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.

 

The Reality of Gun Control

page: 3
44
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 21 2016 @ 01:37 PM
link   
a reply to: SlapMonkey

I'm not a gun owner so I probably shouldn't have said M16's. I was thinking more of the automatic rifles that can be purchased by the general public.




posted on Jun, 21 2016 @ 01:40 PM
link   
a reply to: WeRpeons

No automatic rifles can be purchased in the us without an extensive permit process in some states the other states don't even allow them Usually very wealthy people or gun clubs. Regular people can not buy an automatic weapon.

If the left wants areas of compromise it would probably be hand guns which are less useful in a gov takeover and responsible for the majority of crime. It's possible the licensing and distribution of hand guns has support in the gun community. I know plenty of people who think some training should be done to own a hand gun.

But again I just don't think its the most efficient place to address the issues.
edit on 21-6-2016 by luthier because: (no reason given)

edit on 21-6-2016 by luthier because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 21 2016 @ 01:44 PM
link   
a reply to: ObjectZero

Better yet, how many of the secret service and military and police would be out of the job?

We all know that many of them are suffering from some form of mental-health issue. (I'm a vet...I know what I'm talking about, as I used to type up the Chapter 5-13s, which were administrative discharges for mental health reasons. I saw those come across my desk quite a bit.)



posted on Jun, 21 2016 @ 01:44 PM
link   
One of the most intelligent post I have read in a long time...cheers!



posted on Jun, 21 2016 @ 01:59 PM
link   
a reply to: WeRpeons

Back in the day anybody could go down to their local hardware store and pick up a few sticks of dynamite to blow up a stump in their yard. No background checks or even ID required, oh the humanity! And yet people didn't go around blowing up others like we see on the news so much lately. Something or things have changed in current society. I don't know what that/those are but things have gotten worse.

Are you using automatic as self-reloading or as multiple bullets from a single trigger pull? Because no the AR the shooter used in Orlando was not fully automatic. A full auto M4 will run at least $10 grand, probably way more now, not including the tax stamp and thorough ATF/FBI background check.



posted on Jun, 21 2016 @ 02:09 PM
link   
a reply to: WeRpeons
Assuming that you're still referencing the standard AR-15 owned by many, they are not automatic weapons--they are semi-automatic weapons.

Automatic firearms have, themselves, a ridiculously costly and onerous process in order to obtain a permit to legally sell them. While they are available through that process to the general public, the dramatic majority of said public is unwilling to undergo the costs involved in order to be able to purchase them from a "class III" dealer.

I think that your concerns about the availability of automatic weapons to the general public is way overstated, and this isn't meant as an insult, but I think that it's due to an apparent ignorance to the laws that govern firearms. Machine guns can't even be manufactured anymore (as of 1986) for the general public, so all of the machine guns (weapons that are either fully automatic or have a "burst" option) in the hands of the general public are a finite quantity that is reduced every year that goes by as some get ruined or destroyed. This is why they're so expensive.

Also, military weapons with automatic-fire or burst capabilities are not sold to the general public.

Here is a decent page that explains some of it, if you didn't already know the information (and if you did, I apologize for the assumption of ignorance). And from the link:

An interesting and widely unknown fact, since the NFA went into effect in 1934, there has only been ONE, yes, ONE single felony committed in the whole United States since 1934 that involved a legally registered NFA firearm. And it was committed ironically by a crooked police officer who went to a drug house and shot someone on the premises. He used his legally acquired UZI sub machinegun to commit the crime. You hear all the time of machineguns and sawed off shotguns in the news but these have all been by individuals possessing an illegal, non registered weapon.

edit on 21-6-2016 by SlapMonkey because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 21 2016 @ 02:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: thov420
a reply to: WeRpeons
Something or things have changed in current society.


Yup. We didn't have all the violent movies, and video games making it so entertaining to destroy, blow up, and kill.

All the movies in the old days were about love, and comedy. Who remembers Charley Chaplain?

Times have changed. Charley Chaplain is no longer funny. But we all laugh at the violence in movies today.

It's fun. Kids come out of the movies talking about how funny it was what the dude was blown up, and he wasn't expecting...etc..

Humans are being programed to love the violence, but hate the sex.



posted on Jun, 21 2016 @ 02:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: WeRpeons
a reply to: SlapMonkey

I'm not a gun owner so I probably shouldn't have said M16's. I was thinking more of the automatic rifles that can be purchased by the general public.



M16s can be purchased by the public.

ALL machine guns prior to 1986 can be.

Although they cost and arm and a leg to. Which puts them out of the reach of most people.

