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 outsiders questions on US gun control.

page: 11
12
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 29 2015 @ 02:21 PM
link   
a reply to: cavtrooper7

Though I could put a 380 in my pocket when I go out I typically only have a gun when I'm hiking/camping/mountain bike riding or traveling across country.




posted on Dec, 29 2015 @ 02:42 PM
link   
Most people seem to misunderstand and miss the point that Gun ownership in the United States has a complete different reason behind it.

First it's a constitutional right guaranteed by the 2nd amendment including the very important "shall not be infringed".

It has a very important purpose and that purpose is a implemented in a very clever way is that it creates a "check & balance" situation between the people and it's Government. The founders were smart and gave trust to the Government but with the backdoor if a Government is getting out of control to give the people a tool to change the situation.

It was not long time ago, when people had full control over their Government - not just voting rights but true control and if they gone rouge - the people changed that. However that's long lost - thanks to a true "brainwashing" of people and decade long re-education and political correctness. It's not a conspiracy but true facts.. just look in history books from about 100-150 years ago.



posted on Dec, 29 2015 @ 02:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: mikegrouchy

originally posted by: nonspecific

So how would you feel if a law was passed that meant the owning of any gun you choose was perfectly legal as long as it was in your own home secured or you had a legitimate permit for say hunting or carrying it to a gun range but carrying a gun in public imposed a heavy prison sentance like it does here in the UK?




This sentence perfectly encapsulates everything wrong with the liberal universe.

We The People are the issuing authority. The government has an armed force by our permission. Not the other way around.









1. So how would you feel if a law was passed

Once again emotions are the premise. One that is discussing government regulation. From the outset we are supposed to accept emotion based administration. Or more simply put. Government by Hysteria.



2. that meant the owning of any gun you choose was perfectly legal

The famous second step of comparing things that have nothing to do with each other. The consumerist lingo of choice, to choose, that it's not so bad if we get choosing out of the deal. The reality is that people in this country invent new weapons. We don't just "choose" them. I'm sorry that my not standing in the check out line with you makes you uncomfortable. That I know how to manufacture a weapon more terrible than any on the shelf. That suddenly you want someone to regulate and oversee me. Make me stand in the miserable checkout line. Like you have too. Or you could quit denying reality.


3. as long as it was in your own home secured or you had a 4. legitimate permit for say hunting or carrying it to a gun range but carrying a gun in public imposed a 5. heavy prison sentance like it does here in the UK?

The way the Government justifies their legitimate purpose for droning people to me is that they don't. They just announce their successes after the fact. At no point is there a trial to actually legitimize the murder, to absolve the drone operator and to condemn the issuing chain of command. With, how did you put it, a heavy prison sentance (sp)?















Congratulations on getting 5 out of 5 packed into one single sentence. This may be a new level of density achieved in political/liberal thought. Have we crossed the event horizon yet?










So how do I feel about it.

Galactically disappointed that this is what liberal thought calls dialog and seeking the middle ground.



Mike Grouchy


I understood it perfectly.

And he's right.

The last thing a people wants is legislation base on emotion.

The IRRATIONAL thought process.

The Bill of Rights is a completely RATIONAL thought process that became the highest laws in this country.

Gun control is based on the IRRATIONAL, and DOES violate the highest laws in the country.



posted on Dec, 29 2015 @ 05:38 PM
link   
a reply to: Layaly
No condition. I don't really carry because I'm afraid. I carry because I can, I like to. I don't want to use it, I'm in no way eager, it's just like putting my wallet in my pocket, it doesn't bother anyone being there because they don't know it's there.



posted on Dec, 29 2015 @ 10:16 PM
link   
a reply to: flyandi

Yes, once upon a time guns were an adequate tool for the people to take back power in case a government went rogue, but now, no longer. Even ignoring the massive technological and intelligence advantage the government has over you, they went rogue back in the REAGAN years and no one did anything about it with their guns.

For protection against animals or hunting, I understand.
For protection against humans... Well, Australia seems to be doing fine without them.
But if you say that the purpose of guns is to protect the citizens from the government, I'm just going to laugh. They lost that purpose long ago. Nowadays, it seems the main job of the gun, is for the citizens to protect their right to... Have a gun.
edit on 29/12/2015 by Eilasvaleleyn because: Reasons



posted on Dec, 29 2015 @ 10:55 PM
link   
a reply to: Xtrozero

In the woods yes,I always have a rifle myself.
But for everyday I carry a knife ,I know how to use it and I usually can defeat a civilian without killing them.



posted on Dec, 29 2015 @ 11:52 PM
link   
a reply to: neo96




Gun control is based on the IRRATIONAL, and DOES violate the highest laws in the country.

