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.

 

[Serious] Can we have a discussion about anti-gun control laws? Educate me.

page: 1
17
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 16 2017 @ 02:22 PM
link   
Ok, cards on the table: I'm an Englishman of 31. I follow global politics as much as I can. I'm a centrist; anti-Trump, anti-Hillary, some liberal opinions and some conservative ones; it depends on the matter at hand. Please don't start calling me a liberal snowflake or any of that playground rubbish - let's have a conversation.

I'm pro-guns, but also pro gun-control. I'm not trying to start a partisan slanging match or a left vs right debate. I'm just wanting to have a discussion regarding proposed gun control laws. I'd like to get some opinions from anti-control supporters, regarding what you believe and why you believe it. This isn't me saying 'you're wrong'; it's me acknowledging that I may be missing something obvious or compelling which is skewing my views. Hang up your liberal or conservative hat; it's not a team sport - don't argue just on the basis of doing the opposite of what your opponents say. What do you really, really think?

Here is my understanding thus far - which again is not trolling or trying to rile anyone up. Hence this not being in the mud pit. So please respond accordingly and we can have a productive discussion; hopefully.

- The 2nd amendment was created in a time where current weapons didn't exist, so my thoughts are that the right to bear arms, as written then, is not automatically applicable today. Also from my understanding, the wording "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State..." surely doesn't apply to people's right to have assault rifles at home just for fun? Surely the words "Well regulated" support the notion of gun control laws? Also it's an amendment - of which there are many. So why does it cause such indignation to suggest a further amendment could be issued to bring it more up to date? That's the point of an amendment.

- Surely background checks could only ever be a good thing? If I had children, for example, I'd want to know that mentally ill people can't just go and buy a gun without some checks on their psychiatric health, any criminal records, history of depression etc. Surely this is just good logic? If you have a wife/kids, wouldn't you feel safer knowing that not just anyone can rock up and buy a gun?

- Having a central register of gun owners would surely fall into the same category? I understand there's an argument here on the basis that such records being hacked could make households a target for people who want to steal guns. I'm not quite sure where to stand on this one, but I don't think I'd try to break into a house if I know the home-owner has a gun.

I guess those are my main queries. Why don't people accept that the 2nd amendment was written in 1791, and therefore it's sensible and rational that it may be time to update it? It's a completely different world. And I absolutely can't understand the objection to background checks - please educate me on that one. I can't see a single possible justifiable argument against it in a non-partisan discussion.

Obviously my views are inherently a little biased by my opinions and emotions on the subject, but I just don't see why this subject has to be so divisive. Background checking does not mean anyone taking away your guns - it's literally making you and your family more safe.

Thanks in advance for constructive discussion!
/fs85
edit on 16-4-2017 by fencesitter85 because: (no reason given)

edit on 16-4-2017 by fencesitter85 because: words




posted on Apr, 16 2017 @ 02:28 PM
link   
a reply to: fencesitter85

S&F - now sit back and watch the parade of wingnuts



posted on Apr, 16 2017 @ 02:30 PM
link   
a reply to: fencesitter85

It is absolutely applicable actually all of the amendments are absolutely applicable as they were written that's why they gave means in the Constitution for Constitutional Amendments as New Creations and inventions come up a constitutional amendment needs to be made to provide for that you don't get to have judges arbitrarily choose what the Constitution means and what it doesn't it was clearly written and plainly written for reasons. Another thing is it it was clearly intended to prevent tyranny from forming by allowing the populous the means to fight back against a tyrannical government. Limiting the types of arms available to the populous prevents that from being a realistic endeavor that is why no gun control without a constitutional amendment for something like nuclear weapons is feasible in the light of what the Second Amendment is and what it was intended for.

Jaden



posted on Apr, 16 2017 @ 02:31 PM
link   
a reply to: fencesitter85


I'm an Englishman...


That's about the point most of your readership will trail off.


+17 more 
posted on Apr, 16 2017 @ 02:32 PM
link   
a reply to: fencesitter85

Too many other people have better ways of stating their positions.

When you put restrictions on a right, it then becomes a privilege.

As for the age of the 2nd Amendment? Computers weren't around, so should we "re-do" the 1st Amendment as well?


Gun ownership is a right. I like it that way, don't see any need to change it.

Gun ownership isn't mandatory. If you don't want them, don't get them.


Now I'll turn the thread over to smarter people.




posted on Apr, 16 2017 @ 02:32 PM
link   
a reply to: fencesitter85

Depression? That's a little overboard. And no, not all felons are serial murderers.

You can't give the government an inch cuz they will take everything. The public will be fighting with sling shots.

Basically, you can write all the laws you want on a piece of paper, but if someone wants a gun they will get it.

Law-abiding citizens are the ones getting punished and when that burglar shows up with his AK? What you gonna do?



posted on Apr, 16 2017 @ 02:34 PM
link   
a reply to: ignorant_ape

He says thanks for the constructive discussion and on the very first reply is you talking about Wing nuts. You discredit his post which was asking for constructive discussion by immediately posting a derogatory post.

