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.

 

Gun ownership: Because you can? Or because you need?

page: 7
9
<< 4  5  6   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 4 2016 @ 09:53 AM
link   
a reply to: Jubei42

I think most of us would agree that keeping firearms out of the hands of criminals and crazies is a good thing. The problem lies in turning that 'good thing' into a workable policy, especially considering that some in Congress and elsewhere aren't interested in the slightest in protecting the rights of the law-abiding, but rather in pushing a general agenda against gun rights. As a result, there's no functional level of trust between the two sides on this issue and no possibility of cooperation.




posted on Jan, 4 2016 @ 10:24 AM
link   
a reply to: stormbringer1701

Interesting twist of logic there, actually completely untwisted.

Morals cannot be legislated, especially by legislators who have few, if any real morals at all.

Governments are for those who will allow themselves to be governed, out of laziness, instead of governing themselves.

By the crazy people, for the crazy people, of the crazy people.

It hasn't always been this way.

I tire of suffering the consequences of the mistakes of others...



posted on Jan, 7 2016 @ 04:39 AM
link   
Up in the woods everyone should have guns and learn how to respectfully use them. Its important. Hunting is a way of life for many. But THEY CANT take them away ! I sincerely believe That Americans will fight for their right to have ARs, and they should. Because after taking away ARs then your bolt action hunting rifle is a "sniper rifle used for warfare " and can be taken away as well. I dont think that they can or will take our guns away. I used to tell everyone that Obama has expanded gun owners rights. Now it looks like hes finally pressing like I hoped he wouldnt. I voted for that asshole. damnit.
I dyno what the answer is to all thr gun violence in chiraq and Detroit and whatnot. I just dont know. I live in rural northern wi where there is not a lot of gun crime.
I do know that Chicago has heavy gun control laws but a lot more crime. i duno.
DONT TAKE OUR GUNS AWAY OBAMA GOD DAMN IT BANANAS. id be stock in up on assault style weapons and AMMO. Ill bet they up the price of goddamn ammo too.



posted on Jan, 7 2016 @ 06:15 AM
link   
a reply to: brace22



Gun ownership: Because you can? Or because you need?


Because I learned to like and respect them in the military.
Because I like solid home defense capability.
Because I like to target shoot.

My question would be why in the heck does there need to be a politically-fed drive to strip them away from legal, law-abiding owners while, at the same time, street gangs run rampage with practically no official opposition.

Have a nice day



posted on Jan, 10 2016 @ 01:41 AM
link   
Almost 33'000 people were killed in the US last year in road traffic collisions. The single greatest factor when discussing fatalities caused by RTCs is speed. Even slight increases in speed results in significantly greater chance of dying in a crash.

This borne in mind, why do people own cars that are capable of travelling in excess of the national speed limit?
Why do people own high performance cars?
Why do people own vehicles with high torque/acceleration?
Why do people own custom cars?
These are not needed to carry out the tasks required for the average vehicle commute.

And the right to drive isn't even a RIGHT in the US - it is a privilege.

Are there any seperate registration requirements for vehicles with high performance/torque/large engines etc? Does a driver have to pay a tax to add items to their vehicle which improves it's performance?
edit on 10-1-2016 by PaddyInf because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 10 2016 @ 01:48 AM
link   
a reply to: PaddyInf

Please don't use that argument, even as anti-gun control (for the US) I think it's silly. You're comparing apples with aircraft carriers. Cars are not designed to shoot things.
edit on 10/1/2016 by Eilasvaleleyn because: Reasons



posted on Jan, 10 2016 @ 02:23 AM
link   
a reply to: Eilasvaleleyn

The question the OP asked was regarding can or need. My argument is that there are many reasons to own an item. We do not all own things just because we can or need. Drivers do not need to have a fast car, they want to. Shooters do not need to own an AR platform, but many want to. What an item is designed to do is irrelevant.



posted on Jan, 10 2016 @ 02:31 AM
link   
a reply to: PaddyInf

Really? Irrelevant? Guess I should go apply for nuke-ownership, then. After all, if what an item was designed to do is irrelevant, there shouldn't be anything wrong with owning a weapon designed for the destruction of cities, right?



posted on Jan, 10 2016 @ 02:48 AM
link   
a reply to: Eilasvaleleyn

Nuke (or car!) ownership is not a right in the US. Gun ownership is.
edit on 10-1-2016 by PaddyInf because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 23 2016 @ 01:52 PM
link   
it is fast becoming a Need...

especially evident in the EU where millions of horny males from Muslim lands in the mid east and north Africa are overwhelming the host nations that are giving refuge to these migrants seeking safety


women in the USA are also getting weapons and concealed carry permits/instruction

yep, the religion of peace is turning out to be the mob of piece-of-A-- addicts, who completely disregard the host nations rules/laws/customs/culture/morals/etc.

the growing case of EU Vigilantes, righting-the-wrongs gives me satisfaction (cue the rolling stones song here)



posted on Jan, 23 2016 @ 01:57 PM
link   





Need


edit on 23-1-2016 by madenusa because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
9
<< 4  5  6   >>

log in

join