Sure. It's irrational to try to assure that only rational and responsible people are allowed to own guns.

According to the SCOTUS, who are the ones who ultimately decide this sort of thing, some gun regulations do and some don't violate the Constitution. Those that do, go away.


edit on 12/30/2015 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 30 2015 @ 12:35 AM
link   
a reply to: chefc14

Thank you for the answer .. All answers so far here are completely reasonable

I am just asking as a young female .. There is just something uncomfortable about the situation .. Especially when it comes to kids (by all means this is not the comment : do it for the children.. promise I am just thinking out loud)

Like how do the pro-gun ladys and gens introduce their younglings to guns.. again don't get me wrong me and my dad used to shoot rats together he still goes hunting .. it wouldn't bother me either if he teached me how to use one for defence .. it's also in his house his grandparents house and so on.,


But I will point out I am happy I don't have to worry about it (hope this doesn't provoke anyone)

edit on 30-12-2015 by Layaly because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 30 2015 @ 03:28 AM
link   

originally posted by: Layaly
a reply to: chefc14

Thank you for the answer .. All answers so far here are completely reasonable

I am just asking as a young female .. There is just something uncomfortable about the situation .. Especially when it comes to kids (by all means this is not the comment : do it for the children.. promise I am just thinking out loud)

Like how do the pro-gun ladys and gens introduce their younglings to guns.. again don't get me wrong me and my dad used to shoot rats together he still goes hunting .. it wouldn't bother me either if he teached me how to use one for defence .. it's also in his house his grandparents house and so on.,


But I will point out I am happy I don't have to worry about it (hope this doesn't provoke anyone)

I myself have four daughters, they all know I have them and always have. When my oldest daughter (now 26) started walking I went and bought a wall mounted safe. I didn't want any accidents. My oldest 2 never expressed interest in shooting until recently. My oldest wants me to teach her. My second 2 daughters, the 2 sets are 12 year apart in age. Anyhow they were interested so when they were about 8 and 10 I took them to a friends yard, we went over safety and shot targets. That was enough to feed their interest. A few years later #3 daughter told me she wanted to hunt. This really surprised me because she used to cry when she saw deer hanging in people's yards. We took hunters safety, trained at the rifle range and a year later she brought home a deer. Together we processed it and made some great sausage, jerky, burger and steaks. She now loves it. My youngest is a great shooter but really has no interest. The guns still stay locked up except for the one I carry. When I started to teach them how to shoot my wife was uncomfortable with it. We took her to the range and the girls explained safety to her, they showed her how to handle and shoot rifles and pistols, after that she was glad they learned. She already knew how but I wanted them to explain to her so she'd know they knew. #3 is the little darling at the range. The guys love her, she has had the opportunity to shoot many firearms and has made some good friends. People love to share their interests, it's a good community, at least where I live.
edit on 30-12-2015 by chefc14 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 30 2015 @ 06:14 AM
link   
a reply to: nonspecific

I don't really understand the question. We already HAVE the 2nd Amendment which allows us to do the thing you ask about. All of the laws passed have been gradual erosion of that.

"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."

1934 law added taxes in order to own certain type of arms (IE an infringement.)
1968 law added FFLs and import restrictions. (IE another infringement.)
1986 law banned the importation or making of machine-guns. (more infringement.)
1994 AWB Banned "scary looking guns". Which by the way only realty banned cosmetic things like pistol grips and flash hiders and magazines An AR-15 was "banned" while a Mini-14 was OK. Both were basically the same in operation, caliber and function.

So each of these laws cut a little chunk out of the 2nd.

And before you say they never knew about machine guns and semi autos, let me tell you that is a lie.

1st machine gun - Puckle gun 1718
1st semi auto rifle - Girardoni air rifle 1779 Used by Austrian Army 1780-1815

They also included the idea of Letters of Marquee in the Constitution. Which means they expected for private ships to be armed with cannons.



posted on Dec, 30 2015 @ 06:44 AM
link   

originally posted by: nonspecific

originally posted by: TonyS
a reply to: nonspecific

"how does carrying a loaded weapon in a shopping mall or pizza joint benifit your society? "

www.breitbart.com...