Jaden
edit on 16-4-2017 by Masterjaden because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 16 2017 @ 02:34 PM
link   
a reply to: Idreamofme


What you gonna do?


Let Hulkamania run wild on you.


+11 more 
posted on Apr, 16 2017 @ 02:35 PM
link   
a reply to: fencesitter85

1) The majority of your suggestions require us to have complete confidence and trust in our government, who would never, ever abuse the system.

We don't.

2) Gun owners here in the US have been compromising since the 1930s, the result of which has ended up with stricter and stricter gun laws. We have enough gun laws. They just need to be enforced.

3) Being that you're from the UK, why is it that people there are so worried about what rights we have here? Not seeing a lot of threads from US citizens wanting to change gun laws in the UK.



posted on Apr, 16 2017 @ 02:37 PM
link   
a reply to: DBCowboy

You can't fight the government now anyways...

Maybe the best thing to do is to have an amendment for home defence and hunting for food.
Or shooting the sh*t down the range.


You'll never have an F16 or a rocket launcher...
Or a predator drone.


The actual 2nd amendment as it stands is just a useless platitude.



posted on Apr, 16 2017 @ 02:38 PM
link   
I for one have a parade case of how it could be (and is working fine here, you can have guns without much gun crimes) but I have the same problem like you, I´m not american so I have to shut the # up.



posted on Apr, 16 2017 @ 02:39 PM
link   
a reply to: fencesitter85

the above post was supposed to be a direct reply, so I make this one to make you aware of it... see post above.



posted on Apr, 16 2017 @ 02:40 PM
link   
a reply to: fencesitter85



The 2nd amendment was created in a time where current weapons didn't exist, so my thoughts are that the right to bear arms, as written then, is not automatically applicable today.





posted on Apr, 16 2017 @ 02:42 PM
link   
a reply to: DBCowboy

You are 100% right.



posted on Apr, 16 2017 @ 02:42 PM
link   
a reply to: fencesitter85

Are you under the impression that the "assault" rifles (fully auto) are not well regulated?



posted on Apr, 16 2017 @ 02:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: Hazardous1408
a reply to: fencesitter85


I'm an Englishman...


That's about the point most of your readership will trail off.


I did think that was a risk, but am hoping people will be more mature. Just because I'm not American, doesn't mean I can't ask questions about American politics. If an American asks me about British politics, I won't tell them to shut up because they're not British. Life shouldn't work like that.


originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: fencesitter85

Too many other people have better ways of stating their positions.

When you put restrictions on a right, it then becomes a privilege.

As for the age of the 2nd Amendment? Computers weren't around, so should we "re-do" the 1st Amendment as well?


Gun ownership is a right. I like it that way, don't see any need to change it.

Gun ownership isn't mandatory. If you don't want them, don't get them.


Now I'll turn the thread over to smarter people.



I never once said gun ownership shouldn't be a right. My question is about, for example, background checks - which you haven't addressed.


originally posted by: Idreamofme
a reply to: fencesitter85

Depression? That's a little overboard. And no, not all felons are serial murderers.

You can't give the government an inch cuz they will take everything. The public will be fighting with sling shots.

Basically, you can write all the laws you want on a piece of paper, but if someone wants a gun they will get it.

Law-abiding citizens are the ones getting punished and when that burglar shows up with his AK? What you gonna do?


1. I didn't say all felons are serial murderers. But if you've been to jail for threatening your wife with a gun, you shouldn't be allowed to own one.
2. Depression - not overboard at all. It affects a hell of a lot of people and makes them act in a way which is often not in accordance with how they would normally act when not depressed. This is a fact.
3. Giving the Govt an inch meaning they take everything - assumption; no basis in fact, just your opinion, sorry.

Thanks all
FS85



posted on Apr, 16 2017 @ 02:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: seasonal
a reply to: fencesitter85

Are you under the impression that the "assault" rifles (fully auto) are not well regulated?


It's one of the gaps in my knowledge, for sure - I only have anecdotal/second hand awareness of it, and welcome any info to educate me on it. Not being awkward here; I'm genuinely interested to learn - ta.

FS85



posted on Apr, 16 2017 @ 02:46 PM
link   
Most people have no issue with gun regulations to some degree or another.
But as with any restrictions they can be taken to far.
Say a man that went through a nasty divorce was on antidepressants for a while. Will he be on a list of unstable people now and forever?
Maybe you get arrested at a protest while in college.
That's another list.

The original second amendment was to ensure the existence of a free state. That has never changed.

I have to fill out loads of paperwork to buy a handgun.
But can we ask for photo ID at the voting booth? Ehhh,

I didn't like to pick and choose which rights need to be restricted.



posted on Apr, 16 2017 @ 02:46 PM
link   
a reply to: fencesitter85

Background checks can be dangerous. Especially with the conditions being arbitrary.

Imagine background checks for any other right.



posted on Apr, 16 2017 @ 02:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: Masterjadenit it was clearly intended to prevent tyranny from forming by allowing the populous the means to fight back against a tyrannical government.


that worked out well didn't it?



new topics

top topics



 
17
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join