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: 3
17
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 16 2017 @ 03:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: fencesitter85




Excuse the question, but isn't this just paranoia? For 8 years these forums were full of "Obama is going to take our guns!" - which never happened


That's because congress blocked the over 100 plus attempts.



Please can you provide evidence and sources for the suggestion that those 100 plus attempts were to remove the guns from American citizens. Thanks.

FS85




posted on Apr, 16 2017 @ 03:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: fencesitter85




Excuse the question, but isn't this just paranoia? For 8 years these forums were full of "Obama is going to take our guns!" - which never happened


That's because congress blocked the over 100 plus attempts.



Everything suggested in that article sounds incredibly reasonable to me... suspected terrorists? People at gun shows? Hell yes they should have background checks. 100%.



posted on Apr, 16 2017 @ 03:11 PM
link   
a reply to: fencesitter85

So, essentially, personal responsibility has to come into play.



posted on Apr, 16 2017 @ 03:12 PM
link   
a reply to: fencesitter85

It's not paranoia at all it's an absolute possibility and it's not this is the same thing that I say when people task about choices that are made on the road that end up with you in the same location as the other person that makes adifferent choice. it is not about eventualities it is about potentiality. If the potential exists you need a protection against it you need to plan based on potentiality. our forefathers did that with the Constitution and the Bill of Rights people love to talk about how they didn't know what kind of weapons we have today are they didn't know about this they didn't know about that they couldn't have planned for that they did they did plan for that.

They left the Amendments as general statements because they needed to be for the potential of abuse that they foresaw.



posted on Apr, 16 2017 @ 03:12 PM
link   
a reply to: Deaf Alien

That´s correct but does not change the fact that what you wrote is wrong as it stands. Germany is one of the best examples how it can work. Look at our crime statistics, look at our gun-crime statistics that are nearly nonexistent. Germany is pretty safe (let aside the current refugee problem that has nothing to do with guns) and everyone can have a firearm or more, if he/she wants, contrary to what most think.


I´m not saying that´s the best thing or that the USA has to do it that way, I was merely commenting on your post that what you wrote is not true. We have that system, everyone can have a gun and no one lives in fear of getting shot. At least no one I know.



posted on Apr, 16 2017 @ 03:12 PM
link   
a reply to: fencesitter85

Why don't you try reading ATF form 4473.

That according to LAW has to be filled out a firearm is purchased.

Do us all a favor and READ 11, b, and c.

www.atf.gov...

Which means the state can deny people their constitutional right over a speeding ticket or any other 'crime' that COULD imprison someone for more than a year.

COULD.

More than 1 million people have been denied their RIGHT by arbitrary laws that not even those moronic congressman couldn't pass.
edit on 16-4-2017 by neo96 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 16 2017 @ 03:14 PM
link   
a reply to: verschickter



That´s correct but does not change the fact that what you wrote is wrong as it stands.

This thread is about gun control here in America and the 2nd Amendment. The guns will never go away here. So your point is moot.



posted on Apr, 16 2017 @ 03:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: fencesitter85

originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: fencesitter85




Excuse the question, but isn't this just paranoia? For 8 years these forums were full of "Obama is going to take our guns!" - which never happened


That's because congress blocked the over 100 plus attempts.



Everything suggested in that article sounds incredibly reasonable to me... suspected terrorists? People at gun shows? Hell yes they should have background checks. 100%.



Every little restriction pushes toward out right banning.
Change is slow, from early age taught agendas all the way to future majorities. and one day the majority will shove the minority out of the way.



posted on Apr, 16 2017 @ 03:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: fencesitter85

originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: fencesitter85




Excuse the question, but isn't this just paranoia? For 8 years these forums were full of "Obama is going to take our guns!" - which never happened


That's because congress blocked the over 100 plus attempts.



Everything suggested in that article sounds incredibly reasonable to me... suspected terrorists? People at gun shows? Hell yes they should have background checks. 100%.


So VIOLATING peoples constitutional Rights sounds reasonable ?

Not to me.

And the cherry on top.