"driver was sitting in his car on Milwaukee Avenue, watching people shuffle back and forth in front of the car just before midnight. As he watched, a gunman raised a weapon and began to fire, so the driver then sprang into action.
According to the Chicago Tribune, 22-year-old Everardo Custodio allegedly “began firing into the crowd,” and the Uber driver fired back. He fired a total of “six shots at Custodio,” striking him three times and wounding him in “the shin, thigh, and lower back.” The attempted mass shooting was over and the the only injuries were to Custodio."

I don't know where you live; I'd have guessed the UK.

The situation in the US is so remarkably different than it is in the UK or Australia that it doesn't surprise me that people in those lands can't understand the US situation. Suffice it to say that the problem is at least two fold. First, no one knows or can have any idea who is circulating around them in public spaces; some are "bad guys" and they carry concealed firearms with intent to do harm and they don't care anything about "laws" regulating firearms. Second, in the US, there isn't a cop or a camera on every corner. The cops are spread very thin and essentially operate on an "on call as needed" basis. They can't "protect" the "good citizens"; and they've come to expect and will even tell you so if you ask, that protecting yourself from violent crime is the citizen's duty, not the cops simply because they can't be everywhere all the time.

Its a far different situation in the US.


As I said in the OP I am in the UK and yes I simply do not understand the need to carry a loaded handgun other than to protect myself from someone else with a loaded hand gun.

If you got a straight 10 years in prison for carring in public how many people would still carry?

That is why not many people get shot in the UK, it's not the lack of fire arms its the trouble you get in for bieng caught with one without reason.


So you get 10 years in jail for carrying?

Sure that would stop the bank robbers from carry a gun, after all they don't want to break a law while breaking a law.

Also the UK has been pacified for hundreds of years. crossbows and guns were banned in the 1500's for most. Interestingly all men 14-140 where required to own and use a longbow in that period. This rule would morp and change over the next 200 years, but the idea of banning and controlling arms was in place. This historical control was the very reason that the 2nd was included in our Constitution. The Founding Fathers did not want the government to be able to do the same thing the British had done to its people. You ib the UK have taken your rights and freedom from the rules over time. In the US the system was setup so the people had the rights to begin with and the 2nd was put in to keep the government from taking them away. Over the years we have forgotten this an allowed the government to take more power then they were originally to have.



posted on Dec, 30 2015 @ 06:44 AM
link   
a reply to: nonspecific

This thread will end up the same way as they always do :

Group A : The, almost exclusively, US gun carrying citzen who believes beyond all doubt that everyone being armed makes for a safer society.
Group B : Those that believe more guns makes for a less safe society.

I'm glad I live in the UK where nobody carries guns even the cops!!!!!!!!!! Nothing's perfect we do have occasional very very occasional incidents. However, almost every single shopping centre, school, street is free from gun violence every single day.

Example of how occasional and "safe" : There is headline news at the moment about an 80 year old pensioner who shot his wife dead in a care home. He shot her with a 1936 enfield. No doubt he kept it from WWII. No idea why he would kill his 80 year old wife yet but we can probably guess.

That's how "dangerous" our gun free society is.

NB every citizen can own a gun if they wish we choose not to......it works Oh, my freaking gawd.



posted on Dec, 30 2015 @ 06:45 AM
link   
a reply to: dismanrc

Look, you really ought to focus less on the rights the government might try to take (and probably fail), and focus more on the ones that have already been taken.

Fourth amendment, anyone?



posted on Dec, 30 2015 @ 06:49 AM
link   
a reply to: Eilasvaleleyn

Not sure about everyone else but I feel I can focus on all of them at the same time.

I fully support the 2nd, 4th, 10th, etc. to as broad a segment of the population as possible.



posted on Dec, 30 2015 @ 07:11 AM
link   

originally posted by: nonspecific

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: nonspecific
As I said in the OP the issue was not the owning of a gun or multiple ones but carring them in public without good reason.


You do not need a reason to exercise your rights.


This again is something I simply fail to understand, the issue of Rights.

I see this a lot for US members, I often wonder as to the way the world changed over the years.

The people that created these rights could not have forseen drug and gang culture when this "right" was given, does not law need to evolve with society?



It goes to history.

