault rifles" would now be illegal, thanks to NY SAFE Act bull# lol.


Let me show you:



It's way easier to get a long gun in NB, than it was in NY, and I don't gotta register them here. I like the government not knowing what kind of arsenal I have.


Now, that was posted as response to my initial post. Frankly, I like to know what that comment had to do with my post you responded to. I honestly cannot see the connection.

Despite the fact your comment had nothing to do with my comment, I still responded.

I interpreted your words as taking a trip up to N.B to buy guns to avoid the U.S not knowing.

I only go by what is written. I see re-reading what you meant. Now, if you had stated:

"It's way easier to get a long gun in NB, than it was WHEN I USED TO LIVE in NY, and I don't gotta register them here in N.B. I like the government not knowing what kind of arsenal I have.



If I still lived in new york, a bunch of my "assault rifles" would now be illegal, thanks to NY SAFE Act bull# lol.



So there is registry? Because two posters above mentioned there was non.

Perhaps it is because "arsenal" means two different things to the two above members I responded to than it does to you? One party is referring to bullets and the other guns.

...I simply pasted your words and asked why you liked that idea:



"I like the government not knowing what kind of arsenal I have."


It is ironic because now that you live in N.B, I was told that 90% of Cdns would not get it.

Scrambled eggs anyone...?

ETA: to be fair: I did use the word "ammunition" in my post by accident. Just once.




edit on 6-5-2015 by Involutionist because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 6 2015 @ 08:01 PM
link   
Never had any reason to use a gun to defend myself. The family rule was you could buy your own gun for hunting after you turned 16. Taught to use the gun to kill animals but ONLY if you eat what you shoot. Moved into town with no reason to use the guns. Gave them to my brother in Michigan. Still feels odd not to have them around.
I had a friend who lost his brother to a shooting. If he had something to defend himself he might still be here. The brute who shot him had a long record of trouble with the law but he had the gun so the story ends. The fact that the law forbid him from having a weapon had no effect in the issue.
Ever notice that terrorists attack city folk and not in the country? Much more likely to have citizen resistance in the country than the city.



posted on May, 6 2015 @ 08:36 PM
link   
The world isn't a very pretty place when you get down to the brass tacks. I enjoy not being bothered but you never know when someone is going to try something or try to hurt your family. There's also defense from invaders to take into consideration. I don't own one lightly. I have personal responsibility to only use it in such a case as above. If I have to pull it, I'm prepared for the consequences if I fire it.

That's about it for why I own guns.



posted on May, 7 2015 @ 03:14 AM
link   
Thanks for the OP and the work to put those stories together. I've carried a gun for over 30 years and I am certain it has saved my life on at least three occasions, and I am not even counting the home invasion where I used a gun to chase off four young black man who just walked in at 11pm and began to take things. My son and I were watching TV and saw lights in the landing of the stairway. In that case I only had to point the laser down the stairs as I walked down to get them to run out the back screen door. I will add they did so in such a hurry that they forgot to open it first. I don't think they ever saw the gun, but the laser was a good clue. I would rather die than give up my right to own and carry a gun. Americans must protect this freedom at all cost. In most cases the mere presence of a gun prevented a bad situation from continuing. Except for the home invasion, none of these incidents were ever reported to the police or anyone else, so they do not get recorded. Of course, the MSM would never report those figures even if they existed.



new topics

top topics



 
70
<< 18  19  20    22  23 >>

log in

join