In its 1997 decision in the case, the Supreme Court ruled that the provision of the Brady Act that compelled state and local law enforcement officials to perform the background checks was unconstitutional on 10th amendment grounds.


en.wikipedia.org...

Gun Control is the biggest troll there is.



posted on Apr, 16 2017 @ 03:17 PM
link   
a reply to: Deaf Alien
Are you sure you´ve read my post further, after you spotted that sentence? It´s not about that guns have to go away. Moot... that´s how this discussion with you feels, because you´re only valid input towards my comments is "It´s about America".

Following your logic, only americans should comment on this thread? Too bad it´s an international forum..



posted on Apr, 16 2017 @ 03:19 PM
link   
a reply to: Hazardous1408

Tell that to the insurgents in Iraq and the taliban in Afghanistan.



posted on Apr, 16 2017 @ 03:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: Hazardous1408
You'll never have an F16...


Like these guys?


...or a rocket launcher...


Or this guy?




posted on Apr, 16 2017 @ 03:25 PM
link   
a reply to: fencesitter85

We already HAVE background checks.

In order to receive a firearm, you must pick it up at a FFL (Federal Firearm Licensed dealer). Ordered the firearm online? Guess what, got to pick it up at a FFL.

Bought one at a gun show? Guess what.....gotta go through a FFL.

Which means you can not have a felony record because they check.

Now........what more do you want? We already HAVE the background checks. If you have a felony record, you can't buy one.

What else are they suppose to check on? Their politics? Their religion? Their ethnic make up?

You see, this is the issue that gun owners have: we already HAVE laws that require background checks, but no, that's not enough for some strange reason. Instead, people seem to want blood from a turnip.

And again: it can be abused.


edit on 4/16/2017 by eriktheawful because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 16 2017 @ 03:29 PM
link   
If you want to talk about Americans protected rights, I recommend you start by reading up and education yourself on what the Founding Fathers had to say.

Here is a good place to start:

memory.loc.gov...



posted on Apr, 16 2017 @ 03:31 PM
link   
Talking about gun control on an American forum is about as productive as weeing into a hurricane its pointless so I dont know whether this thread is bait or what.



posted on Apr, 16 2017 @ 03:32 PM
link   
a reply to: verschickter

Not sure how you got that from my post. Anyway yes I have read the rest of your post but I decided not to reply to that because it is not applicable. The fact is that the more you restrict the right to own guns HERE in America the more the criminal elements are in control. That can be shown in history. And that is what the 2nd Amendment is designed for.

Oh and I just noticed your statement, "We have that system, everyone can have a gun and no one lives in fear of getting shot." Looks like you turned 180 degree on that.

Anyway just forget about it. Let's go back to the topic.
Cheers.



posted on Apr, 16 2017 @ 03:32 PM
link   
a reply to: khnum

It must be bait, it lured you into it.




posted on Apr, 16 2017 @ 03:35 PM
link   
a reply to: khnum

There should be laws limiting hurricane wind speeds.

That will solve everything.



posted on Apr, 16 2017 @ 03:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: neo96

originally posted by: fencesitter85

originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: fencesitter85




Excuse the question, but isn't this just paranoia? For 8 years these forums were full of "Obama is going to take our guns!" - which never happened


That's because congress blocked the over 100 plus attempts.



Everything suggested in that article sounds incredibly reasonable to me... suspected terrorists? People at gun shows? Hell yes they should have background checks. 100%.


So VIOLATING peoples constitutional Rights sounds reasonable ?

Not to me.

And the cherry on top.



In its 1997 decision in the case, the Supreme Court ruled that the provision of the Brady Act that compelled state and local law enforcement officials to perform the background checks was unconstitutional on 10th amendment grounds.


en.wikipedia.org...

Gun Control is the biggest troll there is.


So you don't think increased checks on people on terrorism watch lists are wise...?

Again you've still not addressed the 'Well regulated militia' point. You're talking about constitutional rights. The constitutional right relates to a well regulated militia. Ol' Zeke waving his AR16 around in his back yard is not a well-regulated miltia, that's my point.



posted on Apr, 16 2017 @ 03:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: fencesitter85

originally posted by: Bluntone22
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.