In the UK you started with NO rights. Any rights you have now have been given to you by the Monarchy. That was the whole point when they setup the US. They looked at the history of Europe and how the people slowly ripped rights from the Monarchy over the period of hundreds of years. The idea here was that the PEOPLE where to hold the power not the government. That is why these Rights where included to insure that the government NEVER became to powerful. Also if you read the Constitution, the governments power is very limited and the 10th Amendment says that ALL other power NOT written in the document fall to the states or the PEOPLE. Over the years we have ALLOWED the government to take more power then they where to have. Sometime for the good, sometimes not. The issue is that if you start handing over your power then you begin to lose that power. Government is a necessary evil.

As for changing with time. There are four different ways to change the Constitution and we have done it 18 times. It was not supposed to be easy because they didn't want some fad that came along to make a big impact. Look at what happen when we changed it for prohibition after knee jerk reaction. That action lead to the major point behind the creation of organized crime and the troubles we still have with it today.



posted on Dec, 30 2015 @ 07:41 AM
link   

originally posted by: nonspecific

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: nonspecific

Every decision government makes in the form of a law is a decision the individual cannot make for him or herself. It is a removal of liberty.

So when you ask why people are opposed to gun control, it is because, thanks to your ancestral government, we had to pick up our weapons and fight with them for our right to exercise our liberty, we still remember how important it is to exercise that fundamental choice for ourselves rather than letting our government make it for us.

Think about all the times your find out there is a law preventing this or that or regulating this or that and you find it irritating. The odds are you find it irritating because it gets in the way of a choice you would have made for yourself, a choice that may have made more and better sense for you in your individual situation but that you were prevented from making by the government which often, in its infinite lack of wisdom, makes decision for everyone without being able to adequately address everyone's situation.



Well I think thats the thing here, I don't really have an issue with the laws in the UK.

Altough out 2 party system is a sham and we have unjust wars against other countries our actual laws and system makes a lot of sense to me.

I am not all that scared of the govenment taking way my rights and liberties because they can't really do that and if it gets too bad we will just moan until they back down to pressure.

I think that is my fundemental issue here, that the US is suposedly a democracy yet is in perpetual fear of there elected representitives?

Why are you so distrusting of your own elected leaders? Genuine question here as I distrust ours but not so much that I need to really worry about it.




But we are NOT a democracy, and never have been. We are a Representative Republic. People tend to forget that little item.



posted on Dec, 30 2015 @ 08:09 AM
link   

originally posted by: nonspecific

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: nonspecific

I am saying we learned our lesson about governments and how they can turn on you.

But I see that in your annoyance about me bringing up our origins and where and how we got our start, you completely ignore that we have many in our country from places that also have dictatorial, brutal governments, many in our country who came from Soviet Bloc nations.

You ignore their influence.

Are you saying their fears of government are also unjustified?



I understand this but can you not see that your nation is very young as far as they go?

You act as if you are the first country that has had to deal with immigration, diveristy and religious disharmony?

Yes the US is diverse but that is what cultures are.

With no disrepect whatsoever the US is young. Europe was doing this before the US was created.

It is hard to put this into words without sounding offensive but it is the truth. Some of us left to make you because of it and it was old news then. This is not an insult but I imagine it could be deemed one.



The US is actually the OLDEST government that has operated without any major changes to our governing system.

The UK as we know it started in 1688, BUT There has had a few major changes sense 1789.
1832,1867, 1884, 1911, 1918, 1928 and 1936. The majority of the changes where under Queen Victoria.

The UK has a longer historical tradition, but the actual system in place now only came about in the mid 1800's, when the last of the power was transferred from the royals to the Parliament, and then again in 1911 when the House of Commons became the controlling house. The US system has not changed sense 1789. Many laws yes, the system no.



posted on Dec, 30 2015 @ 09:41 AM
link   
a reply to: chefc14

that was a really awesome answer I love stories like that I truly appreciate it



posted on Dec, 30 2015 @ 09:52 AM
link   
a reply to: dismanrc

Your Representative Republic is administrated by representatives who are elected by way of a DEMOCRATIC vote, therefore, whatever else your nation might be, it IS a democracy. You cannot have a truly representative republic, UNLESS you have democracy also, because it becomes a tyranny. You have BOTH, and I am becoming extremely bored of having to explain as much.



posted on Dec, 30 2015 @ 10:05 AM
link   

originally posted by: Sublimecraft
a reply to: nonspecific

gunundrum


I see what you did there.



new topics

top topics



 
12
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join