Then there is the whole enema people have to go through to get one.



posted on Jun, 21 2016 @ 02:20 PM
link   
a reply to: AMPTAH

I'm pretty sure the Roman gladiators would disagree that violent movies and games make people love violence. It's an inherent human trait that modern civilization has mostly been able to divert/suppress to keep things running smoothly. Every once in a while that still leaks out though and sometimes it's on the news and sometimes not. It really depends on who the victims are and what will get the most viewers today.



posted on Jun, 21 2016 @ 02:39 PM
link   
a reply to: Indigo5




I have to be honest I am disappointed with the OP.





posted on Jun, 21 2016 @ 04:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: Indigo5



I have to be honest I am disappointed with the OP.


Err..Murder is not illegal, otherwise all wars would be illegal.


edit on 21-6-2016 by AMPTAH because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 21 2016 @ 05:14 PM
link   
a reply to: neo96

The theory is that if you make obtaining a gun difficult or impossible no new guns enter the streets. Between the population expanding over several decades, gun buybacks, law enforcement confiscating them, and so on you can eventually lower the existing supply of firearms to the point where it's cost prohibitive for most criminals to obtain them and use them for petty crimes.



posted on Jun, 21 2016 @ 05:18 PM
link   
a reply to: neo96

"A felon owning a gun is illegal"

But SELLING a gun to felon is not illegal. Sure "knowingly" selling to a felon is illegal, but there in lies the rub. Dylan Roof who gunned down the church congregation in NC was not supposed to be sold a gun...he was never approved by the background check system...but because NC law states that if they don't get an answer from the background check system in 72 hours, they can go ahead with the sale..which they did...despite his recent drug conviction.

In private sales...no background check is required. It is "don't ask don't tell" as far as selling to anyone you choose, criminals included.

"Explain how restricting law-abiding citizens even more will make us safer"

The proposals are not restricting gun owners...they are restricting gun-sellers....and despite the BS, these common sense proposals (by sane republicans no less) would not effect "law-abiding" citizens.

To be frank...it is the intransigent, irrational "they are coming for your guns" crowd that is the greatest danger to the 2nd amendment. When the frustration peaks at not having a sane or rational party to debate with...the gun control crowd will stop listening...and you will have a battle to death and the 2nd amendment will suffer...to all of our detriment.

Trump is a reasonable parable for where this debate leads when one party plants their flag on the farthest extreme. Utter collapse and failure.



Support for tighter gun control laws increased 9 percentage points after the Orlando terror attack, and support for background checks and other measures being debated in the Senate hovered around 90%,

www.cnn.com...

Poll: Most Americans favor more gun restrictions
www.cnn.com...

Americans' Dissatisfaction With U.S. Gun Laws at New High
www.gallup.com...

Americans' Desire for Stricter Gun Laws Up Sharply
www.gallup.com...

*The last two polls above were before the latest largest mass shooting in US history..

Keep refusing to have a sane discussion...see where that gets the gun-rights movement...



edit on 21-6-2016 by Indigo5 because: (no reason given)

edit on 21-6-2016 by Indigo5 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 21 2016 @ 05:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: AMPTAH

originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: Indigo5



I have to be honest I am disappointed with the OP.


Err..Murder is not illegal, otherwise all wars would be illegal.



the term "murder" has a specific definition that you should familiarize with. Compare it to "kill" to gain context.



posted on Jun, 21 2016 @ 05:35 PM
link   
a reply to: Indigo5

Guns rights are not a movement. They are a constitutional right.

If the polls are accurate than gun control advocates should put forth an amendment change. Thats how it works.

Same thing that keeps politicians from changing rights you agree with.

If you start circumventing the constitution you may as well not have it. Or any of he rights.

Amend the constitution.

The whole gun control debate seems classist and racist since none of the proposed gun control measures actually help the majority of people effected by gun violence.
edit on 21-6-2016 by luthier because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 21 2016 @ 05:55 PM
link   

originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: Indigo5

Guns rights are not a movement. They are a constitutional right.

If the polls are accurate than gun control advocates should put forth an amendment change. Thats how it works.



You continue to confuse regulations with abolishing the second amendment.

Nobody needs an amendment to regulate gun sales? It is why you don't own an M2 Browning .50 caliber machine gun despite it being "arms".



posted on Jun, 21 2016 @ 06:14 PM
link   
a reply to: Indigo5

No I don't.


You don't have to take away an amendment you can alter it.


And a semi auto rifle that looks like a tactical weapon is no different than the 30.06 from 40 years ago. It has a higher rate of fire because the shell is smaller and magazines hold more.

However the actual amount of murders done with semi autos is fractionally small compaired to hand guns.

Basically you have been argueing only issues that would effect the middle class at best. Since you don't want gun confiscation the effects would be so minor we wouldn't budge in gun crime.

Wht aren't these regulations working in Chicago?