Fair response, thank you. I agree photo ID should be required for voting - same as in the UK. Pretty much everyone has it anyway, and it's not hard to get. And perhaps in the case of the previously depressed guy, it could just be a case of a doctor signing you off as ok to buy guns again? It would be a tricky one to manage, for sure.


originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: fencesitter85

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

Imagine background checks for any other right.



I had to go through heaps of checks to get my new mortgage to ensure that I was an appropriate candidate for the quantity that I wanted to borrow. Makes sense to me.


originally posted by: TruMcCarthy

originally posted by: fencesitter85

- 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?

- Having a central register of gun owners would surely fall into the same category?


- The 2nd Amendment is part of something called The Bill of Rights. To Americans, those are incredibly important, I guess I'm not surprised a foreigner doesn't understand the importance. And there's a reason why it's #2, right behind #1 Freedom of Speech, it's that important.

- We have background checks.

- The first step of confiscation is to create a registry. That's why we oppose it. Maybe your British government is good and trustworthy, our corrupt US politicians aren't. Everything they touch they abuse, and a gun registry would be no different.


Thanks for your reply - I'm well aware of the Bill of Rights thanks, and I'm also aware of how many amendments it's seen. Amendments are introduced as situations change and evolve. It's not set in stone; that's the point. And no, the British Govt is no better than yours - we too are in bed with the Saudis and anyone else who will buy our weapons. It's a shame. But gun licensing here works very well. What's wrong with a registry?

There are other replies I want to address, but there are just too many so I can't!

I must fall back to this point which everyone seems to be sidestepping so far: 'Well regulated militia.' Mr Average having an AR16 at home is not a well regulated militia, surely?

Don't get me wrong. I'm so genuinely terrified of someone breaking into my home and harming my wife/dog, I have a crowbar, a telescopic wheel brace and a huge knife under my bed. If I could have a glock, I probably would. If someone breaks into my home and tries to harm those I love, I wouldn't hesitate to kill them and worry about the consequences later. As I say, I'm not anti-gun. I'm just trying to understand the aggressive opposition to better background checks for military grade weaponry, that's all.

FS85


If you are in the UK, you are fully aware that anyone breaking into your home won't have a gun...or maybe there is a .000001 percent chance they will. So you can defend yourself with blunt objects. Here, if someone breaks into my house, the opposite is true and there is likely to be more than one assailant. Personally, I only have pistols because I am trained and maintain proficiency to deal with multiple threats with a handgun and self-defense ammunition.

Should the ANTIFA crowd somehow win the day, there will be anarchy in streets and that us where the AR15s etc. will come into play. Or if the unthinkabe happens and society collapses, that firepwer will be needed for community protection from those that would think it's okay to take other's food, property, children, etc.

As for well regulated militia...I would argue that I have more military experience than the vast majority of police personnel. I damn sure know I understand use of force better than most of them. I will be able to assimilate effortlessly into a well regulated militia when or if the time comes.

I think background checks were the last issue I need to address. There are already background check processes in place. The media glamorizes the maybe 3 times they might have prevented tragedy and ignores the millions of guns purchased following background checks where nothing untoward occurs. I argue that if those shooters couldn't legally get guns, they would just buy on the black market from other criminals. Those that want to kill will ALWAYS find a way. In Texas, once you fulfill the requirements of a license to carry firearms, open carry/concealed, you STILL have to complete a form whenever you buy a gun. Oh, and to wrap this section up, criminals buying guns out of the back of cars AREN'T going to fill out ANY background check paperwork, EVER!

I think I answered all of your questions. Ideally I did it in a non-confrontational way.
edit on 16-4-2017 by Lab4Us because: (no reason given)

edit on 16-4-2017 by Lab4Us because: (no reason given)

edit on 16-4-2017 by Lab4Us because: All edts for spelling/context - yay for iPad typing!




top topics



 
17
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join