Meanwhile 1000's of poor people fighting each other and organized crime keeps on going.
edit on 21-6-2016 by luthier because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 21 2016 @ 06:24 PM
link   
a reply to: Indigo5

You seem to have a problem with people using lobbies to represent themselves on issues you disagree with. The NRA and GOA are supported by members.... American citizens just like you and me.

When I say "work within the framework" I am specifically referring to the very programs you seem to support. Need I remind you of the 2nd Amendment?

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.
Source: www.archives.gov...

Any regulation on ownership of weapons by the people, without due process (this according to the SCOTUS, not the Constitution) is unconstitutional. That means it cannot be done in the US. Yet, it has been done many times. Weapons bans based on the weapons being "assault weapons" is an exclamation in ignorance. The only difference in these bans between the illegal and legal weapons is the shape of the stock!

And the weapon bans did indeed fail, whether or not anyone admits to such. There have been increasing numbers of "mass shootings" since they have been tried. Your own post indicates this fact very well. If I try a new type of fuel in my car and it starts running worse, the correct response is to switch back to the original fuel, not to put more and more fuel in it that doesn't run well. That's an example of a failed experiment. A successful experiment would be the car running better.

We have imposed multiple weapons bans, most questionable where the Constitution is concerned. We have tried limiting who owns guns. We have tried banning guns from certain areas. The result is that people with guns are shooting up the very areas where we banned the guns at an ever-increasing rate. That, sir, regardless of your 'interpretation' is a failed experiment.

And finally, your last line:

And the idea that the Orlando shooter had been on the terrorist watch list recently and was still able to buy guns is just stupid.

No, he was not. There is no consolidated "terrorist watch list." He was under scrutiny by the FBI for certain statements he had made, and was released without charge not once, but twice. He was not being prosecuted. He was, at that time, in the eyes of the law, as innocent as you or I. Yet, you support removing his right to own a weapon, effectively stating that you, me, and all citizens should also be denied the right to own a weapon.

FBI scrutiny, or the oft-touted "no-fly list" (which does exist) is not a list of convictions. It is a list of suspicions. Any one of us can be suspected of anything by the FBI at any time. That does NOT make us guilty. So in the same sentence as you want to deny all citizens the right to own a weapon, you also want all citizens to operate under "guilty until proven innocent."

I disagree vehemently with you.

TheRedneck



posted on Jun, 21 2016 @ 06:43 PM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck

Thank you TheRedneck for this wonderful thread.

I agree with everything you have written.

However I would like to add something else for everyone to think about.

It has come to my attention that there is a group of very powerful people who have no accountability to the laws of all land.

These Power people want to so badly control everything and everyone on this planet. Many powerful Corporations and governments from around the world are fighting for a seat at the big round table for a NWO.

In order to get their NWO, these powerful people must remove all guns from all countries. The fact is, the Untied States is the most armed Nation beside Switzerland. I have watched in my 57 years of our politions chipping away bits and pies of our Constitutions, the Second Amendment.

Now with the shooting happening in Orlando, our government wasted no time passing more gun restriction against a group of American citizen, on an "illegal" Government Watch List.

The most of the 2 million Americans citizens on this Watch list have not been charged, or found guilty in any court room of any crimes, yet they just had their second Amendments taken away illegally.

As far as criminals obtaining guns, there is no stopping that yet. However we will be going into a Cashless society soon, and this alone will bring the gun Black Markets to an end for citizens across the globe.

Anyone watching what is really going on in Washington and Congress passing new laws can see where we are heading to.

The fact is there is enough gun Laws on the books that should already be enforced against gun toting criminals.

However, the new Laws are targeting Law biding citizens, not criminals.
edit on 21-6-2016 by Informer1958 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 21 2016 @ 06:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: Indigo5

You seem to have a problem with people using lobbies to represent themselves on issues you disagree with. The NRA and GOA are supported by members.... American citizens just like you and me.



Not at all? Strange claim on my position. The NRA is free to lobby on behalves of themselves or citizens. But American citizens are free to directly lobby their politicians as well. We will see what the outcome is.



When I say "work within the framework" I am specifically referring to the very programs you seem to support. Need I remind you of the 2nd Amendment?


And while we agree on working within the framework, we might disagree as to what precisely that framework is? Not certain though...




FBI scrutiny, or the oft-touted "no-fly list" (which does exist) is not a list of convictions.


I am short on time now...yes Assault Weapons ban failed...because it was poorly defined...the focus should be on magazine capacity.

as far as due process...we don't need to deny buyers guns due to the no fly list...we can afford them "due process" in the way of an FBI interview for Terrorist Watch List candidates prior to purchase or alternatively sworn statements by the FBI stating the potential buyer is the subject of both an active and ongoing terrorism investigation and deny the purchase...

Due process intact...the potential buyer can still buy the weapon if cleared...



new topics

top topics



 
44
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join